Venting Victims of sex crimes aren't emotionally doomed and are able to eventually heal

[Edmund_Kemper]

What societies are you talking about? In what modern society do we treat teenagers like adults?

And what are you asking for in the way of records? Some ancient ledger that said "The girl queen wasn't very good at her job?" That's not how it works. The way it works is, stupider societies let child rulers do a child's job at ruling, and then as time goes on and we become more educated, we realize we want our rulers to do better jobs. What was "good" to a primitive and uneducated society is no longer good enough. No, the old records aren't gonna say the child rulers did a bad job, because they had much lower standards for what a "bad job" is. The thing to observe is, adults are more mature and capable than teenagers are. That's why we don't treat them the same.

And kids don't have better skills than adults. They might have faster reflexes due to having younger brains, but they aren't mature enough for adult responsibilities.

And what Slaughter resented was that he wasn't better to her. Listen to the interviews she's in. She says he shouldn't have molested her because, as an adult, she realizes that she was being taken advantage of as a child. He "used" her to get what she wanted. And that's what she hates. That she was "used." And she was always going to get used, because she was a stupid kid. Her parents didn't make her into a stupid kid, in fact her parents gave her unprecedented freedom. Her parents were fine with Dahvie and Slaughter being together, until they knew it was sexual. And despite all that freedom that should've, according to you, turned her into something competent, she gave her body and mind to him. Depended on him for life. This is why we don't let kids do this.

And you're saying getting your dick touched would be fine in a world where we just didn't care about the sanctity of our dicks? That's no solution. "Let's just not care about sexual abuse. Let's just get over it. It's no big deal." By that measure we could be convinced to not care about a lot of things. Let's just not care about burglary or murder. Ethics have to change for a reason. Like when we stopped letting kids be rulers, we have to observe a new need. You can't just say "Nothing means anything, let's just change our ethics."

And yes, we did observe how immature children were compared to adults. Even back in the 1800s. You seem to be confusing it for "infantilization," but no. We treated kids like kids back then, because we observed that kids are very immature. I'm not quite sure how to explain this to you. We treated kids like kids, because we saw how kiddy they were. That's it.

false. laws taking away teenagers' adults rights didn't exist until the 1800s arrived and these laws became MUCH more common in the late 20th century. also, burglary and murder is inherently bad because murder ends your life and burglary often has you at risk of being assaulted or having your property/belongings stolen. that stuff IS inherently painful no matter what society you live in. having your penis simply touched is NOT inherently traumatic. how does somebody touching you there traumatize you naturally? where is the proof of that that a mere touch can ruin your life? this whole idea that sex crimes are the worst crimes only exists because since biblical times, we've viewed sex as the most intimate thing one can have because sex was seen as evil throughout history and something only done for making babies, and if you did anything sexual without for making babies, you were labeled "evil". that's the only reason even the most mild sex crime is seen as worse than murder. also, no she isn't traumatized because what he did is inherently traumatic. again, if she was molested by him in a society where we aren't taught what's traumatic and what's right/wrong, she wouldn't be traumatized. she'd look back, think he was weird, and move on. if fondling was naturally traumatic, it'd traumatize people in ALL societies which it doesn't. if sex with a teen naturally traumatized them, then we would've easily seen it in the old days which we didn't. this protest against underage marriage didn't start until people like elizabeth oakes smith started protesting it in the mid-1800s because she believed women should have education first before marriage and whatnot and she influenced by the environment where society began to infantilize teenagers. if teens were always traumatized by marrying an older guy, teen marriage wouldn't already ended back in ancient greece or even before that, which it didn't.

also, no we never observed how immature teenagers are. again, this temperance movement was made because of christian beliefs, and so they decided to raise the drinking age very high as a compromise. child labor laws were made because people didn't give a 10 year old the right job. a 17 year old man can easily handle any job. if he can handle war, he can handle factories too. 18 is just a randomly chosen number. also, studies in the article i sent you show that in other societies researchers observed, they saw NO immaturity among teenagers and noticed how immaturity among teens in these socieities only starterd when they began to be influenced by western culture.

Trust me, if we didn't treat teenagers like children, they'd be way more mature. i know for this for a fact. i mean, nowadays even 22 year olds act like kids while a long time ago they got married and had children and had their own house. it's nurture NOT nature. i wanna see real proof that the age difference causes the trauma and not society's reaction. there are people even 100 years ago who got married with an age gap like 15 and 25 and the 15 year old foid wasn't even traumatized because it was allowed back then while today she'd claim to be traumatized.

 

[MountainGorilla]

false. laws taking away teenagers' adults rights didn't exist until the 1800s arrived and these laws became MUCH more common in the late 20th century. also, burglary and murder is inherently bad because murder ends your life and burglary often has you at risk of being assaulted or having your property/belongings stolen. that stuff IS inherently painful no matter what society you live in. having your penis simply touched is NOT inherently traumatic. how does somebody touching you there traumatize you naturally? where is the proof of that that a mere touch can ruin your life? this whole idea that sex crimes are the worst crimes only exists because since biblical times, we've viewed sex as the most intimate thing one can have because sex was seen as evil throughout history and something only done for making babies, and if you did anything sexual without for making babies, you were labeled "evil". that's the only reason even the most mild sex crime is seen as worse than murder. also, no she isn't traumatized because what he did is inherently traumatic. again, if she was molested by him in a society where we aren't taught what's traumatic and what's right/wrong, she wouldn't be traumatized. she'd look back, think he was weird, and move on. if fondling was naturally traumatic, it'd traumatize people in ALL societies which it doesn't. if sex with a teen naturally traumatized them, then we would've easily seen it in the old days which we didn't. this protest against underage marriage didn't start until people like elizabeth oakes smith started protesting it in the mid-1800s because she believed women should have education first before marriage and whatnot and she influenced by the environment where society began to infantilize teenagers. if teens were always traumatized by marrying an older guy, teen marriage wouldn't already ended back in ancient greece or even before that, which it didn't.

also, no we never observed how immature teenagers are. again, this temperance movement was made because of christian beliefs, and so they decided to raise the drinking age very high as a compromise. child labor laws were made because people didn't give a 10 year old the right job. a 17 year old man can easily handle any job. if he can handle war, he can handle factories too. 18 is just a randomly chosen number. also, studies in the article i sent you show that in other societies researchers observed, they saw NO immaturity among teenagers and noticed how immaturity among teens in these socieities only starterd when they began to be influenced by western culture.

Trust me, if we didn't treat teenagers like children, they'd be way more mature. i know for this for a fact. i mean, nowadays even 22 year olds act like kids while a long time ago they got married and had children and had their own house. it's nurture NOT nature. i wanna see real proof that the age difference causes the trauma and not society's reaction. there are people even 100 years ago who got married with an age gap like 15 and 25 and the 15 year old foid wasn't even traumatized because it was allowed back then while today she'd claim to be traumatized.

Holy fuck based. Sex crimes are traumatic because society infantilizes foids and they start acting neurotic and operate on emotion and their lizard brains because of this infantilization.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Holy fuck based. Sex crimes are traumatic because society infantilizes foids and they start acting neurotic and operate on emotion and their lizard brains because of this infantilization.

exactly. i don't see how someone being older than you is traumatic

 

[FrothySolutions]

false. laws taking away teenagers' adults rights didn't exist until the 1800s arrived and these laws became MUCH more common in the late 20th century. also, burglary and murder is inherently bad because murder ends your life and burglary often has you at risk of being assaulted or having your property/belongings stolen. that stuff IS inherently painful no matter what society you live in. having your penis simply touched is NOT inherently traumatic. how does somebody touching you there traumatize you naturally? where is the proof of that that a mere touch can ruin your life? this whole idea that sex crimes are the worst crimes only exists because since biblical times, we've viewed sex as the most intimate thing one can have because sex was seen as evil throughout history and something only done for making babies, and if you did anything sexual without for making babies, you were labeled "evil". that's the only reason even the most mild sex crime is seen as worse than murder. also, no she isn't traumatized because what he did is inherently traumatic. again, if she was molested by him in a society where we aren't taught what's traumatic and what's right/wrong, she wouldn't be traumatized. she'd look back, think he was weird, and move on. if fondling was naturally traumatic, it'd traumatize people in ALL societies which it doesn't. if sex with a teen naturally traumatized them, then we would've easily seen it in the old days which we didn't. this protest against underage marriage didn't start until people like elizabeth oakes smith started protesting it in the mid-1800s because she believed women should have education first before marriage and whatnot and she influenced by the environment where society began to infantilize teenagers. if teens were always traumatized by marrying an older guy, teen marriage wouldn't already ended back in ancient greece or even before that, which it didn't.

also, no we never observed how immature teenagers are. again, this temperance movement was made because of christian beliefs, and so they decided to raise the drinking age very high as a compromise. child labor laws were made because people didn't give a 10 year old the right job. a 17 year old man can easily handle any job. if he can handle war, he can handle factories too. 18 is just a randomly chosen number. also, studies in the article i sent you show that in other societies researchers observed, they saw NO immaturity among teenagers and noticed how immaturity among teens in these socieities only starterd when they began to be influenced by western culture.

Trust me, if we didn't treat teenagers like children, they'd be way more mature. i know for this for a fact. i mean, nowadays even 22 year olds act like kids while a long time ago they got married and had children and had their own house. it's nurture NOT nature. i wanna see real proof that the age difference causes the trauma and not society's reaction. there are people even 100 years ago who got married with an age gap like 15 and 25 and the 15 year old foid wasn't even traumatized because it was allowed back then while today she'd claim to be traumatized.

