Some lobbyists and accusers have even suggested the idea of 21 being the age of consent. One person in the Dispatches programme suggested that any woman under the age of 22 was being "groomed" by a man. There is also the concept of outlawing significant age gap relationships so Rollo Tomassi's advice to tell 35+ men at the peak of their SMV to date 18+ women would become a crime as the age gap would be illegal if this lobbying succeeds.
Can't see how this would work in reality without turning the majority of people into criminals at a time when the Police can't keep on top of shoplifters.
Can't see how this would work in reality without turning the majority of people into criminals at a time when the Police can't keep on top of shoplifters.
Perhaps the BBC has been reading their Ayn Rand:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Making age gap relationships illegal is retarded and probably unconstitutional, but Rollo's advice to date younger women amounts to betabuxing for anyone who who wasn't already slaying when they were in their early 20s. The only upsides are that the woman allowing him to starfish her is still in her prime and less likely to have bastard kids that she needs him to foot the bill for. Rollo frustrates me because he's an expert on female nature but insists on giving men horrible advice that will lead to divorce rape.
Sky clarified the concept, they call it "staggered consent". Defined as a maximum of four years either way.
We'll likely still see sexual double standards though like we see now with teacher/pupil dynamics though applied to adult age gap relationships if the Government does succumb to the lobbyists and make it law.
I don't see this resulting in the outcome that the inspins pushing this are hoping for. It will just make MGTOW an even bigger thing among men, especially the ones with the most to lose. They're not going to become some carousel rider's retirement plan just because some bitter hags eliminated their younger competition.
In fairness, it's not just the BBC. Sky is also doing the same thing where they are least clarify the age gap thing or as they term it "staggered consent" - maximum of four years either way.
are they trying to use the blowback from Brand to promote lowering the age of consent with reverse psychology?
dead-on, mate. dead-on. so much of what the """right""" (i cannot put enough quotation marks) thinks about sexuality, including age, is pure manufactured and controlled reaction.
just look at lolis, and the "every woman in video games needs to have huge tits" shit. they have right-wingers with supposed cultural standards debating to the death their right to have huge titty 5 year olds in their anime because these satanists send their fattest and ugliest to pretend to be against it.
This is the same BBC that's spent 20 years running interference for the Muslim rape gangs comprised of men in their 30s and 40s or older targeting white kids as young as twelve.
No, thinking about it, that won't work and is just going to create a bigger problem compared to raising the voting age to 25 as with that I agree with.
We see how banning drinking to 21 doesn't reduce drunkenness and alcohol abuse, in fact it makes it worse since now if you get alcohol at that age you tend to consume it quickly before it gets taken away from you. Here with the age of consent from 16 onwards you are really at your most sexually active and if they just get in a relationship with someone older, there's a fair chance it's as healthy a relationship than grooming as teenagers are idiots when it comes to sex and there's probably more harm done them fucking each other because they were told on social media they should than someone older taking the lead.
The social stigma is best for this than getting the law involved, it's not normal for the age gap so should be scrutinised publicly but if you're still in a relationship after then it's probably real. Getting the law involved because an 18 year old wants to date a 28 year old seems like it'll just cause more of a mess and we see how shit the UK police are and how feminist inclined the courts are.
You do NOT want it enshrined in law that women 21 to 16 can't consent, that is way too risky especially in Europe in general.
It's really funny to see the interests of bitter, childless millennial women and the forces of darkness that are aligned against the concept of heterosexuality agreeing on this one.
There's no reason to believe that they would be any more serious about enforcing this law on women than the laws that they're already breaking when they do that.
Age gap laws for legal age adults is retarded. It might help the younger men have a chance at getting relationships, but it is also much more likely that the women will just embrace harems with chads and Tyrones.
This view has been echoed by many people on social media, with some commentators floating ideas such as restricting those under 18 to sleeping with those under 21.
This is not unreasonable.
The only 'age gaps' that this prohibits is when one is 16 or 17, and I'm perfectly fine with such a prohibition.
There is already a problem where girls develop quicker than boys during puberty. It wasn't unknown prior to mandatory ID checks on the doors of nightclubs for underage girls to get in to drink because they looked old enough. It works the other way too, many a time I see young women ask for a child ticket on the buses because the drivers don't ID them.
Are men and dating sites going to ask women for photo ID (which would have to apply to men too) with an increase in the age of consent to protect their backsides?
Of course you are. You think all women are angels, so no women would take advantage of such legislation to manipulate and harm men. And yes, women. Because such laws are always only applied to men and never to women, such is the sexism prevalent in society that you seem to fully support.
