|
On May 09 2015 06:08 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 03:03 Djzapz wrote:On May 09 2015 01:14 Najda wrote:On May 09 2015 00:39 Djzapz wrote:On May 09 2015 00:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On May 08 2015 15:30 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 15:27 Yoav wrote:On May 08 2015 15:20 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 15:15 Yoav wrote:On May 08 2015 14:35 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Is going on a date on a date with a 19 year old a good idea when your 29? As a rule, no. Age is not as important as people think it is, but it's generally a good idea to avoid people in completely different life-stages. A 19 yo is basically a kid. Most have held few jobs, rarely full-time, and almost all are just out of the house, and often in college, which is infantilizing in its way. A 29 yo will generally be done with education and in the workplace for at least a few years, living on their own, with a real understanding of adult responsibility. A 29 year old could go up to any age they want, but I'd advise against going down in age to people without an understanding of the adult world. But why? There is first of all no reason both could not enjoy a relation. If they can enjoy it, what is to say that they can not be fulfilled by engaging in something enjoyable? Difference in perspective, and life stage does matter, but it is no obstruction. Some people like engaging more experienced people, some people like enganging less experienced people, and there is nothing morally wrong with those preferences. Certainly not morally wrong. And in certain cases, could be fine. Depends on all sorts of things. But having a relationship means being able to understand one another's situations. The life-stage difference is often going to result in a mismatch of ideas and expectations. Heck, if nothing else, the difference in relationship history and ideas of what goes into a relationship is often a dealbreaker. you know you can communicate those? On May 08 2015 15:27 Yoav wrote:
All that said, notice how many caveats I've used in both posts. This is far from a definite thing. It's just that, on balance, that particular gap is a difficult one to get over. You want equality in a relationship. You don't want one person to feel like they have to be the other person's parent. There is a big difference between parenting and mentoring, and there are so many lifestyles conductive to age difference relationships it just looks a bit prude to me to dismiss it like that. You can, personally I don't know how you could stand a 19 year old for any extended period of time, but that is me. I agree. I'm 25 and I couldn't imagine going on a date with anybody younger than an exceptionally mature 21-22 year old. I've taught classes full of 19-20 year olds and they're essentially large children. There are exceptions, but I wouldn't care to find out. I think the maturity thing is overstated. When you're teaching a large group of people that age, it's just the immature ones that are the most noticed. My group of friends has people ranging from 18 to 33 (I'm 24) and honestly there is very little to say about the difference in maturity. Sure maturity matters, but I'd base that a lot more on the individual than having a big expectation just because of their age. What's more relevant is what they might expect out of a relationship. I'd include that in "maturity" I don't think wanting a serious long term relationship can be said to be any more or less mature than a mutual agreement to be friends with benefits.
I don't know. I guess so. I feel like I've outgrown it though, so to me it seems childish and tired. But I agree, if two mature adults want to screw it's ok. And I also agree that many 19 year olds are mature and able to keep up with older people. I just don't know of many. And it's a bit weird that I would talk about some of the students I've had, but I've taught 3 classes of 40, about half of which were women and I'd say 50 of them were between 17 and 20, and literally every single one seemed to have that youthful naivety or outright dumb innocence that adulthood eventually kicks out of most people. To me, the gap those few years have made has been enormous.
At 25, I believe that any 19 year old who could keep up would be exceptional. Not because I'm especially smart or special in any way. I know that 19 year old me was a dumbass and I wouldn't associate with that fucking guy... It's not necessarily about maturity, it's also because like you said younger people may have different interests, have different goals. Few 19 year old give a shit about anything important in my experience.
|
On May 09 2015 05:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 05:25 Simberto wrote:On May 09 2015 04:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
"He/she is very nature for a ____ year old" is pedophile logic plain and simple. It is the awareness that the age group is not mature yet, but you still want to fuck them anyway. Yeah no. Unless ____ is < 18, that does not make any sense. Actually no. Either you believe that _____ age group is mature enough to fuck or you don't believe ____ age group is mature enough to fuck. Having the metality that ____ enough age group is not mature enough to fuck but you're willing make the exception with such and such person is pedophelic logic since you're aware you should not do it--but will do it anyway.
