427
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 days ago

To be technically correct, as far as I understand it Epstein was not and did not cater to pedophiles (prepubescent). They catered to Ephebophiles (14-19) and Hebephiles (pubescent, or 11-14).

Men who were adults in the seventies and eighties (boomers for sure) had a strange fascination with teen girls. It's all over film and music of the era. I'm Gen-X and I found it as gross then as I do today. I never got how the culture at large didn't have a huge problem with it.

[-] marte@lemmy.eco.br 39 points 2 days ago

I understand not every predatory sexual behavior towards young people is pedophilic, because young people vary in age and maturity.

However, this is such a strange and uncalled "technically correct" reply, why would we care enough to differentiate between hebephile or whatever it is called and pedophile. Nobody cares, it's still predatory and gross behavior no matter the name.

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 days ago

I was trying to focus on how that generation had a fascination with teens while simultaneously yelling "think of the children". Definitely not a defense of their actions.

[-] prole 2 points 1 day ago

However, this is such a strange and uncalled “technically correct” reply

There's always at least one...

[-] stray@pawb.social 10 points 2 days ago

I think it matters in terms of psychological health. Internally thinking that an older teenager is attractive is a pretty normal thing that might happen to an allosexual human, whereas the same attraction for a younger teen or child is clear "get in therapy now before something bad happens" territory.

Please note that I have specified internal thoughts and not making gross conversation about how hot young people are and/or approaching them with sexual intentions.

But I agree that this is really not the context to bring up the difference.

[-] stray@pawb.social 20 points 2 days ago

I get what you're saying, but popular usage is what it is at this point, and pointing out the wider range of accurate terminology is just going to get people accusing you of being a pedophile.

[-] floo@retrolemmy.com 10 points 2 days ago

It has been my experience that those who go out of their way to illustrate this distinction are doing so defensively because they, themselves, don’t want to be “falsely labeled” as a pedophile.

Yet, either way, you’re a kiddie-fucker. No amount of “eeh, technically…” will ever change that.

[-] zea_64 3 points 1 day ago

Or they're autistic and felt compelled to pedantically correct something technically false. I'm guilty of doing that too.

[-] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

4chan is back fyi

[-] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago

Men who were adults in the seventies and eighties (boomers for sure) had a strange fascination with teen girls.

That shit never went away I'm afraid. Ephebophilia isn't even a recognized condition like pedophilia because it's considered an adequate response to stimuli.

[-] Midnitte@beehaw.org 4 points 2 days ago
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
427 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

14406 readers
952 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS