I agree with you on the fact that she didn't create these ideas herself, but it's a choice (and what a choice) to actively play into the 'pedophilic fantasy'. In my opinion, as the mainstream artist that she is, she should be responsible for the message that she's giving. Such responsibility isn't teaching the oppressor to stop taking advantage of women and all the oppressed, but the message that she gives actually contributes to and feeds the oppressor's narrative. And I find that deeply concerning and disturbing.
I totally see that! I think I am hesitant to blame her for playing into what sells because that is not her fault, but again she is a 26-year-old woman and other people have been able to achieve success without catering to some of these views. It's definitely complicated but I 100% get what you mean. Thank you so much for reading <333
How i understand it, she's saying it's not completely Sabrina's fault for playing into what the market wants. We all have to buy into this racist patriarchal capitalist society if we wanna make a living. The degree to which we buy into it can change and that's what i think grace meant by "it's complicated".
But she's not just buying into what the markets wants, which is gross enough, she's generating new frontiers for said markets. And it's not about markets anyway, it's about ideology and desire and yes basic morality. I *don't* have to buy into a racist patriarchal capitalist society to "make a living" thanks. It's not complicated. You're either directly complicit or you're not. I see pedophile culture weeping more and more into a world that was already saturated with disgusting sexist racist bigoted perverted shit before I was born, and there's gotta be a better thing to conclude than 'its complicated but this person doing this thing right here which is measurably a net harm on themselves and others is actually tooootally not responsible cause society'.
The bottom line is that despite the artistry,grown men dating teenagers is extremely inappropriate.Consider the vulnerability of the teen and the lack of cognitive maturity to process such a relationship.
Absolutely. To say it clearly and simply, adult men taking advantage of teenagers is abuse because teenagers aren't adults/mature enough to give consent to that kind of "relationship" with such power imbalance.
And the way Sabrina contributes to this narrative is wild to me. I'm a survivor of CSA, and I think that the way she uses her music to promote these harmful and dangerous ideas is gross.
As someone who has been enjoying her music since Thumbs, and has been growing increasingly uncomfortable with her current presentation, I loved the points made in your article! Also, one thing I realised while reading is how the figure of the bimbo “girl’s girl” feminist has evolved. To me that figure embodied what Elle Woods from Legally Blonde is, not what is portrayed nowadays through tiktoks like “my boyfriend at his big boy job while I am doing my useless degree”, and to watch it degrade into that has been torturous.
OMG the last sentence is YES!!!! Exactly how I feel. Thanks so much for reading and engaging <3 the music is definitely amazing!! I just take issue with some of the presentation as you mentioned
Totally agree with this point! I also think your idea of Elle Woods-type of “bimbo feminist” relates to the girl math thing - like to me girl math is just a funny way for girls to share how they choose to spend their own money on things that are stereotypically feminine - eg: “if something is on sale then it’s actually LOSING money to NOT buy it”… etc. I never associated the girl math/girl dinner online trends with being a “dumb female” or anything of the sort…
"Feminism is about liberating women from oppressive structures and narratives that have historically subjugated us."
Indeed. It's precisely why many feminists either supported pedophilia, or engaged in it.
For a few examples: Beauvoir (The Second Sex) who, before writing the book that significantly influenced feminism, was a teacher at a school where she groomed kids, whom she passed to the man she was in "open relationship" with:
“The minor in question was one of her pupils at a Paris lycée. It is well established that she and Jean-Paul Sartre developed a pattern, which they called the ‘trio,’ in which Beauvoir would seduce her students and then pass them on to Sartre.”
Conversely, same article mentions Lolita:
"Beauvoir’s 'Lolita Syndrome' (her personal favorite, she said, among her essays) offers an evangelical defence of the sexual emancipation of the young. They have been tied up in chains for too long."
Unsurprisingly, she signed an open letter in support of abolishing age of consent in France, along with some other feminists and leftist intellectuals.
Kate Millet, who drew on her work and created patriarchy theory, as referenced in the article, has had some interesting things to say herself. For example: “Sex itself is presented as a crime to children. It is how adults control children, how they forbid them sexuality. This has been going on for ages and is infinitely important to adults.” Her work and advocacy for pedophilia - here are her words again: "Certainly, one of children’s essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well. So the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution" - also inspired "gay liberation's" aspirations to "free children." She also deemed age of consent laws "oppressive."
Firestone has had some fun things to say as well: "In her chapter 'Down with Childhood,' Firestone argues that the very creation of the category 'childhood' and the idea of 'childhood innocence' were adult male constructions invented to bolster the oppression of women." Here's the sort of society she envisioned: "[If a child] should choose to relate sexually to adults, even if he should happen to pick his own genetic mother, there would be no a priori reasons for her to reject his sexual advances, because the incest taboo would have lost its function ... Thus without the incest taboo, adults might return within a few generations to a more natural polymorphuous sexuality, the concentration on genital sex and orgasmic pleasure giving way to total physical/emotional relationships that included that. Relations with children would include as much genital sex as the child was capable of — probably considerably more than we now believe."
For few other, influential examples; Rubin (gay and lesbian studies, queer theory from which "queer" as identity and "gender spectrum" originated from) who argued that "boy lovers" were being persecuted like homosexuals and communists in the 50s, also argued that many people will end up feeling ashamed for supporting said "savage and underserved witch hunt."
Califia: "We should be working to end the artificial state of sexual ignorance that children are kept in — not perpetuating it or defending it,” and said that true child abusers are 'priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their stale morality onto the young people in their custody,' and 'Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them. They need us badly.'"
Paglia, who's still working as a professor (she was protested a while back over "transphobia," her support for snuff porn, cp, and pedophilia was ignored): "As far as Ginsberg’s pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for. I have repeatedly protested the lynch-mob hysteria that dogs the issue of man-boy love." And: “Where is the harm to the children if they are getting polymorphous perverse pleasure from it, except in the harm as society forces secrecy on everyone and makes everyone neurotic?” She's also supported NAMBLA, and argued, again to quote: "Contemporary gays who try to distance themselves from this issue of boy-love are in effect committing cultural suicide. They're cutting themselves from all the highest achievements of gay men."
