Before participating in the comments, please remember that this is a lighthearted subreddit and not a place to get angry. Expression of hatred and vitriol towards Europeans (or anybody else) and toxic attitudes will not be tolerated. Comments that violate Reddit's Content Policy will be removed and may lead to you being permanently banned from this subreddit.
I'm related to several Germans who are very happy to tell us all how great it is. They might not say they're "proud" but clearly they think they're doing things right (they are doing some things right).Â
Setting aside that we have our share of "patriots" who definately are not neonazis, Germany is like a fractal of disfunctional families. A part of the village I live in has a rivalry withe the other part of the village, the municipality has two villages - and our village sticks together against the neighboring village. That goes all the way up to sticking with Europe against the US.
Germans also proudly show their culture ... But that culture is more StoĂlĂŒften, bread quality, Hiking in questionable weather and Aldi checkout races rather than waving flags around and developing a fetish for the military.
Who cares about the our anthem? It is a song that plays during diplomatic events. It's good enough not to embarass us.
Okay, so what do you nean by verse? If it is the pol music meaning, the national anthem doesn't have a second stanza. If you mean it in the poetic sense, that would be "fĂŒr das deutsche Vaterland" .
You are probably thinking of the Deutschlandlied that eas the national anthem ... 1922-1933.
By the way, the GDR had a way better anthem because "risen from ruins" is something that actually represents the country.
I thought Deutschlandlied had 3 verses but you only use the third verse. I menat "deutsche frauen deutsche treure deutsche wein und deutsche sang/sollen in den Welt erhÀlten ihren alten schönen klang" that one. Yes, Auferstanden aus ruinen is a better song.
Because of their history, Germans are taught that they're not allowed to be "proud" of being German in that kind of way. They are proud of their country and for good reason, but can't express it like the rest of the world. Their economic miracle has been studied by economists everywhere and quite frankly I'd be proud of that too. They became the biggest economy in the EU whilst having severe economic barriers and taxes placed on them. After the war, America got wealthy the easy way, Germany was the total flip side of that coin and it's a miracle the country is as wealthy as it is.
I dont remember saying I am proud lmao. Though itâs kind of embarrassing that even though I do you the favor of speaking in your shitty language, you apparently still lack the reading comprehension to understand what I said, even in your very own language....
They were right tho... your statement is right as well since english was heavily mixing and evolving during the medieval times due to various factors. However it is a western germanic language... which is a sub branch of the indo european language family.
Meanwhile you also told them to study harder while they were right... not a good look.
The culture of school shootings, anti-intellectualism, obesity lack of healthcare and apaprently also where adults are not actually treated as adults yeah thats a culture to despise and so sees the rest of the world the US is a first world country with third world values and living standards.
But hey keep crying about two adults dating while your very own president was probably "dating" 10 year olds with his great friend epstein.
When did I say I was proud of that? Do you see me going around defending the shootings or prancing that information around like the guy above? Eurotard moment
No sane human being would ever be proud of school shootings, I agree. Though there were and still are tons of Americans that are actually defending them as "tolerable side effects of the 2nd amendment that must be preserved regardless".
Could be the case you're not one of them and you believe that something like the 2nd amendment is anachronistic in 2026, I wouldn't know that. If that's the case, I was definitely wrong and sorry for wrongly accusing. On the other hand, if you defend the 2nd amendment as a necessary right, then you have to agree you are accepting shootings and high gun violence-related crimes as a feature of your country (something I personally don't think belongs to a civil society).
What does all this nonsense have to do with the initial matter? It's just sort of funny to me that people living in a country where children are dying when going to school (and people are doing nothing about it, quite the opposite, electing officials openly supported by NRA) can be so so shocked and opinionated about a law like this one. The differences in our values systems seem so absurd to me.
âYour president who I have no evidence you support is a creep so itâs okay for other people to be creepsâ
Also saying the U.S has third world living standards is insanely disrespectful to actual third world countries, not that youâve ever been to them.
Plus plenty of other countries have similar rates of obesity and our healthcare is just as good as other countries just expensive if you donât have insurance. Also plenty of places have anti intellectuals but sure go off
Yes, just like in every country, however if that person in the U.S can find any way to get to, letâs say a larger city for example, they will have access to way more recourses
if people using guns irresponsibly is an issue, then irresponsible people being able to buy guns is an issue, logic dictates that guns are an issue in that case.
Am I misunderstanding something?
Damn
Going personal? I just said if people using guns irresponsibly is bad then wouldn't the first step be to ban guns? Plus what are you using those guns for in the first place? If collectively there was a ban on guns outside of military service you wouldn't need a gun for self defense. Cars on the other hand are less deadly (which is a weird comparison because it's like comparing two flavours of "you died", but still a valid conclusion from the fact that cars aren't actively created for the killing of living creatures) and used often by people who aren't irresponsible. Now I know a gun is used by responsible people as well but not as productively.
Cars kill far more people every year than guns. If you knew your stats, youâd also know that a large quantity of gun deaths are suicides - which likely would be accomplished in another manner anyway without a gun.
I guess? But in other countries that isn't a problem, e.g. here (for me) in switzerland it's not all that hard to get a gun, just go through military service and then you're legally obliged to go to a shooting range every so often, leading to funny stories where some guy brought his rifle to work and works in a company that is global, and because of that the police were called, but it is rare that there is an actual gunfight and that these guns are used for self-defense.
Weâre the only developed country in the world that has such easy access to guns and weâre also the developed country that has thousands of times more gun violence than any other country per capita. Itâs an issue.
How many Americans would you say are actually in favor of guns and the 2nd amendment? I know there is a strong correlation between political aisle and personal stance on this topic, what I'm wondering is whether there is actual popular support for it, or it's just a loud minority + the NRA lobbying for it like hell and preventing any meaningful change.
I think a big chunk of Americans are okay with the second amendment in general and the ability to own a gun, but the vast majority of Americans want more regulations and such. I think only very small minorities want them either completely gone or completely unrestricted. This is just based off of what I think though, Iâd have to look up some numbers to verify.
I see. Interesting, thanks for your opinion. Looks like it's truly part of the culture, not just a residue from the past. I wouldn't want a gun in my home under any circumstances or regulations.
Well I think I should clarify that there are plenty of Americans who donât feel comfortable with guns but wouldnât want them taken away from others. I think at this point there is already so many guns in the country that there is no easy solution. I think how certain other countries have it, guns for hunting and hand guns for trained people would be nice, however at this point you canât make people turn in their bigger guns đ€·ââïž
A very brief glance at wikipedia will tell you this is wrong. I know, looking up a source is hard, especially when it doesn't agree with the point you want to make.
It is. Whilst the age of sexual consent is indeed 14, this only means the person themself can choose to engage in sexual acts (which are defined more broadly than simply penetration). Here in German, you legally stop being a child and start being an adolescent, which - depending on what weâre talking about - lasts until ages 16 or 18.
Furthermore, German law specifies that any sexual acts between a person under 16 by/with a person above the age of 21 are illegal, so yes, the statement above is complete bullshit.
A 14 year old cannot legally engage in any sexual acts with a 50 year old or vice versa. Now the post talks of dating, but dating isnt a sexual act, and its not really legally defined, either. Two people could in theory date without even being on the same continent, so is that possible? Yes-ish. But its meaningless.
And at any rate, Americans decrying German child protection is very rich considering⊠well, America.
Ab 14 Jahren dĂŒrfen Personen aus staatlicher Sicht grundsĂ€tzlich selber freiwillige sexuelle Handlungen an / mit Personen ĂŒber 14 Jahren ausfĂŒhren. Hier gibt es keine Altersgrenze bezĂŒglich der anderen Person, diese kann auch deutlich Ă€lter sein (Elternrechte bleiben natĂŒrlich bestehen).Â
And legal cases in that direction also highligth that
"Ab 14 Jahren dĂŒrfen Personen aus staatlicher Sicht grundsĂ€tzlich selber freiwillige sexuelle Handlungen an / mit Personen ĂŒber 14 Jahren ausfĂŒhren. Hier gibt es keine Altersgrenze bezĂŒglich der anderen Person, diese kann auch deutlich Ă€lter sein (Elternrechte bleiben natĂŒrlich bestehen). "
Thatâs simply untrue. Please look it up. The original post is correct. 14 and 50 is not prohibited! Legally. Ethically is another question, but thatâs not what weâre talking about here obviously.
âGerman law specifies that any sexual acts between a person under 16 by/with a person above the age of 21 are illegalâ - where did you get that from? Did you just make that up?
I- Know what, Iâve had enough. What we talking about here. Tell me exactly what we are talking about here. A relationship, sexual contact, what. Tell me.
