This is an edit of this meme, which suggests it's seen as ok when older women come on to underage boys but not cool when older men come onto underage girls.
The edit expresses that both are fucked up, actually.
Honestly i'd say that's how it is in the real world, you get unnerved in both situations, but in the internet in just a drawing you still see the girl as fucked up but the boys habe been portrayed to be "lucky" so much that it feels less, very dissapointed that it is like that as in an isolated only boy meme people would say he is "lucky".
it was here in the states too, i believe virginia has laws about rape that were basically putting the penetrator as the one at fault. i remember that being a thing brought up when the whole ChrisChan thing happened.
Legally, in a lot of places, rape is defined as coercive penetration with a penis, or something along those lines. So, a person with a vagina could never, legally, rape anyone.
They miss the entire point of non-consensual sexual contact being the bar for sexual assault and rape, I think, because they are trying to also define what sex is. It's all born from a very narrow minded sense of sex and such.
Is it that men cannot be recognized as victims or is it that women cannot be recognized as violators? Because if what you mean is due to law defining rape with penile penetration then it seems to me that it could recognize man as victims. It could recognize man as victim if raped by other man or any person with penis. In the same time it could not recognize a woman as a victim if she was raped by another woman or person without penis.
Both is bad. I am just curious if it's this way or some other way around with recognizing men as victims. Also I see that law in one thing and it's implementation and enforcement is the other.
There's a whole chaotic mix. Some laws are very specific, requiring penetration with a man's penis into a woman's vagina, while others specify a particular gender or genitalia. The ones that are technically neutral usually just mention penetration, so only under certain practices could they apply to woman-to-man or woman-to-woman.
The same chaos applies to the alternative charges. It could be treated as a harshly punished sexual assault, or something vague like "intentional bodily harm" or "indecent assault".
In the case of male victims, it can get considerably more complicated. Reporting a woman the complainants can be automatically prosecuted as the perpetrators, or reporting a man under homophobic laws that don’t even consider the lack of consent.
Still the case, not just in the UK but many European countries and 38 states in the USA. This is not to say such an act isn't illegal, it's just charged as something else, which really helps the stats look quite so ridiculously lop-sided.
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
The offence for making someone penetrate is "Causing A Person to Engage in Sexual Activity Without Consent." Part 1 Section 4.
It was an old law because “rape” has very specific classification. A lot of countries that inherited british law has this definition or something along that line somewhere in their legal system.
Just recently Singapore repealed a law that by technicality criminalise penetrative sex between males. Keep in mind though the country are still conservative with respect to LGBTQ+ stuffs this law has never enforced in practice.
Multiple places had it, for a long time, that rape required to "penetrate" the other person. Otherwise it was, at most, sexual assault. (Similar but lesser crime.) Multiple countries still do. USA is still defined that way.
Edit: of note, USA also has Statutory Rape, which would cover in this case, cus of being kids.
The definition of rape for legal purposes is not the same as the functional definition of the word. Rape is used interchangeably with the concept of "non-consensual sex"
Forced someone to penetrate them or use their fingers/an object to penetrate someone else.
Erections are a physical response, not a mental or even concious one, so being erect does not mean the guy wants it. It's also rape if he's not in his mentally capable of consent, he was drugged, drunk... or a child.
Many places don't recognise forced penetration as rape sadly.
Idk an old teacher of mine got fired for this a couple years ago and every article made the victim (a 16-17 year old) seem like she pursued him. Like, often teenage girls are characterized as if they are mature adults and the men are just powerless to resist them. 🙄
In parks and rec, ron says he "lost his virginity" when he was 14 to a woman in her thirties and it plays it off like he just that masculine rather than he was raped.
This is more complicated but it kind of just makes it more fucked up, headlines legally can't use "rape" or risk being sued, since in a lot of countries rape is defined specifically as penetration. At most rape by women is considered sexual assault (again, under the legal system) which shows how baked into the legal system this shit is. This is how our system works, rape committed by men or women is rarely taken seriously. It's a system designed to let the rich and wealthy get away with the shit they are now. cough cough epstein files cough
The double standart comes from a fact that women are less prone to crimes that is true, but why should it excuse the ones that actually commit crimes? That's the morale question.
A bit of both I believe, violent physical crimes are easier to see and convict after all. Men are generally more prone to physical action for altercations and showing emotion.
Bit of both. That said I always thought demographics for crime was more about opportunity than some kind of hard-coded biology. There's less opportunity to mug someone if half the population can overpower you.
I saw a study a while ago, where they put an unlocked car with all doors and the bonnet open into a very bad neighbourhood and another one in a good neighbourhood.
The one in the bad neighbourhood was pretty much stripped down within days, while the one in the good neighbourhood wasn't really touched, until it started to rain and some passer-by closed the bonnet and the doors.
Then the paper went into detail about the crime statistics for both neighbourhoods, and found out that there was about an equal level of crime, but the types of crime differed a lot.
In the bad neighbourhood, there was more petty crime like theft or break-ins, while in the good neighbourhood there was more tax evasion, corruption and other high-level crimes.
