News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am attracted to. Don't worry about my mental health. There is no telling on myself, I'm 100% open about it.
I just recognize that this is the same BS trauma that we've been inflicting on gay people by telling them that their perfectly normal and natural attraction is some kind of mental issue. Just like how I see through when someone claims gay people have a mental problem, I see through the implications that men being attracted to young women is indicative of some kind of mental issue.
We are talking about a young woman in her prime reproductive years. Objectively speaking, evolutionarily, it would make sense that men are attracted to this. In fact, I would argue that if you don't find them physically attractive, you are the one deviating from the norm. Now to be clear, don't confuse what I'm saying with emotional and intellectual attractiveness.
No we're not, we're talking about being attracted to women in their prime reproductive years. They are young and likely immature and we should have laws that protect them, but let's not conflate that with the physical attraction being a mental illness.
I'm probably as old or older than you. I've talked to people in their 40s who I find completely emotionally immature and intellectually unattractive, and I've talked to teenagers whom I've found to be mature and the conversation to be intellectually stimulating. Although the latter is few and far between, and getting further apart as I age.
Would I want to have a relationship with them? No. Would I want to have sex with them? Sure.
girls enter puberty so much earlier than boys, their capable of reproduction anywhere from 10-12. When you talk about "prime reproductive years," know that it includes girls as young as 10. So... stop using that term. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and inferring that you actually mean girls that are on the very cusp of womanhood, like, ages 17-19, but others may not.
Women are hot, girls are not. Some girls can appear to be older than they are, and it's confusing when confronted with a genuinely attractive woman that is not yet 18, because we're caught between the confusing notions of "I am attracted to this person" and "this person is not yet old enough to to be engaged with in a socially conscious manner." It's not wrong to find the person attractive, it IS wrong to engage with them in a manner reserved for those that are fully realized adults. For my purposes, I'm putting adulthood at around age 22-25, when your brain is pretty much fully developed.
So with that being said, No, Jerry Seinfeld didn't do a bad thing by thinking a 17 year old girl attractive, he DID do a bad thing by engaging with her as if she was a fully formed adult.
Prime reproductive years for women is generally late teens to late 20s. I'll keep using the term because I'm using it accurately, and it's exactly the whole point: biologically speaking why would it be surprising that some men would find a women who is prime for reproduction attractive? It just makes perfect sense.
It's only confusing to you because you've bought into the puritanical notion that there is something wrong with being attracted to young women; there's really nothing confusing about it: it's reasonable to find them physically attractive, but almost certainly inappropriate to engage in a relationship with them. This is the misconception I'm trying to dispell here.
I agree that at best he did a questionable thing. However I know nothing of her maturity at the time. As I've said elsewhere, I've met emotionally and intellectually immature 40 year olds (certainly plenty in their late 20s) and intellectually stimulating and mature 16 year olds. If it's legal, and she was mature, why would it be wrong? And would it be wrong if I had sex with "a fully formed adult" when she is emotionally immature? I get we need a rule to catch the vast majority of the cases, but from a moral stand point I can't say why it would be okay to have sex with an emotional immature adult, but not okay to have sex with an emotionally mature adult just because the latter is younger than the former.
Again, don't get me wrong, the vast majority of the time there is some taking advantage going on, and there should be laws to stop it. I'm not arguing against this.
One of the leading causes of death for teen girls aged 15-19 is complications from childbirth. Also infants born to teen mothers have increased risk of death and poorer health outcomes. One of the most common issues is obstructed labor, since their pelvises are too small to accomdate a baby.
Recent research has also found teen pregnancy is linked to premature death later in life.
The science doesn't agree that teen girls are in their prime reproductive years. I wish this idea would fade into the history books and live alongside the idea that women shouldnt ride trains because their uteruses would fly out.
Some links below for your convenience.
https://www.nicswell.co.uk/health-news/teenage-pregnancy-death-concern
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/health/teen-pregnancy-early-death.html
I put prime years at late teens to late 20s. This seems to confirm that, not contradict it.
The second link I cant see if or where they broke it out by age...only teen vs non-teen. I would be curious to see what would change if you moved the number to 17.
Here is more information that includes the ages 16-19. Having a child before the age of 20 increases risks of death, injury, or complications. Again, not prime reproductive years. Before the modern era women had kids young, but thats because EVERYONE had shorter live spans and death was common in general. Still doesn't add up to "teens are in their reproductbe prime."
I have a feeling no matter how many facts or how much data I present to refute your position you aren't going to be open to changing your mind. However, I'd like this information to be available to others who might find it insightful.
https://www.webmd.com/baby/teen-pregnancy-medical-risks-and-realities
That doesn't appear to separate out the ages, it just says it typically happens 15-19, but can be as low as 10.
Let's see if you're projecting:
"A woman's fertility peaks between her late teens to late-20s after which it starts to decline"
But that being said, you recognize that this was typical, which seems you should also recognize that this is what we evolved around. If women were reproducing at a young age, but were dying slightly more by their 30s, this wasn't creating downward evolutionary pressure.
The best time to have a baby with the lowest risk is ages 20 - 26. That's the window with the best outcome. I love science, it's the best way to move towards better ideas and medical practices. That's why I care about dispelling the idea that teenagers are in their reproductive prime.
Also, this might be interesting to you. Women didn't marry young as frequently as we're told.
https://historymyths.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/myth-136-women-married-very-young-in-the-olden-days/
So not being open to changing your mind was a projection. I figured as much, its almost always people thinking they see themselves in other people when they make baseless accusations.
