Comment

Just because you are an adult it doesn’t mean you can’t or should be manipulated. Then what is your condition for consent? Legality does not dictate morality. your argument is that we shouldn’t bother with the legal system to deal with issues of morality? Your argument is that since Walmart is more evil, then disgusting old dudes get a pass? No, it’s that sensationalized stories about how age-gaps in relationships are somehow a form of abuse in and of themselvs distract from salient critiques of real conditions that impact many, many more women who are more disenfranchised across the spectrum of intersectionality. That age-gaps of celebrities are generally a non-issue. When did I say that this individual needs to be protected by a virtuous man? Are you claiming that any person who isn’t a woman who is critical of the patriarchy is actually aping puritan aesthetics? You’re right, you never offered a solution, other than shaming celebrities on internet forums. No, I’m claiming that notions that women need to be protected from themselves are applying puritan aesthetics. Wealth imbalance in a relationship can and often is utilized to to abuse. Which I not only agree with, but recognize as the often more impactful aspect of a person that is used to create situations of abuse. It’s why laws like alimony, or child support exist, to help offset the potential harm inflicted vis-a-vis financial dependence, which traditionally existed regardless of age-gaps. By supporting the same goals as the people abusing young women… Meanwhile you’d rather support the goals of bigots… (I don’t actually believe that, but since we’ve decided to be inflammatory and use derogatory rhetoric…) Are you not comeitical of unsafe work environments? Are you not critical of banks handing out predatory loans? Are you not critical of medical practices that inhibit safer pregnancy? Yes, I am critical of how each of those practices are regulated. I am also in favour of setting regulation to guard against manipulation and abuse. I also understand that regulation is a shorthand for much more complex dynamics. Having unsafe work environments does not mean that unsafe work does not, or should not, occur. From firefighting to mining, people risk their personal safety and face harm every day, but we consider it a reasonable risk for individuals to take, as long as they are making the choice to undertake those tasks of their own volition. If we say that women can’t properly differentiate between conditions where harm can exist in relationships at 19, then why should we ask anyone to undertake anything that could remotely be dangerous at 19? All abuse should be scrutinized. We should also scrutinized the trends that increase the likelihood of abuse, like power imbalances. pewresearch.org/…/a-growing-share-of-us-husbands-… In the US, and likely western hemisphere, evidence shows that the trend is for couples to be closer in age with every passing year. Age-gap relationships are more rare than ever. How is promoting these stories addressing a trend? Your model does not differentiate between the two as you are evacuating all contextual information and boiling it down to “I believe in choice”. What a gross mischaracterization. I have literally said multiple times across this thread, that the differentiation is the line in the sand at which we decide, as a society, who qualifies as an adult, capable of making their own choices within the context of consent. I think 19 in generally reasonable, especially considering we offer voting rights, military service, and financial independence by that age, any of which offer situations that can easily be as harmful as age-gap relationships. He abused young adults as well. And again legality does not dictate morality. If it was bad to do to a 17 year old, it’s also bad to do to a 18 year old. Yes, rape and abuse are brutal crimes that deserve sever punishment. I think it’s morally worse for a 12 year old to be raped than a 15 year old, and likewise for an 18 year old. Just like it’s worse to abuse a child than it is to abuse an adult in any manner. Do you think Corgan’s relationship with Mendel is equivalent to Epstein? I still struggle to understand why you drug Epstein into this discussion beyond trying to invoke sentiments that age-gap relationships are tantamount to trafficking and rape? If you think Corgan is culpable of that level of abuse, then do you believe he deserves a harsh punishment?

If you actually care about discussing this issue, then what are your moral standings on the issue? It’s easy to sit there and spout off “old man bad” with no follow-through on specifics, or what that line in the sand of becoming ‘bad’ constitutes. You can cast aspersions all you like, but it does nothing to actually consider the issue and the broader implications. Start making actual value statements, or I’m done. Is it possible for relationships where two people of different intelligence are involved to be consensual? How can you be sure that won’t lead to manipulation? Can a relationship that’s more than 1 year difference be consensual? 5 years? 10, 15, 20? What’s the cut off and what is your rationale for there being a specific cutoff? OR, why shouldn’t there be a cutoff and what specific mechanisms should be employed to ensure consensual relationships free of manipulation are realized? Do you think manipulation between partners in a relationship is a punishable offense? If so, what are the triggers for an action to become a punishable manipulation offense? If not, why not?

source

Sort:hotnew top

TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

Then what is your condition for consent?

My point is that consent is not a shield that protects someone from criticism and accusations of immorality.

your argument is that we shouldn’t bother with the legal system to deal with issues of morality?

