Why does everyone keep bring up my kid dating? In my day you could date kids and no one would bat an eye. Now the woke mob says it’s bad. Go woke go broke
Can’t expect him to think it’s wrong when I’m his world it isn’t. Even lovable celebrities like Guillermo del Toro signed petitions to pardon Polanski. All the rockstars of the 70s fucked kids. Savile got away with it because everyone who knew let him. The ex and likely next president is a rapist who wants to fuck his own daughter and people are defending him for it.
So extra money leads to kid touching? Seems like it. Pre subway jarred= no kids Subway money jarred= Arrested for fucking kids.
Guess money makes you stop giving a fuck about consequences since there are rarely any
Money also makes them stop giving a fuck about anyone except themselves. Selfishness and greed become their only motivations.
I’m gonna go with like an alternative viewpoint here and say that, rather than it being kind of like, a inevitability of human behavior once you reach a certain point of like, not giving a shit about consequences, or like, having enough power, you just lose touch with reality and become a pedo like, automatically (which is kind of a weird self-report). I’m gonna say that instead, it’s probably because of that kind of mentality. Because it’s seen as a sort of inevitable thing, once you reach a high enough status. Because of the mentality of like, women at younger and younger ages being seen as more desirable sexually, because of like this weird collective cultural fetish around female innocence and beauty, and even naivety, to some degree. You ever notice that weird like, “born yesterday” movie trope, where some chick has like, amnesia, or is a robot, or whatever, and so is a kid, but is also supposed to be like, smokin’? Like the fifth element. That movie’s still pretty good, but that shit’s weird af as a trope, probably evidence of cultural baggage, it’s like the western version of the thousand year old loli.
Probably all wrapped up in like some old timey patriarchy shit I need to read up on. Maybe due to the prevalence of child brides in sort of like, societies in which inheritance is a thing? Like, patrilineal societies, maybe, where marriage asap at the capacity of childbirth is seen as a thing which sort of, preserves patrilineal inheritance. Then something to do with like, the western nuclear family’s imposition on history, to sort of, retroactively frame history along the lines that it provides, while also unconsciously adopting, nonsensically, some of the same historical, cultural narratives that were propagated around patrilineal inheritance in order to attempt to justify it.
There’s some through-line there, probably. Something along those lines.
I think it’s pretty inarguable that sexual attraction in some way is affected by the standards of the society in which you’re raised on a pretty fundamental level, so, probably it’s due to like an extremely depressing and fucked up societal standard, I would think, more than just like. Ahh, they’re rich, so, the pedo switch flipped in their head. Like, once they realized they could, they just did, kinda thing, and then it all ends there and nobody asks any questions as to why that switch was there in the first place.
I think it’s more that not giving a fuck about hurting someone makes you more likely to become rich, and being rich makes it easier to get away with things.
I feel increased money brings out the real you.
increased money and power correlate negatively with the portion of your brain responsible for empathizing with others. The more money/power you have, the smaller that portion of your brain is. Here’s a landmark study that’s since been cited over 200 times
Good. It’s what he deserves. I was 9 or 10 when that happened and I remember thinking it was so gross and being confused why people were just like…cool with it? I’m glad people are calling him out now - better late than never, I guess.
Boomers have a much higher tolerance of SA and grooming. Look at how it’s just accepted that Rock Stars could have underaged… pursuits.
I know this won’t be popular, but it’s for a few reasons:
- It wasn’t and isn’t illegal.
- Most people would look at her and see a hot woman and understand it.
- This whole puritanical BS that if you are over 18 and find someone under 18 attractive, that makes you a pedophile, is a modern a theme. Back then people were free to admit that they found young women attractive without being labelled by so many to have a mental disorder.
I speak strongly about this because I think we are doing great damage to mental health to repeatedly claim it’s a mental disorder to have a completely normal and common biological attraction.
