Does your faux feminist view actually help protect women, or does it help protect the men who prey upon them?>
That’s where you said that women need protection from “men who prey upon them”. Every statement you make suggests that women need protection from power imbalances and that society needs to focus its efforts on protecting them in their innocence.
Chloe Mendel is an NYC fashion industry heris. She was established as a corporate executive by the time she was 30 and has otherwise enjoyed a life guided by wealth and nepotism. In contrast, Billy Corgan was raised in a lower middle-class household in the Chicago suburbs, with his youth marked by an abusive father. Corgan is a notable piece of shit, but this was long known prior to the start of his and Mendel’s relationship.
Your fluctuating in and out of calling old white men evil and young women innocent and incapable of power seems directed at creating a worldview that erases women’s history and identity while elevating the power of old white men. If you actually cared about power balance within a relationships, I would have hoped you could provide a single piece of data on why Mendel was deprived of power, beyond “she’s too young!”. A woman who holds that much wealth and family power at a young age doesn’t exactly scream “incapable innocent”, though, does it? I see no reason to believe that there is anything nefarious to this relationship, or that Mendel was powerless from its outset. Sure, Corgan sucks as a human, but I see no evidence of his relationship to Mendel as being “wrong”.
I don’t disagree that women are systematically disadvantaged, but placing that disadvantage on age only obfuscates how women are disadvantaged in favour of a narrative that women’s choices are not valid in the face of the broader context of being disadvantage. All this framing does is further solidify the societal notions that women are enfeeble and in need of protection as they are otherwise incapable of defending themselves. It operates on a level that places women’s autonomy as a lower priority than discrediting old white men.
That’s where you said that women need protection from “men who prey upon them”. Every statement you make suggests that women need protection from power imbalances and that society needs to focus its efforts on protecting them in their innocence.
Why do you think disenfranchised people want equality? Do you think it’s just to feel proud? Not being equal means you are vulnerable to abuse from those with more access to power.
Are you denying that there are women who have been preyed upon by men? Are you denying that women have been disenfranchised from economic and social independence?
All disadvantaged groups want the same protections offered by a truly equal society. I don’t know why you keep trying to interpret that in the most neck beard way possible.
Chloe Mendel is an NYC fashion industry heris. She was established as a corporate executive by the time she was 30 and has otherwise enjoyed a life guided by wealth and nepotism.
" In 2011, the company closed its Chicago flagship store.[25] In 2013, Gores was looking for an additional partner in the company.[26] In 2015, a majority stake was sold to Stallion, Inc.[27][28] In 2018, J. Mendel was under six different lawsuits for unpaid bills, relating to unpaid office space, advertising and materials.[29][30] In June, the company filed for Chapter 11 protection in bankruptcy court"
I don’t think they were really going to inherit a lot of wealth. She’s the daughter of a luxury clothes designer who lost their business. She was a CEO after ten years of being in a relationship with a millionaire.
Billy Corgan was raised in a lower middle-class household in the Chicago suburbs, with his youth marked by an abusive father. Corgan is a notable piece of shit, but this was long known prior to the start of his and Mendel’s relationship.
Again, we are talking about the people at the time which applies to there own relationship. Which would still make him vastly more powerful than her. Also what the hell do you think a 19 year old knows about a person in a band that was popular before they were born?
Your fluctuating in and out of calling old white men evil and young women innocent and incapable of power seems directed at creating a worldview that erases women’s history and identity while elevating the power of old white men.
Do you only speak through strawman arguments? I never said any of that.
If you actually cared about power balance within a relationships, I would have hoped you could provide a single piece of data on why Mendel was deprived of power, beyond “she’s too young!”. A woman who holds that much wealth and family power at a young age doesn’t exactly scream “incapable innocent”, though, does it?
Kinda sounds like that’s what her husband thinks
“her youth was an advantage because she hadn’t been wounded like so many people are, because you just go through life and you get wounded. So I had the advantage of somebody who was really open to love and the possibility and, for whatever reason, just decided not to judge me for who I was, particularly in that moment.”
disagree that women are systematically disadvantaged, but placing that disadvantage on age only obfuscates how women are disadvantaged in favour of a narrative that women’s choices are not valid in the face of the broader context of being disadvantage.
Pretty sure I talked about legal, social, and economic power… You are the one who seems to be focusing on age alone.
solidify the societal notions that women are enfeeble and in need of protection as they are otherwise incapable of defending themselves.
Lol, again with the faux feminist concern. Your totally being woke for being brave enough to allow the teenager to be sexually exploited to the rich.
You do know you could use all your arguments to justify the sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein right? Jeffrey was totally woke because he allowed women to make choices, like getting on the plane to the rape island.
It operates on a level that places women’s autonomy as a lower priority than discrediting old white men.
Again, you are pretending as if a 19 year old has the same ability to resist coercion and manipulation as a 50 year old with power over them.
Your obviously not interested in a discussion, you’re her for a debate and to be “right”. You’re deciding to look at the issue as “any age gap is indicative of power imbalance” and gloss over any notion of what being an adult in the world means. I have asked multiple times, in multiple threads that if 19 does not constitute being an adult, what does? That you conflate that with a justification of child sex trafficking is an insane position. I haven’t made a single value claim about what it means to be a consenting adult, but I will here for clarity: if someone is allowed to vote, has graduated primary education (high school), can serve in the military, or can be sued/imprisoned for their actions as a coherent individual of sound mind, they are an adult. I think society’s shorthand of 18 is reasonable, albeit sometimes problematic, towards these effects, and that if someone can work as a wage labourer, vote, or be killed in military combat, they should be able to decide on a romantic partner for themselves. I think conversion and consent laws should be strengthened, towards respecting women’s decisions regarding their own bodies, from what sexual and/or romantic partners they choose, to if they choose to engage in sex work, or beyond. I think sex work is real work and should be enshrined as such towards providing workers rights (including pensioner, vacation, employment insurance, and sick leave rights).
On a personal note, I’m married to a woman who is 8onths younger than I am, and who is a published sex worker advocate and with whom I bonded over feminist theory. We both reject Puritan notions of feminism that do nothing to address underlying societal/cultural narratives that disenfranchise women from attaining personal autonomy.
Keep slinging the personal insults all you like, but know that by doing so you only serve to embolden culture war distractions that would rather fixation on “sexual deviance” than systemic issues that perpetuate oppression throughout society.
Your obviously not interested in a discussion, you’re her for a debate and to be “right”.
What is a discussion where two people have opposing narratives that conflict…? What would we call that?
You’re deciding to look at the issue as “any age gap is indicative of power imbalance” and gloss over any notion of what being an adult in the world means.
Any significant age gap is a type of power imbalance that can occur in a relationship.
I have asked multiple times, in multiple threads that if 19 does not constitute being an adult, what does?
You haven’t asked me… Who said it’s ethical for an adult to take advantage of another adult?
That you conflate that with a justification of child sex trafficking is an insane position.
Why according to your argument is that you support any woman to make decisions for themselves, even if the outcome is really bad. What are you saying every rich man who flies you in a plane is Jeffrey Epstein?
On a personal note, I’m married to a woman who is 8onths younger than I am, and who is a published sex worker advocate and with whom I bonded over feminist theory.
Sounds like you lacked dialectic materialism in your feminists analysis. Your interpretation of feminism just so happens to match the needs of the aristocratic class. Convenient.
I’ll straight up ask you: If 19 doesn’t count as an adult, capable of making decisions for themselves, what does? In the instance of Corgan and Mendel’s relationship, what evidence if there of taking advantage? If Corgan befriended a 19 year old male musician with no pre-tense of sexual gratification, would we assume that was an inappropriate relationship predicated on taking advantage of another adult? In your worldview, should men over the age of 25 simply not be allowed to speak with people under the age of 25? What policy amendments would make a more fair world that reduced the sexualization of girls?
If your feminist values are actually based on dialectic materialism, you must be willing to acknowledge that the vast majority of your presumed critique of age-gap power imbalances are inherently due to wealth/affluence imbalances that are primarily contingent on contemporary capitalist sensibilities of the world. If it is actual power imbalances that your critique is focused upon, you must be even more critical of worker/company power imbalances that drive society as a whole and acknowledge that Walmart has done more harm to society than every music star who has ever lived combined. That corporate practices of rejecting parental leaves has an oversized impact on women who are more susceptible to financial harm than men, due to male-wage-privilege perpetrated by said corporations. You must also be aware and acknowledge that the intersectionality of wealth/race/class/gender/sexuality all conspire towards ones privileges in the world, but that outsized privilege in one of those areas of personhood can all but erase privilege-impacts from other areas of personhood. You must also be adamantly opposed to people of wealth pursuing relationships with people who do not have wealth?
To be clear here, I am very critical of power imbalances and how hegemonic orderings of society reinforce such imbalances. This is why I am so critical of puritian aesthetics, as they operate on narratives of women being lesser than and in need of protection from nefarious men by virtuous men. I reject those notions and choose to focus on empowering women to speak up and have space and support to do so when and where abuse occurs.
according to your argument is that you support any woman to make decisions for themselves, even if the outcome is really bad.
