site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1289 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 27, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Assume that the Congress decides to impose universal age of consent in all states. And pull from their ass the authority to do it. What do you think the current culture war coalitions and factions will push for and will it create intracoallition splits.

Hardline Religious conservatives hard - 21 with exception for marriage
Moderate Religous conservatives - 18
Centrists/liberals - they will look at Europe and see that the world didn't ended and probably say that it is 16 with romeo and juliet clause
Feminists - probably a split here - some will push for maximum, other for 16
Andrew tate fans - hard 14
Anime fans - soft 14
LGBTQ+ - a spectrum based on the how activist they are ranging from 16 to 12.

No idea about how will it go based on race and income

It's progressives, generally speaking, who dislike "child marriage" being legal (which usually means, you can get married at 16 or 17, provided that a parent or the court system signs off on it being fine). I don't think that this is accurate.

The culture has been pushing for later and later ages. Most people seem to assume it's already 18 and I sometimes see people arguing for 25.

Thus, returning to the original no-tech biology-based standard: 0 for men, infinite for women (except when married).

The cultures that think there should be that age of consent are the only ones that think an AoC should exist in the first place (the liberals are, famously, much less likely to think it should exist in the first place, or if it does they argue for 10-14 for “they should be allowed to have it when their bodies tell them to seek it” reasons- traditionalists confuse these guys for progressives all the time because “muh 70s” though).

They’re mostly arguing over small details, like the uniform you have to wear to fuck young boys (some people see this more traditionally- teachers, clergy (but I repeat myself), but progressives also consider men wearing dresses and certain skin colors to be one of those uniforms; and “allowed” as in they judge their mission to be so important that the correct amount of tolerable abuse by these people is not 0) and who the balance of power in a relationship must ultimately rest with (man for traditionalists, woman for progressives, a minor distinction given an equal society).

Hardline Religious conservatives hard - 21 with exception for marriage Moderate Religous conservatives - 18 Centrists/liberals - they will look at Europe and see that the world didn't ended and probably say that it is 16(.)

So, let me get this straight:

Hardline religious conservatives in Congress, many hailing from states like or constituencies resembling Alabama and Arkansas and Ohio (16) are going to set the age at 21, while the liberals from California (18) and New York (17) are going to set it at 16.

Full list here. The plurality is 16, though we all seem pretty comfortable enforcing CP laws built around 18, and you have most of the big important states (CA, NY, TX, VA, FL) higher than 16. There's actually not much of a pattern to Red/Blue: FL and CA are both 18, TX and NY are both 17, Massachusetts and Alabama are both 16. Either this issue is simply not one actually considered,

Fighting the hypo a little: if we were to see a movement form to actually pass such a law, it would undoubtedly need some passionate movement behind it, and the passion right now comes from the "SHE WAS JUST A 28 YEAR OLD BABY YOU SICK FUCK" age-gap end of things. We'd need a movement similar to Prohibition: an alliance of women and Southern Baptists. I could genuinely imagine a scenario where we get some kind of insane age-gap law that took the Romeo and Juliet law approach and tried to set the "true" age of consent at 25, with a R+J rule set at 5 years and an exception for marriage. Feminists call it a law against exploiting young women (sub rosa: against young women stealing husbands!), the Qanon caucus calls it an Epstein law, the rump-remnant of the Evangelicals is happy with any law that both serves to restrict fornication and inserts the government back into sexual morality, a bunch of IdPol types on both sides find ways to make it about protecting preferred races against the exploitation of disfavored races. Zoomer online discourse around age gaps is truly insane, older voters are broadly more conservative and will relish inserting themselves into young people's sex lives. Only 8% of couples have an age gap bigger than ten years.

That's how I could see it happening.

Closer to your hypo, if everyone for some reason was forced to vote on it tomorrow, I think we'd land on 18 with a 4 year R+J, and at least at first blush without time to propagandize we wouldn't see much partisan breakdown, the state list shows no pattern and if there were a strong partisan pattern it would show up in state legislatures. That seems to be the direction that more recently passed laws are going, I don't know the last time a state truly lowered the AoC.

We've definitely wind up with 18. My personal stance is that this is pretty stupid and 16 is fine but the incentives against arguing that publicly substantially outweigh any gain from just shrugging and saying, "well, there ya go I suppose".

Provided there's sufficient leeway for similarly aged young people to get together with their peers without the government getting involved, I don't really see what difference it makes on the margins between 15-19. I suppose there's some May-December, or April-August, marriages that get prevented; but that doesn't strike me as an overly tragic outcome.

