Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift engaged!

[Anonymous]

Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a total media creation. She's basically a theater girl. She can't dance, she doesn't actually write all of her own music, she can't play instruments. She is a boring lanky creepy weirdo who chased teen boys when she was like 25 years old. Her entire life is fake. I doubt she even realizes what's real and what's fake at this point.

Yeah. I was shocked and grossed out when I learned she was dating a 17 yo while in her 20s.

She was so thirsty to be a Kennedy.

He was 18 and she was 22. Big deal.

DP. It is a big deal. Fresh out high school versus college or university. Plus males are still developing their brains so he was probably more like a 16 year old or younger.

We don’t bat an eye if guys do this. Jerry Seinfeld anyone? Anthony Keidis? Steven Tyler? Every rockstar that has ever lived and most actors and most wealthy men?

Taylor was probably very inexperienced and innocent at 22. The Kennedy boy probably had many girls by 17.

I have a lot of problems with Taylor but this seems silly.

A lot of us absolutely "bat an eye" when men do this. I don't think 22/18 is as bad as what the men you list did but I am not particularly persuaded by the argument that we should give a woman a pass for doing exploitative things men have been doing forever.

It also think it's interesting you assume Taylor was "inexperienced and innocent" at 22 (when she'd been an international pop star for 8 years) but that a teenage Kennedy must have "had many girls" at 17. First of all, even if the teenager was very sexually experienced, does that make it okay? If a teenage girl at 17 had a lot of sexual experiences, and then dated a famous musician in his 20s, would you think "oh, makes sense, she's so experienced"? I wouldn't, it would trouble me.

And second, I think you imputing the quality of innocence to the woman because of stereotypes about women, and the quality of knowledge/control to the teenage boy because of stereotypes about men. All so you can ignore the truth which is that she was more powerful than he was in that relationship, and he was not yet a man.

DP. Understand what you’re saying but I think you’re making the Kennedy boy seem a bit doe eyed. When I was 23, a family friend I knew was absolutely enamored with me and tried to pursue me. He is four years younger than I am. I was dating someone else, but I remember thinking about the age gap and not being too concerned about it. I was more concerned that I was more mature than he was and would be looking for something more serious than I was about corrupting him.

Makes it sound like this Kennedy boy was 12! I was a total emotional idiot at 22. Not much more mature than I was at 18

Nope, not making anyone sound "doe eyed" because I don't think it's necessary. I care about the power dynamics only. A teenager with a private life is less powerful/influential than a 20-something who is VERY famous. That's it. The teenager might be savvy for his age or have had all kinds of girlfriends. At least in this case he was from a wealthy, prominent family so that likely balanced the power a bit, but Taylor would still have the edge.

If the genders were reversed I would absolutely side eye some 22 year old male pop star dating an 18 yr girl. Even if she was rich and experienced and even if his public schtick was that he was "innocent". It's a power imbalance.

I believe an older female Kennedy family member introduced them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

Well he’s a Supreme Court Justice now, so, again, who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

When Taylor runs for SCOTUS you can bring it up - perhaps it will impact her nomination. Until then she’s just a popstar. Know the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

When Taylor runs for SCOTUS you can bring it up - perhaps it will impact her nomination. Until then she’s just a popstar. Know the difference.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Swiftie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

When Taylor runs for SCOTUS you can bring it up - perhaps it will impact her nomination. Until then she’s just a popstar. Know the difference.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Swiftie.

Says the person who ignores all the elephants in the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

When Taylor runs for SCOTUS you can bring it up - perhaps it will impact her nomination. Until then she’s just a popstar. Know the difference.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Swiftie.

You are comparing the SCOTUS hearing to Taylor dating Connor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

When Taylor runs for SCOTUS you can bring it up - perhaps it will impact her nomination. Until then she’s just a popstar. Know the difference.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Swiftie.

You are comparing the SCOTUS hearing to Taylor dating Connor?

PP is living in a fantasy world where somehow Taylor Swift is not qualified to be “pop star” when she is about the least problematic pop star to ever exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

When Taylor runs for SCOTUS you can bring it up - perhaps it will impact her nomination. Until then she’s just a popstar. Know the difference.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Swiftie.

You are comparing the SCOTUS hearing to Taylor dating Connor?

PP is living in a fantasy world where somehow Taylor Swift is not qualified to be “pop star” when she is about the least problematic pop star to ever exist.

You all are going crazy about this. No, some Swiftie brought up the SCOTUS thing. Taylor is a Pop star. Anyone can be qualified for that role. What is objectionable is when her fans get riled up because someone points out she has made mistakes and done exploitative things along the way. Of note, I didn’t call Taylor hypocritical, I said Swifties were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

When Taylor runs for SCOTUS you can bring it up - perhaps it will impact her nomination. Until then she’s just a popstar. Know the difference.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Swiftie.

You are comparing the SCOTUS hearing to Taylor dating Connor?

PP is living in a fantasy world where somehow Taylor Swift is not qualified to be “pop star” when she is about the least problematic pop star to ever exist.

You all are going crazy about this. No, some Swiftie brought up the SCOTUS thing. Taylor is a Pop star. Anyone can be qualified for that role. What is objectionable is when her fans get riled up because someone points out she has made mistakes and done exploitative things along the way. Of note, I didn’t call Taylor hypocritical, I said Swifties were.

We’ve all made mistakes but when you guys start talking about how she acts at a basketball game, you sound insane. I agree with other poster that she does amazing with her pop star celebrity platform and it seems like you guys fish to find something horrible about her and acting like she has nothing to do with her success sounds to us like you’re bitter, jealous and angry with your own life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a total media creation. She's basically a theater girl. She can't dance, she doesn't actually write all of her own music, she can't play instruments. She is a boring lanky creepy weirdo who chased teen boys when she was like 25 years old. Her entire life is fake. I doubt she even realizes what's real and what's fake at this point.

