One of the girls Trump is accused of raping was 12. Not a teen.
Well it sure does if they are under aged which they were.
This is this person’s view, who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type. Like, he liked 15-year-old girls. And I realized this is disgusting. I’m definitely not trying to make an excuse for this. I’m just giving you facts, that he wasn’t into, like, 8-year-olds. But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby.
Okay conservatives, ask yourself: are those young girls not the very people you seek to protect from the transgender persons? Like, if you’re fine with the shit that tRump and Epstein pulled with kids because that level of depravity is suddenly okay, then you must clearly be fine with kids peeing in the stall next to a transgender person or seeing a transgender person wash their hands. After all, seeing a transgender person wash their hands is nothing compared to the now-not-a-risk from the pedophile-in-chief.
Oh, it’s never been about protecting children? It’s just been about hate?
Hate requires no intelligence to operate. The US has an adultescence problem. Turns out the bystander effect applies to a society’s impact on children too. The irony is kids in the US have never been more intelligent or open-minded… can’t have that kind of future competition.
Conservatives are compelled by cognitive dissonance to argue for this distinction because all the men they know like to ride a very fine legally-defined line.
Not all. Some prefer riding over state lines.
Ephebephilia or possibly hebephilia rather than pedophilia, but the distinction is moot, because non-psychology litterate people mean all minors when they say pedophile.
Can’t wait to try these words at the next Scrabble game.
Ephebophile (noun): A pedophile with a thesaurus.
Or a Psychology litterate with the DSM-V
This is one of those technical distinctions where if you’re making the distinction, you’re already on the wrong side of everything.
Psychology and precision in language using the diagnostic terminology of the DSM V is on the wrong side of everything?
No one is excusing or belittling anything. People who hurt children must fry.
Yeah, if you’re quoting the DSM V to defend yourself as technically not a pedophile, then yes you’ve crossed the rubicon of decency.
I’m not defending anyone from anything. Your repeated, blatent and misguided attempts to mischaracterise what’s being said makes me think “He doth protest too much.”.
It’s the litteral definition of the diagnostic manual from the APA. You may want to book an appointment.
I’d say there’s nothing inherently wrong with any of these. It’s the child trafficking and child molestation that’s the issue.
Just like the difference between a scientific theory and a layman’s theory!
Another technical aspect: all of the philias relate to attraction to something, rather than having sex with it.
One could have necrophilia and yet never have sex with a corpse or not have necrophilia and still have sex with a corpse.
Yep. I don’t care if he’s a pedophile, not, or something else entirely. He is a rapist and child sexual abuser.
And presumably one could have sex with a corpse yet not be attracted to it.
deleted by creator
