i appreciate that you seem to be consistent in your empathy.
“Destiny used his position of power to manipulate a sexually naive 20-year-old into filming porn with him and then leaked it. That is worse than accidentally sexting with 17-year-old prostitute with whom he had no other relationship.”
I would accept this as true, because I find the idea of a significantly older man using not just the advantage of his age, but also his fame and influence, to exploit a younger and naive person to satisfy his sexual urges perverse, whether it’s legal or not. But I think if you can observe that Destiny is capable of exploiting people like this and not find fault in his behaviour, to discard the fact that he wouldn’t purposefully seek out more young people for the exact same reason is a bit negligent. pedophilia is very connected to the power imbalance, to the destruction of innocence.
destiny telling rose he’s excited about sending her back to their parents the way he described is very telling, because the perversion is not even that he wants to have sex with someone younger in secret, but in that he finds that clash between a young girl’s life (living with her parents, knowing they see her as their little girl) and destroying that, exciting. the truth is, if he didn’t know she was 17, it’s because he didn’t care.
men not knowing they are engaging with a particularly secretive and treacherous teenager online is one thing, but the deception would have to be active (rare). if he did not know, it’s because he didn’t care, the same way millions of other men online do not care that they engage with teenagers online because they were horny at the time—they are the product of a pedophilic culture they are in no rush to challenge.
some men just don’t want to see it as such so they can live with themselves. they can’t even bring themselves to think what would follow which is:
“well i’m not like one of THOSE pedophiles that rape their 4 year old kids… im one of the GOOD ones, i just find out too late i was gooning to a 16 year old… (again).” and choose instead to block away the damage they cause because it is emotionally convenient and they’re married to someone age appropriate.
“Pedophilia is a specific pattern of sexual attraction to little kids. It’s not a belief system or a behavior.”
I’ve helped put two pedophiles that were actively hurting teens under the scope of the police, and you know what I learned about them specifically? They don’t have a strict pattern of only seeking out kids—they will seek out anything, anyone, all of the time. it’s like a sexual compulsion of sorts, where their minds end up blurring the lines of acceptable behaviour because their sexual gratification is their only drive and end goal. they cannot help themselves, they cannot turn it off. they will pursue a 60yo woman, then a 14yo, then a 27yo, then a 17yo, knowingly. it’s not that the woman is a child, it’s that it’s a sex object. they don’t think about them as people. they don’t have to. at least not until the cops knock on their door.
these two men that i met separately had also been previously convicted and confessed to sexually engaging kids between the ages of 12-14. going to jail did not change them. they were both manipulative and narcissistic, albeit less successful in their lives than destiny (if you can consider him a success).
i am sure this isn’t the first time it has happened to destiny, and i’m sure it won’t be the last. he will just be more secretive about how he gets about it. and sure, because of that secrecy, we will have lost the guaranteed-scientific-100%-undeniable-accuracy right to call him a “proper” nonce. so yes, we could be extremely generous to a person least deserving of generosity (for he regrets nothing), and say “but guys we don’t ACTUALLY know that he is a pedo.”
i guess one thing remains true and it is that whether you think he is a pedo or not, he will continue to hurt people, younger or not. the bottom line is, if we are purely concerned about the semantics of it (aren’t streamers always a little bit concerned about semantics?) i would just drop it at: he is a monster.
“99% of adults are sexually attracted to 17-year-olds. the other 1% are pedophiles.” now you’re just being silly, come on.
you also use the term kids loosely. what is a kid to you? to me a 17 is a kid. a 14 year old is a kid. a 12 year old is a kid. it is a bit irresponsible of you to project your own worldview onto others, and assume they feel like you do, and that that is the natural order of things. i think i’m a little guilty of the same sometimes, but i don’t have a plaform so i worry less about it.
people aren’t replacing their moral codes with the TOS, that’s just the people around you.
ogh max. ok MEDICALLY Jeff may not have been considered abnormal because his attraction was to post-pubescents. But when people call him a pedophile, they don't care about puberty. People using the word pedophile to refer to abusive evil creeps instead of medical anomalies is intentional. They need a word to distinguish themselves from the child-abusers because when they notice a teenager who is, well, hot, they don't engage with that attraction. It becomes instinct that this person is not a sexual option, to the point where they stop realizing that they are attracted to them on a biological level, because they see them more and more as children with a body leaving childhood.
