[ SECRET POST #3888 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3888 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
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)]

It's not a troll opinion to be critical of sexualizing 16 year olds, or critical of romantic depictions of relationships between 15 year olds and adults. It's fucking weird that the only part of this secret that F!S is apparently capable of comprehending is that it equates 6 year olds and 16 year olds.

And I'm not even sure how much it actually does equate the two, outside of using the word "pedophilia" to describe both. Most of the rest of it seems to be making the point that sexualizing 15 year olds still isn't OK.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

uh well. no. it says anybody who thinks 15 is different from 7 is bending over backwards to defend pedophilia. that is the accusation made. i dont know how you missed comprehending that part of the secret yourself.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the main message the OP wants to get across was that they think sexualizing young characters and ignoring abusive power dynamics in relationships involving them is bad, including for teenage characters, like 15 and 16 year olds.

I don't think that OP says that there's no difference between a 15 year old and a 7 year old. I think OP thinks that sexualizing a 15 year old is still wrong, and the fact that a 15 year old is not a 7 year old doesn't change that. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between a 15 year old and a 7 year old.

[(Anonymous)]

if op had said "sexualizing young characters and abusive power dynamics is bad" then ok sure. i dont agree if its fiction but many people hold that viewpoint, it's not uncommon

what they actually said was drawing a distinction between sexualizing teenagers who are 15 and sexualizing teenagers who are 7, is bending over backwards to defend pedophilia.

thats not the same point. why are you defending someone who literally called drawing a distinction, defending pedophilia? their words are right there.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, gosh darn it, I don't agree that's what the secret says. I was also trying to avoid getting into close reading of the text of the secret but I guess that's where we're going to go here.

OK, so OP says that they are getting tired of people "bending over backwards... to try and defend pedophilia." I think there's two parts by this. First, what do they mean by pedophilia? Second, what is the nature of their objection to the arguments they see as defending pedophilia?

In answer to the first question, their understanding of pedophilia clearly includes teenagers who are not yet adults. They say pretty clearly that "they do fall under the umbrella of children." I think this is the only part of the post that you can reasonably accuse of conflating 15 year olds and 7 year olds, and I said that in my first post. I acknowledge that. But I don't think it means that OP is saying that there's no distinction between 15 year olds and 7 year olds. That OP thinks they're in the same category does not mean that they're exactly the same. There are still distinctions between them. In the same way that, although there are distinctions between Fords and Hondas, they are both still cars. I still don't really agree with that argument - I would say that there is a fundamental distinction between 15 year olds and 7 year olds, but that neither ought to be sexualized. But I think that's all you need to agree with to stand by the rest of OP's argument: sexualizing 15 year olds is wrong, and defending sexualizing 15 year olds is also incorrect.

Then we get to the idea of "defending pedophilia", keeping in mind that what OP has in mind (rightly or wrongly) is defending the sexualization of 15-year-olds and other immature teens. And what OP says is that people who say "Oh but were they 7 or 15???" should "gtfo with that shit". Now, the nature of the objection here, especially in light of OP's argument that 15 year olds should still be considered children, seems pretty clear. The problem inherent in asking "Oh but were they 7 or 15" is that it implies that if they were 15, then sexualizing them would be fine. And this is the whole damn thing that OP disagrees with: asking the question "Oh but were they 7 or 15" as a defense of sexualizing 15-year-olds. NOT because sexualizing 7-year-olds is the same as sexualizing 15-year-olds, but because both are still bad, and bringing up something worse doesn't make sexualizing 15-year-olds OK. And I'm being honest here, I don't really see any other coherent way to read that. Especially when they literally say "Just stop sexualizing teenagers" in the very next line. I don't know how you can read it as saying that sexualizing 7-year-olds is the exact same as sexualizing 15-year-olds. It's not an irrelevant question because there's no line to be drawn; it's an irrelevant question because talking about sexualizing 7-year-olds isn't a defense of sexualizing 15-year-olds.

Their whole argument, as far as I can see, is that sexualizing 15 year olds is wrong. That's what they're trying to say, that's what most of their post says, and you can disagree with their reasons as you like, and disagree with the logic and the underlying arguments they use to reach that position. But when somebody says "Get the fuck out of here asking whether they were 7 or 15 and just stop sexualizing teenagers", I really don't see how you're going to fucking say that they're implying what you say you're implying. That really seems like the clear and obvious interpretation of what they're saying in the secret.

And that's a million goddamn words of close reading on the fucking secret and I hope that helps with something in the damn world.

Shit.

[(Anonymous)]

"it's an irrelevant question because talking about sexualizing 7-year-olds isn't a defense of sexualizing 15-year-olds"

yes. and in turn, talking about sexualizing 15-year-olds is not a defense of sexualizing 7-year-olds. that's all that needs to be said. op is the one bringing both into the conversation and comparing them and finding them insufficiently different.

personally, i think "there is a moral distinction between the involvement of 7 year olds and 15 year olds and asking which it was for context because they are vastly different contexts" is a valid rebuttal to "get the fuck out of here asking whether they were 7 or 15 and just stop sexualizing teenagers, you pedophile defenders"

the only way your argument stands up is if you ignore that they're accusing everyone of defending pedophilia, which you somehow seem to with very convoluted rationalization and apologism that i dont think op deserves.

[(Anonymous)]

"get the fuck out of here asking whether they were 7 or 15 and just stop sexualizing teenagers, you pedophile defenders"

But like. The very way that you're phrasing it here gets at the point that OP does draw a distinction between those two things, and is not just saying that sexualizing 7 year olds is the same as sexualizing 15 year olds. because clearly they're not including 7 year olds when they talk about teenagers, because nobody would include 7 year olds as teenagers, because 7 year olds aren't teenagers.

