Criminal Pedophile

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, integral said:

I think this is the standard perspective biased by conditioning and lacks nuance. To see the worst possible scenario as the norm. 

Question is why would we allow the worst case possible scenario, when it is not necessary.

We have to judge this issue from a potential harm vs benefit issue, I don't think the potential benefits that such a relationship could bring to a child could ever outweigh the potential harm.

[integral]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its not standard.

The potentiality for harm is different, because adults have an upperhand physically, financially, cognitively etc, so they can abuse their power much more easily and in a different ways, compared to a normal relationship where a kid is dating a kid.

Its also an assumption, that they are not being taken advantage of. - I mean its not rare ,when adults groom children.

Also, we are not necessarily talking about stupidity but more about maturity and being able to see that certain actions can lead to certain unwanted consequences.

There is no one perfectly good way to measure maturity, however one thing is sure, that you need to live and experience things and learn about yourself, in order to get more mature - this is why there is age of consent.

Its goin to be a spectrum, adults with or with out integrity. 

[integral]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

We have to judge this issue from a potential harm vs benefit issue, I don't think the potential benefits that such a relationship could bring to a child could ever outweigh the potential harm.

Yes if we where making mass scale legislation. Right now to understand the true nature of the landscape, its not at all as lope sided as the worst case scenario standard perspective is showing. The majority of these underage relationships are standard relationships and go unreported. 

[integral]

20 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Coming from the guy who's adamant penetrating someone sleeping is normal, I wasn't expecting anything better. 

Penetrating someone when there sleeping is fine if they pre-consented to it (talked about it), she has the fantasy, you guys are dating for years and in love and she wants it to happen. Anything else is rape or you need to be highly calibrated and Intune with your partner to know if its ok. 

There is a wide range of experience people have with sex that is surprisingly not traumatic. It depends on the persons conditioning. Like in leos case, he says the man helped him. 

Edited September 18, 2022 by integral

[Etherial Cat]

1 hour ago, integral said:

Penetrating someone when there sleeping is fine if they pre-consented to it, she has the fantasy, you guys are dating for years and in love and she wants it to happen. Anything else is rape. 

Only you know whether the pre-consentment is true or if you added it up later. 

1 hour ago, integral said:

Yes if we where making mass scale legislation. Right now to understand the true nature of the landscape, its not at all as lope sided as the worst case scenario standard perspective is showing. The majority of these underage relationships are standard relationships and go unreported. 

The current legislation is already made by experts who actually know what they are talking about. This includes psychiatrist, psychologist, criminolgist, lawyers, judges, university professors with actual experience in the topic working together to protect the sexual integrity of minors. And my opinion is that they aren't particularly conservative in their assessment of when consent can be given.

I'm curious to know what is your background though, and why you think you are more knowledgeable than all of them. You could perhaps attempt a career in the domain, in which case I would die to follow your journey as such a brilliant, groundbreaking genius, ready to revolutionize it. I'm certain your reception would be absolutely epic.

It's either this, or your brilliance is just a belief in your mind, and you're just a guy with a bad case of Dunning-Kruger, attempting to legitimize his creepy attraction for 14 year old and terribly uninformed understanding of consent.

Unfortunately I'm certain it's the the second option, and I would recommend you to start investigation what's up.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Etherial Cat

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, integral said:

its not at all as lope sided as the worst case scenario standard perspective is showing.

The majority of these underage relationships are standard relationships and go unreported. 

Even if I take this part for granted (even though, I haven't seen anything that would support this or would confirm this), I still wouldn't be okay with some kid's life getting totally fucked up, because of the groomers, because again, the harm is not comparable to a kid to kid relationship.

22 minutes ago, integral said:

The majority of these underage relationships are standard relationships

If these relationships are standard, then again, I don't see how this would be good or beneficial for the kids, when kids can have normal relationship with each other, where the potentiality for harm is not as high.

 

 

@integral Can you list your reasons how such a relationship would be generally good for a kid (if we take into account the potential harm as well)?

