the beginning part of the comment is already iffy/barely fine but this paragraph…
…comes with the implication it’s less bad to rape them at 18
no it doesn’t imply that. that’s such a weird leap; it’s a really blatant misrepresentation of what’s actually going on, holy shit. it comes from this habit of centering the aggressor’s identity or “how bad they are” instead of looking at what consent law is actually designed to do.
please do some research on the basic principles behind statutory law and child psychology. statutory age doesn’t exist to rate rapists on some “less bad vs more bad” scale; it exists to protect vulnerable young people.
it’s not “who’s worse,” it’s “does this person need automatic protection?” and the age of consent (depending on your state) is the line where society says that the answer to “does this person need protection” is always yes; not because the victim below that age “counts more,” but because anyone that young can’t legally consent, period.
as an example, if your local age of consent is 18, it doesn’t imply it’s “less bad” for someone 18 to be assaulted. both cases involve victims who deserve care and safety; the difference is that the law gives full, immediate, unequivocal protection to anyone 17 or under based on what we know about human development.
i genuinely hope this is helpful, because this pattern of defining consent law around the aggressor’s identity rather than the safety and protection of the victims is exactly where these misunderstandings come from.
I don’t think I understand what you mean. Legal age of consent and the definition of pedophilia aren’t related. If the age of consent were 9, it would still be a disorder to experience primary attraction to people that young. Similarly, if the age were 25, it would not be pedophilia experience primary attraction to 19-year-old people.
You really don’t think the Republicans defending him from the label of pedophile aren’t motivated by the thinking that raping small children is worse than raping teenagers? People often seem downright enthusiastic about the idea of child abusers being raped and beaten by other violent criminals in prison, who seem to be considered the good guys by comparison.
exactly. “definition of pedophelia” isn’t related to the age of consent at all. the identity of the aggressor doesn’t matter when the victim 100% needs protection in all cases.
people who defend sexual abusers use whatever arguments get them their way. republicans also use whatever response gets them power. and my response is to call them violent and abusive for drawing a line in a space where we know that consent isn’t even an option.
once again, try centering the victims of sexual violence rather than Epstein et al or their primary attractions. primary sexual attraction is not my primary concern; first and foremost i care about preventing the perpetuation of mass sexual violence.
the beginning part of the comment is already iffy/barely fine but this paragraph…
no it doesn’t imply that. that’s such a weird leap; it’s a really blatant misrepresentation of what’s actually going on, holy shit. it comes from this habit of centering the aggressor’s identity or “how bad they are” instead of looking at what consent law is actually designed to do.
please do some research on the basic principles behind statutory law and child psychology. statutory age doesn’t exist to rate rapists on some “less bad vs more bad” scale; it exists to protect vulnerable young people.
it’s not “who’s worse,” it’s “does this person need automatic protection?” and the age of consent (depending on your state) is the line where society says that the answer to “does this person need protection” is always yes; not because the victim below that age “counts more,” but because anyone that young can’t legally consent, period.
as an example, if your local age of consent is 18, it doesn’t imply it’s “less bad” for someone 18 to be assaulted. both cases involve victims who deserve care and safety; the difference is that the law gives full, immediate, unequivocal protection to anyone 17 or under based on what we know about human development.
i genuinely hope this is helpful, because this pattern of defining consent law around the aggressor’s identity rather than the safety and protection of the victims is exactly where these misunderstandings come from.
I don’t think I understand what you mean. Legal age of consent and the definition of pedophilia aren’t related. If the age of consent were 9, it would still be a disorder to experience primary attraction to people that young. Similarly, if the age were 25, it would not be pedophilia experience primary attraction to 19-year-old people.
You really don’t think the Republicans defending him from the label of pedophile aren’t motivated by the thinking that raping small children is worse than raping teenagers? People often seem downright enthusiastic about the idea of child abusers being raped and beaten by other violent criminals in prison, who seem to be considered the good guys by comparison.
exactly. “definition of pedophelia” isn’t related to the age of consent at all. the identity of the aggressor doesn’t matter when the victim 100% needs protection in all cases.
people who defend sexual abusers use whatever arguments get them their way. republicans also use whatever response gets them power. and my response is to call them violent and abusive for drawing a line in a space where we know that consent isn’t even an option.
once again, try centering the victims of sexual violence rather than Epstein et al or their primary attractions. primary sexual attraction is not my primary concern; first and foremost i care about preventing the perpetuation of mass sexual violence.