this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2026
384 points (92.7% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
42709 readers
3905 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Who fucking cares? She wasn't a "child" when they met, and they're been together over 15 years now, and have kids. This isn't like Leonardo DiCaprio, cycling through partners because they aged out at 24...and it sure a shit isn't like some gross, middle-aged pedophile, grooming some naive 12 year old to be his child bride.
He was 44 and she was 19 when they met
Imagine your daughter comes home from high-school one day and introduces you to her new boyfriend and he's not from HER school, he's from YOUR school. He was comfortably her dad's age.
Is your premise that 19 year old are not adults? Or that there ought to be caps on age differences written into law? Or that women should be infantilized until they lose any notion of being "young"? I find it incredibly weird how much effort and criticism is placed on individual relationships based on age-difference alone. It screams Puritan ideals of feminine innocence and the evils of sex. If there is evidence of coersion or grooming, let's hear it. Otherwise all I see are efforts to undermine the notion that a woman (especially a young woman) is capable of making "good" romantic decisions.
Is that what you'll tell your young girlfriend's dad when he's about to punch your eye?
Well ..... This person has clearly never had a girlfriend, that's why they are like this.
Is parental violence a good measure of what ought to be OK in society? Should a parent who assaults their child for being gay be used as a measure to tell if being gay is ok or not? Should a 19 year old boyfriend's dad be vindicated in assaulting their 50 year old girlfriend? What about if it's a 19 and 50 year old gay couple?
If age-gaps alone are reasonable grounds for violence, they are reasonable grounds for laws. Under the eyes of the law in every western nation, a man assaulting another man for pursuing a relationship with their 19 year old daughter would be considered a felony assault, and in no way aggravated (at least not in and of itself). If a 25 year old man is dating a 75 year old woman, is the direction of abuse and power dynamics static (i.e. should we presume that the 25 year old man is being groomed/abused)?
It never ceases to astound me how readily people are to assume 19 year old women are incapable of holding power/emotional maturity.
I'll bet you're the type who celebrates caricature of dads striking the fear of god into the hearts of anyone who would attempt to undermine the innocence of their daughters. I'll bet you laugh your ass off at movie scenes where 16 year old boys have guns pulled on them as a "dad greeting the boyfriend "joke"". Yeah, real healthy society promotion going on in your head...
I'm not reading this bullshit
Go tell all this shit to real people face to face and see their reactions. Deranged lunatic
Troll for sure
Coming from someone who espouses violence as a solution, yeah, you can fuck right off. I don't think you actually have the mental capacity to read those many words, much less hold actual relationships in the world. When all you have is insults and you're calling other people "troll" 😂
Yes, it's a solution when dealing with perverts like you. I commend that father for doing the right thing by beating you up to keep you away from his daughter. Because sickos like you don't back down. You've intellectualized your mental illness.
I have no doubt I'm speaking to someone who will see the inside of a prison cell. Quite fascinating, actually. Like visiting a zoo.
You must be a yankee as you are more afraid of philosophy and asking "why" than literal violence. It explains a lot of why your country has become a fascist hellhole. I also find it hilarious that you interpret my defense of 19 year olds being adults capable of making their own choices in life as an indicator of pedofilia and extending that to a presumption that I am chasing after teenage girls. You must want to blow up every bank that's given a 19 year old a loan or credit card for their rampant abuse of children too!
I'm European and you are a pedophile posing as a "philosopher"
I can safely say I've never met anyone as appalling as you on the internet
Disgusting. Seek help.
You're a complete weirdo. Can you point to a single comment I've made that has sexualized literally anyone, much less argued in favour of pedophilia?
Can the little girl point to where you touched her on the doll?
Oh look, more evidence your entire worldview is resultant of sexist 80s movies. I'll bet you think prison rape is funny too!
So desperate to have the moral upper-hand, aren't you?
😂 You haven't had any whiff of moral standing from the moment you espoused violence as a reasonable response to the very existence of an age-gap relationship.
Do you understand that something doesn't have to be illegal to be gross?
At a societal level, no, I don't understand that. At least not in the context of broad criticisms and sweeping generalizations about people. I see little difference in saying that "age-gaps are gross" and say that "queerness is gross" when talking about social norms and customs. Both are value statements about how a person should be. I reject the foundations of that sentiment as being anti-feminist and forcing conformity based on personal values of how a person should be allowed to exist. Where laws come into play, they ought to be specifically focused on minimizing harm and prioritizing wellness. We set laws around social norms towards considerations of how we can regulate a complex world in an efficient manner. Yes, that means drawing arbitrary lines in the sand around things like age of consent, which is a short hand for age of generally accepted maturity. If we want to decide that people aren't actually mature enough to engage in consent until 25, 30, or 50, we can collectively decide to enshrine that in law. That doesn't mean the issues suddenly vanish, and it will likely cause all manner of unintended consequences (should someone who isn't deemed mature enough to be in a relationship be allowed into the workforce, or to vote?).
I don't think most people here focus on the gender, it might be you who is doing it either for winning an argument by agitation or it reflects your internal state of reference on the topic. This is not related to gender at all in my perspective.
The main argument is difference in mental maturity and compatibility. Younger people, having less experience in life generally will have poorer decision making skills in this regard and are also more easily manipulated by more experienced people. You may oppose such a relation for the same reason you may oppose two people of the same age making kids at the age of 18. Ofcourse if you are their guardian, next natural step is to probe how well they defend their decision and how well informed they are in the potential gains vs losses. Not to reject it out right. Everyone has the right to do whatever the fuck they want after whatever the legal limit is in their country. Doesn't mean you shouldn't discuss downsides of any decision made after 18.
I presume you would be less ok with this if it was 40 vs 16. But any age limit you put between 16 to 19 will be a blanket limit considering the worst possible cases in terms of mental maturity. So being ok for 19 and not for 16 is kind of arbitrary. The only tangible fact here is that 19 is just about the age where your life view really starts to mature where as someone at the age of 40 has had like 20x more life experience in their mature years compared to you. It creates the same kind of power imbalance that a teacher student has. This is also not the same as 30 vs 50. Here the difference in mature life experience reduces to about 3x almost an order of magnitude less imbalanced.
If years spent as a mature person is a decider of relationship imbalance, should a 60 year old be allowed to be in a management position where 19 year olds are employed? We can play the arbitrary game of "when it's someone adult enough to not be manipulated", but to your point, it's arbitrary. If age is indicative of power, is it the power differential we are actually concerned with? If a white man holds more power in the world by virtue of the world being a racist and sexist place, is it immoral for a white man to date a black woman due to that imbalance of power? What about wealth differentials? Should a millionaire be allowed to date someone without wealth? Should a 19 year old be allowed to take financial advice from someone twice their age? How can we be sure they aren't being manipulated in their naivety? We have laws that guard against manipulation, exploration, conversion, and fraud. Do you think that age is the best metric for judgement in these types of issues? Should people be vetted for mental capability to engage in any number of acts, rather than using the standard of 18 being adulthood? Is presumed completion of highschool at 18 a reasonable enough metric to establish "educated" or mature, and if not, should we raise the age for involvement in everything from relationships to work, out or even voting to be more directly tested metrics, or older, to say 25, or 30?
Are these all strawman arguments? Are they made to hide your lust beneath a thin veil of feminism? Does your faux feminist view actually help protect women, or does it help protect the men who prey upon them? Does your analysis account for material and social power dynamics?
I find it incredibly weird that anyone is immature enough to date someone half their age. As someone quickly approaching their 40s, I have nothing in common with someone in their late 20s, let alone someone who's 19.
Do you think evidence of grooming or coercion is often exposed before the damage is done?
It's hilarious that you are trying to act like you are defending the woman in the relationship, while simultaneously assuming that anyone is criticizing the woman and not the 50 year old millionaire......
You hit the nail on the head here. Well said.
So I'm your worldview women are inherently in need of protection from men, who are inherently predators? Yeah, maybe go read some feminist texts before making broad generalizations like that...
Yes, I would apply considerations of wealth imbalance far before applying considerations of gender imbalances, as wealth imbalances tend to create much more oppressive conditions.
Now whose strawmanning? Should every relationship need to conform to your notions of "normal"? Why couldn't anyone use that same rationale to broadly criticize mixed culture relationships, queer relationships, or any other form of relationship? You can literally replace what folllows "I find it weird" with any descriptor - it's not a reasoned position, it's a felt one.
The fixation on the 50 year old millionaire and not the specifics of their relationship erases the woman. What's the millionaire's partner's name? Who is she as a person? Has she spoke about abuse, coersion, or grooming? Do old men always groom young women? Are young men impervious to grooming, coersion, and abuse from old women?
Do you think that narratives that place women as innocents who need to be protected are useful in pushing forward feminist golas of sex/gender equality? How? I think that empowering women to understand they are individuals who can make choices for themselves and who can hold otherwise in positions of power to account is a much better approach.
