-5 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
reply
-1 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Dude I think the proper nomenclature is “unalive”

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Tl;Dr: This pedo thinks kids can consent to have sex with him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Oh, you misunderstand.

By expressing an understanding of the legalities of it, and speaking from a neutral viewpoint, plus some deficiency in reading comprehension (you clearly didn’t read the whole post), you seem to have assumed that my statements meant I agreed with any of the laws I was discussing.

I don’t.

Let me put it simply (and I said this in my previous post, more or less): no adult person should be seeking this kind of “deal” or “relationship” with someone who is under the age of consent.

I recognise that with parental permission you can attain concent to (at the very least) marry an underage person. I don’t agree that people this young should be allowed to be married or perform sexual acts even with the consent of the parents. The law disagrees.

I don’t like it, and I don’t have to.

My post was largely a commentary on how fucked up the legal system is for allowing this.

You want change? Pass new laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

The fact is, the proposed agreement in this hypothetical is a private contract which, for the most part, is fine and acceptable under common law pretty much everywhere.

Uh. No. That’s not correct. That’s not even remotely correct.

You can’t have a private contract for an act that is illegal. This isn’t a contract for marriage. This is a contract for sex. Moreover, it’s a contract for sex with a person that can not legally consent to sex.

WTF is wrong with you?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

The legality of paying for intimate acts varies wildly from country to country and even in the USA, from state to state.

I make no judgement about what is considered legal or not in any given area.

I’m mostly thinking about the common law of marrying off young persons. In many places the lower limit on how old you must be to marry, is shocking. Marrying a 14 year old isn’t unheard of, even in developed countries. I just don’t draw a significant distinction between being married at such a young age, and being paid for intercourse at the same age. Marriage at that age may be arguably more “legal” depending on the jurisdiction, but in my mind, you’re not marrying a 14 year old for their hobbies, or personality. The only reason, again, that I can think of, where someone would propose to be married to someone so young, is if the person proposing the marriage is a similar age, or if they want to have sexual relations with someone who is that young.

So for me the line is blurred and I often conflate the point in my mind.

More to the point, statutory rape generally requires that the parents are opposed to the sexual acts. Otherwise, charges are generally not pressed against the offender. Again, this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To that end, if you have the written consent of the parents to engage in sexual acts with someone who is below the age where they can legally make such decisions, then it might be legal, again, depending on the jurisdiction.

This is entirely, and completely commentary from a neutral standpoint. Personally, I think anyone who would seek such an arrangement needs to see a therapist, or be locked up. Morally, I don’t agree with it, but often, the law does not conform to my sense of morality.

I’m just saying, I understand that some places allow for these kinds of contracts to exist. I’m not saying I agree with it at all, because I don’t. I can’t imagine any situation where a father, or mother, would willingly subject their child to that situation, unless they were truly and utterly desperate… But the matter of their desperation for money to survive, is an entirely different discussion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The legality of paying for intimate acts varies wildly from country to country and even in the USA, from state to state.

It is 100% illegal in ever single state in the US to pay for sex with someone that is below not only the age of majority, but also the age of consent. The minimum age of consent in the US is 14.

More to the point, statutory rape generally requires that the parents are opposed to the sexual acts.

1000% false, in every single case. It may be more difficult to prosecute without parental involvement, but it is not required. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime; no mens rea is required. And bluntly, any prosecutor that failed to deal with an underage prostitution case would lose their job in the next election; “soft on child sex crimes” isn’t a winning platform.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You also can’t legally enter a contract of any kind at that age.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

This isn’t completely true, children actually can be married at that age including to adults in some states. There’s also no such thing as statutory rape between spouses in this circumstance. The kid’s spouse also usually become their guardian, so they cannot get divorced without the adult spouse’s permission in many places.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

This isn’t strictly true, in some states you can marry kids. And they make an exception for statutory rape if it occurs between spouses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

IMO, legally, I don’t care. If someone wants to put themselves into this situation, then fine. It doesn’t really affect me.

Why… would it affect you. What on earth are you talking about?

You know, one guy murdering another guy over a pack of raisins doesn’t affect you, but I have no earthly idea why this should stop you from caring it happened.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

For me it’s about freedom.

Freedom has limits that most don’t really talk about. To me, the limits of freedom exist where your freedom and the freedom of others intersect. If your freedom is impacting the ability for someone else to enjoy their freedoms, then it needs to be a matter settled by law.

Murdering someone kinda removes that person’s ability to exercise their freedoms.

Someone getting freaky behind closed doors, doesn’t affect anyone else’s freedoms.

Both individuals engaged in that act should be free to consent to the act, and revoke that consent at any time.

I’ll reiterate, this assumes informed consent, not implied or assumed consent. Again, reiterating: children that have no understanding of sexual acts, or what they entail, cannot provide informed consent because they do not understand what they are consenting to, or what the ramifications are of that consent.

Does that clear things up a bit?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Both individuals engaged in that act should be free to consent to the act, and revoke that consent at any time.

A 14 year old.

Again, reiterating: children that have no understanding of sexual acts, or what they entail, […]

I like how you keep putting up these disclaimers like they’re supposed to absolve you of being a weirdo, but you keep building in these little exceptions for “very mature” children.

Mystik, how much the child knows about sex does not matter. That’s not why it’s illegal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The fact is, the proposed agreement in this hypothetical is a private contract which, for the most part, is fine and acceptable under common law pretty much everywhere.

“Pretty much everywhere”?

Dude do you even know what “common law” means? There’s basically one in Europe, the UK.

Secondly, you can’t make contracts to void laws/avoid regulations set by laws. You can’t make a private contract that someone agrees to work for you for less than the federal mandated minimum wage.

You can’t make a contract saying you’re selling someone to be a slave, as slavery is illegal in the US (unless you’re put in prison, US industry strongly relies on prison slave labour).

You can’t make a contract saying you allow someone to murder you. That person would still be trialed as a murderer.

IMO, legally, I don’t care. If someone wants to put themselves into this situation, then fine. It doesn’t really affect me.

I think it does, however indirectly. When the rich start getting more relaxed about buying people and treating them more as product than people… it will affect us all.

You could get people to do absolutely inhumane shit if you took 10 million to a very poor country and just started egging people on. People would literally kill for just hundreds of dollars. With 10 million you could make some sort of mad max murderdome type of setup. Just have “private contracts” with everyone, and it’s okay, right? No need to consider the morality in the slightest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

do you even know what “common law” means?

Yes. But apparently you don’t.

Yes, the UK uses common law. Also, so do many current or former “Commonwealth”, including, but not limited to, the USA.

Common law is why overturning Roe v. Wade made abortion bans possible. Roe v. Wade was the common law precedent that allowed for women to have the right to an abortion.

And no, contacts cannot overrule the law, whether from a law passed by the governing body, or by common law. This is why i essentially said, if you don’t like it/agree with it, change the laws.

Make it illegal. Change the law to make it illegal.

Then, regardless of the contract, it is a crime.

As for the rich and any affect this might have on me… The rich do this shit, not to dehumanize us “Poor’s”, but because they’ve already dehumanized us. I don’t think this is a cause, this is an effect.

But I’ll give you an upvote for sharing your opinion. I’ll fight anyone who tries to take your opinion away from you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Oh you went from “pretty much everywhere” to “well, uh, many commonwealth countries”.

You sure you didn’t have to go check what it meant, and then you were shocked at how many of what we’d consider “developed countries” actually do not use common law?

In the EU, only Ireland still has common law.

