That article sums it all up nicely. Of course you’ll have those who think differently pretending like you’re speaking some interplanetary language, but it makes perfect sense.
One of your more popular themes in your work has been how law effects culture. If the age of consent was 20, the culture would slowly shift to make it so anyone attracted to a 19 year old is branded a pedophile.
Jeffrey Epstein's greatest mistake (besides not checking the IDs of the "victims" who all lied about their ages) was buying a house in a state where the age of consent is 18. If he had just lived in New York, where soliticing an underage prostitute was just a misdemeanor until recently, he'd still be living his best life on the island.
That's what Michael Wolff said Epstein's character flaw was. For someone so closely connected to power and sex, he lived way too carefree, didn't care what the media thought until it was too late.
The thing that is particularly weird about people getting upset by Massachusetts's age of consent is that it's one area where liberals completely ignore European parallels. See https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/hbzl5e/age_of_consent_map_in_europe/#lightbox; there is literally no European country except Ireland which has an age of consent above 16, and a lot where it is as young as 14.
Personally I have zero interest in having sex with teenagers, but I can't get very exercised about Jeffrey Epstein either. Most of his activities would have been completely legal in almost any European country - but all the Europhile liberals are apparently indifferent to that fact.
It isn't quite correct to say that people are upset about "age gap relationships." No one is upset about a 40 year old dating a 30 year old, nor are they likely to be anytime soon, if ever. What bothers them is older men dating very young women, generally leveraging money/status in order to do so. The reason that this bothers people is not simply the mathematical difference between their ages, but rather the lecherous motivations that it clearly implies. This is the same reason that people (especially women) are bothered by pornography, prostitution, or any other form of sexual degeneracy that you can name.
Leonardo DiCaprio is an excellent example of this. Despite dating various young supermodels, at 54 he has never bothered to marry any of them, and has fathered no children. This clearly suggests that he is not optimizing for family life, marriage, or reproduction in how he conducts his love life. He is optimizing for sexual gratification and that's it. You can argue "that's his right" if you want, but this is equivalent to people also noting it is their "right" to criticize whatever they consider to be "pedophilia," so the entire exchange becomes pointless if we go that route.
Either way, it makes perfect sense for women to feel instinctive revulsion towards a man who deploys his resources only to ride the latest piece of 20-year-old ass he can find, without ever committing to any of them or giving them any children. Such behavior is clearly not conducive to resolving the "fertility crisis." I might agree with lowering the stigma around "age gaps" *if* this were being done with the specific and clear understanding of everyone involved that the ultimate goal is to foster family formation and have more kids, but that is most certainly not the case with the typical "age gaps" that people tend to criticize and get upset about.
Idk.. if we were a society of well intentioned and relatively mature people id 100% agree with all this. But we arent. We have shitty predator types that can cause some real damage in peoples lives. On top of that, a lot of parents *arent* raising their teenagers to be mature and responsible. This is the type of situation im used to encountering in my neck of the woods. Ive met some of the people on both sides of that equation. It can fuck a young girls life up. And the dudes are always sleezy, the type of guys *you* would not want anyone you care about spending time with, regardless of their age.
So yeah leo fucking supermodels seems fine to me. But thats one end of a spectrum. The other end is pretty shitty.
For the record i dont think theres any "fixing" this. Theres always been people that get taken advantage of, and people that take advantage, and thats baked into our brains, like all the other dumb shit we do.
I generally agree with you on this (despite being hesitant to say so in most forums).
I think that, at least in general, it's not great for a 30-year-old to be dating a 17-year-old, and it seems reasonable to make it against the law. But I also agree that conflating someone being attracted to a 17-year-old to their being attracted to a 7-year-old also doesn't make sense.
I'd compare it to the distinction between someone who murders someone in the course of a robbery vs. a serial killer. Robberies and killing someone in the course of a robbery are both appropriately illegal, but they are also both things that you could see a normal-ish person doing. Even if you don't condone it (and you shouldn't), you can understand someone wanting something, deciding the best way to get it is by use of force, and then winding up killing someone along the way. On the other hand, being a serial killer is really outside the scope of the normal human condition - most people don't have a drive to kill people for the sake of killing them.