We've been differentiating between children and adults since well before the 1800s. Boy czar Peter the Great is just one example. He was czar at 10. But because it would be stupid to let a 10 year old rule, his mother ruled as regent. Children and adults are not the same, a child's freedoms and an adult's freedoms are not the same, and we've known it for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

And is it inherently wrong to take someone's life? Why is life sacred? Is it inherently wrong to take someone's stuff? Why is someone's stuff sacred? Why can't people just get over it?

And you're missing the point about Slaughter. The problem wasn't just the molestation. She was emotionally dependent on him. That was why she shouldn't have been with him. That was the evidence of why kids shouldn't be allowed to enter into adult relationships. Molestation is bad on its own, molestation can happen at any age and is bad regardless of age. But as far as the question of "Why don't we let kids date adults," it's because children, even the freest most emancipated children, are impulsive and stupid and needy. Emotionally immature. Like Slaughter was.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

We've been differentiating between children and adults since well before the 1800s. Boy czar Peter the Great is just one example. He was czar at 10. But because it would be stupid to let a 10 year old rule, his mother ruled as regent. Children and adults are not the same, a child's freedoms and an adult's freedoms are not the same, and we've known it for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

And is it inherently wrong to take someone's life? Why is life sacred? Is it inherently wrong to take someone's stuff? Why is someone's stuff sacred? Why can't people just get over it?

And you're missing the point about Slaughter. The problem wasn't just the molestation. She was emotionally dependent on him. That was why she shouldn't have been with him. That was the evidence of why kids shouldn't be allowed to enter into adult relationships. Molestation is bad on its own, molestation can happen at any age and is bad regardless of age. But as far as the question of "Why don't we let kids date adults," it's because children, even the freest most emancipated children, are impulsive and stupid and needy. Emotionally immature. Like Slaughter was.

first of all, youre talking about 10 year olds not some 17 year old. second, i saw a graph on how laws restricting teen rights didn't exist until the 1800s look up case against adolescence by robert epstein in the book it shows that chart. the drinking age used to be extremely low in colonial times and the smoking age used to be 16 in the late 1800s. a 10 yr old russian kid would never get to reign today, so clearly even a 10 year old despite being super young was still allowed more responsibilities than even an 18 year old today.

also, murder is inherently wrong because most people want to stay alive and you're taking away their right to live which they all completely desire, and many people will mourn them because they established friendships with them. murder has always been seen as evil no matter what society. stealing isn't considered evil but is still considered wrong because the person likes their belongings and wants to keep them so you are taking away what they like and want. in every society, murder/stealing is bad. but not all societies viewed fondling as bad nor did they view teen marriage as bad. this just shows that in any society, murder will harm people because people inherently want to live and want to keep their belongings. people don't inherently feel damaged by fondling or teen marriage. if that was true, people in ancient greece would be traumatized by marrying a 30 year old man at 14 and the practice would've been instantly gone. trust me, if dahvie vanity and jessi slaughter's age difference was accepted, she wouldn't be traumatized. she wouldn't be depressed, traumatized, damaged, etc. at all. this isn't saying their age difference is ok but it isn't supposed to inherently traumatize you. and trust me, if i time traveled to ancient greece and was psychic i'd find NO trauma is teen brides. people here had grandparents with age differences and the grandma was maybe under 18 was never traumatized while nowadays she would be. i'm sure in the 50s, white foids who dated black guys would later claim to be "traumatized" by it

 

[FrothySolutions]

first of all, youre talking about 10 year olds not some 17 year old. second, i saw a graph on how laws restricting teen rights didn't exist until the 1800s look up case against adolescence by robert epstein in the book it shows that chart. the drinking age used to be extremely low in colonial times and the smoking age used to be 16 in the late 1800s. a 10 yr old russian kid would never get to reign today, so clearly even a 10 year old despite being super young was still allowed more responsibilities than even an 18 year old today.

also, murder is inherently wrong because most people want to stay alive and you're taking away their right to live which they all completely desire, and many people will mourn them because they established friendships with them. murder has always been seen as evil no matter what society. stealing isn't considered evil but is still considered wrong because the person likes their belongings and wants to keep them so you are taking away what they like and want. in every society, murder/stealing is bad. but not all societies viewed fondling as bad nor did they view teen marriage as bad. this just shows that in any society, murder will harm people because people inherently want to live and want to keep their belongings. people don't inherently feel damaged by fondling or teen marriage. if that was true, people in ancient greece would be traumatized by marrying a 30 year old man at 14 and the practice would've been instantly gone. trust me, if dahvie vanity and jessi slaughter's age difference was accepted, she wouldn't be traumatized. she wouldn't be depressed, traumatized, damaged, etc. at all. this isn't saying their age difference is ok but it isn't supposed to inherently traumatize you. and trust me, if i time traveled to ancient greece and was psychic i'd find NO trauma is teen brides. people here had grandparents with age differences and the grandma was maybe under 18 was never traumatized while nowadays she would be. i'm sure in the 50s, white foids who dated black guys would later claim to be "traumatized" by it

10 is too young now? So there is a limit? There are things kids shouldn't be allowed to do? That's not what you said. You never specified a cutoff age. And to specify a cutoff age proves the principle. Over the many years we've revised our standards on what is and isn't appropriate for what age, but the principle remains the same: Whatever a "kid" is, they should only do kid things. Whatever "kid things" are. There are certain things that can only be done when a certain age is reached. That's always been what we strive for. The fact that your chart didn't show that just shows the ignorance/bias of that chart.

Also, I don't care what that chart says, we have science that shows young bodies physically cannot handle the toxins in alcohol like adults can. That's not "infantilizing." That's realizing that kids are small and their brains are still soft enough that alcohol/marijuana can ruin those brains.

And people do like their lives. And their property. But they also like their agency. Their right to have control of their bodies and what happens to it. That's why sex crimes are so heinous. They're a violation of agency. Sure, we could teach people not to value agency, just like we could teach people not to value their property, or their lives. But as long as we hold that agency is good and necessary, and as long as we hold that kids are too stupid to consent to giving their bodies up, we cannot let kids make adult decisions like that. It took us a while to get from Ancient Greece to today, but eventually we realized what kids were/weren't capable of.

Speaking of kids, didn't I tell you that Dahvie and Slaughter's age difference was accepted by her parents? She had all the freedom and normalization you're calling for. But it still didn't work. The trauma, the fucked-upness, was how she was emotionally dependent on him. Look, even if she was glad to be with him, the fact that she clings to him is the trauma. That's why kids can't have adult relationships. Because that clinginess. That emotional immaturity.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

10 is too young now? So there is a limit? There are things kids shouldn't be allowed to do? That's not what you said. You never specified a cutoff age. And to specify a cutoff age proves the principle. Over the many years we've revised our standards on what is and isn't appropriate for what age, but the principle remains the same: Whatever a "kid" is, they should only do kid things. Whatever "kid things" are. There are certain things that can only be done when a certain age is reached. That's always been what we strive for. The fact that your chart didn't show that just shows the ignorance/bias of that chart.

Also, I don't care what that chart says, we have science that shows young bodies physically cannot handle the toxins in alcohol like adults can. That's not "infantilizing." That's realizing that kids are small and their brains are still soft enough that alcohol/marijuana can ruin those brains.

And people do like their lives. And their property. But they also like their agency. Their right to have control of their bodies and what happens to it. That's why sex crimes are so heinous. They're a violation of agency. Sure, we could teach people not to value agency, just like we could teach people not to value their property, or their lives. But as long as we hold that agency is good and necessary, and as long as we hold that kids are too stupid to consent to giving their bodies up, we cannot let kids make adult decisions like that. It took us a while to get from Ancient Greece to today, but eventually we realized what kids were/weren't capable of.

Speaking of kids, didn't I tell you that Dahvie and Slaughter's age difference was accepted by her parents? She had all the freedom and normalization you're calling for. But it still didn't work. The trauma, the fucked-upness, was how she was emotionally dependent on him. Look, even if she was glad to be with him, the fact that she clings to him is the trauma. That's why kids can't have adult relationships. Because that clinginess. That emotional immaturity.

false. nobody is traumatized by stealing yet we're traumatized by mere fondling. the right to your body doesn't mean some mere touching should traumatize you just like how you aren't expected to be traumatized by stealing. it's just that since biblical times, sex has been seen as evil and only done for procreation and if people who did anything sexually without for making babies was seen as evil, so as a result, sex was reserved for married couples and thus was seen as the most intimate thing because it was only for married couples and only for makin babies. the way we view sex is why we see fondling as more painful than getting beat up, having your shit stolen, being bullied, etc. it isn't because fondling is naturally traumatic, otherwise it'd be traumatic in all cultures.

