Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

hunger gamesFollow

#1 Nov 22 2013 at 11:19 PM Rating: Decent
**
513 posts

I don't know to say it so I will just say it. It was not terrible. I might even read the books now.

On a side note, I find American mythology fascinating. The rugged individual thing going against the unforgiving powers of the evil unjust empire. All that enforced by movies, books and music. And then everyone is shocked when the rugged individual flower takes matters into his/hers own capable hands, but I digress..

Good times, good times.. panem et circenses indeed
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Nov 22 2013 at 11:45 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,158 posts
Quote:
I might even read the books now.


I know how to say it so I will just say it. Don't bother, they're bad.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#3 Nov 23 2013 at 1:38 AM Rating: Good
****
5,289 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I might even read the books now.


I know how to say it so I will just say it. Don't bother, they're bad.

This. Suzanne Collins is a bad writer.
____________________________
75 Rabbit/75 Sheep/75 Coeurl/75 Eft/75 Raptor/75 Hippogryph/75 Puk
75 Scorpion/75 Wamoura/75 Pixie/75 Peiste/64 Sabotender
51 Bird/41 Mandragora/40 Bee/37 Crawler/37 Bat

Items no one cares about: O
Missions no one cares about: O
Crafts no one cares about: O
#4 Nov 23 2013 at 2:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,805 posts
There were no hippos in the previews at all. How are you supposed to play the hungry hungry hippo game without hippos?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#5 Nov 23 2013 at 10:13 AM Rating: Default
**
513 posts
Karlina wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I might even read the books now.


I know how to say it so I will just say it. Don't bother, they're bad.

This. Suzanne Collins is a bad writer.


Hmm? Wasn't Harry Potter and @#%^phile Vampire universally decried as bad writing as well? ( I mean it was, and I did manage to pull myself through one Harry.. never again ).

I think the public has a different idea of what is bad.

hmm, @#%^phile is a swear. who knew

Edited, Nov 23rd 2013 11:14am by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#6 Nov 23 2013 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,911 posts
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.

And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#7angrymnk, Posted: Nov 23 2013 at 10:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sure it does not. It is just those damn old men in robes and damn dictionary that seems to insist that @#%^philia is an attraction to children. Here is where it gets fun so stay with me. While teenagers would like to believe that they are adults, in the eyes of the law ( and from the perspective of basic brain development ) they are still children.
#8 Nov 24 2013 at 12:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Mazra wrote:
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.

And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.


Sure it does not.


Technically the word you want is pederasty. Bill Donahue loves that one. I'll let y'all Google who he is and why he stresses the distinction and what make it slimy... and then take it to the Asylum if you want to continue discussing it.

Haven't seen the movie, but I've read all the books. As I recalled it goes:
Hunger Games --> Hunger Games 2.0 --> Blah.

The third book ditched the premise of the first two (which was honestly the only thing that worked), and without any literary merit or cliffhangers it just became a snore. The first two books were decent because they were Battle Royale, Americanized. So they had that going for them.

I didn't make it through the first movie, although I generally enjoy Jennifer Lawrence. As such, I may watch the second when it's online and I'm drunk. Maybe.

Edited, Nov 24th 2013 1:53am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#9 Nov 24 2013 at 3:13 AM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I think the public has a different idea of what is bad.
That's why McDonald's is known as a place to get a really good burger.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Nov 24 2013 at 5:32 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,911 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Mazra wrote:
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.

And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.


Sure it does not. It is just those damn old men in robes and damn dictionary that seems to insist that @#%^philia is an attraction to children. Here is where it gets fun so stay with me. While teenagers would like to believe that they are adults, in the eyes of the law ( and from the perspective of basic brain development ) they are still children.

On the other hand, who cares what the sorry old grey men say? Lets glorify child rape^^; I am sorry, forbidden love.

Btw I did not know you care that much about whatshisname.. Edward?



Edward is technically an ephebophile, since his attraction is to a mid-to-late adolescent (17 years old). @#%^philia, while described as the sexual attraction to children, deals specifically with young (prepubescent) children. A sexual attraction to older children is called hebephilia, or the aforementioned ephebophilia. Common for all three "disorders" is that they indicate a primary attraction to that age group. Nothing in the books or movies indicates that Edward is attracted to ONLY young girls.