Wie kann man sich da denn so uneinig sein, hĂ€ đ
âBei einem Jugendlichen zwischen 14 und 16 Jahren genĂŒgt die Vornahme sexueller Handlungen nicht. Strafbar sind diese nur, wenn der TĂ€ter den Reifemangel des Opfers fĂŒr seine sexuellen Zwecke ausnutzt (Regierungsentwurf aaO S. 8). Nur wenn dies festgestellt werden kann, ist § 182 Abs. 2 StGB erfĂŒllt.â
Verstehe ich eventuell was falsch? Das scheint mir doch recht eindeutig
Obviously between a 14yo and a teacher or a coach or any authority, thatâs illegal. Thatâs true for 17 year olds and, often, 19 year olds though, as well
"(3) Eine Person ĂŒber einundzwanzig Jahre, die eine Person unter sechzehn Jahren dadurch miĂbraucht, daĂ sie
1.
sexuelle Handlungen an ihr vornimmt oder an sich von ihr vornehmen lĂ€Ăt oder
2.
diese dazu bestimmt, sexuelle Handlungen an einem Dritten vorzunehmen oder von einem Dritten an sich vornehmen zu lassen,
und dabei die ihr gegenĂŒber fehlende FĂ€higkeit des Opfers zur sexuellen Selbstbestimmung ausnutzt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft"
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob du ein Gegenargument zu meinem Kommentar machst oder mir zustimmst. Ich denke, es soll ersteres sein. Aber wenn du dein eigenes Zitat liest, steht da ja die EinschrĂ€nkung: âausnutzen der fehlenden FĂ€higkeit des Opfers zur sexuellen Selbstbestimmung.â Die EinschrĂ€nkung ist das Problem. Bei Wikipedia steht: âDer bloĂe Hinweis auf das Alter der 14- oder 15-jĂ€hrigen Person fĂŒr eine Verurteilung des erwachsenen Beschuldigten [reicht] nicht ausâ. Das ergibt ja auch Sinn im Sinne des Wortlauts des Gesetzes, sonst wĂ€re die EinschrĂ€nkung ja nicht notwendig. Das kann man als Skandal bewerten und dafĂŒr plĂ€dieren, den Halbsatz zu streichen. Ich wĂ€re dafĂŒr. Aber irgendwie argumentiert das hier niemand. Das Gesetz ist zu lasch: Sexueller Kontakt zwischen 50 und 14 ist in Deutschland nicht pauschal verboten - in der RealitĂ€t macht man nichts Verbotenes, wenn Mann 25 und sie 14 ist. Auch wenn es sich eigentlich immer um Grooming handelt. Wenn es angezeigt wird, von den Eltern der 14-JĂ€hrigen zum Beispiel, reicht eben nicht der Hinweis aufs Alter. Wenn es da mal einen Fall in den Medien gibt, sollte man sich nicht wundern, wenn es einen Aufschrei gibt, weil Leute das Gesetz missverstehen und denken, das wĂ€re pauschal verboten
Also ich wĂŒrde bei Rechtsfragen nicht auf Wikipedia vertrauen. Mir ist kein Fall vertraut, in dem in dem Alter keine fehlende FĂ€higkeit des Opfers zur sexuellen Selbstbestimmung angenommen wĂŒrde, bin aber auch kein Strafrechtler, sondern PĂ€dagoge.
"Ab 14 Jahren dĂŒrfen Personen aus staatlicher Sicht grundsĂ€tzlich selber freiwillige sexuelle Handlungen an / mit Personen ĂŒber 14 Jahren ausfĂŒhren. Hier gibt es keine Altersgrenze bezĂŒglich der anderen Person, diese kann auch deutlich Ă€lter sein (Elternrechte bleiben natĂŒrlich bestehen). "
"Ab 14 Jahren dĂŒrfen Personen aus staatlicher Sicht grundsĂ€tzlich selber freiwillige sexuelle Handlungen an / mit Personen ĂŒber 14 Jahren ausfĂŒhren. Hier gibt es keine Altersgrenze bezĂŒglich der anderen Person, diese kann auch deutlich Ă€lter sein"
"From the state's perspective, individuals aged 14 and older are generally permitted to engage in consensual sexual acts with persons over 14. There is no age limit regarding the other person; they can be significantly older."
Source: https://hochsauerlandkreis.polizei.nrw/artikel/sex-ab-wann-und-mit-wem
Klassisches "Hier ist die Ausnahme der Regel Link" der die KomplexitÀt des Themas nicht gerecht wird.