also, alcohol and marijuana can harm ANY age group. also, again, the teen brain is actually caused by teen turmoil not by simple biology. studies show that teens who do adult activity have more developed brains in fact. if teens have a naturally immature brain, then like i said, researcher would find immaturity among teens in ALL societies while in every preindustrial society they found NO immaturity among teens. even in refugee socieities a 10 year old will be more mature than a 21 year old in america. also, just because her parents accepted by the age gap doesn't mean society did. society strill teaches jessi that the age gap is evil and she's supposed to be traumatized. if everyone in the world accepted her age gap, she wouldn't be traumatized. she only clings to him because society teaches her that she's supposed to be traumatized and society has a moral panic over child molestation. otherwise she would've moved on easily. also the idea that a 17 year old finished with puberty can't handle adult relationships is insane. in japan, women got married at 16 back in the 1800s. in ancient greece, i'm sure foids did just fine being married at 14/15 to a 30 year old man. we already know about negative effects of slavery, the treatment of foids in pre-islamic arabia, how we didn't bathe enough to prevent black plague, etc. etc. if teen girls were traumatized back then and miserable, we would've seen them manifest mental illness and suicide back then, which we didn't. we've had records of many harmful effects from history but never records of trauma from back then and no, people wanting to change laws isn't proof they werre harmed because progress=/=improvement and society sometimes makes mistakes. like when banning alcohol didn't work for example

trust me, i'm sure in the paleolithic age, if some adult went up to a child and touched their penis and walked away, the child would shrug and move on.

also 16/17 year olds aren't kids.

child=prepubescent
adolescent=pubescent
adult=postpubescent and people finish puberty at 16 or 17

now people are trying to say adolescence ends at 25

infantilization is what we're doing because we don't let them have adult responsibilities and treat them like toddlers. that's infantilization

 

[FrothySolutions]

false. nobody is traumatized by stealing yet we're traumatized by mere fondling. the right to your body doesn't mean some mere touching should traumatize you just like how you aren't expected to be traumatized by stealing. it's just that since biblical times, sex has been seen as evil and only done for procreation and if people who did anything sexually without for making babies was seen as evil, so as a result, sex was reserved for married couples and thus was seen as the most intimate thing because it was only for married couples and only for makin babies. the way we view sex is why we see fondling as more painful than getting beat up, having your shit stolen, being bullied, etc. it isn't because fondling is naturally traumatic, otherwise it'd be traumatic in all cultures.

also, alcohol and marijuana can harm ANY age group. also, again, the teen brain is actually caused by teen turmoil not by simple biology. studies show that teens who do adult activity have more developed brains in fact. if teens have a naturally immature brain, then like i said, researcher would find immaturity among teens in ALL societies while in every preindustrial society they found NO immaturity among teens. even in refugee socieities a 10 year old will be more mature than a 21 year old in america. also, just because her parents accepted by the age gap doesn't mean society did. society strill teaches jessi that the age gap is evil and she's supposed to be traumatized. if everyone in the world accepted her age gap, she wouldn't be traumatized. she only clings to him because society teaches her that she's supposed to be traumatized and society has a moral panic over child molestation. otherwise she would've moved on easily. also the idea that a 17 year old finished with puberty can't handle adult relationships is insane. in japan, women got married at 16 back in the 1800s. in ancient greece, i'm sure foids did just fine being married at 14/15 to a 30 year old man. we already know about negative effects of slavery, the treatment of foids in pre-islamic arabia, how we didn't bathe enough to prevent black plague, etc. etc. if teen girls were traumatized back then and miserable, we would've seen them manifest mental illness and suicide back then, which we didn't. we've had records of many harmful effects from history but never records of trauma from back then and no, people wanting to change laws isn't proof they werre harmed because progress=/=improvement and society sometimes makes mistakes. like when banning alcohol didn't work for example

trust me, i'm sure in the paleolithic age, if some adult went up to a child and touched their penis and walked away, the child would shrug and move on.

also 16/17 year olds aren't kids.

child=prepubescent
adolescent=pubescent
adult=postpubescent and people finish puberty at 16 or 17

now people are trying to say adolescence ends at 25

infantilization is what we're doing because we don't let them have adult responsibilities and treat them like toddlers. that's infantilization

We have different reactions to different crimes. Theft and sexual assault are both bad, but one you're like "Aw man, my stuff is gone" and the other you're like "Aw man, I've experienced something I'd like to forget." Different reactions doesn't mean a thing isn't bad. Sex isn't evil, violation of agency is evil.

And yes, alcohol and marijuana can harm anyone, but the reason we don't let kids have any is because it can REALLY harm them. And if you're an adult, you should be smart enough to make your own decisions. At that age, any mistakes you make are your own fault.

And what are these supposed metrics for immaturity in teenage brains that you're saying people used and couldn't find immaturity? Because evidently they did. That's why we have regents when child rulers are too young to rule. You keep saying immaturity wasn't found. Who says? And how did they look for it? Because others have looked, and found that immaturity, and it's the basis for why we let only certain ages do certain things. Surely it's not "Some kids have gone to war and run battleships and been queen." Because again, just because a kid can do it doesn't mean they should. Technically a kid could sexually please an adult. Doesn't mean they should. Doesn't mean it's good for their mind.

Which brings us to Slaughter again. No, Slaughter had no qualms about the age difference between her and Dahvie. She saw nothing wrong with it. So society's standards were not a factor. She wasn't like "I know society doesn't agree with this, but I'm gonna do it." Every authority figure in her life reinforced the idea that it was okay.

And again, they don't have to be outwardly miserable for the relationship to be wrong. Slaughter wasn't outwardly miserable either, not at first. Emotional dependence is the thing here. If your child bride appears happy, but only because you haven't divorced, that doesn't mean your relationship is healthy. It means she's a child and she's dependent on you. She doesn't have the maturity to move on without you if you were to divorce her.

And the Paleolithic Age? Alright then, I'm pretty sure if I killed someone in the Paleolithic Age, none would interfere. Because I'm only killing the one person. Because while murder hurts the person I'm killing, there's no social framework for upholding the idea that murder is wrong. No one but the murdered has any reason to care. Bringing up days when people were stupid doesn't prove anything.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

We have different reactions to different crimes. Theft and sexual assault are both bad, but one you're like "Aw man, my stuff is gone" and the other you're like "Aw man, I've experienced something I'd like to forget." Different reactions doesn't mean a thing isn't bad. Sex isn't evil, violation of agency is evil.

And yes, alcohol and marijuana can harm anyone, but the reason we don't let kids have any is because it can REALLY harm them. And if you're an adult, you should be smart enough to make your own decisions. At that age, any mistakes you make are your own fault.

And what are these supposed metrics for immaturity in teenage brains that you're saying people used and couldn't find immaturity? Because evidently they did. That's why we have regents when child rulers are too young to rule. You keep saying immaturity wasn't found. Who says? And how did they look for it? Because others have looked, and found that immaturity, and it's the basis for why we let only certain ages do certain things. Surely it's not "Some kids have gone to war and run battleships and been queen." Because again, just because a kid can do it doesn't mean they should. Technically a kid could sexually please an adult. Doesn't mean they should. Doesn't mean it's good for their mind.

Which brings us to Slaughter again. No, Slaughter had no qualms about the age difference between her and Dahvie. She saw nothing wrong with it. So society's standards were not a factor. She wasn't like "I know society doesn't agree with this, but I'm gonna do it." Every authority figure in her life reinforced the idea that it was okay.

And again, they don't have to be outwardly miserable for the relationship to be wrong. Slaughter wasn't outwardly miserable either, not at first. Emotional dependence is the thing here. If your child bride appears happy, but only because you haven't divorced, that doesn't mean your relationship is healthy. It means she's a child and she's dependent on you. She doesn't have the maturity to move on without you if you were to divorce her.

And the Paleolithic Age? Alright then, I'm pretty sure if I killed someone in the Paleolithic Age, none would interfere. Because I'm only killing the one person. Because while murder hurts the person I'm killing, there's no social framework for upholding the idea that murder is wrong. No one but the murdered has any reason to care. Bringing up days when people were stupid doesn't prove anything.

No in the Stone Age their family would try to kill you. They’d shrug if you touched their groin and walked away.

also, like I said that Russian boy was 10 not 16 or something. Also, if they were able to handle reigning a country at 10 in Russia or being queen at 16 in Africa and could command their own ship and go to war then they biologically are mature for that. Trust me if we extended childhood to 30, 29 year olds would still be immature. And no, just because today’s teen brides are “immature” doesn’t mean they were back in the old days. I’m sure marriages back then involving a 21 year old were no different from one involving a 16 year old. She wasn’t necessarily dependent on you. She was your wife. In ancient Egypt, men married at 15-20 with girls marrying at 12-15 and they didjust fine otherwise there’d be records of it because there were records of lack of bathing causing the Black Plague and proof that banning alcohol didn’t work and proof that slavery did harm to black peoples. And so what if her parents accepted it, eventually she noticed how society considers it abusive and thus she is traumatized, if she didn’t see how society freaks out over that age difference she wouldn’t be traumatized eventually. She’d move on. I’m sure if a white foid dated a black man in the 50s, she would e known how hated interracial love was and would be all like“ looking back I am traumatized from dating a black guy he totally used me by dating another race”. I’m sure straight guys who experimented with homosexuality back then claimed to be “damaged”. No they never found proof back then that a teenager is immature otherwise they would’ve made it illegal to marry a teen long ago which they didn’t.

