I hate to get so semantical but using the word pedophile incorrectly just desensitizes the word. Pedophilia means being attracted to children, primarily meaning before or in the early stages of puberty, usually younger than 13. In fact, many pedophiles would not be attracted to someone aged 15+ because they are typically exclusively or primarily interested in prepubescent bodies.
That doesn’t mean this guy isn’t a total asshole, but he’s not a pedophile, and I think anyone can understand an adult sexting an older teen, while still absolutely horrid, is quite different from sexting a child.
Once again, absolutely not defending this guy, I don’t even know who he is… but I think it’s important not to desensitize the word.
Yeah I would totally agree with this if the word wasn’t already desensitized a very long time ago. The language has changed. (I’m assuming people were ever differentiating, I don’t really know/remember the history.) Colloquially it means interested in teens unless it’s clarified to be worse than that.
I recommend not trying to make this argument, anywhere. It will not change the way people use words, even if it could there would not be a point (attraction to pre-teens is so egregious that it will always be clarified), and a lot of people will assume that someone who doesn’t accept the colloquial usage is themselves interested in teens and in denial about how the public actually views that to the point where they think only interest in prepubescent children is problematic and handwave everything else away as a language issue.
Colloquially, it’s a catch-all nowadays. Like I said in another reply, we don’t need to differentiate between lowest common denominators. That gets into sounding sympathetic to these fucks, and anyone who sympathizes might as well be one themselves.
I’ve attended a seminar for child protection before that was delivered by a former cop (that worked in the sex crimes division) and they said the exact same thing - in the context of correctly making the distinction between paedophile and sex offender.
It is reprehensible and disgusting behavior, but it doesn’t mean we should universally apply labels across vast swaths of different issues, as it devalues said label and poisons future discussion.
Simple labels simplify discussion of course, but that runs the risk of losing nuance for the specific way someone was a disgusting creep.
Not in the jurisdiction he was in, and that’s all that matters.
Also, while sending sexually explicit texts to minors (using only words) is not illegal, I’m pretty sure we can correlate what his intent was. What, do you think he’s going to come out and fully admit he’s a pedophile? No.
Also, nowhere in any of his statements has he clarified that he didn’t know they were underage. If it were the case that he didn’t know, that’s a pretty fucking big deal and he should know how important it is to explain that. He didn’t though.
Well… If the person was a minor, and you weren’t, and you knew they were young and the messages were ‘leaning inappropriate’, you’re a pedophile.
Also a predator.
I hate to get so semantical but using the word pedophile incorrectly just desensitizes the word. Pedophilia means being attracted to children, primarily meaning before or in the early stages of puberty, usually younger than 13. In fact, many pedophiles would not be attracted to someone aged 15+ because they are typically exclusively or primarily interested in prepubescent bodies.
That doesn’t mean this guy isn’t a total asshole, but he’s not a pedophile, and I think anyone can understand an adult sexting an older teen, while still absolutely horrid, is quite different from sexting a child.
Once again, absolutely not defending this guy, I don’t even know who he is… but I think it’s important not to desensitize the word.
I know the distinction, but hebephile doesn’t carry the same weight. Also, I believe I read the minor was 12. So… Pedo.
I stand by what I said. We don’t need to be apologistic towards the scum of the earth. Kids are kids.
Oh fuck. I heard she was 17 and that was fucking bad enough as is. Fucking hell this man is awful.
Yeah I would totally agree with this if the word wasn’t already desensitized a very long time ago. The language has changed. (I’m assuming people were ever differentiating, I don’t really know/remember the history.) Colloquially it means interested in teens unless it’s clarified to be worse than that.
I recommend not trying to make this argument, anywhere. It will not change the way people use words, even if it could there would not be a point (attraction to pre-teens is so egregious that it will always be clarified), and a lot of people will assume that someone who doesn’t accept the colloquial usage is themselves interested in teens and in denial about how the public actually views that to the point where they think only interest in prepubescent children is problematic and handwave everything else away as a language issue.
Colloquially, it’s a catch-all nowadays. Like I said in another reply, we don’t need to differentiate between lowest common denominators. That gets into sounding sympathetic to these fucks, and anyone who sympathizes might as well be one themselves.
I’ve attended a seminar for child protection before that was delivered by a former cop (that worked in the sex crimes division) and they said the exact same thing - in the context of correctly making the distinction between paedophile and sex offender.
Sounds like he was grooming her.
You sound like a pedophile.
That is not the words you should use for a 17 year old he didn’t even know was underage.
He said he knew in his post.
Still not a pedophile nor a predator even for flirting. This is not a 12 year old, but in many jurisdictions a responsible adult.
He’s a morally reprehensible asshole either way.
Removed by mod
I leave my basement and talk to people every day without hitting on underage girls
Removed by mod
Yeah that’s a fair take.
It is reprehensible and disgusting behavior, but it doesn’t mean we should universally apply labels across vast swaths of different issues, as it devalues said label and poisons future discussion.
Simple labels simplify discussion of course, but that runs the risk of losing nuance for the specific way someone was a disgusting creep.
No it’s not. Beahm, a 38 year old man at the time, was sexting a minor. That makes him a pedo.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Dubious take.
Mfers out here googling what age a legal adult is to defend predators
Not in the jurisdiction he was in, and that’s all that matters.
Also, while sending sexually explicit texts to minors (using only words) is not illegal, I’m pretty sure we can correlate what his intent was. What, do you think he’s going to come out and fully admit he’s a pedophile? No.
Also, nowhere in any of his statements has he clarified that he didn’t know they were underage. If it were the case that he didn’t know, that’s a pretty fucking big deal and he should know how important it is to explain that. He didn’t though.
Stop defending pedophiles.
Where did that age come from?
Are you seriously taking the pedophiles side on this?!
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Ya he was just trying to be a pedophile. Totally different…