Fiction Championing Sex with Underage Boys

Vegetable_Ad1732 · 2025-02-08T21:31:31+00:00

Found some pics of cover pages in magazines of old fiction that seem to suggest it's a right of passage for underage boys to have sex. In one the girl...

[–]peter_venture 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Upper-Divide-7842 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Upper-Divide-7842 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

This seems unlikely to be true. In theory you could get her committed because you had guardianship over her but a lobotomy is a medical treatment. It had to be prescribed by a doctor. But records show women were no more likely to be committed than men were so it doesn't seem like husbands were doing this to any significant degree. I mean, ask yourself, if your second claim were true, why would they ever need to?

Not that there were no problems for women in the mental health system the biggest one being their biggest problem everywhere, getting sexually abused, it is also true that they WERE more likely to be lobotomized but it is unlikely that this was at the behest of their husbands. (And also lobotomies were not actually all that common)

"If dinner was cold you could slap the daylights out of her."

This is true but only in so far as it is technically possible to do that today. Wife beating has been illegal in the UK since the 1600's. The first American states to get laws on the books is in 1872. In addition to this there are many recorded cases of vigilante justice against alleged wife beaters.

Meanwhile it was more or less completely legal for her to hit you.

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

>This seems unlikely to be true. In theory you could get her committed because you had guardianship over her but a lobotomy is a medical treatment. It had to be prescribed by a doctor. But records show women were no more likely to be committed than men were so it doesn't seem like husbands were doing this to any significant degree. I mean, ask yourself, if your second claim were true, why would they ever need to?

More than 50,000 people were lobotomized in the United States alone, most of them between 1949 and 1952. Results varied widely and could be devastating, even fatal. A 1951 study found that, at a time when a majority of the institutionalized population was male, nearly 60% of lobotomy patients were women. The widespread fame and “success” of the lobotomy was contingent on its ability to enforce societal norms of gender, and its digital resurgence is a generation’s troubling response to the crises of their time.

https://www.theindy.org/article/3304#:~:text=More%20than%2050%2C000%20people%20were,of%20lobotomy%20patients%20were%20women

>This is true but only in so far as it is technically possible to do that today. Wife beating has been illegal in the UK since the 1600's. The first American states to get laws on the books is in 1872. In addition to this there are many recorded cases of vigilante justice against alleged wife beaters.

Something being illegal on paper didnt mean people got punished for it, there was a large cultural acceptance of it at the time.

https://genderhistory.pubpub.org/pub/power-roles-and-domestic-violence-in-1950s-chase-and-sanborn-advertisement/release/1

"Although wife beating was formally illegal in all U.S. states by 1920, it was not until the 1970s that efforts by the women's movement to recast DV as a public concern began to succeed".

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=ilj#:~:text=Although%20wife%20beating%20was%20formally,Intimate%20Life%2C%2094%20IOWA%20L

Ofcourse a husband would get in trouble if he demolished her face, but practically no man would get in trouble at the time for spanking his wife or slapping her.

Now we have come a long ways in 70 years but lets not act like everything was fine and peachy like it is today. While women are legally equals today and protected by law and common courtesy, that wasnt always the case.

[–]Upper-Divide-7842 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

First section; I'm not sure why you wrote all of this.

Perhaps you believe its an argument against something I've said but it is not.

"More than 50,000 people were lobotomized in the United States alone, most of them between 1949 and 1952."

Lobotomy was performed in the united states for 31 years in total. Even if ALL 50,000 of them had happened in 1950 that would mean that 0.03311% of the us population was lobotomised in that year.

"at a time when a majority of the institutionalized population was male, nearly 60% of lobotomy patients were women. "

Both of these are facts that I already gave you. But I'll remind you that the claim was husbands could get their wives lobotomised on a whim. Neither of these things prove that claim.

With regards to your second argument. You may be actually correct that it was easier to get away with spousal abuse was easier to get away with in the 1950's however it was easier to get away with any crime in the 1950's.

It is possible that it this was more so true of spousal abuse, something you have yet to give me any particular proof of, the problem was more likley that a lack of secondary support services and women's traditional reliance on their husband's income made it simply not worth it for women to report abuse, rather than the notion that it was socially acceptable.

It was actually for this reason that President Roosevelt advocated for the reintroduction of the whipping post for this crime specifically in 1904;

https://www.loc.gov/item/2002699227/

To review. My evidence for it not being socially acceptable is that legislators who derived their power from popular support made it illegal over 100 years prior to the time period we are discussing.

Not only that but the threat of drunk abusive husbands was one of the primary arguments used by the temperance movement in the 1920's and the temperance movement achieved it's aims.

So not only was abusing your wife illegal, the threat of it was used to make other things illegal as well.

Your evidence is that there was an advert that depicted it.

A few years ago there was a superbowl advert in which a woman walked into her bosses office and poured his coffee over his head (presumably because she is angry about the pay gap).

Confronted with this evidence you would have to conclude that it was considered socially acceptable in the 20teens for women to assault their bosses. But obviously that would be absurd.

Here is Myrtle Sappo, a character from the popular 50's comic strip Popeye:

She is often depicted attacking her husband with a rolling pin to comedic effect.

https://popeye.fandom.com/wiki/Myrtle_Sappo

This was actually a common trope in the 1950's. And additionally, as far as I'm aware there were not even any laws against this. The crime at the time was specifically "WIFE beating."

Do you believe that this sort of behaviour was considered socially acceptable in the 1950's and if so why did you omit that detail from your initial response?