Another strawman...... Are we talking about all men? When did I say all men were predators ? We are talking about a 50 year old man who's been married several times and has defended the abuse allegations of his good friend Marilyn Manson?
And you aren't doing it in this case because.....? Also, how often do you see a relationship between an old man and a teenager where there wasn't a wealth imbalance.....it's almost like that's inherent to the problem.
Still you. How is being able to relate to someone not topical to relationships?
Lol, it's telling that you are equating all of these to a 50 year old millionaire marrying a 19 year old. True ally.
What exactly is the through line between mixed culture, queer relationships, and "any form of relationship"? And what prevents them from relating to each other? Oh, I'm queer and so is my partner......we obviously don't have anything to talk about. What are you talking about?
The dude is from an entirely different generation.
That's not a specific of the relationship?
The whole point is that the power dynamic is obvious and can be abused to control the relationship. Including talking to people about the relationship.
Is there not an established enough history of that happening coming from rich, powerful, and famous men?
Did I say anything about rich powerful and famous women not being able to do the same?
That is the narrative you are attempting to represent this as. Women are systemically disadvanged on both a legal and economic scale that makes it easier for wealthy and powerful men to treat them as sexual objects. Attempting to ignore the systemic history of misogyny and then declare that if you don't think women are capable of being invulnerable to these forces is misogynistic. Feminism not just about equality, it's about equity and recognition that the patriarchy is maintained to isolate women from the equity that would free them of another avenue of control.
How exactly is the 19 year going to hold their powerful partner to account if they are abused? Choosing to be controlled by a much more powerful man is your version of feminism?
That's where you said that women need protection from "men who prey upon them". Every statement you make suggests that women need protection from power imbalances and that society needs to focus its efforts on protecting them in their innocence.
Chloe Mendel is an NYC fashion industry heris. She was established as a corporate executive by the time she was 30 and has otherwise enjoyed a life guided by wealth and nepotism. In contrast, Billy Corgan was raised in a lower middle-class household in the Chicago suburbs, with his youth marked by an abusive father. Corgan is a notable piece of shit, but this was long known prior to the start of his and Mendel's relationship.
Your fluctuating in and out of calling old white men evil and young women innocent and incapable of power seems directed at creating a worldview that erases women's history and identity while elevating the power of old white men. If you actually cared about power balance within a relationships, I would have hoped you could provide a single piece of data on why Mendel was deprived of power, beyond "she's too young!". A woman who holds that much wealth and family power at a young age doesn't exactly scream "incapable innocent", though, does it? I see no reason to believe that there is anything nefarious to this relationship, or that Mendel was powerless from its outset. Sure, Corgan sucks as a human, but I see no evidence of his relationship to Mendel as being "wrong".
I don't disagree that women are systematically disadvantaged, but placing that disadvantage on age only obfuscates how women are disadvantaged in favour of a narrative that women's choices are not valid in the face of the broader context of being disadvantage. All this framing does is further solidify the societal notions that women are enfeeble and in need of protection as they are otherwise incapable of defending themselves. It operates on a level that places women's autonomy as a lower priority than discrediting old white men.
Why do you think disenfranchised people want equality? Do you think it's just to feel proud? Not being equal means you are vulnerable to abuse from those with more access to power.
Are you denying that there are women who have been preyed upon by men? Are you denying that women have been disenfranchised from economic and social independence?
All disadvantaged groups want the same protections offered by a truly equal society. I don't know why you keep trying to interpret that in the most neck beard way possible.
" In 2011, the company closed its Chicago flagship store.[25] In 2013, Gores was looking for an additional partner in the company.[26] In 2015, a majority stake was sold to Stallion, Inc.[27][28] In 2018, J. Mendel was under six different lawsuits for unpaid bills, relating to unpaid office space, advertising and materials.[29][30] In June, the company filed for Chapter 11 protection in bankruptcy court"
I don't think they were really going to inherit a lot of wealth. She's the daughter of a luxury clothes designer who lost their business. She was a CEO after ten years of being in a relationship with a millionaire.
Again, we are talking about the people at the time which applies to there own relationship. Which would still make him vastly more powerful than her. Also what the hell do you think a 19 year old knows about a person in a band that was popular before they were born?
Do you only speak through strawman arguments? I never said any of that.
Kinda sounds like that's what her husband thinks "her youth was an advantage because she hadn't been wounded like so many people are, because you just go through life and you get wounded. So I had the advantage of somebody who was really open to love and the possibility and, for whatever reason, just decided not to judge me for who I was, particularly in that moment."
