BonesOfTheMoonAll Republicans are groomers.
“Nu-uh! It’s only grooming when my kid realizes they’re gay, not when I trade her like a brood mare to an influential political old fart in exchange for financial favors and political sponsorship of my relatives!”
I guess one happy couple doesn’t mean other marriages would be happy.
She looks happy to you?
How the fuck could you know, just from a single picture? What, you know she isn’t?
I agree, it feels like most people never looked at pictures of couples before. Even if this is staged or photoshop there is no evidence of her being unhappy.
Now this guy could be the worst person on Earth, but we really don’t know that based on one photo from what is clearly a staged photoshoot (not even a candid shot).
I understand wanting to make a point, but this whole thread to be honest looks exactly to me like the flipside of people salivating against drag shows or stuff like that: hard stances based on no information. One picture and it’s already certain he is a groomer, she is not happy etc.? Yes, there is a big age difference, but this doesn’t mean anything per se.
I am honestly very surprised to see people acting with such confidence over something they objectively know so little about.
i’m not sure how much context I need to decide it is inappropriate for 42 year-old to hit on a high schooler whether she was 18 or not.
You can of course have your own morale, but there is nothing objective. I cannot personally relate to that either, but I also acknowledge that this is purely cultural and therefore relative and possibly temporary. I find the arguments that by definition label it as wrong or worse grooming to be moralistic and - to some extent - bigoted. Even if directed towards a person that probably is a bigot himself etc.
I’m assuming you mean morals.
That’s about as far as I’m willing to take this conversation. Claiming cultural relativism for a 42-year-old to date a highschooler and then calling me bigoted for not accepting it…I mean that has to be the bravest take I’ve seen in a LONG time.
By the way, I am an American and this guy lives in my society and culture. Please don’t be an intolerant bigot - apparently that falls under your definition, which is bizarre.
Yes, I mean morals.
I am not calling you bigoted, I am calling the arguments that on principle see a relationship between a 19-20 yo (the age where they realistically started dating) and a 43-45 yo as inherently predatory and wrong, bigoted.
It’s no different from many other moralistic arguments. In fact you fail to elaborate any reason why it’s objectively wrong/predatory for a 45 yo to be with a 20 yo, and are resorting in making thins creepy purely with the language (high-schooler).
Please don’t be an intolerant bigot - apparently that falls under your definition, which is bizarre.
It’s clear that your view is not so universal, even in your country, or such view would have been codified in law (as we have laws against pedophilia now, while in ancient Greece it was absolutely normal to have sex with kids, for example). So in which way I would be a bigot (I really don’t understand what I assume is a provocation).
Man I’m out this is truly insane.
You could simply make your argument. If you can’t support your point, than maybe it’s not that clear after all. It seems you assume everything you believe is self-evident.
Anyway, I respect your wish to be out, so won’t engage further.
Do you think a 42 year old should flirt with a high schooler? I feel like my stance has been pretty clear since the first comment.
Don’t bother responding this is truly insane and I am not continuing this conversation.
I think they “can”. Provided certain conditions (like the relative maturity and reciprocal consent and attraction etc.) are met, there is nothing inherently bad.
Not sure why you ask a question if you don’t care to get a reply…
I noticed mods removed this comment with the reason “defending predators”. The point of this whole discussion is that being older doesn’t make you a predator BY DEFAULT, in my opinion (and according to the law, otherwise it would be illegal). You can be a predator and exploit a 17 yo being 18, while a 18 and a 40 yo might have a healthy relationship.
Being a predator makes you a predator, not being older. Hence, I am not defending anybody, I am questioning the rushed and deterministic way in which the “predator” jusdgement is thrown based on nothing else than anagraphic age.
Think that you might be wrong.
What a useful point! Thanks for the comment
If the person you’re talking to says you’re defending pedophiles, and the mods remove your comment for defending pedophiles, then you stop for a second ask yourself, “Self, am I defending pedophiles?”
How about you screenshot this conversation and send it to five friends and ask their opinion? If I were a betting man I would say you had a flash of thought that said “this is a bad idea.“ You should explore that feeling.
Or conversely, send it to them and see what happens.
Would you consider a man in a park playing with little girls a predator? No you wouldn’t, because that can be both a predator and a sweet grampa (and many other things). A man having a relationship (you are saying hitting on, you don’t know) with a young girl is not necessarily a predator. Mind you, it can be! But the age alone doesn’t tell us that. It’s not nuance questioning, is accepting that human experience is different and people are different and yes, it’s possible that a very young person has a very good relationship with someone much older. If I saw two people in public, it’s not the first thing I would think, but that’s due to my prejudices.
Also I don’t care what two people say on a forum. The comment got 4 upvotes, so even the temperature check here shows me that it’s clear I am not defending predators (which I would find abhorrent). Nor you nor anybody else has elaborated on why a middle-aged person in a relationship with a 20yo is necessarily (emphasis on necessarily) a predator. So I take it for what it is: a cultural item which is based on mostly prejudices and traditions. Mind you, I have it as well. This whole disgust is the first thing that came to my mind too. I just realized that it’s based on nothing more than my gut feeling.
What is wrong with you
Yes, and also as the other commenter stated this is a manipulated photo. So honestly there is no evidence of either.
One commentor expressed skepticism with no proof and then a person responded to them with an article about this couple talking about how they met. So yes, there is pretty concrete evidence this is real
Which one are you talking about? Because none of them feature concrete proof if you read them. ‘Doesn’t mean for sure’ isn’t concrete and also if it is correct it does not give us the answer to is she happy or not. And slight speculations do not count.
Read the article it is right there. That is concrete proof. It announces their engagement and explicitly says where they met. I don’t understand how this is ambiguous to you.
