Fucking hell are you ever reaching for relevance. You don't know what any of the terms your using mean, where they come from, or how they used across different applications. MORALITY extends from MORES at a societal scale through codifying expected behaviour as moral right. The most basic definition of MORES explicitly references societal societal MORALS. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mores As MORES are first described by Sumner, they are explicitly described as societal cultural practices through which a society's MORALS are codifed customs. While I could pull many excerpts from his writings that substantiate this readily here's one such quote: "The case is somewhat different when attempts are made by positive efforts to prevent the operation of bad mores, or to abolish them. The historians have familiarized us with the notion of corrupt or degenerate mores. Such periods as the later Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, the Merovingian kingdom, and the Renaissance offer us examples of evil mores. We need to give more exactitude to this idea. Bad mores are those which are not well fitted to the conditions and needs of the society at the time. But, as we have seen, the mores produce a philosophy of welfare, more or less complete, and they produce taboos which are concentrated inhibitions directed against conduct which the philosophy regards as harmful, or positive injunctions to do what is judged expedient and beneficial. The taboos constitute morality or a moral system which, in higher civilization, restrains passion and appetite, and curbs the will." Looking at the MORALITY of age-gap relationships, we can understand that the MORES of how societal cultural expression and legal apparatus' impact such MORAL considerations.

I guess the entirety of academia must be morons according to you to write entire books and articles about the MORALITY of different political systems. Entire books written about how the MORALITY of governments evolve, change and are re-interpreted based on contemporary understandings.

If mores produce a philosophy of welfare, how exactly do you suggest that morals are somehow separate from society? You seem to think that there is some sort of universal moral code. Did you learn that from your cult leader? Or did you read an excerpt on Kant once and decided that was the only ethical model available?

I suggest you sit down before you embarrass yourself much further.

He really likes threatening people with vigilantly violence as some sort of weird as shit moral superiority complex.

Oh no! are you failing in the upvotes this deep into the tread?! Fucking psycho - I hope you check yourself into an anger therapy clinic before you assault someone for saying they support a woman's right to choose.

You apparently don't even understand the difference between morality and ethics. Slavery was moral within systems that allowed/perpetuated it. Slavery was a regulated practice under christian states, for instance, where treatment of slaves was dictated by moral decrees of the church. The ETHICS of slavery has not changed, but humanity's MORAL understanding of it has. Just as the MORALs of capitalist societies favour rich people and provide a different justice system for them, or the morality of patriarchal societies favour men. The ETHICS of justice are very different than the MORALs of justice. The ETHICS of humanist discourses (through the enlightenment era) were why feminism and anti-slavery/social rights movements were able to flourish in the first place, despite the overwhelming MORAL systems that defined the oppression of the eras that came before (and continue to persist). Ethics are dependent on philosophy, which can, and does, have roots in human moral understandings of the world, and not all ethical models agree on the scope of ethics, but ethical models are based on logic, not feeling (as much as human cognition allows, anyways). The implementation of emergent ethics and morality into justice system apparatus' is the process through which societies regulate what they consider as morally good. Women's suffrage, for instance, was a battle that was fought using ETHICAL arguments to recognize women as human to overcome their place within a system of MORALITY that denied women that standing. Just as the MORALITY of spousal rape, or even rape more broadly, has been integrated into the justice system as MORAL wrong because of pressure from feminist scholars, who broadly have used ETHICAL arguments to see such change occur. That you don't understand that considering a hierarchy, a governmental system, property rights, etc., as "good" or "bad" is inherently a moral consideration is all the evidence anyone should need to see that you don't have an even basic grasp on theories of ethics or morality. You don't know what any of these terms mean and sound like you watched a video, or listen to the occasional feminist podcast as your entire intelectual education. I thought you were being disingenuous, but it turns out you're just dumb.

Your entire thesis can be summarized as "Destroy the patriarchy." You offer no means to do so, beyond, being critical where any shred of evidence of patriarchy exists. You state no objective outcomes, or means to achieve them. You state that "I’m saying it (the legal system) does not, and is in fact incapable of doing so. The legal system itself is immoral in large aspects of its function." - which results in application to the lens of slavery means (using your logic) that making slavery illegal is a useless function, as moral authority is seemingly only a function of hegemony, of which (somehow) governing institutions have not impact. That you think the justice system is not inherently rooted in systems of morality is moronic, at best, and much more likely utterly disingenuous rhetoric you're simply employing to win a debate. You're not earnest in your engagement, nor are you actually interested in discussing core complications with relationships, how to dismantle the patriarchy, or how to decrease actual rates of abuse. You sound like a yankee who is disillusioned by the world and possibilities that governance structures can actually be a force of good in the world. Goodbye.

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?

😂 You haven't had any whiff of moral standing from the moment you espoused violence as a reasonable response to the very existence of an age-gap relationship.

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.

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?

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.

Oh look, more evidence your entire worldview is resultant of sexist 80s movies. I'll bet you think prison rape is funny too!

If there is something inherently wrong/unethical about a circumstance that elicits broad public negative reactions, then the legality of it should be called into question. Posts criticizing relationships due to age gaps fixate on notions that age-experience gaps necessarily involve conversion and/or abuse - if that's true, then we ought to do something about said abuse, which is why age of consent laws exist. If 19 year olds are not capable of making adult decisions, then they ought not be considered adults. If they are adults, they should be respected in their decisions, unless other information regarding conversion and/or abuse exists.

OPs mene is suggesting conversion and abuse where I have not otherwise seen any evidence. Corgan may be a piece of shit for many reasons, but suggestions that Mendel has been powerless in the relationship due to simple age-differences erases her personhood, especially if we want to agree that people are adults by 19.

It's not that I don't understand the issue, it's that the framing of the issue is primarialy from a Puritan sensibility that posits women are inherently victims of predator men, which does nothing to enhance women's personhood or rational ability. It's incredibly similar to sex work discourses where women are described as inherently victims and incapable of engaging in sex work or their own volition.

You're a complete weirdo. Can you point to a single comment I've made that has sexualized literally anyone, much less argued in favour of pedophilia?