If we follow your statements to a teleological ends, your argument is that no person should be allowed to enter into an activity/relationship that could cause them harm. Do you think that people should not be allowed to work dangerous jobs? Should they not be allowed to take out a business loan? Should they be allowed to get pregnant at all? Any of these actions/situations could result in a “really bad outcome”. Do you believe that women need extra protection from “really bad outcomes”, that they lack the mental ability to make decisions for themselves?
If a male partner manipulates/coerses/abuses an female partner of the same age, should it be given less scrutiny because that pre-cursor of age-gap was not present? Should children of single mothers not be allowed to live with new partners of the mother, as that is the highest family make-up for child abuse to occur? And, by extension, should single mothers be criticized for dating, knowing that those are the statistics?
I still don’t know why you’re bringing Epstein into this discussion. As far as I can tell you are looking at every relationship with a power differential as equivalent to Epstein - which is very weird and again, I don’t see how it relates to discussions of adult relationships, unless you don’t consider 19 year olds to be adults. It’s also interesting that you focus on Epstein, when Maxwell was seemingly the person who was responsible for establishing relationships with young women towards their eventual rape and abuse. The common thread between Maxwell and Epstein being wealth and lust for power, not gender identity or age. I guess invoking notions of a female predator would undermine your thesis of old-man=evil?
Again… We have opposing views. I understand your viewpoint, I just think they are wrong and to be honest, I have doubts that you are acting in good faith.
If 19 doesn’t count as an adult, capable of making decisions for themselves, what does?
Just because you are an adult it doesn’t mean you can’t or should be manipulated.
In the instance of Corgan and Mendel’s relationship, what evidence if there of taking advantage? If Corgan befriended a 19 year old male musician with no pre-tense of sexual gratification, would we assume that was an inappropriate relationship predicated on taking advantage of another adult?
What if the situation was a completetly different situation…?
What policy amendments would make a more fair world that reduced the sexualization of girls?
Legality does not dictate morality.
If your feminist values are actually based on dialectic materialism, you must be willing to acknowledge that the vast majority of your presumed critique of age-gap power imbalances are inherently due to wealth/affluence imbalances that are primarily contingent on contemporary capitalist sensibilities of the world.
If it is actual power imbalances that your critique is focused upon, you must be even more critical of worker/company power imbalances that drive society as a whole and acknowledge that Walmart has done more harm to society than every music star who has ever lived combined.
Your argument is that since Walmart is more evil, then disgusting old dudes get a pass?
You must also be aware and acknowledge that the intersectionality of wealth/race/class/gender/sexuality all conspire towards ones privileges in the world, but that outsized privilege in one of those areas of personhood can all but erase privilege-impacts from other areas of personhood. You must also be adamantly opposed to people of wealth pursuing relationships with people who do not have wealth?
Wealth imbalance in a relationship can and often is utilized to to abuse.
To be clear here, I am very critical of power imbalances and how hegemonic orderings of society reinforce such imbalances. This is why I am so critical of puritian aesthetics, as they operate on narratives of women being lesser than and in need of protection from nefarious men by virtuous men.
When did I say that this individual needs to be protected by a virtuous man? Are you claiming that any person who isn’t a woman who is critical of the patriarchy is actually aping puritan aesthetics?
I reject those notions and choose to focus on empowering women to speak up and have space and support to do so when and where abuse occurs.
By supporting the same goals as the people abusing young women…
we follow your statements to a teleological ends, your argument is that no person should be allowed to enter into an activity/relationship that could cause them harm.
Again, I never said that. I just wouldn’t support that decision. I would also be critical of the person in more power of the relationship.
Do you think that people should not be allowed to work dangerous jobs? Should they not be allowed to take out a business loan? Should they be allowed to get pregnant at all?
Are you not comeitical of unsafe work environments? Are you not critical of banks handing out predatory loans? Are you not critical of medical practices that inhibit safer pregnancy?
If a male partner manipulates/coerses/abuses an female partner of the same age, should it be given less scrutiny because that pre-cursor of age-gap was not present?
Again… All abuse should be scrutinized. We should also scrutinized the trends that increase the likelihood of abuse, like power imbalances.
still don’t know why you’re bringing Epstein into this discussion. As far as I can tell you are looking at every relationship with a power differential as equivalent to Epstein
Your model does not differentiate between the two as you are evacuating all contextual information and boiling it down to “I believe in choice”.
I don’t see how it relates to discussions of adult relationships, unless you don’t consider 19 year olds to be adults.
He abused young adults as well. And again legality does not dictate morality. If it was bad to do to a 17 year old, it’s also bad to do to a 18 year old.