Jane Rule, also a professor: “If we accepted sexual behavior between children and adults, we would be far more able to protect our children from abuse and exploitation than we are now.”
Beth Kelly, another professor who's also led Chicago's LGBT council, beyond describing pedophilia positively, has talked about participating in pedophilia both as a 8 year old child, but also as an adult.
Corinna - I actually made a post about her earlier today, she runs a "sex advice site" for teens, wrote a sex-ed book that was going to be promoted in schools in Cali before parents objected & had it removed, and has written an article stating, well, in part, in regards to children and teens: “Who are we to say anyone does or does not have a right to enjoy their bodies, to be intimate with others by their own consent, and to make their own choices sexually, as full beings, when we permit such rights in nearly every other aspect of human life?” and said, “Rape is sex without consent. Though child molestation is rape, it does not follow that all sex with a minor is rape.” In the same article, she interviewed several pedophiles & victims, with one of them complaining: "Since I am 'out' in real life, I am often subject to snide and cruel remarks behind my back, and my attraction is a large source of ammunition for any person to use against me in any sort of argument as a sure fire means of making their status more 'ethical' then my own (i.e., if I was berating a Neo-Nazi for his racist views, he would likely say to me, 'Well, at least I don't like little girls!'), etc."
Judith Levine, who also works for ACLU: "She who wrote a book 'Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex,' where she questioned whether 'so-called pedophiles' even exist. When asked for an article whether a boy’s sexual relationship with a priest could be positive she said, 'yes, conceivably, absolutely,' and noted that when she was a minor she had sex with an adult, which she considered to be a 'perfectly good experience.'"
In her book she described the case of 22 year-old man who manipulated a 13 year-old girl and was convicted for felonious sexual assault, as “young love.”
The list goes on and on, but I think the point is made: You're living in a society shaped, significantly, by the same type of people you align with, while condemning aspects of society they produced (and ignoring they are the ones who produced it). All of this is further demonstrated by how most feminists, and all feminist orgs I've checked, approached grooming gangs in UK - with silence or ignoring it completely, or for that matter, how they approach issues like abortion, birth control, etc, when same things intersect with interests of the ruling class. See NSSM-200 as an example - trying to get non-western countries to implement ostensibly "feminist" policies to reduce their fertility, so said countries can be exploited more easily & be less likely to revolt. Rather funnily, the person that implemented this is no one other than Kissinger.
This was extremely interesting to read and I, indeed, didn't know of all this. But for me there is still the central question which remains unanswered: how does "freeing" child love/sex liberate women from subjugation? You started your comment with the statement that this was the reason many feminists supported pedophilia...
I was halfway through writing a response and my power went out lol. Anyway, I'll summarize it. There's several reasons why it's an important part of it:
For one, much of feminism revolves around personal autonomy, and about half of children are female; sexual autonomy is a part of it, and thus their ability to consent to sexual activity with anyone. Secondly, many of the feminists around that time were lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or in some cases, politically lesbian, and believed that "intergenerational" sexual relationships were good; Millet argued as much. She also noted that "incest taboo" is one of "cornerstones of patriarchal thought." Thirdly, because much of feminism comes down to rejecting and inverting the current system, and any attempt at opposing such things - even within feminism - are seen as puritanical, and allying with conservatives, "reactionary forces," or the far-right. You can see this, as well, when NOW passed a statement against some aspects of it - pederasty, public sex, etc - and feminists & academics signed two open letters condemning them.
Fourth, because children's liberation is seen as essential to women's liberation overall, especially since parents having control over children not only violates their autonomy and rights, but reinforces patriarchal (nuclear) family. It's also why Beauvoir and more than few other feminists either saw housewives as parasites, or didn't believe women should be able to be one. If we look at some of what such movements argued for, this is made more evident as well:
"Rearing children should be the common responsibility of the whole community. Any legal rights parents have over ‘their’ children should be dissolved and each child should be free to choose its own destiny. Free twenty-four hour child care centers should be established where [gays] and lesbians can share the responsibility of child rearing."
Keep in mind, children were/are in part seen as a burden, both biologically/reproductively (hence abortion - also obviously, autonomy), but also having to take care of them which often tends to fall on women more than on men. From the same article that I quoted the previous, they also note this:
"Radical feminists argued that men had invented the idea of childhood innocence to bolster the oppression of women, which was also the function of the nuclear family."
Firestone, for example, argued that technology was necessary for women to free themselves from reproduction - although obviously, the views varied on this. Afaik, Darwin argued that if such technology (e.g., artificial wombs, or in general separating reproduction from biology) came along, it would lead to "female holocaust," but she was more of an exception to this. But anyway, while the whole "children liberation" featured within feminism, it also led to some who focused primarily on it and not feminism; there were also several books on the subject, like Birthrights by Richard Farson or The Children’s Rights Movement: Overcoming the Oppression of Young People.
Thank you for your detailed answer! This is some serious food for thought. I have dived into feminism more than once, although by no means would I call myself an expert, but this aspect was never taught at the university I went to 😅
I had some "Gender Studies" lessons at Architecture University and after many years I had a go (only a few semesters) at comparative literature, where naturally you have also quite a few lessons on diverse philosophers. Sartre and De Beauvoir were discussed - but not this child liberation aspect.
It is indeed a very controversial topic in my opinion. In our (western world/north hemishy) culture children are seen as incapable of taking their own decisions, especially regarding such things as sex. I don't have children of my own, but I have nephews. Seeing them growing up, and also seeing children of close friends, I would believe that they would have accidentally killed themselves more than once just by being extremely inexperienced and not being able to estimate correctly what danger was. If they can't do that, I can't help but wonder, how can they be expected to make other important decisions about their lives, as for example engaging in sexual activity? I personally indeed think that children are incapable of understanding what is happening to them in that regard, so they DO have to be protected by their grown-up caregivers (parents and community). This is just my personal, non-academic opinion.
