[ SECRET POST #3364 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3364 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[The Glass Scientists]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Ghostbusters remake]


__________________________________________________



04.
[All for One Webseries]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Castle]


__________________________________________________



06.
[DC Comics]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Reign of Fire]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Steven Universe]


__________________________________________________



09.
[K. Tempest Bradford]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Against the Wall]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Queer Literature, "In the Company of Shadows"]


__________________________________________________



12.
(Star Wars Rebels)


__________________________________________________



13.
[Jeeves and Wooster, P.G. Wodehouse]


__________________________________________________



14.
[Giles Coren]


__________________________________________________



15.
[James Marsters/Rick Grimes of The Walking Dead]









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 086 secrets from Secret Submission Post #481.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Except having a lower age limit on where you're willing to focus attraction or romantic attention isn't discrimination by any remotely reasonable definition of the word.

Also, using a term that was coined to refer to elder abuse and the societal tendency to depersonalize seniors to refer instead to the fact that sometimes, adults don't treat teens and young adults without significant life experience as peers and valid romantic partners is an incredibly obnoxious misuse of that term.

[(Anonymous)]

No. It's just not as limiting as you choose to use it. Ageism comes in all sorts of forms, from judgeing a teen as not being responsible enough to hold a part time job, just because they are 16, to not hiring a 50 year old because the hiring manager is 35, even though in both cases, both candidates would otherwise be perfect fits.

[(Anonymous)]

Also putting limits on interacting with other people based on age, even though there may be lots of other points of connection and common interests.

[(Anonymous)]

Both of which examples actively affect the lives and prospects of the people being discriminated against. That is what discrimination is: passing judgement in a way that negatively affects the life of the people being judged. Please explain exactly how a real person's discomfort RE who they find attractive actively affects the life of a fictional character.

[(Anonymous)]

If a person uses the same judgemental stance in real life as they have in this secret, which was the point I made in my first comment. Judge a potential partner solely on their age? Ageism. Finding out you feel ageist can come as a surprise and a shock, and be uncomfortably unsettling. It's no different than realising you are -ist in some other way.

[(Anonymous)]

You're right. 40 year olds should totally fuck 14 year olds, excluding them because of their age is discriminatory.

[(Anonymous)]

You missed the part where this was a discussion about adults over the age of consent, and not in Japan or other countries where that falls post puberty. Do try to.keep up.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, no. There are very good, very valid reasons why people are disinclined to pursue relationships with those younger than themselves, to the point where it has been codified into law in certain circumstances. You can't scream "but age is just a number, you're a bigot if you have personal limits", and then turn around and say "oh, but wait, it actually is bad here".

Either there are significant differences in power, maturity, and experience between older and younger people, or there aren't. If there are, they don't magically evaporate at the age of majority, even if we've decided that's the point at which limits can be personal rather than set down in law. If there aren't, then by your own argument, the law is also discriminatory.

[(Anonymous)]

and not in Japan or other countries where that falls post puberty

And how is this not 'discrimination' against those countries? Why is the age of consent in Japan less relevant to this conversation than the age of consent in your country? Unless you know what the age of consent is in OP's country of origin, how can you say with any certainty that it's not relevant?

[(Anonymous)]

Because 'Murrica.

[(Anonymous)]

No. Choosing not to pursue a romantic relationship with someone based on your feelings that said person is inappropriate doesn't need to have any bearing whatsoever on how you treat that person otherwise. If you are polite, civil, and respectful to the person, where is the discrimination in opting not to say "I think you're hot"?

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah for sure, but you haven't gone on the great injustice of ther being no babies CEOs. There are even younger goat mayors voted for by the public and some of these babies are more qualified for the positions, so it's pure ageism that there hasn't been a single one. They just haven't had the time to form the nepotism needed, a subtle form of discrimination.

[(Anonymous)]

We are not talking about hiring policy. We are talking about peer groups and social relationships.

The 16 year old is not the 35 year old's peer. They still won't be the 35 year old's peer when they're 18. It is entirely reasonable not to see them as a valid romantic partner at the latter age level, and to continue not to see them as a valid romantic partner or a social peer when they're 22 and the older person is 41.