Wait, how come she’s old enough to make the decision to have sex, but she’s not old enough to have access to her money?
Because a) statute of limitations and b) lawyers cost money. No, I think you are right, the simpler explanation makes more sense.
To be fair most women i know had sex at 14 or younger. None got 10 million for it.
Having sex with your peers is are appropriate teenage behavior. Being preyed upon by pedophiles isn’t. Being taught about selling your body also isn’t. I’m not sure where you’re having problems “being fair” here.
I think the assumptions you made is that 1, they were peers and 2, that they regret it in hindsight. Im still in the male/no category, but even with their much older and more mature brains they still think that was a consensual interaction.
Im just thinking the wider possibilities and Ideas because, let’s be honest, we’re not discussing either a possibility or policy change - its just not going to happen.
One was happily fucking her way through men double and triple her age within the first 6 months and had the only regret of an STD - why should she not have been able to take 10 mill for something she was going to do anyway?Does being paid suddenly make it not OK?
Never forget the one thing that the Left and the Right both agree on: women of any age do not have sexual agency.
The Left says men shouldn’t prey on them. The Right says it’s men’s God-given right to prey on them. Both agree that men are always predators and women are always prey. The idea of a woman actually wanting sex is equally deviant to both sides.
Children should not have sex with adults
One of these days we as a society will have to confront the fact that 14 year olds can be and often are attracted to older people. Yes, even girls.
We’re not ready for that conversation yet, but one day.
14 year olds are children, not adults, and whether they are attracted to adults isn’t the concern. The fact that you think the problem here is that society won’t allow children to act on their attraction to adults - and not that children should not fuck adults - is a massive self-report.
This guy also has a whole post on Substack complaining that the left is too wary of age gaps in relationships and that this is an “attack on heterosexuality” or whatever. It’s kind of funny how these “anti woke” types will decry that queer people are all groomers and yet proclaim that age gaps and adults dating teenagers is part of heterosexual culture under the same breath.
Because the only thing that’s keeping them from the most depraved things humans can do is the laws. They grew up wrong. The rest of us are asking to live our authentic lives and they can’t think of anything that would stop us, upon living our authentic lives, from committing depraved acts because that’s what they would do if the laws allowed it. We ask to be allowed to have healthy relationships between consenting adults and they see a dangerous precedent that once we’re allowed to do that, then what else are we allowed to do. Its from a basic difference in where they think ethics and morality come from. I think ethics and morality come from within ourselves and that laws should be written to establish communal protections that allow people to achieve true freedom from oppression. They believe ethics and morality exist separate from humanity and laws exist to ensure intrinsically bad people (everyone) remains moral. Within that group, the repressives we’re talking about in this post are truly the most dangerous.
Look. All this is super complicated and I’m realizing I’m over simplifying entire systems of ethics it took me 35 pages single spaced to describe in college. Its valuable to have discussions about where ethics come from when discussing politics because ultimately that’s what you actually vote on and about
Edit: replied to the wrong comment. I absolutely agree with you
There is a loooooooooooooong fucked up history of this being sanctioned by organized religions of all types. It stems from the patriarchal ideal woman being a baby factory and is absolutely a barbaric practice. The men in these religions are conditioned to be interested in young virginal girls that they call women but treat like property.
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-reveal-patterns-sexual-abuse-religious.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X20301421
https://www.gotquestions.org/child-marriage.html
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/child-marriage-and-religion-in-the-united-states
That was some wild and deranged shit holy fuck. And the comments too.
This is just prostitution with extra steps.
No, he’s just paying for the 14 year old’s time, anything that happens after is between
two adultsan a adult and a child, whoconsent,share a racecar bed, are abusing extreme power dynamics!with extra steps
Money is irrelevant. Its child sexual abuse by a pedophile and idealised by other pedophiles.
What extra steps ?
Thought experiment for anyone who thinks $10 million would make this acceptable. Which I hope is no one here in this thread, but bear with me while I argue with no one.
What if we asked this question again for $5 million? $1 million? $100,000? $10,000? $100? $1?
How would you ever begin to draw a line? Should the law say that there is a particular price tag at which this suddenly becomes legal?
Also, suppose, not so hypothetically, that we live in a world where poverty is itself a coercive factor. If the girl and her parents can’t afford to say no, is this really consent?
I’m not touching the original question with a 10ft pole but…
“Where’s the Line?” Counterpoint: you’re parachuting out of the sky onto an island. There’s a sandy beach on your left and an ocean with 20 ft waves pounding on your right. The exact line between the ocean and the sand is undefinable. I can still easily choose the left side, because drowning sucks.