And no, I don't give a sh*t about Edward, but I hate it when people throw down the @#%^philia card. It's offensive and does nothing to further the discussion. The age of consent is 15 in my country, which makes Edward and Bella's relationship perfectly legal here. And you have to remember that Edward is, biologically, a 17-year-old boy. Same age as Bella.

I think it's cute that you want to play the nitpicking game with me, though.

Spoilered the quote so that people who have the filter on does not have to watch the verbal (textual?) diarrhea above.

Edited, Nov 25th 2013 4:19pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#11angrymnk, Posted: Nov 24 2013 at 11:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I love it when people question the premise based on the label alone. I will admit that I have not read Twilight. I simply do not care enough. I do have a question though. How long has he been 17 for?:>
#12 Nov 25 2013 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,911 posts
Doesn't matter how old he is. @#%^philia is defined as an adult being sexually attracted to a child (prepubescent in certain dictionaries) because it's a child. Edward isn't attracted to Bella because she's 17 years old. He's attracted to her because he can't read her damn mind (and because she smells delicious or some sh*t).

And even if he was attracted to her because of her age, he'd still only be a @#%^phile* in certain countries. Their relationship, while odd, would be perfectly legal in most of Europe, for instance, as only Malta and Turkey have the age of consent set to 18.

* Legally speaking. You can argue whether a psychosexual disorder can be limited by laws or not.

Edited, Nov 25th 2013 4:19pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#13 Nov 25 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mazra wrote:
And no, I don't give a sh*t about Edward, but I hate it when people throw down the @#%^philia card. It's offensive and does nothing to further the discussion. The age of consent is 15 in my country, which makes Edward and Bella's relationship perfectly legal here. And you have to remember that Edward is, biologically, a 17-year-old boy. Same age as Bella.

Age of consent in Washington state is 16 anyway so their relationship would be perfectly legal there as well.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Nov 25 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
Tweener book relationships should be outlawed worldwide though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15angrymnk, Posted: Nov 25 2013 at 10:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Cool, I would sure love to see you explain this subtle difference to a judge. Yer honor, I was not attracted to her because of her age; she just smelled so nice. Yep. I would quote uncle Ruckus, but I might get too graphic.
#16 Nov 26 2013 at 12:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Why would you need to explain it to a judge? If she was under the AoC (which she wasn't in that state anyway) then it's statutory rape regardless of whether he liked her scent or psychic blocking powers or ample young boobies. But the crime isn't "Being a pedophile", it's sex with someone under the age of consent; motive isn't a consideration.

Edited, Nov 26th 2013 12:15am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Nov 26 2013 at 1:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,258 posts
You guys are creeping me out just a bit.

Just wanted to put that out there.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#18 Nov 26 2013 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,510 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Mazra wrote:
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.

And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.


Sure it does not.


Technically the word you want is pederasty. Bill Donahue loves that one. I'll let y'all Google who he is and why he stresses the distinction and what make it slimy... and then take it to the Asylum if you want to continue discussing it.

Haven't seen the movie, but I've read all the books. As I recalled it goes:
Hunger Games --> Hunger Games 2.0 --> Blah.

The third book ditched the premise of the first two (which was honestly the only thing that worked), and without any literary merit or cliffhangers it just became a snore. The first two books were decent because they were Battle Royale, Americanized. So they had that going for them.

I didn't make it through the first movie, although I generally enjoy Jennifer Lawrence. As such, I may watch the second when it's online and I'm drunk. Maybe.

Edited, Nov 24th 2013 1:53am by LockeColeMA


I read the first book yesterday. Well, I read the first third on Sunday, and the rest yesterday. I enjoyed it well enough. I didn't go into it expecting incredible literature.

I find the world she created interesting enough. The characters were hit or miss - the development was uneven. Her main antagonist in the arena was barely fleshed out, but other characters made a much stronger impression (probably because she was investing in the future books, but it was still odd).

Honestly, what annoyed me more than anything was the inconsistent tone of voice in the narration. I've finished the book, and I'm still not sure if Katniss' narration is meant to be in the moment, of if she's telling us this story. For the most part it seems like the first, but she occasionally thinks things that seem really odd in that context...

