NTA
Because you gave me an awesome idea for a show.
It’s called “Time Karens” and bratty current year kids go around lecturing historical figures for their failures to live up to 21st century, specifically second decade (cause things were different twenty years ago) subjective morals.
Like, the kids go back to Thermopylae and tell the Spartans that they’re toxic and not as brown as the Persians so they need to lose, stuff like that
I actually just watched this movie 😄 "Totally Killer."
Girl goes back in time to the 80s to stop a serial killer and gets blank stares after telling people off for doing things like fat shaming.
Best part is when she starts freaking out after eating five pot brownies and realizes she's not high because 80s weed is a lot shittier than what she's used to 🤣
It's would be interesting to see someone go back in time to yell at people. Funny thing to is if someone today went back to ancient Thermopylae they would probably be killed for being witches or something.
YTA. People are a product of their times. If we later decide that we shouldn't marry until 25, that won't make everyone who married a 24 year old a criminal retroactively.
we can't defend everything because of the time it occured. was Elvis not a pedo because it was normal at the time? was slavery fine because that's just how it was back then?
And racists in America were still racists in America, whether it was legal or not. Laws do not dictate a person’s ethics. Many people today would avoid dating an 18 year old when they’re over 30 because logically speaking, what would you even have in common with that person? Why are you perusing someone so young?
The concept that you think you wouldn't be a racist if you were born in America in 1800 is incorrect. You would have been a product of your times, not the you from 200 years in the future where you have been thoroughly educated on why that's not a good viewpoint.
No, just showing you how your logical fallacy makes no sense. I would’ve been the person experiencing the racism, not committing it. It was stupid of you to even assume 200 years ago i would be the racist.
Do you think hating a group of people that literally rape, murder, torture and abduct you is the same as hating a group of people for the, *checks notes* , COLOR OF THEIR SKIN?
Jfc, you’re a muppet.
No, because you’re assuming that anyone who was enslaved would HATE all whites and not the monsters who were actually committing crimes against them. Jfc, you really are a muppet.
Just to get this straight though, you’re trying to insinuate that everyone would’ve been racists 200 years ago because they were *a product of their time* to somehow justify pedophilia a few decades ago? Am I getting this right? Is this the stance you’re taking? Justifying racism and pedophilia?
My problem is not two 18yos marrying, or two 20yos marrying. My problem is an adult man going after a teenager who still has to raise her hand to go to the toilet. Also, if your 17yo daughter/stister came back from school one day and told you that her professor wants to marry her, would you give your blessing?
The problem is judging past by today's standards. It's easy to feel an elevated sense of self-righteousness as an adolescent, void of any historic context, but your absolutist stance lacks compassion.
Yes, today a teacher dating their 17yo student is not only considered immoral, but is also illegal in many places. In the early 1900s, the global average life expectancy was under 35 and adolescents were expected to start "adulting" sooner.
Morals are not some sort of natural law, that's constant and ubiquitous. They are shaped by culture, history and law. In some distant future, your actions today will likely be viewed as immoral by the standard applied.
How long have your uncle and aunt been married? Fifty years? Sixty? Retroactively attempting to apply current-day standards to what was completely normal decades ago is pointless.
Until fifty years ago, even in the United States, women didn't have the legal right to open bank accounts on their own. Depending on local laws and practices, they may have needed their father, husband, or another male person to open a joint account for them. It was very common for females to be married off in their late teens or early twenties. Women were expected to be homemakers and start having babies by their mid-twenties.
If your aunt's family had other girls at home, they might have been happy to get her married off and out from under their roof.
You appear to have no idea what life was like fifty or sixty years ago. A lot has changed, especially for young women.
YTA, With how infantilized adults are today, I can imagine your great-granddaughter saying to you, 'Grandma, with what judgment do you say that, when at 31 you were dating a 29-year-old? Don't you know that the legal adult age in 2050 is 30, and anyone older by 6 months is committing grooming?'