"Child" includes teenagers, pre and post pubescents. You can point to the way that doctors talk, but that's not how the rest of us do. Acknowledging or engaging with an attraction to a 15 year old, as an adult, is creepy and predatory, that is our purpose of the word.
My impression is that people have to call it pedophilia because they can't justify to themselves why it's wrong otherwise. I think the reason requires some frameworks of relationship dynamics between children and adults that are not obvious. It's probably that they haven't been educated to recognize them.
1: Destiny knew Rose was 17 according to the very same internet sleuths MrGirl is quoting
2: Destiny's previously leaked logs show a predilection towards age play, simulated (not-so-simulated in this case) grooming, lackadaisical attempts to vet fans sexting him, flagrant disregard for power differences, disdain for contemporary adult-coded women (like in his conversation with wesbtw in his "Anything Else" podcast), and fetishizing youth
3: Destiny found Rose through a twitter hashtag exclusively used for minors selling their porn & adults buying it, according to the very same internet sleuths MrGirl is quoting
4: The colloquial use of pedophile here is to build up momentum, de-platform and call out this creep who has a compulsive issue around abusing his power. The power comes from autistic, embittered, males in his audience who experience glee when destiny abuses people. It makes destiny's misuse of power impossible to dismantle from the inside (one of many reasons).
These compounding factors (and many others unmentioned here) should make any ethics concerned adult to use the small influence that individuals, even anonymous commenters have, and try to stop this guy's train. The evolution of the word pedophile is one such case; sexting 17 year olds might sound quaint in the somewhat-disinterested person that might come across any framing that this case might incur.
Destiny being accused of being a pedophile is quite concerning.
Words are not static in culture, their meaning evolves. There's a usefulness in the word misogynistic when applied to women suffrage (intentional misogyny), gender pay gap, and asking a waitress for a smile. The word misogyny has a real weight to it. Call a man a misogynist and he will either puff his chest or crumble inwards.
I see this essay as if someone in 1975 wrote "How is asking my waitress to smile or my girlfriend to wear make up misogynistic?" There probably was a time where asking a woman to smile was something dandies and sweet men did, and the action had 0% misogyny in it's DNA, according to everyone else's definition of misogyny.
We are seeing the meaning of the word pedophile evolve here. Words' meaning are mercurial, and english is particularly focused on the usefulness of a word rather than its meaning.
To cling to previous rigid meaning is an exercise in pedantry or trademarked MrGirl myopia. Or even funnier, one of many such cases where MrGirl is forcing himself to be impartial made him adopt half truths and extract a conclusion from them.
It's not a good idea to overextend criticisms of people you don't like in general. "Internet sleuths" are obsessive and paranoid, and tend to connect dots without real basis. I don't want to get mired in extrapolation which I will then later have to defend.
"4: The colloquial use of pedophile here is to build up momentum, de-platform and call out this creep who has a compulsive issue around abusing his power."
This is a sanitized way of acknowledging that the word is indeed used to form mobs.
I do concede your summation, but slapping it with the MrGirl repackaging trivializes what is happening. If the mob is large enough, the mob's collective opinion is like steroids on semantics and if it metastasizes, the mob is no longer a mob, it will just be "everyone".
Isn't that one of feminism's M.O.? To apply the misogyny label to things society doesnt currently think as misogynistic. I understand you're signaling to the DSM definition but doing so is circular, since DSM's definitions are subject to change not only because of new data but also cultural change and semantic change (like trans people)
Are you:
• lamenting that the word 'pedophile' is morphing and trying to stop this
• insinuating it's not actually morphing, the DSM definitions stands strong
• implying words dont change
• think that the usage of this word is foul because it blinds us to systematic issues (the usefulness of the word pedophile as it is applied to destiny is counter intuitive to its good. ie, its a netbad)
The word is indeed purposed to form mobs, but then the word will be used to form a new definition of the word. And you're trying to stop this. Should a people-shooting semantical eject button not be created?
I understand your point about ignoring the forest for the tree, but events such as destiny's and epstein's are totems. We are not exclusively solving cognitive dissonance, a new weapon is being built using the intrinsic appetites of society to witch-hunt people to stop the rape train.
Part of your ethics are based on half truths, a near bible-thumping that abandons function and real application for what *ought* to be.
You have banged your head against a brick wall for your entire life and you'll continue to do so. Your MO is particularly useful if/when you virtue signal and you present yourself as virtuous and courageous, but I don't think I've ever heard you admit that what you're doing is counter-intuitive to bringing these people down.
This argument is not meant to change your mind, you are impossibly stubborn, only to probe you for sincerity during your internal monologue at the very least.
None of the above: the definition is not actually morphing. It's being used as doublespeak. It simultaneously means "attracted to little kids" + "whatever else I want." That's what makes it mob-forming and dangerous.
Do you concede that the “whatever else I want” element of the definition of pedophile is dangerous and used for destroying people’s lives that do not deserve it?
Mr.Kenosis you seem confused. I already answered your question and you're repeating what Max Karson says. I'd rather hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
The answer to your question is:
The device you used to type your message is a pedophile and its life should be ruined.
U wrote accidentally sexting a 17yo, if it was intentional would that be worse than just the pxie case? I think seeking out and using a rose type is perpetuating and therefore just as much as a moral failure as harming someone. He’s not equally responsible for their existence but it’s an equal moral failing in my book. I think the only rules around csam shud be don’t buy and make it. That’s ur moral obligation anything more doesn’t rlly seem fair. U don’t have to seek out and destroy it or have awareness about other ppls consumption. How or why is hooking up with a 17yo something that causes cognitive dissonance? I think ur right but that’s must be bcuz we are quite literally so dishonest about everything in society. Idk I feel like u must be very stupid to get cognitive dissonance so easy so is it really just that I’m in disbelief but it sounds right. Dummies or ppl who get lost in their own lies develop cognitive dissonance
Why? The 17-year old in question was more sexually experienced than a lot of people i their 20's. How can you say for sure that it was predatory, purely based on the age?
I'm defining it as predatory. Because 17-year-olds are physically similar to 20-year-olds but mentally less developed. It creates an inherent power differential, and I think seeking that out is predatory behavior.
You don't think i could find you a lot of 17 year olds that were more mature and sexually experienced than a lot of 20-yo's?
I'm asking because that seems to be the case in destiny's situation. The 17-year old might as well have been 25, given their sexual maturity compared to their age range.
I think the “pedophilia” fear mongering and witch hunting conversation goes nowhere so long as people refuse to get to the heart of the issue. Which you have avoided here as well. Which is the hatred and fear of specifically male sexuality. This is a witch hunt against men. All of the controversy around porn and porn bans, is a fear/disgust/hate response to male sexuality.
You have often stated that the reason why the pedophile narrative is captivating to you is because it’s the last group of people that you are openly allowed to hate and justify killing. But this is false. It’s men. Men are the last group you are openly allowed to hate and justify killing. Male pedos. Male transsexuals. It’s not just a subsection of men. It’s all men. And the proof is that if you were hiring a baby sitter, you would be afraid to and highly unlikely to hire a male. It’s why men have increasingly vanished from teaching roles. Every man is feared to have the potential to sexually scar children, women, and other men.
The penis is a weapon of psychological mass destruction. Hell, not just the penis, but the male eyes. The male gaze terrorizes the women and children caught in it. The porn consumed by the eyes of men is destructive. It’s why we don’t want trans women in women’s locker rooms, but nobody cares about trans men in men’s locker rooms. The hatred and fear of trans people is the hatred and fear of men.
If you have anything to say about the pedophile narrative that does not speak to the center of this issue, that being the demonization of men, then you aren’t saying anything of much importance at all.
I understand your view and I think it's interesting, but I generally resist this type of "let's talk about the real issue here" reframing. It's reductive and always reads as fanatical to me, like you have a specific issue you care about (MRA) and view all other narratives through this one lens.
The experts I've interviewed say 1-3% of adult men are pedophiles. I think we can assume that number is higher among male teachers and babysitters. I'd guess around 5%.
One thing I'm advocating for is a language that can frankly admit this without demonization. I don't hate pedophiles, but you gotta admit, a 1/20 chance that your kid's babysitter is concealing an intense sexual attraction to 8-year-olds is concerning.
Whether or not it reads as fanatical doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Whether or not it’s reductive doesn’t mean I’m wrong either. I don’t think it’s simplifying the problem of pedojacketing to say that the reason people are able to do this is because people hate, fear, and are disgusted by male sexuality in general. It’s not simplification, it’s finding a proper target.
