So, I just wanted to discuss something weird, but the Europeans I'm discussing Rammstein with (and even some Americans) are out libertarianing me. I dont discuss this blog among my rammstein friends as its primarily a political blog and idk what they'd think of it, a lot of my views are kinda out there for normies, but I have been discussing the issue on here, because the allegations do have a political aspect to them and it's a topic of interest.
But yeah, I basically shared my age of consent position from the last article, only to actually get push back on it. People were arguing that in Europe adolescents are given a lot more freedom and responsibility, and that that's why the age of consent is lower. Our culture is prudish and authoritarian on sex, and that's why we tend to trend toward a strict 18 standard. I do think our standard should be more lax, in the sense of the 3 year buffer zone I mentioned (to avoid the more stupid arrests on the subject), but I do think that there is some discussion here.
Another argument I heard is that till's sex life with a 15 year old is none of the public's business if it's legal, and I would agree with that.
But because European media outlets are spreading this story with the intent to create outrage, my stance is if they have a problem with it, then they should change the laws. you can't argue for this behavior to be legal while simultaneously shaming and cancelling people who engage in it. That's dumb. IF you have a problem with it, change your laws.
I understand that the 18 age of consent here in the US is a subjective social convention and it can change, but given that's the age of adulthood in our society, I think it's fine. I admit that 18 is, itself, somewhat arbitrary, and societies in the past had adulthood ages as low as 12. I think 18 is fine, and it's a good balance, with some trying to push some stuff up to 21 or even 25, while others wanna push stuff down to 16 or 14. I'm also not gonna shame till for whatever cultural practices are normal in his native germany, even if i have issues with them. I do think that the age of consent being 14 is erring a little too hard on the side of freedom, and I would argue it should be higher to prevent cases of actual abuse, but eh, at least it's not like, <12 or something. That's when you really have an issue and regardless of culture that behavior is probably wrong and abusive.
Anyway, if people over in europe are fine living in a society where an age of consent of 14 is okay, well, that's their prerogative, and it's not my place to judge. I just think it's then hypocritical to portray till lindemann as a bad guy if he did happen to engage in behavior with someone of that age (and that is, in itself, debatable, as many of these allegations thrown at him are unsubstantiated and questionable). Again, my stance is, you can either complain about his behavior, and push to change the laws, or shut up and live with the consequences of your own logic. You don't get to do both.
Still, from an American perspective, I don't see many issues with the age of consent being 18. I think it's a good balance. And most who wanna change it over here seem to be...predatory in a lot of ways and have ulterior motives. I just think there should be a more legally recognized buffer zone to protect other young people in moral grey areas.
like...again. If you're 18, and you have sex with a 17 year old, and her parents don't like you, they can press charges and send you to jail. I think that's completely messed up and shouldnt happen.
Alternatively, there's a debate over child marriage where if parents consent, a 40 year old can marry a 14 year old here too. And THAT'S messed up on so many levels, as kids at that age can't really consent and are probably pressured into such an arrangement. And strangely republicans are trying to keep that one legal while screaming everyone else is a "groomer."
It's weird, it's like america's whole mindset is stuck in the weird biblical mindset of children (especially female children) are basically the property of their parents. Which is kinda screwed up in some instances. Like gee, maybe 2000 year old books shouldnt be the basis of modern morality, but some people still look to them as such, and that's kinda disturbing.
It would be nice if we actually looked at these issues with the adolescent's interests in mind, looking at both the freedom argument and the protection argument, and finding the age where one trumps the other. I guess such an age is debatable, but again, I'm fine with 18 year, but if other countries are more lax, meh, whatever. It's their prerogative, their society. As long as they're doing it in the name of the child's interests and freedoms, as opposed to some weird authoritarian or predatory thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment