Pictured in this meme: Midwestern American introduced to food containing fiber experiences what it’s like to not be constipated for the first time.

MORALITY extends from MORES at a societal scale through codifying expected behaviour as moral right.

Mores is used to describe the scope of what a particular group of people believe to be moral in a fixed period of time. That does not mean that morality in general is defined by any set of social mores.

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.

Those academics are not judging the morality of different political systems by the political systems own social mores… That would obviously be redundant.

If mores produce a philosophy of welfare, how exactly do you suggest that morals are somehow separate from society?

I never claimed any society was devoid of the concept of morals, just that social mores can be described by people both inside and outside of that particular group as immoral/unethical. Both I and the Quakers contemporary to the time of slavery can both correctly determine that slavery is immoral/unethical.

You seem to think that there is some sort of universal moral code.

Lol, the whole point of the philosophical concept of ethics is that it’s an open debate. If you think something is immoral, then you can make that determination and convince other people to do the same. I would argue that there is no universally moral way to live your life, but in any given society you could argue that certain actions are bad for society or human decency as a whole and should be labeled as immoral.

suggest you sit down before you embarrass yourself much further.

Says the person who claimed slavery wasn’t immoral…

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.

Slavery was legal, not moral. Just because something is regulated does not mean that it becomes more moral. Morality and ethics can be used interchangeably in most cases. Some philosophers distinguish between the two, saying that morality concerns more with the individual interpretation of morality while ethics deals with the philosophical concept of determining what is right or wrong. However, that does not mean that someone’s subjective perspective of a scenario is determinative or that morality is fixed in time or by social group…

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).

Lol… It would still be a semantic dispute, but the word you are looking for is not MORALS, it’s MORES. Morals are un fixed to a certain group or time period and are subject to modern interpretation. Mores are fixed to the time and group of particular people.

The implementation of emergent ethics and morality into justice system apparatus’ is the process through which societies regulate what they consider as morally good.

Lol. Yes because it’s always been “society” who dictates legality… You do realize that legal systems predate democratic societies, right?

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.

You really have just invented a revisionist theory based on a semantic dispute…

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.

Lol, who taught you this? It’s like arguing with a chatbot fed solely off of reddit circa 2012.

Morality and ethics can and often are interchangeable, you could make an argument about the difference in a philosophical discussion. However, claiming slavery as a social construct is immoral or unethical or even bad… Is perfectly valid.

You just wasted so much of your own time writing nonsensical slop.

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.

Again, this would be obvious for anyone who actually studied feminism with a leftist perspective. Feminism is a cornerstone of any modern socialist political ideology. By providing equity and equality to the most marginalized groups in any hierarchical structure, you extend an umbrella of social justice to those higher in the hierarchical structure.

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.

Lol, “which results in application to the lens of slavery means (using your logic) that making slavery illegal is a useless function”.

Since slavery was completely legal during large swaths of our history …one would think it would lead you to believe that the legality of a practice isn’t really related to the morality of the practice.

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.

It absolutely is not rooted in systems of morality, it’s rooted in systems of governance, property, and the maintenance of hierarchical control.

That’s why slavery was legal, it’s why the war on drugs is still ongoing, it’s why people are being kidnapped by ICE. Why do you think it’s so hard to put someone like Epstein in jail? The law is used to maintain order, not provide justice. The fact that you believe otherwise just speaks to your naivety and lack of historical context.

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.

You are just to ignorant to actually understand anything were talking about. Have a good one, go read a book or two.

I think it’s actually a trick question. The dog they spotted at the mall one time actually belongs to the person creating the questions and answers on the show. Otherwise how would they know the player saw a specific dog at the mall?

So the real answer C : the dog at the mall whose owner really determines who has the best dog on their own test.

Then what is your condition for consent?

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?

Granted, but my point isn’t necessarily that the magnitude matters. It’s the fact that judging something as a “romantic” relationships generates these gray lines that make moral discussions like this one so blurry. Many people have relationships that blur the lines between romantic and platonic.

You don’t need everything to be absolute to make a declarative criticism.

No, but again, you can’t really draw a clean line around this problem. We all have diluted agency as a result of constantly taking in sense data: we’re products of our environments. I don’t think you can cleanly say that every relationship between a 44-year old man and a 19-year old woman is exploitative in nature.

Again, you don’t need every relationship in a system of abuse to be abusive to criticize the system of abuse.

There were slaves whose parents were their masters, who in fact loved their masters and were loved by their masters. There were slaves who wanted to return to slavery after the civil war. Does that mean I can’t definitively claim slavery is bad?

Or if you do believe that, wouldn’t you want to push for that to be codified as law? And if so, how would you codify it?

Law does not dictate morality. Lots of things that are immoral are perfectly legal. Legal systems are not perfect.

Either she’s wise enough and has enough agency to make decisions for herself, or she’s not. If it’s the latter, then you have to deal with the outcomes of that.

Yes, and I would say that is a horrible and likely outcome for most people in that situation. And those with the most agency who participate in that relationship should be criticized.

