So someone on Reddit posted a video showing time-lapse video of a girl from infanthood to 12 years old. Naturally, Redditors responded with creepy pedophilia jokes, and one Redditor (speaking for many, judging by the numerous upvotes) took the opportunity to complain about just how hard it is for dudes to not have sex with underage girls. Apparently these girls deliberately develop earlier than boys as part of an elaborate plot to entrap guys and send them to jail.
Thanks to ShitRedditSays for pointing me to this latest bit of egregious Redditry.
indifferentsky – I totally agree that the laws are very useful for getting bad people locked up. Rape charges are so hard to successfully prosecute, statutory rape charges are usually the only thing that a parent/ minor can use to get justice. I think the laws are important and necessary. I just wish they weren’t so different from state to state, as it makes it seem like only some 15 year olds are illegal for 26 year olds to have sex with (if that makes sense).
Also some places have statutory laws that are gender specific (Idaho says it is rape against a female under 18 for instance), or otherwise not covering enough, like Colorado which allows for a 10 year difference from 13 to 17 (I have a hard time comprehending a 13 year old consenting to sex with a 20 year old). That actually prevented me from being able to press charges against my rapist at 15 because there wasn’t enough evidence and he was only 9 years older.
I know I ramble, I’m sorry. I just want to be clear. I think statutory rape laws are very necessary. I think that they are more often not strict enough rather than too severe, except where they try to outlaw any sex between minors which is ridiculous even if it isn’t enforced often. My only other issue with the way they are handled is that the apparent legal confusion of the subject depending on what state you live in gives people the idea that there are circumstances when it is okay, and that is the opposite of what I want.
It is also definitely on the older person to be sure they are not raping a child. FFS I hate when people expect us to believe that teens purposefully get older men to have sex with them for the fun of pressing rape charges and going to court and everything that entails just for shits and giggles. If we (society) can expect a 14 year old to know recognize creepy men that will try to rape them, we can certainly expect that supposed nice guys in their 20s will recognize that the girl they are trying to sleep with is underage.
@ Dvärghundspossen Studies such as brain scans to determine the function of the brains of people as they develop which have backed up what was thought all along. It shows which parts of the brain develop at which rates, and those parts that develop last are the ones which control the abilities of one to make reasonable, informed decisions, understand the gravity of situations, etc. While I don’t think there is a clear cut age at this point, it is not really up to me to figure that out as I am not a scientist. But the research thus far has determined that children most certainly can’t consent to sex, as well as into their early teens.
http://www.act4jj.org/media/factsheets/factsheet_12.pdf
@Monsieur sans Nom I have no problem with a misogynist going his own way. What I have a problem with is him continuing to perpetuate that misogyny online. If he just up and decided he was done with women, fine. I’m not knocking down his door looking for him. But to continue to be bitter and purposely spiteful about your own choice to go your own way, well, that just hurts everybody. Honestly, I’m happy with the idea of misogynists taking themselves off the market. It means I won’t accidentally wind up on a date with one. Just keep your resentment to yourself.
Thanks Jessay.
Some people in the discussion have suggested that one should ask to see an ID if one wants to sleep with a young-looking person. I don’t think that’s reasonable. Not becuase the “risk of not getting laid” but because it’s RUDE to more or less accuse people of lying if you have no particular reason to believe they do. If you don’t have a particular reason to assume that a particular person is lying to you, the default position should be to accept what the person says as true.
I actually met a boy who was sixteen when I was eighteen, on a political youth organisation camp. We started talking, and somehow I came to mention my age. He was surprised and said “Oh, so you’re actually older than me! You look so young, I thought you were like fourteen or something!”. Later that night we had sex. He didn’t ask for an ID, he just accepted my claim of being eighteen. And I think that was entirely reasonable of him.
But I don’t think people HAVE to check out ID:s to avoid getting into jail or avoid ruining somebody’s life. Just stick to the simply rule of only having sex when there’s enthusiastic consent from everyone involved.
If one follows this rule it MIGHT still happen that, say, a grown-up had sex with a seventeen-year-old in an american state where the age of consent is eighteen, because she got into a bar with a fake ID, or that a fifteen-year-old says she’s seventeen because she think it’s cool to be a bit older, and then end up having sex with a guy who really is seventeen in a state where seventeen or sixteen is the age of consent. That might happen. But there’s really NO REASON in these situations for the girl to run to the police and yell “rape”. That idea is just absurd. And nobody will have their life ruined either by having sex if they really wanted to, even if they happen to be slightly underaged according to the law where they live.