I have mixed feelings on this. I just looked it up, age of majority is 18, while age of consent is 16. So, the 16/17 year olds you mention are still minors, and that's a group where I don't mind additional (reasonable) restrictions being placed upon. So in theory this is fine. In practice...perhaps also fine, but slippery slope is a concern, as are some other things I'll mention later.
I'm coming at it mostly from a US perspective, though, and we still technically have some rights, so the situation is a little different. But my main slippery slope concern is that age of consent and majority are linked in a lot of people's minds, so this could, down the road, be used to take legal adults' rights.
But the real issue, as others have mentioned, is that this will generally not be enforced equally, and I'm against all laws that have that issue. People lie, and a 21 year old could accidentally sleep with a 17 year old. Interestingly, that's the same age gap as a 20 year old sleeping with a 16 year old, which would be legal. Odd. Anyway, if the 21 year old is a man, he's fucked (pardon the pun.) If the sexes were reversed, generally I'd imagine it wouldn't be enforced.
Laws like this might seem good on paper (in fact I'm inclined to agree it looks good on paper), but are often used to further destroy relationships and erode trust. This is another "men should be scared of women" law in practice, once again wrapped up in the 'think of the children' guise.
Their justification for teaching this shit younger every year is that abstinence is impossible and kids are going to fool about with each other regardless. Then they turn around and demand that they're taught about sex before they have a genetic impulse to engage in such activity, and that they cannot engage in it for eight years or so after they acquire an interest?
Archive: https://archive.ph/uzmpz
Some lobbyists and accusers have even suggested the idea of 21 being the age of consent. One person in the Dispatches programme suggested that any woman under the age of 22 was being "groomed" by a man. There is also the concept of outlawing significant age gap relationships so Rollo Tomassi's advice to tell 35+ men at the peak of their SMV to date 18+ women would become a crime as the age gap would be illegal if this lobbying succeeds.
Can't see how this would work in reality without turning the majority of people into criminals at a time when the Police can't keep on top of shoplifters.
Perhaps the BBC has been reading their Ayn Rand:
Making age gap relationships illegal is retarded and probably unconstitutional, but Rollo's advice to date younger women amounts to betabuxing for anyone who who wasn't already slaying when they were in their early 20s. The only upsides are that the woman allowing him to starfish her is still in her prime and less likely to have bastard kids that she needs him to foot the bill for. Rollo frustrates me because he's an expert on female nature but insists on giving men horrible advice that will lead to divorce rape.
Sky clarified the concept, they call it "staggered consent". Defined as a maximum of four years either way.
We'll likely still see sexual double standards though like we see now with teacher/pupil dynamics though applied to adult age gap relationships if the Government does succumb to the lobbyists and make it law.
I don't see this resulting in the outcome that the inspins pushing this are hoping for. It will just make MGTOW an even bigger thing among men, especially the ones with the most to lose. They're not going to become some carousel rider's retirement plan just because some bitter hags eliminated their younger competition.
I don't see why they'd worry about that. They'll simply tax single men more.
Thus making it a positive feedback loop for increasing influence of MGTOW and the likes.
Congrats, you just said the quiet part outloud
The BBC is arguing for higher age of consent?
The BBC?
The network that literally has a dude fondling a naked child on their building and hired multiple nonces?
Is this opposite day, or are they trying to use the blowback from Brand to promote lowering the age of consent with reverse psychology?
In fairness, it's not just the BBC. Sky is also doing the same thing where they are least clarify the age gap thing or as they term it "staggered consent" - maximum of four years either way.
dead-on, mate. dead-on. so much of what the """right""" (i cannot put enough quotation marks) thinks about sexuality, including age, is pure manufactured and controlled reaction.
just look at lolis, and the "every woman in video games needs to have huge tits" shit. they have right-wingers with supposed cultural standards debating to the death their right to have huge titty 5 year olds in their anime because these satanists send their fattest and ugliest to pretend to be against it.
Again, this is an excuse to create more criminals out of the populace. They wont enforce this law for their own, only wrongthinkers.
This is the same BBC that's spent 20 years running interference for the Muslim rape gangs comprised of men in their 30s and 40s or older targeting white kids as young as twelve.
No, thinking about it, that won't work and is just going to create a bigger problem compared to raising the voting age to 25 as with that I agree with.