I’m saying it does not, and is in fact incapable of doing so. The legal system itself is immoral in large aspects of its function.

No, it’s that sensationalized stories about how age-gaps in relationships are somehow a form of abuse in and of themselvs distract from salient critiques of real conditions that impact many, many more women who are more disenfranchised across the spectrum of intersectionality. That age-gaps of celebrities are generally a non-issue.

Age gaps are just one aspect of the system of abuse that are the result of a system of a disenfranchisment. You can be critical of one aspect of the system and the system itself. I am less concerned specifically about the age gap of celebrities compared to the greater majority of people in imbalanced relationships. That doesn’t mean it should be free from criticism.

You’re right, you never offered a solution, other than shaming celebrities on internet forums. No, I’m claiming that notions that women need to be protected from themselves are applying puritan aesthetics.

You are again blaming the women and not the greater system that directs wealth and power to men that enables them to create these relationships in the first place. The solution is pretty apparent if you actually examined feminism from a leftist perspective…

Which I not only agree with, but recognize as the often more impactful aspect of a person that is used to create situations of abuse. It’s why laws like alimony, or child support exist, to help offset the potential harm inflicted vis-a-vis financial dependence, which traditionally existed regardless of age-gaps.

And you think these individuals do not benefit, support, and reinforce the system that allows them to remain in their place within the hierarchy?

From firefighting to mining, people risk their personal safety and face harm every day, but we consider it a reasonable risk for individuals to take, as long as they are making the choice to undertake those tasks of their own volition.

In this scenario my criticism is pointed at the workers… It’s pointed at the owners who are doing everything they can to take advantage of their labour.

If we say that women can’t properly differentiate between conditions where harm can exist in relationships at 19, then why should we ask anyone to undertake anything that could remotely be dangerous at 19?

Again my problem is with the those who benefit from destroying the guardrails and make these task even more dangerous for personal gain.

In the US, and likely western hemisphere, evidence shows that the trend is for couples to be closer in age with every passing year. Age-gap relationships are more rare than ever. How is promoting these stories addressing a trend?

A bad thing is happening less, so we should be less critical of when it still happens?

What a gross mischaracterization. I have literally said multiple times across this thread, that the differentiation is the line in the sand at which we decide, as a society, who qualifies as an adult, capable of making their own choices within the context of consent.

That’s what I meant when characterized your statements…

Yes, rape and abuse are brutal crimes that deserve sever punishment. I think it’s morally worse for a 12 year old to be raped than a 15 year old, and likewise for an 18 year old. Just like it’s worse to abuse a child than it is to abuse an adult in any manner.

And those actions should be criticized whether they are children or adults… Now should the consensual actions between adults that took place before the actual legal abuse took place be criticized as well?

Maybe a rich and powerful man building relationships with young women that may lead to abuse should be scrutinized before the abuse happens?

If you actually care about discussing this issue, then what are your moral standings on the issue? It’s easy to sit there and spout off “old man bad” with no follow-through on specifics, or what that line in the sand of becoming ‘bad’ constitutes.

I think you are purposely being obtuse if you haven’t been able to figure any of this out. Characterizing my many and often stated claims as “old man bad” reeks of a bad faith and hypocritical argument.

My moral standing on the issue is that anyone who takes advantage and further empowers a patriatical system that was put in place to reinforce a system where women and other marginalized people are victimized by those the system rewards are bad and should be criticized.

Is it possible for relationships where two people of different intelligence are involved to be consensual? How can you be sure that won’t lead to manipulation? Can a relationship that’s more than 1 year difference be consensual? 5 years? 10, 15, 20? What’s the cut off and what is your rationale for there being a specific cutoff? OR, why shouldn’t there be a cutoff and what specific mechanisms should be employed to ensure consensual relationships free of manipulation are realized?

You don’t need to have an absolute and unimpeachable critical theory to make a declarative commendation over a type of relationship.

For example… Slavery.

There were slaves who were family members of their masters. Some of those slaves loved their masters and were loved by their masters. Some slaves wanted to return to work for their former master after emancipation. Some slaves had opportunities to flee and did so, utilizing what agency they possessed. Some slaves had opportunities to flee and chose not to out of fear of reprisals. All of these decisions involved varying levels of consent and cohesion. Does that mean I cannot declare slavery as a whole to be bad, because a minority of slaves experience happiness as slaves?

