What kind of issue? That a man would be more attracted to a younger woman compared to old hags? Quite a difference between a 17 year old and a 12 year old. People so grossed out over age gaps must have no concept of history and what "normal" marraige arrangements were like for literally thousands of years up until recent...
As someone who was once a 17 year old girl, ICK. Yuck. Gtfoh. 56 is like a fucking grandpa to a 17 year old. And is gross af. And as someone who also has a 16 yr old on her way to being 17, they’re still a child. And if a 56 year old was trying to get on her, my husband would murder him. Those marriage arrangements you speak of were for significantly smaller age gaps, like men in their 20s. You’re obviously sympathetic because you’re also sick in the head?
So YOU think "yuck." That's your prerogative. What about the millions of 17 year olds over the decades abd centuries who didn't think "yuck"? "Yuck" is a subjective term. "Yuck" does not always equal criminal nor immoral. No, throughout history 30-40 years were quite commonplace. In 20th century western society, that gap has certainly narrowed. In America for instance, it would be far more likely that 15-17 year olds would have relationships and marry early 20s. But age gaps absolutely still happen. 23 year olds marrying 45 year olds, especially when money is a factor. You're looking at an arbitrary factor as a rule of generalization for what you perceive to be "yucky." Again, that's YOUR opinion. Societies and cultures establish laws, which must conform with natural and moral law. The Bible doesn't specify that people must be at least 18 to marry or that the age gaps must be within 20 years. Civil law permits teenagers to marry, even somebody 20 years older, but in most cases only with permission of the parents. And yet our laws treat teenagers as "adults" in some cases but not others. Apparently a 14 year old can murder their unborn child because they are "adults" but they can't choose with whom they will have sex? We may think "yucky" or better, why is that unmarried girl having sex without being married? But those aren't the laws. You can't call somebody criminal if they've not committed a crime. Again, if it was nonconsensual, rape, abuse, psychological intimidation, etc then yes, we've got a problem.
Pedophilia is a severe mental illness and a violation of natural, moral, and civil law when acted upon. But a 17 year old is not a child. 17 year olds drive cars, have jobs, can legally sign contracts on their own. 17 year olds volunteered for the military and died on the beaches of Normandy. 17 year olds got and get married and raise kids in loving families. If your only focus here is the age gap being "yucky" and are incapable of more complex thought, I can't help you. But just because you're incapable of complex thought, that doesn't justify you slandering people by wrongly accusing them of condoning or enabling pedophilia. I look forward to your apology.
I agree. My aunt was married at 16, back in the early '70s. But she married a guy not too much older than her. My grandmother had a very old-fashioned farmer mentality about daughters, and encouraged this. Turns out the man she married became a weird cultist and she had to divorce him. Sessions's senate seat was lost to a Democrat because the candidate Trump endorsed lost face when it came out that he had been targeting teenage girls for marriage, back in the '70s. "Magadeburger" has a point about 17 being an arbitrary age (here in Japan the age of consent is 16 or so), but it shows the mentality of a 56 year old man who targets teenagers like this. I'm 45 and I could never think of trying to hook up with a woman in her 20s, much less a teenager. "I think it's important to listen to music that is popular. That way you know it's good." --- "That's nice, honey. Now eat your vegetables." God, I'd go crazy.
I am 56 years old. When I look at a 17 year old I see a little girl not something I want to get with. You can take your normalizing of pedos and shove it right up your ass.
YOU see a "girl" but that's a matter of perspective. The objective reality is that a 17 year old is not a child. We can talk about whether or not it's unwise or "creepy" for an older man to have any business flirting with or pursuing a young woman half his age, but there's a distinct line between "unusual" and criminal, imprudent and immoral. Words mean things. Leftists love to call everyone racist. It's tempting to just call a Democrat a pedophile, and ignore the more complex facts of the case. We are supposed to be better than that.
He very well might, and might even like boys, as differentiated from men... boys are children, which is most commonly understood to mean males under age 15 or so. Older than that would be more accurate describes as "young adults" etc.
A 17 year old is not a child. Pedophilia is quite literally, sexual attraction towards children. Could it possibly have been abuse of power, of psychological abuse? Sure. Could have been. Was it in this case? Doesn't appear to be the case.
What kind of issue? That a man would be more attracted to a younger woman compared to old hags? Quite a difference between a 17 year old and a 12 year old. People so grossed out over age gaps must have no concept of history and what "normal" marraige arrangements were like for literally thousands of years up until recent...