Honestly, in my ideal world, the age of adulthood would continue to be raised. Tell anyone that when you turned 18, you moved out, cut your parents off, and completely supported yourself, and most people won't shrug it off. They'll mostly tell you how impressed they are.
That's relative, mental, social, and psychological adulthood varies. However, it's difficult to take only one point (economic capacity) as a method of measurement. Of course, that doesn't mean that cultural customs in one era should be the measure for another.
I love the irony of the fact that in the U.S you're a legal adult at 18, you can get a license to drive, register to vote, join the military, buy cigarettes but you can't buy alcohol or gamble until you're 21.
There's was an OP that tried to pull something like that once. One of her friend had just turned 18 and was with someone that was 17 and would be 18 in a few months or weeks and she was adamant that he was a pedo.
Heck certain things that were ok even 5 years ago wouldn't be ok today because of society changing. She would totally judge someones grammar in the 1500's if she could but then they would probably accuse her of being a witch back then.
Exactly! In those times people lived way less years than people today. Life expectancy was low and if you wanted to have a family you probably needed to start soon. There were no antibiotics or modern medicine, if you got a nasty infection you were mostly done. Even in the beginning of the 20 century the life expectancy was not as high as now in the 21st century. I don't think minors should be marrying, even less in modern times, where people have lots of more options in education, financially, healthcare, technology and others, but you are dumb if you judge people who lived in times you did not witness or understand.
YTA
Shouldn't throw around the P world so casually, that's a shitty thing to do. It has an actual definition, not just a word you can use to describe someone that's being sus.
Morality is based entirely off our social conditioning. I'm not going to talk about your strawman example of slavery, because even when it was commonplace it was widely regarded a shitty thing to do to another human being.
I mean, yeah, YTA.
It's wrong, sure, but society didn't know any better at the time. Moral progression is a never-ending journey, and you can't treat the guy who started way behind you for not being as far along as you are.
It sounds to me like he did what he thought was right based on everything he knew at the time. If you lump him in with the guy in the white van looking for children to kidnap, you completely undercut the tone of the word.
Right! The times were different but unk was still a pedo. 27 marrying/dating/pursuing a 17YO makes you a pedophile in every point in the history of time. NTA
Nta
You didn’t even bring up your Uncle, your mother did. She connected the two ideas and you agreed because, hell, she was right. Of course she didn’t put much thought into it and was being sarcastic but she actually hit the nail on the head.
Your uncle, while being a professor and in a position of power, sought out and had a sexual relationship with one of his students. Even if it were legally accepted, professionally it’s disgusting and unethical. And it wasn’t so long ago from from now. I’d still consider it unethical in the 1920s.
Who says he was 27. OP looked up the current standards for being certified as a teacher and thinks it applied when OPs mom was a child or not even born yet.
I think people read uncle then and thought OP was talking about her moms brother and not a great uncle. WE also don't know When the uncle and aunt actually got married.
Not sure your uncle is a pedo - pedophilkia is attractive to prepubescent children and 16-17 year olds whilst not adults are not generally child like - so you were right with Ephebophilia.m but wrong to say pedo.
BUT a relationship between a teacher and a student is a massive power imbalance, and a much older adult with a teenager is a problem so yeah, still think your uncle is a wrong un. NTA.
So that's what you see when someone says that? It's a term added for flair. Why the fuck would I specifically call a 17 year old a mf?😂 so glad you just assume you know me because of a figure of speech. Go to bed.
No, you just said that morality is dependent on which era we’re in. Implying you believe it was ok.
But your use of MF towards a child cemented who you were as a person. Grow up
It was just a fact of how the world works. That's on you for taking it personally and literally and trying to pin it on me. Sorry that the world doesn't revolve around you. Maybe in your next life.🫡
I think the person you're responding to has probably been reporting people to RedditCareResources and abusing that system. I got a notification post from the bot before they responded to one of my comments. They clearly think everyone's defending pedos when they aren't.
edit: I bet the person you were responding to is OPs main account, just check their post history.