But don’t get me wrong, I 100% support protecting minors from predators. I agree these laws should exist, I just wish people would stop pretending that there is something wrong with the attraction itself.
I don’t really have an issue with a 16 year old dating an 18 year old. They’re close enough that the age thing wouldn’t be an issue, but 17 and 38 is a bit different.
I also don’t really have an issue with adults being attracted to… people below the legal limit so long as they don’t act on it. It’s very difficult to have this discussion when most people can’t grasp that desires don’t always lead to actions and have problems separating fiction from reality. There are people with rape fetishes that find healthy, consensual ways to simulate the act, something that the mainstream can’t really cope with.
But that’s not really the discussion we’re having. Jerry Seinfeld had a teenaged girlfriend when he was 38. Celebrities using their positions of power isn’t acceptable.
You’re telling on yourself quite a bit here. Your mental health doesn’t have to suffer if you find a “biologically mature” woman attractive but after a certain age if you’re seeing a “hot woman” and not “a young girl” there definitely is some deviation from the norm.
We’re talking about sexual attraction to children that don’t know how to file their taxes and are just learning what it means to be an adult. If your sexual attraction to someone is purely physical and not affected by your rational mind telling you that they’re a kid then there really is a bit of a disconnect there.
Maybe you’re closer in age to them than I am, there’s certainly a range of “adult ages” where people are still developing mentally, but when you’re old enough that you’re finding a woman SEXUALLY attractive who is the age of your daughter or your friends’ daughters that’s a red flag and worth some introspection.
You’re telling on yourself quite a bit here.
I’m perfectly comfortable with who I am attracted to. Don’t worry about my mental health. There is no telling on myself, I’m 100% open about it.
I just recognize that this is the same BS trauma that we’ve been inflicting on gay people by telling them that their perfectly normal and natural attraction is some kind of mental issue. Just like how I see through when someone claims gay people have a mental problem, I see through the implications that men being attracted to young women is indicative of some kind of mental issue.
but after a certain age if you’re seeing a “hot woman” and not “a young girl” there definitely is some deviation from the norm.
We are talking about a young woman in her prime reproductive years. Objectively speaking, evolutionarily, it would make sense that men are attracted to this. In fact, I would argue that if you don’t find them physically attractive, you are the one deviating from the norm. Now to be clear, don’t confuse what I’m saying with emotional and intellectual attractiveness.
We’re talking about sexual attraction to children
No we’re not, we’re talking about being attracted to women in their prime reproductive years. They are young and likely immature and we should have laws that protect them, but let’s not conflate that with the physical attraction being a mental illness.
I’m probably as old or older than you. I’ve talked to people in their 40s who I find completely emotionally immature and intellectually unattractive, and I’ve talked to teenagers whom I’ve found to be mature and the conversation to be intellectually stimulating. Although the latter is few and far between, and getting further apart as I age.
Would I want to have a relationship with them? No. Would I want to have sex with them? Sure.
YIKES DAWG
Can’t defend indefensible positions.
Is what you need to start telling yourself.
prime reproductive years
girls enter puberty so much earlier than boys, their capable of reproduction anywhere from 10-12. When you talk about “prime reproductive years,” know that it includes girls as young as 10. So… stop using that term. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and inferring that you actually mean girls that are on the very cusp of womanhood, like, ages 17-19, but others may not.
Women are hot, girls are not. Some girls can appear to be older than they are, and it’s confusing when confronted with a genuinely attractive woman that is not yet 18, because we’re caught between the confusing notions of “I am attracted to this person” and “this person is not yet old enough to to be engaged with in a socially conscious manner.” It’s not wrong to find the person attractive, it IS wrong to engage with them in a manner reserved for those that are fully realized adults. For my purposes, I’m putting adulthood at around age 22-25, when your brain is pretty much fully developed.
So with that being said, No, Jerry Seinfeld didn’t do a bad thing by thinking a 17 year old girl attractive, he DID do a bad thing by engaging with her as if she was a fully formed adult.