Pretty sure I talked about legal, social, and economic power...... You are the one who seems to be focusing on age alone.
Lol, again with the faux feminist concern. Your totally being woke for being brave enough to allow the teenager to be sexually exploited to the rich.
You do know you could use all your arguments to justify the sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein right? Jeffrey was totally woke because he allowed women to make choices, like getting on the plane to the rape island.
Again, you are pretending as if a 19 year old has the same ability to resist coercion and manipulation as a 50 year old with power over them.
Your obviously not interested in a discussion, you're her for a debate and to be "right". You're deciding to look at the issue as "any age gap is indicative of power imbalance" and gloss over any notion of what being an adult in the world means. I have asked multiple times, in multiple threads that if 19 does not constitute being an adult, what does? That you conflate that with a justification of child sex trafficking is an insane position. I haven't made a single value claim about what it means to be a consenting adult, but I will here for clarity: if someone is allowed to vote, has graduated primary education (high school), can serve in the military, or can be sued/imprisoned for their actions as a coherent individual of sound mind, they are an adult. I think society's shorthand of 18 is reasonable, albeit sometimes problematic, towards these effects, and that if someone can work as a wage labourer, vote, or be killed in military combat, they should be able to decide on a romantic partner for themselves. I think conversion and consent laws should be strengthened, towards respecting women's decisions regarding their own bodies, from what sexual and/or romantic partners they choose, to if they choose to engage in sex work, or beyond. I think sex work is real work and should be enshrined as such towards providing workers rights (including pensioner, vacation, employment insurance, and sick leave rights). On a personal note, I'm married to a woman who is 8onths younger than I am, and who is a published sex worker advocate and with whom I bonded over feminist theory. We both reject Puritan notions of feminism that do nothing to address underlying societal/cultural narratives that disenfranchise women from attaining personal autonomy. Keep slinging the personal insults all you like, but know that by doing so you only serve to embolden culture war distractions that would rather fixation on "sexual deviance" than systemic issues that perpetuate oppression throughout society.
What is a discussion where two people have opposing narratives that conflict....? What would we call that?
Any significant age gap is a type of power imbalance that can occur in a relationship.
You haven't asked me..... Who said it's ethical for an adult to take advantage of another adult?
Why according to your argument is that you support any woman to make decisions for themselves, even if the outcome is really bad. What are you saying every rich man who flies you in a plane is Jeffrey Epstein?
Sounds like you lacked dialectic materialism in your feminists analysis. Your interpretation of feminism just so happens to match the needs of the aristocratic class. Convenient.
Because you don't seem to have a good grasp on the subtleties of language, or how debate differs from discussion: https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/debate-and-discussion/
I'll straight up ask you: If 19 doesn't count as an adult, capable of making decisions for themselves, what does? In the instance of Corgan and Mendel's relationship, what evidence if there of taking advantage? If Corgan befriended a 19 year old male musician with no pre-tense of sexual gratification, would we assume that was an inappropriate relationship predicated on taking advantage of another adult? In your worldview, should men over the age of 25 simply not be allowed to speak with people under the age of 25? What policy amendments would make a more fair world that reduced the sexualization of girls?
If your feminist values are actually based on dialectic materialism, you must be willing to acknowledge that the vast majority of your presumed critique of age-gap power imbalances are inherently due to wealth/affluence imbalances that are primarily contingent on contemporary capitalist sensibilities of the world. If it is actual power imbalances that your critique is focused upon, you must be even more critical of worker/company power imbalances that drive society as a whole and acknowledge that Walmart has done more harm to society than every music star who has ever lived combined. That corporate practices of rejecting parental leaves has an oversized impact on women who are more susceptible to financial harm than men, due to male-wage-privilege perpetrated by said corporations. You must also be aware and acknowledge that the intersectionality of wealth/race/class/gender/sexuality all conspire towards ones privileges in the world, but that outsized privilege in one of those areas of personhood can all but erase privilege-impacts from other areas of personhood. You must also be adamantly opposed to people of wealth pursuing relationships with people who do not have wealth?
To be clear here, I am very critical of power imbalances and how hegemonic orderings of society reinforce such imbalances. This is why I am so critical of puritian aesthetics, as they operate on narratives of women being lesser than and in need of protection from nefarious men by virtuous men. I reject those notions and choose to focus on empowering women to speak up and have space and support to do so when and where abuse occurs.