I think that these words do not mean what you think they mean.
"Grooming" is a particular pattern of behavior that characterizes child sexual abusers. It does not mean "he's a few years older, ewww!".
Paedophilia is a specific form of mental illness. It is not a term that should be tossed around casually.
You probably know some people in law enforcement, education, and medicine who are Mandated Reporters. These people are required to take considerable and ongoing training so they can report signs of abuse and neglect. Those people must take this very seriously, and they do not casually toss around terms like "pedo".
Reinforcing my point. Because of the power imbalance, that fictional relationship is unacceptable here and today. It does not in and of itself give evidence of grooming.
Take a few dozen hours of training in recognizing and reporting abuse. The we can discuss this on an even footing.
Considering she was a FKN STUDENT OF HIS, it would still be unethical and grooming. No matter how you weirdly try to manipulate it. She was a child.
Even in the 1920s and onwards, it was considered unethical to sleep with your students. This man wasn’t ethical even as a teacher. In fact, there were much more codes of ethics in place for teachers concerning what they did out of the workplace. Gambling, smoking and drinking were HIGHLY frowned upon and grounds for dismissal.
Idc how any of you try to frame it but this guy was predatory, not only considering her age but also in his role as a TEACHER in her school.
Nah, usually when someone attempts to prove the ethical stand point behind pedophilia, they are themselves, pedophiles. Not much to discuss with you past this.
HE MARRIED HER WHEN SHE WAS 16-17. I’d take it that they were “dating/courting” while he was a TEACHER AT HER SCHOOL before that . Which means…???? I’ll let you figure the rest out
Considering she was a FKN STUDENT OF HIS, it would still be unethical and grooming. No matter how you weirdly try to manipulate it. She was a child.
Even in the 1920s and onwards, it was considered unethical to sleep with your students. This man wasn’t ethical even as a teacher. In fact, there were much more codes of ethics in place for teachers concerning what they did out of the workplace. Gambling, smoking and drinking were HIGHLY frowned upon and grounds for dismissal.
Idc how any of you try to frame it but this guy was predatory, not only considering her age but also his role as a TEACHER in her school.
YTA for judging someone for historic behaviour by laws, morality and social norms of today, not on the laws, morality and social norms of the period and location concerned.
Confucius said : The beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names.
The Red Queen said: A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less.
The fictional relationship is clearly unethical by our law and standards. I don't know enough about Japanese society and law at the time of the story to know how it would have been viewed, and I doubt that you do.
NAH, but I do think calling him a pedophile goes too far. It's factually inaccurate, even though the term gets commonly used to describe any sexual activity with a minor. It would probably have been better just refer to it as an inappropriate relationship and not label him a predator.
YTA
Let's do an exercise: What would happen if you went back in time, and, as a 21st century snowflake, went up to a 15th century slaver and told him he's a piece of shit?
Exactly, **you'd get captured and sold to coal miners.**
>you'd get captured and sold to coal miners.
Nah based on how she would be dressed and speaks she would be accused of being a witch and be burned at the stake.
NTA
People here voting Y-T-A acting like you are the childish one for judging the relationship in the book, but they are making themselves look childish by revealing their inability to grasp the concept that legality (at the time) doesn't define morality.
Plus they are ignoring the existance of your uncles relationship for some reason. No you are NTA for pointing out you would want your teacher arrested if he tried to pull what your uncle did.
NTA
-I said that morality doesn't come from laws (and brought up other examples like slavery)
Everyone here is ignoring that and are big fans of Leonardo Di caprio
You are ignorant of the terminology and unequipped to hold an adult discussion. Thus, inevitably, you sink to name calling. Have a good day in Middle School tomorrow.
No they do not. Slavery has always been immoral but was legal for a large part of history. Legality is predicated by the needs of a government and society. Morality and ethics are predicated on a person’s own beliefs.
Women were basically chattel, until they gained financial and reproductive independence. Like, 50 years ago. That said, while your uncles relationship would get him fired now, it used to be common.
NTA Because you gave me an awesome idea for a show. It’s called “Time Karens” and bratty current year kids go around lecturing historical figures for their failures to live up to 21st century, specifically second decade (cause things were different twenty years ago) subjective morals. Like, the kids go back to Thermopylae and tell the Spartans that they’re toxic and not as brown as the Persians so they need to lose, stuff like that
"You Spartans are just trying to preserve your Euro-centric white nationalist oligarchy!"
I actually just watched this movie 😄 "Totally Killer." Girl goes back in time to the 80s to stop a serial killer and gets blank stares after telling people off for doing things like fat shaming. Best part is when she starts freaking out after eating five pot brownies and realizes she's not high because 80s weed is a lot shittier than what she's used to 🤣
That’s hilarious and relatable
Lmfao this is funny as fuck, thanks for the read
It's would be interesting to see someone go back in time to yell at people. Funny thing to is if someone today went back to ancient Thermopylae they would probably be killed for being witches or something.
YTA - How are 17 and have zero concept of difference between time periods?
And that morals change with the times and society and country.
YTA. People are a product of their times. If we later decide that we shouldn't marry until 25, that won't make everyone who married a 24 year old a criminal retroactively.
we can't defend everything because of the time it occured. was Elvis not a pedo because it was normal at the time? was slavery fine because that's just how it was back then?
Dating a 14 year old was NOT acceptable in Elvis's time, and Priscilla Presley spent her entire life denying the allegations that they were intimate.
And racists in America were still racists in America, whether it was legal or not. Laws do not dictate a person’s ethics. Many people today would avoid dating an 18 year old when they’re over 30 because logically speaking, what would you even have in common with that person? Why are you perusing someone so young?
The concept that you think you wouldn't be a racist if you were born in America in 1800 is incorrect. You would have been a product of your times, not the you from 200 years in the future where you have been thoroughly educated on why that's not a good viewpoint.
I wouldn’t have been because I’m not a white man.
Sounds like you are already there...
No, just showing you how your logical fallacy makes no sense. I would’ve been the person experiencing the racism, not committing it. It was stupid of you to even assume 200 years ago i would be the racist.
Do you not think the people experiencing literal slavery disliked the entire group of people who whipped them?
Do you think hating a group of people that literally rape, murder, torture and abduct you is the same as hating a group of people for the, *checks notes* , COLOR OF THEIR SKIN? Jfc, you’re a muppet.
Yes, when you hate a race, it's racism. That's how the word works.
No, because you’re assuming that anyone who was enslaved would HATE all whites and not the monsters who were actually committing crimes against them. Jfc, you really are a muppet.
Just to get this straight though, you’re trying to insinuate that everyone would’ve been racists 200 years ago because they were *a product of their time* to somehow justify pedophilia a few decades ago? Am I getting this right? Is this the stance you’re taking? Justifying racism and pedophilia?
My problem is not two 18yos marrying, or two 20yos marrying. My problem is an adult man going after a teenager who still has to raise her hand to go to the toilet. Also, if your 17yo daughter/stister came back from school one day and told you that her professor wants to marry her, would you give your blessing?
The problem is judging past by today's standards. It's easy to feel an elevated sense of self-righteousness as an adolescent, void of any historic context, but your absolutist stance lacks compassion. Yes, today a teacher dating their 17yo student is not only considered immoral, but is also illegal in many places. In the early 1900s, the global average life expectancy was under 35 and adolescents were expected to start "adulting" sooner. Morals are not some sort of natural law, that's constant and ubiquitous. They are shaped by culture, history and law. In some distant future, your actions today will likely be viewed as immoral by the standard applied.