Nobody will be willing to advocate for anything other than 18 with a shotgun wedding exception, most like.

Right now yeah, but as things are I can see some frustrations that might be able to set the stage for future agitation to finally stop the advancing postponement of adulthood. (By the time my sister felt "ready" to have kids she was pressing up against a geriatric pregnancy.) Right now the biggest rhetorical weapon against young adults is this idea that your brain isn't finished developing until 25.

Maybe more research discovers that this delayed development is of no real use. Maybe we recognize that most things we ask adults to take responsibility for do not require that your brain reach some state we can only even notice with brain scans. Maybe we suddenly remember that, oh, not long after 25 your brain starts un-developing and we don't gradually strip legal privileges of people as they age (unless it causes the failure of some qualification, e.g. driver's license, but age will not per se disqualify you!).

Right now the biggest rhetorical weapon against young adults is this idea that your brain isn't finished developing until 25.

Uh, no it’s not. I’m sure it gets cited in the occasional thinkpiece, but how much does that translate into zoomers’ decisions? Have you ever seen an adult say, “sorry, I can’t, my brain isn’t developed enough”?

Today’s twentysomethings are getting out of college with alarming debt and questionable prospects. They’re looking at rampant inflation of credentials, let alone prices. Cars are expensive. Housing ie worse. Insurance is fucked. There is a sense that someone is benefiting and they know it can’t be them.

COVID-era remote school and work derailed their social lives. Social media, a poor surrogate at the best of times, metastasized into something actively discouraging. They are constantly reminded that the world is struggling, with the people in charge malicious and/or incapable. No matter what they believe, they are reassured that half the country hates them and will dismantle anything they like on principle.

Given a choice, more of them are choosing to hunker down and hope for better times.

but how much does that translate into zoomers’ decisions? Have you ever seen an adult say, “sorry, I can’t, my brain isn’t developed enough”?

Uh, yes it is. It's a very common sentiment. "My brain isn't developed how can I be expected to pick what I'll do for a living for the rest of my life?" "My brain isn't even finished developing why can I be drafted into combat?" (in your time this probably referenced legal drinking age in place of a reference to brain development). I've heard it used in stand-up comic bits. I don't have examples handy because I legitimately thought this wouldn't be denied, but you're just wrong here in my experience.

Uh, no it’s not. I’m sure it gets cited in the occasional thinkpiece, but how much does that translate into zoomers’ decisions? Have you ever seen an adult say, “sorry, I can’t, my brain isn’t developed enough”?

I have heard over-25s and under-25s alike all state this, and the problem with the over-25s who are also parents is that their kids hear that and take this seriously... and then, just as you'd expect, they proceed to shut the fuck down and never amount to anything (creating the "incompetent, risk-averse youths" problem).

And you know what? If I spent my entire fucking life having adults (and their power structures) scream the exact functional equivalent of "YOU STUPID NIGGER!"[1] at me I'd actually think the target's response of "everything out there is dangerous and Not For Children, so time to lie flat" is completely and eminently reasonable!

Besides, delaying [personality changes that are supposed to happen at] puberty has no consequences whatsoever, right? Just give them the [sociological] puberty blockers and they'll turn out well-adjusted, I'm sure.

[1] Too much melanin hormones in the brain just makes them inferior, end of story. We have a lot of scientific literature backing it up- it's not discrimination if they actually are inferior, after all.

Eighteen is the compromise between ‘c’mon now, teenagers obviously need the guidance of their elders’ and ‘they can’t stay kids forever’ we’ve already settled on as a society. Is it intrinsically better than 16? Only by already being established. For that reason I don’t see that changing.

Eighteen was not an organic compromise as you imply it was. It was borne of the top-down imposition of California's own culture, where the age is 18, through its worldwide reach in media. Arkansas's age of consent is 16 and could just as easily convince you that 16 was "the compromise" if we let them control what the world watched in its living rooms for several decades.

Yes, I just said that 16 as the generally agreed upon compromise is not clearly worse than 18. It simply happens that one is generally agreed upon and the other is not. But, well, something has to be generally agreed upon.

What I responded to:

Nobody will be willing to advocate for anything other than 18

I explained why I thought maybe that could change one day. To which you respond no, it won't change. To which I disagreed. I don't dispute here that "something has to be generally agreed upon."

Your formatting is broken. Add two spaces at the end of a line if you want a line break after that line.

(I don't have an informed opinion on the question.)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats