dad-bod means sugar-daddy. women are gaining more economic freedom every year, but the reality remains that what most attractive women over about 25 want is financial security, not sexy bodies. if you can get both, great, sure, but, otherwise, that's what the pool guy is for, right?

that's what these bros don't get. lifting is great if you're young, or if you want to be every married woman's fling. but, at the end of the day, if you really want the girl then you need to be exercising your brain and bringing in the cash.

lwAtErOnEl
Calling it "dad bod" is creepy as fuck. Do these girls think of their dads when they see them?

FutureDirector24
+lwAtErOnEl  Do guys think of their moms when they say "milf"? All milfs aren't moms, it's more of an age thing.

deathtokoalas
+FutureDirector24 it's not the same thing. milf is about the sexuality of older women - it's a process of objectification. "dad-bod" refers to the relative unimportance of sexual attraction in favour of financial security - just like daddy. as i mentioned, things are changing, but when you culturally enforce patriarchy you have to expect that young women are going to have this idea of husband as father. it's more than subconscious.

you can't draw these broad equivalences in a society that remains fundamentally unequal. it's more accurate to suggest that "dad bod" and "milf" are the opposite of each other, in terms of sexual objectification.

Joe Themig
+deathtokoalas Lol... patriarchy? Really?

Guess when they call a dad a DILF, it's just the patriarchy in action.

Tin foiled hat nonsense.

deathtokoalas
+Joe Themig if dilf was a thing, it would at least be an equivalence. it doesn't really actually make sense, though, as dads don't need to go through the rearrangement of their bodies that mothers do. but it's not actually a thing. and you can clearly see how a dad-bod is not a dilf, but the opposite of it.

Ivan Ivanovsky
+deathtokoalas  LOL! You said "patriarchy". Go back to Tumblr. Xaxaxa!  You can't blame "patriarchy" for stupid trend made popular by childish, trend-hopping western female.  This "dad bod" nonsense only became topic of conversation because stupid, childish, celebrity obsessed, American woman gushes over and promote Lenard DeCrapio's "dad bod".  The so-called mans getting on this bandwagon are of pathetic weak mans who think this is their chance for female approval. 

deathtokoalas
+Ivan Ivanovsky the empirical truth that women overwhelmingly choose financial stability over sexual desire is neither recent nor a trend. if you want women to choose muscles over money, that is short-term fun over long-term security, you need to ensure they have the financial freedom to do so, and exist within a culture that encourages independent thought. otherwise, the size of your house is going to remain sexier than the size of your chest, as the groupthink enforces the family structure.

Aaron Brown
+deathtokoalas So you sound like a feminist gold digger. Females want equal rights and to be treated fairly but yet you want the man to make the income. Sorry but that's that what equality is about. Taken from Merriam Webster- " the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc." So with that being said , according to "equality" the man is not equal in your "long-term security" plan. Stuff happens in the world. People lose jobs out of nowhere for no reason everyday. AND in case you try to say "I'm not a  gold digger" BAM! HERE YOU GO: a person who dates others purely to extract money from them, in particular a woman who strives to marry a wealthy man.

deathtokoalas
+Aaron Brown it's a conditioning thing - it's what women are taught. and mostly by men, although mom doesn't always set a good example or say the right things, here. i've stated a few times that things are changing. slowly. but the society continues to teach women to be dependent on male economic activity. breaking that cycle relies on opening up more opportunities, but all the opportunities in the world aren't going to break the cycle if the dominant christian patriarchal culture that teaches female submission isn't smashed, too.

i'm telling you how things are. i'm not endorsing this.

John Doe
+deathtokoalas The problem with your analysis is the "dad bod" trend doesn't equate with financial status.  Actually, in relative terms attractive men tend to make more money than less attractive men.  You're approaching the issue as a matter of "everything is patriarchy" in spite of the reality we don't live in a patriarchy.

