this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
718 points (98.1% liked)
Political Weirdos
1071 readers
1 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think that back then, people defined pedophilia in terms of the perpetrator's attraction, not in terms of impact to the victim. Essentially, "is it weird for the adult to be attracted to their body?" more than, "would the young person be harmed, physically or emotionally, by sex?" Now we are more evolved.
Back when I was a kid, pedophilia meant what she said - attraction to a prepubescent child. If someone was an adult who thought a physically developed 15-year-old was sexy, that was just logical. Because their bodies had secondary sex characteristics. (It wasn't considered a good idea to actually have sex with them, at least from what I could see. Maybe in Azalia's experience it was considered OK.)
But if an adult thought that a flat and hairless child was attractive, that was messed up on their part. The same way people think that furries or scat play or other fetishes were messed up. But even more so. There was just nothing to consider sexy about an actual child.
Now, we consider the impact to the victim. Pedophilia is defined as attraction to a victim under the age of consent. Because their brain is not fully developed, their body can't handle pregnancy, they are socially able to be manipulated, and a host of other reasons.
I am not trying to be accused of being an apologist, but from someone who grew up in the 90s, I find it strange that we use the same word for someone who rapes a toddler, as someone who "statutory rapes" (as it would be called) a 15-year-old. They are both wrong, but it seems to me that one is much worse than the other. Both because of the attraction (or I guess power fantasy) on the part of the adult, and the impact to the victim.
I think Azalia is wrong to say it was always totally fine. But she is right that it was considered right or wrong for a different reason back then. The definition was different.
I was born in 1975. I don't care how you want to frame it, over 20 people having sex with 15 years olds were considered pedophiles in the 90's. We would even "joking" ask our friends if they had their pedo-pass with them if they smooched with someone 2 years younger.
No age of consent varies from place to place. Pedo is a medical term with a precise meaning that doesn't vary from jurisdiction and carries the same definition you originally listed.
We impose restrictions both legally, ethically, morally and socially beyond the minimum has has hair and boobs because we care about people being emotionally healthy first with legal penalties and then social ones.
In many places a 40 year old could interact with a 17-18 year old legally without going to jail but would experience shame social consequences and friction designed to encourage people not to be assholes.
Sometimes this even works.
They were taking about pedophile being used colloquially. Medical definitions and social definitions often differ.
When the word is a medical, technical, or scientific word the actual definition is the only definition and anyone else using it differently is just wrong.
Language is constantly changing, buddy. You're fighting a losing battle.
No for example your lung will never mean your kidney even if the majority of people failed anatomy technical terms mean what experts say they mean not what others say
Right, that's an anatomical body part, not a word used to categorize people.
Technically there's a distinct word for prepubescent and pubescent attraction, just day to day it doesn't make sense to talk about the nuance because someone will mistake nuance for some sort of green light.
Was this the 1890's? I was born in '82, and I can't think of a single time someone was like "oh an adult and a 15 year old child? Yeah that's okay."
This is straight priori falacy. Why the fuck are you arguing the 'degrees of okay-ness' for sex with children. This is fucking baffling.
Thinking one thing is worse doesn't mean you endorse anything else.
Saying, "Both these things are bad, and one is worse," is not the same as saying, "One of these things is more okay than the other." Neither one is okay.
If we cannot compare bad things without that comparison implying, "one of them is more GOOD than the other," then all bad things are equally bad. If I said that committing pedophilia is worse than beating your wife, am I now saying that beating your wife is better? What about stealing from the cash register at work, or jaywalking? Are all bad things just equally bad, with no comparison possible, or else we're praising the virtues of crime?
To your first point, in that sentence I wasn't talking about actually dating or having sex with the 15 year old. I was talking about looking at them, and thinking they are attractive. So no, nobody would say that the "relationship" was okay, but they wouldn't roundly condemn someone for being attracted to them, or having the urge to look at them sexually, in their own head.
It used to be relatively acceptable to say something like, "Man, I sure think that 15 year old looks hot, but of course I won't go anywhere near her, because she is too young," but never, ever, to say the same about a 5 year old. That first sentiment is the basis of many distasteful songs and jokes and movies. The second one would be met with confusion and revulsion for even thinking it.
And once again, I am not saying that is right. I am just saying how attitudes have changed. For the better. Now we say that even looking at a teenager is wrong. That looking at their body is as bad as looking at a very young child's body. Because in both cases, it's not how messed-up you are in the head to even think about it. It's about how it would harm them to go through with it. And that's a better attitude.
They're not looking for a nuanced opinion. They want to be outraged and self-righteous, not to have a conversation.