Similarly, while it is, in fact, deviant to be attracted to a pre-pubescent children, we shouldn't pretend that people (particularly men) aren't frequently attracted to teenagers. Notably, it's pretty clear that the advertising industry has, at least at times, leaned into this, frequently using quite young models in advertisements, and it isn't because they were targeting some niche demographic. But we can also say that, just like you shouldn't act on your understandable desire to get something you want through robbery, you shouldn't act on your understandable attraction to a 17-year-old (assuming you aren't also around that age). Keven Spacy's character in American Beauty was supposed to be a creep, but his creepiness mostly came from him acting on it his attraction, not his having it in the first place.
Matt Yglesias had a good point on Politix yesterday - if you go to a party as an adult and there are a bunch of 17-year-old girl there, you very well may leave, and may even tell the host it isn't cool, but you wouldn't necessarily call the police. But if you went and there were a bunch of 10-year-olds there, you're much more likely to pull out your phone.
I'm not sure it's age gap hysteria that's at the center of the Epstein controversy. Remember, Trump has been accused of sexually assaulting 25 women, and of going into underage beauty contestants' dressing rooms, and no Republican cared. If it came out that he had sex with a 15-year-old on Epstein Island, that would be only incrementally worse than what he's already been accused of doing. The entire thing is based on the notion that Epstein was a Mossad agent, and therefore that Trump, and many other powerful men, are being blackmailed into supporting Israel. (Not sure why Israel needed to blackmail Prince Andrew, who has no political power, or Alan Dershowitz, who'd support Israel without needing to be blackmailed, but who cares, conspiracy theories don't have to make sense.) That's what this is really about, and the age gap stuff is a distraction.
Several things going on there. I contend it really is about age gap hysteria. The blackmail theory really didn't take off until much later and at first wasn't even attributed to any foreign power. When Virginia Roberts and her lawyers introduced the idea in 2009, it was more of a subplot and wasn't publicly discussed.
But what really supercharged the hysteria was after #MeToo and the Miami Herald compiled all these accusers' testimony, turning an underage sex scandal into something that more resembled QAnon. Just before Epstein's arrest and death, a tabloid journalist Vicky Ward started a rumor from a single third-hand quote that Epstein "belonged to intelligence", which the person she attributed it to denied under oath.
We can’t justify rich 50 year olds manipulating teenagers into sex with money and attention just because we are worried about the birth rate. If those relationships ended up with children that would be a disaster. The rich 50 year old in this scenario is more likely to be a non monogamous sexaholic who will not be interested in the day to day child rearing. As a result, you will see an explosion of pregnancies to poor teen women who are emotionally unstable. These teen women would be awful mothers. They will be unable to support their children financially and will most likely end up on public assistance. There’s got to be a healthier way to raise the birth rate without trying to increase the cultural acceptability of middle age high sexual market value men getting involved sexually with teenagers.
It's also interesting that child sexual abuse overwhelmingly occurs within the family - a problem that is complex and extremely difficult (and expensive) to address (a "whole-of-society-scale" issue), yet the focus is on the extremely rare external perpetrators and CSAM (which is easier if technically challenging to address).
This is one of those issues where biology conflicts with sense and morals. I've coined the term "cheerleaderopedia" to describe the attraction all men and high school age almost-men have for high-school age girls (and hard bodied just past high school "women"). All you have to do is spend some time scrolling thru the former MSN (on every windows computer) to recognize that half the clicks are on images of cheerleaders and just past high school female athletes. Sense and morals say that men with money are an incredible lure to young women who usually have no money and few hopes of getting more. No easy way to level the playing field here.
I am surprised that Gavin Newsom very public relationship with a 19 year old when he was 38 has yet to be brought back up as he makes further moves towards running for President.
My theory is that Megyn Kelly started p-i-v at age fifteen, and she’s trying to normalize the early sexytime now. She may have contracted an STD that made her seek IVF, as she has delivered three babies via the procedure that the cafeteria Catholic never mentions, along with her divorce.
That article sums it all up nicely. Of course you’ll have those who think differently pretending like you’re speaking some interplanetary language, but it makes perfect sense.
One of your more popular themes in your work has been how law effects culture. If the age of consent was 20, the culture would slowly shift to make it so anyone attracted to a 19 year old is branded a pedophile.