It’s also interesting that you focus on Epstein, when Maxwell was seemingly the person who was responsible for establishing relationships with young women towards their eventual rape and abuse.
For who?
The common thread between Maxwell and Epstein being wealth and lust for power, not gender identity or age. I guess invoking notions of a female predator would undermine your thesis of old-man=evil?
Again, I’ve said several times that sex is just one aspect of relationship imbalances. Again, ignoring this fact leads me to believe you are not acting in good faith and are just as miserable of a person as the ideas you vomit forth.
Just because you are an adult it doesn’t mean you can’t or should be manipulated.
Then what is your condition for consent?
Legality does not dictate morality.
your argument is that we shouldn’t bother with the legal system to deal with issues of morality?
Your argument is that since Walmart is more evil, then disgusting old dudes get a pass?
No, it’s that sensationalized stories about how age-gaps in relationships are somehow a form of abuse in and of themselvs distract from salient critiques of real conditions that impact many, many more women who are more disenfranchised across the spectrum of intersectionality. That age-gaps of celebrities are generally a non-issue.
When did I say that this individual needs to be protected by a virtuous man? Are you claiming that any person who isn’t a woman who is critical of the patriarchy is actually aping puritan aesthetics?
You’re right, you never offered a solution, other than shaming celebrities on internet forums. No, I’m claiming that notions that women need to be protected from themselves are applying puritan aesthetics.
Wealth imbalance in a relationship can and often is utilized to to abuse.
Which I not only agree with, but recognize as the often more impactful aspect of a person that is used to create situations of abuse. It’s why laws like alimony, or child support exist, to help offset the potential harm inflicted vis-a-vis financial dependence, which traditionally existed regardless of age-gaps.
By supporting the same goals as the people abusing young women…
Meanwhile you’d rather support the goals of bigots… (I don’t actually believe that, but since we’ve decided to be inflammatory and use derogatory rhetoric…)
Are you not comeitical of unsafe work environments? Are you not critical of banks handing out predatory loans? Are you not critical of medical practices that inhibit safer pregnancy?
Yes, I am critical of how each of those practices are regulated. I am also in favour of setting regulation to guard against manipulation and abuse. I also understand that regulation is a shorthand for much more complex dynamics. Having unsafe work environments does not mean that unsafe work does not, or should not, occur. From firefighting to mining, people risk their personal safety and face harm every day, but we consider it a reasonable risk for individuals to take, as long as they are making the choice to undertake those tasks of their own volition. If we say that women can’t properly differentiate between conditions where harm can exist in relationships at 19, then why should we ask anyone to undertake anything that could remotely be dangerous at 19?
All abuse should be scrutinized. We should also scrutinized the trends that increase the likelihood of abuse, like power imbalances.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/15/a-growing-share-of-us-husbands-and-wives-are-roughly-the-same-age/
In the US, and likely western hemisphere, evidence shows that the trend is for couples to be closer in age with every passing year. Age-gap relationships are more rare than ever. How is promoting these stories addressing a trend?
Your model does not differentiate between the two as you are evacuating all contextual information and boiling it down to “I believe in choice”.
What a gross mischaracterization. I have literally said multiple times across this thread, that the differentiation is the line in the sand at which we decide, as a society, who qualifies as an adult, capable of making their own choices within the context of consent. I think 19 in generally reasonable, especially considering we offer voting rights, military service, and financial independence by that age, any of which offer situations that can easily be as harmful as age-gap relationships.
He abused young adults as well. And again legality does not dictate morality. If it was bad to do to a 17 year old, it’s also bad to do to a 18 year old.
Yes, rape and abuse are brutal crimes that deserve sever punishment. I think it’s morally worse for a 12 year old to be raped than a 15 year old, and likewise for an 18 year old. Just like it’s worse to abuse a child than it is to abuse an adult in any manner.
Do you think Corgan’s relationship with Mendel is equivalent to Epstein? I still struggle to understand why you drug Epstein into this discussion beyond trying to invoke sentiments that age-gap relationships are tantamount to trafficking and rape? If you think Corgan is culpable of that level of abuse, then do you believe he deserves a harsh punishment?
If you actually care about discussing this issue, then what are your moral standings on the issue? It’s easy to sit there and spout off “old man bad” with no follow-through on specifics, or what that line in the sand of becoming ‘bad’ constitutes. You can cast aspersions all you like, but it does nothing to actually consider the issue and the broader implications. Start making actual value statements, or I’m done.
Is it possible for relationships where two people of different intelligence are involved to be consensual? How can you be sure that won’t lead to manipulation?