If we follow your statements to a teleological ends, your argument is that no person should be allowed to enter into an activity/relationship that could cause them harm. Do you think that people should not be allowed to work dangerous jobs? Should they not be allowed to take out a business loan? Should they be allowed to get pregnant at all? Any of these actions/situations could result in a "really bad outcome". Do you believe that women need extra protection from "really bad outcomes", that they lack the mental ability to make decisions for themselves?
If a male partner manipulates/coerses/abuses an female partner of the same age, should it be given less scrutiny because that pre-cursor of age-gap was not present? Should children of single mothers not be allowed to live with new partners of the mother, as that is the highest family make-up for child abuse to occur? And, by extension, should single mothers be criticized for dating, knowing that those are the statistics?
I still don't know why you're bringing Epstein into this discussion. As far as I can tell you are looking at every relationship with a power differential as equivalent to Epstein - which is very weird and again, I don't see how it relates to discussions of adult relationships, unless you don't consider 19 year olds to be adults. It's also interesting that you focus on Epstein, when Maxwell was seemingly the person who was responsible for establishing relationships with young women towards their eventual rape and abuse. The common thread between Maxwell and Epstein being wealth and lust for power, not gender identity or age. I guess invoking notions of a female predator would undermine your thesis of old-man=evil?
Again.... We have opposing views. I understand your viewpoint, I just think they are wrong and to be honest, I have doubts that you are acting in good faith.
Just because you are an adult it doesn't mean you can't or should be manipulated.
What if the situation was a completetly different situation....?
Legality does not dictate morality.
Your argument is that since Walmart is more evil, then disgusting old dudes get a pass?
Wealth imbalance in a relationship can and often is utilized to to abuse.
When did I say that this individual needs to be protected by a virtuous man? Are you claiming that any person who isn't a woman who is critical of the patriarchy is actually aping puritan aesthetics?
By supporting the same goals as the people abusing young women......
Again, I never said that. I just wouldn't support that decision. I would also be critical of the person in more power of the relationship.
Are you not comeitical of unsafe work environments? Are you not critical of banks handing out predatory loans? Are you not critical of medical practices that inhibit safer pregnancy?
Again..... All abuse should be scrutinized. We should also scrutinized the trends that increase the likelihood of abuse, like power imbalances.
Your model does not differentiate between the two as you are evacuating all contextual information and boiling it down to "I believe in choice".
He abused young adults as well. And again legality does not dictate morality. If it was bad to do to a 17 year old, it's also bad to do to a 18 year old.
For who?
Again, I've said several times that sex is just one aspect of relationship imbalances. Again, ignoring this fact leads me to believe you are not acting in good faith and are just as miserable of a person as the ideas you vomit forth.
Yeah they should have a word for this. Borderline pedophile maybe? I mean I see 19 year olds from time time and get exposed to their life view/style. For a 44 year old to date an average 19 year old, that person really needs to have some "issues". Ofcourse there is still the chance that she was like a decade ahead of her peers in terms of mental maturity and what not which maybe makes it slightly more ok but not by a large margin. That he didn't dump her after she got older also makes it better, but still...
If your daughter meets someone who makes her happy, shouldn't you just be happy for her? You sound exactly like a conservative saying "Imagine if your daughter came home with a woman!" Maybe it's not about you.
This account is 15 days old
I think I've just figured out why all these gross comments are getting upvoted so hard ?
Is anyone else concerned someone is posting these posts and commenting these comments and upvoting said comments to give the appearance that Lemmy or this instance alone is dominated by perverts to then start spreading that lie all over the internet or... am I being paranoid?
Cause I mean... seriously. It's like Andrew Tate HQ in this comments section. And the arguments are so weak that I don't even feel vaguely enraged by them. It's like they're... not even real people. Like... I've never met anyone like this IRL.
Is there somekinda minor drama going on between instances? Is someone doing this in a coordinated way? Cause all the comments are also very similar to each other.
Oh, well... anyway... 🤨
In my experience lemmy has always been pretty misogynistic. I think it's just a byproduct of having a heavy tech community bias. Anytime anything about women's rights gets spoken about they come out of the woodworks.
So, anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion as you is a pervert and fan of sex trafficking. I see.
You'll be shocked to learn that some 19-year old women can actually think for themselves. Gasp! And then 13 years later when they're married to that person with children, would you tell a 32-year old woman with children that she was groomed? You don't think she could have realized that at some point in the last decade-plus? Maybe she understood exactly what she was doing at the time and still does today.