Can you see how ridiculous asking someone to exactly delineate the ethical and moral position for every instance within a relationship hierarchy that they believe to be harmful as a general concept?

source
- Damionsipher@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Your entire thesis can be summarized as “Destroy the patriarchy.” You offer no means to do so, beyond, being critical where any shred of evidence of patriarchy exists. You state no objective outcomes, or means to achieve them. You state that “I’m saying it (the legal system) does not, and is in fact incapable of doing so. The legal system itself is immoral in large aspects of its function.” - which results in application to the lens of slavery means (using your logic) that making slavery illegal is a useless function, as moral authority is seemingly only a function of hegemony, of which (somehow) governing institutions have not impact. That you think the justice system is not inherently rooted in systems of morality is moronic, at best, and much more likely utterly disingenuous rhetoric you’re simply employing to win a debate. You’re not earnest in your engagement, nor are you actually interested in discussing core complications with relationships, how to dismantle the patriarchy, or how to decrease actual rates of abuse. You sound like a yankee who is disillusioned by the world and possibilities that governance structures can actually be a force of good in the world. Goodbye.
  
  source
  - TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    Your entire thesis can be summarized as “Destroy the patriarchy.” You offer no means to do so, beyond, being critical where any shred of evidence of patriarchy exists.
    
    Again, this would be obvious for anyone who actually studied feminism with a leftist perspective. Feminism is a cornerstone of any modern socialist political ideology. By providing equity and equality to the most marginalized groups in any hierarchical structure, you extend an umbrella of social justice to those higher in the hierarchical structure.
    
    You state that “I’m saying it (the legal system) does not, and is in fact incapable of doing so. The legal system itself is immoral in large aspects of its function.” - which results in application to the lens of slavery means (using your logic) that making slavery illegal is a useless function, as moral authority is seemingly only a function of hegemony, of which (somehow) governing institutions have not impact.
    
    Lol, “which results in application to the lens of slavery means (using your logic) that making slavery illegal is a useless function”.
    
    Since slavery was completely legal during large swaths of our history …one would think it would lead you to believe that the legality of a practice isn’t really related to the morality of the practice.
    
    That you think the justice system is not inherently rooted in systems of morality is moronic, at best, and much more likely utterly disingenuous rhetoric you’re simply employing to win a debate.
    
    It absolutely is not rooted in systems of morality, it’s rooted in systems of governance, property, and the maintenance of hierarchical control.
    
    That’s why slavery was legal, it’s why the war on drugs is still ongoing, it’s why people are being kidnapped by ICE. Why do you think it’s so hard to put someone like Epstein in jail? The law is used to maintain order, not provide justice. The fact that you believe otherwise just speaks to your naivety and lack of historical context.
    
    You’re not earnest in your engagement, nor are you actually interested in discussing core complications with relationships, how to dismantle the patriarchy, or how to decrease actual rates of abuse. You sound like a yankee who is disillusioned by the world and possibilities that governance structures can actually be a force of good in the world. Goodbye.
    
    You are just to ignorant to actually understand anything were talking about. Have a good one, go read a book or two.
    
    source
    Damionsipher@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    You apparently don’t even understand the difference between morality and ethics. Slavery was moral within systems that allowed/perpetuated it. Slavery was a regulated practice under christian states, for instance, where treatment of slaves was dictated by moral decrees of the church. The ETHICS of slavery has not changed, but humanity’s MORAL understanding of it has. Just as the MORALs of capitalist societies favour rich people and provide a different justice system for them, or the morality of patriarchal societies favour men. The ETHICS of justice are very different than the MORALs of justice. The ETHICS of humanist discourses (through the enlightenment era) were why feminism and anti-slavery/social rights movements were able to flourish in the first place, despite the overwhelming MORAL systems that defined the oppression of the eras that came before (and continue to persist). Ethics are dependent on philosophy, which can, and does, have roots in human moral understandings of the world, and not all ethical models agree on the scope of ethics, but ethical models are based on logic, not feeling (as much as human cognition allows, anyways). The implementation of emergent ethics and morality into justice system apparatus’ is the process through which societies regulate what they consider as morally good. Women’s suffrage, for instance, was a battle that was fought using ETHICAL arguments to recognize women as human to overcome their place within a system of MORALITY that denied women that standing. Just as the MORALITY of spousal rape, or even rape more broadly, has been integrated into the justice system as MORAL wrong because of pressure from feminist scholars, who broadly have used ETHICAL arguments to see such change occur. That you don’t understand that considering a hierarchy, a governmental system, property rights, etc., as “good” or “bad” is inherently a moral consideration is all the evidence anyone should need to see that you don’t have an even basic grasp on theories of ethics or morality. You don’t know what any of these terms mean and sound like you watched a video, or listen to the occasional feminist podcast as your entire intelectual education. I thought you were being disingenuous, but it turns out you’re just dumb.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments