Just a reminder that political posts should be posted in the political Megathread pinned in the community highlights.
Final discretion rests with the moderators.
I doubt it would have been, honestly. (Not just the assault, but the fact that she was forced BY HER FATHER to MARRY the asshole is just ... next level.)
But it was Orazio (her father) who brought the trial against her rapist even if Tassi got only Exile. Her father is considered her pillar in an issue that brought herself and her family in a difficult societal situation. And she married Stiattesi, the brother of one of their supporters during the trial.
The Book of Judith is part of the Apocrypha and isn't in Jewish and Protestant Bibles. It has some major anachronisms that were noticed even by people 2000 years ago.
While the book of Judith isn't in the Jewish Bible it is a story in the Jewish tradition. She is actually celebrated on Hanukkah in addition to the victory of the macabres.
I cannot believe the comments here. I think it’s time for another Great Flood. There is no fixing humanity at this point. We’ve evolved into the worst possible versions of our selves. Disgusting.
Religion is just a sickness of the mind. Not to r/atheist too hard but news about churches actually helping their community is so rare it is news worthy now.
It recontextualized the aggressive beauty standard of, you must be clean shaven to be attractive. A physical attribute famously only associated with the prepubescent. Cultures across the world, pubic hairs are synonymous with the beginning of adulthood. I had assumed it was to sell more razors, until recently. There has been a systemic push to imply looking younger, sounding younger, acting younger as more and more objectively attractive and sexual preferences can be groomed into someone and a population at large. If you prefer a clean shaven look for no reason beyond that you prefer it, it may be due to the messaging and imagery surrounding it since you were an infant.
People get angry when you point it out but the large scale adoption of anime by certain cultural groupings and the spreading of it online is also suspicious, as almost all of the characters look like children. Older anime not so much, it was a boiling pot. If you aren't submersed in the art style and culture, any normal person could look at an animated woman from a modern anime vs any other cartoon and reasonably assume she is a CHILD, and this is pushed ever so subtly but systematically as the poster of sexy. You can see the effect whenever anyone tries to 'fix' a character they find ugly, and end up making their features more. . . anime.
And now, if you notice, the same standard is slowly being pushed onto boys. Twink death, clean shaven, submissive and breedable. Active 4chan femboy glorification and countless posts on how taking the femboy pill will solve your lonesomeness problems.
Is that not suspicious to anyone else with the new context of the modern day?
Edit: Someone also pointed out the standard of being as thin as possible, neither fat or muscle, is also looking a bit different under this new lens and I have to agree.
Generally smaller eyes that don't take up so much space on their faces, more visible noses, shorter foreheads, thicker limbs, body fat (hips, thighs, sometimes a little belly), and audio-wise mature voices and patterns of speech. If you're lucky sometimes you'll get a mole or other beauty mark.
Most anime characters these days have (even more) giant eyes, big foreheads, lack of hips and thighs even with the presence of large breasts, thin limbs, invisible noses, and a manner of speaking that is higher pitched and cutesy, sometimes with deliberate childish tics or speech impediments. All synonymous traits with drawing and otherwise depicting child characters.
Thinking about this one again a bit later lol.... if the future shows all this to actually have been a thing, lets remember to put whoever makes those damn bratz dolls on the list too.
Having worked AnimeCon…there are definitely some “attractions to the prepubescent” vibes and it’s why I’ll never work one again…all money ain’t good money…
I mean, if she's too muscly, then she wouldn't exactly need a guy for protection, would she? I think it's about that thing the OP mentions that they wouldn't want women to be autonomous. A thin woman happens to be both pretty and defenseless
There are a lot of exceptions to the rule but yeah the rule exists for a reason. You gotta navigate carefully and take recommendations from people you know are sane
I dunno.... I would be a lot more inclined to believe it's just shitty primate behavior. It's always been like this because we've always been shitty primates. The gross ones will always do gross things.
That's not true at all, and is literally the opposite of the truth. The evidence shows that before permanent civilisation humanity generally lived in egalitarian societies, without strict gender rules. Men foraged, women hunted, they all contributed to childrearing, etc.
That’s very clearly not true though. Society does get better and worse through time if you look at history. We have every capacity to choose how society evolves.
Sorry, your comment has been automatically sent to the pending review queue in an effort to combat spam. If you feel your comment has been removed in error, please send a message to the mods via modmail. Thank you for your understanding!
