Personally, nothing irritates me more than those "tourist" posts where people watch how confidently Harry, Max, and Julian Assange toss around certain terms and suddenly decide they’re experts. Experts at what? Being experts on relationships with people living with BPD? You really think someone who hasn't lived through it knows my reality better than I do?
Listen up, people: don't be dense. Take a second and actually Google things. There’s even a perfectly decent Wikipedia entry on BPD. Stop trying to diagnose yourself without seeing a professional first; all you're doing is discrediting Americans dealing with BPD who are actually in treatment and struggling through it. ☕
I brought up CBT Therapy specifically to steer this conversation away from the insults and attacks, but nobody bothered to address it. Everyone was too busy bickering. Since you all claim to be such massive experts, why isn't anyone telling me about how effective CBT is for people with BPD?
Alright, enough is enough. Harry, when you see this, quit playing games and keep calling out the nonsense. Acting like this isn't going to earn you a PhD in psychiatry.
Regarding Julian Assange being deplatformed—look, I’m not saying I approve, but I get why he didn't get banned. Let’s draw a parallel to those endless, recurring debates about homosexuality. On topics like that, there will always be someone out there who thinks being gay is a disease and needs "fixing." They have a right to their opinion, provided they don't cross the line into saying, "We should just kill you all." Just because I find generalizations on this BPD topic disgusting, or hate the logic that assumes being gay is an illness, doesn't make their view any less of an opinion. The issue is that the line between an opinion and a straight-up insult is often just a matter of nuance.
It's not that I hate everyone here; I can actually have a normal conversation with plenty of people. But I'm not going to toss insults around like a ping-pong ball just because I dared to say I'm not an abuser of men or children despite my diagnosis. And I'm certainly not backing down from standing up against hate (because let's be real, some of these posts are nothing but hate) and the reckless throwing around of clinical terms by people who clearly don't understand the disorder. You think it's easy for me to watch people put amateur blog posts on a pedestal instead of actual medical textbooks? It won't stop until someone calls them out. 🤷 I've been taking the worst insults for three days now, and what they're saying about Anaconda is truly vile. Doesn't that say enough about how much patience I have for following anyone else's lead?
It’s sad I even have to say this (as someone who has nothing against men and often feels more comfortable in male company than female), but: if there were more men with BPD, or if this thread were mostly made up of men with BPD, none of this would be happening. I'm certain of it. Their rage comes from living in a relatively traditional society where the legal system still heavily favors mothers in custody battles. Their rage comes from the fact that they feel the need to slap diagnoses on their exes just to feel better about themselves. (By the way, my assumption about someone's mental state isn't a diagnosis; a diagnosis is what you get from a psychiatrist.) Does that mean they have to resort to insults?
I can't wait for Harry York to stumble upon this thread so he can grace me again with some baseless assumption about my life or my (supposedly) addictive character, or some top-tier ad hominem attack. They know they aren't experts, so when they run out of actual arguments, they just resort to insults. ☕
Not one single person has answered whether their wives have been diagnosed with BPD. Not one. And all they had to say was "yes" or "no." But they want to have it both ways: they want to post on the BPD thread and act like experts, yet their exes haven't even been diagnosed with BPD. Sorry, but to me, that's just absurd. 😢
Look... is it really that hard to grasp that attacking people personally on this forum isn't okay?
I specifically asked ambermason16 to join this thread, and I even made it clear that I don't mind getting roasted if I say something stupid.
I don't know what Julian Assange said, but Harry York managed to say it in an even more sneaky, underhanded way. At least Assange doesn't hide behind passive-aggression; he just says what's on his mind.
Go ask the girls who just lurk (the ones who stopped posting on the Unknown thread altogether) why they left. It’s a total circus. Some of the people I actually talk to outside of this site tell me they’re just done with the constant bickering and the discrimination leveled against us.
There are basically four types of people in the BPD thread: 1. People with BPD (aggressive or otherwise), 2. Supportive, tolerant, or at least open-minded people without BPD who realize we aren't all clones, 3. Aggressive, verbally abusive people without BPD, and 4. The "saviors" who jump in with lines like, ''Can someone who actually knows anything about this disorder tell us more (for example, Harry York)?'' So, not only do we apparently have no clue how we feel, but people without the disorder think they know better than we do. I'm done listening to that.
