In a now deleted tweet, weirdo Azealia Banks shares that "fucking 14 year old girls was really only made a social taboo in the 1990s"
JFC
My great-grandmother, who was born in 1910, may have gotten married at 13 (iirc her husband was 17-18 at the time) and had my grandmother when she was 14... but that's doesn't make it "right" that she was a teen mother. She married young to get out of an abusive home life and that was her only way out at the time.
Wow, and here I thought I liked her music. Not anymore, jesus christ what a creep.
Worst part is, I largely feel bad for her. This is the cycle of abuse at work. This woman needs help she'll probably never accept.
It sounds like she thinks it's ok because she was abused the same way. Perhaps she deleted it because she learned it was abuse? Just wild speculation
This is that lady who killed so many chickens in her hallway closet in the name of "witchcraft" that she had to use a sander to get the dried blood and offal out of the floorboards.
Social media has gotten people to think the most awful things without any hint of irony.
Oh no, my friend, she believed that fucked up shit long before social media. It's the classic language of someone who grew up in a horrible environment.
I'm pretty sure you could go back 1000 years and people would have a problem with a 12 year old being forced to give birth
i actually looked that up and found that the median age of giving birth to your first child was around 21 or 22.
that was largely dependent on wealth though. the wealthier you were, the sooner you had children. that's why most nobles gave birth first around 14 or sth.
I'm starting to get a vibe of: "I didn't understand consent when I was that age and had sex and no one did anything, why should we now?"
WTF? No, Ms. Banks, I was a teen in the 80s and no, my friends were not doing 40 year olds, eeeew. That was still called Statutory Rape. Girl, you are 34, do you find 14 year old boys attractive? I thought not. Those are children.
By even debating this idea of 'at what age is having sex with children OK', you fall into the trap. We already have laws defining age of consent for a reason.
The trap is to distract you from trump's sex crimes. They need to normalize statutory rape as acceptable, because more and more stuff is going to be coming out about his doing that. His base is horrified by pedophilia, but not by misogyny.
This is how they prep the base to be just fine with crimes trump did (in this case rape) when more info comes out. Keep their thinking in black-and-white: 'pedophilia is evil, but trump didn't do that, so he's not evil! He's still our Daddy.' So they'll ignore his rapes of under-age girls just like they already ignore his rapes of adult women. So by saying,
"Sure, why wouldn't anyone be attracted to a girl whose body is developed even if she's 'technically' under age -- it's not like it's pedophilia or anything, which would be wrong!". As long as they're 13+ it's fine!"
they are saying statutory rape is OK as long as the girl is at least 13. No, that's just how the new Christian Nationalist theocracy wants it to be. The crap about "it was acceptable back in his day, only taboo since the '90's" is of course bullshit. I'm surprised they didn't claim it was only made taboo by the 'woke left'.
Even if you bent over backwards to agree with this tweet, just look at the facts of the Epstein case. These girls were sex trafficked. Epstein and Maxwell sought out vulnerable girls and took advantage of them. They were not girls in a traditional mindset trying to find a husband and have kids.
Which the poster definitely knows.
Exactly. Trafficked and trapped. For whatever reason the originator of the tweet chose to do what she did it’s not the same as being carted off to an island full of pedos with no safe place to escape to.
I'm not sure who this is but the only thing I know about her right now is that she's okay with pedophiles.
She's a successful rap artist who's made some of the biggest songs of the past decade, but also happens to be a deranged person with some extremely toxic beliefs. I'm not really surprised at her antics, and in this case it makes me believe she was sexually abused as a teenager but she has normalized and rationalized her abuse in her head
I'm like you. I don't know who she is. But she has been forced into my feed.
Like when known racist Conner McGregor sends her dick picks. https://www.aol.com/conor-mcgregor-leaked-x-rated-003442730.html?guccounter=1
This you post
Didn’t she accuse someone of SA when she was underage? Yes, when she was 17, so her comment about girls even younger is insane.
But that gets to the heart of Azealia Banks. She’s insane. She’s part of the lgbtq+ community and her sibling is trans, but she supports JK Rawlings and belittles trans women and has likened the lgbtq community to the KKK.
She believes that African Americans should be paid reparations for the crime of slavery, which zero republicans would ever grant.
She flip flopped her endorsement of Trump in 2016. Despite saying women’s issues were too important to vote for him, she celebrated his win. She then did the same basic thing in 2025, but for who knows what reasons.
She’s pro Russia as hell as well as a Zionist.
I’m not sure how we get it to happen, but she needs to put up her brain for scientific studies. The neurons are firing in ways rarely seen in humans.
https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/1macphs/comment/n5dqgn6/
Her ability to find the most wrong take possible on just about everything is genuinely unearthly. You could generally set a pretty reliable moral compass for yourself by just adopting the exact opposite of her beliefs.
it's pretty easy. just change the question to "what will enrage the most people and thus get me the most engagement in order to remain relevant?"
then all her takes make sense.
So basically: "Yeah, he was raping 14 year olds, it's no big deal. Everyone was doing it."
Times have changed, that's for sure. There are still huge, successful rock acts that are known to have engaged in that. I'm not excusing any of it but it was normalized, and to a degree we overlook it with varying levels of cognitive dissonance. My 16 year old prom date in 1990 went with me as friends because her boyfriend was 29 with the full blessing of her parents. Child porn wasn't illegal until 5 years after I was born.
But also I look back on those times and see so many girls with what today would be clearly seen as signs of abuse (including my prom date). It was always wrong. It was always harmful.
I think that back then, people defined pedophilia in terms of the perpetrator's attraction, not in terms of impact to the victim. Essentially, "is it weird for the adult to be attracted to their body?" more than, "would the young person be harmed, physically or emotionally, by sex?" Now we are more evolved.
Back when I was a kid, pedophilia meant what she said - attraction to a prepubescent child. If someone was an adult who thought a physically developed 15-year-old was sexy, that was just logical. Because their bodies had secondary sex characteristics. (It wasn't considered a good idea to actually have sex with them, at least from what I could see. Maybe in Azalia's experience it was considered OK.)
But if an adult thought that a flat and hairless child was attractive, that was messed up on their part. The same way people think that furries or scat play or other fetishes were messed up. But even more so. There was just nothing to consider sexy about an actual child.
Now, we consider the impact to the victim. Pedophilia is defined as attraction to a victim under the age of consent. Because their brain is not fully developed, their body can't handle pregnancy, they are socially able to be manipulated, and a host of other reasons.
I am not trying to be accused of being an apologist, but from someone who grew up in the 90s, I find it strange that we use the same word for someone who rapes a toddler, as someone who "statutory rapes" (as it would be called) a 15-year-old. They are both wrong, but it seems to me that one is much worse than the other. Both because of the attraction (or I guess power fantasy) on the part of the adult, and the impact to the victim.
I think Azalia is wrong to say it was always totally fine. But she is right that it was considered right or wrong for a different reason back then. The definition was different.
Technically there's a distinct word for prepubescent and pubescent attraction, just day to day it doesn't make sense to talk about the nuance because someone will mistake nuance for some sort of green light.
Back when I was a kid, pedophilia meant what she said - attraction to a prepubescent child. If someone was an adult who thought a physically developed 15-year-old was sexy, that was just logical.
Was this the 1890's? I was born in '82, and I can't think of a single time someone was like "oh an adult and a 15 year old child? Yeah that's okay."
I find it strange that we use the same word for someone who rapes a toddler, as someone who “statutory rapes” (as it would be called) a 15-year-old. They are both wrong, but it seems to me that one is much worse than the other. Both because of the attraction (or I guess power fantasy) on the part of the adult, and the impact to the victim.
This is straight priori falacy. Why the fuck are you arguing the 'degrees of okay-ness' for sex with children. This is fucking baffling.
Saying, "Both these things are bad, and one is worse," is not the same as saying, "One of these things is more okay than the other." Neither one is okay.
If we cannot compare bad things without that comparison implying, "one of them is more GOOD than the other," then all bad things are equally bad. If I said that committing pedophilia is worse than beating your wife, am I now saying that beating your wife is better? What about stealing from the cash register at work, or jaywalking? Are all bad things just equally bad, with no comparison possible, or else we're praising the virtues of crime?
To your first point, in that sentence I wasn't talking about actually dating or having sex with the 15 year old. I was talking about looking at them, and thinking they are attractive. So no, nobody would say that the "relationship" was okay, but they wouldn't roundly condemn someone for being attracted to them, or having the urge to look at them sexually, in their own head.
It used to be relatively acceptable to say something like, "Man, I sure think that 15 year old looks hot, but of course I won't go anywhere near her, because she is too young," but never, ever, to say the same about a 5 year old. That first sentiment is the basis of many distasteful songs and jokes and movies. The second one would be met with confusion and revulsion for even thinking it.
And once again, I am not saying that is right. I am just saying how attitudes have changed. For the better. Now we say that even looking at a teenager is wrong. That looking at their body is as bad as looking at a very young child's body. Because in both cases, it's not how messed-up you are in the head to even think about it. It's about how it would harm them to go through with it. And that's a better attitude.
Thinking one thing is worse doesn't mean you endorse anything else.
I was born in 1975. I don't care how you want to frame it, over 20 people having sex with 15 years olds were considered pedophiles in the 90's. We would even "joking" ask our friends if they had their pedo-pass with them if they smooched with someone 2 years younger.
Pedophilia is defined as attraction to a victim under the age of consent.
No age of consent varies from place to place. Pedo is a medical term with a precise meaning that doesn't vary from jurisdiction and carries the same definition you originally listed.
We impose restrictions both legally, ethically, morally and socially beyond the minimum has has hair and boobs because we care about people being emotionally healthy first with legal penalties and then social ones.
In many places a 40 year old could interact with a 17-18 year old legally without going to jail but would experience shame social consequences and friction designed to encourage people not to be assholes.
Sometimes this even works.
They were taking about pedophile being used colloquially. Medical definitions and social definitions often differ.
To the americans in the thread, I'm sorry to break it to you, but your entertainment industry fosters this kind of behaviour. The beaty pageants, the sexualisation of every young female singer, the obsession with high school movies, the fact that roles in movies have a much younger woman depicting an older character, your pop singers being all very close to being too young and singing about sex, it's everywhere. You're made to think that youth is a sexy thing. It seems Hollywood is full of vampires. I'd go as far as to say that this is a problem with your culture jm general. I have never seen this kind of behaviour anywhere else that wasn't already influenced by american media. I'm sorry.
I take your point about the influence media has but this is not unique to America.
Predation on underage girls and boys is global. Paedophiles don’t restrict themselves to national borders.
Quick! Get her a Spot on Fox News!
-People who believe Pizzagate!
She's too chaotic to stay on point.
She's at Kanye West level of insanity.
If it had been just the first paragraph, you could argue it's satire. It's just so absurd.
Azealia Amanda Banks is an American rapper
That explains everything.
There are plenty of sane ones, they just don't make the news all the time because mainstream American news runs on outrage and just well, plain old rage.
Truly spoken as someone who obviously never had the misfortune of crossing the path of a pedophile in her life.
Azealia: you're cute and all, but kindly go fuck yourself.
on the risk of a shitstorm, i fully agree
i remember damn well the time when i was 13 and i was damn well able to fully understand the situation and to make a choice. admittedly, i was never into 40 year-olds back then, but that is my personal choice. i hate other people for forbidding me my choice (of who i was really into) till this day with a boiling hot raging blood.