A better way to look at the dad bod trend might be to examine if women are rethinking their stance towards hypergamy on a wider scale.  Perhaps women are realizing that always choosing relationships with men that are above them is responsible for a lot of women's relationships wounds.  Choosing the "dad bod" might be a step away from hypergamy towards lateral relationship choices, which numerous studies have shown make women happier.

deathtokoalas
+John Doe you're incoherent - you claim it's not financial, then claim it is. further, the studies you're citing about attractiveness and wealth tend to suffer from the flaw of being circular. it's difficult to define the term "attractive" but, in context, it usually means things like "well dressed" rather than "works out". as the primary thing that defines male attractiveness is wealth, you end up in this circular argument that resolves by reversing causality - it's not that more attractive men make more money, it's that men that make more money are more attractive.

Aaron Brown
+deathtokoalas Are you a christian....do you go to church....do you read the bible. If you answer no to any of these then your statement is just an observation you have made. I could look at a muslim who is all dressed up and assume that they are a terrorist or I could assume that that is their religion. One would be right and the other would be null. However for you to state this is literally as vague as saying a rainbow has pretty colors. Your view on christianity is warped. If you were to go to most modern christian establishmenst (Some denominations still live in the old times, yes) what you just said is irrelevent. They don't teach that women are to rely on the man for money.

deathtokoalas
+Aaron Brown i'll acknowledge that christianity does not have a single set of views; just about anything has been argued from the bible, and the result is that just about anything can be blamed on christianity.

the broader perspective is to realize that religion is never a world view in itself, but always a way to enforce a worldview. in the era of slavery, you had southern churches arguing that blacks were cursed by god some time back in the garden of eden days, and the bible demands they're enslaved....while you had christian abolitionists in the north. neither came to their positions because of christianity. rather, both used the religion to argue their point.

so, when you have these limbaugh and falwell type groups preaching their ideas of male dominance, it's perhaps worthwhile to point out that they're using the old testament statements as a means to convince somebody of something they'd try and convince them of anyways.

that doesn't change the reality on the ground that evangelical christianity produces, or the coercive nature of the social shaping that it promotes.

some milder denominations may have moved on, but, as a whole, does christianity (especially the evangelical sort) continue to push patriarchy? yes. absolutely.

Dom Ferris
How did this turn into a religous debate?

deathtokoalas
+Dom Ferris i'm not interested in a religious debate. christianity is stupid. this is a social debate.

erwin s
+deathtokoalas Islam is even worse ;-)

deathtokoalas
+erwin s they're all the same. ask anna comnena.

i'm just not sure exactly what the problem is. twerking is not pornography, so if you had done the video and sent it back he wouldn't be in possession of child pornography or whatever. you didn't feel comfortable, and you refused and that was that. the legal action is something else - but if the accusation is that you're defaming him by calling him a pedophile, he's actually pretty much correct in asking you to cease and desist (although the judge has some room for interpretation, there). it's certainly eccentric, granted. and i actually don't even know who he is. but eccentricity is not a crime. i'm not really clear about what the accusation, here, is...

Taylor Tanguay
+deathtokoalas This was never meant to be a legal accusation, at all. I will continue to use the term pedophile in the sense of its definition being an adult who is sexually attracted to people under the legal age of consent. Given that he was soliciting these images from girls strictly between the ages of 13-16, and openly said he wanted them because he was "horny", I believe that the term is used appropriately. But again, that may just be me.

deathtokoalas
+Taylor Tanguay if that's your logic, you'll certainly lose the court case - you're defining defamation and then claiming you have the right to it under the first amendment. you have to wait until he's at least charged with something before you can do that in a way that tarnishes somebody's reputation. otherwise, you're legally liable for the consequences of your speech.

fwiw, you should realize that pedophilia refers to attraction to children - that is people that have yet to hit puberty.

so,

1) you're not charging him with a crime.
2) you're suggesting he's guilty of a crime
3) you're suggesting he's guilty of a crime that does not fit the definition of what you're accusing him of.

i gather you're what, 17? that's your best defense.

Taylor Tanguay
I'm not accusing him of a crime. I have never once implied that this should be brought to court. I don't think theres any reason for the authorities to get involved in my case. The other, more invasive instances- maybe. But those are not my stories to share or problems to deal with. The only thing I want is for teenager girls to stop flocking to him.

deathtokoalas
+Taylor Tanguay i really strongly suggest you retract your accusation of pedophilia, then, because he will win if he can get the judge to grant you standing.

i just want to be clear: you have a right to tell your story, regardless of if it affects others, so long as it's true (and i don't doubt that it is).

but you don't have a right to make ambiguous or false accusations with the express intent of harming his career, which you've actually admitted to doing in this video.

because you're still a minor, you likely retain the ability to back out of this and focus solely on the first part, if you distance yourself from the second.