Can a relationship that’s more than 1 year difference be consensual? 5 years? 10, 15, 20? What’s the cut off and what is your rationale for there being a specific cutoff? OR, why shouldn’t there be a cutoff and what specific mechanisms should be employed to ensure consensual relationships free of manipulation are realized?
Do you think manipulation between partners in a relationship is a punishable offense? If so, what are the triggers for an action to become a punishable manipulation offense? If not, why not?
My point is that consent is not a shield that protects someone from criticism and accusations of immorality.
your argument is that we shouldn’t bother with the legal system to deal with issues of morality?
I’m saying it does not, and is in fact incapable of doing so. The legal system itself is immoral in large aspects of its function.
No, it’s that sensationalized stories about how age-gaps in relationships are somehow a form of abuse in and of themselvs distract from salient critiques of real conditions that impact many, many more women who are more disenfranchised across the spectrum of intersectionality. That age-gaps of celebrities are generally a non-issue.
Age gaps are just one aspect of the system of abuse that are the result of a system of a disenfranchisment. You can be critical of one aspect of the system and the system itself. I am less concerned specifically about the age gap of celebrities compared to the greater majority of people in imbalanced relationships. That doesn’t mean it should be free from criticism.
You’re right, you never offered a solution, other than shaming celebrities on internet forums. No, I’m claiming that notions that women need to be protected from themselves are applying puritan aesthetics.
You are again blaming the women and not the greater system that directs wealth and power to men that enables them to create these relationships in the first place. The solution is pretty apparent if you actually examined feminism from a leftist perspective…
Which I not only agree with, but recognize as the often more impactful aspect of a person that is used to create situations of abuse. It’s why laws like alimony, or child support exist, to help offset the potential harm inflicted vis-a-vis financial dependence, which traditionally existed regardless of age-gaps.
And you think these individuals do not benefit, support, and reinforce the system that allows them to remain in their place within the hierarchy?
From firefighting to mining, people risk their personal safety and face harm every day, but we consider it a reasonable risk for individuals to take, as long as they are making the choice to undertake those tasks of their own volition.
In this scenario my criticism is pointed at the workers… It’s pointed at the owners who are doing everything they can to take advantage of their labour.
If we say that women can’t properly differentiate between conditions where harm can exist in relationships at 19, then why should we ask anyone to undertake anything that could remotely be dangerous at 19?
Again my problem is with the those who benefit from destroying the guardrails and make these task even more dangerous for personal gain.
In the US, and likely western hemisphere, evidence shows that the trend is for couples to be closer in age with every passing year. Age-gap relationships are more rare than ever. How is promoting these stories addressing a trend?
A bad thing is happening less, so we should be less critical of when it still happens?
What a gross mischaracterization. I have literally said multiple times across this thread, that the differentiation is the line in the sand at which we decide, as a society, who qualifies as an adult, capable of making their own choices within the context of consent.
That’s what I meant when characterized your statements…
Yes, rape and abuse are brutal crimes that deserve sever punishment. I think it’s morally worse for a 12 year old to be raped than a 15 year old, and likewise for an 18 year old. Just like it’s worse to abuse a child than it is to abuse an adult in any manner.
And those actions should be criticized whether they are children or adults… Now should the consensual actions between adults that took place before the actual legal abuse took place be criticized as well?
Maybe a rich and powerful man building relationships with young women that may lead to abuse should be scrutinized before the abuse happens?
If you actually care about discussing this issue, then what are your moral standings on the issue? It’s easy to sit there and spout off “old man bad” with no follow-through on specifics, or what that line in the sand of becoming ‘bad’ constitutes.
I think you are purposely being obtuse if you haven’t been able to figure any of this out. Characterizing my many and often stated claims as “old man bad” reeks of a bad faith and hypocritical argument.
My moral standing on the issue is that anyone who takes advantage and further empowers a patriatical system that was put in place to reinforce a system where women and other marginalized people are victimized by those the system rewards are bad and should be criticized.
Is it possible for relationships where two people of different intelligence are involved to be consensual? How can you be sure that won’t lead to manipulation?
Can a relationship that’s more than 1 year difference be consensual? 5 years? 10, 15, 20? What’s the cut off and what is your rationale for there being a specific cutoff? OR, why shouldn’t there be a cutoff and what specific mechanisms should be employed to ensure consensual relationships free of manipulation are realized?
You don’t need to have an absolute and unimpeachable critical theory to make a declarative commendation over a type of relationship.
For example… Slavery.
