What wild transformation does a human undergo on their 18th birthday that makes dating a 17yo as a 50yo man pedophilia, but dating a 18yo totally ok? Both ages are way too young for him.
For most of humanity “childhood” wasn’t even a concept in the way we think of it today. Our ability to give the people in society this gift of childhood is truly one of the greatest achievements of modernity. But it’s still a somewhat arbitrary line in the sand we drew, yes. I personally believe it is a reasonable one, designed conservative enough so that one can safely assume anyone on the other side of the line has had the chance to develop and grow free of unnecessary outside influence to rightly be deemed an adult after.
If society wants to redefine the terms of where that line is drawn, that is fine, as we as members of society can do so.
But for the time being we drew the line at 18. It seemed fucked as hell to say “this is the line, this is what’s appropriate” and then demonize a man for staying within those lines. It’s fucked to say “here’s the line” when you actually mean “actually the real line is way over there and by being this close you’ve actually broken the rules.”
Dude is staying inside the lines, and interacting with those we have deemed full legal adults imbued with the right and power of autonomy. To the best of my understanding there have been no claims of coercion, abuse, or anything of that nature. So I’m sorry, but trying to convince me that dude is doing something wrong by adhering to the rules as laid for him just isn’t going to vibe with me.
I’ve always been appalled by those who calibrate their morals based on the legal framework, rather than the other way around. Hopefully wherever you live doesn’t start allowing slavery, child marriage etc. Following the law was quite during the 40s too, ask Coco Channel. Who can blame her?
There is validity to this argument, certainly, but we are not talking about a social moral defined solely by legality, we are discussing a case where legality was defined within the confines of social expectation.
Legality is not inherently morality, but it can be an indicator of social morals.
There will be times when they are at odds, but I have yet to hear a compelling case in this situation.
So I ask, what social harm is being caused by defining adulthood at 18? And let’s be clear, I am looking for actual harm here, not potential for harm; going through a dangerous intersection is not the same thing as experiencing a car accident.
No, it doesn’t. I address this with “I personally believe it is a reasonable one, designed conservative enough so that one can safely assume anyone on the other side of the line has had the chance to develop and grow free of unnecessary outside influence to rightly be deemed an adult after,” where I clearly state that I think 18 is a reasonable age. You’re welcome to disagree with and argue with my points but I am not going to allow you to insult my character for the sake of attempting to win your argument.
I will also be blocking you for this, because I have zero interest in engaging in a bad faith argument.
It is legal for insurance companies to deny claims. So I guess we shouldn’t be mad at the CEO of UnitedHealth because he stayed within the lines that were drawn by our society. Luigi was evil for killing a man that hasn’t done anything wrong.
Legality does not equal morality. Legal or not, he is a creep.
The frontal cortex matures from roughly 14 to the early 20s, characteristic of that age is to be both impulsive and confused, while the cortex is already fully functional you’re still figuring out what to actually use it for.
That is: In the early 20s you become fully adult. Not in the legal sense (that’s usually 18), but biologically. You’re a grown-up. To argue that they can’t make their own decisions is highly infantilising.
So there you have a guy who’s a bit older, but very charming and generally fit, probably good in bed, a gentleman all around, he’s famous and you have a modelling career that could take a bit of a boost. You get along well with each other. You enjoy the interplay between a fresh outlook on life and some more settled experience, it’s invigorating both of you. Is there a transaction in that arrangement? Sure. But it’s one that 20yolds are adult enough to enter with full awareness of what they’re doing. Is it for you? Probably not, from what I gather. Is it your place to judge? Neither.
I wasn’t blaming the women though so what you’re saying here is irrelevant. Leo is using his status of fame and whealth to get very young women to date him, and replaces them with someone younger after a few years. Legal? Yes. Creepy? Also yes.
So you’re not blaming the women, you’re not saying that they don’t know what they’re getting into, either, everyone knows what Leo is up to, so you’re calling Leo creepy for – not questioning decisions the women make?
There’s also a weird characterisation of agency, here. You’re only characterising Leo as an active participant, not the women, you’re saying what Leo does is use things that he has, passively (fame, wealth), to actively “get” women. I’d be much more convinced if you said he’s a good flirt. Are women such passive creatures that when they see someone rich and famous, they just cannot help themselves but spread their legs? I find it hard to reconcile such a narrative with feminism, it’s absolutely regressive.
I’m calling him creepy for not questioning his own decisions. “Why am I dating someone who could be my daughter? Shouldn’t I be with someone my age?” Instead of “Oh you’re a model and just turned 18? That’s perfect!”
the thing is, you know he’d go younger if it was legalOk i was wrong, according to the famous reddit chart, he didn’t date anyone below 20 after 25 so he does seem to have a lower limit.
In my opinion though that lower limit should adapt to your age. Of course the specifics of that are highly debatable, but the idea is there.
Do you? Because that sounds like an assumption to me.
if he is 50 dating 20yo’s, why wouldn’t he? what’s the difference between 20yo and 17yo when you’re 50?
The difference between a grown adult without that much life experience and a literal child who is still going through puberty!
“grown adult” at 20? yeah sure
both ages are incredibly young for a 50yo grandpa
Adulthood is the difference.
What wild transformation does a human undergo on their 18th birthday that makes dating a 17yo as a 50yo man pedophilia, but dating a 18yo totally ok? Both ages are way too young for him.
Legality.
For most of humanity “childhood” wasn’t even a concept in the way we think of it today. Our ability to give the people in society this gift of childhood is truly one of the greatest achievements of modernity. But it’s still a somewhat arbitrary line in the sand we drew, yes. I personally believe it is a reasonable one, designed conservative enough so that one can safely assume anyone on the other side of the line has had the chance to develop and grow free of unnecessary outside influence to rightly be deemed an adult after.
If society wants to redefine the terms of where that line is drawn, that is fine, as we as members of society can do so.
But for the time being we drew the line at 18. It seemed fucked as hell to say “this is the line, this is what’s appropriate” and then demonize a man for staying within those lines. It’s fucked to say “here’s the line” when you actually mean “actually the real line is way over there and by being this close you’ve actually broken the rules.”
Dude is staying inside the lines, and interacting with those we have deemed full legal adults imbued with the right and power of autonomy. To the best of my understanding there have been no claims of coercion, abuse, or anything of that nature. So I’m sorry, but trying to convince me that dude is doing something wrong by adhering to the rules as laid for him just isn’t going to vibe with me.
I’ve always been appalled by those who calibrate their morals based on the legal framework, rather than the other way around. Hopefully wherever you live doesn’t start allowing slavery, child marriage etc. Following the law was quite during the 40s too, ask Coco Channel. Who can blame her?
There is validity to this argument, certainly, but we are not talking about a social moral defined solely by legality, we are discussing a case where legality was defined within the confines of social expectation.
Legality is not inherently morality, but it can be an indicator of social morals.
There will be times when they are at odds, but I have yet to hear a compelling case in this situation.
So I ask, what social harm is being caused by defining adulthood at 18? And let’s be clear, I am looking for actual harm here, not potential for harm; going through a dangerous intersection is not the same thing as experiencing a car accident.
deleted by creator
No, it doesn’t. I address this with “I personally believe it is a reasonable one, designed conservative enough so that one can safely assume anyone on the other side of the line has had the chance to develop and grow free of unnecessary outside influence to rightly be deemed an adult after,” where I clearly state that I think 18 is a reasonable age. You’re welcome to disagree with and argue with my points but I am not going to allow you to insult my character for the sake of attempting to win your argument.
I will also be blocking you for this, because I have zero interest in engaging in a bad faith argument.
It is legal for insurance companies to deny claims. So I guess we shouldn’t be mad at the CEO of UnitedHealth because he stayed within the lines that were drawn by our society. Luigi was evil for killing a man that hasn’t done anything wrong.
Legality does not equal morality. Legal or not, he is a creep.
deleted by creator
The frontal cortex matures from roughly 14 to the early 20s, characteristic of that age is to be both impulsive and confused, while the cortex is already fully functional you’re still figuring out what to actually use it for.
That is: In the early 20s you become fully adult. Not in the legal sense (that’s usually 18), but biologically. You’re a grown-up. To argue that they can’t make their own decisions is highly infantilising.
So there you have a guy who’s a bit older, but very charming and generally fit, probably good in bed, a gentleman all around, he’s famous and you have a modelling career that could take a bit of a boost. You get along well with each other. You enjoy the interplay between a fresh outlook on life and some more settled experience, it’s invigorating both of you. Is there a transaction in that arrangement? Sure. But it’s one that 20yolds are adult enough to enter with full awareness of what they’re doing. Is it for you? Probably not, from what I gather. Is it your place to judge? Neither.
how can you call 30 years “a bit older” lmao
I wasn’t blaming the women though so what you’re saying here is irrelevant. Leo is using his status of fame and whealth to get very young women to date him, and replaces them with someone younger after a few years. Legal? Yes. Creepy? Also yes.
So you’re not blaming the women, you’re not saying that they don’t know what they’re getting into, either, everyone knows what Leo is up to, so you’re calling Leo creepy for – not questioning decisions the women make?
There’s also a weird characterisation of agency, here. You’re only characterising Leo as an active participant, not the women, you’re saying what Leo does is use things that he has, passively (fame, wealth), to actively “get” women. I’d be much more convinced if you said he’s a good flirt. Are women such passive creatures that when they see someone rich and famous, they just cannot help themselves but spread their legs? I find it hard to reconcile such a narrative with feminism, it’s absolutely regressive.
I’m calling him creepy for not questioning his own decisions. “Why am I dating someone who could be my daughter? Shouldn’t I be with someone my age?” Instead of “Oh you’re a model and just turned 18? That’s perfect!”
Hollywood can and does go younger. Do you think Epstein Island was the only place where the powerful pedophiles go? Laws don’t matter to these people.
Has anyone even accused DiCaprio of SA?