Maybe the problem is me. Maybe I need thicker skin, or maybe I should just quit this thread entirely. But look... despite having BPD, I'm a pretty objective person. I'm not ten years old anymore; words don't rattle me that easily. Sure, things can sting, but I'm not going to go hysterical and throw my keyboard across the room because of them. Honestly, some of the stuff Harry York writes looks ten times worse than Assange's irritated posts. Nothing personal against Harry, but if I remember correctly, he's the guy who lied about his own profession just to look like a bigger expert. In my honest opinion, he's a manipulator and a liar, and he has no business acting like an authority just because he went through one bad relationship. Every single one of his posts reeks of mockery, generalizations, and a condescending, "know-it-all" tone. ☕
Look, Drew Lee7, you can't just jump into a debate with people who have already settled on a specific set of terms and expect to win by simply trying to steamroll them with your own vocabulary—especially when, BTW, you haven't even bothered to explain how your terminology actually works.
Brandon Wright54 said:An adult doesn't have the luxury of throwing a tantrum like a toddler does. 🙂
How deep does your interest in Butler actually go?
Yeah, I get it, but honestly, it’s better to just laugh at this stuff than to lose my mind over it. 😁
True. 🙂 But I'm definitely not claiming to be some expert here. I still have a massive amount to learn. 😉
EDIT: besides that, I fell down the cultural theory rabbit hole a long time ago (let's just say I was indoctrinated) and now there's no shaking it off. 🤣
No, I seriously cannot believe how stubborn you are, Drew Lee7. 🤣 🤣 😍 🤣
If language is this fixed, monolithic structure that isn't just some dough anyone can knead however they want, then where on earth do you get the right to just invent your own terms? Especially when Judith Butler—a literal authority in the field—wouldn't even agree with you. Where does that leave you, huh? 🙂 🤣
Brandon Wright54 said:You are something else. 😂 😂 This is just pure comedy. I don't think you realize it, but you're the only one here who seems clueless about what you're actually typing🙂. Aside from losing your cool and trying to insult me and several others, you've churned out a mountain of nonsense. You have zero actual arguments—just the kind of ugly insults a child throws out when they feel threatened, because no rational adult would react this way unless their ego was being bruised. 🙂 I'm not going to lower myself to your level because your reaction makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just drowning in your own muddled logic. You try to act like you're taking a "critical approach" to gender theories—though I doubt your presentation even deserves that label—but since you clearly have no clue, why trash something you haven't even bothered to study? We all risk misinterpreting things, which is exactly why we present arguments here. You, however, have nothing but a few nasty insults instead of actual substance.🙂 Look, just pick up the book and quit being so damn bitter at a world that clearly doesn't care—you’re the only one convinced you've got it all figured out anyway.🙂
I think this outburst just made you my favorite person on this forum. I have a soft spot for stubborn people. Not that I’m much different myself. 🤣
Drew Lee7 said:Huh? First off, do you even get what I'm actually saying here? Like, do you grasp the difference between how I define gender identity versus how gender theory defines gender, and why I think the whole concept of "gender" is totally useless and wrong? I'm being serious. I'm not trying to talk down to you.
P.S. Oh, and by the way, the English word "sex" and the American term for biological sex are one and the same. So using "sexual" as an adjective is the same thing as saying "sex-based." It applies to sexual or sex-based relationships, sexual or sex-based issues, identities, and all that.
You're insulting me by assuming I haven't already thought about that. That's just how a real debate works. 🤷 I don't know why you even jumped into this if you expect everyone to just bend to your specific worldview. 🤷 Make an actual argument for your position and let people disagree with you. Don't mock me just because I'm standing my ground on a view you don't share. 🤷
I’m just laying out the reasons why I believe sex and gender should be treated as separate categories.
Drew Lee7 said:Man, you’re just parroting fancy buzzwords like Brandon Wright54 at this point. Seriously, do you really think you need to lecture me on the distinction between sex and gender within gender theory? It’s not like I don’t get the difference; I just think the whole thing is stupid and a complete waste of time. Here’s my take: sex is biological—it's innate and set in stone. Gender identity, on the other hand, isn't just some purely social construct like gender theory tries to claim. It’s a messy, complicated cocktail of biological predispositions mixed with upbringing and culture. That’s the key distinction for me. Gender identity is partially a byproduct of our biology, not just a label society slapped on us. If you still can't see the nuance in that, then honestly, there's no helping you.