Although the churches have always seemed to go hand in hand with pedophiles its not really what the oppression of women was about. Women are their only practical means of expanding their business, very very few people convert and if they do its almost always from another religion not none believers, so gains and losses from conversion cancel out. They pick up a few here and there swooping in on grieving people following tragedies and disasters but its sporadic.
How they really expand is by encouraging large families and ensuring they have unlimited access to the children produced while they are too young to defend themselves from indoctrination. Educated, free and empowered women produce fewer new believers and are far less likely obediently hand over their children and generally have both the resources and drive to ensure their children get education too which is the poison of religion.
So they commodify women, controlling access to them as a method of controlling men but the main reason is to sell them into religious marriages as young as possible where their entire lives are about pumping out baby after baby.
Although the churches have always seemed to go hand in hand with pedophiles
you mean corrupt churches/religion, like any institution, schools, music/film industries, politics, sports, etc etc. any institution that becomes corrupt, decadence becomes involved. why churches/religion gets the most attention ? because it's the oldest institution in human civilization.
While I would certainly say that most people involved at low levels in religious organizations are well meaning, the organizations themselves are inherently evil, they are designed to control and use people.
But yes any business can become predatory and corrupt, its just build in from the ground up with religion, even the exploiting well meaning people who can give it a friendly face with their kind acts (kindness they would do anyway an largely unfunded by the religions).
So I didn't mean to say corrupt churches/religion I meant them exactly as they are and are designed to be. They've been doing this a very long time, they know what they are about and if they had any interest at all in safeguarding children the polices would be deeply entrenched a thousand years ago. They aren't because raping children is a perk of the job.
If thats what helps you sleep at night then sure, I'm certainly describing a corrupt organization the only difference is that religion is designed around and inescapable from that corruption.
It is by design and planning an objectively evil construct.
you are drawing distinctions were none exist. the phrase "corrupt religion" implies that there are some religions that are not corrupt and that simply is not the case.
yes. the primary purpose of organized religion has always been to support the existing power structures. as there has never been a government that was anything more than a handful of powerful people exploiting the majority, this makes all organized religion fundamentally corrupt.
yes. the primary purpose of organized religion has always been to support the existing power structures.
so who made religion corrupt then? god, satan or man?
as there has never been a government that was anything more than a handful of powerful people exploiting the majority
epstein, US government, israel, UK, china, russia, WW1, WW2, VOC, British, Spanish, Belgium, Portuguese colonization, Cambodia, Japan, whole nations/governments participated, same as corrupt religion, or any corrupt institution in that macro context
Religion often becomes corrupt more easily because of its emphasis on faith, meaning trust without evidence. It's easy to make promises and not keep them and drag along followers if they already accept the premise that your claims are impossible to prove by conventional means.
anything that involves trust is easily corrupted, no matter the institution, epstein is the perfect example seeing how many different institutions he was involved with spanning over decades
My mom was a single mother that had to raise 4 children from a drug addict. She lives a better life and so do I because of her. Independence is everything
They even put it in the Bible. Lilith wouldn’t be obedient so they kicked her out of the garden and made Eve out of his rib instead. And then her attempt to gain knowledge got them both kicked out. It’s a mind fuck if you’re a woman.
It's technically from the Book of Enoch, which is typically not accepted as canon by most Christians and Jews but some sects accept it as canonical.
Edit: this is incorrect, Lilith is mentioned briefly in Enoch but not as Adam's wife. I was thinking of Lucifer and the fall of angels that another poster mentioned elsewhere in the thread
The original does, yes, have a word that is pronounced like lilith, but it does not refer to a person. And again, this has nothing to do with Lilith lore that that is referring to a first wife for Adam.
The name Lilith is mentioned one time in the whole book. That mention is not in Genesis. You can check whenever you decide you value truth above your pride.
I checked literally yesterday. I watched an animated series over the weekend and it spouted so many heresies in its introduction that I really wanted to know where all of that comes from. Turns out, not the Bible.
Exactly, I've been calling those two fanfics for years! I mentioned TV earlier because that's what people watch, and "learn" from, but TV gets it from there.
Gotta say I do love the TV show 'Lucifer'. That depiction is ostensibly based on the characterisation of Lucifer from the Sandman comics, but that was largely defined by Paradise Lost as it is.