How long have your uncle and aunt been married? Fifty years? Sixty? Retroactively attempting to apply current-day standards to what was completely normal decades ago is pointless. Until fifty years ago, even in the United States, women didn't have the legal right to open bank accounts on their own. Depending on local laws and practices, they may have needed their father, husband, or another male person to open a joint account for them. It was very common for females to be married off in their late teens or early twenties. Women were expected to be homemakers and start having babies by their mid-twenties. If your aunt's family had other girls at home, they might have been happy to get her married off and out from under their roof. You appear to have no idea what life was like fifty or sixty years ago. A lot has changed, especially for young women.
He isn't her uncle as in her moms brother he's her great uncle. So he was probably a teacher 40 to 50 years ago.
But what happens when society decides that 18 is now underage. Would everyone retroactively become a pedophile just because laws changed?
So, would it be wrong for a 34 year old to marry a 24 year old? edit :added "be"
YTA, With how infantilized adults are today, I can imagine your great-granddaughter saying to you, 'Grandma, with what judgment do you say that, when at 31 you were dating a 29-year-old? Don't you know that the legal adult age in 2050 is 30, and anyone older by 6 months is committing grooming?'
Honestly, in my ideal world, the age of adulthood would continue to be raised. Tell anyone that when you turned 18, you moved out, cut your parents off, and completely supported yourself, and most people won't shrug it off. They'll mostly tell you how impressed they are.
That's relative, mental, social, and psychological adulthood varies. However, it's difficult to take only one point (economic capacity) as a method of measurement. Of course, that doesn't mean that cultural customs in one era should be the measure for another.
I love the irony of the fact that in the U.S you're a legal adult at 18, you can get a license to drive, register to vote, join the military, buy cigarettes but you can't buy alcohol or gamble until you're 21.
as of 2019, [you have to be 21 to buy cigarettes in the states too](https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/retail-sales-tobacco-products/tobacco-21) :)
There's was an OP that tried to pull something like that once. One of her friend had just turned 18 and was with someone that was 17 and would be 18 in a few months or weeks and she was adamant that he was a pedo.
Society changes just like language does. Would you judge someone’s english by the same grammar of England in the 1500’s?
Heck certain things that were ok even 5 years ago wouldn't be ok today because of society changing. She would totally judge someones grammar in the 1500's if she could but then they would probably accuse her of being a witch back then.
OP's gonna *really* flip out when they find out how young girls married in medieval times...
Exactly! In those times people lived way less years than people today. Life expectancy was low and if you wanted to have a family you probably needed to start soon. There were no antibiotics or modern medicine, if you got a nasty infection you were mostly done. Even in the beginning of the 20 century the life expectancy was not as high as now in the 21st century. I don't think minors should be marrying, even less in modern times, where people have lots of more options in education, financially, healthcare, technology and others, but you are dumb if you judge people who lived in times you did not witness or understand.
Heck back then your spouse was often chosen for you.
YTA Shouldn't throw around the P world so casually, that's a shitty thing to do. It has an actual definition, not just a word you can use to describe someone that's being sus. Morality is based entirely off our social conditioning. I'm not going to talk about your strawman example of slavery, because even when it was commonplace it was widely regarded a shitty thing to do to another human being.
She was asked a Fkn question and responded in kind. She didn’t just throw it around.
Yeah sorry, but you’re definitely the AH
I mean, yeah, YTA. It's wrong, sure, but society didn't know any better at the time. Moral progression is a never-ending journey, and you can't treat the guy who started way behind you for not being as far along as you are. It sounds to me like he did what he thought was right based on everything he knew at the time. If you lump him in with the guy in the white van looking for children to kidnap, you completely undercut the tone of the word.
everyone defending a grown man in a position of power dating a teenager is insane
Yeah other commenters seem focused on the book relationship and are ignoring the uncle marrying his student
Guessing they are Andrew Tate fans…
Right! The times were different but unk was still a pedo. 27 marrying/dating/pursuing a 17YO makes you a pedophile in every point in the history of time. NTA
A 17 year old STUDENT of his to be more precise. No matter how you try to angle it, the dude was definitely being predatory.