When you talk about “prime reproductive years,” know that it includes girls as young as 10.
Prime reproductive years for women is generally late teens to late 20s. I’ll keep using the term because I’m using it accurately, and it’s exactly the whole point: biologically speaking why would it be surprising that some men would find a women who is prime for reproduction attractive? It just makes perfect sense.
it’s confusing when confronted with a genuinely attractive woman that is not yet 18,
It’s only confusing to you because you’ve bought into the puritanical notion that there is something wrong with being attracted to young women; there’s really nothing confusing about it: it’s reasonable to find them physically attractive, but almost certainly inappropriate to engage in a relationship with them. This is the misconception I’m trying to dispell here.
I agree that at best he did a questionable thing. However I know nothing of her maturity at the time. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve met emotionally and intellectually immature 40 year olds (certainly plenty in their late 20s) and intellectually stimulating and mature 16 year olds. If it’s legal, and she was mature, why would it be wrong? And would it be wrong if I had sex with “a fully formed adult” when she is emotionally immature? I get we need a rule to catch the vast majority of the cases, but from a moral stand point I can’t say why it would be okay to have sex with an emotional immature adult, but not okay to have sex with an emotionally mature adult just because the latter is younger than the former.
Again, don’t get me wrong, the vast majority of the time there is some taking advantage going on, and there should be laws to stop it. I’m not arguing against this.
One of the leading causes of death for teen girls aged 15-19 is complications from childbirth. Also infants born to teen mothers have increased risk of death and poorer health outcomes. One of the most common issues is obstructed labor, since their pelvises are too small to accomdate a baby.
Recent research has also found teen pregnancy is linked to premature death later in life.
The science doesn’t agree that teen girls are in their prime reproductive years. I wish this idea would fade into the history books and live alongside the idea that women shouldnt ride trains because their uteruses would fly out.
Some links below for your convenience.
https://www.nicswell.co.uk/health-news/teenage-pregnancy-death-concern
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/health/teen-pregnancy-early-death.html
Yep. Picking the bear.
Imagine responding to an actual thought out, reasoned argument with some braindead thought terminating snark. Saves the effort of trying to actually engage in conversation or uncomfortable thoughts I guess but that’s about it.
Still picking the bear. Your reply, and all the other salty misogynist replies are exactly why.
Ok, have fun I guess? Congratulations? Not sure what response you expect.
I didn’t ask
Hell, they wrote songs about it. “Jailbait” by Ted Nugent, “Seventeen” by Winger… I’m sure there are more.
You mean the Ted Nugent that had a 13yr old girl living in his house while writing jailbait?
Bro he’s a pedophile, pointing to a pedophile and going look there it’s normal is fucking crazy.
This was one of those that made me realize that celebrities are a whole other breed. Hollywood is full of this shit, even worse in the 70s and 80s. Hell, David Bowie and Mick Jagger were fucking 14 year olds and people still worship them.
Kendrick called out Drake recently by rapping that he has a nymph fetish. Never knew there was another name besides ephebophile/pedophile, but yeah wtf… Is it being stuck mentally at an age they didn’t grow from sexually or something?
The line from Kendrick’s Meet the Grahams is actually
He hates Black women, hypersexualizes ’em with kinks of a nympho fetish
This part isn’t about children, it’s generally believed to be about Drakes alleged assault on Laquana Morris.
The former stripper and Instagram model alleged: “Drake forced me to perform oral on him. It wasn’t your ordinary oral it was more so a fetish.” She then describes how he told her to spit into a cup “until he had measured it."
Ah damn lmao, I totally misheard it as nymph fetish, shoot! Thought it was a reference to him getting close to 14 year old Millie Bobbie Brown 😅
He did also call him a pedo multiple times
Certified too!
Is Bowie and Jagger riding 14 year olds a rumour, in a book, or in a court case?