My other irritation is right where the first book left off. You have a whole book of her trying to fight her way back home, to her little sister, and the book ends right when the door off the train home opens. I'm also annoyed by how little of Effie, Haymitch, and Cinna we saw after the games.

I'll probably pick up the second book. I know what the overarching plot arc is, and a whole lot of spoilers from book 3 courtesy of an @#%^ on tumblr.

I also read the first book of Divergent this weekend (I apparently didn't want much higher mental effort this weekend Smiley: lol). That was also interesting enough. I hear the second book is good, and the third sucked. Divergent's world is less interesting to me than the Hunger Games, but I like the main character more. Not that I dislike Katniss, but I can't relate to her as well (which is harder to take in first person narration).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#19 Nov 26 2013 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Mazra wrote:
Doesn't matter how old he is. @#%^philia is defined as an adult being sexually attracted to a child (prepubescent in certain dictionaries) because it's a child. Edward isn't attracted to Bella because she's 17 years old. He's attracted to her because he can't read her damn mind (and because she smells delicious or some sh*t).

And even if he was attracted to her because of her age, he'd still only be a @#%^phile* in certain countries. Their relationship, while odd, would be perfectly legal in most of Europe, for instance, as only Malta and Turkey have the age of consent set to 18.


And at the risk of repeating the same old thing again, while prepubescent is only specified in some dictionaries, it's really an assumed component of the word "children" in the definition. The word (and condition it describes) has been around long before our modern societies started setting legal age of consent (much less setting it as high as 18 in some places). As Joph also pointed out, @#%^phila describes a mental disorder, not a legal condition (or law to break). As such, age criteria which are purely statutory (such as our age of consent) can't be a component of the disorder. What you're doing (or want to do) is either aberrant, or it is not. It can't be a mental disorder if you're in one country, but perfectly normal if in another.

Which is why the word "children" kinda has to refer to a physiological state, not a legal one. Hence, it must mean "prepubescent" since that's the physiological condition associated with being a child versus an adult. Logic, I know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Nov 26 2013 at 5:45 PM Rating: Default
**
513 posts
Hmm, I think I should apologize here.

I inadvertently brought asylum to the movies.

I think I wanted to say something, but I am worried I may need to agree with Gbaji again and it already happened once this month.

In any event, I am so sorry.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#21 Nov 26 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,510 posts
I don't even get what the argument here is.

Don't we all agree that @#%^philia only has to do with an adult being attracted to a prepubescent person?

I mean, Mazra's point was that Edward wouldn't be a @#%^phile, regardless of how you slice it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Nov 28 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Way better than the first movie. Hope the next two are better than the 3rd book.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#24 Nov 28 2013 at 10:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,867 posts
AoC varies by state, typically along with religious customs of the dominant sect.

If you are looking for somewhere with a lower number, Japan, PRC and Burma, maybe Thailand are your best bets.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#25 Nov 28 2013 at 10:40 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,027 posts
sleepydesertsand wrote:
I think , Most of us who have watched The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” will rate it as the second film in the blockbuster franchise based on Suzanne Collins’ hit novels. This is definitely the follow up of the previous" Hunger Games" film . Based on my review , the present movie "Catching Fire" is better, , smoothly directed, and enriched with a deeper exploration of the franchise's thought-provoking theme. This "Catching Fire" film proves compelling second installment in the Hunger Games before:)


I've read this nonsense twice, and the the only thing I can determine from reading it is that that person that wrote it is in desperate need of reading something better than Hunger Games.
#26 Nov 28 2013 at 11:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Those who have watched The Hunger Games: Catching Fire will recognize that this is the second movie of the franchise that started with The Hunger Games and uses a unique means of organization where the movies occur in a chronological sequence. Those who watch it will be grasped by the ways the events of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire occur after the events of the first movie. In fact, the events in the end of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire occur after the events of the beginning of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Fans are sure to recognize that the next film for this franchise will be the third film due to Suzanne Collins' strategy of putting the third item after the second item. At that time, no one will mistake The Hunger Games: Catching fire as anything but the film that occurs between the first and third films.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Nov 29 2013 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,158 posts
Those who grasped The Hunger Games: Catching Fire will have tossed it in the bin, where it belongs.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#28 Nov 29 2013 at 7:09 PM Rating: Default
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,911 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which is why the word "children" kinda has to refer to a physiological state, not a legal one. Hence, it must mean "prepubescent" since that's the physiological condition associated with being a child versus an adult. Logic, I know.