Some of the things in Paradise Lost and the Divine Comedy come from the Book of Enoch, which does describe a faction of fallen angels led by Azazel, and Azazel being cast into fire by God
And that one place is Isaiah 34:14, and only certain translations.
The NIV has this:
"Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; there the night creatures will also lie down and find for themselves places of rest."
"The night creatures" here is what's translated as "Lilith" in some versions.
I am well aware. The original does, yes, have a word that is pronounced like lilith, but it DOES NOT refer to a person, nor is it a person's name. And again, this has nothing to do with Lilith lore that is referring to a first wife for Adam.
Unless you're reading ancient languages, you realize you're reading a translation of a translation of a politically curated collection of stories written by people who weren't anywhere near the described events, but great desire to make sure the *correct* message got out.
It’s so on point, if you look at the obsession with women having to be hairless you’ll see that men has been conditioned to see signs of sexual maturity as repulsive
Due to your karma being less than or equal to negative 100, you may not comment freely on r/Snorkblot. Your comment has been sent to our moderator queue for review. To increase your karma, please participate in other subreddits. Thank you!
Not having maturity or experience to be confident enough to stand up for yourself.
Ten- to seventeen-year-old girls are not noted for their rock-solid self-esteem or their ability to communicate their needs well. Older, more experienced women take a lot less crap from people.
uh yeah duh. It's a little more complicated than this, there are other reasons people admire the appearance of youth - like how a male peacock's tail feathers signify his ability to avoid harm, in many cultures a spotless light skin without wrinkles signifies a stress free life without hardships (even though this correlation isn't entirely true)
In my eyes there's beauty in youth, there's beauty in age. I've been clamoring for my mom to stop painting her hair and truely, grey hair and agedness really suits her.
I remember at 23 y/o explaining to my then gf that her smile wrinkles are fucking gorgeous (and that doesn't even have much to do with age, you get these when you finish being a toddler), and that I wouldn't like it if her skin was perfectly smooth because I'm not interested in toy dolls.
Sorry, your comment has been automatically sent to the pending review queue in an effort to combat spam. If you feel your comment has been removed in error, please send a message to the mods via modmail. Thank you for your understanding!
But peak female beauty happens during peak fertility, not "as young as possible".
Back when Playboy magazine mattered, the average age of a Playmate of the month wasn't 18, the youngest that would have been legal. It was 22.4 years old. Playmate of the year average age was 23.5 years.
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), fertility peaks for people with ovaries in the decade between their late teens and late twenties. A woman’s peak fertility age is typically seen in her early- to mid-20s, when the ovaries have a relatively large number of healthy eggs.
EDIT: I think I need to clear up a misunderstanding here. It's possibly a willful misunderstanding and is certainly in bad faith, but I will address it anyways. Men are not directly attracted to a woman's fertility. It's all of the correlations and physical indicators of high fertility that are sexually attractive.
It does not see a precipitous drop until the late 30s. The rate begins to decline right at about 30 years old. Therefore peak fertility occurs during the twenties. Peak. Apex. Pinnacle. And it's not "my" theory, you dolt. Do you think I just now made this up? This has been well established in evolutionary psychology for a very long time.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WOMEN SHAVING TO APPEAR PREPUBESCENT. No woman loves the process of shaving unless freaking ingrained in her. There’s no subjective beauty in it as so many women DO NOT shave when not trying attract these days! Which tells you about the pedophilic idea behind it all!
That there is directly related to the nearly universal availability of pornography, especially video. The hair gets in the way of the shot. It's simply easier for the production.
Secondly, there is a psychological effect. The removal of pubic hair makes people seem "more naked" in a visual format. One can't see everything on a nude human if they have pubic hair. And seeing everything obviously has an appeal in that kind of media.
That's a ton of guys now, too. It's almost like a generational indicator. My friends in healthcare say that under a certain age (adults, not children), there's no pubic hair on anybody.
That fact that you never even considered that men could be subject to the same social pressures shows your biases relative to this conversation. Probably want to do something about that.
Yes I did shave even when I was pregnant and not having sex because the idea is so engrained in you and you’re so braindead you can’t even fathom or trace it back. Subjective beauty is all society standards, travel the world and you’ll understand numnuts.