Lori Maddox says that she lost her virginity to Bowie when she was 15, but she has also said she was in a relationship with Jimmy Page starting when she was 13/14, and that she lost her virginity to Page, which if true would mean she didn’t lose her virginity to Bowie.
Then you have to look at her changing story about the Bowie incident. She’s said it happened in 1972, but then she also has said he propositioned her in 1972, but they didn’t have sex until 1973, when she said she had dinner with Bowie and they were joined by John Lennon and Yoko Ono, but Bowie didn’t meet John Lennon until 1974. Then she said they went back to his suite at the Hilton and had sex, but Bowie was staying at the Hyatt during his 1973 tour.
Another version she’s told is that she and Sable Starr went to the Beverly Hilton and found out what room Bowie was in and snuck in. There they convinced a tired Bowie to have sex with Maddox for 3-4 hours, then had a threesome with Maddox and Sable, who then snuck out. But in another telling of the story she has said that Bowie’s wife Angie walked in on them the next morning.
She also has issues with her story about sleeping with Mick Jagger, where she claims to have attended a 1975 recording session with John, Paul, Ringo, and Mick Jagger, and then had sex with Jagger immediately afterwards. The main issue is that the only Lennon McCartney jam session after the Beatles broke up happened in 1974, and Mick Jagger wasn’t at it.
None of this is to say she didn’t lose her virginity to Bowie when she was 14-15, but there are lots of photos of her and Jimmy Page from 1972-75 but none with her and Bowie.
It was a long time ago, and memory is unreliable, which could explain the inconsistencies in her different telling of the events, and I would not be surprised in both Bowie and Jagger had sex with underage people, but Lori Maddox’s stories aren’t the best evidence to hang them with.
That pic of him pinching her nose is especially revolting.
Dare I ask why
To me, it emphasizes the fact that she’s a schoolkid, and it’s like he’s playing “got your nose”. If they were both adults, it would be a cute, silly moment, but…
Underage of what? Consent age in NY is 17
Technically correct. I fixed the wording.
So they were both of the age of consent, and even her family approved of their relationship, but somehow it’s still revolting?
A 38 year old dating a high schooler? Yeah, I think that’s gross. I don’t care who approved of it. By the same token. nobody needs to agree with me, either.
as long as you’re not trying to convince others to feel a specific way about it, kudos for being tolerant of people having different opinions.
Not that my opinion is worth anything either :)
It’s always amused me as a Jewish person that Jerry Seinfeld is so Jewish that he’s even only pedophilic with Jewish girls.
So we’re being prejudiced against two consenting adults now? Would love to see how you respond to this person:
She wasn’t an adult when he started the relationship.
FWIW The age of consent in NY is 17.
I can’t remember the last time having to cite the age of consent ever made a situation better.
There are sources refuting that claim, but I have other issues with your viewpoints on this anyways.
Which are what? That his need to only date Jewish women even when only they’re 17 is not amusing? Are you Jewish? Because if you aren’t, maybe you wouldn’t understand why that’s funny.
For one I think many of your takes are just subjective opinions that others often disagree with, but they seem to be said as if they are somehow concrete facts that others can’t or shouldn’t disagree with, but not everything is always so black and white. And I feel like a lot of your responses are strawman arguments and just unnecessarily negative and condescending. It makes this not a fun place to be IMO.
No one is forcing you to talk to me. You are free to block me. It sounds like you should.
And yes, I believe my opinions to be based in fact. Are yours based on faith?
Are yours based on faith?
See this is exactly what I’m talking about, the deflection and ad hominem. We should attack the position, not the person.
I believe my opinions to be based in fact
It’s one thing to believe it, but it’s another to provide credible sources when trying to speak authoritatively. The burden of proof is always on the person making the empirically unfalsifiable claims. I feel like you generally don’t do that.
You are free to block me
Yes, but you are also an omnipresent moderator of several communities and that can make things difficult. I would prefer mods to set a better example. You may not agree with me, but that continues to be my wish.