Let’s be real: trying to get an objective handle on "social privilege" through the lens of history is basically impossible. It’s a total moving target. At the end of the day, it's just a subjective concept, isn't it?
What you’re calling a "real man" is basically just a specific gender identity that some societies happen to push at certain points in history. But honestly? For every single one of those traits or attitudes you mentioned, I could point to a different time or place where they were either considered peak masculinity or just totally neutral.
Nope.
Are you actually trying to tell me women didn't do the heavy physical labor? 🙄
That is exactly why we make the distinction between sex and gender. Gendered stereotypes shift depending on when and where you live, whereas biological sex is fixed. You can try to change how you present, but you can't change what you are. The gap between what's natural and what's social is basically the same as the gap between sex and gender. If someone actually agreed to exist solely based on sex (without gender), they’d be letting society dictate exactly how a man (or woman) has to be. You can't allow that, because it's ridiculous to suggest a guy isn't a man just because he doesn't watch football. Raising awareness about gender is an attempt to give every human being total freedom to shape themselves, regardless of their sex. Gender is a double-edged sword. On one hand, corporations exploit it against us (think marketing: "I'm a man, but I'll prove it if I buy this specific aftershave"), but on the other hand, we can use it to our advantage to stay free enough to do whatever we want with ourselves.
The reality is, much like the debates over homosexuality, it comes down to how willing a person is to accept that deviations in gender or sexual identity will always exist, and that they are almost as natural as sex itself.
There’s a reason why the phenomenon of transsexuality wasn't as widespread in the past. It was likely because gender roles were more rigidly defined back then, often woven directly into the law, making it much harder for people to admit they didn't feel comfortable in their own skin. 🤷
Drew Lee7 said:It’s not even about the language itself. I can't just scribble whatever random nonsense pops into my head whenever I feel like it; I actually have to follow some basic grammar rules, otherwise, nobody would have any clue what I'm talking about.
And as for that part in bold? I didn't write that, and it’s definitely not what I meant. That's just your own interpretation of what I said. You got it completely wrong.
Where the hell are you even getting these conclusions from? Seriously, what am I supposed to admit or deny about trans people? They exist—that’s just a fact. But their issue isn't some grand debate about gender roles; it's the disconnect between biological sex and gender identity. And look, I’m not the one calling them "sick"—the medical community does. According to the ICD, transsexualism is under F64.0, transvestism is F64.1, and that whole F64 category falls under gender identity disorders. I mean, let's be real: if someone has male anatomy but feels like a woman and wants to be one, that’s a legitimate issue. Same goes for someone with female anatomy who wants to be a man. If we're being honest here, it's a massive deal. So, what now? Modern surgery and pharmacology allow them to "change" their sex to match how they feel. There's a problem, and there's a technical way to "fix" it. Why this happens in the first place is still anyone's guess, so this is really just a technical workaround. The reality is, right now, we can't just transplant ovaries and a uterus into a man, nor can we give a woman a fully functioning prostate and testicles. Sure, maybe some synthetic tissue could work eventually, but let's face it—they’ll never truly become the biological sex they want to be. And don't even get me started on hermaphroditism; that’s a whole other level of complicated.
Transsexual people don't have an issue with biological sex; they are fully aware they are male and will biologically remain male—honestly, how stupid do you have to be as an adult not to realize that? Kids figure out their sex by age three. Their issue is with gender identity because they are trying to align themselves with stereotypes of how the opposite sex should look. A real problem with biological sex would be someone desperately trying to convince themselves they can bear a child despite having a penis, or being female despite having a penis. We wouldn't take that seriously because clearly, they have issues with perception. 🤷 I should also point out that homosexuals don't have a problem with biological sex either. Even though they sleep with men, they haven't lost their ability to reproduce, and they didn't rip off their testicles just because of who they're sleeping with. They have—conditionally speaking—an issue with sexual identity.
Hermaphrodites—fine. They are born with dual sexual characteristics, yet they can still choose their gender identity. I don't see the problem.