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

Mature developed people are not attracted to 14 years old. That's why hebephilia is considered a mental disease by psychiatrists and pretty much everyone who is normal.

 

Quote

It has not been widely accepted as a paraphilia or mental disorder, and there is significant academic debate as to whether it should be classified as either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

I'm dying to know what is your background though, and why you think you are more knowledgeable than all of them. You could perhaps attempt a career in the domain, in which case I would die to follow your journey as such a brilliant, groundbreaking genius, ready to revolutionize it. Your reception would be epic.

You keep alluding to authorities on the subject without specifying what those authorities are actually saying. I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just cringe.

[Etherial Cat]

@Carl-Richard

Quote

Proposals for categorizing hebephilia have argued that separating sexual attraction to prepubescent children from sexual attraction to early-to-mid or late pubescents is clinically relevant.[2][3] According to research by Ray Blanchard et al. (2009), male sex offenders could be separated into groups by victim age preference on the basis of penile plethysmograph response patterns. Based on their results, Blanchard suggested that the DSM-5 could account for these data by subdividing the existing diagnosis of pedophilia into hebephilia and a narrower definition of pedophilia.[3] Blanchard's proposal to add hebephilia to the DSM-5 proved controversial,[1][2][8] and was not adopted.[9] It has not been widely accepted as a paraphilia or mental disorder, and there is significant academic debate as to whether it should be classified as either.[1]

It's because it's still categorized under pedophilia. 

[Etherial Cat]

37 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You keep alluding to authorities on the subject without specifying what those authorities are actually saying. I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just cringe.

What the authorities are saying is not hard to figure out.

You can read court decisions, books, attend university lectures or just look at how your current legal system functions. All of that has been shaped by people trained in the domain. So I'm not going to source content widely available. But I'll question anyone making assumptions going against mainstream standards in the domain when I spot it, especially if its totally outlandish and I can easily spot it as false. 

Another reason why I don't get into more detail is because law is local, and it requires a lot of groundwork knowledge to understand it as a system. That said, there are common denominators. It's tough to talk about it in a global context. The subject of pedophilia is also a multidisciplinary field, and while I've got the basics I'm not proficient in it either.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Etherial Cat

[Carl-Richard]

46 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

@Carl-Richard

It's because it's still categorized under pedophilia. 

Let's be accurate: definitions of hebephilia tend to partially overlap with the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. When you say "hebephilia is considered a mental disease", it can be interpreted as "hebephilia is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-5", which would be wrong.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Etherial Cat]

34 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Let's be accurate: it can partially overlap with the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, depending on the definition of hebephilia you're using. When you say "hebephilia is considered a mental disease", it can be interpreted as "hebephilia is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-5", which would be wrong.

Yeah, 3/4 of it with a debate whether it should be 3/4 or 100%. 

In any case, from this perspective we are only looking at whether the attraction is very abnormal on the perpetrator's side to the point it's classified as a psychiatric disease. It's not a glorious benchmark to be close by by any means.

The reason why 14 is not included is because a certain level of physical attraction towards teen from that age on is perceived as normal. But it doesn't mean a healthy grown up adult would seek to have a relationship with them. 

We aren't even looking at what developmental experts says about how unhealthy it is for the kids. And then, it just account for statutory rape if acted upon by most 1st world jurisdiction, so it gives us a good outlook at whether we consider it normal or not. 

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Etherial Cat

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Yeah, 3/4 of it with a debate whether it should be 3/4 or 100%. 

In any case, from this perspective we are only looking at whether the attraction is very abnormal on the perpetrator's side. We aren't even looking at what developmental experts says about how healthy it is for the kids. And then, it just account for statutory rape if acted upon by most 1st world jurisdiction. 

Yeah I'm not going to argue that hebephilic relationships are not problematic within a 1st world frame, and that we probably should classify it as a mental disorder.