“Get banged by creepy old dude for $1” is definitely the water, “get banged by creepy old dude for $10million+” is definitely the beach.
“Not getting propositioned by creepy old guy” is “not riding in homemade airplanes” maybe? 🤷♂️
Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner, the first question. You don’t even say, ‘Hello. How are you?
‘Should enormously overpriced child sex trafficking be allowed?’
For fucks sake
Fucking greedflation affecting the child sex trafficking industry too now
Meanwhile, I’ll have sex with about anyone for $10m. I’m above the age of consent. Let’s go.
Fucking weirdos wanting child brides while criticizing Muslims and LGBTQ+ people. That video of the young girls getting attacked in Iran for how they dress is exactly what christofascists wish they could do here.
No because 14 is not old enough to make an informed decision about that and involving the parents will increase the likelihood that they will pressure their kid into doing it for the money.
The thing that gets me is even when you up the age to 16, a common age of consent, you still have consent issues. 10 million dollars creates a consent issue for any poor person of any age. Are they truly making a choice? And I get that this is what sex workers already face.
But for fuck’s sake our society seems far more willing to entertain this than just having a society where nobody needs sex work to not starve.
Would your answer change if she was actually 18? It still seems crazy manipulative. In some countries, the age of consent is 16. Would this be okay if she’s 16 in one of those countries? (Let’s ignore countries below that age)
I struggle between two ideas: One, where I believe that at the age of majority, a person should get full rights (voting, emancipation, legal, consent, medical, etc.) and it seems wrong to let people vote but not make choices about their body (like drinking alcohol). And two, protecting the young from themselves, like by restricting labor, or setting smoking and drinking ages higher than a majority age, because those damage still-developing brains way more.
We can fight about what the age of majority should be (16, 17, 18, 21?). I would definitely be okay if this tweet was about a 30-year-old, but I’m not okay with it being a 10-year-old. But whether it’s 16 or 18 or 22 where it crosses the line is tough for me.
I think these types of moral questions aren’t actually that useful, because the actual problem at the heart of it (and at most things) is the difference in power.
Instead of asking “what age should temporary prostitution be legal,” maybe we should ask "why have we concentrated so much excess power in the hands of this one guy who can drop a life changing payment for a one time service and still have plenty left over? Does it really make sense to try to come up with an arbitrary age that we’ve decided you’re immune to coersion?
This entire moral quandary doesn’t really exist in the (admittedly idealistic) world where power isn’t so unequally distributed.
Regardless, the moral fact is that any man (or parent) willing to actually participate in this exchange of services should immediately become an organ donor.
For ten million I would let bezos fondle the beans for 30 seconds. Best I can do.
Ill do 45 seconds for 11 million, while telling him he’s a great businessman and a strong leader.
They pay for the fantasy after all.
Ok 15 million and .05% of Amazon, one full minute, I’ll tell him he’s the straightest eyed cowboy this side of the mighty mississip.
If you want to get a better sense of what is reasonable, listen to high school kids talk to each other at the coffee shop, or whatever, and ask yourself if they can reasonably and reliably make informed decisions with long term consequences like this issue would require. (Prediction: It is highly unlikely you will feel that they can.)
I stopped asking “let’s say” and “hypotheticaly” questions. I’m so fucking done with that bullshit.
Hypothetically, if a runaway tram were bearing down on five people tied to the tracks, but you could pull a lever and switch the tram to a track with only one person, would you pull the lever?
That’s…not good
I only ask them in regards to fiction. Like, “what if wolverine had his bones covered in pudding instead of adamantium?”
he would be very tasty
Ah yes, cause the thing that makes pedophilia bad is the immediate payment, if you defer that until the victim is off age it’s all good.
95.7%
of men who responded said noof those responding as men said no60.9%
of women who responded said noof those responding as women said noEta: fixed phrasing to show that reported gender/sex may not be accurate
That is assuming of course that all the women who said yes are in fact people being truthful and not creeps 'as-a-black-man’ing.
Since they’re following the guy, I’m pretty suspicious of that polling regardless.
That blue checkmark carries more information then any single word ever could.
Wait, doesn’t this just mean the sample size of men was more than 3/4 of the entire survey population?
If you are trying to run a binary-gender survey, wouldn’t it make more sense to have 1:1 representation?
It’s this own dude’s readers responding to him. 10/10 self own.
It’s called Pedophilia, he’s a pedophile or in the making.
