In response to this post, ChangeIt writes:
ChangeIt: Exactly. They can’t be honest and call young teen sex “illegal intercourse” because then no one would really care, just like it was for the entirety of human history and still is for countries outside of the Anglosphere. And if no one really cares, the state loses all the power it gained from using the views of jealous male and female feminists to its advantage.
Interesting comment. Back when things were sane, all of this stuff was just called statutory rape. It was the subject of a lot of jokes, etc. but you could also go to jail for it, though it wasn’t very common. Though I do recall a man in his 50’s was giving cocaine and pot to local 15 year old girls from the high school in exchange for sex.
He got three years and everyone thought he deserved it because of the age difference. No one thought it was really rape, and if you said it was, people would laugh in your face and call you an idiot. Like I said, back when people were sane, long ago.
Fast forward and now even statutory rape isn’t good enough because too many have this idea that it’s a hokey crime. Well, it is in a sense. So they changed the name of it and now most of this is called Rape of a Minor, Sexual Assault of a Minor, Sexual Abuse of a Minor, on and on. And of course it’s not rape. That’s ridiculous.
And now everyone has conflated it with “pedophilia” so a man with a perfectly normal sexual interest in a 17 year old girl as any real man of any age might have is now a toucher, a Chester, a child molester, a kiddie fiddler, on and on. Which of course is even more abusive because adult-teen sex is extremely normal in human terms, and pedophilia and child molestation of small children is absolutely not normal and probably never has been for most human groups.
Whereas back then no one used the asinine and abused term pedophile and everyone just called them child molesters. And people didn’t think too much of child molesters, to put it mildly. But there was no hysteria about it, and not one person ever thought that a man having sex with a teenage girl was the same thing as a Chester diddling some little girl-child.
The argument here is that no one wants to call it illegal intercourse (which is the only reasonable thing to call it after all) because the name itself would defuse the crime of its toxicity and make people seem to not care about it so much.
So this goes to show that it’s not just the crime itself that upsets people, but it’s the actual name you slap on the crime that gets people all upset or makes them shrug their shoulders. You give a crime a harmless name and no one cares. You give it a horrible name and everyone wants to hang the guy. Straight out Heidegger himself and probably also Semiotics, the study of “signs.”
3
20
20
20