Jeffrey Epstein's greatest mistake (besides not checking the IDs of the "victims" who all lied about their ages) was buying a house in a state where the age of consent is 18. If he had just lived in New York, where soliticing an underage prostitute was just a misdemeanor until recently, he'd still be living his best life on the island.
That's what Michael Wolff said Epstein's character flaw was. For someone so closely connected to power and sex, he lived way too carefree, didn't care what the media thought until it was too late.
The thing that is particularly weird about people getting upset by Massachusetts's age of consent is that it's one area where liberals completely ignore European parallels. See https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/hbzl5e/age_of_consent_map_in_europe/#lightbox; there is literally no European country except Ireland which has an age of consent above 16, and a lot where it is as young as 14.
Personally I have zero interest in having sex with teenagers, but I can't get very exercised about Jeffrey Epstein either. Most of his activities would have been completely legal in almost any European country - but all the Europhile liberals are apparently indifferent to that fact.
16 is the age of consent in next-door Canada too. Until about 15 years ago it was 14.
All of this is literally common sense in countries that haven't been infected with modern feminism.
It isn't quite correct to say that people are upset about "age gap relationships." No one is upset about a 40 year old dating a 30 year old, nor are they likely to be anytime soon, if ever. What bothers them is older men dating very young women, generally leveraging money/status in order to do so. The reason that this bothers people is not simply the mathematical difference between their ages, but rather the lecherous motivations that it clearly implies. This is the same reason that people (especially women) are bothered by pornography, prostitution, or any other form of sexual degeneracy that you can name.
Leonardo DiCaprio is an excellent example of this. Despite dating various young supermodels, at 54 he has never bothered to marry any of them, and has fathered no children. This clearly suggests that he is not optimizing for family life, marriage, or reproduction in how he conducts his love life. He is optimizing for sexual gratification and that's it. You can argue "that's his right" if you want, but this is equivalent to people also noting it is their "right" to criticize whatever they consider to be "pedophilia," so the entire exchange becomes pointless if we go that route.
Either way, it makes perfect sense for women to feel instinctive revulsion towards a man who deploys his resources only to ride the latest piece of 20-year-old ass he can find, without ever committing to any of them or giving them any children. Such behavior is clearly not conducive to resolving the "fertility crisis." I might agree with lowering the stigma around "age gaps" *if* this were being done with the specific and clear understanding of everyone involved that the ultimate goal is to foster family formation and have more kids, but that is most certainly not the case with the typical "age gaps" that people tend to criticize and get upset about.
Exactly. Another way of saying what I said in the comment above yours.
Idk.. if we were a society of well intentioned and relatively mature people id 100% agree with all this. But we arent. We have shitty predator types that can cause some real damage in peoples lives. On top of that, a lot of parents *arent* raising their teenagers to be mature and responsible. This is the type of situation im used to encountering in my neck of the woods. Ive met some of the people on both sides of that equation. It can fuck a young girls life up. And the dudes are always sleezy, the type of guys *you* would not want anyone you care about spending time with, regardless of their age.
So yeah leo fucking supermodels seems fine to me. But thats one end of a spectrum. The other end is pretty shitty.
For the record i dont think theres any "fixing" this. Theres always been people that get taken advantage of, and people that take advantage, and thats baked into our brains, like all the other dumb shit we do.
I generally agree with you on this (despite being hesitant to say so in most forums).
I think that, at least in general, it's not great for a 30-year-old to be dating a 17-year-old, and it seems reasonable to make it against the law. But I also agree that conflating someone being attracted to a 17-year-old to their being attracted to a 7-year-old also doesn't make sense.
I'd compare it to the distinction between someone who murders someone in the course of a robbery vs. a serial killer. Robberies and killing someone in the course of a robbery are both appropriately illegal, but they are also both things that you could see a normal-ish person doing. Even if you don't condone it (and you shouldn't), you can understand someone wanting something, deciding the best way to get it is by use of force, and then winding up killing someone along the way. On the other hand, being a serial killer is really outside the scope of the normal human condition - most people don't have a drive to kill people for the sake of killing them.
Similarly, while it is, in fact, deviant to be attracted to a pre-pubescent children, we shouldn't pretend that people (particularly men) aren't frequently attracted to teenagers. Notably, it's pretty clear that the advertising industry has, at least at times, leaned into this, frequently using quite young models in advertisements, and it isn't because they were targeting some niche demographic. But we can also say that, just like you shouldn't act on your understandable desire to get something you want through robbery, you shouldn't act on your understandable attraction to a 17-year-old (assuming you aren't also around that age). Keven Spacy's character in American Beauty was supposed to be a creep, but his creepiness mostly came from him acting on it his attraction, not his having it in the first place.
Matt Yglesias had a good point on Politix yesterday - if you go to a party as an adult and there are a bunch of 17-year-old girl there, you very well may leave, and may even tell the host it isn't cool, but you wouldn't necessarily call the police. But if you went and there were a bunch of 10-year-olds there, you're much more likely to pull out your phone.
I'm not sure it's age gap hysteria that's at the center of the Epstein controversy. Remember, Trump has been accused of sexually assaulting 25 women, and of going into underage beauty contestants' dressing rooms, and no Republican cared. If it came out that he had sex with a 15-year-old on Epstein Island, that would be only incrementally worse than what he's already been accused of doing. The entire thing is based on the notion that Epstein was a Mossad agent, and therefore that Trump, and many other powerful men, are being blackmailed into supporting Israel. (Not sure why Israel needed to blackmail Prince Andrew, who has no political power, or Alan Dershowitz, who'd support Israel without needing to be blackmailed, but who cares, conspiracy theories don't have to make sense.) That's what this is really about, and the age gap stuff is a distraction.
Several things going on there. I contend it really is about age gap hysteria. The blackmail theory really didn't take off until much later and at first wasn't even attributed to any foreign power. When Virginia Roberts and her lawyers introduced the idea in 2009, it was more of a subplot and wasn't publicly discussed.
But what really supercharged the hysteria was after #MeToo and the Miami Herald compiled all these accusers' testimony, turning an underage sex scandal into something that more resembled QAnon. Just before Epstein's arrest and death, a tabloid journalist Vicky Ward started a rumor from a single third-hand quote that Epstein "belonged to intelligence", which the person she attributed it to denied under oath.
I think statutory rape is more than incrementally worse than ogling teenage girls. Which is undoubtedly pretty creepy.
my age gap relationship is my bf is 60 and i’m 42. would that bother anyone? 😂 or is it just when it’s about the girls being young?
We can’t justify rich 50 year olds manipulating teenagers into sex with money and attention just because we are worried about the birth rate. If those relationships ended up with children that would be a disaster. The rich 50 year old in this scenario is more likely to be a non monogamous sexaholic who will not be interested in the day to day child rearing. As a result, you will see an explosion of pregnancies to poor teen women who are emotionally unstable. These teen women would be awful mothers. They will be unable to support their children financially and will most likely end up on public assistance. There’s got to be a healthier way to raise the birth rate without trying to increase the cultural acceptability of middle age high sexual market value men getting involved sexually with teenagers.
Outside of pointing to a democrat that did this, can you offer any thoughtful response as to why making this culturally acceptable is a good idea?
Gavin Newsom was involved with a 19 year old when he was Mayor of SF
It's also interesting that child sexual abuse overwhelmingly occurs within the family - a problem that is complex and extremely difficult (and expensive) to address (a "whole-of-society-scale" issue), yet the focus is on the extremely rare external perpetrators and CSAM (which is easier if technically challenging to address).
Even forced prostitution tends to occur among family and friends.
This is one of those issues where biology conflicts with sense and morals. I've coined the term "cheerleaderopedia" to describe the attraction all men and high school age almost-men have for high-school age girls (and hard bodied just past high school "women"). All you have to do is spend some time scrolling thru the former MSN (on every windows computer) to recognize that half the clicks are on images of cheerleaders and just past high school female athletes. Sense and morals say that men with money are an incredible lure to young women who usually have no money and few hopes of getting more. No easy way to level the playing field here.
I am surprised that Gavin Newsom very public relationship with a 19 year old when he was 38 has yet to be brought back up as he makes further moves towards running for President.
My theory is that Megyn Kelly started p-i-v at age fifteen, and she’s trying to normalize the early sexytime now. She may have contracted an STD that made her seek IVF, as she has delivered three babies via the procedure that the cafeteria Catholic never mentions, along with her divorce.
15 is normal though right? (with other teenage boys, not adult men)