I don’t buy that this is exclusively a “romantic relationship” problem. If the point is that 19-year olds are too ignorant to realize that a 44-year old man showing interest in them is “predatory,” surely that problem extends to other components of their agency.

When did I say it was exclusive to romantic relationships. What I said is that ranit relationship like this were more problematic because the potential for abuse is much greater. That being said, a older more powerful person abusing a younger colleague or friends is also bad and should be criticized.

Literally the person in this photo. They’ve been together for 13 years, right? I don’t know how you tell the difference in the beginning, but if you tell someone they can’t do it (which, you’re effectively doing by publicly shaming their relationship), then how many people are being deprived of a meaningful relationship. Why are you the arbiter of when someone has agency and when they don’t?

Which is why I said how often… Again, you are excusing the majority for the sake of the outliers. Also, we really have no idea what this individual creations is like behind closed doors. Plenty of abusive relationships go on for decades.

Why are you the arbiter of when someone has agency and when they don’t?

Again… When did I say I was? I am just being critical of the guy in their 40s dating a teen.

it’s about invalidating the argument that disgust is a reasonable tool for determining morality of an action. That’s one of your points, as evidenced in the next line.

Lol, the disgust is just one expression of the many criticism I have already laid out. It’s not that I am having my ethical construct dictated to me by social mores. I have articulated my reasoning, you just choose to ignore them.

I guess I don’t understand your point at all then. You’re saying that even though Corgan is “disgusting and predatory,” his actions may well lead to happiness for him and the person he way “praying” on? On what planet does the word “pray” mean to make someone else happy? Oh no, I’m being prayed on by the compliment fairy! Keep it away!

You can have a happy slave, does that mean the slave owner isnt predatory or disgusting? Also it’s prey, not pray.

think you’re so focused on the older person here that you are failing to realize that you’re reducing the younger person to an automaton.

Because the older person has the power in the relationship. Keeping with the slavery comparison. Does a slave have the ability to choose not to be a slave? Yes, they could flee north, a lot of slaves did. However, it’s dangerous, they could fail to get away and be punished severely. Could a slave have a “good” master? Yes, lots of slaves were literal family members of their masters who were loved and loved their owners. Does that mean the concept of slavery is good? Does that mean all slaves had zero agency?

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/

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.

deleted by creator

Speaking from personal experience, many of my non-romantic friendships have had as great or greater impact on my life than did my long-term romantic relationships. I don’t think that’s so uncommon.

You’re talking about emotional impact alone. Someone who lives with you, shares a bank account with you, and owns property with you obviously has more ability to control you and abuse you.

The point comes back to agency. Does a 19-year old have agency? You’re effectively saying that they do not, because they’re easily manipulated by experience and material resources.

Are you trying to claim someone cannot dilute someone else’s agency? that’s the whole problem with a power imbalance in a relationship, that your partner can use their power to isolate you from your agency.

19-year old sees someone who is more experienced and has material resources and decides that’s a good enough reason to be in a romantic relationship.

Again my criticism isn’t about the decisions made by the person who just legally became an adult, it’s on the older person.

I mean, do you think sometime in the last 13 years that Chloe Mendel could have developed sufficient experience and material resources of her own such that she could have decided to leave?

Do you think that people always leave bad relationships when thing become unhealthy?

don’t know if 18 is the right age to determine that someone is an adult, but I do think that once we draw that line, we can’t selectively decide what’s good and bad for them.

When did I say I wanted to do that?

I don’t think you can say an 18-year old shouldn’t be allowed to decide who they want to fuck while also saying they can vote and decide which politician gets to fuck us.

Again… When did I say that? What I said is this guy is gross, immature, and wants to take advantage of young women.

Like, if you think a 19-year old is so easily manipulated, then they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they could be manipulated by some 44-year old into voting against their best interest, right? This is the slippery slope to which I was referring.

19 years old should vote because the laws are pertinent to their present and future…

I understand the POV that people feel like a 19-year old is being taken advantage of. If a 43-year old started dating my 18-year old niece, I would be pretty disappointed. But if they were genuinely happy together, who am I to stand in their way?

That is a big “if” you are relying on. What if that 43 year old was love bombing them and telling you on the side that they were going to eventually leave them a broken mess? How often do you think these relationships are genuine compared to predatory. How do you tell the difference in the beginning?

This is also the analogy to queer relationships: just because it elicits a disgust reaction in someone doesn’t mean it’s morally wrong.

You can literally validate any abusive relationship with that same thinking because it’s made to exclude context.

“Just because slavery elicits a disgust reaction in someone doesn’t mean it’s morally wrong.”

Mendel and Corgan are genuinely happy together, and who are you to tell them that they can’t be?

When did I say they can’t be happy. What I said is that he is a disgusting and predatory man.

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.

Well … This person has clearly never had a girlfriend, that’s why they are like this.

In my experience lemmy has always been pretty misogynistic. I think it’s just a byproduct of having a heavy tech community bias. Anytime anything about women’s rights gets spoken about they come out of the woodworks.