All others use civil law. And I’m sure you didn’t know that. :)

And precedent is present in civil law systems as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

The female ratio between yes and no is concerning

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Don’t be so willing to assume men didn’t click “yes, woman”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Don’t be so willing to assume there were no women that clicked that too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

There’s one born every minute as they say. Still, good faith polling on Twitter? No bet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’m wondering how many of those responders might be teenage women thinking about the lure of having ten million dollars with an older hottie.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I wouldn’t have. And if you look at child stars like Amamda Bynes, who essentially made that deal, it’s not worth it. They are severely fucked up for life. What a weird, cavalier approach to the effects of sexual assault on children.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

The way I read this, the guy has vanishingly few women who bother to follow and respond to him. I’m willing to bet at least half of the people who selected “Female, Yes/No” were dudes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Those could also be 14 year olds that think “I want that money” and have no clue about what to expect. I’ve seen some with an “I don’t really care what’s happening to me” attitude. Maybe they flock to guys like him on twitter?

Or the other commenters are right and those are males. Depending on the numbers that might be more likely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Looks like a twitter poll. I wouldn’t be super surprised if some of those ‘yes’ answers are from an “as a totally real fe-male person” folks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

don’t forget pick-mes. it’s twitter; the pick-me ratio is probably 12x as high as it is outside.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

It’s called Pedophilia, he’s a pedophile or in the making.

permalink
report
reply
-7 points

It’s actually called hebephilia when it’s about the sexual attraction to pubescent children between 11 and 16

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Would your answer change if she was actually 18? It still seems crazy manipulative. In some countries, the age of consent is 16. Would this be okay if she’s 16 in one of those countries? (Let’s ignore countries below that age)

I struggle between two ideas: One, where I believe that at the age of majority, a person should get full rights (voting, emancipation, legal, consent, medical, etc.) and it seems wrong to let people vote but not make choices about their body (like drinking alcohol). And two, protecting the young from themselves, like by restricting labor, or setting smoking and drinking ages higher than a majority age, because those damage still-developing brains way more.

We can fight about what the age of majority should be (16, 17, 18, 21?). I would definitely be okay if this tweet was about a 30-year-old, but I’m not okay with it being a 10-year-old. But whether it’s 16 or 18 or 22 where it crosses the line is tough for me.

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*

Regardless, the moral fact is that any man (or parent) willing to participate in this exchange of services should immediately become an organ donor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

I think these types of moral questions aren’t actually that useful, because the actual problem at the heart of it (and at most things) is the difference in power.

Instead of asking “what age should temporary prostitution be legal,” maybe we should ask "why have we concentrated so much excess power in the hands of this one guy who can drop a life changing payment for a one time service and still have plenty left over? Does it really make sense to try to come up with an arbitrary age that we’ve decided you’re immune to coersion?

This entire moral quandary doesn’t really exist in the (admittedly idealistic) world where power isn’t so unequally distributed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If you want to get a better sense of what is reasonable, listen to high school kids talk to each other at the coffee shop, or whatever, and ask yourself if they can reasonably and reliably make informed decisions with long term consequences like this issue would require. (Prediction: It is highly unlikely you will feel that they can.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

For ten million I would let bezos fondle the beans for 30 seconds. Best I can do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Ill do 45 seconds for 11 million, while telling him he’s a great businessman and a strong leader.

They pay for the fantasy after all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Ok 15 million and .05% of Amazon, one full minute, I’ll tell him he’s the straightest eyed cowboy this side of the mighty mississip.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

I stopped asking “let’s say” and “hypotheticaly” questions. I’m so fucking done with that bullshit.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

That’s…not good

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Hypothetically, if a runaway tram were bearing down on five people tied to the tracks, but you could pull a lever and switch the tram to a track with only one person, would you pull the lever?

permalink
report
parent
reply

I only ask them in regards to fiction. Like, “what if wolverine had his bones covered in pudding instead of adamantium?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Does he still have bones? His claws were bones at one point in the movies, if they were covered they’d be round/thick. So hypothetically what if wolverines bones were pudding. Would he be ditto or a bucket of water

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

he would be very tasty

permalink
report
parent
reply

Political Memes

!politicalmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.1K

    Posts

  • 137K

    Comments