I'll call you a pedophile to your face for sex with an 18-year-old just to make you argue for legality in public
chapotraphouse
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
I guess if you're eighteen and they're seventeen, then sure? But also if you're in college it'd be kinda weird to be with a high school student like that. Maybe on some technicality, but let's err on the side of don't do that.
i'm gonna be a junior in college next semester and couldn't even see myself getting with a freshman..meanwhile every other old married couple i know seems like they met at like 16 and 24??
insane to me how age gaps like that were morally acceptable back then yet being gay or bi somehow made you the spawn of satan
With the finite time one has on this planet, I can't imagine spending any of it correcting someone on the technical definition of harm to a minor.
We need to add an asterisk to the Sartre quote:
Never believe that [right-wingers] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words*.
* With the exception of 'pedophile'. For some reason they take that one REAL seriously
Sartre isn't the best guy to quote when the topic is pedophilia
The context of this tweet makes it even worse. The tweet you posted is part of a tweet thread where Peter tries to argue that Epstein was not a pedophile.
Also gonna hit him on the semantic part here because why not but I remember seeing a documentary a long time ago about a rural village in an impoverished nation where girls were constantly developing incontinence issues and other long-term injuries because they were often giving birth at 14-15 and some anglo documentarian was saying how even waiting until they were 16 would have greatly reduced these rates because their bodies were too small and undeveloped ( ). So no Peter, 14-17 is not fucking "developed sexually"
Even without seeing that my first guess was dead on: they think it's a vice, like just a little crime that special good boy rich white patriarchs can do as a treat, and are very, very invested in insisting that it's not disordered and it doesn't make them other and weird. Crimes against people they see as beneath them are just fun little treats that rich guys get to do as long as they don't piss off the wrong people, but having something wrong with them? The very notion of it is deeply offensive to their fragile little egos.
If you feel the need to point out the difference between pedophilia and hebephilia you're probably a pedophile.
If you do it because you just confessed to being a hebephile, you're definitely a pedophile.
Teens are kids, you can't change my mind.
I'd say it's wild how reactionaries are so insistent on trying to draw a line between pedophilia (the predatory crime) and pedophilia (the disorder), but it really makes perfect sense: they revel in hurting others, they revel in having power over others and abusing that power, and they don't care about consent in the first place, but they will be absolutely livid if you suggest there's something wrong with them that makes them weird and bad.
There's also the extreme normalization of teenage girls as "acceptable" targets for adult men that all these fascists grew up immersed in, and which realistically has only started breaking down bit by bit in the past 20-30 years. To them preying on teenage girls is a socially acceptable vice like day drinking or doing rich guy drugs, because the world revolves around their own libertine treat lust and they perceive themselves as the sole arbiters of what is "normal", which makes them confused and angry when someone starts telling them that preying on their choice victims is not only bad but it makes them weird and other. It's one big mess of misogyny and libertine sociopathy and toxic masculine posturing/fragility.