An adult is defined as someone who is 18 years or older in my country. Not sure how you guys handle it. And yes, we're dealing with a legal and a physiological definition, but the legal one is the dominant one, seeing as it's the definition that lands you the title of sexual predator, not to mention jail time and a psychological diagnosis. You're a legal child at age 17, but not a physiological one (girls complete puberty at age 15-17).

Note: Since the age of consent and minor/adult ages do not coincide here, it is technically legal to have sex with a child... Smiley: um

Edited, Nov 30th 2013 2:11am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#29 Nov 30 2013 at 9:10 AM Rating: Decent
On topic: These books...I'm only finished them in hopes something grand would happen, and it did not. I also didn't read the books, as I never have time to sit down and read, so I listen to audiobooks at work when I can. Maybe it was the reader, I think it was the author Susan who did the audiobook, that ruined the entire thing. From my point of view, Katniss is just a whiny teen who happens to know how to hunt and gets to go through a War. Something many men (and women, but have women ever been drafted?) in the US have done when they were drafted. Not quite ready for that type of world, went through the ups and downs of what war brings, and then flung back out into the world and told to deal with it and move on.
The ending is totally happy lame.
The PoV of the 3 books seems to be her telling the story right after the events and then a jump in forward in time, were they are just trying to live their life the best they can while trying to cope with what they did in their past...

Age topic: In the states, each state gets to set the age of consent, but with other twists and turns in some. Take Illinois, the state I live in. You are considered an adult at 17, but can sign your self out of H.School at 16 (aka: drop out), but if you commit a crime where a fine may happen the judge will go after your parents. You can not buy tobacco products or paraphernalia (wrong word, smoking items? IE: Pipe (wooden or glass), Hookah, papers, rollers, etc.) until 18 (when you become a "full" adult in the eyes of the Law).
As for sexual acts, it is weird. An 18yr old can get in trouble for sleeping with their 17yr mate. While 2 17yrs would just be slapped on the hand or fined.
My brother turns 20 today, his girlfriend is 17 (in H.School, it is kind of weird), he is totally breaking the law. However as long as her parent(s) are not pressing any charges, then it is "ok."

As to what -phile you might be:
Pedo: Children of prepubescent age.
Hebe: Children at the cusp of puberty (11-14).
Ephebo: Children during/tail end of puberty (15-16). (ephebos, meaning “one arrived at puberty” in Greek)
Teleio: Attracted to people 17+. (teleios, meaning, “full grown” in Greek).
Geronto: You like them old. ( gerontos, meaning “old man” in Greek, but it applies to Elderly people. No age, so one finds as Elderly).

Ephebo and Teleiophiles is what a lot of people are without knowing it, as just being called a PedO is easier. However it is the wrong term to throw at someone who finds attraction in someone around the age of 16-18.
____________________________
Sandinmyeye | |Tsukaremash*ta | Dihydrogen Monoxide (it kills)
#30 Nov 30 2013 at 9:21 AM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,598 posts
Sandinmygum the Stupendous wrote:
Ephebo and Teleiophiles is what a lot of people are without knowing it, as just being called a PedO is easier. However it is the wrong term to throw at someone who finds attraction in someone around the age of 16-18.


Pretty sure it's how we've evolved to be. The healthiest, youngest, and most fertile group of mates.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#31 Nov 30 2013 at 10:16 AM Rating: Decent
TirithRR wrote:
Sandinmygum the Stupendous wrote:
Ephebo and Teleiophiles is what a lot of people are without knowing it, as just being called a PedO is easier. However it is the wrong term to throw at someone who finds attraction in someone around the age of 16-18.


Pretty sure it's how we've evolved to be. The healthiest, youngest, and most fertile group of mates.