But there is a difference between "mature enough to fuck" and "mature enough that i want to have a long lasting relationship with"
Also, and this is the main problem with your argument, unless you assume that every single person of a specific age has exactly the same level of maturity (which sounds rather silly to me), your argument does not really hold a lot of ground. If age group x is on average not mature enough for me to want to have relationship with, but a specific person of that age group is more mature than the average person of age x, than it is possible for that person to be mature for their age, and thus actually fit into the amount of maturity i would find necessary to have a relationship with.
Note that relationship also does not mean just sex. For most people, the amount of maturity needed for a lasting relationship is more than the amount of maturity needed to stick their dick into(or have their dick stuck into you, or whatever else you prefer). Dick sticking tends to be generally accepted to be ok at ~ 18 years of age. Long-term relationships tend to usually follow a much stricter age restriction, where most people prefer their partner to be within ~5 years of their own age, though that span increases with age, too.
|
Two things:
1.) Age Restriction is Arbitrary and Cultural. Some believe in child brides, others believe in some magical "~18" others don't think about long term relationships until +30-40
It doesn't matter what the age group, at some point you as the person in your culture make an arbitrary line in the sand about what is mature, and what isn't.
2.) If you are actively pursuing someone you believe to be in the age group that isn't mature--ie children--then your are acting pedophelic, tautologically.
Now, you can make whatever excuse you'd like to justify being attracted to the age group you consider children (no matter what that age group is) but being that attraction isn't an objective analytical conclusion and is, instead, a primal reflex--I don't really buy anyone trying to argue the "mature for their age" bullshit.
Nobody becomes attracted to someone after an exhaustive analysis of their maturity. They are either turned on or they aren't. Them wanting to pretend there was some steps in between where they studied the child's maturity levels in comparison to some maturity bell curve is laughable and excuses dangerous behavior.
|
So like what about people who don't look their age? How do they fit in this? For instance, the well developed 16yo or the pubescent looking 20 something?
|
Clearly you're a pedophile in both cases. O.o
|
On May 09 2015 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Two things:
1.) Age Restriction is Arbitrary and Cultural. Some believe in child brides, others believe in some magical "~18" others don't think about long term relationships until +30-40
It doesn't matter what the age group, at some point you as the person in your culture make an arbitrary line in the sand about what is mature, and what isn't.
2.) If you are actively pursuing someone you believe to be in the age group that isn't mature--ie children--then your are acting pedophelic, tautologically.
Now, you can make whatever excuse you'd like to justify being attracted to the age group you consider children (no matter what that age group is) but being that attraction isn't an objective analytical conclusion and is, instead, a primal reflex--I don't really buy anyone trying to argue the "mature for their age" bullshit.
Nobody becomes attracted to someone after an exhaustive analysis of their maturity. They are either turned on or they aren't. Them wanting to pretend there was some steps in between where they studied the child's maturity levels in comparison to some maturity bell curve is laughable and excuses dangerous behavior.
Your understanding of paedophilia is utterly lacking. Maturity is not a 0,1 boolean variable but a continuous scale.
Paedophilia is the attractedness to humans without developed sexual characteristics (i.e. puberty induced changes to physiology). It does not depend on maturity.
Someone who acts on his attraction to a naive teenage girl with nice tits is maybe an asshole for preying, but not paedophile.
Just because you disagree with people does not mean you can singlehandedly change the meaning of words to smear people.
|
On May 09 2015 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
So like what about people who don't look their age? How do they fit in this? For instance, the well developed 16yo or the pubescent looking 20 something?
If you were unable to know their accurate age, and use that argument, then you are not using a pedophelic excuse.
"She looks ____"
Is very different from
"She is mature, for a ____"
The former argues that you believed they were mature, but were mistaken.
The latter argues that you believe they are children/not mature, but will make an exception.
Hence why the argument "mature for a ____" is a pedophelic excuse.
Real life example:
A person has online sex with a stranger. The person thought he was having it with a 45 year old--but it turned out to be a 10 year old. He is not a pedophile since he believed the person was 45.
The reverse then happens.
