Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
as a graphic designer, i try to remind fellow graphic designers that apart from circumstances and conversations specifically related to your craft, colloquial use is totally acceptable and that you shouldnāt be insisting on pointing out the difference between a font and a typeface, because no one cares and itās annoying as fuck.
not to mention everyone knows what people mean when they say āfontā so thereās no point in pedantic "ackshually"s. they just make you sound like a dick.
now thatās what i think about designers being pedantic about designer terms.
when people talk about pedophiles they clearly mean people who act on it; no one cares whatās in your heart or brain, thatās between you and your psychiatrist. itās not even a legal term so it doesnāt matter in ālife or deathā situations.
I know that thereās a difference between a pedophile and a hebephile. I know that the differences is that pedos are attracted to prepubescent kids and hebes are attracted to pubescent kids. There is a difference between the two.
That being said, thereās no way to say this online without sounding like someone who is attracted to kids.
Just to point out, colloquially you are wrong, and there is a colloquial use of the term pedophile. We are not discussing this in an academic setting and it also doesnāt change the content of this discussion to redefine terms to academic ones, so no need to change it. Everyone understands whatās being referenced here because it was specified as being a 14 year old in the OP.
What exactly is your purpose in making this distinction between these terms?
Canāt even discuss serious mental disorders anymore without being dogpiled smh
People who are afflicted with these need help but people would rather just talk about how they deserve to be killed instead for something they never chose to have
I know Iām running full on into the blades of pedophilic panic here and Iām going to be accused of being a pedophile, but being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal.
I am all for protecting minors and 100% support laws that criminalizes adults having sexual contact with them, but I think we do a disservice to peopleās mental health to paint normal, healthy physical attractions as being deviant, and I donāt think it does anything to protect minors.
I explicitly stated that it should be illegal to have sex with minors
being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when youāre of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
how irrational those gripped by pedophile panic have become
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how heās being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said heād never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when youāre of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
Noone said 11 year olds. I said pubescent. Notice how, to make your point, you have to lie about what was said. It makes it appear that even you realize itās bs. Hell, especially considering youāve swapped one lie out for another. How many different lies will you tell about what was said before you admit you might be wrong?
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how heās being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said heād never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
Itās not ānormalā to be attracted to 14 year olds. Itās not ānormalā to be specifically attracted to any age group. Itās honestly all a kink. Are you attracted to elderly people? No? Thatās because you have a different kink. And donāt get into stupid biological bullshit of reproductive success etc, a woman in her 40s whoās given birth before is in some cases much less likely to die in childbirth than a 14 year old who hasnāt done it before, arguably. That some people have breeding kinks with their pedo kinks is on them. Like seriously stop being so sexually narcissistic, there are thousands of kinks that combines in thousands of ways. Why do you think your kink is the ānormalā one? Like get over yourself.
Whether kinks are disorders or not is a separate topic. Where kinks come from - we donāt know 100%. Thereās some evidence certain brain conditions can cause disorders and sexual dysfunction, so itās possible pedophilia could be induced. Personally I am curious if oxytocin plays a role in pedophilia. You can get oxytocin (note: this is not OXYCONTIN) compounded in a nasal spray from compounding pharmacies. Just need a doctorās prescription for it, it has been used experimentally for social anxiety. I think some pedophiles likely get extra oxytocin from children (and other groups get it from animals in some cases) which is part of what triggers their attraction even if they donāt want to harm children.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesnāt entitle you to fucking them. Even if you can convince them to say yes somehow.
Consent cannot be given if itās not safe to give dissent. Meaning a āyesā doesnāt count if a ānoā wouldnāt count either. Most kids cannot readily say āno.ā They cannot consent.
Itās not ānormalā to be specifically attracted to any age group.
I said nothing about age, but about development.
Why do you think your kink is the ānormalā one?
I said nothing about my own personal attractions. If youāre asking, Iām not a hebephile. I would be lying if I were to claim Iāve never found one physically attractive, but my general physical sexual attraction is probably about as vanilla as it gets. My actual kinks, not so much. But thatās a completely different topic.
Just like I defend homosexuality as a normal, healthy attraction, I defend this. That doesnāt make me gay, or a hebephile.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesnāt entitle you to fucking them.
