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?).
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?).