Oh totally. Throw in hormones into food, and we (at least in the sates, not sure else where) get girls who are 15 but look like they could be 20+. I can't help my brain likes what it sees Smiley: glare
____________________________
Sandinmyeye | |Tsukaremash*ta | Dihydrogen Monoxide (it kills)
#32 Nov 30 2013 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sandinmygum the Stupendous wrote:
Age topic: In the states, each state gets to set the age of consent, but with other twists and turns in some.

It's not really twists and turns, it's just that AoC laws aren't relevant to state tobacco laws or voting laws or driving laws or drinking laws or financial/banking laws, etc.
Mazra wrote:
An adult is defined as someone who is 18 years or older in my country. Not sure how you guys handle it

That's generally the case here although it's worth noting that there's no sweeping legal definition of a "child" per se, but rather a "minor". So setting AoC laws to 16 doesn't mean it's legal to "have sex with a child" but that the 16 year old is a legal minor adult for purposes of that law. The legal definition of "minor" is "under the age of competence" so if you're over the AoC age, you're legally considered "competent" to consent to sex even if you're not considered competent to vote or drink.

By age 18, you've cleared almost all the various state and federal hurdles for driving, making your own educational choices, sex, marriage, incarceration, ability to enter contracts, voting, etc so you're considered an adult (aside from drinking) but that doesn't mean someone under 18 is a child but rather it becomes a case-by-case issue.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Dec 02 2013 at 11:40 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
Quote:
Each U.S. state (and the District of Columbia) has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17, or 18. The most common age is 16 (30): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
age of consent 17 (9): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wyoming
age of consent 18 (12): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.
Canada is also 16.

Once formed into an adult with working parts, I'd think they'd be open for seduction without blaming some 'philia'.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#34 Dec 03 2013 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Mazra wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which is why the word "children" kinda has to refer to a physiological state, not a legal one. Hence, it must mean "prepubescent" since that's the physiological condition associated with being a child versus an adult. Logic, I know.


An adult is defined as someone who is 18 years or older in my country. Not sure how you guys handle it. And yes, we're dealing with a legal and a physiological definition, but the legal one is the dominant one, seeing as it's the definition that lands you the title of sexual predator, not to mention jail time and a psychological diagnosis.


Honestly though, that's where I feel that we make the dual mistakes of over protectiveness and overly broad labeling. There is (or should be) a massive difference between sexual activity between an adult and a 10 year old, and an adult and a 15 year old both psychologically and legally. And in fact, there is a massive difference in terms of charge (child molestation versus statutory rape in most cases). The problem is that we've broadened the label to call both of those sex offenses and those who commit them sex offenders, complete with outraged citizens demanding stiff penalties and listing of names on registries. We then mistakenly call the person who committed the latter offense a @#%^phile, not because it's remotely accurate, but because as a society we tend to desire to use the most strongly emotional label in preference to the accurate label.

I think it's important to make that distinction though, and I also think it's important to try to get people to not just acknowledge after the fact that technically they really are two very different things, but to not use the incorrect label (and everything that goes with it) in the first place. I know that I personally have brought this up several times on this forum over the years, and each time everyone agrees that of course there's a difference, but then inevitably someone will use the @#%^ label incorrectly the very next time the same subject comes up again.


And before someone jumps in with some witty remark about how I want to downplay the harm of adults having sex with teenagers or to protect those who engage in such behavior, let me make plain that my motivation isn't about minimizing that crime, but about wanting to not minimize the crime of child molestation/rape by applying the same label to something that isn't nearly as "bad". My objective here is to make sure that every single time the word pedophile is used every single person who reads/hears it knows that we're talking about someone who is sick in the head and desires to or engages in sexual activity with prepubescent children.

Using it in any other situation leads people to not be sure whether we're talking about that, or some 18 year old who made out with his 16 year old girlfriend and didn't realize that this was technically against the law in whatever jurisdiction he happened to be in at the time.


Quote:
You're a legal child at age 17, but not a physiological one (girls complete puberty at age 15-17).


Yup. Hence my point about this being about a mental condition, not a legal one. Having or not having a mental condition can't be (or shouldn't be) contingent on the legal jurisdiction you're in). Thus, it has to be purely about the physiological state of the other person.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Anonymous Guests (36)