And I pretty clearly said explicitly otherwise. Literally this whole thing about consent is just completely pulled out of your ass as it has nothing to do with anything Iāve said. Hell, youāre whole rant is completely detached from the reality of anything Iāve said.
Yeah ādevelopmentā what a creepy word and again, ādevelopmentā has nothing to do with it. Thatās why I brought up the breeding kink part - the classic argument every libertarian creep who does the āItās hebephile not pedophileā dog whistle says this EXACT thing. Like you all are clearly watching the same porn. Itās so weird of you. Idk how I have had this exact conversation with so many of my male peers. The other points I made are entirely relevant when it comes to fucking children. Many people think rape is a turn off, ya know?
āDevelopmentā is meaningless. It doesnāt make it okay because the person looks a certain way. A ādevelopedā body is not an āadultā body; many adult women have no breasts and no curves, and many young girls, some as young as 9!! get breasts. Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not ādevelopedā?
That you associate ādevelopmentā with sexual attraction is a YOU kink. Itās not an EVERYONE kink. Itās not the ānaturalā state for people. Itās a kink. That youāre justifying it with āwell she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to meā with no self awareness isā¦ yikes.
Yeah ādevelopmentā what a creepy word and again, ādevelopmentā has nothing to do with it.
lol. It literally has everything to do with it. Thatās the whole point: when children enter into and finish puberty, they become capable of reproduction, so from an evolutionary perspective, that is a normal time to start finding them attractive. Just labelling it as ācreepyā is an attempt to undermine the point because itās hard to actually address it.
Like you all are clearly watching the same porn.
I tell you Iām not into it, and what do you do? Lie, and claim Iām into it. Iāll state it again, it never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to deny reality to hold onto their irrational beliefs.
Many people think rape is a turn off.
Agreed. Which is why, as Iāve already stated, itās 100% wrong to have sex with them.
Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not ādevelopedā?
The fact that you need to ask this question just goes to show how absolutely ignorant you are of the topic, and probably shouldnāt even be discussing it at all.
That you associate ādevelopmentā with sexual attraction is a YOU kink.
Holy shit, this insane. lol This debate never ceases to crack me up. Youāre literally arguing that being attracted to people who have gone through puberty is a ākink.ā Even if you think that the stage of development that itās āappropriateā to become attracted to them is full adult, Tanner stage V, you still are arguing that development is important. But you are claiming this is nothing but a kink.
That youāre justifying it with āwell she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to meā with no self awareness isā¦ yikes.
I have full self awareness of what Iām saying. Itās the people who claim that development stages has nothing to do with it and is a ākinkā are the ones who lack the self-awareness to understand how little they know of what they talk aboutā¦ yikes.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not ānormalā to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know they will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink. Which I have informed you repeatedly. That itās been normalized by the groups you roll in, is a you thing.
You are narcissistic about your kinks. A lot of men are, because they often keep them secret until they go onto forums for that kink where they can all engage in it together and share porn and ideas. Then they think āIām vanilla and normal,ā and project their kinks onto reality as if thatās objective. Itās not. Youāre wrong.
Itās creepy because of what it implies about your general philosophy to kids.
You are into it. You are saying itās ānormalā as long as they are developed. Youāve admitted finding young teens attractive before. This is about you. Stop being a coward.
Answer me: Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not ādevelopedā?
who have gone through puberty is a ākink.ā
Youāre moving goalposts. First, you say itās because they are developed- which describes a body type. Then you say itās because they can reproduce - which describes their eggs/womb and ability to carry a baby - which a ādevelopedā 12 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy. And āabove pubertyā includes people who cannot reproduce and are sometimes not ādeveloped,ā such as elderly women. So which is it? Which do you mean? Or are you just making shit up because you think your kinks are ānormalā and youāve never analyzed or critically thought about them?
All sexual attractions are kinks. Thatās my point - there is no ānormalā sexual arousal state. Calling it ānormalā justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking. Itās the same reason rapists rape and donāt realize it - they think their rape kink is ānormal.ā Look at Andrew Tate and his fans.
Being attracted to minors is not ānormalā as an adult. Itās just ānormalā for you.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not ānormalā to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know theu will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink.
This whole paragraph is ridiculously bizarre. First, sure, a stallion is probably not thinking about actual reproducing. But the instinct to breed is because of the need of an organism to reproduce. Trying to disconnect the two is laughably ridiculous. So to say that the drive to reproduce has nothing to do sexual arousal is mind-numbingly dumb.