Billy aged 6 years just so you could double-down on your ridiculous point.

I guess I should be accurate with numbers… Lord wouldn’t it sound bad if 44 year old was dating a 13 year old.

But why stop at romantic relationships? Every relationship has the potential for manipulation.

And you are saying all relationships have the same impact on your life as a marriage or long term relationship? Or are you just asking incredibly dumb questions?

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.

So I’m your worldview women are inherently in need of protection from men, who are inherently predators? Yeah, maybe go read some feminist texts before making broad generalizations like that…

Another strawman… Are we talking about all men? When did I say all men were predators ? We are talking about a 50 year old man who’s been married several times and has defended the abuse allegations of his good friend Marilyn Manson?

Yes, I would apply considerations of wealth imbalance far before applying considerations of gender imbalances, as wealth imbalances tend to create much more oppressive conditions.

And you aren’t doing it in this case because…? Also, how often do you see a relationship between an old man and a teenager where there wasn’t a wealth imbalance…it’s almost like that’s inherent to the problem.

Now whose strawmanning? Should every relationship need to conform to your notions of “normal”?

Still you. How is being able to relate to someone not topical to relationships?

Why couldn’t anyone use that same rationale to broadly criticize mixed culture relationships, queer relationships, or any other form of relationship?

Lol, it’s telling that you are equating all of these to a 50 year old millionaire marrying a 19 year old. True ally.

What exactly is the through line between mixed culture, queer relationships, and “any form of relationship”? And what prevents them from relating to each other? Oh, I’m queer and so is my partner…we obviously don’t have anything to talk about. What are you talking about?

The dude is from an entirely different generation.

The fixation on the 50 year old millionaire and not the specifics of their relationship erases the woman.

That’s not a specific of the relationship?

What’s the millionaire’s partner’s name? Who is she as a person? Has she spoke about abuse, coersion, or grooming?

The whole point is that the power dynamic is obvious and can be abused to control the relationship. Including talking to people about the relationship.

Do old men always groom young women? Are young men impervious to grooming, coersion, and abuse from old women?

Is there not an established enough history of that happening coming from rich, powerful, and famous men?

Did I say anything about rich powerful and famous women not being able to do the same?

Do you think that narratives that place women as innocents who need to be protected are useful in pushing forward feminist golas of sex/gender equality? How?

That is the narrative you are attempting to represent this as. Women are systemically disadvanged on both a legal and economic scale that makes it easier for wealthy and powerful men to treat them as sexual objects. Attempting to ignore the systemic history of misogyny and then declare that if you don’t think women are capable of being invulnerable to these forces is misogynistic. Feminism not just about equality, it’s about equity and recognition that the patriarchy is maintained to isolate women from the equity that would free them of another avenue of control.

think that empowering women to understand they are individuals who can make choices for themselves and who can hold otherwise in positions of power to account is a much better approach.

How exactly is the 19 year going to hold their powerful partner to account if they are abused? Choosing to be controlled by a much more powerful man is your version of feminism?

I guess if you do not have the ability to recognize that people can use experience and material resources to manipulate…

You sound exactly like a conservative saying “Imagine if your daughter came home with a woman!”

Ahh yes, homosexual relationships are exactly like a 50 year old millionaire dating a 19 year old. It’s so obvious!

Is your premise that 19 year old are not adults? Or that there ought to be caps on age differences written into law? Or that women should be infantilized until they lose any notion of being “young”?

Are these all strawman arguments? Are they made to hide your lust beneath a thin veil of feminism? Does your faux feminist view actually help protect women, or does it help protect the men who prey upon them? Does your analysis account for material and social power dynamics?

find it incredibly weird how much effort and criticism is placed on individual relationships based on age-difference alone. It screams Puritan ideals of feminine innocence and the evils of sex.

I find it incredibly weird that anyone is immature enough to date someone half their age. As someone quickly approaching their 40s, I have nothing in common with someone in their late 20s, let alone someone who’s 19.

If there is evidence of coersion or grooming, let’s hear it. Otherwise all I see are efforts to undermine the notion that a woman (especially a young woman) is capable of making “good” romantic decisions.

Do you think evidence of grooming or coercion is often exposed before the damage is done?

It’s hilarious that you are trying to act like you are defending the woman in the relationship, while simultaneously assuming that anyone is criticizing the woman and not the 50 year old millionaire…

If you want to keep it basic you can buy the bokashi bran online. I just use a 5 gallon igloo water cooler for fermentation.

Do you do direct burial or use it to heat up a heap?

Just bury it after fermentation. It becomes really rich soil in like a week to two weeks. The worms love the fermented scraps, so it really gets broken down by them before it fully decomposes. No heaps or heating required. You can also just buy it directly under what your planting and it will feed the plant for at least a season.

Basic guide for the type of composting I do.

You can also look up guides on YouTube or online to make your own inputs by searching for KNF or Korean Natural Farming. It will basically teach you to run an fully self sufficient garden/small farm