We see how banning drinking to 21 doesn't reduce drunkenness and alcohol abuse, in fact it makes it worse since now if you get alcohol at that age you tend to consume it quickly before it gets taken away from you. Here with the age of consent from 16 onwards you are really at your most sexually active and if they just get in a relationship with someone older, there's a fair chance it's as healthy a relationship than grooming as teenagers are idiots when it comes to sex and there's probably more harm done them fucking each other because they were told on social media they should than someone older taking the lead.
The social stigma is best for this than getting the law involved, it's not normal for the age gap so should be scrutinised publicly but if you're still in a relationship after then it's probably real. Getting the law involved because an 18 year old wants to date a 28 year old seems like it'll just cause more of a mess and we see how shit the UK police are and how feminist inclined the courts are.
You do NOT want it enshrined in law that women 21 to 16 can't consent, that is way too risky especially in Europe in general.
I support allowing gorillas and chimpanzees to vote, as that would lead to better outcomes than we have now.
So.....you support BLM? /s
Baboon Lives Matter, absolutely!
They too would make better choices than the voters we have now, insofar as there even is a choice.
Like they make better stock picks than the experts.
It's really funny to see the interests of bitter, childless millennial women and the forces of darkness that are aligned against the concept of heterosexuality agreeing on this one.
Until they realize this will hurt female teachers and their abuse of male children.
There's no reason to believe that they would be any more serious about enforcing this law on women than the laws that they're already breaking when they do that.
Age gap laws for legal age adults is retarded. It might help the younger men have a chance at getting relationships, but it is also much more likely that the women will just embrace harems with chads and Tyrones.
women are basically children, but we have to give them full, if not MORE, legal power.
This is not unreasonable.
The only 'age gaps' that this prohibits is when one is 16 or 17, and I'm perfectly fine with such a prohibition.
Unfortunately, people lie.
Say you're 23, hooking up with a 22-year-old.
Psych! She's 20, you're now a rapist! Have fun with that!
There is already a problem where girls develop quicker than boys during puberty. It wasn't unknown prior to mandatory ID checks on the doors of nightclubs for underage girls to get in to drink because they looked old enough. It works the other way too, many a time I see young women ask for a child ticket on the buses because the drivers don't ID them.
Are men and dating sites going to ask women for photo ID (which would have to apply to men too) with an increase in the age of consent to protect their backsides?
I think you misunderstand what I quoted. That would be legal.
The only thing that is not allowed is sleeping with someone under 18 while you being over 21.
Of course, 'lying' would still be a problem then as it is now, and would be under any conceivable system unless you directly address it.
Of course you are. You think all women are angels, so no women would take advantage of such legislation to manipulate and harm men. And yes, women. Because such laws are always only applied to men and never to women, such is the sexism prevalent in society that you seem to fully support.
Does this schizobabble have anything at all to do with what you were replying to?
Oh no! Pointing out that AoV is a feminist who thinks women are angels is "shizobabble". I feel so stupid!
Except that I'm not a feminist and I don't think women are "angels". That's just your retardation and autism speaking.
I have mixed feelings on this. I just looked it up, age of majority is 18, while age of consent is 16. So, the 16/17 year olds you mention are still minors, and that's a group where I don't mind additional (reasonable) restrictions being placed upon. So in theory this is fine. In practice...perhaps also fine, but slippery slope is a concern, as are some other things I'll mention later.
I'm coming at it mostly from a US perspective, though, and we still technically have some rights, so the situation is a little different. But my main slippery slope concern is that age of consent and majority are linked in a lot of people's minds, so this could, down the road, be used to take legal adults' rights.
But the real issue, as others have mentioned, is that this will generally not be enforced equally, and I'm against all laws that have that issue. People lie, and a 21 year old could accidentally sleep with a 17 year old. Interestingly, that's the same age gap as a 20 year old sleeping with a 16 year old, which would be legal. Odd. Anyway, if the 21 year old is a man, he's fucked (pardon the pun.) If the sexes were reversed, generally I'd imagine it wouldn't be enforced.
Laws like this might seem good on paper (in fact I'm inclined to agree it looks good on paper), but are often used to further destroy relationships and erode trust. This is another "men should be scared of women" law in practice, once again wrapped up in the 'think of the children' guise.
Their justification for teaching this shit younger every year is that abstinence is impossible and kids are going to fool about with each other regardless. Then they turn around and demand that they're taught about sex before they have a genetic impulse to engage in such activity, and that they cannot engage in it for eight years or so after they acquire an interest?
Hetero couples only, gay sex and child prostitution by Arabs are condoned.
Pretty much, yes.
Its just an excuse to arrest wrongthinkers. They'll never go after someone who toes the party line doing the same thing,