Board 8 > POLL: Do you consider a mid-30s person attracted to 13-year-olds a pedo?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Let's see if most people agree with Lasa and TheRock1525 on this one.
---

Goku vs superman

DEATHMATCH
---

I think you're confused here so I'll clarify here: 13 is still pedophilia.
---

Depends on what style of animation she's drawn in.
---

is this one of those traps where pedophilia is attraction to prepubescents while 13 year olds are assuredly going through puberty so it's a different philia instead?
---

I think it technically crosses over into some other term (ephebophilia?) somewhere around that age, but it is close enough that I don't feel a need to split hairs (or research the difference)

Furthermore, ew.
---

wikipedia tells me that pedophilia is up to 10

hebephilia is 11-14

and ephebophilia is 15-19

so yeah I guess on technicality it's a no to the topic question
---

What Tom said. Regardless, it's a bad attraction to have since you need to not act on it, not just legally but morally.
---

If you're attracted to anime snake girls is it hebiphilia?
---

I'll say the same thing I said before

If somebody feels the need to get hung up on the distinction and argue until they're blue in the face that "You can't call so-and-so a pedophile because the kid's 11," that's a really stupid hill to die on.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I think you're confused here so I'll clarify here: 13 is still pedophilia.

TheRock1525 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

obviously "ages 15-19" is a rough approximation. if an adult guy is attracted to a girl who is 14 but looks 16 he'd probably qualify as an ephebophile, even if he's technically a pedophile.

Pedophilia stops at 13.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/76203895/894161463
---

Yeah you do realize that saying something stops at a certain place can also include that place, right? And I cleared it up earlier in the topic anyway so if you're confused at all, it's clear as day.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

If somebody feels the need to get hung up on the distinction and argue until they're blue in the face that "You can't call so-and-so a pedophile because the kid's 11," that's a really stupid hill to die on.

you're one to accuse people of arguing until they're blue in the face about stupid shit.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

If somebody feels the need to get hung up on the distinction and argue until they're blue in the face that "You can't call so-and-so a pedophile because the kid's 11," that's a really stupid hill to die on.

you're one to accuse people of arguing until they're blue in the face about stupid shit.

Mreow!
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

If somebody feels the need to get hung up on the distinction and argue until they're blue in the face that "You can't call so-and-so a pedophile because the kid's 11," that's a really stupid hill to die on.

you're one to accuse people of arguing until they're blue in the face about stupid shit.

I'd say there's a difference between arguing over stupid shit in general, which we all do, and arguing over something that damn near makes it look like you're trying to defend somebody or say they're somehow less creepy because they're "not technically a pedophile." Like, that may not be your intention, but it certainly looks that way when you do it.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

For those playing the home game: Rock has been defending being attracted to 14 year olds multiple times. The guy has serious issues.

Rock doesn't do this, he just gets caught up in semantic quibbles. His consistent stance has been "It doesn't technically count as pedophilia but it's still just as disgusting/terrible"
---

From a conversational perspective yeah, he's a pedo. Being clinical about it, though, I believe it makes the person a hebephile.

From my 5 minutes of Google searching, a pedophile is under 10, hebephile is 11-14, ephebophile is 15-19.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I'd say there's a difference between arguing over stupid shit in general, which we all do, and arguing over something that damn near makes it look like you're trying to defend somebody or say they're somehow less creepy because they're "not technically a pedophile." Like, that may not be your intention, but it certainly looks that way when you do it.

who am i supposed to be defending?

in the topic vlado's referring to, vlado is defending roy moore until he's blue in the face, so you could make a more convincing argument about him defending pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia/whatever. i'm not defending anyone, i'm just making a theoretical argument about technicalities.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

For those playing the home game:

When I'm at home I socialize. Get a life, stop playing games.
---

wait I thought vlado defended roy more
---

Lets be real. Ulti and Vlado are the only people in this topic who actively defend molesting underaged kids.
---

the ((Globalists)) believe that a boy becomes a man at the age of 13, lasa and rock have just been tricked into believing their propaganda
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

I'd say there's a difference between arguing over stupid shit in general, which we all do, and arguing over something that damn near makes it look like you're trying to defend somebody or say they're somehow less creepy because they're "not technically a pedophile." Like, that may not be your intention, but it certainly looks that way when you do it.

who am i supposed to be defending?

in the topic vlado's referring to, vlado is defending roy moore until he's blue in the face, so you could make a more convincing argument about him defending pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia/whatever. i'm not defending anyone, i'm just making a theoretical argument about technicalities.

To be fair, I have no idea where this even came up this time, which is why my reply was a vague "I'll say what I said before."

I can't imagine Vlado himself called Moore a pedophile, though, so I'm curious where this technicality even came up.
---

Espeon posted...