Interesting fact, did you know that a lot of women report finding the idea of being spanked sexually appealing. One study by Lovehoney found that it was as much as 75%;

https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/04/spanking-popular-bedroom-11038349/

Though take that with a pinch of salt other studies like this one put it at 36%:

https://reason.com/2014/11/11/kinky-sex-survey-finds-everybodys-weird/

It seems entirely possible that the advert you referenced was intended to titilate women rather than seriously imply that they are going to be abused if they don't buy the correct coffee.

It could be argued that it is making light of a serious issue but people make light of 9/11 that does not mean that the general opinion in America is that crashing planes into buildings is fine and normal.

On top of all of this you still have not resolved the contradiction between your two claims. What possible utility could there be to sending your wife to a psychiatric hospital where she can no longer cook and clean for you if you can already just beat her into submission for any reason anyway?

"everything was fine and peachy like it is today"

I did not claim this. My original comment was things "were fucked all round." In fact, to go further than that, problems surrounding age of consent and predation on underage individuals by older individuals like that which is addressed in the original post, while hardly non existent for men and boys, actually were more so a problem for women and girls.

I also would not necessarily claim that things are fine and peachy today. Better, yes but there are still problems.

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Or I could just quote what was already said in this thread. You tried to debunk this, but you failed - didn't even address the issue. Here's the point Upper Divide made that you failed to debunk.

"This seems unlikely to be true. In theory you could get her committed because you had guardianship over her but a lobotomy is a medical treatment. It had to be prescribed by a doctor. But records show women were no more likely to be committed than men were so it doesn't seem like husbands were doing this to any significant degree. I mean, ask yourself, if your second claim were true, why would they ever need to?

Not that there were no problems for women in the mental health system the biggest one being their biggest problem everywhere, getting sexually abused, it is also true that they WERE more likely to be lobotomized but it is unlikely that this was at the behest of their husbands. (And also lobotomies were not actually all that common)'

You replied to this with the same irrelevant stats about how bad lobotomy was. Even if true, they are irrelevant to Upper Divide's comment.

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

>His main point was a doctor had to prescribe it. That was his point that debunked your point about husband power.

Ok fair enough i can concede the point that it wasnt a common practice, it did occur, but probably not enough to be mentioned as a mainstream thing.

>Feminism was hate from the beginning, well, back to the first conventions anyway. As to was it necessary? It's to late to open that can of worms tonight. The genders were assigned task based on ability. In the old days jobs were mostly dangerous and tough, so there was an attempt to protect women from jobs like mining. Like I said, not getting into that now though.

I would argue early feminism was needed and did have good points, like women being allowed to vote, education, and work, because men and women were not equal. That aside i believe it is wholly obsolete in this day and age and has turned into an extremist movement.

But we are getting into personal opinions now honestly.

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I cant believe you made me log into Pinterest. I extracted the text using ChatGPT

Here is the extracted text from the image:

You've Got to Grow Up Sometime
By JESSAMYN WEST

Rusty was fourteen and big for his age. This is how he faced his first grown-up problem...

The knocking at her door continued, and Kass reluctantly opened her eyes. There was such a dazzle of brilliant August light and bitter August heat in her room that she thought it was midmorning, that Rusty had given up his crazy five-o’clock trip. But now the clock said five, and it was her brother’s red head that came cautiously around the slowly opening door.

“Kass,” he whispered. “Kass, you awake?”

“Sure,” she answered jauntily, then added, “It’s five.”

“It’s five.”

“But you don’t have to get up for fifteen minutes. I just had to get you. I remember how you hated to get up. I remember how you acted low and tough when you opened your eyes.”

“Well, thanks, chum,” she answered drowsily.

Her brother came into the room. “Kass, you going back to sleep?”

She shut her eyes. “I am asleep.”

“Kass, Kass.”

She opened her eyes and smiled at him. He was shirtless, in skin-tight jeans. “Gosh, you’ve grown. What’re your dimensions now?”

“Dimensions?”

“In space and time?”

“Oh. Six one, a hundred and eighty.”

“Wowie! A heavyweight. The age?”

“Fourteen.”

“Fourteen? How come fourteen? The last time I saw you I distinctly remember you were thirteen.”

“That was six months ago. That was the night you got married. I’m older now.”

ILLUSTRATED BY ROBERT STANLEY

“Well, me too, for that matter. You haven’t got married since then, have you?”

Rusty laughed. “Father’s the only one who’s got married. I don’t even have a girl.”

“Why not?”

“I’m going to. I just haven’t got around to it yet. I’ve been pretty busy.”

Kass reached for her brother, pulled his cheek down to hers, and hugged him. “You’re my baby,” she said.

The word “baby” seemed to make Rusty self-conscious. He backed away from her without returning her hug or snuggling, puppylike, as he would’ve done six months ago.

“I know you didn’t really want to get up early and go out to the ranch on your first morning home,” he apologized.

(Continued on Page 80)

Caption under the illustration:
"What’s the matter with you, Rusty? You’re big enough to be interested in women."

It is literally a sister encouraging her brother to get a girlfriend. Where is the statutory rape?

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]T-72B3OBR2023 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Fiction Championing Sex with Underage Boys
Author	Vegetable_Ad1732
Upvotes	59
Comments	23
Date	February 8, 2025 9:31 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1iky8sn/fiction_championing_sex_with_underage_boys/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/fiction-championing-sex-with-underage-boys.1543331 https://theredarchive.com/post/1543331

Comments