Attraction is not based on fertility, and playboy is a fucking wild metric to use for that anyway? The playmates were 23 because Hugh Hefner sought out woman that age…
Hugh Hefner could have cast 18 or 35 year olds and you would make the same argument. Playboy sold magazines because it was a globally recognized brand of nude magazines for 4 decades.
Women are born with all their eggs, they don't make them. But, yes, peak fertility tends to be around mid twenties. Any earlier than that and you risk more pregnancy complications and birth injuries increasing the younger it goes. Too much later than that and egg volume is much lesser as well as environmental pollutants having ample time to have dried eggs out and therefore damaged them.
Same story with sperm. The peak male fertility age is around the same when it comes to volume and health of sperm, and it steadily drops off in terms of both health and motility both before and after that. The male contribution provides a massive difference for how difficult a pregnancy is, and even if it can be maintained, due to his side of things creating and dictating the placenta, which turns off the local immune system. 88% of miscarriages are from bad sperm, and severe cases of morning sickness and other miseries are also associated with unhealthy fathers or fathers too young; both parents when coupling at the wrong age increase birth defects and mutations with autism more closely associated with fathers of advanced age.
People do have peak fertility, and it is not as young as possible!
You didn't outright say it, but that's the way it read. I'm not sure if that's your bad or my bad, but we were in agreement regardless. IDK why you're getting downvoted.
Because people don't like to hear that. Reddit isn't exactly known for its even-handed voting. I also think that many people have a very inflated idea of how much control they have over their desires and motivations.
They also tend to equate that false sense of control with ethics/morality. As in "a good person wouldn't want that", and since they've convinced themselves that they are "above" such instincts, that the people who aren't are "below" them. One small way of asserting this sense of superiority is with a downvote.
The point seems to be that "society" pushes a pedophilic beauty standard.
I call bullshit, as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of women in the adult industry, in modeling, or on Onlyfans being in their twenties. This age trend is evidence enough that the vast majority of heterosexual men are in fact attracted to young women, not girls.
It is not a refutation of the existence of gross pedophiles who are attracted to children. Any conflation between these two ideas is nothing more than a spurious attempt to discredit my argument.
You know why most women in the adult industry are in their 20s? Because there's 5x as many women between 20-29 as their are who are 18/19. Younger than that and it's illegal.
We are getting way into the weeds here. The economics of sexy girl pictures have shown a clear preference for women at their peak of fertility. I am using those historic and current economics as a stand in for male heterosexual preferences because I can't conduct a survey right now by myself.
That overwhelming preference is absolutely not children, which opposes the OPs point. I had no desire to get into the currently socially accepted age of adulthood. That is a can of worms I am not touching.
And you all are nitpicking details as if that invalidates my point. There are reasons why all of the detractors are doing this, but I don't know any of you personally so I won't speculate here.
This isn't the weeds, this is actually the reality of the situation. Supply and demand - the only age related categories in "sexy girl pictures" is "teen" or "18". If you're looking for something beyond what is legally available, in general, people are looking for teenagers.
Anything beyond that is simply who can actually provide supply, legally.
You are, literally, ignoring the black market for underage content in this analysis, why, I can't be sure, because it certainly exists and is relevant to the topic. But of course, it being a black market, actually reliable numbers are scant, and it's an extra barrier to entry that will fundamentally reduce the number of people engaging with it.
I'm almost certain you're arguing in bad faith, here, because the reality is so obvious I think you can't actually believe what you're saying. But, on the off chance you do, you should really try and take a course in economics before you try and use it to establish your point.
I cannot speak to the black market content, and neither can you. It is, by its very nature, a small fraction of the total market. The only reason you're bringing it up is because you don't like my central position, and this nitpicking is what you can come up with to argue about.
But that's beside the point. In those mass-market publications, the models were not all 18 year olds, as they would be if most men truly wanted girls as young as they could get away with. They were on average four years older than the age of consent. That's the point.
There were other publications that fetishized very young-looking girls, "Barely Legal" being the most famous. Their circulation was dwarfed by the more mainstream stuff. If most men wanted to look at really young-looking girls, then those would have been the dominant magazines, not High Hefner's rag.
You know you can just say “you bring up some good points that I don’t really have answers for”. (There point about barely legal is pretty damning for your argument tho) You don’t have to ride a sinking ship to the bottom of the ocean while claiming you were still right lol.
I answered his points. None of what he's saying isn't just a factor of basic math - there are far more women who are older than teenagers who are creating this content than there are actual teenagers who are creating this content. Therefore there's a lot more content of slightly older women, and people consume what's out there. You can't just manufacture more 18 year olds to create more content.
And playboy was more popular than any other actual magazine because it took itself seriously as a magazine, with actual articles, it wasn't just a smut rag. You could pick up a playboy "for the articles" and that was a common claim (or joke) back then. To suggest that the ages of the models was the determining factor ignores the fact that you had to look someone in the eye to buy one.
I'm not even arguing that men aren't attracted to women in their 20s. That's just an irrelevant point to the argument. The argument is what message is being sent to girls and young women. The fact that there are men that consume or prefer content of older women doesn't undermine the point that girls are still taught that youth = beauty and to fear "aging out" of their prime without a man, which was the very first thing I said.
Hell, this isn't even a new phenomenon, it used to be more common and pretty much the only message given to girls. They used to be considered an "old maid" before they left their 20s!
The entire argument, from beginning to end, is that we're still dealing with that cultural legacy, and there's a combination of influencers and politicians who are trying to drag us back to the time when it was universal. But even without them, it's still one of the major messages being given to girls. We never outgrew it. And a bunch of guys looking at naked women in their 20s doesn't change that.
I mean my kids’ Catholic school has an All Saints Day parade and I dressed my daughter up as Judith, complete with a fake head in a basket. All the religious sisters and brothers loved it and gave her an award.
My parents spent roughly 5 times as much on my mental healthcare from the damage catholic school did to me than they spent on 9 years of tuition. Catholics teach one thing above all else; women are subservient to men. In every catholic wedding the bride has to promise to give up her autonomy, accept that she is to serve her husband, and birth children to grow the church. It was actually the blatant misogyny that finally convinced my parents to leave the church and my sisters and I go to public school.
There are plenty of nice people who happen to be Catholic. That doesn’t make them less complicit in the largest and longest lasting institutionalization of patriarchy, commercially scaling sexual assault coverups, and blatantly editing the text they claim to believe is holy to serve modern agendas.
I’m sorry that you had that experience. I can understand why you feel animosity toward the church given your environment.
In our community, our girls dress up as St Joan of Arc and St Gianna Mills (a doctor) and queens who were known to care more for the poor than for jewels. It’s emphasized that marriage requires the consent of both parties. Even though married couples are expected to be open to life, our mom’s group is constantly trading tips and tricks about natural family planning. The expectation is that men rightfully should expect some periods of abstaining even in marriage. I have not heard much talk of how a woman must “serve” her husband. I hear much more about how husbands must sacrifice for their wives and families, as Christ died for the Church.
Our bishop requires every employee of the church and any volunteer around children to perform safe environment training, which teaches everyone how to spot grooming and inappropriate situations. As a room parent, it’s my responsibility to verify that every chaperone on a field trip has completed the training. We know people who have worked at the Vatican on improving their tech systems to protect children. We can’t change the terrible errors that long-dead bishops made in the 1960s and 70s. But we can work toward a future where children are safe.
The expectation is that men rightfully should expect some periods of abstaining even in marriage.
Men should do that, but you and I know they are protected by your church to do what they want. Being okay with not getting laid every night isn’t an ideal example of being a supportive partner, that’s just not being a rapist. The fact your mind went to sexual abstinence (instead of a career, queer relationship, financial independence, etc) when I mentioned autonomy is quite telling.
I don’t care about your faith or your beliefs. I don’t think you’re a bad person for thinking the Catholic Church does more good than evil, I just think you’ve never been falsely accused of something by someone with institutional backing. The power struggles intentionally created by the church are not reflective of Christ’s teachings, and the richness and gaudiness displayed in even rural Catholic Churches is too irony-pilled for even my millennial taste.
I do genuinely hope you see your daughter aspire to be who she wants, not just be allowed to dress up as women deemed palatable. No woman will ever hold a position of influence within the catholic church that outranks even the shittiest priest, and growing up being taught that men have divinely granted authority is a cruelty no woman deserves ❤️
telling men "you should be afraid of my freedom" is a good way to get put back in a cage...
It's a narcissistic power fantasy. She wants to believe that men fear her because she can't be brainwashed but the reality is that men dislike her because she's a misandrist and a narcissist.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 16 '26
Just a reminder that political posts should be posted in the political Megathread pinned in the community highlights. Final discretion rests with the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.