Drew Lee7 said:To put it simply, yeah, I agree. Sexual instinct is at the core of gender identity, and that’s innate. It’s just like how physical sex characteristics are pretty much set in stone on average. Gender theory claims that gender is just a byproduct of culture. But if you ask me, culture is often just a result of innate male and female traits, biology, and stuff like that. Culture can change the framework, sure, but it can’t change the essence. If a man has the biological potential to father thousands of kids, while a woman is capped at maybe 10 or 20, that fact is going to influence male and female behavior somehow. Obviously, culture adds a lot of variables, but certain fundamental values remain. Take this one, for example. And don't even get me started on hormone levels...
Are you kidding me right now? 🤣
So, what exactly are these "gender" roles that aren't tied to sex? Let's hear it...
Gender roles shift constantly. These days, the lines are getting blurrier by the second, which makes talking about them a bit of a headache. But, if we look at some of those old-school stereotypes that were huge back in the day—say, leading up to the 90s—we get stuff like this:
-A real man doesn't cry. -A real man is always rock solid. -A real man shouldn't deal with erectile dysfunction when there's a woman right in front of him looking to get intimate. -A real man doesn't wear skirts. -A real man doesn't have long hair (though I guess the hippies kind of broke that one down). 🤣 -A real man loves football or some other kind of sport. -Poets and intellectuals aren't "real men"—they're just physical types.
And so on.
In its simplest terms, a gender role is just how successfully someone follows social imperatives—basically, our collective stereotypes about how men or women "should" act. It’s an incredibly relative concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. 🤷 Male gender roles are essentially what the guys over at MK have been making fun of quite effectively (if I may say so myself) for a long time now. 😍
Drew Lee7 said:Hahaha... so that’s not an issue now?! Like, what exactly is it then if not one massive, glaring problem? Everyone knows damn well what linguistic gender actually is. Language isn't some ball of dough that people can just knead and reshape whenever they feel like it. But honestly, what you just wrote is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time: claiming there's a distinction between gender and sex is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by feminist, queer, and so-called gender theorists on the principle of: "Whatever makes them feel good, makes them feel good."
I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if someone can't even wrap their head around basic reading comprehension, why bother trying to have a deep conversation with them? It's just a waste of breath.
For crying out loud, can you actually step outside that tiny little box of textbook definitions and jargon for once? Honestly, I think this whole obsession with separating gender from sex is just pure nonsense. It’s all part of this manufactured "gender theory" that feels completely made up to me. Why do we even need to overcomplicate things like this? So, people love to talk about how social roles are built around this concept they call "gender," but honestly, I don't buy that distinction for a second. To me, what they’re labeling as gender is nothing more than just gender identity. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 🤷 Look, just because two people share the same biological sex doesn't mean they have to share the same gender identity. It’s common sense, really. I mean, obviously, a straight guy and a gay guy aren't going to have the exact same identity—they don't see themselves the same way, and let's be real, neither does the rest of the world. It's not that complicated.
So, we finally get to the real question: why do they insist on calling it "gender" instead of just a part of their identity (you know, the minority version)? According to this whole gender theory nonsense, biological sex doesn't actually mean a damn thing—it’s just some physical shell, while "gender" is everything. And since they claim gender is a social construct, then by their own logic, *everything* is a social construct. To them, being a "man" or a "woman" is entirely made up by society. That’s how they justify the idea that we’re somehow "forcing" boys to become men and girls to become women through different upbringing styles—like giving girls dolls and dresses while pushing motherhood, and giving boys cars and tech. This grand "gender theory" claims that's exactly how the concept of gender is constructed. But if you ask me? They’re just talking out of their asses because they can't handle their own sexual identity when compared to the majority. Half the time, these people just have deep-seated issues with themselves. I mean, if some young woman decides that motherhood is this evil social construct being shoved down her throat by some imaginary patriarchy, then honey, you've got some serious personal problems to work through.
P.S. I asked you to give me the actual, original Freudian quote, not whatever some feminist thinks he meant. You really need to get a clue here: if I told you I don't buy into gender theory, then I truly couldn't care less what someone who pushes that exact agenda has to say about it. I already know their arguments inside and out. Besides, even in your interpretation of Freudian thought, there isn't a single thing you're saying that I haven't already pointed out. So, here’s my advice: maybe try reading a little slower next time.