In situations where a thirty-year-old bangs a fifteen-year-old, I think the chances of there actually being enthusiastic consent are close to nil.
The thing is, Bee? I grew up with people that thought like this.
The thing that Ruby has going on, where someone isn’t boyfriend material unless they have a job, was pretty much what I was taught growing up. Even after the recession happened and I spent two years mostly unemployed, I *still* sometimes come across traces of this attitude in my own brain. I went on a date with a dude who lived in a communal house and did dumpster diving, and when he was telling me about his background I was like, “This person is struggling financially” and that made me wary. Then I remembered that I, with my mid-level job, had been in a position very similar to his only a handful of months ago and was ashamed.
When I talked about this with a friend of mine later, they were like “OF COURSE you felt wary! You deserve someone with their act together!” and I realized that, even when they knew I’d been struggling for years and jobs are still hard to come by, the idea that someone with a low-level job isn’t a good person has yet to die.
Wait, I’m not attracted to anything, including wealth. What does that mean for me in Rubyland? Do I not exist, or am I a robot wearing lady skin or something?
I am in two long-term relationships currently, one with a man and one with a woman. Does this mean I am attracted to my female partner’s looks and my male partner’s net wealth? Even if she makes more money than he does, and owns a house? And also, given that I am average-looking, poorly dressed, kinda overweight, and unemployed, what are the reasons these conventionally attractive, successful people could possibly have for dating ME?
Ruby, please explain, using your Theory of All Relationships Ever — so far, everyone who has posted in this thread is an outlier except you. Surely that can’t be right.
Molly: Yep, that’s my background too. Well, actually, they’re supposed to have good earning potential and be hardworking and have few debts– my parents are fully willing to accept that someone might be unemployed or not working a good job NOW, as long as they are going to be working a good job at some point. (I’m not sure what their position is on people working shit jobs by choice– probably that they make okay partners as long as they’re fulfilled, hardworking, and financially solvent.)
You people are lying to yourselves if you believe an unemployed man is going to attract nearly as many women as the guy with the good, steady job. If I’m ready to settle down and have a couple of kids, I want them to have a father who will provide for them. BTW, I stayed home with my daughter for the first several years of her life before I went back to work. I suppose this is probably offensive for you extreme feminists.
Ruby, why would we dignify that with a response, since we know you won’t read it anyway?
Jesus, Ruby, of course it isn’t. If that was a choice you and your partner made because it was the best thing for your family, why would anybody have a problem with that? And what does that have to do with the fact that you’re projecting your own preferences on to every single other woman in existence, claiming that they are biologically determined when there’s no evidence to support that claim, and simultaneously erasing queer people and poly people entirely out of existence?
Nice of you come right out and admit to calling everyone here a liar, Ruby.
All things being equal, an unemployed man will attract fewer people than an employed man. Of course, all things being equal, an unemployed woman will probably attract fewer people than an employed woman. And some of the whole men-must-be-employed thing is cultural, as Molly and I said. AND in real life all things are never equal and I can totally have a thing for a hot, kind, interesting, geeky man who also happens to live in his mom’s house sometimes.
WEll ruby, if that’s what works for you and your partner that’s fine. Just don’t apply that thinking to everyone. I was raised middle class and taught to have those values, but I don’t work middle class jobs and don’t make middleclass incomes.
I think the best person to look after my financial interests and daughter is me. Now if Beloved wanted to help me with that, then great. Buit I don’t demand of my partners what I can do for myself. I chose jobs that were flexible enough for me to be with my daughter when she needed it and screened her babysitters carefully. At my income level, there isn’t a choice with only having one person working, unless you don’t mind not eating. And with as many hobbies and projects as I have, I really can’t justify sitting on my ass most of the day doing them since house keeping at the 1900’s level would only keep me busy until maybe noon. I like to work, I like knowing I can count on myself to support my family.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your lifestyle, or staying at home with your children, but that was a choice you had and I didn’t. My mother made the same choice as you and I’ve always respected her for it. She stayed at home because she felt that it would be less stressful and tiring for the family as a whole.
And really, preferring that your partner has a job is hardly the same thing as insisting they be able to provide for you. Some folks just want their partner to provide for themselves. Whereas others don’t care.
And you do know not every woman wants to have children, right? So the ability to support kids is completely irrelevant for some?