I understand the resistance to it, though. Because if we are being honest, a lot of popular hate can be reduced to man hate very cleanly. Homophobia is far more skewed toward gay men. Being a gay man is far more likely to result in violence towards you than being a lesbian. They weren’t throwing lesbians off the roof in Iraq and Syria. Racism as well. The vast majority of lynchings were against black men. And many of those were specifically the hatred/fear of their sexuality. Emmitt Till wolf whistling a white woman.
If you were a woman who had made the infamous cuties review you’d have been hated a fraction of the amount you are. That’s stupidly obvious. There’s no other part of you that would have reduced that amount of hate if we changed it. If you weren’t half/quarter Jewish. If you didn’t wear glasses. If you were younger. All of these things probably would’ve lessened the hate somewhat, but your penis is the most hate inducing thing about you and your cuties review. And if you agree that is true, then how can we discuss the pedophile narrative without focusing on the 100% gendered dynamic of it? If people don’t really care about protecting children more than they are just grossed out by male sexuality?
I also freely admit that it is concerning. I would be much less likely to hire a male babysitter, because I am not actually fanatical in the direction of men’s rights. I think the benefits of having more male teachers outweighs the increased pedophilia risk, though.
The sharp taboo against pedophilia exists for two reasons.
One reason is the sensible pragmatic aspect - that grown adults having sex with teenagers and children can very easily be abusive and damaging for the young person. If it were freely allowed it would likely be a net negative, so it's fair to say that it's correct that we don't tolerate it, at least in a modern world with long life expectancies.
The other reason is that it makes people deeply uncomfortable. We're scared of the truths about it - such as the truth that to most red blooded men, a post puberty girl is going to be physically attractive. Our instincts don't care about age of consent, they only care about the appearance of good breeding stock.
Sex in general is a very interesting taboo. It makes us want to do all kinds of things that as a culture we find shameful and shocking. I know I've stuck my dick in some pretty questionable places (all legal I might add!).
Personally I've shed any shame about it - I don't see why I should feel any more ashamed of my sexual tastes than I should feel about my preferences in food - but as a culture we're not there yet. And maybe we'll never be - it's a lot to ask of the majority to look at their own reflection candidly.
Which probably means we have to accept the lesser of two evils - people going on unfair witch hunts about pedophilia is probably the lesser of two evils compared to the alternative of tolerating pedophilia.
“Tolerating pedophilia,” since you seemingly insist on using the incorrect but colloquial definition, I’ll take to mean “attraction to post-pubescent teenagers under 18,” is the lesser of two evils. Attraction to, not sexual relationships with underage teenagers. Simply being attracted to them.
The greater evil is almost certainly the culture and tolerance of hate mobs: against a 21 yr old who sexted a 17 yr old, against a trans person who liked a controversial artist with sexualized drawings of children, against a YouTuber who admitted a film about the sexualization of minors was effective at sexualizing minors, or against some random person whom conspiracists with latent paranoid schizophrenia decide is running a sex trafficking ring through online furniture ads or a pizza shop.
As for which is the greater evil, I don't think that's a simple matter to reach a conclusion on. I dislike hate mobs as much as anyone - they're very primitive and nasty - but in my humble opinion the only thing that really makes human beings behave in a civilized manner, on the whole, is the fear of retribution and consequences.
For instance, if you put me in a room with a willing 14 year old, the number one reason I would never have sex with them is because of the social and legal consequences. My fear of being punished for it, legally and culturally, would keep me on the straight and narrow. That includes fear of how hated I would be if people found out.
So hate mobs, whilst distasteful, serve a purpose. It puts the fear of god into people, so to speak. The downside of such a mechanism is that sometimes people get unfairly crucified. So be it - that's the nature of such things. It might sound cynical, but I don't personally subscribe to the idea that we can so easily be more enlightened and nuanced than that - we don't live in the Star Trek universe unfortunately, we're still quite primitive on the whole.
I wish we could be - and I think there's a subset of people who actually can - but last time I checked in with the average and below average members of humanity, I didn't find that level of sophistication readily available.
i appreciate that you seem to be consistent in your empathy.
“Destiny used his position of power to manipulate a sexually naive 20-year-old into filming porn with him and then leaked it. That is worse than accidentally sexting with 17-year-old prostitute with whom he had no other relationship.”
I would accept this as true, because I find the idea of a significantly older man using not just the advantage of his age, but also his fame and influence, to exploit a younger and naive person to satisfy his sexual urges perverse, whether it’s legal or not. But I think if you can observe that Destiny is capable of exploiting people like this and not find fault in his behaviour, to discard the fact that he wouldn’t purposefully seek out more young people for the exact same reason is a bit negligent. pedophilia is very connected to the power imbalance, to the destruction of innocence.
destiny telling rose he’s excited about sending her back to their parents the way he described is very telling, because the perversion is not even that he wants to have sex with someone younger in secret, but in that he finds that clash between a young girl’s life (living with her parents, knowing they see her as their little girl) and destroying that, exciting. the truth is, if he didn’t know she was 17, it’s because he didn’t care.
men not knowing they are engaging with a particularly secretive and treacherous teenager online is one thing, but the deception would have to be active (rare). if he did not know, it’s because he didn’t care, the same way millions of other men online do not care that they engage with teenagers online because they were horny at the time—they are the product of a pedophilic culture they are in no rush to challenge.
some men just don’t want to see it as such so they can live with themselves. they can’t even bring themselves to think what would follow which is:
“well i’m not like one of THOSE pedophiles that rape their 4 year old kids… im one of the GOOD ones, i just find out too late i was gooning to a 16 year old… (again).” and choose instead to block away the damage they cause because it is emotionally convenient and they’re married to someone age appropriate.
“Pedophilia is a specific pattern of sexual attraction to little kids. It’s not a belief system or a behavior.”
I’ve helped put two pedophiles that were actively hurting teens under the scope of the police, and you know what I learned about them specifically? They don’t have a strict pattern of only seeking out kids—they will seek out anything, anyone, all of the time. it’s like a sexual compulsion of sorts, where their minds end up blurring the lines of acceptable behaviour because their sexual gratification is their only drive and end goal. they cannot help themselves, they cannot turn it off. they will pursue a 60yo woman, then a 14yo, then a 27yo, then a 17yo, knowingly. it’s not that the woman is a child, it’s that it’s a sex object. they don’t think about them as people. they don’t have to. at least not until the cops knock on their door.
these two men that i met separately had also been previously convicted and confessed to sexually engaging kids between the ages of 12-14. going to jail did not change them. they were both manipulative and narcissistic, albeit less successful in their lives than destiny (if you can consider him a success).
i am sure this isn’t the first time it has happened to destiny, and i’m sure it won’t be the last. he will just be more secretive about how he gets about it. and sure, because of that secrecy, we will have lost the guaranteed-scientific-100%-undeniable-accuracy right to call him a “proper” nonce. so yes, we could be extremely generous to a person least deserving of generosity (for he regrets nothing), and say “but guys we don’t ACTUALLY know that he is a pedo.”
i guess one thing remains true and it is that whether you think he is a pedo or not, he will continue to hurt people, younger or not. the bottom line is, if we are purely concerned about the semantics of it (aren’t streamers always a little bit concerned about semantics?) i would just drop it at: he is a monster.
“99% of adults are sexually attracted to 17-year-olds. the other 1% are pedophiles.” now you’re just being silly, come on.
you also use the term kids loosely. what is a kid to you? to me a 17 is a kid. a 14 year old is a kid. a 12 year old is a kid. it is a bit irresponsible of you to project your own worldview onto others, and assume they feel like you do, and that that is the natural order of things. i think i’m a little guilty of the same sometimes, but i don’t have a plaform so i worry less about it.
people aren’t replacing their moral codes with the TOS, that’s just the people around you.
cheers
ogh max. ok MEDICALLY Jeff may not have been considered abnormal because his attraction was to post-pubescents. But when people call him a pedophile, they don't care about puberty. People using the word pedophile to refer to abusive evil creeps instead of medical anomalies is intentional. They need a word to distinguish themselves from the child-abusers because when they notice a teenager who is, well, hot, they don't engage with that attraction. It becomes instinct that this person is not a sexual option, to the point where they stop realizing that they are attracted to them on a biological level, because they see them more and more as children with a body leaving childhood.
"Child" includes teenagers, pre and post pubescents. You can point to the way that doctors talk, but that's not how the rest of us do. Acknowledging or engaging with an attraction to a 15 year old, as an adult, is creepy and predatory, that is our purpose of the word.