Language is exactly that. 🙂 You weren't born with the specific vocabulary you use now, nor were those terms even trending back when you were a toddler. 🤷 If we’re going to get pedantic and argue about it, then the idea that we define "masculine" and "feminine" solely by biological sex is also a fabrication. We could have just ignored physical differences entirely and never talked about them. We could have ignored—if we're allowing democracy in these matters—what science says about biological traits. That way, if some guy happened to be messing around, he could claim to be female and insist (just to spite everyone) that he'd give birth in nine months. We'd call that absurd. But some things just are the way they are, regardless of whether we want them to be. 😉 Similarly, the fact that you allow for gender identity instead of sex identity comes from the fact that you're prioritizing the physical over the intellectual/mental. You're completely ignoring the mental aspect of a person's identity and reducing everything to pure physicality. It seems to me that rejecting gender identity has a lot to do with how late this topic was even brought up, unlike the obvious biological differences that allowed us to distinguish between men and women pretty early on.
Look, can you please step outside the box of those recycled definitions for a second: for me, making a distinction between gender and sex is nonsense and a myth created by so-called "gender theory." While the social construction of roles is indeed called "gender" within that theory, I don't recognize that distinction because what they call gender is nothing more than sexual identity.
This isn't directed at me, but (with all due respect): if you don't recognize the difference between gender and sex, do you not recognize trans people or crossdressers either? OK, you're entitled to think something is wrong with them (as long as you aren't being verbally or physically abusive), but what does that have to do with their existence? If I close my blinds because I'm in a bad mood and don't feel like looking at the sky today, does that mean the sky doesn't exist for me? It's incredibly solipsistic. 🙂 The existence of gender (where we actually agree) allows for the possibility that people don't feel like who they were born as. If you refuse to acknowledge gender, it won't stop trans people, crossdressers, or anyone else who simply doesn't feel comfortable in their own skin (whether someone shoved it into their head that they aren't masculine or feminine enough, or they just have their own complexes) from existing. How else are we supposed to discuss the duality between what is biological and what is psychological? How else besides using the term "gender"? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just defending my view that gender needs its place in our linguistic, psychological, sociological, anthropological, and even historical toolkit.
EDIT: One more thing I should probably say: we’re basically standing at a crossroads right now. We're trying to adopt modern Western habits while simultaneously cutting ties with old-school attitudes and perspectives from a different era. To me, these debates mostly stem from the sheer confusion that comes when you're constantly bombarded with new info and shifting viewpoints. It's a lot to process. But honestly, having these discussions is just part of the learning curve and moving toward a more open-minded way of looking at things.
A comic strip artist who nails certain aspects of this topic perfectly:
Drew Lee7 said:Transgender people are just sick. Honestly, they’re trying to be something they aren't, and it makes no sense. Why even go down that road?
So, let's talk about this whole "gender" debate. It’s basically just a massive argument started by feminists and LGBT groups who refuse to admit they have an identity crisis. They basically cooked up this entire concept of "gender" just to give their own issues a fancy new label and justify them. Isn't that just convenient?
Honestly, your whole take is hilarious. I’ve got nothing to add except my own two cents: the entire concept of gender was basically cooked up by feminists, and nowadays, it’s mostly just being shoved down our throats by the LGBT group.
Look, gender identities haven't exactly been some unique, one-of-a-kind thing throughout history or even in the present day. But just because they've always existed doesn't mean we need to go around reinventing the wheel. Why try to make something new when the reality is already right there?
I don't buy this at all. An LGBT group didn't just invent some "problem." What actually happened is that feminists and queer theory have spent years doing the intellectual heavy lifting to open a window that used to be slammed shut by our own prejudices. You can't honestly tell me that a woman taking male hormones and prepping for gender reassignment surgery is the exact same thing as a woman using IVF to deal with infertility. And look, a man could undergo gender reassignment surgery, wear heels, and take female hormones—does that mean he still identifies as male? He's male biologically, but his gender leans toward being female. Gender is a heavy, vital linguistic concept because it democratized things; it allowed for the possibility that someone might not want to be the sex nature assigned them at birth. As far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly fine. The LGBT group didn't create a problem (these things like transsexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality have always existed; they aren't modern inventions), they just brought them into the light.
Just a side note: I think people today confuse actual feminism with just being frustrated, man-hating bitter people. The first wave of feminists gave women the right to vote, the right to work, and the freedom to choose their own lives. I don't think we should spit on them or use their name as an insult. So if that makes me a "bitter man-hater" in your eyes—so be it.