 

[FrothySolutions]

No in the Stone Age their family would try to kill you. They’d shrug if you touched their groin and walked away.

also, like I said that Russian boy was 10 not 16 or something. Also, if they were able to handle reigning a country at 10 in Russia or being queen at 16 in Africa and could command their own ship and go to war then they biologically are mature for that. Trust me if we extended childhood to 30, 29 year olds would still be immature. And no, just because today’s teen brides are “immature” doesn’t mean they were back in the old days. I’m sure marriages back then involving a 21 year old were no different from one involving a 16 year old. She wasn’t necessarily dependent on you. She was your wife. In ancient Egypt, men married at 15-20 with girls marrying at 12-15 and they didjust fine otherwise there’d be records of it because there were records of lack of bathing causing the Black Plague and proof that banning alcohol didn’t work and proof that slavery did harm to black peoples. And so what if her parents accepted it, eventually she noticed how society considers it abusive and thus she is traumatized, if she didn’t see how society freaks out over that age difference she wouldn’t be traumatized eventually. She’d move on. I’m sure if a white foid dated a black man in the 50s, she would e known how hated interracial love was and would be all like“ looking back I am traumatized from dating a black guy he totally used me by dating another race”. I’m sure straight guys who experimented with homosexuality back then claimed to be “damaged”. No they never found proof back then that a teenager is immature otherwise they would’ve made it illegal to marry a teen long ago which they didn’t.

How do you know they would do that in the Stone Age? How do you know what they believed about right and wrong? The Paleolithic Era is over 10,000 years old at its youngest. Predating even the Code of Hammurabi. It extends millions of years into the past.

And you seem to not understand what a regent is. A regent reigns the country. Peter did not reign, his mother did. He was only "technically" czar. Because children cannot rule. Something we've understood for hundreds of years.

And if now you're saying "Okay well yeah 10 is too young but how about 16" then you're no longer arguing for the idea that kids can be treated like adults. You're arguing for the idea that 16 year old should be counted as adults. You're still saying that kids are kids and adults are adults and if you're too young for adult things you shouldn't be allowed to do them. You just disagree on when "adulthood" starts.

And there'd be records of how emotionally dependent spouses would be? In the days of the Black Plague? There aren't even records of that today. We don't go around asking every married couple "How healthy is your relationship?" Furthermore, these were the days of the Black Plague. Why would there be record of how "emotionally dependent" a spouse is? They didn't care about that back then. They didn't care about whether or not a spouse could healthily divorce without freaking out. Under the reign of the Catholic Church, how the wife felt about the marriage didn't even matter. "Commentaries on the Laws of England" states that the Church's rule for wives was...

"By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything."

That's specifically the kind of dependence we don't want. The kind of dependence Slaughter would've allowed due to her clinginess. That up there, we know today to be unhealthy. But back in the days of the Plague, they would not have even thought to catalogue that as an abnormality. It's not a problem. It's how marriages were supposed to be back then.

And again I say, they DID find proof of this immaturity in children. That's why they made it illegal to marry teenagers. It took a while, but they found it. They didn't always have regents either, but eventually they learned kids can't reign. You keep saying "Well why didn't they put a stop to it earlier?" Because they hadn't made the discovery yet! But eventually they did. And that's why they made the change.

 

[WØLF]

The walls of text in this thread i'm crying

 

[Robtical]

And yeah, we did a lot of shit prior to the 20th century that we stopped doing. Because eventually we learned different. We started to know better. Just because they did it in Ancient Greece doesn't make it right. But us no longer doing it? That most likely means it was wrong.
EDIT: Tappan's book was written in 1955??? That's way more outdated than I thought. I thought that was a recent book. No, standards in the 50s were way off. Hell, standards in the 70s were way off.

These days the "standards" are worse. In the past they were more sane. Teen whores are having sex anyway, but it's only a problem when they do it with someone over 18 in this cucked soyciety. Hopefully things change, the same way it did for gays and interracial couples.

And if now you're saying "Okay well yeah 10 is too young but how about 16" then you're no longer arguing for the idea that kids can be treated like adults. You're arguing for the idea that 16 year old should be counted as adults. You're still saying that kids are kids and adults are adults and if you're too young for adult things you shouldn't be allowed to do them. You just disagree on when "adulthood" starts.

Once they hit puberty and start dressing slutty is when they can consent.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

How do you know they would do that in the Stone Age? How do you know what they believed about right and wrong? The Paleolithic Era is over 10,000 years old at its youngest. Predating even the Code of Hammurabi. It extends millions of years into the past.

And you seem to not understand what a regent is. A regent reigns the country. Peter did not reign, his mother did. He was only "technically" czar. Because children cannot rule. Something we've understood for hundreds of years.

And if now you're saying "Okay well yeah 10 is too young but how about 16" then you're no longer arguing for the idea that kids can be treated like adults. You're arguing for the idea that 16 year old should be counted as adults. You're still saying that kids are kids and adults are adults and if you're too young for adult things you shouldn't be allowed to do them. You just disagree on when "adulthood" starts.

And there'd be records of how emotionally dependent spouses would be? In the days of the Black Plague? There aren't even records of that today. We don't go around asking every married couple "How healthy is your relationship?" Furthermore, these were the days of the Black Plague. Why would there be record of how "emotionally dependent" a spouse is? They didn't care about that back then. They didn't care about whether or not a spouse could healthily divorce without freaking out. Under the reign of the Catholic Church, how the wife felt about the marriage didn't even matter. "Commentaries on the Laws of England" states that the Church's rule for wives was...

"By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything."

That's specifically the kind of dependence we don't want. The kind of dependence Slaughter would've allowed due to her clinginess. That up there, we know today to be unhealthy. But back in the days of the Plague, they would not have even thought to catalogue that as an abnormality. It's not a problem. It's how marriages were supposed to be back then.

And again I say, they DID find proof of this immaturity in children. That's why they made it illegal to marry teenagers. It took a while, but they found it. They didn't always have regents either, but eventually they learned kids can't reign. You keep saying "Well why didn't they put a stop to it earlier?" Because they hadn't made the discovery yet! But eventually they did. And that's why they made the change.

no they never found proof of teens being immature. also being czar was still a super big responsibility. if they found proof of teens being immature, they would've raised the AOC higher way before the 1880s, which they only raised higher because of concerns about child prostitution of very young kids. if teens were traumatized by marriage back then, they easily would've showed signs of mental illness and other problems. and yes we already know how people didn't bathe and that caused the black plague. there are records about how in medieval england, many women died from pregnancy and thus many women wrote their wills as soon as they discovered they were pregnant. There were records of soldiers and knights being traumatized back in the middle ages and even 3,000 years ago. if teens were too immature to handle marriage, society would've collapsed long ago. they never found proof of teens being immature because the concept of adolescence didn't really get too big until 1904 with a notable book about it.

These days the "standards" are worse. In the past they were more sane. Teen whores are having sex anyway, but it's only a problem when they do it with someone over 18 in this cucked soyciety. Hopefully things change, the same way it did for gays and interracial couples.

Once they hit puberty and start dressing slutty is when they can consent.

the NOMAPs are gonna imrpove everything

 

[FrothySolutions]

no they never found proof of teens being immature. also being czar was still a super big responsibility.

But it wasn't though. His mom did everything. That's what being a regent is.

But suppose "super big responsibility" is in the eye of the responsibility holder. Maybe getting to shake the chicken on Shake n' Bake Night is a "big responsibility." What matters here is, regardless of how big a responsibility you think being a child puppet is, in the late 1600s they didn't think it was. Being a child puppet was appropriate for children. And that's what matters. What matters is, they still differentiated between what a kid is and what an adult is, and what's appropriate for kids and what's appropriate for adults.

That standard still has to exist. History has disagreed on what a "kid" is, and what "kid stuff" is, but for many hundreds if not thousands of years the standard of "Whatever a kid is, they can't do adult stuff" has existed.

if they found proof of teens being immature, they would've raised the AOC higher way before the 1880s, which they only raised higher because of concerns about child prostitution of very young kids.

You keep saying this. "If kids were immature they would've raised the age of consent earlier!" Okay then, if kids aren't immature, why do we have regents? There was a time before regents. And then, one day, we started having regents. Did they not raise it because kids are unfit? Because that's what you seem to be saying about measures taken in the 1800s. Protect kids in the 1800s? Oh, that's "infantilizing." But somehow it wasn't infantilizing in the late 1600s. Or any of the other times we stopped to question what people should be allowed to do, and when.

if teens were traumatized by marriage back then, they easily would've showed signs of mental illness and other problems. and yes we already know how people didn't bathe and that caused the black plague. there are records about how in medieval england, many women died from pregnancy and thus many women wrote their wills as soon as they discovered they were pregnant. There were records of soldiers and knights being traumatized back in the middle ages and even 3,000 years ago. if teens were too immature to handle marriage, society would've collapsed long ago. they never found proof of teens being immature because the concept of adolescence didn't really get too big until 1904 with a notable book about it.

Again I say, we did not have the same concept of "trauma" that we do back then. Back then women were property. Women were supposed to be emotionally dependent. They would not have recorded the things we care about. The reasons an adult/child relationship are unhealthy, the ills we mean to avoid today, are not ills we cared about or were even aware of back then. It just so happened that we started to care about concepts like "adolescence" in 1904.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

But it wasn't though. His mom did everything. That's what being a regent is.

But suppose "super big responsibility" is in the eye of the responsibility holder. Maybe getting to shake the chicken on Shake n' Bake Night is a "big responsibility." What matters here is, regardless of how big a responsibility you think being a child puppet is, in the late 1600s they didn't think it was. Being a child puppet was appropriate for children. And that's what matters. What matters is, they still differentiated between what a kid is and what an adult is, and what's appropriate for kids and what's appropriate for adults.