My impression is that people have to call it pedophilia because they can't justify to themselves why it's wrong otherwise. I think the reason requires some frameworks of relationship dynamics between children and adults that are not obvious. It's probably that they haven't been educated to recognize them.
1: Destiny knew Rose was 17 according to the very same internet sleuths MrGirl is quoting
2: Destiny's previously leaked logs show a predilection towards age play, simulated (not-so-simulated in this case) grooming, lackadaisical attempts to vet fans sexting him, flagrant disregard for power differences, disdain for contemporary adult-coded women (like in his conversation with wesbtw in his "Anything Else" podcast), and fetishizing youth
3: Destiny found Rose through a twitter hashtag exclusively used for minors selling their porn & adults buying it, according to the very same internet sleuths MrGirl is quoting
4: The colloquial use of pedophile here is to build up momentum, de-platform and call out this creep who has a compulsive issue around abusing his power. The power comes from autistic, embittered, males in his audience who experience glee when destiny abuses people. It makes destiny's misuse of power impossible to dismantle from the inside (one of many reasons).
These compounding factors (and many others unmentioned here) should make any ethics concerned adult to use the small influence that individuals, even anonymous commenters have, and try to stop this guy's train. The evolution of the word pedophile is one such case; sexting 17 year olds might sound quaint in the somewhat-disinterested person that might come across any framing that this case might incur.
Destiny being accused of being a pedophile is quite concerning.
Words are not static in culture, their meaning evolves. There's a usefulness in the word misogynistic when applied to women suffrage (intentional misogyny), gender pay gap, and asking a waitress for a smile. The word misogyny has a real weight to it. Call a man a misogynist and he will either puff his chest or crumble inwards.
I see this essay as if someone in 1975 wrote "How is asking my waitress to smile or my girlfriend to wear make up misogynistic?" There probably was a time where asking a woman to smile was something dandies and sweet men did, and the action had 0% misogyny in it's DNA, according to everyone else's definition of misogyny.
We are seeing the meaning of the word pedophile evolve here. Words' meaning are mercurial, and english is particularly focused on the usefulness of a word rather than its meaning.
To cling to previous rigid meaning is an exercise in pedantry or trademarked MrGirl myopia. Or even funnier, one of many such cases where MrGirl is forcing himself to be impartial made him adopt half truths and extract a conclusion from them.
It's not a good idea to overextend criticisms of people you don't like in general. "Internet sleuths" are obsessive and paranoid, and tend to connect dots without real basis. I don't want to get mired in extrapolation which I will then later have to defend.
"4: The colloquial use of pedophile here is to build up momentum, de-platform and call out this creep who has a compulsive issue around abusing his power."
This is a sanitized way of acknowledging that the word is indeed used to form mobs.
I do concede your summation, but slapping it with the MrGirl repackaging trivializes what is happening. If the mob is large enough, the mob's collective opinion is like steroids on semantics and if it metastasizes, the mob is no longer a mob, it will just be "everyone".
Isn't that one of feminism's M.O.? To apply the misogyny label to things society doesnt currently think as misogynistic. I understand you're signaling to the DSM definition but doing so is circular, since DSM's definitions are subject to change not only because of new data but also cultural change and semantic change (like trans people)
Are you:
• lamenting that the word 'pedophile' is morphing and trying to stop this
• insinuating it's not actually morphing, the DSM definitions stands strong
• implying words dont change
• think that the usage of this word is foul because it blinds us to systematic issues (the usefulness of the word pedophile as it is applied to destiny is counter intuitive to its good. ie, its a netbad)
The word is indeed purposed to form mobs, but then the word will be used to form a new definition of the word. And you're trying to stop this. Should a people-shooting semantical eject button not be created?
I understand your point about ignoring the forest for the tree, but events such as destiny's and epstein's are totems. We are not exclusively solving cognitive dissonance, a new weapon is being built using the intrinsic appetites of society to witch-hunt people to stop the rape train.
Part of your ethics are based on half truths, a near bible-thumping that abandons function and real application for what *ought* to be.
You have banged your head against a brick wall for your entire life and you'll continue to do so. Your MO is particularly useful if/when you virtue signal and you present yourself as virtuous and courageous, but I don't think I've ever heard you admit that what you're doing is counter-intuitive to bringing these people down.
This argument is not meant to change your mind, you are impossibly stubborn, only to probe you for sincerity during your internal monologue at the very least.