Which leads me to the next bizarre point. I didnāt say they were sexual attracted to them because they want to reproduce with them. Iām saying that the ability to reproduce is what makes it natural to be attracted to someone, because thatās the whole point. Or do you think the whole point of sexual arousal is just for funsies and serves no evolutionary purpose?
And, third, again, why do you feel the need to continually lie about me? What purpose does it serve? Honestly, it just makes you appear completely unsure in your position.
Stop being a coward.
Whether it is about me makes no difference; the logic of my position holds either way as Iāve already provided the psychology behind it that talks about how it is normal. I have no need to hide anything from you. You just need it to be about me because you need that to make it easy to ignore my position. Stop being a coward and address what Iāve said instead of desperately trying to make it about me.
Youāre moving goalposts.
Literally the first thing I said was pubescent.
which a ādevelopedā 13 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy.
Curvy is not the same thing as developed. How can you have such a strong opinions about this while being so woefully ignorant about the basic facts?
All sexual attractions are kinks.
By definition this is incorrect, as kink, by definition, means non-conventional sexual acts. This is the second word in this post for which youāve gotten the definition completely wrong. Maybe hebephilia is a kink, I havenāt given that much thought or research.
Calling it ānormalā justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking.
Youāre confusing two things here. Kink does not mean bad, and normal does not mean acting on it is okay. We are not our thoughts, we are our actions. Unless you are willing to lie to me, youāve certainly had thoughts that, if you had acted on them, it would have been woefully inappropriate, at best. This doesnāt make you a bad person or not-normal. Everyone has thoughts that acting on them would be inappropriate or wrong.
And, yes, Iām absolutely trying to justify the thoughts. Thatās my whole point. The thoughts are normal and natural and not the sign of some paraphilic disorder. Just like if someone is into BDSM, this is not a disorder, in and of itself. Just like wanting to have sex with more than one partner is not a disorder. Just like anal play is not a disorder. They are fine, natural, things. Obviously the ones Iāve listed are okay to act out on with another consenting adult(s), and acting out on it with a minor is not.
Nothing gets the pedophiles riled up quite like a hypothetical
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
as a graphic designer, i try to remind fellow graphic designers that apart from circumstances and conversations specifically related to your craft, colloquial use is totally acceptable and that you shouldnāt be insisting on pointing out the difference between a font and a typeface, because no one cares and itās annoying as fuck.
not to mention everyone knows what people mean when they say āfontā so thereās no point in pedantic "ackshually"s. they just make you sound like a dick.
now thatās what i think about designers being pedantic about designer terms.
idk what i can even say about your comment.
Precisely.
As a graphic designer you donāt deal in life or death situations.
when people talk about pedophiles they clearly mean people who act on it; no one cares whatās in your heart or brain, thatās between you and your psychiatrist. itās not even a legal term so it doesnāt matter in ālife or deathā situations.
I know that thereās a difference between a pedophile and a hebephile. I know that the differences is that pedos are attracted to prepubescent kids and hebes are attracted to pubescent kids. There is a difference between the two.
That being said, thereās no way to say this online without sounding like someone who is attracted to kids.
I donāt care
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nu6C2KL_S9o
Just to point out, colloquially you are wrong, and there is a colloquial use of the term pedophile. We are not discussing this in an academic setting and it also doesnāt change the content of this discussion to redefine terms to academic ones, so no need to change it. Everyone understands whatās being referenced here because it was specified as being a 14 year old in the OP.
What exactly is your purpose in making this distinction between these terms?
Canāt even discuss serious mental disorders anymore without being dogpiled smh
People who are afflicted with these need help but people would rather just talk about how they deserve to be killed instead for something they never chose to have
Everyone loves to talk about how they would hurt others if they could and how their version is the only one that is just and fair.
I know Iām running full on into the blades of pedophilic panic here and Iām going to be accused of being a pedophile, but being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal.
I am all for protecting minors and 100% support laws that criminalizes adults having sexual contact with them, but I think we do a disservice to peopleās mental health to paint normal, healthy physical attractions as being deviant, and I donāt think it does anything to protect minors.
Proudly declaring yourself a guy who draws the line at fucking 10 year olds.