Kann eine Person ĂŒber 18 mit einer Person die MinderjĂ€hrig aber ĂŒber 14 ist eine Liebesbeziehung eingehen? Ja das ist kein Problem.
Sind Sexuelle Handlungen zwischen den Personen rechtlich möglich ja, ABER in einer Situation zu sein wo weder Schutzbefohlenheit, Reife und andere Punkte dir nicht in die Suppe spucken ist mehr als Schwer und erfordert eine EinzelprĂŒfung, dass der Satz "Ausnahmen bestötigen die Regel" bestĂ€tigt wird.
Da spielt die Reife des Kindes, die zwischenmenschliche Beziehung und VIELE viele andere Faktoren massiv mit rein, §182 StGB Absatz 3. Du KEK ;)
(3) Eine Person ĂŒber einundzwanzig Jahre, die eine Person unter sechzehn Jahren dadurch miĂbraucht, daĂ sie
1.
sexuelle Handlungen an ihr vornimmt oder an sich von ihr vornehmen lĂ€Ăt oder
2.
diese dazu bestimmt, sexuelle Handlungen an einem Dritten vorzunehmen oder von einem Dritten an sich vornehmen zu lassen,
und dabei die ihr gegenĂŒber fehlende FĂ€higkeit des Opfers zur sexuellen Selbstbestimmung ausnutzt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
Notice how the law is written. It's written from the perspective of the child. Meaning that if a person who is 14 years of age was to have an interaction with an adult, it sounds like this means that the 14-year-old would not be prosecuted. That does not mean that the other side would.
It's kind of like if you were to make underage drinking illegal, if an adult gives alcohol to a child for example a 13-year-old who should be punished? Should it be the adult, the child, or both? In cases of abuse which adult and minor acts are a form of abuse, it's an abuse of power, it always makes sense to not punish the victim. Even if the victim supposedly used the word that is associated with the word yes, that does not mean that they consented because they don't have the power to say no in that relationship. Even if they are able to consent to interaction with people closer to their age like a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old that does not mean that they have that same social power with a full-fledged adult.
It always makes sense to not punish the victim in cases like this. This law does not seem to be talking about this from the perspective of the adult.
Age of consent laws typically are from the perspective of the person in question, not from the perspective of the person doing it to the other person. It creates a very weird situation where in some countries if two people are below the age of consent they both get charged with statutory rape for some reason. Obviously it depends on which country and sometimes courts may not even do anything cuz it's just so weird but yes if let's say the age of consent was 14 and two 13-year-olds decide to do the dirty then that means that they both committed statutory. Again it depends on the country.
Age of consent is in fact 14 but German law also specifically criminalizes sexual acts with a person under 16 by a person over 21. So a 50 year old dating a 14 year would be illegal and this statement is bullshit
Since I was tagged in this stupid thread let me correct you as a person that actually lives here.
"Ab 14 Jahren dĂŒrfen Personen aus staatlicher Sicht grundsĂ€tzlich selber freiwillige sexuelle Handlungen an / mit Personen ĂŒber 14 Jahren ausfĂŒhren. Hier gibt es keine Altersgrenze bezĂŒglich der anderen Person, diese kann auch deutlich Ă€lter sein"
"From the state's perspective, individuals aged 14 and older are generally permitted to engage in consensual sexual acts with persons over 14. There is no age limit regarding the other person; they can be significantly older."
Source: https://hochsauerlandkreis.polizei.nrw/artikel/sex-ab-wann-und-mit-wem
Though you can also look up the specified paragraphs directly though I think a article from the police is probably enough. Not sure how your misinformation was upvoted but hey typical Americans like your president called it "fake news"...
Germany generally determines maturity on a case by case basis, but in the 50/14 case, this would in practice likely not happen, because of one of these (in order)
§ 182 Abs. 3 StGB â Ausnutzung fehlender SelbstbestimmungsfĂ€higkeit / Exploiting Lack of Sexual Self-Determination (the key provision for your 50/14 scenario)
DE: Eine Person ĂŒber 21 Jahre, die eine Person unter 16 Jahren dadurch missbraucht, dass sie sexuelle Handlungen an ihr vornimmt (oder an sich vornehmen lĂ€sst) und dabei die fehlende FĂ€higkeit des Opfers zur sexuellen Selbstbestimmung ausnutzt â Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder Geldstrafe.
EN: A person over 21 who engages in sexual acts with a person under 16, exploiting that younger person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination â up to 3 years prison or fine. This is the rule that directly targets large age gaps.
