you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 137 points 10 months ago (25 children)

Holy shit they're actually doing the hebophile bit

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    TIL hebophile and ephebophile, two words I didn’t want to know existed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    The best explanation I have seen was that it's like death metal sure there's varying types and styles within death metal but at the end of the day the only ones who really care about those distinctions are death metal fans.

    (My apology to any death metal fan offended by the comparison)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    All sub categories of reprehensible creep

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think a 20 year old dating a 17 year old falls into that category but it would fall under the legal definition you're referring to in many states. That's the problem with drawing arbitrary lines, you usually end up labeling some things incorrectly. That doesn't mean you get rid of the line but understanding the context is still important.

    That being said, there is no amount of context that will lessen the creepiness of a 50+ year old man serially preying upon 15 year old girls. That's disgusting and I find Megyn Kelly's invocation of this defense to be indefensible. She should be ashamed of herself if she were capable of feeling shame.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    Yeah of course a 20 year old dating a 17 year old is fine....we all know this isn't what they are talking about....it's disgusting people trying to justify someone old enough to be their parent or grandparent..

    Maryland has a system in place to protect teenagers...the age of consent is 16 (which if you're over 21, shame on you) but there's a 4 year sliding clause, so for example if your 17, a pissed parent cannot charge you for having relations with their 14 year old, if all was on the up and up.

    I'm in my 40s and anyone under 30 is too young.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    Being sexually attracted to 17 year old females makes someone a reprehensible creep?

    Most straight men probably fit into that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    17 year olds still tend to be physically less developed... But even if they're not, if you're more than a handful of years older than the 17 year old, having a sexual relationship with them is still exploitative since they're still mentally (both emotionally and reasoning abilities) immature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I agree.

    But being attracted to someone is distinct from having a sexual relationship with them. I can be attracted to a married person, a mentally ill or incompetent person, or even a minor. It's not necessarily wrong unless I engage with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (10 children)

    I mean it's kind of important to be more mindful about the choice of words in general as many people say pedophile but mean child predator.

    There are many people born with that attraction to kids that never act on it or even actively seek help.

    The whole "let's call everyone a pedophile" is doing more harm than good as it creates a huge stigma preventing people from looking for help.

    That said: they are 100% not caring about that at all and just moving the goalpost...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I do 100% agree that the concept of having hugely varied terms for pedophile, and say the term Minor attracted person, and get really sick of hearing people lash out on when the term MAP is used to say "You just want to protect pedophiles".

    No I want people who have the urge to abuse children, to get treatement and never act on it and live peaceful happy lives where they never harm an innocent person, and to me that is far better of an outcome than a child being abused, but supposedly it gets made up for by the abuser getting tortured in prison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I don't know. Can't we just stigmatize it to the point where their only recourse is to turn to faith and try to live a life of celibacy and denial? They can all become priests or something. That'll help them with the internalized guilt while they're at it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    If the person has never acted on it, then there isn't really anyway to know and he wouldn't be labeled with it.

    I guess we could be more accepting of people that just download pictures, but downloading those pictures is acting on it, and shows that they have trouble controlling it.

    I get your point, and that it isn't always their fault, but the link between both words seems very justified imo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    I've never heard the word hebophile and I bet a lot of people haven't either. Sometimes when unfamiliar words are introduced as part of a story or event, they become a central part of that story and forever linked to it. Maybe people should use it more regarding trump.

  • source
  • parent