There were slaves who were family members of their masters. Some of those slaves loved their masters and were loved by their masters. Some slaves wanted to return to work for their former master after emancipation. Some slaves had opportunities to flee and did so, utilizing what agency they possessed. Some slaves had opportunities to flee and chose not to out of fear of reprisals. All of these decisions involved varying levels of consent and cohesion. Does that mean I cannot declare slavery as a whole to be bad, because a minority of slaves experience happiness as slaves?
Can you see how ridiculous asking someone to exactly delineate the ethical and moral position for every instance within a relationship hierarchy that they believe to be harmful as a general concept?
That’s where you said that women need protection from “men who prey upon them”. Every statement you make suggests that women need protection from power imbalances and that society needs to focus its efforts on protecting them in their innocence.
Chloe Mendel is an NYC fashion industry heris. She was established as a corporate executive by the time she was 30 and has otherwise enjoyed a life guided by wealth and nepotism. In contrast, Billy Corgan was raised in a lower middle-class household in the Chicago suburbs, with his youth marked by an abusive father. Corgan is a notable piece of shit, but this was long known prior to the start of his and Mendel’s relationship.
Your fluctuating in and out of calling old white men evil and young women innocent and incapable of power seems directed at creating a worldview that erases women’s history and identity while elevating the power of old white men. If you actually cared about power balance within a relationships, I would have hoped you could provide a single piece of data on why Mendel was deprived of power, beyond “she’s too young!”. A woman who holds that much wealth and family power at a young age doesn’t exactly scream “incapable innocent”, though, does it? I see no reason to believe that there is anything nefarious to this relationship, or that Mendel was powerless from its outset. Sure, Corgan sucks as a human, but I see no evidence of his relationship to Mendel as being “wrong”.
I don’t disagree that women are systematically disadvantaged, but placing that disadvantage on age only obfuscates how women are disadvantaged in favour of a narrative that women’s choices are not valid in the face of the broader context of being disadvantage. All this framing does is further solidify the societal notions that women are enfeeble and in need of protection as they are otherwise incapable of defending themselves. It operates on a level that places women’s autonomy as a lower priority than discrediting old white men.
Why do you think disenfranchised people want equality? Do you think it’s just to feel proud? Not being equal means you are vulnerable to abuse from those with more access to power.
Are you denying that there are women who have been preyed upon by men? Are you denying that women have been disenfranchised from economic and social independence?
All disadvantaged groups want the same protections offered by a truly equal society. I don’t know why you keep trying to interpret that in the most neck beard way possible.
" In 2011, the company closed its Chicago flagship store.[25] In 2013, Gores was looking for an additional partner in the company.[26] In 2015, a majority stake was sold to Stallion, Inc.[27][28] In 2018, J. Mendel was under six different lawsuits for unpaid bills, relating to unpaid office space, advertising and materials.[29][30] In June, the company filed for Chapter 11 protection in bankruptcy court"
I don’t think they were really going to inherit a lot of wealth. She’s the daughter of a luxury clothes designer who lost their business. She was a CEO after ten years of being in a relationship with a millionaire.
Again, we are talking about the people at the time which applies to there own relationship. Which would still make him vastly more powerful than her. Also what the hell do you think a 19 year old knows about a person in a band that was popular before they were born?
Do you only speak through strawman arguments? I never said any of that.
Kinda sounds like that’s what her husband thinks “her youth was an advantage because she hadn’t been wounded like so many people are, because you just go through life and you get wounded. So I had the advantage of somebody who was really open to love and the possibility and, for whatever reason, just decided not to judge me for who I was, particularly in that moment.”
Pretty sure I talked about legal, social, and economic power… You are the one who seems to be focusing on age alone.
Lol, again with the faux feminist concern. Your totally being woke for being brave enough to allow the teenager to be sexually exploited to the rich.
You do know you could use all your arguments to justify the sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein right? Jeffrey was totally woke because he allowed women to make choices, like getting on the plane to the rape island.
Again, you are pretending as if a 19 year old has the same ability to resist coercion and manipulation as a 50 year old with power over them.