No problem. Yeah, it tends to be avoided for obvious reasons, although I think some of it also came from "assimilating" feminism into mainstream more, so parts that are more unsavory get excluded.
I think your assessment is right; I've been a child, and the way I thought and acted at times, despite being considered quite "smart" by my parents and teachers, was quite dumb lol. I don't think kids are capable of fully acknowledging the consequences of their actions, their behavior, etc, and they don't really come onto this world on their own. These ideas feel utopian.
This is really good. We need to keep talking about this, in this exact way. I fully believe so many are locked into this pop culture stupor, and it doesn't occur to us until it's way too late, that something is off. And I agree immensely with your first few paragraphs. Certain age gaps, while often legal, still can have a disturbing component to them. Even just considering frontal lobe development, or someone in a position of authority like a college professor or boss, etc. It's all predatory. I give the benefit of the doubt to many, especially if they haven't worked out any of their own issues, it's just that grooming starts small. You're not supposed to know it's happening, that's the whole point. I really appreciate when people point this stuff out with such succinct clarity. Well done 🙌👌
This is razor-sharp. And devastating. The rot isn’t just the men who prey on girls, it’s the culture that grooms us to be grateful for the attention.
It’s the pornified pop stars spoon-feeding girls the message that being “fuckable” because you look like a child is the pinnacle of power. It’s the handlers and labels and magazines who dress it up in glitter and call it feminism. And it’s the grown men—so many of them—who saw 18-year-old you and thought, “Perfect. No baggage yet.”
Thank you for naming this so clearly. We don’t talk enough about how many women only see the truth once we age into it—and realize how young, how breakable, we were. Keep going. Keep burning it down.
We need more written works like this to magically shame men into not actually desiring and valuing the qualities they actually desire and value in women 👏🏼
If the thing you value most is “looks barely legal and has significantly less life experience than me” you have severe underlying issues that you need to address rapidly and away from the general public. Why is the sentiment “I’m full grown but I look like a little girl” a quality you value in a partner?
A lot of these stores seem to be written for a world where behavioralism doesn't exist. "Sure, she's in her late twenties, but how dare you let her push your buttons!"
you’re complaining online on an anonymous account about being judged for expressing predatory attractions and you think everyone else involved are the loser low statuses. really?
1. Calling people butthurt, low status losers is complaining and in no way an objective observation and we both know that
2. Grow a pair
3. It’s absolutely predatory when those women are playing the role of younger girls and appealing to that image, as well as when the men attracted to them are significantly older and more mature, it is deeply odd
4. I will, I’m about to board a plane to Philly for a concert
One thing I will add, the first woman people default to (for what a large amount of men are doing) is Brigitte Macron. I think it shows the disproportion in what is accepted behavior for women and men.
This is so thought-provoking and I found myself nodding along in agreement throughout. It can be a tight rope walk writing about feminist culture — what it is, what it means, what’s acceptable and what’s not. To me, the push to blindly support “all women” is in itself a sexist suggestion.
I’m curious your thoughts on my piece on some of the infantilizing language you mention. It went a different direction than I intended when I first started writing it:
Hi! Thank you for that acknowledgment :') I tried my best to include every side of the argument but I of course have some blind spots, and it's been difficult to receive criticism for those even though I understand it, but I really appreciate you saying all of this. I've saved your article and will 100% read!!!!
It’s ironic that I’m coming across this on Memorial Day, when we honor fallen soldiers. Because for some reason, our society thinks it’s A-OK to send 18 yo men to fight and die in war, and yet many if not most people seem to believe an 18 yo woman is not capable of deciding who to have sex or relationships with. It is the height of misogyny that our society believes, essentially, that adult women can’t make adult choices, but men can!
And you can argue about the age—maybe an adult should be 21, not 18—but we’d still see these paternalistic arguments infantilizing women. Mostly from…women!
Maybe we should just let people decide how to live their own lives instead of telling people who they can or who they cannot have sex with? And if you think the US government or States should move back the age when we give rights to adults, fine, but I respectfully disagree. I will always opt for the freedom of the individual vs the control of govt.
Women are soldiers too, and they can go to war at the exact same age as men. And the point of the essay is no that 18 year old women cannot decide if they want to have sex, is that age difference matters in relationships because there is a power imbalance, especially when you are close to being a teenager. I would say the same about 18 year old boys with much older women, but it’s way less common for older women to seek sex with almost teenage boys, and THAT is the point: that older men too often seek dating young girls and that’s a bit disturbing.
“is that age difference matters in relationships because there is a power imbalance”
I think this thesis itself is highly questionable . Someone having more life experience broadly does not equate to power over another person. I’m old enough to remember when women were more concerned about older MEN being taken advantage of in these types of relationships, seeing women as having more power due to youth and beauty. Typically, the older men in question were divorced or widowers and considered clueless about dating. It should also be noted this was the type of guy who was married at 18-22, so not exactly a geezer when divorced. Different time.
Also, the assumption is that people in romantic relationships are supposed to be “equally powered.” How does this even get measured aside from age? Why do people think this is realistic? Why is age the main factor fixated on, as opposed to money?
It’s not that deep. The male brain sees the female body that is ideal for reproductive purposes, which is typically achieved from late teen years to early-mid 20’s, as the most desirable mate. It’s in our DNA. It’s how our species survived. What you’re trying to do is go against evolution and place “societal norms” on something that would’ve killed off the human race. This is why it’s far more common to see an older man and younger woman than vice versa.
It might help if you read a few history books to get a better understanding.
