this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
282 points (97.0% liked)

politics

25075 readers
2356 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This guy married his wife when he was 45 and she was 21 🤮

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

It’s rare, but it happens. They’re consenting adults.

E: look, I’m not a fan of this age gap, but everyone’s making up rules about what’s acceptable. Either they’re adults or not, 18 is the cutoff, and if no grooming was involved you can dislike it all you want but they’re still adults.

E2: looks like they met when she was under age. So, no…this doesn’t work right at all.

[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rose_(Tennessee_politician)

Rose and his wife Chelsea (née Doss) married in January 2011.[30] At the time, he was 45 and she was 21. He met her when she was 17.[31] They live in Cookeville, Tennessee, with their two sons. [6]

Doesn't say when they started dating.

I will agree that it's case by case, but if he started grooming her at 17 it's grooming.

Grooming doesn't always relate to age or age gap either. If a man is a teacher or leader at church camp or something, some position of authority it can go beyond the age of consent and still be considered grooming.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just because something is legal doesn't mean the rest of us can't judge people for doing it. It's not illegal to be a creep.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm a huge fan of the "half your age plus seven" rule. Even if it's legal (assuming no grooming prior) it's still pretty creepy. Especially since that's the age you marry - presumably you've been together for a bit before that too.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I mean in this case it's 1/3 your age +6

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll join in and say you're right. Policing morally "wrong" but legal acts is a very conservative way of doing things. You can point to dozens of activities that conservatives decry as "immoral" or "sinful" yet are legal and nobody cares what they think, but when it's two adults who get married with a large age gap suddenly everyone wants to be moral guardians. Two consenting adults can make a legal choice, and anything more than that is nobody's business.

That said, in this particular case, this dude met his wife when she was still in high school. He absolutely groomed her.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I agree. But someone just provided info that the met when she was as under age. This no longer seems like it passes for “leave them alone” territory.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That was the very last thing I said:

That said, in this particular case, this dude met his wife when she was still in high school. He absolutely groomed her.

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

but everyone’s making up rules about what’s acceptable.

The hypocrisy for me is that folks want to dictate what is "morally acceptable" while objecting to other people's wanting to dictate what is "morally acceptable". In this case, and it all too common with Republicans generally, he did apparently groom her from a young age. But we can make a judgement based on that fact, not the fact of the age differential.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As long as there wasn't any grooming involved.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Just because it's legal, doesn't make it morally correct.

Reminds me of my aunt. Strongly against weed, then it gets legalized and suddenly she smokes more than I do. Pure hypocrisy.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

21 is teenager part 2.

28 is the cutoff for grown adult and can do as they please.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's actually 36. That's the age in the US when you have all your age-based Constitutional restrictions removed.

Edit: it's actually 35 not 36.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m glad you made that decision for everyone. So two 20 year olds having sex aren’t adults? Just admit you don’t like the age gap and be honest.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

You are welcome.