You ignored data twice, and then I agreed that past 30 is a higher risk pregnancy. No idea what you are talking about friend.
I then provided info that shows women werent always marrying as young as people tend think which goes against your basis that evolution supports teens being in their reproductive prime. You haven't supplied any data at all to back up your claims.
But you do you. The info is out there for you and others. Have a nice day now
I addressed all of the data you provided, even asking for further clarification for one of the sources. You just hand-waved my point, with data, away. Even now trying to claim that I didn't provide it. And you're accusing me of ignoring data. Lol Just another projection. You're good at doing this.
A little off base, but, Many of my relatives came from families of 6-10 children. More often than not, mothers died in childbirth. Is this where we want society to return?
How did you possibly get yourself to this being a reasonable question?
Does it matter? When younger women are sexualized, they get pregnant.
Of course it matters because I certainly don't believe we should go back to that at all and I have no idea how you could had possibly gotten yourself there.
Justifying sexualization of immature teenage girls leads there.
It’s called a hypothetical question
Well a thing being legal does not make a thing right. Emotional maturity is subjective, and thus is not what we use for determining whether a person is considered an adult or not.
Maturity isn't the guiding rod by which we can determine adulthood. I'm suggesting that age is relevant to this, because it's the best we have at determining brain formation. Intellectual disabilities in an adult would mean that engaging with them sexually is wrong, showing that it is the functionality of the brain that determines adulthood. If there was never a need for a draft, I think we would naturally have concluded adulthood starts around 22-25, instead of the arbitrary designation of 18. For the purpose of having a hard rule to stop children from being taken advantage of, age is the best we have (for people without intellectual/developmental disabilities).
With that in mind, we really can say definitively, that no, Seinfeld isn't wrong for finding her attractive, but he was for having a sexual relationship with her.
That being said, arguing that the urges behind the wrong act are "natural," seems to argue for a relaxation of our attitude towards these relationships, which is also wrong. which is why other Lemmineers got the "ick" from your previous comment.
Because nobody is upset that he found her attractive. We're upset because he was a fully formed adult, with super-stardom and all the trappings of power that come with it, engaging in a sexual relationship with a not fully formed adult.
You should absolutely read the rest of this thread because someone outright said that I deviate from the norm by finding some of them attractive, and even tried to equate being attracted to them to having the desire to murder.
But that being said, as I already very clearly and explicitly said, I agree laws should be in place to protect minors from predators. I'm also fine with it being based on age.
It's just that you are, on one hand, saying legality and morality are not the same (correctly, imo) but then arguing with me that it's morally bad in many cases so we need to have a clear law (which I also agree with), which makes what he did immoral. Maybe they were emotionally and intellectually compatible. I don't know, as I don't know either of them, and everyone close to it has said it was a good relationship. Who am I to say it was bad?
additionally, these have been some of the most carefully worded comments of my life lmao
Dude you can’t reason with these people. They are repressed sickos that want to make their viewpoint seem normal. It’s like some vegans who pretend that meat isn’t delicious. It’s all the same authoritarian shit. Eroticism makes them uncomfortable so they want to outlaw it. The ironic part is that if these neopuritans ever have kids their kids will grow up kinky AF.
One of the hottest times I had before I was 21 was a woman in her early 50s seducing me. I imagine there neopuritans would attempt to explain away my agency or frame me as a victim and shit. It’s tragic when you consider where these neopuritans are headed.
why do you equate not wanting to fuck teens with Puritanism?
I'm really not speaking to them, but making sure anyone who comes in behind them that their attraction is perfectly normal.
Which it is not...
You're fucking gross.
So gross! I can't believe he's out in the daylight. Every sentence I read just got worse and worse...
YIKES DAWG
Can't defend indefensible positions.
Is what you need to start telling yourself.
I'm literally defending my position, you and the other poster are just attacking my character.
It's fine, I get it. It's some of the same exact pushback I saw when I was arguing in favor of rights for homosexuals back during the rise of their widespread acceptance.
You're making the same arguments and even appealing to the same historic causes as pedophilia-acceptance advocates do.
Don't try to make your desire to have sex with teens a civil rights issue, it cheapens everything that LGBTQ+ people have suffered and fought for.
This is an empty ad hominem that I don't care about. I'm not arguing that pedophilia is normal, I'm pointing out that being attracted to young women is not pedophilia and should stop being labelled as such.
I view it as quite the opposite: by labelling a perfectly normal attraction as a mental disorder, you're guilty of the same puritanical nonsense that we have fought against for the past few decades.
I'm really not trying to engage here but if you're appealing to what makes biological sense then killing your sexual rivals and responding violently to aggression or stress are also perfectly normal and should be allowed by your reasoning.
You're jumping through a lot of hoops to justify sexual relationships between people of vast maturity level and power imbalances.
The defining feature of human civilization is that we move beyond biological impulses
I've been very clear and explicit that I believe the laws should exist. And yet you're still arguing that I'm saying that because it's natural, it should still be legal.
Sorry, but it's clear you aren't arguing in good faith or you've completely shut yourself down and are not open to reason, so I'll bow out.
Point is we treat those psychological violent urges and don't brush them off as natural. We teach people how to cope with them. We don't spend an awful lot of time justifying those impulses.
No, you revealed your character by doing a VERY bad job of defending your position. Such that you need to change your position.
Arguing for the rights of homosexuals has nothing in common from what you've said here.
Again, no argument.