Yeah. I was shocked and grossed out when I learned she was dating a 17 yo while in her 20s.

She was so thirsty to be a Kennedy.

He was 18 and she was 22. Big deal.

DP. It is a big deal. Fresh out high school versus college or university. Plus males are still developing their brains so he was probably more like a 16 year old or younger.

We don’t bat an eye if guys do this. Jerry Seinfeld anyone? Anthony Keidis? Steven Tyler? Every rockstar that has ever lived and most actors and most wealthy men?

Taylor was probably very inexperienced and innocent at 22. The Kennedy boy probably had many girls by 17.

I have a lot of problems with Taylor but this seems silly.

A lot of us absolutely "bat an eye" when men do this. I don't think 22/18 is as bad as what the men you list did but I am not particularly persuaded by the argument that we should give a woman a pass for doing exploitative things men have been doing forever.

It also think it's interesting you assume Taylor was "inexperienced and innocent" at 22 (when she'd been an international pop star for 8 years) but that a teenage Kennedy must have "had many girls" at 17. First of all, even if the teenager was very sexually experienced, does that make it okay? If a teenage girl at 17 had a lot of sexual experiences, and then dated a famous musician in his 20s, would you think "oh, makes sense, she's so experienced"? I wouldn't, it would trouble me.

And second, I think you imputing the quality of innocence to the woman because of stereotypes about women, and the quality of knowledge/control to the teenage boy because of stereotypes about men. All so you can ignore the truth which is that she was more powerful than he was in that relationship, and he was not yet a man.

DP. Understand what you’re saying but I think you’re making the Kennedy boy seem a bit doe eyed. When I was 23, a family friend I knew was absolutely enamored with me and tried to pursue me. He is four years younger than I am. I was dating someone else, but I remember thinking about the age gap and not being too concerned about it. I was more concerned that I was more mature than he was and would be looking for something more serious than I was about corrupting him.

Makes it sound like this Kennedy boy was 12! I was a total emotional idiot at 22. Not much more mature than I was at 18

Nope, not making anyone sound "doe eyed" because I don't think it's necessary. I care about the power dynamics only. A teenager with a private life is less powerful/influential than a 20-something who is VERY famous. That's it. The teenager might be savvy for his age or have had all kinds of girlfriends. At least in this case he was from a wealthy, prominent family so that likely balanced the power a bit, but Taylor would still have the edge.

If the genders were reversed I would absolutely side eye some 22 year old male pop star dating an 18 yr girl. Even if she was rich and experienced and even if his public schtick was that he was "innocent". It's a power imbalance.

Can you link to your posts about the outrage you felt when John Mayer dated Taylor Swift? Thanks.

+1. And Jake G. who is 10 years older than her.

This is fake outrage. No one actually cares about this.

No one is outraged. Stating you think it is weird for an adult to date a high schooler and that it is objectively a bad idea isn’t “outrage”. The relationship, the way she bought a house nearby his family home doesn’t seem healthy. John M. Dating her also was objectively a bad idea. In both instances, there seems to be a power imbalance. That doesn’t make either own okay.

The human brain is not fully developed by the age of 22. John Mayer was 10 years older than that.

Like I said, that is not okay. It doesn’t vindicate Taylor from dating a high schooler after being out of high school for years or buying a house near his family while they were dating. John Mayer dating Taylor was a power imbalance. So was Taylor dating the Kennedy kid (I think his mom died just before also?).

Vindicate? Who’s asking for vindication? Seems to be only you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

When Taylor runs for SCOTUS you can bring it up - perhaps it will impact her nomination. Until then she’s just a popstar. Know the difference.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Swiftie.

You are comparing the SCOTUS hearing to Taylor dating Connor?

PP is living in a fantasy world where somehow Taylor Swift is not qualified to be “pop star” when she is about the least problematic pop star to ever exist.

You all are going crazy about this. No, some Swiftie brought up the SCOTUS thing. Taylor is a Pop star. Anyone can be qualified for that role. What is objectionable is when her fans get riled up because someone points out she has made mistakes and done exploitative things along the way. Of note, I didn’t call Taylor hypocritical, I said Swifties were.

Why in the world do you care about her fans? You’re more obsessed with “Swifties” than they are with Taylor. This is deeply embarassing behavior for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people not realize this happened like 15 years ago?

Really don’t get what this has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Travis and Taylor’s engagement.

So what? A SCOTUS nominee allegedly sexual harassing a woman 40 years ago was the top story on the news for weeks on end and derailed his name and reputation.

When Taylor runs for SCOTUS you can bring it up - perhaps it will impact her nomination. Until then she’s just a popstar. Know the difference.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Swiftie.

You are comparing the SCOTUS hearing to Taylor dating Connor?

PP is living in a fantasy world where somehow Taylor Swift is not qualified to be “pop star” when she is about the least problematic pop star to ever exist.

You all are going crazy about this. No, some Swiftie brought up the SCOTUS thing. Taylor is a Pop star. Anyone can be qualified for that role. What is objectionable is when her fans get riled up because someone points out she has made mistakes and done exploitative things along the way. Of note, I didn’t call Taylor hypocritical, I said Swifties were.

Why in the world do you care about her fans? You’re more obsessed with “Swifties” than they are with Taylor. This is deeply embarassing behavior for you.

plus a million. She’s way more obsessed than Taylor fans. It’s the oddest behavior

[Anonymous]

Taylor was ahead of her time. It’s definitely a trend for older women to date younger guys.

No biggie.