volvoxvsmarla

Not gonna lie, no matter how gross the age difference is, I keep thinking about the couples from my high school (in Germany, where the age of consent is 14) where there were 12 and 13 year olds involved with 17-19 year olds. It was rare but it happened and the relationships often lasted quite a while, so it was kind of... consensual, for lack of a better term. And since I don't know the girl or Van De Velde personally and I haven't been there, I wanted to abstain from judging this other than on the legal basis.

But when I read that he gave her alcohol - a 12 year old - no way. Sorry but no matter how iN lOvE anyone was or whatever, you do not give a 12 year old alcohol, unless it's a sip of your beer and she's your kid (saying this as someone raised in Bavaria). But other than that, no alcohol. And when you end up fucking a 12 year old - which is awful to begin with, worse since they only met - and first intoxicating her, that is just the point at which you cannot argue any kind of maturity, love, attraction, age of consent crap or whatever anymore. You intoxicated and fucked a minor. Period.

The more details from the case are revealed the more I have to say fuck that guy. But at the same time - fuck the judges double and triple.

I can be your friend or your enemy, whichever you prefer

I'm sorry that was your shower thought

I'm not a political and social science think tank, so I cannot propose anything. I doubt there is one method or approach to just establish this.

I mean I could tell you that I would "just" pay everyone basically the same, have "free" housing standardized for everyone and have them relocate to not further than 15 mins from their work, demolish single family houses, have students paid for studying, have parents paid for parenting, provide "free" necessities and basic foods, and get rid of bullshit jobs and companies that make products for empty consumption. But I mean, "just". That's obviously a thought experiment that happens by a complete layman and I doubt that I could win people for this, let alone in a democratic way.

I think you responded to the wrong comment, could that be?

Having worked in both low end and high end job I have two answers to that. The first is social status. No matter how much you earn, you will always be seen as more intelligent and more "worthy" because you have a higher status job. I think for a lot of people it's this admiration that would be enough. The second answer is physical reasons. My sister's back has been shit since she was 30 because of her endless standing in a barista job. Some jobs are insanely hard and just the comfort of being able to take a coffee break and a chat and sit at your desk is absolutely worth striving for. (There are people who enjoy manual and physical labor, but then again, why punish them financially, if they are willing to do the "harder" jobs?)

And yes, a third answer would be the urge to learn more and be more.engaged mentally. But wanting to do that and that having to do that to achieve success are two very different prerequisites.

The solution cannot be only based on providing more opportunities to achieve equity of chance. To me, (financial/professional) success cannot and should not be the thing to strive for solely. We cannot all be attorneys and doctors and high achievers. We cannot expect a good life for all if everyone strives to be in the top 10% of society and this is the prerequisite for a good life and success, because by definition, this leaves 90% out.

So if you really want to have a good life for all, we need to stop the idea that you need to attain some artificial definition of professional success in order to have a good life, and provide a livable, worthy life for everyone - especially if they put in the time to work and contribute to society. If a person is working 40 hours a week, i.e. gives up 40 hours of their life and free time, why should it matter whether they work as a cashier, collect trash, or work as an attorney. In every case, they have a crucial role in society.

Is body dysmorphia out of someone's control? Is mental illness? Is being raised in a toxic society and being manipulated to never feel good enough?

You allow yourself way too much grace if you think you can judge a person's appearance on the fact whether a person is responsible for their appearance or not. Even with plastic surgery. At some point in their lives they felt like they wanted to change something about their look. For what reasons, you don't know. Why they went as far as they did or whether something was botched, you also don't know. Whether they are happy or not with the results, you also don't know.

It's her responsibility because she did this willingly and agreed to it is such a short sighted and black and white way of thinking. Even if she did, even if she likes the result and it is as intended, it is not your place to body shame her or anyone at all. The best case scenario is that you are just bashing someone's aesthetic choices based on your preferences. More likely you are adding insecurity to a vulnerable person (because all of us are vulnerable if we're being honest).

So maybe try to be kind the next time. If you think it looks awful, keep it to yourself. We have so much negativity and judginess going around already.

I mean, apart from it being based on a subjective questionnaire - I see that they used t test and chi square and some of the results were significant, but when you look at the table, very often the percentages don't vary or vary very little. Ok, a group had 14% vs 15% of a trait and the difference is significant, but when you take a step back you got to be careful with overinterpretation. To me, the table was all over the place. And to be fair, 80 ND and 250 NT aren't exactly a huge sample size either. All in all, while an interesting paper, I think there are severe limitations to its significance and definitely needs further (and more profound) analysis.

But my being said, I am not from psychology studies, so maybe such approaches and numbers are more common? I'm from biomedical sciences and thus this reads more like a bachelor's thesis.

Penne al aspirine

It's 14 in Germany? Yuck.

Why tough. It's not like you are a child mentally by age 17 years 11 months 29 days and then BOOM birthday happens and your mind becomes mature all of the sudden.

We assume that kids grow to adults in their teenage years. And we grant them our trust and support them to make decisions for themselves, more and more so.

To me, trying to criminalize sex for teenagers has about the same effect as outlawing abortion. It will still happen, it will just be much less safe.

I want my daughter to be able to come to me about questions and if she decides she's ready to engage on sexual acts, and be able to do it at home where she's safe and comfortable and not in a car or outside or a public toilet. I don't want her to risk getting an STI because she is afraid of buying condoms or asking questions. Her feeling that she is "committing a crime" will not make her safe.

I also want to point out: rape, incest etc are obviously still illegal. And let's be clear here - sexual assault in minors is awful, but/because it is assault. There is explicitly no consent there. These cases very often happen by grown ass adults that the children know - family members or close family friends. I doubt that a 14 year old will willingly agree to have sex with her dad or uncle - no matter whether this is legal or illegal.

That's what I assumed. Probably the 12 year old "agreed" to everything.

I'll be frank here, I remember being a teen in Germany. And let me tell you these were some horny times for some classmates. But at no point, also not looking back, would I have said any of these girls or boys who were sexually active at 14, 13 or even 12, have done so out of pressure or against their will. And judging from what I know of them today, all of them are in secure, healthy relationships and live happy, successful, and fulfilling lives. I'll also point out that we have sex ed from early on (I remember in elementary), so at the age of consent everyone of us has put a condom on a banana in class at least once. Everyone knows where babies come from, we learn how cycles work, what different kinds of contraceptives there are. Also, just because the age of consent is 14 doesn't mean you are required to lose your virginity at or by age 14.

Now, you still have to draw the line somewhere. I personally don't think it should be 18 because it's just unrealistic to assume that teenagers won't have sex. Or that they will only have sex with other teenagers. "Gap laws" seem sensible to me. But that's just my opinion, and it is very influenced by the open culture and a societal distinction between kids and youngsters.

And in this case, he is from a country where the age of consent was set to 16. In Britain it is also 16. So even if I can somehow imagine that it was "mutual", 19 and 12 is in no way even close to legal in neither country. I don't really know how this case has made it to court. As I said, I know quite a bunch of people who had sex before the age of consent, but they usually kept that, well, out of the courtroom.