Lets be real. Ulti and Vlado are the only people in this topic who actively defend molesting underaged kids.

that's not fair. They theoretically believe he really didn't molest any kids. They're obviously dumb and wrong, but not actual defenders of pedophilia.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

wait I thought vlado defended roy more

I don't think he could defend him much more than he already has, honestly.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I can't imagine Vlado himself called Moore a pedophile, though, so I'm curious where this technicality even came up.

vlado was calling joel kramer a pedophile. roy moore came up later.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Espeon posted...

Lets be real. Ulti and Vlado are the only people in this topic who actively defend molesting underaged kids.

that's not fair. They theoretically believe he really didn't molest any kids. They're obviously dumb and wrong, but not actual defenders of pedophilia.

Given the rhetoric and accusations theyve leveled against users in the past (and in this very topic), they no longer receive the benefit of the doubt. They only believe pedophilia is bad when a liberal does it, and even then, they dont care about the victim so much as they care about labeling their enemies as evil. Same as literally ANY time either one has pretended to give a shit about sexual assault.
---

Gatarix posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

For those playing the home game: Rock has been defending being attracted to 14 year olds multiple times. The guy has serious issues.

Rock doesn't do this, he just gets caught up in semantic quibbles. His consistent stance has been "It doesn't technically count as pedophilia but it's still just as disgusting/terrible"

It's important to distinguish the two because one is a biology issue (attraction to prepubescent girls) and one is a societal/cultural issue (she looks old enough to fuck so it's not big deal, my grandparents married when they were 14, etc.)

It's not just a semantics argument, there's a huge difference between the two. Both are super gross and I repeatedly argued Moore should be in jail for it (something that Ulti conveniently leaves out because it wouldn't fit his blatantly false narrative) since it's well below the age of consent in Alabama.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Gatarix posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

For those playing the home game: Rock has been defending being attracted to 14 year olds multiple times. The guy has serious issues.

Rock doesn't do this, he just gets caught up in semantic quibbles. His consistent stance has been "It doesn't technically count as pedophilia but it's still just as disgusting/terrible"

It's important to distinguish the two because one is a biology issue (attraction to prepubescent girls) and one is a societal/cultural issue (she looks old enough to fuck so it's not big deal, my grandparents married when they were 14, etc.)

It's not just a semantics argument, there's a huge difference between the two. Both are super gross and I repeatedly argued Moore should be in jail for it (something that Ulti conveniently leaves out because it wouldn't fit his blatantly false narrative) since it's well below the age of consent in Alabama.

The issue comes in that "she looks old enough to fuck" is not an objective thing, so just going by the age can very well just make it a semantics issue. Like, what if "old enough to fuck" is 16, but the person is 14 and looks 14?
---

Is this mid-30s person a Republican running for election?
---

HashtagSEP posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Gatarix posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

For those playing the home game: Rock has been defending being attracted to 14 year olds multiple times. The guy has serious issues.

Rock doesn't do this, he just gets caught up in semantic quibbles. His consistent stance has been "It doesn't technically count as pedophilia but it's still just as disgusting/terrible"

It's important to distinguish the two because one is a biology issue (attraction to prepubescent girls) and one is a societal/cultural issue (she looks old enough to fuck so it's not big deal, my grandparents married when they were 14, etc.)

It's not just a semantics argument, there's a huge difference between the two. Both are super gross and I repeatedly argued Moore should be in jail for it (something that Ulti conveniently leaves out because it wouldn't fit his blatantly false narrative) since it's well below the age of consent in Alabama.

The issue comes in that "she looks old enough to fuck" is not an objective thing, so just going by the age can very well just make it a semantics issue. Like, what if "old enough to fuck" is 16, but the person is 14 and looks 14?

No, because a 14 year old, even if she looks like a 14 year old, is gonna carry more adult features than a 10 year old.
---

Attaching numbers to any of this shit is dumb as balls. 13 is I would estimate, in 100% of cases too young for an adult to make sexual advances towards, but 14 is almost certainly too young, 15 might be, in some cases even 16.

People are more than numbers and for legal reasons, yes a number needs to be placed, but as a moral argument arbitrarily assigning a number that is ok is batshit insane.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

No, because a 14 year old, even if she looks like a 14 year old, is gonna carry more adult features than a 10 year old.

So then what's the difference between a 13 year old that looks like a 13 year old and a 14 year old that looks like a 14 year old? Or a 13 and a 12? Or an 11 and a 10?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

No, because a 14 year old, even if she looks like a 14 year old, is gonna carry more adult features than a 10 year old.

So then what's the difference between a 13 year old that looks like a 13 year old and a 14 year old that looks like a 14 year old? Or a 13 and a 12? Or an 11 and a 10?