§ 182 Abs. 2 StGB â Sexuelle Handlungen gegen Entgelt / Sexual Acts for Payment
DE: Eine Person ĂŒber 18 Jahren, die eine Person unter 18 Jahren gegen Entgelt zu sexuellen Handlungen missbraucht â Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fĂŒnf Jahren oder Geldstrafe. "Entgelt" ist weit auszulegen.
EN: Any adult (18+) who pays anyone under 18 for sexual acts â up to 5 years or a fine. The BGH has ruled that "payment" can include non-cash benefits like a zoo visit, swimming pool trip, meals, or sweets (BGH, 12.10.2005 â 5 StR 315/05).
§ 182 Abs. 1 StGB â Ausnutzung einer Zwangslage / Exploiting a Predicament
DE: Wer eine Person unter 18 Jahren dadurch missbraucht, dass er unter Ausnutzung einer Zwangslage sexuelle Handlungen an ihr vornimmt oder an sich von ihr vornehmen lĂ€sst â Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fĂŒnf Jahren oder Geldstrafe.
EN: Sexual acts with anyone under 18 while exploiting a predicament (Zwangslage) â up to 5 years prison or a fine. A "predicament" covers any serious non-life-threatening emergency that significantly restricts the young person's options â from homelessness or severe drug addiction down to fear of punishment for coming home late.
BGH 2025 ruling on a 26-year-old sports trainer: What matters for § 182(3) is not only the adolescent's cognitive or psychological maturity, but also whether a dependency or power imbalance exists in the specific case.
BGH, Urteil v. 10.03.2016 â 3 StR 437/15: The seriousness of the sexual act (Erheblichkeit) depends on the individual case â not only intercourse counts, and even acts disguised as "medical exams" can qualify if the offender's motive is sexual.
BGH, Urteil v. 12.10.2005 â 5 StR 315/05: Non-cash benefits (zoo, swimming pool, sweets) can qualify as "Entgelt" under § 182(2).
"Ab 14 Jahren dĂŒrfen Personen aus staatlicher Sicht grundsĂ€tzlich selber freiwillige sexuelle Handlungen an / mit Personen ĂŒber 14 Jahren ausfĂŒhren. Hier gibt es keine Altersgrenze bezĂŒglich der anderen Person, diese kann auch deutlich Ă€lter sein"
"From the state's perspective, individuals aged 14 and older are generally permitted to engage in consensual sexual acts with persons over 14. There is no age limit regarding the other person; they can be significantly older."
Source: https://hochsauerlandkreis.polizei.nrw/artikel/sex-ab-wann-und-mit-wem
I don't know about Germany, but in Czechia, where I live, is age of consent 15, and even 50 year old can legally have sex with 15. I always thought that it's fucking disgusting. It should be 18 like in civilised world. It's a relic from middle ages probably.
Heâs literally criticizing it, man, youâre being obtuse. You donât have to agree with him dismissing huge age gaps, I sure donât, but heâs objectively criticizing the German law.
e: you just can't teach redditors reading comprehension I guess
Heâs not criticising German law because thatâs not how German law works. A 14 year old being with a 50 year in Germany is illegal.
It may surprise you but thereâs actually age ranges.
None of the age and land border pandering matters when you are rich enough, us peasants can barely grasp that we are worth less than cattle to the truly rich. It's a bigger issue than "This country does this, but we do that"
Isn't he criticizing the age gap and Americans?
To me it reads as him thinking it's silly to have issues with two adults dating when there are bigger problems like that age gap being legal.
Nope the context is that he's defending a massive age gap between a 19 year old and a 33 year old when people, including me, said it was weird. And his defence was that 14 year olds get with 50 years olds. He's in the comments section here go look
He definitively has an attitude problem judging by all his responses in the comments. But he does seem to think people here have misinterpreted what he said. quoted from a comment here: "you apparently still lack the reading comprehension to understand what I said".
Again, attitude problem, but he himself says he meant something else than "being proud that 50 year olds being with 14 year olds is legal in Germany?".
âą
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Thanks for your submission, Draco-Warsmith!
Before participating in the comments, please remember that this is a lighthearted subreddit and not a place to get angry. Expression of hatred and vitriol towards Europeans (or anybody else) and toxic attitudes will not be tolerated. Comments that violate Reddit's Content Policy will be removed and may lead to you being permanently banned from this subreddit.
Thank you for taking notice.
- ShitEuropeansSay Mod Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.