I explicitly stated that it should be illegal to have sex with minors, yet you still accuse me of saying itās okay to have sex with minors.
Thanks for demonstrating, so succinctly and clearly, how irrational those gripped by pedophile panic have become.
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when youāre of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how heās being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said heād never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
Noone said 11 year olds. I said pubescent. Notice how, to make your point, you have to lie about what was said. It makes it appear that even you realize itās bs. Hell, especially considering youāve swapped one lie out for another. How many different lies will you tell about what was said before you admit you might be wrong?
This literally makes no sense. Noone is talking about puking or overdrinking. Weāre talking about normal, healthy physical attraction. Iāve explicitly excluded action from my claim if what is acceptable.
Sure sounds like you said 11 to me!
I didnāt make that post, I was correcting it.
May I suggest not playing gotcha and trying to actually think about it logically and objectively?
Itās not ānormalā to be attracted to 14 year olds. Itās not ānormalā to be specifically attracted to any age group. Itās honestly all a kink. Are you attracted to elderly people? No? Thatās because you have a different kink. And donāt get into stupid biological bullshit of reproductive success etc, a woman in her 40s whoās given birth before is in some cases much less likely to die in childbirth than a 14 year old who hasnāt done it before, arguably. That some people have breeding kinks with their pedo kinks is on them. Like seriously stop being so sexually narcissistic, there are thousands of kinks that combines in thousands of ways. Why do you think your kink is the ānormalā one? Like get over yourself.
Whether kinks are disorders or not is a separate topic. Where kinks come from - we donāt know 100%. Thereās some evidence certain brain conditions can cause disorders and sexual dysfunction, so itās possible pedophilia could be induced. Personally I am curious if oxytocin plays a role in pedophilia. You can get oxytocin (note: this is not OXYCONTIN) compounded in a nasal spray from compounding pharmacies. Just need a doctorās prescription for it, it has been used experimentally for social anxiety. I think some pedophiles likely get extra oxytocin from children (and other groups get it from animals in some cases) which is part of what triggers their attraction even if they donāt want to harm children.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesnāt entitle you to fucking them. Even if you can convince them to say yes somehow.
Consent cannot be given if itās not safe to give dissent. Meaning a āyesā doesnāt count if a ānoā wouldnāt count either. Most kids cannot readily say āno.ā They cannot consent.
I said nothing about age, but about development.
I said nothing about my own personal attractions. If youāre asking, Iām not a hebephile. I would be lying if I were to claim Iāve never found one physically attractive, but my general physical sexual attraction is probably about as vanilla as it gets. My actual kinks, not so much. But thatās a completely different topic.
Just like I defend homosexuality as a normal, healthy attraction, I defend this. That doesnāt make me gay, or a hebephile.
And I pretty clearly said explicitly otherwise. Literally this whole thing about consent is just completely pulled out of your ass as it has nothing to do with anything Iāve said. Hell, youāre whole rant is completely detached from the reality of anything Iāve said.
Yeah ādevelopmentā what a creepy word and again, ādevelopmentā has nothing to do with it. Thatās why I brought up the breeding kink part - the classic argument every libertarian creep who does the āItās hebephile not pedophileā dog whistle says this EXACT thing. Like you all are clearly watching the same porn. Itās so weird of you. Idk how I have had this exact conversation with so many of my male peers. The other points I made are entirely relevant when it comes to fucking children. Many people think rape is a turn off, ya know?
āDevelopmentā is meaningless. It doesnāt make it okay because the person looks a certain way. A ādevelopedā body is not an āadultā body; many adult women have no breasts and no curves, and many young girls, some as young as 9!! get breasts. Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not ādevelopedā?
That you associate ādevelopmentā with sexual attraction is a YOU kink. Itās not an EVERYONE kink. Itās not the ānaturalā state for people. Itās a kink. That youāre justifying it with āwell she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to meā with no self awareness isā¦ yikes.
lol. It literally has everything to do with it. Thatās the whole point: when children enter into and finish puberty, they become capable of reproduction, so from an evolutionary perspective, that is a normal time to start finding them attractive. Just labelling it as ācreepyā is an attempt to undermine the point because itās hard to actually address it.
I tell you Iām not into it, and what do you do? Lie, and claim Iām into it. Iāll state it again, it never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to deny reality to hold onto their irrational beliefs.