Your obviously not interested in a discussion, you’re her for a debate and to be “right”. You’re deciding to look at the issue as “any age gap is indicative of power imbalance” and gloss over any notion of what being an adult in the world means. I have asked multiple times, in multiple threads that if 19 does not constitute being an adult, what does? That you conflate that with a justification of child sex trafficking is an insane position. I haven’t made a single value claim about what it means to be a consenting adult, but I will here for clarity: if someone is allowed to vote, has graduated primary education (high school), can serve in the military, or can be sued/imprisoned for their actions as a coherent individual of sound mind, they are an adult. I think society’s shorthand of 18 is reasonable, albeit sometimes problematic, towards these effects, and that if someone can work as a wage labourer, vote, or be killed in military combat, they should be able to decide on a romantic partner for themselves. I think conversion and consent laws should be strengthened, towards respecting women’s decisions regarding their own bodies, from what sexual and/or romantic partners they choose, to if they choose to engage in sex work, or beyond. I think sex work is real work and should be enshrined as such towards providing workers rights (including pensioner, vacation, employment insurance, and sick leave rights). On a personal note, I’m married to a woman who is 8onths younger than I am, and who is a published sex worker advocate and with whom I bonded over feminist theory. We both reject Puritan notions of feminism that do nothing to address underlying societal/cultural narratives that disenfranchise women from attaining personal autonomy. Keep slinging the personal insults all you like, but know that by doing so you only serve to embolden culture war distractions that would rather fixation on “sexual deviance” than systemic issues that perpetuate oppression throughout society.
What is a discussion where two people have opposing narratives that conflict…? What would we call that?
Any significant age gap is a type of power imbalance that can occur in a relationship.
You haven’t asked me… Who said it’s ethical for an adult to take advantage of another adult?
Why according to your argument is that you support any woman to make decisions for themselves, even if the outcome is really bad. What are you saying every rich man who flies you in a plane is Jeffrey Epstein?
Sounds like you lacked dialectic materialism in your feminists analysis. Your interpretation of feminism just so happens to match the needs of the aristocratic class. Convenient.
Because you don’t seem to have a good grasp on the subtleties of language, or how debate differs from discussion: https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/debate-and-discussion/
I’ll straight up ask you: If 19 doesn’t count as an adult, capable of making decisions for themselves, what does? In the instance of Corgan and Mendel’s relationship, what evidence if there of taking advantage? If Corgan befriended a 19 year old male musician with no pre-tense of sexual gratification, would we assume that was an inappropriate relationship predicated on taking advantage of another adult? In your worldview, should men over the age of 25 simply not be allowed to speak with people under the age of 25? What policy amendments would make a more fair world that reduced the sexualization of girls?
If your feminist values are actually based on dialectic materialism, you must be willing to acknowledge that the vast majority of your presumed critique of age-gap power imbalances are inherently due to wealth/affluence imbalances that are primarily contingent on contemporary capitalist sensibilities of the world. If it is actual power imbalances that your critique is focused upon, you must be even more critical of worker/company power imbalances that drive society as a whole and acknowledge that Walmart has done more harm to society than every music star who has ever lived combined. That corporate practices of rejecting parental leaves has an oversized impact on women who are more susceptible to financial harm than men, due to male-wage-privilege perpetrated by said corporations. You must also be aware and acknowledge that the intersectionality of wealth/race/class/gender/sexuality all conspire towards ones privileges in the world, but that outsized privilege in one of those areas of personhood can all but erase privilege-impacts from other areas of personhood. You must also be adamantly opposed to people of wealth pursuing relationships with people who do not have wealth?
To be clear here, I am very critical of power imbalances and how hegemonic orderings of society reinforce such imbalances. This is why I am so critical of puritian aesthetics, as they operate on narratives of women being lesser than and in need of protection from nefarious men by virtuous men. I reject those notions and choose to focus on empowering women to speak up and have space and support to do so when and where abuse occurs.
If we follow your statements to a teleological ends, your argument is that no person should be allowed to enter into an activity/relationship that could cause them harm. Do you think that people should not be allowed to work dangerous jobs? Should they not be allowed to take out a business loan? Should they be allowed to get pregnant at all? Any of these actions/situations could result in a “really bad outcome”. Do you believe that women need extra protection from “really bad outcomes”, that they lack the mental ability to make decisions for themselves?
If a male partner manipulates/coerses/abuses an female partner of the same age, should it be given less scrutiny because that pre-cursor of age-gap was not present? Should children of single mothers not be allowed to live with new partners of the mother, as that is the highest family make-up for child abuse to occur? And, by extension, should single mothers be criticized for dating, knowing that those are the statistics?
I still don’t know why you’re bringing Epstein into this discussion. As far as I can tell you are looking at every relationship with a power differential as equivalent to Epstein - which is very weird and again, I don’t see how it relates to discussions of adult relationships, unless you don’t consider 19 year olds to be adults. It’s also interesting that you focus on Epstein, when Maxwell was seemingly the person who was responsible for establishing relationships with young women towards their eventual rape and abuse. The common thread between Maxwell and Epstein being wealth and lust for power, not gender identity or age. I guess invoking notions of a female predator would undermine your thesis of old-man=evil?