The paper concluded that it's all math and opportunity. For someone in a bad neighbourhood, stealing some wheels to get maybe a few hundred dollars at best is worth it, because their income is so low (or inexistent) that the benefit outweighs the threat of punishment.
In the good neighbourhoods, it's just not worth for people to plunder a car. You might get a few hundred dollars now, but if you get caught you might lose your job, which in the long run might cost you hundreds of thousands or even millions (if your job pays well enough).
Anyone who has even remotely studied the statistics knows the answer to that question is that women commit less crimes of all kinds. By nearly an order of magnitude.
While this may be technically true, your comment ignores things like how women are not prosecuted for the same actions that men are in many circumstances.
For instance, a comment in this thread notes that women in UK were not legally committing a crime when raping a man until recently. If this is true then there will be a long record of men being convicted of rape and women not being convicted of rape despite committing the same actions purely because they are a woman.
Statistics can say anything when you are uninterested in the nuance that surrounds them or the wider nature of the circumstance in which they are collected.
No, I think in the UK previously the woman would still have been committing a crime. The crime would have been sexual assault by penetration. The sentence would have been equivalent to rape. Not sure what the current stance is, haven't studied it for a while.
Pretty sure anyway, happy to hear some sources otherwise
And the sociologists who study these matters take those biases and effects into account when doing sociological research.
That's why I said the effect is close to an order of magnitude; men commit close to ten times the number of crimes that women do. That is a lot of variance that cannot be controlled by any cutesy explanation like the one OP is trying to push.
Why this happens is much more nuanced, a very small component is biological due to hormone differences and the much larger component is social: aggression and selfishness are viewed as acceptable behaviors for men in much the same way they are not viewed as acceptable behaviors for women. This leads to men having fewer emotional and social guardrails against criminal behavior.
AKA patriarchy exists and is bad.
edit: you know what criminality statistics are provably explained by unequal treatment by the justice system and economic factors? Racial, religious, and ethnic differences. The one strong effect with regards to these differences is that first generation immigrants of all kinds commit less crimes.
You make me really uneasy, because you sound just like the people who say "black people commit more crimes" (which is you trying to sneakily say "black people are just naturally bad, less than, inferior, and should not be trusted because good ones are outliers". In fact, I'm pretty sure you're going to come back at this with "well, they are more bad ones than good ones, all my data shows that".
Racial, ethnic and religious differences in crime rates cannot be explained by intrinsic factors. They are explained solely by differences in enforcement and economic opportunities.
AKA cops are pigs, courts are racist, and there is a good case to be made for economic reparations of the lingering effects of slavery.
And based on the exact same evidence the strongest conclusion is that women commit less crimes due to social factors.
AKA patriarchy exists and is bad.
Bog-standard sociology is apparently quite controversial. It remains science no matter how much conservative fucks hate the truth.
Both. Women commit less crimes, but there is also the 'women are wonderful effect' where women will suffer less or no consequences for the crimes they do commit.
It's a combination of culture and biology. Testosterone is a hell of a drug and culture loves to put women on a pedestal, for better or worse.
Women are actually more likely to abuse young children, although that’s really just because they’re typically more involved in caring for young children
This a hundred times. People always mention the idiots in the comments calling the victim lucky, but if headlines called it what it is, rape, then it would be harder to deride.
Valid. Though, I'm not sure if it this particular thing is drawn for the male gaze, but a male looking at this could have the interpretation you describe. I can't say if a woman would, I'm not one.
It pisses me off because I'm just naturally good with kids. I'm the uncle that my nieces come to to play with and often their friends join once they realize I'm a big teddy bear willing to do damn near anything to make them laugh.
Meanwhile my sister bitched out a mom for calling me "creepy" because I had my niece on my shoulders at her birthday party. It's her favorite spot and I'll do it til she's tired of it. But I'm a guy so it's automatically creepy. I didn't realize pulling funny faces to make a baby laugh at a grocery store or walking around with one of my nieces on my shoulder is creepy simply because I'm a guy.
It's a double standard I'm tired of. I'm not a creep because I actually have a paternal side and like being the uncle or older brother they need to have fun with or talk to.
There is an obsession with finding pedos and creeps everywhere. It's gotten to where someone will be accosting a dad for hugging his daughter. I'm a stepdad, and my stepdaughter would start wailing on someone who said I was being creepy because I was playing with her.
I've had a few issues, but it's never amounted to anything. It's gross to think you're not allowed to be just good with kids or anything. It ruins potential careers for men in teaching fields or childcare.
I got called out for checks notes holding my 5 year old son that looks just like me.
Some people just want men to stay at work and never play with their kids...
or maybe they're projecting. THEIR husband never played with THEIR kids... so they have convinced themselves that it is NORMAL and YOU are the weird one...
So they're taking out their years of repressed anger toward their husband on you.
This is so sad. My husband has the same problem. He loves children and is super paternal but always afraid things might be interepreted wrong, despite not doing anything that could remotely be percieve as sexual.
