I feel icky saying it but I think a lot has to do with the consenting nature of said 14 year olds. I don’t think riding the tour bus to the next state was really looked at like trafficking, and they weren’t coerced into attending the concert. It doesn’t make it right, but it feels different when a popular known sex icon rock star does it than a creepy, overweight real estate mogul and his super rich friends literally steals girls away from their lives with (sometimes) false promises of being a model.
I really think we need different words for these things. In my own experience, consenting to sexual contact with over 18’s as a teenager was a neutral-to-positive experience for me, while being assaulted by under 18’s was not hella fun. I don’t really like that they’re bundled together as the same thing.
It’s an interesting point. I was once a 14 year old girl. I would have consented to fucking a rock star for sure back then. It was more ok to be with older guys then and I didn’t really have bad experiences with who I gave consent to, either.
I don’t get the downvotes, I agree with you. It’s not okay, and yes, it’s legally rape, but it doesn’t have to be traumatizing the victims in the same way as the examples you also mentioned. And that’s not an excuse, but a reasonable answer to the question you responded to.
The critical thinking required is to admit that someone under the age of consent cannot consent. The attractive rock star is just as evil as the hideous Epstein client.
It’s illegal to claim they consented because it’s impossible by the current societal understanding of what it means to consent for them to have consented. A 14 year old can understand what they want, which used to be good enough to be considered consent, but now that we know their brains aren’t finished developing yet, we don’t consider their ability to understand the repercussions of the decision to be on the same level as someone who’s fully an adult, and thus they are incapable of consent.
It’s like how a 2 year old will want candy all the time, but you shouldn’t let them have it every time they want it because their brains aren’t developed enough for them to fully understand that it’s not good for them. You have to be capable of understanding the long-term implications of eating nothing but candy, and a 2 year old literally can’t do that. They might know it causes tooth decay and weight problems, but they don’t know exactly what that means because they lack the brain power to process the amount of background knowledge they would need to understand it.
On the same note, a 14 year old might want to have sex, but they don’t understand all of the implications of it, even if they think they do. An 18 year old might not know the implications either, but we have to make a cutoff, and by 18 we assume enough people should be capable of consenting that we give the right to everybody. At 14, though, it’s likely that nobody that age can truly understand it enough to be considered capable of consent by the modern definition, and even if some can, the effort to parse it out just so some rock star can fuck the few that are capable of consenting is obviously not worth the effort.
Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying that we need to somehow prevent 14 year olds from having sex with one another - while they still aren’t capable of understanding the implications of their actions, we can at least be reasonably certain that they both consent to the same lesser degree as one another. The issue is when one person has the higher mental capacity and the desire to take advantage of the lower capacity of their target to convince them to have sex, otherwise known as statutory rape, the topic of this discussion.
If you’re too dense to understand my point I really can’t be bothered to continue with you. You’re also one of the most disgusting people I’ve encountered online so it’s funny to have you chastising me.
You’re deliberately blurring a distinction between a legal definition and an societal issue to paint me as a pervert. It’s obviously disingenuous. You’re also removing the agency of the victim, and further more diluting the difference between rape, where one party absolutely does not have an interest, and one where despite the legality, both parties retain agency and mutually enter into an illegal situation. There is a reason statutory rape and rape are different charges, and it isn’t because rockstars fucking kids isn’t gross. Now go away
You have nothing to say worth listening to on this topic. You’re more disgusting than smcf by this take alone. I really hope rape does not affect you or your loved ones personally. But if it does. You’ll know this is just a terrible take. Maybe consider other’s pov on this one.
Hey there, you should feel icky, because that is one of the most disgusting takes I’ve ever seen. You are defending raping children. Take a very long look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself.
If you have any kids, you need to surrender them IMMEDIATELY. You are not fit in any way to be a parent. Disgusting.
You are an idiot. Previous commentor was not defending this in any way, he was looking to find an explanation as to why Stephen Tyler got away with things.
I feel icky saying it but I think a lot has to do with the consenting nature of said 14 year olds. I don’t think riding the tour bus to the next state was really looked at like trafficking, and they weren’t coerced into attending the concert. It doesn’t make it right, but it feels different when a popular known sex icon rock star does it than a creepy, overweight real estate mogul and his super rich friends literally steals girls away from their lives with (sometimes) false promises of being a model.
I really think we need different words for these things. In my own experience, consenting to sexual contact with over 18’s as a teenager was a neutral-to-positive experience for me, while being assaulted by under 18’s was not hella fun. I don’t really like that they’re bundled together as the same thing.