Taylor Tanguay
+deathtokoalas my exact quote containing the phrase in question is "he's like, straight up pedophile-ish". I would highly question anyone who took that as a legal accusation of pedophilia.

deathtokoalas
+Taylor Tanguay so, what they're going to want to prove, if they can take it to court, and they could conceivably sue your parents, is the following:

1) is the accusation false? (yes, by your own admission)
2) did you intend the accusation to create harm? (yes, by your own admission)
3) is there any financial hardship as a consequence? (yes, if he gets kicked off warp)

the cause and effect relationship is that you (or your parents) would then be liable for the financial consequences caused by the video, because it's intended to create harm.

i took three years of a law program before i got bored with it. but you don't have to - and really probably shouldn't - believe me. if you have access to legal advice, i would suggest it.

but you should be cognizant of the cause and effect relationship between any financial harm you intended to create (by your own admission) and any actual financial harm.

i would suspect a smart lawyer would ask you to cancel the petition. if sales fall after that, a causal relationship is harder to establish.

but clear malice behind a clear exaggeration and a clear causal relationship to financial harm is a very short case. the more lengthy argument is around your age.

Taylor Tanguay
what petition?? Literally all i did was post this video, AFTER the stories of him soliciting videos from other girls had went viral on twitter, and post my conversations with him online

deathtokoalas
+Taylor Tanguay well, i'd never heard of him before. this video is trending at the top of youtube; i check that fairly regularly. so, i googled him and a petition came up to get him off warp that appears to have a lot of signatures. i put two and two together...

that's a bad idea, though. if he were to sue you or anybody else, he would have to establish actual financial loss in order to win an award. if that petition goes through, he has sufficient financial loss (and clear causality) to launch a suit and win.

his lawsuit depends on the three things i outlined, and that causal link to your video(s) is absolutely necessary to establish. if that cannot be established, you would not be the right person to sue.

Erica Gene
+deathtokoalas It doesn't take nudity for something to be sexual. It isn't a matter of him simply possessing it, the issue is what he does with the videos when he has it.

deathtokoalas
+Erica Gene no. you have no right to interfere, out of some arbitrary and meaningless moral perspective. what he does in the sanctity of his own home is none of your business. it's not a matter of what he does with it, it's a matter of the legality of possessing it.

Erica Gene
Eh, okay.

Pink guy
+deathtokoalas She has every right to interfere, this is youtube not a court hearing. You obviously went to law school, but you missed the fact that if Austin is kicked off of the tour for felonious actions, and there is undeniable proof (which there is), he can not sue. He obviously will not sue, anyway, if this were a real court case, what would he say? "I got kicked off a tour because I was soliciting videos of teens twerking for sexual pleasure and I demand compensation"? The case would be thrown out immediately, and austin would be charged.

deathtokoalas
+Pink guy so, who exactly gave you the right to decide this?

there seems to be a general problem with young people nowadays, and your inability to understand the concept of due process. for some reason, you seem to think that trial by media is valid. you seem to think that these decisions are up to the general public to decide, rather than up to the court system. it's a problem that's been building for a few decades now, to the point that you all seem to just be oblivious to it.

we don't know why he was asking for those videos. that's the issue that needs to be determined in a court. that means that evidence needs to be provided, arguments need to be had and a decision needs to be come to to weigh all of these things. that's not done by talking heads in the media, or headlines in cnn. "it's obvious" is not a legal argument. depending on the context, it's actually possible defamatory.

now, if it's determined that a felony has taken place, then that's a defence in a defamation suit. until that time has come, your "undeniable proof" is merely possible evidence in a trial that never happened, and accusations that presume guilt are subject to censure and penalty. that's why you hear news reports use the word "alleged" so often - even in cases where it's "obvious".

the result is that, yes, he can say exactly what you're saying - if he can demonstrate a causal link between false statements made with malicious intent and a financial loss as a consequence of them.

in this particular case? you should realize that there's almost no chance he'd face any charges, unless he's selling the videos, basically. even if he's jerking off to the videos, that's neither paedophilia in a legal nor a clinical sense.

if it were, there'd be millions of people in jail for jerking off to britney spears and miley cyrus and ariana grand and the rest of them. that's just not a crime.

Pink guy
+deathtokoalas You forget that possession said videos of minors doing such acts is also highly illegal. OF course, no charges will be brought upon him, since he was never taken to court, but you can't deny that his actions were highly illegal, and the videos where he teaches them how to twerk would be considered "Bait"

And yes, jerking off to said videos is not pedophilia, it's ephebophilia. Which is the sexual attraction to someone between 15 and 17. Depending on which states you are in, that is highly illegal and can land you a good bit of jail time if caught in your possession.

The fact that he won't be charged is completely true, but you can't ignore the fact that what he did was illegal.

deathtokoalas
+Pink guy i'd argue it's just some kids dancing, obtained in consensual circumstances. that's neither pornography, nor is it coercive. i don't see what he could possibly be charged with.

you're allowed to disagree - that's what a trial is for. until then, statements of his guilt that may lead to financial consequences should be avoided, as they may lead to legal liability.

i want you to look up the video for "hit me baby one more time". she was seventeen 16 at the time.

this is "normal" across media. it's a part of the culture. you can argue it's gross, and i'd largely agree with you. but criminalizing this would have some pretty severe consequences.

Pink guy
+deathtokoalas Keep in mind, these were FANS that Austin manipulated and harrassed until they complied

deathtokoalas
+Pink guy he's not in any kind of position of authority or influence over them. and, even if he was, there's no meaningful consequence of asking somebody to dance on camera.

Pink guy
+deathtokoalas These girls idolized him, so of course they would keep talking to him. There was also a video where he was "I'm horny all the time and if we keep talking i'm probably gonna ask for a video", Austin admitted he used it for sexual reasons.

But this whole argument is pointless, so have a nice day <3

deathtokoalas
+Pink guy you're trying to tap into a legal argument that has to do with coercion. if you have a boss or a teacher, they may be able to coerce you into behaviour you don't really want in return for awards or to prevent consequences - like getting fired or failing a course. that's a well-tested legal argument, and i agree with the basis of it. people in authority should not use their authority to coerce people.

this argument has been extrapolated by some legal arguments to try and include the effects that celebrities may have on people. it's kind of scary to consider the ramifications of celebrity worship on such a deep level. but, it's a hail mary legal argument that doesn't usually work.

judges don't always base their decisions strictly on logic. sometimes, they look at a situation and say "this person has a lot, and this person has very little. i'm going to redistribute the wealth a little.". those decisions are usually reversed on appeal, if the appeals are granted. but, that's the kind of situation where these arguments work.

if this kid was, like, bono, or something? paul mcartney? i just mean somebody with billions of dollars, literally. another place this might come up is with a working class person suing a multi-national company. with something like that, you might see an activist judge step in and redistribute the wealth a little, out of a feeling that the billionaire can part with a little cash.

but, that's not the situation, here. as far as i can tell, this guy lives in his mom's basement. and the idea that he had some kind of coercive authority over anybody at all is not going to stand up in court.

social critics are unpopular, by definition. they seek to hold up a mirror, not to win popularity contests. they reject admiration and revel in pariah status. they're often killed by angry mobs, die penniless and dejected or even take their own lives.

i know exactly what i'm doing. you just can't see beyond the flaws in the human model of homo economicus.

the level of nonsense surrounding this story is hard to cut through, but binney is basically correct in how he's describing the spy game - which leads to the logical conclusion that the germans also have spies in the us government. obviously.

i have no indication that the state department has clued into this. but my hypothesis on what's going on is that snowden (and probably a few people involved with wikileaks) is the obvious spy connected to that clearly existing german intelligence network.

i think that what's happening here is a controlled leak by the germans (without american knowledge or approval) to create a crisis with the goal of reducing american influence in germany, and western continental europe generally.

which answers the question as to why they're spying in the first place.