However, you somewhat bailed on my original argument where I was saying that you should expect pedophiles to treat people they're sexually attracted to with love, not as an outlet for the desire to dominate (because after all, a pedophilia diagnosis is separate from an ASPD diagnosis). However, again, that is not to say that such a relationship will be good for the child.

[Etherial Cat]

39 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

However, you somewhat bailed on my original argument where I was saying that you should expect pedophiles to treat people they're sexually attracted to with love, not as an outlet for the desire to dominate (because after all, a pedophilia diagnosis is separate from an ASPD diagnosis). However, again, that is not to say that such a relationship will be good for the child.

A pedophile might feel "love" towards a child (and that's really not systematic, there are plenty of pedophile who are in just for the sex), but having sex with it will never be a loving action towards it. The reason is, that even in the case a pedophile has the intention to love the kid, any experience beyond normal physical interaction will be out of boundary and damage its developmental integrity. And this is by default not loving towards the child.

The kid is in a position where things happens to it. It cannot consent because it just lacks the life experience to make such a big decision on what will harm or not its psychology and body. Not to mention the very unfair power dynamic. 

I have came across pedophiles unfortunately in my life. I heard tales of male coworker of acquaintance going to East Asia to have sex with little boys in slums. I also had a friend of mine who was molested by her step dad as a child. Her step dad also started raping her little sister from the age of 4 on. Each time, it was extremely predatory, and frankly sordid. But indeed, you could always resort to the spiritual absolute perspective, and realize it's all love. It's just that concretely, in the relative, 99,9 % of the other perspective screams its not. 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Etherial Cat

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

A pedophile might feel "love" towards a child (and that's really not systematic, there are plenty of pedophile who are in just for the sex), but having sex with it will never be a loving action towards it. The reason is, that even in the case a pedophile has the intention to love the kid, any experience beyond normal physical interaction will be out of boundary and damage its developmental integrity. And this is by default not loving towards the child.

The kid is in a position where things happens to it. It cannot consent because it just lacks the life experience to make such a big decision on what will harm or not its psychology and body. Not to mention the very unfair power dynamic. 

I agree. The intention might be love, but there is still a delusional element regarding the nature of such a relationship. However, that is different from a psychopath who has no consideration for other people, and those are the people who are responsible for most of the child molesting cases. Many pedophiles are non-offending because they actually care about other people.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Etherial Cat]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I agree. The intention might be love, but there is still a delusional or inconsiderate element regarding the nature of such a relationship. However, that is different from a psychopath who has no consideration for other people, and those are the people who are responsible for most of the child molesting cases. Many pedophiles are non-offending because they actually care about other people.

 The problem is always in the action. If you want to make a difference between non-offending pedophiles and offending pedophiles, there is indeed room for it.

 

[ZenSwift]

On 9/16/2022 at 11:58 PM, Leo Gura said:

As I already told you guys, one of you should read it aloud at my funeral.

Already told one of my friends in Vegas to read it at my funeral, but in case he can't make it, one of you must do it.

? Lmao

[Leo Gura]

On 9/17/2022 at 8:33 AM, spiritual memes said:

@Leo Gura So if you had a child and someone did the same thing to your child, would you be ok with that?

I would be worried and try to prevent it. However if I found out about it long after the fact I would accept it for what it is.

But also, if my daughter brought home some scumbag player boyfriend, I would take him aside, grab him by the nuts, and put the fear of God in him. That too is Love

8 hours ago, LoneWonderer said:

What purpose does it serve Leo for you to post this on your blog? Do you want us all to know and debate about it? I just don't really see the point of posting it. You know that such a topic is controversial and will bring about a discussion. Yet you say you don't really care what we think about it. Then why post it? Why not just keep it to yourself?

I share myself with you out of Love. That is all. Whether you accept or reject my Love is up to you. Your reactions to my sharing say more about you than they do about me.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Leo Gura

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Leo Gura I Love u.

[Tyler Robinson]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But also, if my daughter brought home some scumbag player boyfriend, I would grab take him aside, grab him by the nuts, and put the fear of God in him.

Players can also show love. Gaming can be doyne in healthy ways.