I must have misunderstood you. Yes there is proof that they met I’m not doubting you, here are the references I’ve collected:
Sorry, I came on too strong there
She looks like she’s at gunpoint
I mean, yeah, that's literally the definition of anecdotal evidence. One happy couple doesn't mean sweet fuck all.
Pedocons
XanthraxThe body language in the photo makes me want to vomit.
ThePowerOfGeekNot to mention her ‘hide the pain Harold’ eyes.
infinitevalenceAs far as I know she wants to be there.
That’s what happens with grooming, hence the word.
HolzkohlenHer smile is so fake.
0% chance you would have any problem with the “body language” if you had seen this image with no context, lol. There is literally nothing odd about the body language, at all.
People don’t even realize how deeply bias affects their interpretation.
And honestly, she doesn’t look that much younger than you. I think people are overreacting. It looks like you have a nice family.
That looks like a picture of a dad, his daughter, and his grandson.
Twitches
StarshotJohnThat picture looks off. Like the heads don’t match the bodies or something.
It's because whatever department store he went to didn't have a shirt off the rack that fit both his neck and his belly.
Combined with the fact that I think she just had a larger than average head
ryvenI thought so too, but the story checks out. Their engagement announcement was on page 7 of this local newspaper:
eaglevilletnhistory.com/print/Jan_2011.pdf
You have to read between the lines a bit: she was involved in FFA as a high schooler and graduated in 2007. He appears to have been involved in FFA extensively. It doesn’t mean for sure that they first met at an event where she was a student participant, but it seems likely. And of course, the age gap is the same either way.
Not like that admitted it or anything 🙄
Sorry, there wasn’t a source so I just went looking and this was the first thing I found.
This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥Their engagement announcement was on page 7 of this local newspaper:
Looks like a nice father-daughter pic without any context.
And grandson
I’m talking about different pic, without their offspring.
That’s really unfair to paint all Republicans with that brush. Some of them are married to groomers.
Her: if I marry this old fucker I’ll collect so much life insurance some day.
yeah because children are so calculating…
Someone else in the thread has posted an article. They married in 2011, she completed highschool in 2007. She must have been 21-22 when she married. Not really a child (but also nothing tells us she is in for the money, obviously!).
if you’ve been groomed from childhood it doesn’t really matter at what age you get married. you’ve still been manipulated and one can hardly assume real agency is involved. mind that people usually don’t say “let’s get married” and do it that year. the idea of marriage was likely discussed and decided on way earlier.
OK, but it’s a big IF, it’s as much as a conjecture as assuming she is in for the money. We don’t know when they actually started having a relationship, we don’t know if any “grooming” happened, nor to what extent, we don’t know when they decided to get married.
Also, they seem to have met when she was 18. That’s already not a child (which means it can hardly be called grooming). Plus, grooming is not like a lifetime spell, it’s something that victims blames themselves for usually, but not something that they never realize.
To me it seems they simply have a very big age difference.
This is true, there is barely any info about this situation and people instantly accuse him of grooming. Age difference is probably why people are sour, it is easier to call it grooming and call him a pedophile.
Also the point you made about grooming not being a lifetime spell is important, as the whole point of grooming is to normalise sexual abuse with a minor, now she wasn’t a minor and there isn’t any proof he sexually abused her so where are the assumptions coming from?
this is like a notch above “it’s ephebophilia actually”
they meet when she was 17, in highschool. he was not. a couple years later he gave her a scholarship for college and later they got married.
To me it sounds like a conjecture based on prejudices. Also, I think that women are not necessarily dolls completely subjects to the will of men simply because they are older (and therefore capable of who knows what long-lasting convincing), but humans with autonomy, capable of taking their own decisions.
I don’t see what his shitty political views have to do with the lack of information we have to judge the specific dynamics of their relationship.
The only argument here really is a moralistic one (big age gap), which is something I would expect from conversatives, not from progressive people. Instead I see moralism and infantilization under the pretence of protecting “children”.
it is a conjecture; i just said it’s not a big one. a safe bet, you could say.
if you don’t see what kind there is between right wing religious cunts opposing lgbt rights in the name of family and children and child predation then I can only wish you a quick recovery from your decades long coma.
also you’re going super hard on this not being about children (or “children” to use your scare quotes) is weird. giving big “but she looks mature” vibes. the only argument isn’t the age gap. it’s that one was middle aged and the other was a minor when they met, and they got married a few years later.
I disagree with your safe bet then.
I also don’t think child predators end up marrying and making children with their victims (or at least is uncommon?). I am very aware of the relationship between religious people and abuses. This has very little in common with it: it is right there in the open, it is a long-lasting relationship, she was not a child (although much younger), we don’t have any pattern (as usual comes up in cases of abuse) etc.
Your argument is literally about the age gap, rephrasing it as “middle-aged and minor” doesn’t mean much (also at 18 she was not a minor and you don’t know when they actually started a relationship, do you?). Also I didn’t say anything about what she looked (strawman), I just said that at 18 you are not a child anymore, let alone at 22. You get the right to vote and to do what you want in many countries, in many places at 19-20 people already have kids and are married (especially in rural areas). These are mostly social convention that have to do with how society function and is organized.
Again, I find this depiction of people at 18 as children an unnecessary infantilization of the population.
Also mine are not scare quotes, are a way to signify that I am using that term without really meaning it, which I think is what quotes are sometimes meant to be used for.
The fact is, the “limit” above which the age gap becomes creepy/predatory is arbitrary, it’s cultural, it’s based on moral stances but it’s not in any case objective, and personal situations can anyway vary (I.e. some people at 18 are very mature, other are very immature). Where do you put the limit? Tom Haverford rule (half the age + 2)?
So where would you put the limit? If I had to guess your position, you think age limits to be arbitrary and useless?