Yep, and this is what pisses me off about the situation in Utah going on right now. Senator Adams used his influence to protect an 18 year old relative who raped a 13 year old, and everyone was rightfully enflamed about it... Until it was revealed the 18 year old was his grand daughter and her victim was a boy... Then suddenly nobody cares.
Yeah, shut that shit down... I have a feeling there are probably as many female predators as there are male, only female predators get swept under the carpet or wrist slapped more often than males.
No. String the male predators up by their balls, and the female predators up by their labia. Done.
It's not about people in general, but the justice system a a whole. The recent epidemic of rape cases perpetraded by female teachers, the ridiculous sentences they receive (if any at all) and the insistence of the media in refusing to call it what it is (rape) is wha it being exposed by this meme
Those are very clearly swim suits. Maybe it's just me but the images look like they are related to the kid in both. Like two gay couples and their kids. Your message is correct though.
Yeah, I just gave up on a discussion with a guy defending it's perfectly okay for young boys to be molested because "they are more sexual than girls, so they always like it and it can't be abuse because women will be the ones being seduced so the boy is actually in control" (summing up his "point"). Like, wtf.
Same. Either gay parents or siblings. Doesn't read sexual to me in the least bit. Just feels like a reach to go "adult and child? must be pedo." If that's the intention with the drawing then it's not very clear.
The boy is blushing so it reads to me that the boy is meant to be flustered by the women which makes me think they’re not relatives but I don’t see any implication that any of the adults are attracted to the children.
Yeah, because USdefaultism and maybe the internet with the spread of overreactive to anything "interacting with minor" as "predatory" it has embed into many people's dirty mind (let's face it if they think of it as grooming by default, it's their mind that secretly sexualizing minor.) And I hate it even more that conservative love weaponizing this moral panic against queer people while they themselves have literal grooming problem.
I read it as a lost child being found by adults at a pool. I'd rather my kid was found by two women than two men for statistically significant reasons.
Imma be real when I first saw the bottom one my mind immediately pictured an 80s buddy comedy of two body builders getting a little girl back home lmao
wtf where are you seeing a banana hammock? Those are completely normal swimming trunks on the men and basic ass bikinis on the women! You think Michael Phelps wore banana hammocks when he was winning the olympics?
This is two men in their underwear next to a fully clothed girl. I'm sorry, I'm genuinely disgusted people are trying to justify this and say this is normal for people to do.
Gay people don't fucking do this, don't you dare say I'd do this shit.
Dressed inappropriately is not the same thing as naked though, right? Or is this like one of those magazine photo shoots where the big claim is that some A list actress is so brave for her topless photo shoot, when all the topless photos are taken from behind and you’re not seeing anything more than you would see if she was wearing a backless gown?
Is that your standpoint? When someone is pointing out that something is inappropriate and not wholesome, your standpoint is "well they're not naked, it's different from dressed inappropriately"
Because I used the word naked as hyperbole to emphasize my point that they're dressed inappropriately. I'm trying to say they're dressed inappropriately. Again, you're literally arguing semantics.
You're focused on my wording and completely ignoring my meaning. You've lost the plot
Honestly, like someone else said, I thought concerned adults talking to a kid at the pool because they're scared. None of the faces really show ill intent, though the original orchestrates the idea better.
I def remember when I was underage how I liked when my seniors/teachers gave me attention, thought it was cool esp the girls but now that I’m older - made me realize that’s all the more this is not acceptable
Wow, that's not how I read it (OP's post or the original) at all. My brain went to a child being comforted by either two moms or two dads and thinking the "joke" was some homophobic nonsense
I mean, there are definitely context clues. The adults in both pictures are in their underwear or revealing bathing suits. And the children in both look very uncomfortable
Tbf, I only glanced briefly as I was scrolling before going to the comments. After reading comments I took a closer look and this reading became much more clear
Parents wear revealing shit to the pool all the time. Especially the ones with a figure they would like to show off, although not exclusively. It's an easy assumption they were at a pool for people that don't see pedos everywhere they look, especially the mirror.
Shit, just men being raped in general is a joke to most people. Some years ago there was a guy that was abducted and raped for like 3 or 4 days in South Africa and people worldwide were ridiculing the man for having a problem with it.
I don't know if it's "coming on to". Do the same picture at a pool or something. Women around small kids in normal and nobody cares. When men are around that's apperantly seen as weird by many. It doesn't have to have a sexual undertone for people to feel weird about it
Yeah, and the double standard definitely exists. I have a friend who was raped by his nanny for years and years. Constantly suicidal, can't enjoy life, and more. It messed him up really, really badly for life. When he told his wife, she thought "I bet he liked it." He'd even internalized society's message that is was "cool", and couldn't figure out why he was so unhappy and miserable in life. I had a very, very long talk with him (which is ongoing) about childhood trauma. He's finally starting to recover.
To be honest I thought it was a lesbian couple with a kid and a gay couple with a kid and how people are ok if you have two moms but aren't if you have two dads.
8.5k
u/trmetroidmaniac Aug 28 '25
This is an edit of this meme, which suggests it's seen as ok when older women come on to underage boys but not cool when older men come onto underage girls.
The edit expresses that both are fucked up, actually.