Fun fact: there’s no such thing as objective morality. Back in the 1920s people thought it was objectively terrible for Black people to have equal rights.
Comment on Was Elvis Presley a pedo?
actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
As disgusting as we see it now, keep in mind that, back then, child marriage was not only condoned but sometimes encouraged in those parts of the Southern U.S.
We’ll never know if he did it because he had a thing for young girls, or if he did it simply because it was an accepted practice.
Regardless of why, it’s objectively terrible that he did that.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
I can both agree with your statement AND assert with evidence that something is objectively bad. 🤣
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
It wasn’t seen as harmful back then.
actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
No, but it was harmful.
I’m talking about the objective harm of encouraging underage girls to avoid study and live their lives in the service of older men. There is nothing good that can be said about such a thing. It’s basically indentured servitude.
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Canada only changed the age of consent from 14 to 16 last decade.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Age of consent is not the same as age an adult is allowed to be with a minor. Minors should be allowed to consent to have sex, just not with much older people. Laws that prosecute, say, a 19 year old from having sex with a 17 years old, or god forbid two 14 years olds to have sex together, are absolutely draconian.
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Actually, that’s exactly what age of consent is. The age at which you’re allowed to do things with an adult of any age.
Romeo and Juliet (or close in age) exceptions are for the situation you’re describing, and are usually tacked onto age of consent laws as an exception.
In Canada, there’s a pair of these. At 14 and 15 it’s less than 5 years older, and at 12 and 13 it’s less than 2 years older.