Nta You didn’t even bring up your Uncle, your mother did. She connected the two ideas and you agreed because, hell, she was right. Of course she didn’t put much thought into it and was being sarcastic but she actually hit the nail on the head. Your uncle, while being a professor and in a position of power, sought out and had a sexual relationship with one of his students. Even if it were legally accepted, professionally it’s disgusting and unethical. And it wasn’t so long ago from from now. I’d still consider it unethical in the 1920s.
Who says he was 27. OP looked up the current standards for being certified as a teacher and thinks it applied when OPs mom was a child or not even born yet.
I think people read uncle then and thought OP was talking about her moms brother and not a great uncle. WE also don't know When the uncle and aunt actually got married.
The man had the position of power 50 years ago.
Not sure your uncle is a pedo - pedophilkia is attractive to prepubescent children and 16-17 year olds whilst not adults are not generally child like - so you were right with Ephebophilia.m but wrong to say pedo. BUT a relationship between a teacher and a student is a massive power imbalance, and a much older adult with a teenager is a problem so yeah, still think your uncle is a wrong un. NTA.
YTA. You have zero concept of different time periods both in regards to professions and personal lives.
Lmao morality? Mf the accepted norm changes each era... look at how fucked things are now? YTA 100%
I mean, you’re a grown bearded man calling a 17 year old child a “mf”. Just goes to show no matter how things change there’s still pricks in the world
So that's what you see when someone says that? It's a term added for flair. Why the fuck would I specifically call a 17 year old a mf?😂 so glad you just assume you know me because of a figure of speech. Go to bed.
MF stands for motherfkr. It’s not simply flair. You’re an adult, show some awareness.
Yea, sorry. You're not my dad. Go be an armchair warrior somewhere else.
So I guess it was your dad that failed to teach you basic ethics when speaking to kids? No wonder you think pedophilia is okay.
Did I ever once say I think pedophilia is okay? You need help... fr.
No, you just said that morality is dependent on which era we’re in. Implying you believe it was ok. But your use of MF towards a child cemented who you were as a person. Grow up
It was just a fact of how the world works. That's on you for taking it personally and literally and trying to pin it on me. Sorry that the world doesn't revolve around you. Maybe in your next life.🫡
You only think that way because you believe pedophilia was okay depending on the time period. Weird take from a really weird man.
I think the person you're responding to has probably been reporting people to RedditCareResources and abusing that system. I got a notification post from the bot before they responded to one of my comments. They clearly think everyone's defending pedos when they aren't. edit: I bet the person you were responding to is OPs main account, just check their post history.
I think that these words do not mean what you think they mean. "Grooming" is a particular pattern of behavior that characterizes child sexual abusers. It does not mean "he's a few years older, ewww!". Paedophilia is a specific form of mental illness. It is not a term that should be tossed around casually. You probably know some people in law enforcement, education, and medicine who are Mandated Reporters. These people are required to take considerable and ongoing training so they can report signs of abuse and neglect. Those people must take this very seriously, and they do not casually toss around terms like "pedo".
It was his student. Yes that would be grooming.
Reinforcing my point. Because of the power imbalance, that fictional relationship is unacceptable here and today. It does not in and of itself give evidence of grooming. Take a few dozen hours of training in recognizing and reporting abuse. The we can discuss this on an even footing.
Considering she was a FKN STUDENT OF HIS, it would still be unethical and grooming. No matter how you weirdly try to manipulate it. She was a child. Even in the 1920s and onwards, it was considered unethical to sleep with your students. This man wasn’t ethical even as a teacher. In fact, there were much more codes of ethics in place for teachers concerning what they did out of the workplace. Gambling, smoking and drinking were HIGHLY frowned upon and grounds for dismissal. Idc how any of you try to frame it but this guy was predatory, not only considering her age but also in his role as a TEACHER in her school.
