Is this Houston teacher a pedophile?

Kinda of relevant but made me ROFL. I don't think the dude is serious btw. Wait till the second half of the video.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r80kSTVoPUY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Didn't want to post my D&D-ish comments in the Hangout, so glad for the repeat. I don't know if I'd call her a pedophile without seeing evidence of a pattern of sexual abuse of children. But, I would definitely call having sex with a 13 year old sexual abuse. I don't understand grown men who would identify with the child in the story and think of the encounter as some kind of conquest. He's below the age of consent because society doesn't think he is capable of making uncoerced, informed and wise decisions about sex -- having been 13, I have to say we made the right call there. The encounter put him in danger of sexually transmitted diseases (not realized so far as we know), premature fatherhood (almost realized), complicity in an abortion (realized), and plenty of psychological baggage all while he's not equipped to make the choice to take those risks. For her part, the woman knew or should have known that any sex with the boy is a felony on her part regardless of the circumstances, that becoming pregnant with his baby is a huge burden to put on a child, and to abort his baby is a transgression on him as well. And she did it anyway. Either she has no moral imagination at all or she is very messed up. Either way, she deserves prison and should probably not be trusted around children.

 

Of course she's a pedophile.

A 13 year old, no matter how physically mature, or emotionally mature, is a child. It's not even close. I've never come across, seen, interacted with, heard about, etc. any 13 year old that could be confused for an adult. They physically aren't there. Emotionally and intelligently they don't understand the world as an adult obviously would, etc.

She was obviously attracted to that 13 year old.

Thus, she's a pedophile.

I remember being 13. I also have children (as I know you do as well).

In any case, we agree on everything, just the ambiguity around the pedophile part, which might just be a definitional understanding of the word. My understanding isn't that it has to be an innate preference on the whole. A single attraction to a single child is pedophilic, imo.

 

A pedophile is an individual who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. A 13 year old is not a pre-pubescent. Doesn't make what she did acceptable since mentally he still isn't mature enough to make rational decisions about dating adult women. It's just an incorrect label.

Can you also make a clear definition of what a 'child' is? Because the video I posted earlier even though it's satire makes a very strong point at the 3:00 mark. Jump to the 3:00 mark on the youtube player because then you will realize according to your definition, you are a pedophile.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r80kSTVoPUY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Yes, I agree whole heartily with that statement. Just because you are sexually attracted to a 15 year old girl, doesn't mean you ought to take action on that attraction because hopefully as an adult you have the basic will power and responsibility to understand that the 15 year old doesn't have a fully developed brain to make these type of decisions thus you are only taking advantage of her.

I'm sure everyone here who thinks that being sexually attracted to a random 13-16 year old girl is considered pedophilia yet ironically those same individuals probably saw some hot piece of ass walking down the street and didn't even realize she was 15 which would make them a pedophile by their own definition.

 

Okay, not pre-pubescent. If pedophile doesn't fit, how about rapist or sexual predator? It's not a flattering position to be in regardless. I don't know if it matters what she is so much as what she did. Her psychologist can worry about fitting a label.

Anyway, I wonder what happens with the parents if the story in the paper is to be believed. If they knew and supposedly approved of the relationship and the baby, are they liable to be charged with child endangerment or something like that? Should they be (if the facts bear out)?

 

There is a large difference between having a sexual attraction and then ACTING UPON said attraction. My response was mainly to JayZ750 who stated that anyone who was ever attracted to a 'child' is a pedophile but my main contention was what constitutes a 'child' in his statement? Is a 15 year old a child? So if you walks by a girl who seems very sexually developed and attractive, yet she is 15, but you have no clue, does that make you a pedophile? If yes, then every male here is guilty of being a pedophile.

 

Maybe they don't agree their son was put in danger by having sex. Can you explain how he was harmed?

 

She's just as much of a pedophile as these "religious" compound-dwelling zealots are pedophiles for impregnating young teenage girls and then having them collect a welfare check due to their single-mother-with-child status.

 

Unless one of us is the kid's psychologist, none of us have a clue. However, we can only go by our own experiences as former 13 year old boys.

All I know is when I was 13, to score a piece of ass as attractive as that teacher would be a wet dream come true for me.

However at 13, he should be more worried about his Algebra hw which might get in the way with him living the fantasy of every straight 13 year old boy.

 

Pedophile doesn't have to do with prepubescent children. It has to do with children. Etymologically I knew this to be true, but googled to confirm. Some definitions:

"sexual feelings or activities that involve children"
"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object"
"a person who has a sexual interest in children"

My comments weren't meant to say she is a pedophile because she had some attraction to a 13 year old. Sorry if they came off that way.

To be clear, yes, I do think people who have regular and continued attractions to 13 years olds, or other children, are pedophiles.
But to clarify, in general, MOST people, once realizing these are children, immediately lose that attraction. Those that don't.. well, they're pedophiles.
And to clarify, specifically in this instance, I have no clue why we are speaking in generalities. She clearly knew this was a child, by any and all measures.

She's a pedophile. I'm not sure why this is being argued. It's just a fact.

 

Well, he was raped on an ongoing basis and the parents allegedly did nothing to stop him from being raped. Was he in danger in some particular way or harmed in some particular way? That can probably be debated (I'd say yes for the reasons cited above: STDs, pregnancy, and pregnancy-related issues), but that State wouldn't have to prove danger or harm if they wanted to charge the parents. All they would have to show -- in my layperson's understanding -- is that the boy was being raped on an ongoing basis and the parents did nothing to stop it.

 

Yes, this is the type of person/crime for whom the terms "pedophile/sex offender" etc is invented.

This is not controversial, regardless of if you liked to look at naked ladies at age 13.

 

I know this is rather pedantic but medically, "pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

From that medical definition, a 15 year old that is sexually attracted to 10 year old that is pre-pubescent is a pedophile. According to your definition, that situation would be a hazy matter.

It's within human nature for an adult male or female to have a physical attraction to anything that is sexually developed. Thus, a pure physical attraction to a developed 14 year old is within the norms according to science.

However, to as I've stated before, it doesn't mean that ACTING upon that attraction is morally sound. It's obviously reprehensible because their bodies might be sexually developed but their minds are not.