Pedophilia is NOT sexual attraction to teenage (post pubescent) girls. As a society we have decided that that is potentially harmful and therefore illegal, but it is not pedophilia in any way. Pedophilia is specifically sexual attraction (and/or assault) of prepubescentchildren.
In the case of these "child stars" they are almost certainly actual victims of pedophilia with likely a lifetime of sexual assault.
In no way am I saying they should not be punished for their crimes. It is illegal and it is imperative they learn that it is wrong. But the people that really deserve punishment are the ones that abused these people as actual children.
I had no idea it had a name. I am just sick of people calling something a thing that it is not. Pedophilia is pure predatory. it is a very different sin than being attracted to a young woman, who for most of human history was legally marrying age (whether that was appropriate or not is not the point).
The point is, one is a sin of a pure predator (no caring whatsoever for the other person (child)), the other is a sin of "may be psychologically harmful" which is why it is illegal.
12 (Bell's victim) and 13 (Massey's victim) year old girls could be prepubescent. Should the victims be asked if they started their menses before filing charges against their alleged abusers? Is that something you think the law should consider when doling out punishments for these perpetrators?
So by that logic, a man who molests a nine year old who has started puberty should get a lighter sentence than a man who molests a thirteen year old who has not had a period yet? Seems unfair. Punishment is usually more severe the younger the victim.
You are trying to create hypotheticals to "prove" a point I am not making.
I am pointing out that there are TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES GOING ON and it is obvious to anyone who spends half a second thinking about it, or anyone who remembers what they were like when they were a young teenager v. a child; especially their mental development and ability to determine their own actions.
Nevertheless, here's a non hypothetical example of the ludicrousness of not looking at the reality of the situation.
I don't remember where it is, but there was a post about a "pedo" who was sexting some poor young innocent girl on here a while ago. People were going off on the guy, just like here, without any thought to the reality of the situation, just wanting blood. The guy was 20, the girl was 17.
Give me a fucking break.
I am not saying that this is the same as that, but that is exactly nothing. This is more than nothing, but its not the same as molesting a child who hasn't developed mentally enough to understand that they are being abused, or understands and can't do anything about it because of their programming.
A teenager is rebellious basically 100% of the time. They question everything. They don't do what they are told (like a child does). They choose for themselves. They have outgrown the entire concept of "respect your elder no matter what".
Can they be coerced? Yes, so can an adult. Can they be forced? Yes, so can an adult. Those are different crimes than using the authority of "elder" v. "child" to prey upon those that are still programmed to obey.
Pedophilia is NOT sexual attraction to teenage (post pubescent) girls. As a society we have decided that that is potentially harmful and therefore illegal, but it is not pedophilia in any way. Pedophilia is specifically sexual attraction (and/or assault) of prepubescent children.
In the case of these "child stars" they are almost certainly actual victims of pedophilia with likely a lifetime of sexual assault.
In no way am I saying they should not be punished for their crimes. It is illegal and it is imperative they learn that it is wrong. But the people that really deserve punishment are the ones that abused these people as actual children.
You should've just posted the Hebephilia copypasta and called it a day.
I had no idea it had a name. I am just sick of people calling something a thing that it is not. Pedophilia is pure predatory. it is a very different sin than being attracted to a young woman, who for most of human history was legally marrying age (whether that was appropriate or not is not the point).
The point is, one is a sin of a pure predator (no caring whatsoever for the other person (child)), the other is a sin of "may be psychologically harmful" which is why it is illegal.
12 (Bell's victim) and 13 (Massey's victim) year old girls could be prepubescent. Should the victims be asked if they started their menses before filing charges against their alleged abusers? Is that something you think the law should consider when doling out punishments for these perpetrators?
They are very different crimes. Yes, the law should absolutely consider the fact that one is a crime of a pure predator, and one is not.
And so should we. Ignoring the real differences is imo criminal.
So by that logic, a man who molests a nine year old who has started puberty should get a lighter sentence than a man who molests a thirteen year old who has not had a period yet? Seems unfair. Punishment is usually more severe the younger the victim.
You are trying to create hypotheticals to "prove" a point I am not making.
I am pointing out that there are TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES GOING ON and it is obvious to anyone who spends half a second thinking about it, or anyone who remembers what they were like when they were a young teenager v. a child; especially their mental development and ability to determine their own actions.
Nevertheless, here's a non hypothetical example of the ludicrousness of not looking at the reality of the situation.
I don't remember where it is, but there was a post about a "pedo" who was sexting some poor young innocent girl on here a while ago. People were going off on the guy, just like here, without any thought to the reality of the situation, just wanting blood. The guy was 20, the girl was 17.
Give me a fucking break.
I am not saying that this is the same as that, but that is exactly nothing. This is more than nothing, but its not the same as molesting a child who hasn't developed mentally enough to understand that they are being abused, or understands and can't do anything about it because of their programming.
A teenager is rebellious basically 100% of the time. They question everything. They don't do what they are told (like a child does). They choose for themselves. They have outgrown the entire concept of "respect your elder no matter what".
Can they be coerced? Yes, so can an adult. Can they be forced? Yes, so can an adult. Those are different crimes than using the authority of "elder" v. "child" to prey upon those that are still programmed to obey.