Eh, sure. I was talking specifically about the idea of breaking up the relationship into the “initial attraction” period and the “bonding” period. Which is something PUAs do a lot; although to be fair, so do a fair number of relationship-book-writers (“How to Win Your Mate in 30 Days or Less,” or whatever).
Just commenting on the fact that I’ve never heard an actual person describe their actual relationship using those terms (though I suspect I might if I hung around more people who bought into either of those things).
TOTALLY shouting into the wind here, but (1) you are lying to yourself if you think that the reason a particular woman might prefer a particular employed man over a particular unemployed man is IT JUST MAKES GOOD SENSE BECAUSE GENES AND PROGRAMMING, SEE? and (2) I suspect most commenters here support the right of a mother (or father) to stay at home with the kids, if that’s what xie wants to do. Again, totally awesome of you, a feminist, to misrepresent the feminists who post here as people who are “offended” by stay at home mothers.
I take it back, no parrot can be this annoying. You realise that men who don’t make enough to support two people also tend to look for employment in their prospective long term partners. You realise that, in communities that share resources, most people don’t tend to take a partner’s ability to provide into consideration. You realise that there are SAHPs that post here, so it’s unbelievably stupid to think that anyone here would have a problem with you staying at home. I just realised I’m stupid enough to keep making points when responding to you. And finally, bababooey bababooey bababooey!
@Molly, @Ozy — it’s not really my background, but the question “How do you plan to support my daughter?” has made it into my consciousness somehow.
I always thought it was kind of an unfair question. It implies to me not only a filter for well-paying jobs but also an ideological filter.
Like, “I’m working my way up in a Fortune 500 company” is a much better answer than “I’m a long-haul truck driver” because even though truck drivers make mad bank they’re not Our Sort of People, and it’s a waaay better answer than “I’m a political philosophy professor at Local University” because he might as well have said “I’m a communist and I’m going to support your daughter with your money and everybody else’s.”
Yeah, it’s insidious! The nutty thing is that my brain still does this even when I don’t want kids or to live at home, so how much my partner makes should be a non-issue. It makes even less sense when the other message I got the most at home was “Learn to take care of YOURSELF, because no one else will do it for you.”
No one has argued that. I don’t doubt for a second that, all else being equal, a guy with a good job is likely to attract more people than a guy without a job. What I doubt is that, all else being equal, a woman with a good job wouldn’t attract more people than a woman without a job. What else I doubt is that, all else being equal, a physically attractive man wouldn’t attract more people than a physically unattractive man. There is a world of difference between the statement “people with traits that our society values are likely to attract more potential partners than people without those traits” and “all women want the richest man they can get, and all men want the prettiest woman they can get.” Among other things, my version doesn’t completely erase queer people’s existence, and it’s not completely stupid!
Oh, come on. No one here is likely to be offended by your personal preferences. You can absolutely choose your partner(s) based on any criterion you like, whether it be income or attractiveness or favorite color or nose size. And it’s great that you stayed home with your kid if that was what you wanted to do – more power to you! The problem is not “Ruby has preferences.” The problem is “Ruby keeps insisting that her preferences are everybody’s preferences and if you disagree with her you are lying.”
Falconer: Yep. It’s very much an ideology thing too. My parents would consider an adjunct professor a Good Job and a long-haul truck driver a Bad Job, even though long-haul truck drivers probably make more money than adjunct professors. I think it’s a coded version of “we want someone of our class,” which is related to but distinct from money.
Also, have I pointed out that the “good provider” thing is way classist? It is WAY classist. SO MUCH CLASSISM. Also ableist– there are a lot of people who can’t work through no fault of their own! And probably given the race wage gap racist too.
I was actually about to mention the fact that the “Man as provider, woman as stay-at-home caretaker.” has never even been a viable option for the vast majority of people throughout history, and as such is extremely unlikely to a genetically programmed trait.
*to be
By the way, I include SRS in “the dregs of reddit” because of pervasive misandry, not because they “call out” people. Much like r/beatingwomen is misogynist. Not THAT bad, but they compound things by being self-righteous pricks. At least r/beatingwomen is upfront about it.
nobody said that, dummy, but i love how when people presented you with stories that flatly contradict your petty determinist fairy-tale the best you can come up with is ‘nuh uh, your lying’. real winning argument there, champ
lol, and now youre going right to the corny strawfeminists. you seriously sound more like an mra with every post.