Desperate, vile, lying, pedophile? Nah
- Thread starter Tygerbright
- Start date
I would suggest that there is a major difference between paedophilia (which I define for these purposes as sexual desire for pre-pubescent children) and ephebophilia (which I define for these purposes as sexual desire for young but post-pubescent children).
The latter is merely a matter of local custom, enshrined into law in most places. Country music star Loretta Lynn was married at 15. In some states, one can marry as young as 13. In the ancient formula of the Jewish bar mitzvah, a boy at 13 declares "Today I am a man." And when the bar mitzvah was first adopted, that was true. A 13-year-old boy was ready to work a job or a farm, marry, have children, and fight. The laws addressing ephebophilia today are mostly concerns about older adults taking advantage of the relative inexperience of teens for their sexual gratification, and are reflected in the fact that age of consent also varies among jurisdictions.
Paedophilia is sexual desire for a person who is not yet, to all practical purposes, a sexual being. It is a fetish, and indication that you've got a hole in your sack of marbles.
I am curious about the Kentucky exclusion. Does that mean that there is no age of consent if they are your next of kin? I guess that clause is to allow you to keep dating your cousins.
I'm pretty good, taxslave. Thanks for asking!
Just needed a break from the Internet and other Social Media. I've been leading a more minimalist life the last half year or so. I think my brain just needed a vacation from all of the white noise.
Just needed a break from the Internet and other Social Media. I've been leading a more minimalist life the last half year or so. I think my brain just needed a vacation from all of the white noise.
I've researched it, but never found a definitive answer to the question "Under Kentucky law, if a married couple gets divorced, are they still brother and sister?"
I watched a documentary once that was about pedophiles; interesting piece. Those they interviewed were disgusted by their own desires, but said it wasn't something they could help. Yet it was something that was always "on".
Kind'a makes me think of them differently; as in they are who they are, but if they follow through on the desires, THOSE are the ones that need to be castrated and denied life.
Why wouldn't it?
If my name was Sally and I wanted to change my name to Kristen, using my previous 'dead name' would be stupid and insulting, frankly.
I don't know that is why I was asking. The snowflake generation seems to change the rules constantly. It is impossible to keep up. Especially if one doesn't really care about their imagined slights when there are far more important things going on in the world.
"Call people what they like to be called" is a trendy-lefty rule of the moment?
That's funny. I thought it's been common courtesy as long as I've been alive.
Sadly if it doesn't fit with what some people think is "the way it should be "or is "normal", then it's a huge issue.
Common courtesy doesn't exist anymore and sadly where it does, it's considered a "trendy lefty" rule.
It's adorable how you protest me rightfully calling you out and then without prompting write a comment like this last one that just pretty much announces you're a right wing Gentle Eve container.
Re: Desperate, vile, lying, pedophile.
I see racism everywhere because it's well effing everywhere.
It's actually illegal in Canada if proven it's done with malice. It's like doxxing people is illegal and deadnaming can go from petty aggression and harassment to endangering lives. And it's also a factor in the battle with respect after death laws
Imagined slights?
Not being called by your rightful name is a 'slight'?
Okay, guess this is "we can call people whatever we want" all over.
You're now buttface. Wear it with pride.
Your rightful name is the one your parents gave you. Rather disrespectful towards your parents to change it.