[ SECRET POST #3551 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3551 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Star Trek]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________















07. [WARNING for non-con]



__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for mentions/discussion of abuse, rape, pedophilia, etc]

[YuGiOh! The Abridged Series, Little Kuriboh]



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 47 secrets from Secret Submission Post #507.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ypsilon42]

... tbh I would take all of what you wrote way more serious if you didn't refer to a relationship with an underage teenager as pedophilia. look, I don't know a lot about the circumstances, and I believe it's totally possible that the relationship was fucked up or abusive, but unless the girl was like nine, it's just not pedophilia. And throwing that word around so much honestly just makes your argument look bad.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know this specific case either but I think "teenager=not pedophilia" is not the best place to draw the line either, cause I would still think a 35 year old that was fucking a 13 year old, for example, was a pedophile.

[(Anonymous)]

You would be factually incorrect the though.

[(Anonymous)]

Not really.

Pedophilia is a medical condition where a perosn is attracted to someone with underdeveloped secondary sex characteristics. Few 13 year olds have bodies similar to that of fully developed adults, so a 35 year old, or even a 20 year old attracted to such underdeveloped child is absolutely a textbook pedophile.

Of course I wouldn't consider it pedophilia if someone saw an unusually developed 13 year old and felt attracted to them, but I absolutely would expect an adult to have enough maturity and responsibility to not pursue a relationship knowing the child's actual age. I could understand a relationship with a 17 year old, or even a 16 year old with above-average maturity, but no 13 year old is so mature that it would make a relationship with an adult an equal partnership.

[(Anonymous)]

I think there's some problems with that definition. Pedophilia is someone who is attracted to children. Sometimes children - including girls as young as 8 or 9 - have developed secondary sex characteristics, but predators are still attracted to them because they are children, vulnerable and easily manipulated. There are mental characteristics of childhood that are attractive to pedophiles as well.

From personal experience (I was not actually abused) I was a tall, busty 10-year-old. I experienced a lot of street harassment. Most older guys backed off as soon as I said my age but there were always some who got vastly more interested.

[(Anonymous)]

Pedophiles are not the only predators out there and predators who are not pedophiles are still capable of seeking out "easy victims". A 10 year old obviously appears as an easy victim to them, and if that 10 year old also happen to have developed sexual characteristics that appeal to them, that's an icing on the cake.

Would you consider it pedophilia is a person was attracted to someone their own age, or even older, with no medical condition impairing their mental reasoning, but with a sweet and innocent personality of a child? I wouldn't.

[(Anonymous)]

There are plenty countries where 14 is the age of consent. So by your definition, a legal relationship of a 14 year old with an older person would still by pedophilia as long as the 14 year old doesn't look particularly developed. Furthermore, by your definition ("underdeveloped secondary sex characteristics") a relationship with a flat-chested, petite adult woman or a higher-than usual voiced petite adult man could still be counted as pedophilia.

[(Anonymous)]

That's not my definition, that's a medical definition, officially recognized by medical authorities across the world.

And yes, if I met a guy who purposefully seeks out and dates women who look like pre-pubescent children and actively tried to convince them to not try to make themselves look their age via make-up or clothes, I would be careful around that guy. Though I'd have been happy that a person with clearly pedophilic tendencies is choosing to act them out with someone capable of consenting to this.

[ypsilon42]

I don't know if I can agree with that. I mean it's definitely fucked and unhealthy, don't get me wrong, but the definition of pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children. I just don't think it's helpful to mix definitions, a relationship be wrong and abusive and even be taking advantage of someone's age without being pedophilia.

(Also I did some research and it seems the ages involved are more like 15 and 23 or so. Pretty fucked up and abusive and definitly some taking advantage of, but imo not pedophilia.)