To be fair, men also used to marry 14-year-olds and their cousins, and women didn’t have a choice in the matter. That doesn’t make it right. The argument that “it’s in men’s DNA to chase younger women” is not only mind-blowing but very harmful. It’s harmful to men in saying that they don’t have agency and reduces complex ethical behavior to base “instincts”.
There are plenty of men in society who don’t pursue significantly younger women precisely because they understand the moral, emotional, and sometimes financial imbalance that creates. And some men don’t chase women at all as attraction and relationships are not purely biological; they’re shaped by empathy, maturity, and values.
Let’s run with this claim and find it still raises a question: why should that instinct justify behavior in grown men who had plenty of opportunity to form connections with younger women when they were also younger? I’ve heard men say that they perceive themselves as less attractive when they’re younger because they aren’t established yet… perpetuating more harmful narratives that women are just “gold diggers” and men are only useful as “providers”.
The truth is, when older men pursue much younger women, it often coincides with power imbalance. Younger women need to be aware of this as these gaps make women more vulnerable to manipulation and sometimes economic dependency, which opens the floodgates of staying in abusive relationships, sometimes out of necessity.
Also, when women can’t mention wanting children in job interviews, we know that our societal structure doesn’t yet treat women equally. We’re not just talking about preferences but a system that still punishes women for wanting autonomy and support.
They still do those things in many parts of the world. You’re not really proving the point you think you are here.
Nobody said “chase” anything. It’s called species survival. Why would a single 40 year old man with no family risk not having one by initiating a relationship with a 40 year old woman who might not be capable of fulfilling that desire?
This has nothing to do with ethics. Also, it’s different in different parts of the world. Your standards aren’t universal, no matter how badly you want them to be.
Women are attracted to men who can provide, despite you seemingly wanting that to not be true. This is also genetic. Who can provide better, someone older and established or someone younger and emotionally immature? As I’m sure you’re aware, women mature mentally and emotionally earlier than men. That’s yet another point in favor of biology over “ethics/standards/morals”.
It was good effort, but at the end of the day we’re talking about adults who are capable of making their own decisions according to the rules of our society. You can’t re-program millions of years of survival instincts. The freshman falls for the senior. The intern falls for the CEO. And so on. It’s a tale as old as time.
Excellent article with thoughtful and nuanced takes. Subscribing immediately after I post this comment. I especially agree with your questions on the branding/profit motive of what’s being projected by Sabrina Carpenter’s public image. Only thing I would push back on is specifically with reference to the Lolita shoot. As someone with my own traumatic experiences, I think there is validity to expressing the complexities of victimization, without having to say “hey guys fyi what happened to me is bad”, or even expressing mixed feelings about what happened through art. Some of the lyrics you bring up, I agree, seem a little sus, but I think the Lolita thing was done in a tasteful way that can be further examined on its own merits divorced from her “brand” so to speak. Although I will concede the fact that she has this “brand” at all makes it hard to do so. Great article.
This whole thing is such a trap on so many levels, as you’ve pointed out.
I think that young ladies - mid-teens - do NOT understand that older men finding them attractive is highly inappropriate at best. They’re clueless. I know I sure was at 15 when I got into a relationship with a 24 year old man. At the time, I literally had zero concept of just how horrible it was. He even once told me he wanted to have sex with my 12 year old friend! The fact she was 12 didn’t bother me. But that he wanted to have sex with my friend was devastating. I share this only to anchor in my point of girls not grasping the inappropriateness of a grown ass man desiring them sexually. Maybe I’m an outlier? Or I was particularly stupid. But I don’t think so.
So girls not being educated about this is a huge problem.
By the time I was 24, I realized just what a sick bastard that guy was. It makes me sick to my stomach to this day. And I’m now 52. More healing needed. Still.
On another hand, if you’re relying on your youth - and looking like a child - to validate your worth or desirability or whatever, spoiler alert, you aren’t going younger! There’s a relative very short period of time we can carry that childlike illusion! And then what? Where do you go from there? As a celebrity or person. It just perpetuates the uselessness of aging women. When, in my opinion, we should be revering them. We have so much wisdom and knowledge to impart. But it’s laughed at because we aren’t children with form tight bodies any longer. So what could we possibly have to contribute??
Then again, women wielding knowledge and wisdom is a powerful thing! Which opens a whole other can of worms about what this nonsense is all probably really about.
Yes. It is a trap—one that’s been baited for generations with silence, shame, and pretty packaging. I was fifteen too, with a man nearly a decade older, and I had no idea how wrong it was. None. Just like you said, the betrayal wasn’t even in the pedophilic desire—it was in the shift of attention. That’s how disoriented we were. How groomed.
Girls aren’t stupid. They’re unprotected. They’re praised for being desired, not educated on what that desire means—or where it leads. And no one tells them that the “power” they think they’re wielding isn’t real. It’s borrowed. Conditional. Discardable.
And you’re right—the system doesn’t just exploit girls. It erases women. It shames aging, silences experience, and punishes wisdom. Because a woman who sees the game is a threat to the whole damn board.
As a 54 year old single man, I am not inclined to date women under the age of 40 (my current woman friend is in her late forties). To me, the idea of dating a woman in her thirties seems like robbing the proverbial cradle.
I agree with you on the fact that she didn't create these ideas herself, but it's a choice (and what a choice) to actively play into the 'pedophilic fantasy'. In my opinion, as the mainstream artist that she is, she should be responsible for the message that she's giving. Such responsibility isn't teaching the oppressor to stop taking advantage of women and all the oppressed, but the message that she gives actually contributes to and feeds the oppressor's narrative. And I find that deeply concerning and disturbing.
I totally see that! I think I am hesitant to blame her for playing into what sells because that is not her fault, but again she is a 26-year-old woman and other people have been able to achieve success without catering to some of these views. It's definitely complicated but I 100% get what you mean. Thank you so much for reading <333
If that's what she needs to do in order to be successful, maybe she shouldn't be successful. 🤷♀️
How is it not her fault. Why should she be infantilizable where a man wouldn't be. I just find that really odd.
How i understand it, she's saying it's not completely Sabrina's fault for playing into what the market wants. We all have to buy into this racist patriarchal capitalist society if we wanna make a living. The degree to which we buy into it can change and that's what i think grace meant by "it's complicated".
But she's not just buying into what the markets wants, which is gross enough, she's generating new frontiers for said markets. And it's not about markets anyway, it's about ideology and desire and yes basic morality. I *don't* have to buy into a racist patriarchal capitalist society to "make a living" thanks. It's not complicated. You're either directly complicit or you're not. I see pedophile culture weeping more and more into a world that was already saturated with disgusting sexist racist bigoted perverted shit before I was born, and there's gotta be a better thing to conclude than 'its complicated but this person doing this thing right here which is measurably a net harm on themselves and others is actually tooootally not responsible cause society'.
You are spot on. She is a 26 year old woman and we shouldn’t make allowances thinking she is a ‘victim of the market’. That is a BS excuse.
The bottom line is that despite the artistry,grown men dating teenagers is extremely inappropriate.Consider the vulnerability of the teen and the lack of cognitive maturity to process such a relationship.
Absolutely. To say it clearly and simply, adult men taking advantage of teenagers is abuse because teenagers aren't adults/mature enough to give consent to that kind of "relationship" with such power imbalance.
And the way Sabrina contributes to this narrative is wild to me. I'm a survivor of CSA, and I think that the way she uses her music to promote these harmful and dangerous ideas is gross.
Exactly
amen
As someone who has been enjoying her music since Thumbs, and has been growing increasingly uncomfortable with her current presentation, I loved the points made in your article! Also, one thing I realised while reading is how the figure of the bimbo “girl’s girl” feminist has evolved. To me that figure embodied what Elle Woods from Legally Blonde is, not what is portrayed nowadays through tiktoks like “my boyfriend at his big boy job while I am doing my useless degree”, and to watch it degrade into that has been torturous.
OMG the last sentence is YES!!!! Exactly how I feel. Thanks so much for reading and engaging <3 the music is definitely amazing!! I just take issue with some of the presentation as you mentioned
Elle Woods was an inspiration. You can act feminine without being dumb! Fucking preach
Totally agree with this point! I also think your idea of Elle Woods-type of “bimbo feminist” relates to the girl math thing - like to me girl math is just a funny way for girls to share how they choose to spend their own money on things that are stereotypically feminine - eg: “if something is on sale then it’s actually LOSING money to NOT buy it”… etc. I never associated the girl math/girl dinner online trends with being a “dumb female” or anything of the sort…
"Feminism is about liberating women from oppressive structures and narratives that have historically subjugated us."
Indeed. It's precisely why many feminists either supported pedophilia, or engaged in it.
For a few examples: Beauvoir (The Second Sex) who, before writing the book that significantly influenced feminism, was a teacher at a school where she groomed kids, whom she passed to the man she was in "open relationship" with:
“The minor in question was one of her pupils at a Paris lycée. It is well established that she and Jean-Paul Sartre developed a pattern, which they called the ‘trio,’ in which Beauvoir would seduce her students and then pass them on to Sartre.”
Conversely, same article mentions Lolita:
"Beauvoir’s 'Lolita Syndrome' (her personal favorite, she said, among her essays) offers an evangelical defence of the sexual emancipation of the young. They have been tied up in chains for too long."
Unsurprisingly, she signed an open letter in support of abolishing age of consent in France, along with some other feminists and leftist intellectuals.
Kate Millet, who drew on her work and created patriarchy theory, as referenced in the article, has had some interesting things to say herself. For example: “Sex itself is presented as a crime to children. It is how adults control children, how they forbid them sexuality. This has been going on for ages and is infinitely important to adults.” Her work and advocacy for pedophilia - here are her words again: "Certainly, one of children’s essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well. So the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution" - also inspired "gay liberation's" aspirations to "free children." She also deemed age of consent laws "oppressive."
Firestone has had some fun things to say as well: "In her chapter 'Down with Childhood,' Firestone argues that the very creation of the category 'childhood' and the idea of 'childhood innocence' were adult male constructions invented to bolster the oppression of women." Here's the sort of society she envisioned: "[If a child] should choose to relate sexually to adults, even if he should happen to pick his own genetic mother, there would be no a priori reasons for her to reject his sexual advances, because the incest taboo would have lost its function ... Thus without the incest taboo, adults might return within a few generations to a more natural polymorphuous sexuality, the concentration on genital sex and orgasmic pleasure giving way to total physical/emotional relationships that included that. Relations with children would include as much genital sex as the child was capable of — probably considerably more than we now believe."
For few other, influential examples; Rubin (gay and lesbian studies, queer theory from which "queer" as identity and "gender spectrum" originated from) who argued that "boy lovers" were being persecuted like homosexuals and communists in the 50s, also argued that many people will end up feeling ashamed for supporting said "savage and underserved witch hunt."
Califia: "We should be working to end the artificial state of sexual ignorance that children are kept in — not perpetuating it or defending it,” and said that true child abusers are 'priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their stale morality onto the young people in their custody,' and 'Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them. They need us badly.'"
Paglia, who's still working as a professor (she was protested a while back over "transphobia," her support for snuff porn, cp, and pedophilia was ignored): "As far as Ginsberg’s pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for. I have repeatedly protested the lynch-mob hysteria that dogs the issue of man-boy love." And: “Where is the harm to the children if they are getting polymorphous perverse pleasure from it, except in the harm as society forces secrecy on everyone and makes everyone neurotic?” She's also supported NAMBLA, and argued, again to quote: "Contemporary gays who try to distance themselves from this issue of boy-love are in effect committing cultural suicide. They're cutting themselves from all the highest achievements of gay men."
Jane Rule, also a professor: “If we accepted sexual behavior between children and adults, we would be far more able to protect our children from abuse and exploitation than we are now.”
