(Untitled)

[into_amystika]

2 meta-stupids. Different threads, similiar topics. No interesting introduction by me because I'm tired and going to bed.

Meta #1
"If there is grass on the field, its time to play ball!" -- "I'd take 13 as a good demarcation line between child porn."

Meta #2
"I never really saw what the big deal with pedophilia was."

Enjoy. I'm off to bed.

Comments

[ems]

Being sexually attracted to post-pubescent teenagers actually isn't paedophilia, which is strictly defined as an attraction to pre-pubescents or peripubescents (i.e. those going through puberty). Being attracted to post-pubescents is actually ephebophilia. There is some debate amongst academic circles about whether it's a psychological disorder or whether it's just an example of people breaking societal norms (as, biologically speaking, post-pubescents are "sexually ready" and in many cultures it's completely normal for them to engage in sexual relationships

[amokk]

DSM defines pedophilia as an attraction to children under 13, having nothing to do with puberty at all. So it's not quite strictly defined.

[ems]

It depends whether you're talking legally or not. The word paedophilia means sexual attraction to pre or peripubescents, no matter what age they are. Legal definitions are really a whole other ball game.

But I think we're both in agreement that having sex with fourteen year olds is just as bad as having sex with twelve year olds, so I don't think we need argue.

[amokk]

Psychologically, not legally. And yeah, legal is its own little world.

[amokk]

I've been corrected that the DSM actually does say prepubescent, and it's only generally 13 years old. So, they do match up, was just my bad memory.

So, uh, yeah. I'd throw in a baseball comment but I don't know how appropriate that'd be now! ;)

[ems]

Ahhh that makes sense. :)

[tomecatti]

Actually it is, but that had nothing to do with what he was saying!

(Sex should be glorified of course; it just shouldn't be a rite into adulthood.)

[tomecatti]

That too.

[claudiag]

Thank you! That's basically what I came in here to say, but you put it better than I could.

It makes me crazy when people scream "KIDDIE PORN!!" and "PEDOPHILIA!!" anytime someone under 18 takes off their shirt. No it's NOT kiddie porn. Squicky? Yes. Morally wrong? Yes. But let's not equate a 17 year old wearing a bra to someone molesting a 5 year old.

[theonewhospeaks]

The only problem is, depending on how the law is worded, it's possible that the community itself might get in trouble due to "child porn" if somebody complains, even though common sense tells us just what you've said, that a 17 year old in a bra isn't the same as someone molesting a five year old.

Some of the freaking might not be due to actually thinking that the two are equivilant, but due to thinking that local laws might make the LJ people think they are equivilant, and that the wrath of LJ will come down on the community.

I don't know how the laws are actually worded, and I'm sure those freaking out don't know either, but I can see that it might be a worry.

[claudiag]

From that perspective, yes I can understand it. I don't particularly want to see it either.

If only the law worked more on common sense and less on mass hysteria.

[theonewhospeaks]

Amen to that one.

[sunshineyellow]

I like this comment a lot.

[icprncs]

Thank you. It has become extraordinarily difficult to discuss such matters rationally because the "popular" definition of the term has come to mean "anybody under 18." I really wish we could learn not to be so simplistic and knee-jerk a society.