Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverinewolfweiselpigeon
Ewww so a young girl developing titties suddenly makes her fair game to men with 10+ years of age and experience on her? Y'all have obviously never been a teenaged girl before.
|
Some half-ranting/half-attempting to be delicate about this touchy subject commentary:
No, not fair game. There is the big difference between acting on attractions and being like "whoa, erection time. That's a 12 year old though". Social conventions of the time might have blocked people from even being conscious of it being immoral. Now that we've reached the modern school of thought (which rules FYI), we can't expect people to have been aware of the wrong they could be doing (although some definitely did) if it was not even clear to them that it was an issue in the first place. It's very possible that we could be participating in something that could be worthy of being shot on sight for in a few decades, but if we weren't aware of the very logical argument that was accepted on a wide scale level years from now, would we be at fault or just a notch on the belt of human intellectual evolution?
I want to note that I think statutory rape laws are entirely justified and in place for a good reason. My point was more about the general idea of judging people from the past by modern standards and how that doesn't make sense. Just like how outdoor closet islamophobes blubber on about Muhammad being a (reformed) bandit, (politically) married to a child, and a polygamist are zeroing in on things that were extraordinarily rampant at the time (not that it justifies them) as a way to demean everything else he did in his life. I guess that brings us back to where we started but not exactly because Michael Gira did that **** less than a decade ago. Carry on.