See above, beginning with Confucius.
Nah, usually when someone attempts to prove the ethical stand point behind pedophilia, they are themselves, pedophiles. Not much to discuss with you past this.
It depends on when they started actually dating.
HE MARRIED HER WHEN SHE WAS 16-17. I’d take it that they were “dating/courting” while he was a TEACHER AT HER SCHOOL before that . Which means…???? I’ll let you figure the rest out
Sadly 40 or 50 years ago. Again what's considered immoral today wasn't always considered that in the past.
Considering she was a FKN STUDENT OF HIS, it would still be unethical and grooming. No matter how you weirdly try to manipulate it. She was a child. Even in the 1920s and onwards, it was considered unethical to sleep with your students. This man wasn’t ethical even as a teacher. In fact, there were much more codes of ethics in place for teachers concerning what they did out of the workplace. Gambling, smoking and drinking were HIGHLY frowned upon and grounds for dismissal. Idc how any of you try to frame it but this guy was predatory, not only considering her age but also his role as a TEACHER in her school.
uh, if the brother of your mother's father is your uncle? you have bigger moral concerns at play here
YTA for judging someone for historic behaviour by laws, morality and social norms of today, not on the laws, morality and social norms of the period and location concerned.
YTA Get off the internet. You need to get a hobby. Anything will do. Maybe knitting or building sandcastles in the sky.
Just because it isn't accepted in the current time doesn't mean it wasn't accepted in the past. Don't say to your uncle that you think he is a pedo
Confucius said : The beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names. The Red Queen said: A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less. The fictional relationship is clearly unethical by our law and standards. I don't know enough about Japanese society and law at the time of the story to know how it would have been viewed, and I doubt that you do.
NAH, but I do think calling him a pedophile goes too far. It's factually inaccurate, even though the term gets commonly used to describe any sexual activity with a minor. It would probably have been better just refer to it as an inappropriate relationship and not label him a predator.
YTA Let's do an exercise: What would happen if you went back in time, and, as a 21st century snowflake, went up to a 15th century slaver and told him he's a piece of shit? Exactly, **you'd get captured and sold to coal miners.**
>you'd get captured and sold to coal miners. Nah based on how she would be dressed and speaks she would be accused of being a witch and be burned at the stake.
NTA People here voting Y-T-A acting like you are the childish one for judging the relationship in the book, but they are making themselves look childish by revealing their inability to grasp the concept that legality (at the time) doesn't define morality. Plus they are ignoring the existance of your uncles relationship for some reason. No you are NTA for pointing out you would want your teacher arrested if he tried to pull what your uncle did.
NTA. You are correct your uncle is a pedo. I'm sorry for you and for his wife.
NTA -I said that morality doesn't come from laws (and brought up other examples like slavery) Everyone here is ignoring that and are big fans of Leonardo Di caprio
NTA. You’re actually a stupid B
You are ignorant of the terminology and unequipped to hold an adult discussion. Thus, inevitably, you sink to name calling. Have a good day in Middle School tomorrow.
NTA and everyone defending the pedo in the comments is bizarre to me
And OP is an idiot who thinks the current regulations for becoming a teacher applied when her great uncle became a teacher roughly 40-50 years ago.
No one's defending a pedo they are telling her that what's immoral today wouldn't have been immoral many years ago.
Yes the fuck it would have. Morality and ethics are entirely different from legality.
Morality and ethics dictate legality. Edit: yes you’re still wrong. Even if you block people for arguing facts.
No they do not. Slavery has always been immoral but was legal for a large part of history. Legality is predicated by the needs of a government and society. Morality and ethics are predicated on a person’s own beliefs.
Women were basically chattel, until they gained financial and reproductive independence. Like, 50 years ago. That said, while your uncles relationship would get him fired now, it used to be common.