Underage rape victims should not have their names and photos circulating in the public sphere. If that's really him, it's a shame he's been compromised in this way.
When I had just turned 14, I banged a 24 year old, it was actually my first time. I have no regrets. Idk if she was a pedophile but she was certainly a hoodrat. She was fine tho so it was like...I'm not gonna not get randy jacksons autograph. #noragrets
no she is NOT a Pedophile. A pedophile by definition is someone who has sex with a PRE-PUBESCANT person. That is a child that has NOT gone through puberty. Ages 0-10. She IS guilty of statutory Rape. She IS by definition a Hebephile. Someone who has sex with a young adolescent who has gone through puberty. Ages 11-14. Next would be an Ephebophile - someone who has sex with a late adolescent. Ages 14-19. However even if the kid were 18, she'd still be in legal trouble as his teacher. Of course if the kid is 18 and still in middle school than there are even more issues here at play.
As there seems to be a lot of focus on defined terms in this thread, including multiple response by me (!!), and having not really heard much about the 3 different words presented above, a bit of quick googling shows that while Hebephile and Ephebophile are words first used in mid or early 20th century, their classification as a differentiation from Pedophile really only recently was proposed as a formality in 2009 by a guy named Ray Blanchard. And even then, they are used principally for medical purposes. Per looking up Merriam Webster and other dictionary sources on the internet, there is no requirement for PREPUBESCENT in the definition of pedophile. So, I don't think its fair to say A pedophile by definition is someone who has sex with a PRE-PUBESCANT person. Of course, neither Merriam Webster or Dictionary.com pull up anything when you look up Hebephile or Ephebophile
Maybe the law is very clear here, but age of maturity and adulthood is pretty arbitrary. A 13 year old can be more mentally mature than a 24 years old. Physical sexual maturity might be as early as 10. Likely around 12-14. Nature is saying human are ready by this age. If you rely on brain development - 18 is probably NOT maturity. It's more around 22 in latest science. And maybe as late as 24. This may also change over time (environment factors). Saying by a certain age is easy and useful (and lazy) in most cases involving teens, but not always and absolutely may not be fair to actual situations. Whether real harm (psychological included) (and of course non-consent, absent-consent or non-ability to provide consent is harming someone) was caused seems to be a much better criteria, and much tougher and harder to gauge. If on the surface, there seems to be consent, I said that hard work is necessary and is much fairer to both side.
The US does have some puritanical and conservative laws regarding sex. There's a lot of gray area in 16-18, some in 14-16. I do think 14 is too young to have a sexual relationship with an adult.
I'd saying defining a certain age is absolutely fair to actual situations, in addition to being easy and useful. If your relationship with a child may or may not be deemed immoral and/or illegal depending on the particular facts of the particular child's maturity you would have no clarity at the outset whether you are doing right or wrong. You could think this is the most precocious and mature kid ever, only to find out later he totally wasn't ready. Instead, we have a bright line rule. If you are over X years old and have sex with someone under Y years old, you've committed a crime. It's even worse if the kid is under Z years old, or if you are in a position of authority or caretaking over the child. Everything is totally objective, requires no expert witnesses, and can be known by perp and victim at the outset. Am I 24 years old? Yes. Is the boy only 13? Yes. Am I in a position of authority over him as his teacher? Yes. Does that mean I'll go to prison if the cops find out I had sex with him? Obviously. It is a bit of an 80/20 rule. Maybe there's some people who are protected that don't need protecting (though, does it really matter if you're barred from having sex with one over-protected person, given there are millions of other people you can have sex with?), and maybe there's people who would perhaps benefit from protection who aren't going to get it (18 year olds who are too foolish for their own good). But, it is totally clear and totally fair and everybody knows the rules. Of course, level of harm will play a factor in the punishment phase. That's appropriate. If the victim shows psychological, social, physical, financial, or other injury, it should make the punishment worse. If the victim is no worse for wear, that's great and an average or maybe below-average punishment should be sufficient.
I don't know how it is fair to said a 15 years and 18 years old that seriously love each other and have absolutely no intention of taking advantages or to harm.
And Texas law makes a distinction between the 15/18 case and the 13/24 case. And, the difference in severity is probably also reflected in jury decision-making. Now, you may disagree that there is a law that regulates the relationship of the 15 and 18 year olds, and I think it's a valid argument to make. But, even if you make legislative adjustments to accommodate the relationships of 15 and 18 year olds, it'd only be an incremental change -- maybe you make the spread 4 or 5 years instead of 3. It's not a wholesale challenge to the rationale of the law. I don't think you can use this argument about the innocent teenagers to justify a relationship between a 13 year old and a 24 year old.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fTaKDnSIb4c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
"Child" is not particularly well defined. I always thought "pedophile" means you're sexually attracted to prepubescent children. It is not a general term to describe people who make a decision to have sexual relations with a minor, by my understanding. You can be a pedophile and have the good sense not to act on it. Alternately, a person who is not a pedophile can still be attracted to a 13 year old who is past puberty. Knowing better not to act on that impulse is a matter of social responsibility, not sexual orientation.
You are absolutely correct. Going by the definition of what pedophilia actually is, she's not a pedophile.
Well, she could be a pedophile, but her having sex with this 13 year old, to me, doesn't establish that.
According to the law, she committed a crime. Is anyone disputing that? The thread title is asking a different question.
We look for technicalities in life We try to skirt morality and various uncomfortable situations Dude get s a blow job from someone other than his wife. . . he was try to say technically he did not cheat. What is the definition of 'is'? The difference between gender and sex and sexual orientation etc etc etc We want to make the world so gray that there is nothing that is taboo and there are no morals. . . . . Basically the extent of our morals today is . . .'if it doesn't hurt anyone else. . . ." Rocket River
When it comes to the choice of my or your morals vs real harm, it's a pretty easy choice which one is more fair, compassionate and stand through time. Usually, they jell, but when they don't... it's sad that sticking with a belief in some who-know-where-it-came-from moral is more important than real actual harm, to the point of causing harm.
"For medical purposes"..... Ummm, ya that matters more than some historical definition from some English linguist a few hundred years ago. I would consider the non-medical definition colloquial.