None of the above: the definition is not actually morphing. It's being used as doublespeak. It simultaneously means "attracted to little kids" + "whatever else I want." That's what makes it mob-forming and dangerous.
mob-forming, yes
dangerous, yes.
What about effective?
"whatever else I want."
A more charitable framing is:
"Whatever stops this creep from predating vulnerable minors"
Are you willing to concede it is effective in that regard?
Do you concede that the “whatever else I want” element of the definition of pedophile is dangerous and used for destroying people’s lives that do not deserve it?
Mr.Kenosis you seem confused. I already answered your question and you're repeating what Max Karson says. I'd rather hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
The answer to your question is:
The device you used to type your message is a pedophile and its life should be ruined.
U wrote accidentally sexting a 17yo, if it was intentional would that be worse than just the pxie case? I think seeking out and using a rose type is perpetuating and therefore just as much as a moral failure as harming someone. He’s not equally responsible for their existence but it’s an equal moral failing in my book. I think the only rules around csam shud be don’t buy and make it. That’s ur moral obligation anything more doesn’t rlly seem fair. U don’t have to seek out and destroy it or have awareness about other ppls consumption. How or why is hooking up with a 17yo something that causes cognitive dissonance? I think ur right but that’s must be bcuz we are quite literally so dishonest about everything in society. Idk I feel like u must be very stupid to get cognitive dissonance so easy so is it really just that I’m in disbelief but it sounds right. Dummies or ppl who get lost in their own lies develop cognitive dissonance
Intense social pressure doesnt work to stop CSA, but its the only/best tool we have.
What else do you recommend besides just keeping kids away from all adults?
You don't have to keep them away, you just have to restrict private access. No private relationships.
Other good ideas are to get people to stop drinking and doing drugs, as that is often a catalyst.
But simply recognizing that adults and teenagers want to have sex with each other would go a long way.
>Sexting with a 17-year-old is predatory
Why? The 17-year old in question was more sexually experienced than a lot of people i their 20's. How can you say for sure that it was predatory, purely based on the age?
I'm defining it as predatory. Because 17-year-olds are physically similar to 20-year-olds but mentally less developed. It creates an inherent power differential, and I think seeking that out is predatory behavior.
You don't think i could find you a lot of 17 year olds that were more mature and sexually experienced than a lot of 20-yo's?
I'm asking because that seems to be the case in destiny's situation. The 17-year old might as well have been 25, given their sexual maturity compared to their age range.
I think the “pedophilia” fear mongering and witch hunting conversation goes nowhere so long as people refuse to get to the heart of the issue. Which you have avoided here as well. Which is the hatred and fear of specifically male sexuality. This is a witch hunt against men. All of the controversy around porn and porn bans, is a fear/disgust/hate response to male sexuality.
You have often stated that the reason why the pedophile narrative is captivating to you is because it’s the last group of people that you are openly allowed to hate and justify killing. But this is false. It’s men. Men are the last group you are openly allowed to hate and justify killing. Male pedos. Male transsexuals. It’s not just a subsection of men. It’s all men. And the proof is that if you were hiring a baby sitter, you would be afraid to and highly unlikely to hire a male. It’s why men have increasingly vanished from teaching roles. Every man is feared to have the potential to sexually scar children, women, and other men.
The penis is a weapon of psychological mass destruction. Hell, not just the penis, but the male eyes. The male gaze terrorizes the women and children caught in it. The porn consumed by the eyes of men is destructive. It’s why we don’t want trans women in women’s locker rooms, but nobody cares about trans men in men’s locker rooms. The hatred and fear of trans people is the hatred and fear of men.
If you have anything to say about the pedophile narrative that does not speak to the center of this issue, that being the demonization of men, then you aren’t saying anything of much importance at all.
I understand your view and I think it's interesting, but I generally resist this type of "let's talk about the real issue here" reframing. It's reductive and always reads as fanatical to me, like you have a specific issue you care about (MRA) and view all other narratives through this one lens.
The experts I've interviewed say 1-3% of adult men are pedophiles. I think we can assume that number is higher among male teachers and babysitters. I'd guess around 5%.
One thing I'm advocating for is a language that can frankly admit this without demonization. I don't hate pedophiles, but you gotta admit, a 1/20 chance that your kid's babysitter is concealing an intense sexual attraction to 8-year-olds is concerning.