A person has online sex with a stranger. The person thought he was having it with a 10 year old--but it turned out to be a 45 year old police officer. He is a pedophile since he believed the person was 10.
Zoom back to the initial conversation.
Person believes 19 year olds are too young, but engages in relationship despite that--they are being pedophelic since they are actively going after someone they believe is too young.
|
On May 09 2015 09:02 Chewbacca. wrote:
Clearly you're a pedophile in both cases. O.o
How so?
If you're 20, and there is a 16 year old as mature as you, and looks your age, from an objectively point of view, there should be no problem, the law would disagree though.
If you're 20, and you're dating someone who is 20 but looks like they are 16, you are doing nothing wrong from the legal point of view, while there might be a moral issue, as long as maturity is mostly the same, I don't see an issue.
|
I thought I was clearly kidding
|
On May 09 2015 09:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
So like what about people who don't look their age? How do they fit in this? For instance, the well developed 16yo or the pubescent looking 20 something? If you were unable to know their accurate age, and use that argument, then you are not using a pedophelic excuse. "She looks ____" Is very different from "She is mature, for a ____" The former argues that you believed they were mature, but were mistaken. The latter argues that you believe they are children/not mature, but will make an exception. Hence why the argument "mature for a ____" is a pedophelic excuse. Real life example: A person has online sex with a stranger. The person thought he was having it with a 45 year old--but it turned out to be a 10 year old. He is not a pedophile since he believed the person was 45. The reverse then happens. A person has online sex with a stranger. The person thought he was having it with a 10 year old--but it turned out to be a 45 year old police officer. He is a pedophile since he believed the person was 10. Zoom back to the initial conversation. Person believes 19 year olds are too young, but engages in relationship despite that--they are being pedophelic since they are actively going after someone they believe is too young.
Isn't it like anti-pedophile thinking though? If your opinion is that most 19 year olds act too young for you to date, but this one is alright because she is indistiguishable from, say, a 25 year old with exception of the fact she was born 19 years ago, then isn't that more similar to talking online to the 45 year old that turned out to be 11?
Also like an above poster said, paedophelia is specifically the attraction to the prepubescent body.
|
On May 09 2015 09:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Person believes 19 year olds are too young, but engages in relationship despite that--they are being pedophelic since they are actively going after someone they believe is too young.
Pedophilia is a specific thing, not just attraction to people who are significantly younger than an individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.[1][2] As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13
Arguing that someone is mature for their age, especially when that person is legally an adult, is not pedophilia in any way. So a 29 year old being attracted to a 19 year old because she is mature enough to handle that relationship isn't problematic.
19-year-olds generally aren't particularly mature, but if this theoretical girl does have a level of maturity where she can have a successful relationship with a man 10ish years older, then all power to them.
|
I can't say I agree with the line of thinking that saying someone's mature for their age means you're trying to justify being attracted to someone of that age. If that were the case, what about all the other people of that age? You could probably find some excuse to justify being attracted to other people of that age.
Call me biased, but I've met some pretty dumb/immature people well past teens, so I can't really view it as an excuse, just a positive trait. All sorts of age groups could be mature, and if they happen to be young (but older than whatever your country says) then it doesn't really matter. Simply assuming that because X is young and Y thinks X is mature despite age seems a bit too quick to judge.
|
On May 09 2015 10:47 Coppermantis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 09:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Person believes 19 year olds are too young, but engages in relationship despite that--they are being pedophelic since they are actively going after someone they believe is too young. Pedophilia is a specific thing, not just attraction to people who are significantly younger than an individual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Show nested quote +Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.[1][2] As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13 Arguing that someone is mature for their age, especially when that person is legally an adult, is not pedophilia in any way. So a 29 year old being attracted to a 19 year old because she is mature enough to handle that relationship isn't problematic. 19-year-olds generally aren't particularly mature, but if this theoretical girl does have a level of maturity where she can have a successful relationship with a man 10ish years older, then all power to them.
Hence why I say "Pedophelic" and not "Pedophile" only mentioning explicitly that someone is a pedophile for having online sex with someone they believe is 10.
