4 ms·

A side note: I feel like people singing songs are older than they are. It's easy to forget a lot of artists from earlier eras are actually young. Like when I h

A side note: I feel like people singing songs are older than they are. It's easy to forget a lot of artists from earlier eras are actually young. Like when I heard the Beatles sing "she was just 17, if you know what I mean" I used to cringe until I thought about the fact that they were kids when they recorded it. Bob Dylan positively sounds like an old man (but I think that's at least in party by design).

hgsgm 3y ago
30-year-old men dating/marrying 16 year-olds was common, especially among rock stars and actors.
autoexec 3y ago
When the song came out John Lennon would have been 23. For both John and Paul, 17 would have violated the "half your age +7" rule
- jzb 3y ago
  Lennon was 22, McCartney was 21 when the song was released. (Feb. 1963 recorded, Mar. 1963 released on “Please Please Me”) But yeah, still not quite half plus 7. You could argue they were writing it for teens, though - the audience singing along would skew several years younger than the band. (Poll of the Beatles fan club placed the average fan between 13-17. And they took great pains to create the illusion that fans might just meet the Beatles and be “the one.”) It does sound wrong now, though. The lyrics, anyway. Music still holds up.
poisonarena 3y ago
>> "she was just 17, if you know what I mean" I used to cringe took about 25-30 years to make men feel shame for something that was completely normal for thousands of years prior. I see so many men, usually on reddit, completely lying or somehow brainwashed that thinking the beautiful girls they saw in highschool suddenly become disgusting or 'children'. I can't help but think it has something to do with the western population decline. Is it possible progressive and feminist ideology influenced women to have kids much later, when they are less fertile, and pressured men only to date this age group? I know I sound like a andrew tate or right wing maniac (especially to those redditors described above), but I can't help but wonder
- Nevermark 3y ago
  The change is that we have socially and psychologically extended childhood. So a 17 year old girl today represents someone much less self-actualized than a 17 year old lady 200 years ago. But the result (for all persons) is a more skilled, highly specialized, more brainy vs. brawny (behaviorally) work force.
- asdfman123 3y ago
  So I understand your argument correctly, are you saying to reverse Western decline we should renormalize middle aged men getting with minors?
  - garciasn 3y ago
    [dead]
  - poisonarena 3y ago
    [flagged]
- joker_minmax 3y ago
  Teenage childbirth actually has a high risk of complications, versus birth in the 20-24 age range. (There is an entire WHO page about this.) The brain goes through a lot of changes between 17 and 21-25. We have evidence of this. It's not just "feminists changing things". One consequence of your brain reaching maturity is that it is harder for people to manipulate you. Marriage is not what it used to be in terms of economics either. Use your head, man. Fertility does not drop to nothing the moment a woman turns twenty. I say this as a non-redditor. I find it funny how people are so often concerned with female fertility and age, but the babydaddy is allowed to be old as the hills and not blamed for any birth defects, despite that advanced paternal age is associated with many birth defects and fertility struggles.
  - poisonarena 3y ago
    >It's not just "feminists changing things" it actually was, christian feminists are directly responsible for this and then 3rd/4th wave feminism was responsible for the shame that you obviously now feel when hearing a song like "17". >Use your head, man women in their 30s are less fertile, full stop, im not talking about childbirth in the 20s, or about marriage, or birth defects, or anything else you decided were my points that you are arguing against, I was talking about attraction and shame. But women women are designed for childbirth in their teens and 20s.
jen20 3y ago
To be clear, they are not the words to the song. There is no “if” in there.

hgsgm 3y ago

30-year-old men dating/marrying 16 year-olds was common, especially among rock stars and actors.

autoexec 3y ago

When the song came out John Lennon would have been 23. For both John and Paul, 17 would have violated the "half your age +7" rule

jzb 3y ago
Lennon was 22, McCartney was 21 when the song was released. (Feb. 1963 recorded, Mar. 1963 released on “Please Please Me”) But yeah, still not quite half plus 7. You could argue they were writing it for teens, though - the audience singing along would skew several years younger than the band. (Poll of the Beatles fan club placed the average fan between 13-17. And they took great pains to create the illusion that fans might just meet the Beatles and be “the one.”) It does sound wrong now, though. The lyrics, anyway. Music still holds up.

poisonarena 3y ago

>> "she was just 17, if you know what I mean" I used to cringe took about 25-30 years to make men feel shame for something that was completely normal for thousands of years prior. I see so many men, usually on reddit, completely lying or somehow brainwashed that thinking the beautiful girls they saw in highschool suddenly become disgusting or 'children'. I can't help but think it has something to do with the western population decline. Is it possible progressive and feminist ideology influenced women to have kids much later, when they are less fertile, and pressured men only to date this age group? I know I sound like a andrew tate or right wing maniac (especially to those redditors described above), but I can't help but wonder

Nevermark 3y ago
The change is that we have socially and psychologically extended childhood. So a 17 year old girl today represents someone much less self-actualized than a 17 year old lady 200 years ago. But the result (for all persons) is a more skilled, highly specialized, more brainy vs. brawny (behaviorally) work force.
asdfman123 3y ago
So I understand your argument correctly, are you saying to reverse Western decline we should renormalize middle aged men getting with minors?
- garciasn 3y ago
  [dead]
- poisonarena 3y ago
  [flagged]
joker_minmax 3y ago
Teenage childbirth actually has a high risk of complications, versus birth in the 20-24 age range. (There is an entire WHO page about this.) The brain goes through a lot of changes between 17 and 21-25. We have evidence of this. It's not just "feminists changing things". One consequence of your brain reaching maturity is that it is harder for people to manipulate you. Marriage is not what it used to be in terms of economics either. Use your head, man. Fertility does not drop to nothing the moment a woman turns twenty. I say this as a non-redditor. I find it funny how people are so often concerned with female fertility and age, but the babydaddy is allowed to be old as the hills and not blamed for any birth defects, despite that advanced paternal age is associated with many birth defects and fertility struggles.
- poisonarena 3y ago
  >It's not just "feminists changing things" it actually was, christian feminists are directly responsible for this and then 3rd/4th wave feminism was responsible for the shame that you obviously now feel when hearing a song like "17". >Use your head, man women in their 30s are less fertile, full stop, im not talking about childbirth in the 20s, or about marriage, or birth defects, or anything else you decided were my points that you are arguing against, I was talking about attraction and shame. But women women are designed for childbirth in their teens and 20s.

jen20 3y ago

To be clear, they are not the words to the song. There is no “if” in there.