Beth Kelly, another professor who's also led Chicago's LGBT council, beyond describing pedophilia positively, has talked about participating in pedophilia both as a 8 year old child, but also as an adult.
Corinna - I actually made a post about her earlier today, she runs a "sex advice site" for teens, wrote a sex-ed book that was going to be promoted in schools in Cali before parents objected & had it removed, and has written an article stating, well, in part, in regards to children and teens: “Who are we to say anyone does or does not have a right to enjoy their bodies, to be intimate with others by their own consent, and to make their own choices sexually, as full beings, when we permit such rights in nearly every other aspect of human life?” and said, “Rape is sex without consent. Though child molestation is rape, it does not follow that all sex with a minor is rape.” In the same article, she interviewed several pedophiles & victims, with one of them complaining: "Since I am 'out' in real life, I am often subject to snide and cruel remarks behind my back, and my attraction is a large source of ammunition for any person to use against me in any sort of argument as a sure fire means of making their status more 'ethical' then my own (i.e., if I was berating a Neo-Nazi for his racist views, he would likely say to me, 'Well, at least I don't like little girls!'), etc."
Judith Levine, who also works for ACLU: "She who wrote a book 'Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex,' where she questioned whether 'so-called pedophiles' even exist. When asked for an article whether a boy’s sexual relationship with a priest could be positive she said, 'yes, conceivably, absolutely,' and noted that when she was a minor she had sex with an adult, which she considered to be a 'perfectly good experience.'"
In her book she described the case of 22 year-old man who manipulated a 13 year-old girl and was convicted for felonious sexual assault, as “young love.”
The list goes on and on, but I think the point is made: You're living in a society shaped, significantly, by the same type of people you align with, while condemning aspects of society they produced (and ignoring they are the ones who produced it). All of this is further demonstrated by how most feminists, and all feminist orgs I've checked, approached grooming gangs in UK - with silence or ignoring it completely, or for that matter, how they approach issues like abortion, birth control, etc, when same things intersect with interests of the ruling class. See NSSM-200 as an example - trying to get non-western countries to implement ostensibly "feminist" policies to reduce their fertility, so said countries can be exploited more easily & be less likely to revolt. Rather funnily, the person that implemented this is no one other than Kissinger.
It’s male sexuality they hate, not paedophilia.
Found the pedo
Ok femcel
This was extremely interesting to read and I, indeed, didn't know of all this. But for me there is still the central question which remains unanswered: how does "freeing" child love/sex liberate women from subjugation? You started your comment with the statement that this was the reason many feminists supported pedophilia...
I was halfway through writing a response and my power went out lol. Anyway, I'll summarize it. There's several reasons why it's an important part of it:
For one, much of feminism revolves around personal autonomy, and about half of children are female; sexual autonomy is a part of it, and thus their ability to consent to sexual activity with anyone. Secondly, many of the feminists around that time were lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or in some cases, politically lesbian, and believed that "intergenerational" sexual relationships were good; Millet argued as much. She also noted that "incest taboo" is one of "cornerstones of patriarchal thought." Thirdly, because much of feminism comes down to rejecting and inverting the current system, and any attempt at opposing such things - even within feminism - are seen as puritanical, and allying with conservatives, "reactionary forces," or the far-right. You can see this, as well, when NOW passed a statement against some aspects of it - pederasty, public sex, etc - and feminists & academics signed two open letters condemning them.
Fourth, because children's liberation is seen as essential to women's liberation overall, especially since parents having control over children not only violates their autonomy and rights, but reinforces patriarchal (nuclear) family. It's also why Beauvoir and more than few other feminists either saw housewives as parasites, or didn't believe women should be able to be one. If we look at some of what such movements argued for, this is made more evident as well:
"Rearing children should be the common responsibility of the whole community. Any legal rights parents have over ‘their’ children should be dissolved and each child should be free to choose its own destiny. Free twenty-four hour child care centers should be established where [gays] and lesbians can share the responsibility of child rearing."
Keep in mind, children were/are in part seen as a burden, both biologically/reproductively (hence abortion - also obviously, autonomy), but also having to take care of them which often tends to fall on women more than on men. From the same article that I quoted the previous, they also note this:
"Radical feminists argued that men had invented the idea of childhood innocence to bolster the oppression of women, which was also the function of the nuclear family."
Firestone, for example, argued that technology was necessary for women to free themselves from reproduction - although obviously, the views varied on this. Afaik, Darwin argued that if such technology (e.g., artificial wombs, or in general separating reproduction from biology) came along, it would lead to "female holocaust," but she was more of an exception to this. But anyway, while the whole "children liberation" featured within feminism, it also led to some who focused primarily on it and not feminism; there were also several books on the subject, like Birthrights by Richard Farson or The Children’s Rights Movement: Overcoming the Oppression of Young People.
This comment is evil but it also made me think lmao.
Thank you for your detailed answer! This is some serious food for thought. I have dived into feminism more than once, although by no means would I call myself an expert, but this aspect was never taught at the university I went to 😅
I had some "Gender Studies" lessons at Architecture University and after many years I had a go (only a few semesters) at comparative literature, where naturally you have also quite a few lessons on diverse philosophers. Sartre and De Beauvoir were discussed - but not this child liberation aspect.
It is indeed a very controversial topic in my opinion. In our (western world/north hemishy) culture children are seen as incapable of taking their own decisions, especially regarding such things as sex. I don't have children of my own, but I have nephews. Seeing them growing up, and also seeing children of close friends, I would believe that they would have accidentally killed themselves more than once just by being extremely inexperienced and not being able to estimate correctly what danger was. If they can't do that, I can't help but wonder, how can they be expected to make other important decisions about their lives, as for example engaging in sexual activity? I personally indeed think that children are incapable of understanding what is happening to them in that regard, so they DO have to be protected by their grown-up caregivers (parents and community). This is just my personal, non-academic opinion.