Agreed. Which is why, as Iāve already stated, itās 100% wrong to have sex with them.
The fact that you need to ask this question just goes to show how absolutely ignorant you are of the topic, and probably shouldnāt even be discussing it at all.
Holy shit, this insane. lol This debate never ceases to crack me up. Youāre literally arguing that being attracted to people who have gone through puberty is a ākink.ā Even if you think that the stage of development that itās āappropriateā to become attracted to them is full adult, Tanner stage V, you still are arguing that development is important. But you are claiming this is nothing but a kink.
I have full self awareness of what Iām saying. Itās the people who claim that development stages has nothing to do with it and is a ākinkā are the ones who lack the self-awareness to understand how little they know of what they talk aboutā¦ yikes.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not ānormalā to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know they will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink. Which I have informed you repeatedly. That itās been normalized by the groups you roll in, is a you thing.
You are narcissistic about your kinks. A lot of men are, because they often keep them secret until they go onto forums for that kink where they can all engage in it together and share porn and ideas. Then they think āIām vanilla and normal,ā and project their kinks onto reality as if thatās objective. Itās not. Youāre wrong.
Itās creepy because of what it implies about your general philosophy to kids.
You are into it. You are saying itās ānormalā as long as they are developed. Youāve admitted finding young teens attractive before. This is about you. Stop being a coward.
Answer me: Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not ādevelopedā?
Youāre moving goalposts. First, you say itās because they are developed- which describes a body type. Then you say itās because they can reproduce - which describes their eggs/womb and ability to carry a baby - which a ādevelopedā 12 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy. And āabove pubertyā includes people who cannot reproduce and are sometimes not ādeveloped,ā such as elderly women. So which is it? Which do you mean? Or are you just making shit up because you think your kinks are ānormalā and youāve never analyzed or critically thought about them?
All sexual attractions are kinks. Thatās my point - there is no ānormalā sexual arousal state. Calling it ānormalā justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking. Itās the same reason rapists rape and donāt realize it - they think their rape kink is ānormal.ā Look at Andrew Tate and his fans.
Being attracted to minors is not ānormalā as an adult. Itās just ānormalā for you.
This whole paragraph is ridiculously bizarre. First, sure, a stallion is probably not thinking about actual reproducing. But the instinct to breed is because of the need of an organism to reproduce. Trying to disconnect the two is laughably ridiculous. So to say that the drive to reproduce has nothing to do sexual arousal is mind-numbingly dumb.
Which leads me to the next bizarre point. I didnāt say they were sexual attracted to them because they want to reproduce with them. Iām saying that the ability to reproduce is what makes it natural to be attracted to someone, because thatās the whole point. Or do you think the whole point of sexual arousal is just for funsies and serves no evolutionary purpose?
And, third, again, why do you feel the need to continually lie about me? What purpose does it serve? Honestly, it just makes you appear completely unsure in your position.
Whether it is about me makes no difference; the logic of my position holds either way as Iāve already provided the psychology behind it that talks about how it is normal. I have no need to hide anything from you. You just need it to be about me because you need that to make it easy to ignore my position. Stop being a coward and address what Iāve said instead of desperately trying to make it about me.
Literally the first thing I said was pubescent.
Curvy is not the same thing as developed. How can you have such a strong opinions about this while being so woefully ignorant about the basic facts?
By definition this is incorrect, as kink, by definition, means non-conventional sexual acts. This is the second word in this post for which youāve gotten the definition completely wrong. Maybe hebephilia is a kink, I havenāt given that much thought or research.
Youāre confusing two things here. Kink does not mean bad, and normal does not mean acting on it is okay. We are not our thoughts, we are our actions. Unless you are willing to lie to me, youāve certainly had thoughts that, if you had acted on them, it would have been woefully inappropriate, at best. This doesnāt make you a bad person or not-normal. Everyone has thoughts that acting on them would be inappropriate or wrong.
And, yes, Iām absolutely trying to justify the thoughts. Thatās my whole point. The thoughts are normal and natural and not the sign of some paraphilic disorder. Just like if someone is into BDSM, this is not a disorder, in and of itself. Just like wanting to have sex with more than one partner is not a disorder. Just like anal play is not a disorder. They are fine, natural, things. Obviously the ones Iāve listed are okay to act out on with another consenting adult(s), and acting out on it with a minor is not.