That standard still has to exist. History has disagreed on what a "kid" is, and what "kid stuff" is, but for many hundreds if not thousands of years the standard of "Whatever a kid is, they can't do adult stuff" has existed.




You keep saying this. "If kids were immature they would've raised the age of consent earlier!" Okay then, if kids aren't immature, why do we have regents? There was a time before regents. And then, one day, we started having regents. Did they not raise it because kids are unfit? Because that's what you seem to be saying about measures taken in the 1800s. Protect kids in the 1800s? Oh, that's "infantilizing." But somehow it wasn't infantilizing in the late 1600s. Or any of the other times we stopped to question what people should be allowed to do, and when.



Again I say, we did not have the same concept of "trauma" that we do back then. Back then women were property. Women were supposed to be emotionally dependent. They would not have recorded the things we care about. The reasons an adult/child relationship are unhealthy, the ills we mean to avoid today, are not ills we cared about or were even aware of back then. It just so happened that we started to care about concepts like "adolescence" in 1904.

Still there was NO proof that women are traumatized by it back then in medieval times and I am pretty sure they weren’t traumatized or damaged at all. If any thing it was beneficial because young women in their teens and early 20s have high reproductive value and older men have wealth and resources. Many people here said their grandparents married with grandpa being 25 or the grandma being 16 and she wasn’t traumatized. Even not too long ago in India teen marriage was common and they weren’t traumatized and it was in fact the norm at the time. Even in Japan before 1900, 16 year old girls got married. If they were traumatized I’m sure they’d manifest signs of it. In order to know if the age gap itself traumatized them we’d have to have them marry in a society where it’s accepted and evaluate their mental health. There is really no proof that the age gap does the trauma and instead it seems like society’s strong disapproval traumatized them. For example, many studies show that age gap couples are more likely to be divorced but studies have shown society’s reaction and disapproval causes that and that age gap couples have more satisfaction and more commitment when society approves of their love.

Also, that Russian boy was TEN. In ancient Africa, they had a 16 year old queen. If she couldn’t handle reigning, the society would’ve become a disaster, which it didn’t.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Still there was NO proof that women are traumatized by it back then in medieval times and I am pretty sure they weren’t traumatized or damaged at all. If any thing it was beneficial because young women in their teens and early 20s have high reproductive value and older men have wealth and resources. Many people here said their grandparents married with grandpa being 25 or the grandma being 16 and she wasn’t traumatized. Even not too long ago in India teen marriage was common and they weren’t traumatized and it was in fact the norm at the time. Even in Japan before 1900, 16 year old girls got married. If they were traumatized I’m sure they’d manifest signs of it. In order to know if the age gap itself traumatized them we’d have to have them marry in a society where it’s accepted and evaluate their mental health. There is really no proof that the age gap does the trauma and instead it seems like society’s strong disapproval traumatized them. For example, many studies show that age gap couples are more likely to be divorced but studies have shown society’s reaction and disapproval causes that and that age gap couples have more satisfaction and more commitment when society approves of their love.



Also, that Russian boy was TEN. In ancient Africa, they had a 16 year old queen. If she couldn’t handle reigning, the society would’ve become a disaster, which it didn’t.

You seem to have missed the part where I said back then we didn't have the same concept of "trauma." They weren't looking for "clinginess." That's why we have no record of it. "Clingy" was normal back then. "Clingy" was healthy back then. But now we know that "clingy" is bad.

Nor did we have the same concept of "disaster." Like your teenage African queen. First, again, you're not arguing that kids should get to do adult things, you're arguing that 16 year olds should be considered adults. But let's take that argument. That African queen's rulership was only "not a disaster" by the antiquated standards of those primitive times.

Lemme put it simply. You take that same 16 year old African queen. With all the wisdom and environmental influence of her time. She's raised in a time where 16 is perfectly adult and she should be expected to do adult things like be queen. Take her, and put her in our times and give her adult responsibilities. It would be a disaster. A disaster by our modern standards of what a "disaster" is. Because as a 16 year old, she isn't as mature as someone older.

She can't do things like a real adult, is what I'm saying. She can only do things like a 16 year old. It's just that in ancient Africa, doing things like a 16 year old was good enough. But we know better now.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

You seem to have missed the part where I said back then we didn't have the same concept of "trauma." They weren't looking for "clinginess." That's why we have no record of it. "Clingy" was normal back then. "Clingy" was healthy back then. But now we know that "clingy" is bad.

Nor did we have the same concept of "disaster." Like your teenage African queen. First, again, you're not arguing that kids should get to do adult things, you're arguing that 16 year olds should be considered adults. But let's take that argument. That African queen's rulership was only "not a disaster" by the antiquated standards of those primitive times.

Lemme put it simply. You take that same 16 year old African queen. With all the wisdom and environmental influence of her time. She's raised in a time where 16 is perfectly adult and she should be expected to do adult things like be queen. Take her, and put her in our times and give her adult responsibilities. It would be a disaster. A disaster by our modern standards of what a "disaster" is. Because as a 16 year old, she isn't as mature as someone older.

She can't do things like a real adult, is what I'm saying. She can only do things like a 16 year old. It's just that in ancient Africa, doing things like a 16 year old was good enough. But we know better now.

False. The only reason today’s 16 year olds can’t handle being queen is because they’re treated like children, aren’t allowed adult responsibilities and have their childhood extended to 18 (or even 21). We raise them in a way that makes them grow up and mature slowly while then it was them growing up quicker and thus being more mature. A 16 year old in Pre-industrial societies is way more mature than a American modern 16 year old who is taught they can’t behave like men and women. We already know that communist countries became disasters and led to starvation and we already saw how lack of prenatal care and lack of doctors made pregnancy more dangerous in the Middle Ages. If she wasn’t mature enough to be queen, then Africa would’ve had bad results too which we saw NO proof of. There’s NO proof that 14 year olds in the old days couldn’t handle war. They often won wars and prospered, so I assume they handled war easily.

And so what if our concept of trauma was different? We still did NOT see any manifestations of mental illness, depression or other problems in the old days among teen brides because they lived in a society where they grew up quicker while today’s infantilized teens cannot handle marriage because they grow up slowly. Also, there’s no proof that teen brides were clingy either even in the clingy of today’s standards of what Clingy is. I don’t see how 16 year olds will cling but a 21 year old won’t.

 

[FrothySolutions]

False. The only reason today’s 16 year olds can’t handle being queen is because they’re treated like children, aren’t allowed adult responsibilities and have their childhood extended to 18 (or even 21). We raise them in a way that makes them grow up and mature slowly while then it was them growing up quicker and thus being more mature. A 16 year old in Pre-industrial societies is way more mature than a American modern 16 year old who is taught they can’t behave like men and women. We already know that communist countries became disasters and led to starvation and we already saw how lack of prenatal care and lack of doctors made pregnancy more dangerous in the Middle Ages. If she wasn’t mature enough to be queen, then Africa would’ve had bad results too which we saw NO proof of. There’s NO proof that 14 year olds in the old days couldn’t handle war. They often won wars and prospered, so I assume they handled war easily.

And so what if our concept of trauma was different? We still did NOT see any manifestations of mental illness, depression or other problems in the old days among teen brides because they lived in a society where they grew up quicker while today’s infantilized teens cannot handle marriage because they grow up slowly.

Our concepts of "trauma" and "disaster" being different are the whole point. That's why whatever sources you're checking don't say "Sending boys to war was a disaster." Because back then, the disastrous results of sending children to war were not seen as bad things, or worth cataloguing. But we have proof that child soldiers are a disaster, because we have child soldiers today. Given all the adult responsibilities you claim they should be allowed. They don't live in the society that says kids shouldn't be child soldiers. And yeah, they can shoot guns and win battles. But they end up fucked for life. And that is the disaster. Whether it be World War II, or KONY 2012, making soldiers out of children is a disaster. By our current standards of what a disaster is.

Also, there’s no proof that teen brides were clingy either even in the clingy of today’s standards of what Clingy is. I don’t see how 16 year olds will cling but a 21 year old won’t.

Because it wasn't catalogued! It wasn't unhealthy, by those standards! What we call "clingy" today they called "The right amount of love a spouse should feel" back then. So there was no point in cataloguing it.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Our concepts of "trauma" and "disaster" being different are the whole point. That's why whatever sources you're checking don't say "Sending boys to war was a disaster." Because back then, the disastrous results of sending children to war were not seen as bad things, or worth cataloguing. But we have proof that child soldiers are a disaster, because we have child soldiers today. Given all the adult responsibilities you claim they should be allowed. They don't live in the society that says kids shouldn't be child soldiers. And yeah, they can shoot guns and win battles. But they end up fucked for life. And that is the disaster. Whether it be World War II, or KONY 2012, making soldiers out of children is a disaster. By our current standards of what a disaster is.



Because it wasn't catalogued! It wasn't unhealthy, by those standards! What we call "clingy" today they called "The right amount of love a spouse should feel" back then. So there was no point in cataloguing it.

I really doubt a 16 year old who got married 100 years ago was clingier than a 21 year old back then. I doubt they were different. Also again, nowadays childhood is extended to 21 that’s why child soldiers today fail and plus those child soldiers are prolly younger than 14. We don’t raise them as adults unlike back then. I doubt 14 year old guys were less successful at war or different at war than older guys were.

there’s NO proof that the age difference traumatizes them even with society approval. There’s NO difference that teenagers are immature no matter how they’re raised. There’s NO proof that a teenager cannot handle marriage regardless of how they’re raised. Otherwise we’d see them fail even 100 years ago. Trust me, I bet teen brides weren’t different from older brides. I’m sure nobody observed any remote differences between them. There wasn’t a different definition of disaster back then. If a country had a bad economy or had diseases it was considered a disaster then just like now. If teen turmoil was biological, it’d he found in every society which it isn’t. I’m sure modern researchers can find it if they tried but they didn’t. They instead found that western influences will make teens in other societies immature because in west, teens are infantilizedz. If an 18 year old can handle war so can a 16 year old. For example, research has shown that allowing 16 year old to vote increased their political knowledge and maturity.

the invention of teenagera was created because of concerns about youngsters in factories and mines which isn’t rational because they had children as young as 4 go in there, not teens exclusively. So they stick with requiring primary school at first but then extend it to secondary school in the early 1900s due to concerns about immigration.

Alexander the Great was literally a teenager when he accomplished so much. There were teens in the revolutionary war in America and yet we still won.

like I said, look up Robert Epstein’s case againstadolescence

 

[FrothySolutions]

I really doubt a 16 year old who got married 100 years ago was clingier than a 21 year old back then. I doubt they were different.

Based on what? Your sources don't account for clinginess, or any other thing that people didn't think to catalogue back then.

Also again, nowadays childhood is extended to 21 that’s why child soldiers today fail and plus those child soldiers are prolly younger than 14. We don’t raise them as adults unlike back then. I doubt 14 year old guys were less successful at war or different at war than older guys were.

Some of those kids were younger than 14. Some of them are older than 14. But all are equally tragic cases. And no, they were raised as adults. But because they're kids, there's a whole different level of trauma to them than adult soldiers.

Speaking of which, your point here...

Alexander the Great was literally a teenager when he accomplished so much. There were teens in the revolutionary war in America and yet we still won.

You are super not grasping the point here. AGAIN, yes, child soldiers can shoot guns and win battles. THIS IS NOT ENOUGH REASON TO ALLOW CHILD SOLDIERS. Just because the kids can win battles doesn't mean it's okay to make them soldiers, because child soldiers end up fucked in the head. They grow up in ways that we in our newfound wisdom deem unhealthy.

there’s NO proof that the age difference traumatizes them even with society approval. There’s NO difference that teenagers are immature no matter how they’re raised. There’s NO proof that a teenager cannot handle marriage regardless of how they’re raised. Otherwise we’d see them fail even 100 years ago.

No we wouldn't. Because, again, we weren't checking for trauma. Not the kind of trauma we look for today. The trauma we look for today wouldn't even result in a failed marriage. The trauma we look for today would look like a child bride, subservient and dependent on her husband. That is trauma, according to our modern wisdom. But it's not a "failed marriage."

Trust me, I bet teen brides weren’t different from older brides. I’m sure nobody observed any remote differences between them. There wasn’t a different definition of disaster back then. If a country had a bad economy or had diseases it was considered a disaster then just like now.

Because you're talking about plague disasters, and economic disasters. Not mental health disasters. We had different definitions of mental health back then.

If teen turmoil was biological, it’d he found in every society which it isn’t. I’m sure modern researchers can find it if they tried but they didn’t.

How? What records would they check? Furthermore, if the immaturity of kids isn't biological, why is it that throughout hundreds if not thousands of years of history, we've differentiated between kids and adults? You keep not answering that. You keep ignoring how we have always sought to define what a "kid" is and what an "adult" is. In every society.

They instead found that western influences will make teens in other societies immature because in west, teens are infantilizedz. If an 18 year old can handle war so can a 16 year old. For example, research has shown that allowing 16 year old to vote increased their political knowledge and maturity.

Answer me this: Did they find that kids were equal to adults? Equal to today's adults? In maturity? Were they emotionally mature? Or did they just pass the standards of those times and places? Because that's not the same as being mature.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Based on what? Your sources don't account for clinginess, or any other thing that people didn't think to catalogue back then.




Some of those kids were younger than 14. Some of them are older than 14. But all are equally tragic cases. And no, they were raised as adults. But because they're kids, there's a whole different level of trauma to them than adult soldiers.

Speaking of which, your point here...



You are super not grasping the point here. AGAIN, yes, child soldiers can shoot guns and win battles. THIS IS NOT ENOUGH REASON TO ALLOW CHILD SOLDIERS. Just because the kids can win battles doesn't mean it's okay to make them soldiers, because child soldiers end up fucked in the head. They grow up in ways that we in our newfound wisdom deem unhealthy.



No we wouldn't. Because, again, we weren't checking for trauma. Not the kind of trauma we look for today. The trauma we look for today wouldn't even result in a failed marriage. The trauma we look for today would look like a child bride, subservient and dependent on her husband. That is trauma, according to our modern wisdom. But it's not a "failed marriage."



Because you're talking about plague disasters, and economic disasters. Not mental health disasters. We had different definitions of mental health back then.



How? What records would they check? Furthermore, if the immaturity of kids isn't biological, why is it that throughout hundreds if not thousands of years of history, we've differentiated between kids and adults? You keep not answering that. You keep ignoring how we have always sought to define what a "kid" is and what an "adult" is. In every society.



Answer me this: Did they find that kids were equal to adults? Equal to today's adults? In maturity? Were they emotionally mature? Or did they just pass the standards of those times and places? Because that's not the same as being mature.

Again. Just because we didn’t “know” mental health doesn’t mean we couldn’t detect trauma back then. They have records of trauma in knights and warriors from medieval times but no trauma records of teen soldiers in revolutionary war or other wars from back when teens were treated like adults. Also, if teens back then could handle their responsibilities easily back then, then allowing them to do it was good. Not bad. Also, back then when we differentiated, we considered someone finished with puberty an adult. We even in some cases called you an adult when you started puberty. There’s no proof that teen soldiers suffered more than older soldiers in those times when teens grew up faster, we would’ve seen it back then if we now have records of knights in medieval times suffering trauma. And again, if teen brides were traumatized, they would’ve manifested behavioral problems, sudden anger or crying, suicide, etc which, according to records, they didn’t. Even in early 1900s India, girls married at 13 to a 20 year old man. I’m sure back then, they already knew what trauma was in India. Even in the 70s India, it was usually 16 when Indian foids married. Nowadays you see some foids whine about how “traumatized” they are for dating a 27 year old man when they were 19, while back in the early mid 20tu century that was the norm and they d usually live happily ever after

 

[FrothySolutions]

Again. Just because we didn’t “know” mental health doesn’t mean we couldn’t detect trauma back then. They have records of trauma in knights and warriors from medieval times but no trauma records of teen soldiers in revolutionary war or other wars from back when teens were treated like adults.

But that's exactly what it means. What they call "trauma" back then is barely even the start of what we call "trauma" today. They didn't know what traumas to look for. Because it was medieval times and they didn't know shit about what was healthy for a kid. Nor did they in the days of the Revolutionary War.

But we do today, which is why we can see it in child soldiers. Child soldiers, who I will remind you, are treated like adults in the environment they live in. They don't have this "You're just a kid" teaching/influence from society at all. They don't experience it.

Also, if teens back then could handle their responsibilities easily back then, then allowing them to do it was good. Not bad.

Not if they're not emotionally mature enough for it. Just because a kid can win a fight doesn't mean he should be in a fight if it messes with his head. And it does. In ways we didn't think to look for or catalogue because we didn't consider it a problem.

And again, if teen brides were traumatized, they would’ve manifested behavioral problems, sudden anger or crying, suicide, etc which, according to records, they didn’t. Even in early 1900s India, girls married at 13 to a 20 year old man. I’m sure back then, they already knew what trauma was in India. Even in the 70s India, it was usually 16 when Indian foids married. Nowadays you see some foids whine about how “traumatized” they are for dating a 27 year old man when they were 19, while back in the early mid 20tu century that was the norm and they d usually live happily ever after

My God, man. How many times do I have to explain it to you? It doesn't have to be anger or suicide! Emotional goddamned dependency! Clinginess! Like Slaughter! I've said this so many times by now! This was not catalogued or considered a problem back when child brides were fine. But now we're wiser, and know that it is a problem. And we see it in child brides.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

But that's exactly what it means. What they call "trauma" back then is barely even the start of what we call "trauma" today. They didn't know what traumas to look for. Because it was medieval times and they didn't know shit about what was healthy for a kid. Nor did they in the days of the Revolutionary War.

But we do today, which is why we can see it in child soldiers. Child soldiers, who I will remind you, are treated like adults in the environment they live in. They don't have this "You're just a kid" teaching/influence from society at all. They don't experience it.



Not if they're not emotionally mature enough for it. Just because a kid can win a fight doesn't mean he should be in a fight if it messes with his head. And it does. In ways we didn't think to look for or catalogue because we didn't consider it a problem.



My God, man. How many times do I have to explain it to you? It doesn't have to be anger or suicide! Emotional goddamned dependency! Clinginess! Like Slaughter! I've said this so many times by now! This was not catalogued or considered a problem back when child brides were fine. But now we're wiser, and know that it is a problem. And we see it in child brides.