It’s an interesting point. I was once a 14 year old girl. I would have consented to fucking a rock star for sure back then. It was more ok to be with older guys then and I didn’t really have bad experiences with who I gave consent to, either.
I don’t get the downvotes, I agree with you. It’s not okay, and yes, it’s legally rape, but it doesn’t have to be traumatizing the victims in the same way as the examples you also mentioned. And that’s not an excuse, but a reasonable answer to the question you responded to.
Yea but it’s easier to join a dog pile than it is to think critically.
The critical thinking required is to admit that someone under the age of consent cannot consent. The attractive rock star is just as evil as the hideous Epstein client.
Oh no no no. They had sex slaves on that island. It is not the same.
The worst part about reddit that lemmy just copied inherently.
Yay social media!
So you think that if a fourteen year old likes getting raped it’s not that bad?
Where’s the cut-off in your mind?
Is it not that tramatizing if it’s a promiscuous six year old?
Man reading comprehension sure is dead
Explain to me how a fourteen year old can give consent to an adult.
If a rockstar fucks a fourteen year old that’s rape.
I didn’t disagree with that, just answering why I think it’s less scrutinized. The other commenter really had a meltdown.
You spoke about the consenting nature of fourteen year olds so I don’t entirely disagree with what they said.
It illegal for them to consent, but far from impossible
Edit: and recognizing your username I’m actually a little chuffed that you dislike what I had to say, go fuck yourself mate.
It’s illegal to claim they consented because it’s impossible by the current societal understanding of what it means to consent for them to have consented. A 14 year old can understand what they want, which used to be good enough to be considered consent, but now that we know their brains aren’t finished developing yet, we don’t consider their ability to understand the repercussions of the decision to be on the same level as someone who’s fully an adult, and thus they are incapable of consent.
It’s like how a 2 year old will want candy all the time, but you shouldn’t let them have it every time they want it because their brains aren’t developed enough for them to fully understand that it’s not good for them. You have to be capable of understanding the long-term implications of eating nothing but candy, and a 2 year old literally can’t do that. They might know it causes tooth decay and weight problems, but they don’t know exactly what that means because they lack the brain power to process the amount of background knowledge they would need to understand it.
On the same note, a 14 year old might want to have sex, but they don’t understand all of the implications of it, even if they think they do. An 18 year old might not know the implications either, but we have to make a cutoff, and by 18 we assume enough people should be capable of consenting that we give the right to everybody. At 14, though, it’s likely that nobody that age can truly understand it enough to be considered capable of consent by the modern definition, and even if some can, the effort to parse it out just so some rock star can fuck the few that are capable of consenting is obviously not worth the effort.
Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying that we need to somehow prevent 14 year olds from having sex with one another - while they still aren’t capable of understanding the implications of their actions, we can at least be reasonably certain that they both consent to the same lesser degree as one another. The issue is when one person has the higher mental capacity and the desire to take advantage of the lower capacity of their target to convince them to have sex, otherwise known as statutory rape, the topic of this discussion.
It’s literally impossible for a fourteen year old to consent to being raped by an adult.
If you’re too dense to understand my point I really can’t be bothered to continue with you. You’re also one of the most disgusting people I’ve encountered online so it’s funny to have you chastising me.
Yet I can understand that fourteen year olds can’t consent to being raped by an adult.
Maybe that should give you a pause for self-reflection.
You’re deliberately blurring a distinction between a legal definition and an societal issue to paint me as a pervert. It’s obviously disingenuous. You’re also removing the agency of the victim, and further more diluting the difference between rape, where one party absolutely does not have an interest, and one where despite the legality, both parties retain agency and mutually enter into an illegal situation. There is a reason statutory rape and rape are different charges, and it isn’t because rockstars fucking kids isn’t gross. Now go away
You have nothing to say worth listening to on this topic. You’re more disgusting than smcf by this take alone. I really hope rape does not affect you or your loved ones personally. But if it does. You’ll know this is just a terrible take. Maybe consider other’s pov on this one.
The very fucking fact that it has is why my opinion is what it is asshole. Go fuck yourself maybe
Hey there, you should feel icky, because that is one of the most disgusting takes I’ve ever seen. You are defending raping children. Take a very long look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself.
If you have any kids, you need to surrender them IMMEDIATELY. You are not fit in any way to be a parent. Disgusting.
Reddit take.
You are an idiot. Previous commentor was not defending this in any way, he was looking to find an explanation as to why Stephen Tyler got away with things.
Money and power is the explanation.
It’s just an easy way to feel superior to a stranger on the Internet they otherwise know zero about.
It’s glorious how little I care about your overblown reactionary opinion. Have a pleasant day