No problem. Yeah, it tends to be avoided for obvious reasons, although I think some of it also came from "assimilating" feminism into mainstream more, so parts that are more unsavory get excluded.
I think your assessment is right; I've been a child, and the way I thought and acted at times, despite being considered quite "smart" by my parents and teachers, was quite dumb lol. I don't think kids are capable of fully acknowledging the consequences of their actions, their behavior, etc, and they don't really come onto this world on their own. These ideas feel utopian.
Consumption and production of modern internet porn by young people continues to be a disaster because we ignored it for 20 years. Gross.
This is really good. We need to keep talking about this, in this exact way. I fully believe so many are locked into this pop culture stupor, and it doesn't occur to us until it's way too late, that something is off. And I agree immensely with your first few paragraphs. Certain age gaps, while often legal, still can have a disturbing component to them. Even just considering frontal lobe development, or someone in a position of authority like a college professor or boss, etc. It's all predatory. I give the benefit of the doubt to many, especially if they haven't worked out any of their own issues, it's just that grooming starts small. You're not supposed to know it's happening, that's the whole point. I really appreciate when people point this stuff out with such succinct clarity. Well done 🙌👌
Thank you so much! This comment is so sweet it made me almost cry. Thank you thank you thank you
This is razor-sharp. And devastating. The rot isn’t just the men who prey on girls, it’s the culture that grooms us to be grateful for the attention.
It’s the pornified pop stars spoon-feeding girls the message that being “fuckable” because you look like a child is the pinnacle of power. It’s the handlers and labels and magazines who dress it up in glitter and call it feminism. And it’s the grown men—so many of them—who saw 18-year-old you and thought, “Perfect. No baggage yet.”
Thank you for naming this so clearly. We don’t talk enough about how many women only see the truth once we age into it—and realize how young, how breakable, we were. Keep going. Keep burning it down.
We need more written works like this to magically shame men into not actually desiring and valuing the qualities they actually desire and value in women 👏🏼
If the thing you value most is “looks barely legal and has significantly less life experience than me” you have severe underlying issues that you need to address rapidly and away from the general public. Why is the sentiment “I’m full grown but I look like a little girl” a quality you value in a partner?
You sound angry. Please don’t ruin the vibes in this Substack 🙏
scorpio lawyer you ruined the vibes
A lot of these stores seem to be written for a world where behavioralism doesn't exist. "Sure, she's in her late twenties, but how dare you let her push your buttons!"
you’re complaining online on an anonymous account about being judged for expressing predatory attractions and you think everyone else involved are the loser low statuses. really?
1. Calling people butthurt, low status losers is complaining and in no way an objective observation and we both know that
2. Grow a pair
3. It’s absolutely predatory when those women are playing the role of younger girls and appealing to that image, as well as when the men attracted to them are significantly older and more mature, it is deeply odd
4. I will, I’m about to board a plane to Philly for a concert
One thing I will add, the first woman people default to (for what a large amount of men are doing) is Brigitte Macron. I think it shows the disproportion in what is accepted behavior for women and men.
Totally.
Macron is weird because it has no evolutionary benefit.
It makes sense for women to seek out a man who is older with experience and resources.
It makes no sense for a man to marry a woman who’s going into menopause as he’s coming of age.
One makes sense. The other doesn’t.
Well there’s 2 things wrong here.
1. Men love the idea of children as long the men are mature and not incompetent children themself
2. Even if you weren’t trying trying to produce a kid, you wouldn’t opt for old women. That’s just not at all how men are wired. Yikes.
This is so thought-provoking and I found myself nodding along in agreement throughout. It can be a tight rope walk writing about feminist culture — what it is, what it means, what’s acceptable and what’s not. To me, the push to blindly support “all women” is in itself a sexist suggestion.
I’m curious your thoughts on my piece on some of the infantilizing language you mention. It went a different direction than I intended when I first started writing it:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jesjohnzo/p/give-us-back-our-girlhood?r=3oksl&utm_medium=ios
Hi! Thank you for that acknowledgment :') I tried my best to include every side of the argument but I of course have some blind spots, and it's been difficult to receive criticism for those even though I understand it, but I really appreciate you saying all of this. I've saved your article and will 100% read!!!!
really good essay!
It’s ironic that I’m coming across this on Memorial Day, when we honor fallen soldiers. Because for some reason, our society thinks it’s A-OK to send 18 yo men to fight and die in war, and yet many if not most people seem to believe an 18 yo woman is not capable of deciding who to have sex or relationships with. It is the height of misogyny that our society believes, essentially, that adult women can’t make adult choices, but men can!
And you can argue about the age—maybe an adult should be 21, not 18—but we’d still see these paternalistic arguments infantilizing women. Mostly from…women!
Maybe we should just let people decide how to live their own lives instead of telling people who they can or who they cannot have sex with? And if you think the US government or States should move back the age when we give rights to adults, fine, but I respectfully disagree. I will always opt for the freedom of the individual vs the control of govt.
Women are soldiers too, and they can go to war at the exact same age as men. And the point of the essay is no that 18 year old women cannot decide if they want to have sex, is that age difference matters in relationships because there is a power imbalance, especially when you are close to being a teenager. I would say the same about 18 year old boys with much older women, but it’s way less common for older women to seek sex with almost teenage boys, and THAT is the point: that older men too often seek dating young girls and that’s a bit disturbing.
“is that age difference matters in relationships because there is a power imbalance”
I think this thesis itself is highly questionable . Someone having more life experience broadly does not equate to power over another person. I’m old enough to remember when women were more concerned about older MEN being taken advantage of in these types of relationships, seeing women as having more power due to youth and beauty. Typically, the older men in question were divorced or widowers and considered clueless about dating. It should also be noted this was the type of guy who was married at 18-22, so not exactly a geezer when divorced. Different time.
Also, the assumption is that people in romantic relationships are supposed to be “equally powered.” How does this even get measured aside from age? Why do people think this is realistic? Why is age the main factor fixated on, as opposed to money?
i’ve had the same experiences and i agree wholeheartedly with your claims
It’s not that deep. The male brain sees the female body that is ideal for reproductive purposes, which is typically achieved from late teen years to early-mid 20’s, as the most desirable mate. It’s in our DNA. It’s how our species survived. What you’re trying to do is go against evolution and place “societal norms” on something that would’ve killed off the human race. This is why it’s far more common to see an older man and younger woman than vice versa.
It might help if you read a few history books to get a better understanding.
To be fair, men also used to marry 14-year-olds and their cousins, and women didn’t have a choice in the matter. That doesn’t make it right. The argument that “it’s in men’s DNA to chase younger women” is not only mind-blowing but very harmful. It’s harmful to men in saying that they don’t have agency and reduces complex ethical behavior to base “instincts”.
There are plenty of men in society who don’t pursue significantly younger women precisely because they understand the moral, emotional, and sometimes financial imbalance that creates. And some men don’t chase women at all as attraction and relationships are not purely biological; they’re shaped by empathy, maturity, and values.
Let’s run with this claim and find it still raises a question: why should that instinct justify behavior in grown men who had plenty of opportunity to form connections with younger women when they were also younger? I’ve heard men say that they perceive themselves as less attractive when they’re younger because they aren’t established yet… perpetuating more harmful narratives that women are just “gold diggers” and men are only useful as “providers”.
The truth is, when older men pursue much younger women, it often coincides with power imbalance. Younger women need to be aware of this as these gaps make women more vulnerable to manipulation and sometimes economic dependency, which opens the floodgates of staying in abusive relationships, sometimes out of necessity.
Also, when women can’t mention wanting children in job interviews, we know that our societal structure doesn’t yet treat women equally. We’re not just talking about preferences but a system that still punishes women for wanting autonomy and support.
We can do so much better for both men and women.
They still do those things in many parts of the world. You’re not really proving the point you think you are here.
Nobody said “chase” anything. It’s called species survival. Why would a single 40 year old man with no family risk not having one by initiating a relationship with a 40 year old woman who might not be capable of fulfilling that desire?
This has nothing to do with ethics. Also, it’s different in different parts of the world. Your standards aren’t universal, no matter how badly you want them to be.
Women are attracted to men who can provide, despite you seemingly wanting that to not be true. This is also genetic. Who can provide better, someone older and established or someone younger and emotionally immature? As I’m sure you’re aware, women mature mentally and emotionally earlier than men. That’s yet another point in favor of biology over “ethics/standards/morals”.
It was good effort, but at the end of the day we’re talking about adults who are capable of making their own decisions according to the rules of our society. You can’t re-program millions of years of survival instincts. The freshman falls for the senior. The intern falls for the CEO. And so on. It’s a tale as old as time.
Progressives have a track record of at least ignoring biology, if not trying to force it to fit their ideology.
Excellent article with thoughtful and nuanced takes. Subscribing immediately after I post this comment. I especially agree with your questions on the branding/profit motive of what’s being projected by Sabrina Carpenter’s public image. Only thing I would push back on is specifically with reference to the Lolita shoot. As someone with my own traumatic experiences, I think there is validity to expressing the complexities of victimization, without having to say “hey guys fyi what happened to me is bad”, or even expressing mixed feelings about what happened through art. Some of the lyrics you bring up, I agree, seem a little sus, but I think the Lolita thing was done in a tasteful way that can be further examined on its own merits divorced from her “brand” so to speak. Although I will concede the fact that she has this “brand” at all makes it hard to do so. Great article.
This whole thing is such a trap on so many levels, as you’ve pointed out.
I think that young ladies - mid-teens - do NOT understand that older men finding them attractive is highly inappropriate at best. They’re clueless. I know I sure was at 15 when I got into a relationship with a 24 year old man. At the time, I literally had zero concept of just how horrible it was. He even once told me he wanted to have sex with my 12 year old friend! The fact she was 12 didn’t bother me. But that he wanted to have sex with my friend was devastating. I share this only to anchor in my point of girls not grasping the inappropriateness of a grown ass man desiring them sexually. Maybe I’m an outlier? Or I was particularly stupid. But I don’t think so.
So girls not being educated about this is a huge problem.
By the time I was 24, I realized just what a sick bastard that guy was. It makes me sick to my stomach to this day. And I’m now 52. More healing needed. Still.
On another hand, if you’re relying on your youth - and looking like a child - to validate your worth or desirability or whatever, spoiler alert, you aren’t going younger! There’s a relative very short period of time we can carry that childlike illusion! And then what? Where do you go from there? As a celebrity or person. It just perpetuates the uselessness of aging women. When, in my opinion, we should be revering them. We have so much wisdom and knowledge to impart. But it’s laughed at because we aren’t children with form tight bodies any longer. So what could we possibly have to contribute??
Then again, women wielding knowledge and wisdom is a powerful thing! Which opens a whole other can of worms about what this nonsense is all probably really about.
Yes. It is a trap—one that’s been baited for generations with silence, shame, and pretty packaging. I was fifteen too, with a man nearly a decade older, and I had no idea how wrong it was. None. Just like you said, the betrayal wasn’t even in the pedophilic desire—it was in the shift of attention. That’s how disoriented we were. How groomed.
Girls aren’t stupid. They’re unprotected. They’re praised for being desired, not educated on what that desire means—or where it leads. And no one tells them that the “power” they think they’re wielding isn’t real. It’s borrowed. Conditional. Discardable.
And you’re right—the system doesn’t just exploit girls. It erases women. It shames aging, silences experience, and punishes wisdom. Because a woman who sees the game is a threat to the whole damn board.
But we’re still here. And we’re not done.
As a 54 year old single man, I am not inclined to date women under the age of 40 (my current woman friend is in her late forties). To me, the idea of dating a woman in her thirties seems like robbing the proverbial cradle.