As someone who was once a 17 year old girl, ICK. Yuck. Gtfoh. 56 is like a fucking grandpa to a 17 year old. And is gross af. And as someone who also has a 16 yr old on her way to being 17, they’re still a child. And if a 56 year old was trying to get on her, my husband would murder him. Those marriage arrangements you speak of were for significantly smaller age gaps, like men in their 20s. You’re obviously sympathetic because you’re also sick in the head?
So YOU think "yuck." That's your prerogative. What about the millions of 17 year olds over the decades abd centuries who didn't think "yuck"? "Yuck" is a subjective term. "Yuck" does not always equal criminal nor immoral. No, throughout history 30-40 years were quite commonplace. In 20th century western society, that gap has certainly narrowed. In America for instance, it would be far more likely that 15-17 year olds would have relationships and marry early 20s. But age gaps absolutely still happen. 23 year olds marrying 45 year olds, especially when money is a factor. You're looking at an arbitrary factor as a rule of generalization for what you perceive to be "yucky." Again, that's YOUR opinion. Societies and cultures establish laws, which must conform with natural and moral law. The Bible doesn't specify that people must be at least 18 to marry or that the age gaps must be within 20 years. Civil law permits teenagers to marry, even somebody 20 years older, but in most cases only with permission of the parents. And yet our laws treat teenagers as "adults" in some cases but not others. Apparently a 14 year old can murder their unborn child because they are "adults" but they can't choose with whom they will have sex? We may think "yucky" or better, why is that unmarried girl having sex without being married? But those aren't the laws. You can't call somebody criminal if they've not committed a crime. Again, if it was nonconsensual, rape, abuse, psychological intimidation, etc then yes, we've got a problem.
Pedophilia is a severe mental illness and a violation of natural, moral, and civil law when acted upon. But a 17 year old is not a child. 17 year olds drive cars, have jobs, can legally sign contracts on their own. 17 year olds volunteered for the military and died on the beaches of Normandy. 17 year olds got and get married and raise kids in loving families. If your only focus here is the age gap being "yucky" and are incapable of more complex thought, I can't help you. But just because you're incapable of complex thought, that doesn't justify you slandering people by wrongly accusing them of condoning or enabling pedophilia. I look forward to your apology.
Lmao. No. Not gonna apologize to your Epstein sympathetic shill ass.
I agree. My aunt was married at 16, back in the early '70s. But she married a guy not too much older than her. My grandmother had a very old-fashioned farmer mentality about daughters, and encouraged this. Turns out the man she married became a weird cultist and she had to divorce him. Sessions's senate seat was lost to a Democrat because the candidate Trump endorsed lost face when it came out that he had been targeting teenage girls for marriage, back in the '70s. "Magadeburger" has a point about 17 being an arbitrary age (here in Japan the age of consent is 16 or so), but it shows the mentality of a 56 year old man who targets teenagers like this. I'm 45 and I could never think of trying to hook up with a woman in her 20s, much less a teenager. "I think it's important to listen to music that is popular. That way you know it's good." --- "That's nice, honey. Now eat your vegetables." God, I'd go crazy.
I am 56 years old. When I look at a 17 year old I see a little girl not something I want to get with. You can take your normalizing of pedos and shove it right up your ass.
YOU see a "girl" but that's a matter of perspective. The objective reality is that a 17 year old is not a child. We can talk about whether or not it's unwise or "creepy" for an older man to have any business flirting with or pursuing a young woman half his age, but there's a distinct line between "unusual" and criminal, imprudent and immoral. Words mean things. Leftists love to call everyone racist. It's tempting to just call a Democrat a pedophile, and ignore the more complex facts of the case. We are supposed to be better than that.
Sorry but the objective reality is that a 17 year old IS a child.
The entirety of human history says otherwise. If your teenagers still act like children, that's just a poor reflection of your weak parenting.
Thanks and ditto. If you can't find a real woman at that age you go without.
He very well might, and might even like boys, as differentiated from men... boys are children, which is most commonly understood to mean males under age 15 or so. Older than that would be more accurate describes as "young adults" etc.
Depends on the age of consent. It can be different in different states.
17 is predatory. He likely groomed her. That's a pedophile.
A 17 year old is not a child. Pedophilia is quite literally, sexual attraction towards children. Could it possibly have been abuse of power, of psychological abuse? Sure. Could have been. Was it in this case? Doesn't appear to be the case.