When you have to attach the addendum "for their age" its because you think that age group is not much more than children when the truth is that a 19 year old fucking a 99 year old is legally 2 adults who can make up their own damn minds who they fuck. Being so uncomfortable with that age group as to have to add "for their age" means that you do think you're fucking a child--except this one is more special to you than the other children.
If they are of legal age, and if they are mature--then you wouldn't need to fucking add "for their age." Adding that simply shows what baggage you have.
|
On May 09 2015 15:20 Dark_Chill wrote:
I can't say I agree with the line of thinking that saying someone's mature for their age means you're trying to justify being attracted to someone of that age. If that were the case, what about all the other people of that age? You could probably find some excuse to justify being attracted to other people of that age.
Call me biased, but I've met some pretty dumb/immature people well past teens, so I can't really view it as an excuse, just a positive trait. All sorts of age groups could be mature, and if they happen to be young (but older than whatever your country says) then it doesn't really matter. Simply assuming that because X is young and Y thinks X is mature despite age seems a bit too quick to judge.
The fact that immature people exist in the upper age groups is exactly the reason you don't need to add "for their age" when it comes to a lower age group.
If you can't say that "he/she is a mature adult" then that means you are either uncomfortable with the relationship or you are turned on by the idea of them not being adults. If you're uncomfortable with the relationship--then end it. If you are turned of by the idea of fucking a minor, then you're being pedophelic. But the fact that there are as many (or more) immature >19 year olds than there are immature 19 year olds (or whatever the age group) is exactly the reason why "for their age" is such a troubling phrase.
|
On May 09 2015 10:46 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 09:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2015 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
So like what about people who don't look their age? How do they fit in this? For instance, the well developed 16yo or the pubescent looking 20 something? If you were unable to know their accurate age, and use that argument, then you are not using a pedophelic excuse. "She looks ____" Is very different from "She is mature, for a ____" The former argues that you believed they were mature, but were mistaken. The latter argues that you believe they are children/not mature, but will make an exception. Hence why the argument "mature for a ____" is a pedophelic excuse. Real life example: A person has online sex with a stranger. The person thought he was having it with a 45 year old--but it turned out to be a 10 year old. He is not a pedophile since he believed the person was 45. The reverse then happens. A person has online sex with a stranger. The person thought he was having it with a 10 year old--but it turned out to be a 45 year old police officer. He is a pedophile since he believed the person was 10. Zoom back to the initial conversation. Person believes 19 year olds are too young, but engages in relationship despite that--they are being pedophelic since they are actively going after someone they believe is too young. Isn't it like anti-pedophile thinking though? If your opinion is that most 19 year olds act too young for you to date, but this one is alright because she is indistiguishable from, say, a 25 year old with exception of the fact she was born 19 years ago, then isn't that more similar to talking online to the 45 year old that turned out to be 11?
If someone is legally an adult and you think of them as an adult then you don't have to make amendments to your statement.
For example, would you ever say "He/She is mature, for a 45 year old?" If not, then why would you use that logic and description for any other adult age range?
|
It is also not paedophilic, it fits not a single criterion.
|
On May 09 2015 18:26 puerk wrote:
It is also not paedophilic, it fits not a single criterion.
Because no one ever uses pedophile in normal nomenclature to mean the sexual interaction of adults with underaged individuals. Stop pretending to be academic to excuse your insecurities.
|
On May 09 2015 18:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 18:26 puerk wrote:
It is also not paedophilic, it fits not a single criterion. Because no one ever uses pedophile in normal nomenclature to mean the sexual interaction of adults with underaged individuals. Stop pretending to be academic to excuse your insecurities.
I have no insecurities. You argue bullshit, get called out, and try to twist your way out of it, get called out again, and lash out personally...
|
On May 09 2015 18:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 18:26 puerk wrote:
It is also not paedophilic, it fits not a single criterion. Because no one ever uses pedophile in normal nomenclature to mean the sexual interaction of adults with underaged individuals. Stop pretending to be academic to excuse your insecurities.
Well, the fact that a word is misused by a lot of people doesn't mean that everyone should use it in its false, misused sense. Things like pedophilia have strict definitions, and calling someone who does not fall under this definition a pedophile is a misuse. It's not being academic, it's being normal.
|
What is the most difficult area of science?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