First, slaughter was 10/11 not 16. Second of all, I think a 16 year old clings just as much as 21 year olds do. You think some college girl doesn’t cling? You think foids in their 20s don’t cling? They do. Look at reddit threads for proof. Teenagers don’t depend on their boyfriend for things. They just date and go out together and fuck. How is that clinging? Also, according to history.com we knew about PTSD even in ancient times. We didn’t see any suicide, crying depression or anger or behavior problems among teen brides like today’s teen brides who are brainwashed by the pedo hysteria which is what really causes trauma. We saw trauma in knights. We saw it in civil war soldiers. I’m sure they could see it more in a teen soldier back then if that was the case then. The idea that 18 year olds can handle war but 16 year olds can’t is dumb.

also in countries where underage marriage is common,theyre still infantilized. The age of majority, age of consent, drinking age, etc are higher and are pretty high. They still infantilize them except for the case of marriage

 

[FrothySolutions]

First, slaughter was 10/11 not 16. Second of all, I think a 16 year old clings just as much as 21 year olds do. You think some college girl doesn’t cling? You think foids in their 20s don’t cling? They do. Look at reddit threads for proof.

There are plenty of mentally immature adults. The objective of picking a proper age of consent is figuring out when someone SHOULD be mentally and emotionally mature. Not everyone will be, because some people have issues, but there is a moment when most people stop being impulsive, stupid kids, and become nuanced, capable adults. If after this point you're still stupid and impulsive, then best we can understand right now is, you're the one with the problem. It's not that you're still a kid.

Teenagers don’t depend on their boyfriend for things. They just date and go out together and fuck. How is that clinging?

Emotional dependency. Not financial dependency. But financial dependency is also a thing that happens. It's less important than emotional dependency though.

Also, according to history.com we knew about PTSD even in ancient times. We didn’t see any suicide, crying depression or anger or behavior problems among teen brides like today’s teen brides who are brainwashed by the pedo hysteria which is what really causes trauma. We saw trauma in knights. We saw it in civil war soldiers. I’m sure they could see it more in a teen soldier back then if that was the case then. The idea that 18 year olds can handle war but 16 year olds can’t is dumb.

I guess I have to keep saying it. It doesn't have to be anger or suicide. Emotional goddamned dependency. Also? Mental instability. It doesn't always manifest as crying or depression or anger. There are adult soldiers who show mental traumas that cannot be detected without today's modern psychiatry. So there wouldn't be record in ancient times.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

There are plenty of mentally immature adults. The objective of picking a proper age of consent is figuring out when someone SHOULD be mentally and emotionally mature. Not everyone will be, because some people have issues, but there is a moment when most people stop being impulsive, stupid kids, and become nuanced, capable adults. If after this point you're still stupid and impulsive, then best we can understand right now is, you're the one with the problem. It's not that you're still a kid.



Emotional dependency. Not financial dependency. But financial dependency is also a thing that happens. It's less important than emotional dependency though.



I guess I have to keep saying it. It doesn't have to be anger or suicide. Emotional goddamned dependency. Also? Mental instability. It doesn't always manifest as crying or depression or anger. There are adult soldiers who show mental traumas that cannot be detected without today's modern psychiatry. So there wouldn't be record in ancient times.

They detected lots of trauma in soldiers in medieval times and people already knew PTSD in ancient times otherwise we wouldn’t have records of it. If a person suffers trauma, they’re probably going to manifest signs of it and their husband prolly will know. Also, emotional dependency isn’t always a bad thing because we all have to depend on some emotionally at times.

 

[FrothySolutions]

They detected lots of trauma in soldiers in medieval times and people already knew PTSD in ancient times otherwise we wouldn’t have records of it. If a person suffers trauma, they’re probably going to manifest signs of it and their husband prolly will know. Also, emotional dependency isn’t always a bad thing because we all have to depend on some emotionally at times.

You keep saying "Oh but PTSD." We're not talking about PTSD. Put it out of your head and keep track of this conversation.

We're talking about emotional dependency. Which is a bad thing. A kid should not be like "The person I'm with, I love them so much that I need them for my happiness and mental stability." Like Slaughter. She was being used by Dahvie. Emotional maturity means being able to walk away from being used. She couldn't do that. She still misses him.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

You keep saying "Oh but PTSD." We're not talking about PTSD. Put it out of your head and keep track of this conversation.

We're talking about emotional dependency. Which is a bad thing. A kid should not be like "The person I'm with, I love them so much that I need them for my happiness and mental stability." Like Slaughter. She was being used by Dahvie. Emotional maturity means being able to walk away from being used. She couldn't do that. She still misses him.

Everyone misses someone they used to be with. Many domestic abuse victims still love their husbands. Some captured people even develop Stockholm syndrome. Emotional dependency is common among any age group. Every wife has emotional dependency years ago even in societies where they married at 25

 

[FrothySolutions]

Everyone misses someone they used to be with. Many domestic abuse victims still love their husbands. Some captured people even develop Stockholm syndrome. Emotional dependency is common among any age group. Every wife has emotional dependency years ago even in societies where they married at 25

Yeah, none of those things are healthy. You're supposed to be able to walk away from being used. And kids like Slaughter can't do that, because they're kids, needy, easy-to-trick kids.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Yeah, none of those things are healthy. You're supposed to be able to walk away from being used. And kids like Slaughter can't do that, because they're kids, needy, easy-to-trick kids.

If a 16 year old can walk away from her 16 year old boyfriend she can walk away from a 25 year old bf

slaughter was only 10/11

 

[FrothySolutions]

If a 16 year old can walk away from her 16 year old boyfriend she can walk away from a 25 year old bf

That's what you think, but others disagree. In some states 16 + 25 is legal.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

That's what you think, but others disagree. In some states 16 + 25 is legal.

They disagree because they’re NPCs

 

[FrothySolutions]

They disagree because they’re NPCs

They disagree because of that "observed need" I mentioned earlier. There are things society is noticing about teenagers that has some of us wondering how much freedom/responsibility they should be allowed to handle.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

They disagree because of that "observed need" I mentioned earlier. There are things society is noticing about teenagers that has some of us wondering how much freedom/responsibility they should be allowed to handle.

That aspect of teenagers only existed in modern society

 

[FrothySolutions]

That aspect of teenagers only existed in modern society

It didn't, we've differentiated between kids and teens and adults for years. Ancient teenagers could not handle today's adult responsibilities and maintain our standards for mental health. We see this in teenagers raised in societies that don't "infantilize" them, as you claim.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

It didn't, we've differentiated between kids and teens and adults for years. Ancient teenagers could not handle today's adult responsibilities and maintain our standards for mental health. We see this in teenagers raised in societies that don't "infantilize" them, as you claim.

No I just said that researcher saw higher maturity levels in teenagers in preindustrial societies and there’s no proof that they couldn’t handle adult responsibilities in ancient times in fact society overall prospered back then with teenagers having adult responsibilities. Adolescence wasn’t invented until the 1800s/early 1900s

 

[FrothySolutions]

No I just said that researcher saw higher maturity levels in teenagers in preindustrial societies and there’s no proof that they couldn’t handle adult responsibilities in ancient times in fact society overall prospered back then with teenagers having adult responsibilities. Adolescence wasn’t invented until the 1800s/early 1900s

You keep saying teenagers were more mature back then. Okay, what "higher maturity" are you talking about? Don't say shit like "They didn't get angry and cry" or "They were able to hold down a job properly" because these are NOT the signs of maturity we look for today. These are NOT the signs of "prosperity" we hold today. It's good to not cry or get angry. But this is only part of the equation. Just because you appear outwardly calm does not make you mature. Just because a 16 year old can win a war doesn't mean he's fit to be a soldier. You keep looking at this like "But they can fight! That means they should be allowed to be soldiers!" I keep telling you that's not how it works.

 

[Robtical]

You keep saying teenagers were more mature back then. Okay, what "higher maturity" are you talking about? Don't say shit like "They didn't get angry and cry" or "They were able to hold down a job properly" because these are NOT the signs of maturity we look for today. These are NOT the signs of "prosperity" we hold today. It's good to not cry or get angry. But this is only part of the equation. Just because you appear outwardly calm does not make you mature. Just because a 16 year old can win a war doesn't mean he's fit to be a soldier. You keep looking at this like "But they can fight! That means they should be allowed to be soldiers!" I keep telling you that's not how it works.

Most 16 year olds are very close to the same "maturity" as 18 year olds. Cucked aoc laws are man made garbage that have no reason to exist. Foids were married even a lot younger than 16 throughout most of history, and they were fine. Today 13 year old foids are even more degenerate than the foids in the past, and have way more sex partners.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Most 16 year olds are very close to the same "maturity" as 18 year olds. Cucked aoc laws are man made garbage that have no reason to exist. Foids were married even a lot younger than 16 throughout most of history, and they were fine. Today 13 year old foids are even more degenerate than the foids in the past, and have way more sex partners.

But they weren't "fine." Not by today's standards for what "fine" is for a 16 year old.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

You keep saying teenagers were more mature back then. Okay, what "higher maturity" are you talking about? Don't say shit like "They didn't get angry and cry" or "They were able to hold down a job properly" because these are NOT the signs of maturity we look for today. These are NOT the signs of "prosperity" we hold today. It's good to not cry or get angry. But this is only part of the equation. Just because you appear outwardly calm does not make you mature. Just because a 16 year old can win a war doesn't mean he's fit to be a soldier. You keep looking at this like "But they can fight! That means they should be allowed to be soldiers!" I keep telling you that's not how it works.

"
In 1991 anthropologist Alice Schlegel of the University of Arizona and Herbert Barry III, a psychologist at the University of Pittsburgh, reviewed research on teens in 186 preindustrial societies. Among the important conclusions they drew about these societies: about 60 percent had no word for "adolescence," teens spent almost all their time with adults, teens showed almost no signs of psychopathology, and antisocial behavior in young males was completely absent in more than half these cultures and extremely mild in cultures in which it did occur.

Even more significant, a series of long-term studies set in motion in the 1980s by anthropologists Beatrice Whiting and John Whiting of Harvard University suggests that teen trouble begins to appear in other cultures soon after the introduction of certain Western influences, especially Western-style schooling, television programs and movies. Delinquency was not an issue among the Inuit people of Victoria Island, Canada, for example, until TV arrived in 1980. By 1988 the Inuit had created their first permanent police station to try to cope with the new problem.

Consistent with these modern observations, many historians note that through most of recorded human history the teen years were a relatively peaceful time of transition to adulthood. Teens were not trying to break away from adults; rather they were learning to become adults. Some historians, such as Hugh Cunningham of the University of Kent in England and Marc Kleijwegt of the University of WisconsinMadison, author of Ancient Youth: The Ambiguity of Youth and the Absence of Adolescence in Greco-Roman Society (J. C. Gieben, 1991), suggest that the tumultuous period we call adolescence is a very recent phenomenon--not much more than a century old."

 

[Robtical]

But they weren't "fine." Not by today's standards for what "fine" is for a 16 year old.

Today's standards are wrong. Just because we're in "modern times" doesn't mean we do everything better than the past. In the past obesity rates weren't that high, and they didn't eat processed junk.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Today's standards are wrong. Just because we're in "modern times" doesn't mean we do everything better than the past. In the past obesity rates weren't that high, and they didn't eat processed junk.

and there were less divorces and thus children didn't deal with divorce. the economy was better.

 

[Robtical]

and there were less divorces and thus children didn't deal with divorce. the economy was better.

And now there are way more cucks and whores. If that's not the result of modern degeneracy mental damage then I don't know what is.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

And now there are way more cucks and whores. If that's not the result of modern degeneracy mental damage then I don't know what is.

and now we live in the most cucked time period

 

[Robtical]

and now we live in the most cucked time period

But "we know better" now.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

But "we know better" now.

"we know better" is just the appeal to novelty fallacy

 

[FrothySolutions]

"
In 1991 anthropologist Alice Schlegel of the University of Arizona and Herbert Barry III, a psychologist at the University of Pittsburgh, reviewed research on teens in 186 preindustrial societies. Among the important conclusions they drew about these societies: about 60 percent had no word for "adolescence," teens spent almost all their time with adults, teens showed almost no signs of psychopathology, and antisocial behavior in young males was completely absent in more than half these cultures and extremely mild in cultures in which it did occur.

Even more significant, a series of long-term studies set in motion in the 1980s by anthropologists Beatrice Whiting and John Whiting of Harvard University suggests that teen trouble begins to appear in other cultures soon after the introduction of certain Western influences, especially Western-style schooling, television programs and movies. Delinquency was not an issue among the Inuit people of Victoria Island, Canada, for example, until TV arrived in 1980. By 1988 the Inuit had created their first permanent police station to try to cope with the new problem.

Consistent with these modern observations, many historians note that through most of recorded human history the teen years were a relatively peaceful time of transition to adulthood. Teens were not trying to break away from adults; rather they were learning to become adults. Some historians, such as Hugh Cunningham of the University of Kent in England and Marc Kleijwegt of the University of WisconsinMadison, author of Ancient Youth: The Ambiguity of Youth and the Absence of Adolescence in Greco-Roman Society (J. C. Gieben, 1991), suggest that the tumultuous period we call adolescence is a very recent phenomenon--not much more than a century old."

That's a measure of whether or not teens back then were "delinquent." Whether or not they were antisocial or angsty or acted up or were rebellious. Not whether or not teens are emotionally mature enough to be in relationships with adults. If you take a 16 year old today, and have her be in a relationship with a grown-ass man, and turns out she doesn't act rebellious or some shit, people aren't gonna be like "Oh wow, how mature, I guess this is a healthy relationship after all." Because it's not a mark of emotional maturity just to not be an angsty teen.

Furthermore, there are a number of reasons teenagers are rebellious. Rebellion isn't inherently a bad thing. This study, for all your obsession over it, doesn't even ask what it is rebellious teens are looking for. Why they rebel. For all we know, teenagers didn't rebel back then because the adults raised them so they wouldn't. Groomed them to not want more. Groomed them to obey and not question. Groomed them to not seek freedom and free thought.

Today's standards are wrong. Just because we're in "modern times" doesn't mean we do everything better than the past. In the past obesity rates weren't that high, and they didn't eat processed junk.

Today's standards don't say that obesity is good. The fact that people are fat today says nothing for what we believe is "right" today. What is "healthy" today. Case in point, our standards today say that kids shouldn't be having sex, least of all with adults. That's our standard. And yet, nowadays lots of kids are having sex. Our standards disagree with the practices.

 

[Robtical]

Today's standards don't say that obesity is good. The fact that people are fat today says nothing for what we believe is "right" today. What is "healthy" today. Case in point, our standards today say that kids shouldn't be having sex, least of all with adults. That's our standard. And yet, nowadays lots of kids are having sex. Our standards disagree with the practices.

Just because something doesn't meet the normie standard doesn't mean it should be illegal, or feeding your kid junk food should also be illegal, since it has permanent real side effects, unlike jbs having sex with adults.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

That's a measure of whether or not teens back then were "delinquent." Whether or not they were antisocial or angsty or acted up or were rebellious. Not whether or not teens are emotionally mature enough to be in relationships with adults. If you take a 16 year old today, and have her be in a relationship with a grown-ass man, and turns out she doesn't act rebellious or some shit, people aren't gonna be like "Oh wow, how mature, I guess this is a healthy relationship after all." Because it's not a mark of emotional maturity just to not be an angsty teen.

Furthermore, there are a number of reasons teenagers are rebellious. Rebellion isn't inherently a bad thing. This study, for all your obsession over it, doesn't even ask what it is rebellious teens are looking for. Why they rebel. For all we know, teenagers didn't rebel back then because the adults raised them so they wouldn't. Groomed them to not want more. Groomed them to obey and not question. Groomed them to not seek freedom and free thought.



Today's standards don't say that obesity is good. The fact that people are fat today says nothing for what we believe is "right" today. What is "healthy" today. Case in point, our standards today say that kids shouldn't be having sex, least of all with adults. That's our standard. And yet, nowadays lots of kids are having sex. Our standards disagree with the practices.

teenagers who are emotionally immature ARE more likely to be delinquent. if teens back then more immature, they would've had more delinquency which they didn't. like i said, teen turmoil isn't universal or worldwide. in refugee societies even a 10 year old maturitymogs a american 21 year old. also teens only rebel because they're finished with puberty and their brain is telling them it's time to be an adult yet society treats them like infants and doesn't let them have adult responsibilities. research shows that infantilization of teenagers (aka treating like babies) causes psychopathology in them

 

[FrothySolutions]

Just because something doesn't meet the normie standard doesn't mean it should be illegal, or feeding your kid junk food should also be illegal, since it has permanent real side effects, unlike jbs having sex with adults.

Sex with kids doesn't just "not meet the normie standard." There's a difference between a bad habit and an actual crime.

teenagers who are emotionally immature ARE more likely to be delinquent. if teens back then more immature, they would've had more delinquency which they didn't.

Then you haven't been paying attention to this conversation, and you don't seem to have an understanding of what "emotional maturity" is. Emotional maturity doesn't just mean "not being delinquent." It means not being dependent on your abuser. I cite Slaughter again. When it came to the instruction of Dahvie Vanity, she was not delinquent. She was the opposite of that, she hung onto every word of his. By your logic, she's "mature" for not acting up.

You might be getting ready to say "But Slaughter wasn't 16." If you are about to say that, you're missing the point again. You said "Emotional immaturity = delinquence." Slaughter proves that "Emotional immaturity = overdependence." It doesn't matter what age she was.

like i said, teen turmoil isn't universal or worldwide. in refugee societies even a 10 year old maturitymogs a american 21 year old. also teens only rebel because they're finished with puberty and their brain is telling them it's time to be an adult yet society treats them like infants and doesn't let them have adult responsibilities. research shows that infantilization of teenagers (aka treating like babies) causes psychopathology in them

Not every teen rebels for the same reasons. In fact, I'd argue most teens rebel to escape this so-called "adult responsibility." Because "adult responsibility" as described in the text you cited was "What the adults told them to do." If I'm a teen, and I'm told by my elders that now is the time to put away boyish things and learn to be a ranch hand because that's what adults do, I might do that if that's what's been drilled into me to want. But if I know there's another way, a way my parents might not necessarily want for me, then I'm gonna rebel.

What would've been a real test was if these pre-1800s kids had the option of following the adults, or doing their own thing. What you've given are examples of teens who were NOT free, but instead pushed into adulthood early. The adulthoods the other adults chose for them.

 

[Robtical]

Sex with kids doesn't just "not meet the normie standard." There's a difference between a bad habit and an actual crime.

Why can't jbs having sex with adults just be considered a "bad habit"?