2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[TexRex]

Infidelity is a violation of another's trust, not rights. Solicitation itself violates neither. They're not comparable things and neither are comparable to sexual predation and exploitation of minors.

Sexual intercourse with a minor isn't inherently a rights violation. One who is a minor and who engages in non-coercive sexual intercourse with another minor has violated no rights. One who is only as of recently not a minor and who engages in non-coercive sexual intercourse with a minor has violated no rights, even as one may have violated the law--termed statutory rape. It's not a perfect situation. I think statutes that provide for an age differential do a better job of protecting individual rights while respecting individual rights. Now one who engages in sexual intercourse with a minor a greater number of years their junior isn't sure to have violated another's rights, but the rate and likelihood of coercion (including that which doesn't involve physical force, as extortion or some other means) increases.

 

[Kriptical]

It isn't. Wikipedia:

"Human trafficking is the trade of humans for the purpose of forced labour, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation."

Sex trafficking is not the same thing as sex working. Consent is the difference.

Yes. Join them.

Referring to sex with a 17 year old as "infidelity" is joining the group that is not batting an eye at sex with a 17 year old. I don't know whether it was infidelity, but if it was infidelity, it was infidelity AND, in Florida, statutory rape. So to call it infidelity is to "not bat an eye" at statutory rape.

Sex work is not the same thing as trafficking. I don't know why you would think of sex work as being equally offensive to infidelity, but neither should be illegal in my view.

What you did, from my perspective, was conflate statutory rape with something that isn't a crime.

Why do you assume I wouldn’t bat an eye? I stated, that back then they wouldn’t have batted and eye, and apparently still don’t.

Also…who said sex work = infidelity.

Im judging the ‘john,’ in this situation, not their counterpart. Degree’s of willingness’s, or ability to consent, aside. Apologies, thought that was clear.


I guess my surprise comes from people being surprised when these people reveal that they in fact, don’t really care about these things.

..i mean..generation; she was just 17, if you know what i mean, has been pretty obvious about their douche proclivities.

@TexRex hence why i provided the qualifier: ‘because, i’m not the law.’

Im glad the law(exist), but don’t need it to guide my moral compass. Personally, anyone in their 40’s dating anyone younger than about 26 is creepy af..likely predatory. But thats my opinion and doesn’t make sense as a law. Ill still be judgy about it though.

 

[Danoff]

Why do you assume I wouldn’t bat an eye?

Was this infidelity? I don't know. I don't really care, as it's not really my business whether it's infidelity. But let's suppose that it was. If that's true, then what we know of the event so far is that it's all of these things.

A) Infidelity
B) Sex Trafficking
C) Statutory Rape


It's infidelity because we're assuming that's the case. I don't know whether it's the case, but it makes this discussion easier. It's sex trafficking because the 17 year old girl cannot consent to sex work. And it's Statutory rape because he was older than the Florida statute (24 I think?) and she because she was 17.


Now you called it infidelity. The reason I say you're not batting an eye is because you completely ignored the two much more serious issues B and C when you just call it A.

I guess my surprise comes from people being surprised when these people reveal that they in fact, don’t really care about these things.

You don't help that situation when you minimize it to be A and not B or C. Especially when B and C are far more serious.

 

[Kriptical]

Was this infidelity? I don't know. I don't really care, as it's not really my business whether it's infidelity. But let's suppose that it was. If that's true, then what we know of the event so far is that it's all of these things.

A) Infidelity
B) Sex Trafficking
C) Statutory Rape


It's infidelity because we're assuming that's the case. I don't know whether it's the case, but it makes this discussion easier. It's sex trafficking because the 17 year old girl cannot consent to sex work. And it's Statutory rape because he was older than the Florida statute (24 I think?) and she because she was 17.


Now you called it infidelity. The reason I say you're not batting an eye is because you completely ignored the two much more serious issues B and C when you just call it A.

You don't help that situation when you minimize it to be A and not B or C. Especially when B and C are far more serious.

I called it A because the point was made regarding the John in the situation. The point was made regarding general observed behavior over the years, as to my original point, but i did kinda wrap gaetz in there and understand it being a bit ambiguous.

Tldr: im judging the John twice, once morally, once ethically.

I’m not helping, or hurting that situation. Its a simple attempt to highlight the absurdity of expecting these people to have a moral compass. Also, when people you think should have a moral compass and should care about this…don’t.. Possibly…it might be time to accept these people are telling you about themselves.

Obviously, this is a general sentiment.