Whether or not it reads as fanatical doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Whether or not it’s reductive doesn’t mean I’m wrong either. I don’t think it’s simplifying the problem of pedojacketing to say that the reason people are able to do this is because people hate, fear, and are disgusted by male sexuality in general. It’s not simplification, it’s finding a proper target.
I understand the resistance to it, though. Because if we are being honest, a lot of popular hate can be reduced to man hate very cleanly. Homophobia is far more skewed toward gay men. Being a gay man is far more likely to result in violence towards you than being a lesbian. They weren’t throwing lesbians off the roof in Iraq and Syria. Racism as well. The vast majority of lynchings were against black men. And many of those were specifically the hatred/fear of their sexuality. Emmitt Till wolf whistling a white woman.
If you were a woman who had made the infamous cuties review you’d have been hated a fraction of the amount you are. That’s stupidly obvious. There’s no other part of you that would have reduced that amount of hate if we changed it. If you weren’t half/quarter Jewish. If you didn’t wear glasses. If you were younger. All of these things probably would’ve lessened the hate somewhat, but your penis is the most hate inducing thing about you and your cuties review. And if you agree that is true, then how can we discuss the pedophile narrative without focusing on the 100% gendered dynamic of it? If people don’t really care about protecting children more than they are just grossed out by male sexuality?
I also freely admit that it is concerning. I would be much less likely to hire a male babysitter, because I am not actually fanatical in the direction of men’s rights. I think the benefits of having more male teachers outweighs the increased pedophilia risk, though.
The sharp taboo against pedophilia exists for two reasons.
One reason is the sensible pragmatic aspect - that grown adults having sex with teenagers and children can very easily be abusive and damaging for the young person. If it were freely allowed it would likely be a net negative, so it's fair to say that it's correct that we don't tolerate it, at least in a modern world with long life expectancies.
The other reason is that it makes people deeply uncomfortable. We're scared of the truths about it - such as the truth that to most red blooded men, a post puberty girl is going to be physically attractive. Our instincts don't care about age of consent, they only care about the appearance of good breeding stock.
Sex in general is a very interesting taboo. It makes us want to do all kinds of things that as a culture we find shameful and shocking. I know I've stuck my dick in some pretty questionable places (all legal I might add!).
Personally I've shed any shame about it - I don't see why I should feel any more ashamed of my sexual tastes than I should feel about my preferences in food - but as a culture we're not there yet. And maybe we'll never be - it's a lot to ask of the majority to look at their own reflection candidly.
Which probably means we have to accept the lesser of two evils - people going on unfair witch hunts about pedophilia is probably the lesser of two evils compared to the alternative of tolerating pedophilia.
“Tolerating pedophilia,” since you seemingly insist on using the incorrect but colloquial definition, I’ll take to mean “attraction to post-pubescent teenagers under 18,” is the lesser of two evils. Attraction to, not sexual relationships with underage teenagers. Simply being attracted to them.
The greater evil is almost certainly the culture and tolerance of hate mobs: against a 21 yr old who sexted a 17 yr old, against a trans person who liked a controversial artist with sexualized drawings of children, against a YouTuber who admitted a film about the sexualization of minors was effective at sexualizing minors, or against some random person whom conspiracists with latent paranoid schizophrenia decide is running a sex trafficking ring through online furniture ads or a pizza shop.
Fair distinction re the word, it's a muddy term.
As for which is the greater evil, I don't think that's a simple matter to reach a conclusion on. I dislike hate mobs as much as anyone - they're very primitive and nasty - but in my humble opinion the only thing that really makes human beings behave in a civilized manner, on the whole, is the fear of retribution and consequences.
For instance, if you put me in a room with a willing 14 year old, the number one reason I would never have sex with them is because of the social and legal consequences. My fear of being punished for it, legally and culturally, would keep me on the straight and narrow. That includes fear of how hated I would be if people found out.
So hate mobs, whilst distasteful, serve a purpose. It puts the fear of god into people, so to speak. The downside of such a mechanism is that sometimes people get unfairly crucified. So be it - that's the nature of such things. It might sound cynical, but I don't personally subscribe to the idea that we can so easily be more enlightened and nuanced than that - we don't live in the Star Trek universe unfortunately, we're still quite primitive on the whole.
I wish we could be - and I think there's a subset of people who actually can - but last time I checked in with the average and below average members of humanity, I didn't find that level of sophistication readily available.