Argue that the OP is misusing the word "pedophilia" if you want, argue that they're wrong on the merits if you want, but please at least stop misinterpreting OP and claiming that they see no difference between 7 and 15 year olds, when they clearly do see a difference.

[(Anonymous)]

In high school a friend of mine was 15 or 16 at the time, I don't remember her exact age, but she was dating an older guy, older than 18 because he wasn't a high schooler anymore. And guess what, nothing abusive happened and they were a lovely couple and happy together. So yes, excuse me if I facepalm at this "adults dating underagers is WROOOOONG". It depends of the people involved and the relationship, not the numbers.

[(Anonymous)]

Listen, if you actually want to defend 15 year olds having relationships with adults and arguing against the concept of statutory rape, that's one thing, but it's a whole completely different argument to the one that I'm replying to

I also don't really agree with this argument - I think relationships like the one that you're talking about are closer to the exception than the rule - but saying that relationships between 15 year olds and adults are actually fine is responding to OP's secret in a completely different way.

[(Anonymous)]

I really doubt most people have an issue with an 18 or 19-year-old dating a 16-year-old.

But my god, if I hear "age is just a number", I'm going to scream. I don't care how ~mature~ a 16-year-old is, it's fucking gross for a 30-year-old to be sexually interested in and dating them, period.

[(Anonymous)]

Age means nothing to a bunch of drawings. It's not real. No one is being harmed by putting fake people in skimpy clothes. I'd like to hear your rationale on murder simulators being somehow okay and morally better than "sexualizing underage girls." OH, they're not real? Funny.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

Really? Because I saw someone claiming - in all apparent sincerity - that a six year age gap, between an 18-year-old and a 24-year-old, was 'creepy' and 'suspicious'. *Six* *goddamn* *years*.

[(Anonymous)]

Welcome to fandom. Because a bunch of people call you pedophile for precisely that age gap. See: Otabek Altin and Yuri Plisetsky of Yuri!!! on Ice, whose canonical friendship they also decry as inappropriate.

[(Anonymous)]

"It's fucking groooooooooooossss!!!"

Go back to tumblr.

[(Anonymous)]

Is it possible for a fifteen year old to have sex with someone much older in a way they enjoy and feel good about? Yes. But is the older person in the right for having sex with a fifteen year old? No. Completely regardless of how the fifteen year old feels during or after, the adult is still wrong to have had sex with them.

Do I think the statutory rape of a minor is just as bad when the minor is an eager participant as it is when the minor is coerced? Hell, no. But it's still an illegal act, and that law exists for a very good reason. As an adult, the older party should have the maturity to understand that, even if the younger party doesn't.

[(Anonymous)]

Its people like you who take on a preachy tone and think the shit that comes from your subintellectual mind seems logical.

You basically answered your own question and contradicted it in the second sentence. The point of being a teenager is to develop sexually, once they choose to be sexual that's the end of the argument. Some backpedaling technicality like the age of a sexual partner does not counter the point that a teen has the ability for sex.

Don't purposely try to judge an adult when you already condone the act of sex. Dramatic age differences are always frowned upon so that shit isn't new. People can generally make the right call if it's weird or if it's acceptable. The worst you can do is judge by the way, but that doesn't stop anyone.

Nevermind. Sex is icky and must be shielded from innocent eyes!

NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

God this whole comment is creepy and just epically fails to understand why age of consent is a thing. Like, wow, anon. Wow.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Sex is creepy! Yikes!
Age is creepy! Yikes!

The world is creepy outside of my purity bubble! Yikes!

Word policing vague descriptions twist an argument to sound creepy in my head!

NAYRT the second

[(Anonymous)]

Holy shit, anon.

If a fifteen-year-old is assuring you they're ready for sex and they want it with you, it's your responsibility as an adult to recognize that they may be right, but they may also be making a mistake. And it would be selfish to an unethical degree to accept the consent of a person who - for the protection of them and millions of others of their age - has been deemed unable to consent by law.

Seriously, we're talking about your attitudes towards real life young people here. Please, please comprehend this.

Re: NAYRT the second

[(Anonymous)]

Both sides of the argument even out. What's with the mock outrage and pearl clutching? Fuck off already.

Maybe this hasnt dawned on you about real life/the adult world but everyone ((including teens)) has accountability no matter how much coddling you think sheltered middle class America owes you. Thank you for speaking on the behalf of the "millions" of sexually confused 14 and 15 year olds out there. Like adolescents are coma victims who lack a sense of free will or gravity. Sex is taboo after all and only for grown ups.

Not sure where you're going with tacking on a lecture about the age of consent laws unless you're just strawmanning.

[(Anonymous)]

A girl I went to high school with started dating a senior in her freshman year. They got serious, so when he graduated they continued dating. Was he supposed to suddenly stop seeing her at a certain age because "oh noes"?

[(Anonymous)]

I had the same age gap with my very first boyfriend. He graduated and went to college, but we still kept dating because we really liked each other. We ended up being together for five years and are still friends to this day some fifteen years later.

[(Anonymous)]

It's used in the context of a 15 year old in a relationship with an 18 year old often enough, as if turning 18 suddenly turns the formerly innocent teen into a pedophiliac predator. Which is fucking bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not a troll opinion to be critical of sexualizing 16 year olds, or critical of romantic depictions of relationships between 15 year olds and adults.

When they're fictional? It sure as shit is.