Etherial Cat

What the authorities are saying is not hard to figure out. You can read court decisions, books, attend university lectures or just look at how your current legal system functions. All of that has been shaped by people trained in the domain. So I'm not going to source content widely available. But I'll question anyone making assumptions going against mainstream standards in the domain when I spot it, especially if its totally outlandish and I can easily spot it as false. Another reason why I don't get into more detail is because law is local, and it requires a lot of groundwork knowledge to understand it as a system. That said, there are common denominators. It's tough to talk about it in a global context. The subject of pedophilia is also a multidisciplinary field, and while I've got the basics I'm not proficient in it either.

@Carl-Richard It's because it's still categorized under pedophilia.

Only you know whether the pre-consentment is true or if you added it up later. The current legislation is already made by experts who actually know what they are talking about. This includes psychiatrist, psychologist, criminolgist, lawyers, judges, university professors with actual experience in the topic working together to protect the sexual integrity of minors. And my opinion is that they aren't particularly conservative in their assessment of when consent can be given. I'm curious to know what is your background though, and why you think you are more knowledgeable than all of them. You could perhaps attempt a career in the domain, in which case I would die to follow your journey as such a brilliant, groundbreaking genius, ready to revolutionize it. I'm certain your reception would be absolutely epic. It's either this, or your brilliance is just a belief in your mind, and you're just a guy with a bad case of Dunning-Kruger, attempting to legitimize his creepy attraction for 14 year old and terribly uninformed understanding of consent. Unfortunately I'm certain it's the the second option, and I would recommend you to start investigation what's up.

Yeah right. Coming from the guy who's adamant penetrating someone sleeping is normal, I wasn't expecting anything better.

Mature developed people are not attracted to 14 years old. That's why hebephilia is considered a mental disease by psychiatrists and pretty much everyone who is normal. And the problem is exactly here. Youngster groomed by adults get introduced to sex under the veneer of a romantic relationship by someone who is not healthy, often manipulative and abuses them.

It's not the first time that I see you writing up very questionable behavior about rape. I'm just a stranger on the internet who you might think you're debating, but the real world is not the internet and these type of opinion are not very popular, especially when it comes to any type of law enforcement services. You might want to beware and check your assumption on what consent is, because one day, things might get complicated for you if your act of such beliefs.

@integral If you see it, I suggest it to either report them to their parents and the police, because it's illegal as you just mentioned it before. It's called statutory rape, and grooming.

It's for unrestricted consent. Most countries, including mine distinguish basic consent and unrestricted consent. At 16 year old, you're mature enough to have sex, but if you're between 16 and 18 and someone's got authority on you, they are still falling under a special sexual assault infraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_by_country First world nations are definitely not subscribing to the idea a 14 year old is mature enough for consent.

I am pretty sure Leo's experience is a clear case of statutory rape according to California. Obviously, we don't know all the fact so it's hard to tell. In any case it's baffling to see how many are beating around the bush and not calling it for what it is.

There can be a very strong lag between feeling love ( in any forms, whether it's love between family members or romantic) towards someone, and actually loving someone. The first one is much more common than the second one. Yeah, exactly. And then, because we are attached to these figures and we don't want to see how they failed to be loving towards us, we adapt our definition of love to what we've been experiencing...

There are plenty of people running amok with uninformed opinions everywhere. You can't stop and help them all out. And very often, narratives are used as a way to legitimize underlying feelings. We often focus on providing rational argument, but what would be needed is to work on that feeling dimension. Ex: Trumpists That's plain incorrect, even in a normal set up.

No, thanks. Unfortunately, my time is better spent elsewhere. I already know how this is going to end up anyway. Carl just made this analysis out of his general impression on the subject, so he should be the one asked to source his analysis, if anything.

My third law degree and the criminology lectures I attended, on top of first hand experience in the matters I've had disagree.

Yes, I am aware of this. Any form of direct allowance of sex with children by member posting in this thread has never been my concern. I was pointing out at other narratives. I'm sorry this is how it appears to you. I only wanted to help.

What you wrote about pedophilia is just plain false and unhelpful for a victim to heal. - Guys, you people know very well that from the absolute perspective everything is love. You can read about the most horrendous war crime from the unit 731 and still come at it from the spiritual absolute perspective and say it. But the question is, does it also manifest as love in the relative/mundane/three dimensional world? Does this behavior protect free will, health, integrity, does it show cares, etc ?

What a bunch of BS.

The absolute perspective isn't made to cancel relative perspectives. In the case of pedophilia, there are a whole lot of relative perspectives that need to be honored over " let just that man have its way, it's just all love anyway" .

Eek. Weaponizing and exploiting other's people vulnerability is the apanage of people who are not able to sit and face their own feelings. The joke is on them. As above so below, as within so without. I was listening yesterday to an interview of Gabor Maté by Tim Ferris. Tim Ferris apparently also came forward with his abuse and I don't think anyone in his community has been using this to torment him. I'm pretty sure he got a lot of support. -- As I mentioned Ferris, I thought I'd list here a few resources on the topic of child abuse and grooming. https://tim.blog/2020/09/14/how-to-heal-trauma/ Here is a book review of Consent by Springora from the NY times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/16/books/review-consent-memoir-vanessa-springora.html

It must take a hell lot of courage to come forward with this, especially when one has such a wide community and audience. Kudo to you on allowing such vulnerability to come up and express itself. It's a very heavy secret coming up to the surface and I'm under the impression it will lead you to some very significant healing. I don't buy it was "a net positive for you" though. And I think you might want to look whether you're not creating a narrative to help you cope with uncomfortable perspectives and feelings for various reasons, because it is actually so hard to process. A 14 year old is highly exploitable by adults. Teenage years are also a time when first experiments are made, and if traumas happens there regarding sexuality, it could distort the formation of healthy patterns for a life time. That's why society frown upon paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia. This and because these people are fetishist, pushing through all kind of boundaries to use a vulnerable inexperienced person for sex. But there is nothing I'm writing here that you don't already know, Leo. You've been abused by this man. Healthy affection doesn't look nearly like what he did to you. Love is neither exploitative, nor damaging. If there is a chance of inducing trauma, it immediately withdraws. It seems to be common for survivors of groomers to be torn between various feelings towards their abusers. Generally, there is a lot of enmeshment going there. If I may, I would really recommend you Leaving Neverland, and Consent, by the french author Vanessa Springora. She also got groomed at your age by someone she had a lot of admiration from and explains her journey.

I suppose a lot of Orange people have been convinced they were easily able to outsmart and con Blue. There has been report claiming that someone like Trump isn't happy with the abortion ban, which is something he's got no problem with and has used extensively. Orange republicans never thought Blue would ever be in charge. I've got some good hope Orange will not take well Blue policies suffocating its lifestyle and perspective. Blue and Orange do polarize in a very extreme way eventually, just like we saw it during the numerous war they fought against one another in the past. It's just a matter of time. I'd seriously consider immigration if things keeps on getting worse and you can make the logistic work.

It has nothing to do with perfectionism. One can't seriously subscribe to bio essentialism and think transgender are a real thing. So by upholding it as the 'most accurate definition', one makes transgenderism invalid by default. Bio essentialism is systematically used by transphobes and misogynists of all kinds in order to confine people to traditional gender expressions. For instance, it is Ben Shapiro's favorite talking point. For this reason, it is a least than perfect definition to work with.

The feminine/masculine is embedded in reality, in a way that human race isn't. For instance, in each living species there are expressions of the masculine and the feminine. The relative is made out of opposite, and the dichotomy between the masculine and feminine is one of the most prominent duality. The principle of Gender is for instance to be found in the Kyballion as one of the 7 hermetic principle. Transgenderism is not really an imbalance in polarity. The feminine and the masculine can express themselves as they want through numerous combinaison. From my understanding, it's more that someone's bodily gender expression is outpowered by the other polarity at the personality/center of interest /attraction level. It's very much mysterious because it's energetic, and thus hard to pinpoint at. One can often sense clearly a male or a woman with a feminine or masculine energy. Nobody knows exactly where it originates from, but it can be very perceptible depending on the person. Having some feminine traits does not make someone trans. The feminine expression in your case would need to be so strong that you'd feel like altering your body to live your life as a woman.

Because the feminine/masculine polarity is an actual duality incarnating in each things and people, while race is just a social construct.

From what I can see, self-identification is not seen as a definition but as a criteria to explain why someone is trans. I don't think it's very pertinent due to the fact that all identifications are ultimately a mirage. For someone who understand how the ego works, it gets obvious that it's not a perfect foundation to explain transgenderism. My impression is that in theory, you could still express a very queer personality and wish to desire as a woman or man without having a self-concept. The problem is that when it comes to figuring out if someone is masculine or feminine there is no way to go around essentialism. Figuring out the essence of what is to be masculine or what is to be feminine is the pre-requisite. The question of essentialism is the very question being asked. But bio essentialism and my type of essentialism are totally different. Bio essentialism is way more narrow, and fail to seize the big picture.