You did, and that’s why your comment is at the top.

Way too long comment incoming:

I do want to comment on this being a cultural thing. I think @ICastFist@programming.dev could be right about where this… something I learned early in college in basically Sociology 101 and Psychology 101 was to not judge other cultures based off of my/our own values because they have a different value set. Here’s the thing, these value sets that other countries have - and fuck, even America apparently - and this “value” or belief or law specifically, really aid in the abuse of children and/or women.

For example, something we’ve seen for 40 years has been women in the Middle East (ME) standing up and dying for fair treatment. While I disagree with the use of messaging that GOP representatives are using against MEasterners this cycle - it is racist and I deplore it - this is what they are pointing to, and it is still a big problem that these women are fighting.

We’ve seen a similar fight in Japan recently. Women pushing for higher age of consent (AoC) and stricter standards around it, too.

This may help illustrate. I was an investigator of child abuse and ONLY investigated parents who abused their children. For this conversation, you have to understand that legal definitions and upholding them are at least partially about feasibility. For example here is how child abuse is defined and how an act meets it:

Was it a child (<18 years)
Does perp have Care, Custody, and Control?
Was there harm (physical, emotional, or sexual) to the child?
did that harm get caused purposefully?
Was it NOT a part of reasonable* discipline?

If all these are met, I could take the child and assign the case to family (not criminal) court.

*I added “reasonable” because sexual acts can count as discipline in a defense, but it would get thrown out. And yes, that is something I came across.

Here is the point I wanted to make:

In the state I’m from it USED TO be that there were 2 (technically ranges) AoC. 14-17, and 17-19. Anyone under 14 was off limits, anyone between 14-17 could have sex, and while 18 was the “legal” AoC, you could “get around” this at 17 because parents can’t report crimes against the “adult,” the child (who the law technically sees as an adult) has to. I use present tense because it’s still a thing.

On top of all of that, none of this really matters in a criminal sense. The paren could present a “no lo contesto” stating the evidence would clearly find them guilty and they don’t want to fight it. This would effectively just get the case to move on, but they wouldn’t take a “guilty” plea.

Also, with 100% of these cases of abuse I saw and dealt with (even death), parents didn’t go to jail. One that I was privy to was Tyreke Evans breaking his baby’s legs. He’s still playing football. He essentially TEXTED the mom to take the blame by manipulating her with threats. Police had that.

Aside: Now, I think it’s obvious since I wrote it, but what do you think the two ages of consent are?

If you feel gross after that, that’s expected.

My thesis statement no one is asking for at the end: I think it’s a cop out to say that “when we study another culture we cannot apply our own values.” The reason is we can study cultures, but still plainly see some things as disgusting. Like, I HATE the idea of incest in porn. I find the concept of “shota” and “loli” abhorrent. And I think it’s ok to see this all that way. Just because I see them in other cultures (even my own, really), doesn’t make them a net-neutral that we shouldn’t support the changing of.