Again… We have opposing views. I understand your viewpoint, I just think they are wrong and to be honest, I have doubts that you are acting in good faith.
Just because you are an adult it doesn’t mean you can’t or should be manipulated.
What if the situation was a completetly different situation…?
Legality does not dictate morality.
Your argument is that since Walmart is more evil, then disgusting old dudes get a pass?
Wealth imbalance in a relationship can and often is utilized to to abuse.
When did I say that this individual needs to be protected by a virtuous man? Are you claiming that any person who isn’t a woman who is critical of the patriarchy is actually aping puritan aesthetics?
By supporting the same goals as the people abusing young women…
Again, I never said that. I just wouldn’t support that decision. I would also be critical of the person in more power of the relationship.
Are you not comeitical of unsafe work environments? Are you not critical of banks handing out predatory loans? Are you not critical of medical practices that inhibit safer pregnancy?
Again… All abuse should be scrutinized. We should also scrutinized the trends that increase the likelihood of abuse, like power imbalances.
Your model does not differentiate between the two as you are evacuating all contextual information and boiling it down to “I believe in choice”.
He abused young adults as well. And again legality does not dictate morality. If it was bad to do to a 17 year old, it’s also bad to do to a 18 year old.
For who?
Again, I’ve said several times that sex is just one aspect of relationship imbalances. Again, ignoring this fact leads me to believe you are not acting in good faith and are just as miserable of a person as the ideas you vomit forth.
If you actually care about discussing this issue, then what are your moral standings on the issue? It’s easy to sit there and spout off “old man bad” with no follow-through on specifics, or what that line in the sand of becoming ‘bad’ constitutes. You can cast aspersions all you like, but it does nothing to actually consider the issue and the broader implications. Start making actual value statements, or I’m done. Is it possible for relationships where two people of different intelligence are involved to be consensual? How can you be sure that won’t lead to manipulation? Can a relationship that’s more than 1 year difference be consensual? 5 years? 10, 15, 20? What’s the cut off and what is your rationale for there being a specific cutoff? OR, why shouldn’t there be a cutoff and what specific mechanisms should be employed to ensure consensual relationships free of manipulation are realized? Do you think manipulation between partners in a relationship is a punishable offense? If so, what are the triggers for an action to become a punishable manipulation offense? If not, why not?
My point is that consent is not a shield that protects someone from criticism and accusations of immorality.
I’m saying it does not, and is in fact incapable of doing so. The legal system itself is immoral in large aspects of its function.
Age gaps are just one aspect of the system of abuse that are the result of a system of a disenfranchisment. You can be critical of one aspect of the system and the system itself. I am less concerned specifically about the age gap of celebrities compared to the greater majority of people in imbalanced relationships. That doesn’t mean it should be free from criticism.
You are again blaming the women and not the greater system that directs wealth and power to men that enables them to create these relationships in the first place. The solution is pretty apparent if you actually examined feminism from a leftist perspective…
And you think these individuals do not benefit, support, and reinforce the system that allows them to remain in their place within the hierarchy?
In this scenario my criticism is pointed at the workers… It’s pointed at the owners who are doing everything they can to take advantage of their labour.
Again my problem is with the those who benefit from destroying the guardrails and make these task even more dangerous for personal gain.
A bad thing is happening less, so we should be less critical of when it still happens?
That’s what I meant when characterized your statements…
And those actions should be criticized whether they are children or adults… Now should the consensual actions between adults that took place before the actual legal abuse took place be criticized as well?
Maybe a rich and powerful man building relationships with young women that may lead to abuse should be scrutinized before the abuse happens?
I think you are purposely being obtuse if you haven’t been able to figure any of this out. Characterizing my many and often stated claims as “old man bad” reeks of a bad faith and hypocritical argument.
My moral standing on the issue is that anyone who takes advantage and further empowers a patriatical system that was put in place to reinforce a system where women and other marginalized people are victimized by those the system rewards are bad and should be criticized.
You don’t need to have an absolute and unimpeachable critical theory to make a declarative commendation over a type of relationship.
For example… Slavery.
There were slaves who were family members of their masters. Some of those slaves loved their masters and were loved by their masters. Some slaves wanted to return to work for their former master after emancipation. Some slaves had opportunities to flee and did so, utilizing what agency they possessed. Some slaves had opportunities to flee and chose not to out of fear of reprisals. All of these decisions involved varying levels of consent and cohesion. Does that mean I cannot declare slavery as a whole to be bad, because a minority of slaves experience happiness as slaves?
Can you see how ridiculous asking someone to exactly delineate the ethical and moral position for every instance within a relationship hierarchy that they believe to be harmful as a general concept?
deleted by creator