It's not illegal, but it's still weird, creepy and potentially harmful and no amount of lambasting about "the problematic age gap discourse" will make it not true.
Struggle session not related to the revolution, struggle session for its own sake, is useless.
:kim:
Kim is wrong about this on art. Art for its own sake is important and is one of the reasons for the revolution, to free art from the constrains of capitalism and needing to make money.
Art for it’s own sake is pure idealism, anti-materialist, and bourgeoisie self-indulgence.
Art cannot exist for its own sake because all art exists in a historical context. The idea that art is or even can be some pure self-expression, some kind of raw creative exercise, is quite literally the height of idealism.
All art is in fact an act of communication rooted in shared experience, history, and biology. Denying this is engaging in bourgeoisie idealism. It’s a pretense that meaning exists or can exist in the abstract divorced from the material. It’s a pretense that the value of a thing exists or can exist in the thing rather than it’s function for a human or for humanity. This is why art “for its own sake” is idealism, because art cannot be for its own sake and engaging in the myth that it can be for its own sake is anti-material anti-scientific anti-dialectic idealism.
All art is an act of communication and denying the communicative function of a specific work of art is denying that something is being communicated. A denial of responsibility for the communication. Recognizing that all art has a communicative function places a burden upon the artist to be conscious of what they are communicating.
Art for it’s own sake is pure idealism, anti-materialist, and bourgeoisie self-indulgence.
The idea that art is or even can be some pure self-expression, some kind of raw creative exercise, is quite literally the height of idealism.
Brb gonna go tell my neice the finger painting she made this weekend is bourgeoise self-indulgence
Yeah I don’t see it as a demand that socialist realism is the only acceptable art style but it does mean that someone like, say, Anish Kapoor is of no value and his work is all about enshrining the power of major establishments funded by billionaire “philanthropists” over the art world and thereby control over what is allowed to be expressed and how it can be expressed.
The idea that he’s exploring abstract notions of art is total bullshit, he’s expressing the power of the establishment to own an entire mode of communication. It’s a form of power language. The more abstracted art becomes the more it moves into a realm of only existing for an ever-wealthier class.
The idea of art existing for its own sake is the justification but the actual communication is usually class identity, wealth, power, elite status, and the massive institutions that love to promote this kind of art are funded by extremely wealthy high status individuals and these institutions seeks to claim the right to control and own this space even to the point of embracing and then redefining critics who sought to undo its power. Art is the height of liberal idealism and the capitalist art industry corrupts more easily than other capitalist activities.
Look at how pop-art is claimed by the art world. Look at the anthropological movement that looks at the world as an observer. Look at how we are told there is such immense hidden meaning of great import in the especially abstract pieces, difficulty in understanding a work relating to its “value” and how much expensive education (or at least expensive thick and very stylish coffee table books you need to buy) you need to “be educated enough to understand it.”
It’s power language.
I mean, struggle session for its own sake is just intellectual masturbation.
Everyone under the age of 25 should be strapped to a booster seat and given a binky and a rattle
Yes, exactly. I’ll be the father in the relationship and my partner has to wear diapers
someday we will study what drives people to constantly start conversations with random strangers about who should and should not be having sex, imagining all the details that make them angry and constantly proposing new rules about it
Leftists: "What two consenting adults do in the bedroom is not anyone else's business."
Also leftists: This
I mean, power dynamics are something that needs to be considered to make a healthy relationship, but all relationships have power dynamics. I mean, the power dynamics between men and women in general is likely more intense than the specific gap that of a 26 year old and a 19 year old.
Heterosexuality is not something we can get rid of, much as I dislike it. Dating someone who’s barely an adult so not a requirement of your biology.
Cars should be illegal except for exceptional circumstances.
But I hate this whole “it should be legal but also like not okay”
Nah I personally am fine with this. The law should be seperate on certain matters. Like I think certain things are a bad influence on society or immoral, yet I don't want them banned or made a crime. Like cheating in a relationship, I think that's immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal.
People here are advocating that actual social action be taken against individuals who date people significantly younger than them
People do that as well when someone cheats. How many people fantasise about vigilante justice in cases like this, it's a common trope in films, books and TV shows.
Something can be in a morally grey area without it being illegal. I just don't think the legal system should get involved with this kind of thing when everyone involved is an adult.
you may not like it but 18-19 yo are not the same as 26-27 yo.
I thought that was just called "Romeo & Juliet laws". "Rolling age of consent" makes me think of something that would continue to be similarly segmented up to like age 25 or 30.
I see your point but I disagree with the point. I think you should be allowed to point out flaws in society without being expected to also have all the answers. A lot of the times that opinion is just used to shut up critics.
I’m open to discussing solutions. I’ll think about it. What do you think should it be?
I didn't actually want to accuse you of saying this, but this sounds like to me you're saying heterosexual sex can't be truly consensual?
What I'm saying is that all relationships have power dynamics.
LS can speak for themselves, but that is a line that many radical feminists take
I know, and I can see the logic. Still, I hope that straight people can have consensual sex, because the alternative would seem to make humanity irredeemable.
As I said, heterosexuality is unavoidable and even necessary to an extent. I’m not against it in principle.
I don’t know enough about “radical feminism” to say I am one but I’m a feminist and I’m a communist so I am a radical feminist.
In this case, I believe they're referring to the radfem idea that all heterosexual sex is wrong and that being a lesbian is as much a moral/political choice as a sexuality. Some, but not all, of these people are also TERFS.
sex can’t be truly consensual
all consumption is non-consensual under capitalism
I’d be open to that argument. But I’m not heterosexual so I can’t speak from experience.
You can drink at 18 years old in most countries.
Fucking hell, most people were drinking every weekend in highschool Fake IDs everywhere. Still remember the dude that put minoxidil cream on his face to try grow a beard so he could look older and go clubbing during the school holidays.
This is why children should be locked in safety cages until they’re old enough to drink responsibly
Be an adult, shackle your young :the-more-you-know:
Honestly the older I get the more I resonate with the whole "teenagers scare the living shit out of me" stuff.
Fuck it I'll be a full on boomer by 30
Most countries have lower drinking ages than 21.
I'd make a different rule
If you haven’t poo’d your pants in public you aren’t ready for the responsibilities of a civil society and are therefore not allowed to vote?
counterpoint: that's two consenting adults and none of my business :big-cool:
At what age difference do the “power dynamics” of age stop existing, or stop being meaningful?
If there's a simple answer to this, it's probably somewhere in the late 20s. Like I think by the time someone's 27 or so, it's not really possible for them to be taken advantage of by someone who's simply older than them, all else being equal.
fr comparing my 18 year old brain to now there's a huge difference
Its a real thing. It causes permanent distances in relationships, ones that never can really be bridged.
Every time I see something like this get posted the age gap gets narrower and narrower, and I'm excited to see where it ends up
:volcel-vanguard: ! ! ATTENTION CITIZEN !! :volcel-vanguard:
the Volcel Vanguard has found you guilty of "making whoopie" with an individual 6 months your junior. Please report to the nearest :gulag: for immediate summary execution. Thank you! :volcel-judge:
Luke and Leia Skywalker is my favorite unproblematic ship. Minutes apart. BIRTH SHOWN ON SCREEN.
Under communism the age of consent will be 45:garf-troll:
well no because 19 year olds can go out with 18 year olds and that's fine
States adopted these laws because like high school sophomores would date freshmen and end up on the sex offenders list. The age range varies itself from state to state.
There isn't a defined line for when an age gap is bad because it's only one factor and while there is obviously a power dynamic between differently aged people that doesn't necessarily make the relationship harmful. As others have pointed out, there are power dynamics in every relationship. What's important is whether it's being utilized or not.
I think it's ultimately problem of alienation under capitalism. Ideally, under communism, you could rely more on the community to prevent predatory or abusive relationships without having super strict rules. I think 19-26 is in a grey area, it could easily be predatory but it's possible for it not to be. I'd rather err on the side of bodily autonomy.
You can take the chapo out of Reddit but you can’t take the Reddit out of chapo
As long as everyone's of-age and consenting, I don't really care who fucks who tbh.
Not aimed at OP specifically, but this line of thought just seems like "Puritanism, but woke this time" to me.
I consent! :blob-no-thoughts:
I consent! :quokka-smile:
Isn't there someone you forgot to ask? :gulag:
Maybe, that’s why every sexual intercourse has to be pre-approved by the State.
You apply to the People’s Soviet (Council), which will then evaluate the applications on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the power dynamics potentially involved.
Y'know what honestly, I'm fine with this idea.
I find it preposterous that you're talking about "power dynamics" when the 25 year old in this situation, at the time, was a poor intern at The Young Turks (making $25,000 / year in Los Angeles) who has lifelong body dysmorphia from being overweight as a teenager. While on the other hand, the 19 year old in this situation was literally
spoiler
Michael Jackson's daughter.
I mean, if anything, the 19 year old had more power in that relationship. She literally had 1,000,000 x more money than he did, at the time. He was literally a broke-ass boy toy to her. Do you not get that? Does six years of age make up for millions of dollars? And a nineteen year old who grew up in that environment is going to be very, very mature for their age.
tl;dr: LET STRAIGHT WOMEN HAVE BOY TOYS.
She consents. He consents. They were both adults. They were both mature. They are literally still friends with each other, on good terms. Please don't fall into the negative side of being parasocial. This is not even something worth talking about.
Liberalsocialist "coincidentally" created a drama thread at the same time that Destiny is trying to create drama with Hasan Piker for having sex with a 19 year old when he was 25 years old.
Liberalsocialist has a lot of posts that "coincidentally" align with Destiny. I think Liberalsocialist is a Destiny fan and constantly causing drama because of that.
Sorry, there are already five comment threads on :reddit-logo: about this topic. So I just consolidated the info.
You've successfully made this post about Hasan, when I never even mentioned him and we were going for hours without mentioning him. Congratulations.
Please don't pay attention to this. This post is not about Hasan, though his drama is what inspired it.
This post was inspired by Hasan but is not about him, nor his specific situation. I'm not going to address your other points because they're irrelevant to this discussion which is about a topic much broader than that.
Your post is not illegal, but it’s still weird, creepy and potentially harmful.
I mean, it kind of feels like you're trying to gaslight people that were in perfectly harmless and healthy relationships into thinking that they need to see themselves as somehow sick / dirty / impure / sinners. So yes, it could be harmful. If Christianity can have negative effects on people's view of sex, then secular over-policing and internet with hunts can have the same effect.
My entire post is about how I don't think 19 and 26 is healthy age gap.
It's not important, but Hasan Piker, Twitch streamer, had a short-term relationship with
spoiler
Paris Jackson, Michael Jackson's daughter
a few years ago. He was 24 and she was 19 at the time. People are trying to "cancel" him over this relationship. It's stupid.
Firstly, this post is not about Hasan. That's why I didn't mention him. He inspired it and made me go down this line of reasoning, but that's it.
Secondly, if it was Paris Jackson, it would be 19 and 26.
The other person is a loser who wants to make this about Hasan when I didn't even mention him.
i didnt subtweet anyone. i didnt even fucking hint at this being anything other than a question and a statement. i made it clear, when brought up, that hasan inspired my line of questioning but that it isn't about him or his specific situation. this is about a broader issue but congratulations, you have successfully made it about hasan.
it did get brought up and i addressed it. but before this particular comment thread, everyone focused on the topic, not the hasan drama that preceeded it. but this dude had to make it about hasan and now half the new comments are about him. if i wanted to post about hasan, i'd do it. i've done it before.
this is exactly why i didnt fucking mention him. i knew it would make the convo about him and not the issue i was talking about.
OP, what's it like being clinically allergic to context? Every other question you pose basically boils down to historically particular context, this one especially.