Andrew Tate is a sex trafficker. Billy Corgan is a libertarian asshole. I personally have no desire to date someone that much younger than myself, though I have dated someone that much older than me and never felt "taken advantage" of.
But two consenting adults should be allowed to have a romantic relationship. I mean, where do you draw the line, exactly? Is 35 and 25 perverted? 35 and 24? How far do we go? Does it matter that the older person is a man? If it's always the case that a 19-year old dating a 44-year old is a manipulative relationship, then it should be codified and made illegal, right? And if that's not the case, then who the fuck are you to judge these people?
There's no conspiracy here. You just can't stand that someone would dare to question your claptrap and deprive you of precious Internet points.
Yes.
Dude... wow... I am shocked
I literally don't have to say anything. You're making yourself look absolutely horrible. What I am reading here is the kind of comment that tanks a politician's campaign. Didn't think I'd see it on Lemmy. Purely vile.
I guess if you do not have the ability to recognize that people can use experience and material resources to manipulate......
Ahh yes, homosexual relationships are exactly like a 50 year old millionaire dating a 19 year old. It's so obvious!
Damn, poor Billy aged 6 years just so you could double-down on your ridiculous point.
But why stop at romantic relationships? Every relationship has the potential for manipulation. It’s only fair that 19-year olds only interact with other 19-year olds with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Otherwise, they could be manipulated to do all manner of things!
I guess I should be accurate with numbers.... Lord wouldn't it sound bad if 44 year old was dating a 13 year old.
And you are saying all relationships have the same impact on your life as a marriage or long term relationship? Or are you just asking incredibly dumb questions?
Speaking from personal experience, many of my non-romantic friendships have had as great or greater impact on my life than did my long-term romantic relationships. I don't think that's so uncommon.
But the impact isn't really the point. The point comes back to agency. Does a 19-year old have agency? You're effectively saying that they do not, because they're easily manipulated by experience and material resources. I'm saying that, while that's possible, it's also possible that a 19-year old sees someone who is more experienced and has material resources and decides that's a good enough reason to be in a romantic relationship. I mean, do you think sometime in the last 13 years that Chloe Mendel could have developed sufficient experience and material resources of her own such that she could have decided to leave? Or do you think that even as a 30-something woman she's still being manipulated?
I don't know if 18 is the right age to determine that someone is an adult, but I do think that once we draw that line, we can't selectively decide what's good and bad for them. I don't think you can say an 18-year old shouldn't be allowed to decide who they want to fuck while also saying they can vote and decide which politician gets to fuck us. Like, if you think a 19-year old is so easily manipulated, then they certainly shouldn't be allowed to vote because they could be manipulated by some 44-year old into voting against their best interest, right? This is the slippery slope to which I was referring.
I understand the POV that people feel like a 19-year old is being taken advantage of. If a 43-year old started dating my 18-year old niece, I would be pretty disappointed. But if they were genuinely happy together, who am I to stand in their way? This is also the analogy to queer relationships: just because it elicits a disgust reaction in someone doesn't mean it's morally wrong. I understand your point is different here in that the power imbalance is the potential problem, and it's an argument that has merit. But it's also well within the spectrum of possibility that Mendel and Corgan are genuinely happy together, and who are you to tell them that they can't be?
You're talking about emotional impact alone. Someone who lives with you, shares a bank account with you, and owns property with you obviously has more ability to control you and abuse you.
Are you trying to claim someone cannot dilute someone else's agency? that's the whole problem with a power imbalance in a relationship, that your partner can use their power to isolate you from your agency.
Again my criticism isn't about the decisions made by the person who just legally became an adult, it's on the older person.
Do you think that people always leave bad relationships when thing become unhealthy?
When did I say I wanted to do that?
Again..... When did I say that? What I said is this guy is gross, immature, and wants to take advantage of young women.
19 years old should vote because the laws are pertinent to their present and future........
That is a big "if" you are relying on. What if that 43 year old was love bombing them and telling you on the side that they were going to eventually leave them a broken mess? How often do you think these relationships are genuine compared to predatory. How do you tell the difference in the beginning?
You can literally validate any abusive relationship with that same thinking because it's made to exclude context.
"Just because slavery elicits a disgust reaction in someone doesn't mean it's morally wrong."
When did I say they can't be happy. What I said is that he is a disgusting and predatory man.
You have been banned from c/Conservative.
That community doesn't actually have conservatives in it, it makes fun of them. Lemmy doesn't have enough of those
The reddit one would ban you in a microsecond though