Because 10-11 is the beginning of puberty for a woman, so picking right around the mid-point (13) makes sense. That's the societal factor that I keep mentioning. A high school senior dating an 8th grader would be viewed a lot differently than a high school senior dating a high school freshman.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

No, because a 14 year old, even if she looks like a 14 year old, is gonna carry more adult features than a 10 year old.

So then what's the difference between a 13 year old that looks like a 13 year old and a 14 year old that looks like a 14 year old? Or a 13 and a 12? Or an 11 and a 10?

Because 10-11 is the beginning of puberty for a woman, so picking right around the mid-point (13) makes sense. That's the societal factor that I keep mentioning. A high school senior dating an 8th grader would be viewed a lot differently than a high school senior dating a high school freshman.

So then what's the difference between a 14 year old who looks like they're 13-14 and a 13 year old who looks like they're 15 other than the arbitrary number?

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. I'm just saying there are definitely times when the distinction just comes down to semantics.
---

Who decides what a "13 year-old" looks like?
---

13-year-olds
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

13-year-olds

Don't be silly, they're not mature enough to do that.
---

Biology
It isn't really mature enough to make good decisions either, despite its age.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

No, because a 14 year old, even if she looks like a 14 year old, is gonna carry more adult features than a 10 year old.

So then what's the difference between a 13 year old that looks like a 13 year old and a 14 year old that looks like a 14 year old? Or a 13 and a 12? Or an 11 and a 10?

Because 10-11 is the beginning of puberty for a woman, so picking right around the mid-point (13) makes sense. That's the societal factor that I keep mentioning. A high school senior dating an 8th grader would be viewed a lot differently than a high school senior dating a high school freshman.

So then what's the difference between a 14 year old who looks like they're 13-14 and a 13 year old who looks like they're 15 other than the arbitrary number?

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. I'm just saying there are definitely times when the distinction just comes down to semantics.

Because for morality and more importantly law, you generally have to draw a line somewhere. Do you really believe an 18 year having sex with a 14 year should be treated the same as an 18 year old having sex with a 10 year old? You can find both instances reprehensible, but for wildly different reasons.
---

I find 18 year olds reprehensible in general.
---

Terastodon posted...

Attaching numbers to any of this shit is dumb as balls. 13 is I would estimate, in 100% of cases too young for an adult to make sexual advances towards, but 14 is almost certainly too young, 15 might be, in some cases even 16.

People are more than numbers and for legal reasons, yes a number needs to be placed, but as a moral argument arbitrarily assigning a number that is ok is batshit insane.

To be clear, Rock's not putting a number on "This is when the person is okay to make sexual advances on." He's making a distinction of when somebody is a pedophile(attracted to people who specifically look prepubescent) and when somebody is a hebephile(attracted to adolescents).

My argument is basically that the distinction of putting a specific age between pedo/hebe is often times semantics and not really worth making, and just a general "That's creepy as fuck" response is best instead of trying to put a label on it.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Do you really believe an 18 year having sex with a 14 year should be treated the same as an 18 year old having sex with a 10 year old?

Yes.

And I certainly believe an 18/14 should be treated the same as an 18/13.
---

Now, were you to go with more details, such as

"The 14 year old very much looked older, had a fake ID, and lied and said they were 17, and the 10 year old very much hasn't started puberty yet," then that should weigh into things a little bit.

But an arbitrary number otherwise shouldn't be the deciding factor in if it's treated any differently if it's legally and morally wrong regardless. Once it's wrong, it's wrong, and specifics are important... Not yet another arbitrary number.
---

FFDragon posted...

and ephebophilia is 15-19

how does being attracted to 18 and 19 year olds warrant its own term?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

FFDragon posted...

and ephebophilia is 15-19

how does being attracted to 18 and 19 year olds warrant its own term?

It doesn't

Which is why he said 15-19

Context is a liiiittle bit important
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Yes.

Then you're not getting to the crux of the problem and you're not going to fix it.

Why is an 18 year old attracted to a 10 year old? Because he's a sick human being we need to either lock up from society if he acts or treat him before he can act.

Why is an 18 year old attracted to a 14 year old? Probably because she looks like a 16 year old. And society (more specifically down south but I witnessed in my hometown) tells them just to lay low until she's of age. It's not like that same person when he turns 20 and she turns 16 is suddenly gonna go "Nope, I'm actually a pedophile, I'm gonna go get me a 10 year old."
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Why is an 18 year old attracted to a 14 year old? Probably because she looks like a 16 year old

How can you be so sure on this enough to make this argument?
---

And like I said, just arbitrarily choosing 13 hurts your argument more than it helps it, since it could actually worsen the issue. What if an 18 year old is attracted to a 14 year old because she looks 10-12? Well, it's above 13, so you're just throwing him in with the the "society says just lay low" crowd. What if a 12 year old matured very rapidly and looks 16? Well, the guy must be sick in the head and a pedophile because it's below 13.

They're both wrong. Arbitrary distinction doesn't help.
---