Drew Lee7 said:Man, please. This whole distinction between gender and sex is such a joke. Calling gender roles "social constructs" or "culturally conditioned"? Total nonsense. Most of those roles are driven by biology, and everything else is just society reacting to those biological realities based on its own weird dynamics.
As far as I know, we still don't even fully understand the causes behind homosexuality, transsexuality, or being transgender, so... who actually knows?
But honestly, all these feminist theories regarding gender versus sex are just laughable.
You're mixing up sex and gender. Sex is determined at birth, whereas gender is more about individual psychology and sociology. Sex is "I am female, I have female reproductive organs, and I produce female hormones," while gender is "I feel female," "I present as female," or "I embrace my femininity." It makes perfect sense. That’s why a transsexual person might be biologically male but identifies with a female gender. While biological sex isn't a socially constructed category, gender definitely is—it's been debated for ages, and more importantly, it's been manipulated by politics and marketing for a very long time.
Man, people still haven't shaken that absolute nonsense where they try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Oh sure, let's go there. Comparing abuse involving children, animals, or even necrophilia to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in an act is just... wow. Aside from the tiny detail that the first group involves predation while the second is just a normal sexual orientation (that happens to be "different," apparently!), it's a joke.
Pedophilia is a disorder. It's a sickness. Just because it might be nearly impossible to "cure" someone of those impulses doesn't change that—there are plenty of mental illnesses out there that you just live with forever. But we aren't talking about a mere deviation from the norm here; we're talking about thoughts that can literally destroy a child's life at any given moment. It's criminal to even speculate on whether a sick individual will actually act on those urges or just stay home looking at photos from a beach. These things are treated—whether successfully or not—but they *are* treated. And when they actually cross the line into action? They get punished. Maybe not often enough, but that's how the law works.
Gay people don't hurt anyone. The Church claims the same thing about them as you do about pedophiles—that it isn't a sin until it's acted upon. They just refuse to grasp that acting on homosexual behavior doesn't leave scars or trauma on anyone, regardless of whether it was illegal in the past or not, whereas pedophilia permanently ruins lives. If you can't see the massive difference there, then 🤦
I deleted my post specifically because of this. 🤦
Look, I'm not claiming homosexuality needs treatment, and I'm not homophobic 🤦. My point is that pedophilia shouldn't be listed as a sexual preference in the DSM-IV until it's actually carried out (violating legal norms). If we include it based on thought alone, it opens a massive door for including bisexuality, heterosexuality, and all sorts of other nonsense in the DSM-IV—stuff I really hoped we had moved past by now. 😬
Is there anything else you want to take out of context just so you can accuse me of something? You haven't even read my previous posts, where, by the way, my views on the gay community and on pedophilia itself were pretty much laid out clearly. 😬
Biologically speaking, pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children—basically before those secondary sexual characteristics kick in.
Legally, though, it all comes down to whatever age of consent is set by the state. In the US, it varies, but let's say it's 16 or 18 depending on where you are. So if a 16-year-old consents to someone who's 30, 40, or 50, as long as there’s no coercion involved (like assault), all those moral crusaders can cry about it all they want. But if we're talking about a 13-year-old, even if they "consent," the law sees it as child abuse, period. It's a crime.
Look, pedophilia is classified as a psychological disorder (just like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or personality disorders, if I were to list them all), and people don't get thrown in prison for having a mental illness—they get locked up for committing a crime defined by the law.
You're kind of comparing apples to oranges there. A woman with a 15-year-old and a guy with a 15-year-old fall into the same legal bucket. But a woman with a 9-year-old? Yeah, that's straight-up pedophilia.
Technically speaking, pedophilia isn't classified as a mental disorder; it's a sexual preference, just like being gay or straight. Except, unlike being hetero or homo, where people actually have the right to sleep with whoever they want as long as they're legal adults, this is different. You can't "cure" a sexual preference. All you can do is make sure a predator doesn't get the chance to ruin a kid's life. There used to be theories suggesting these people are just socially stunted individuals who can't handle the adult world and cling to kids out of shame, but nothing like that has ever been proven.
Oh sure, let's just hand them a Nobel Prize while they're busy molesting children. 😉
granitewolf6 said:It’s not that it’s rarer; it’s that this stuff happens to guys by default. Doesn't matter if they're dating someone ten years younger, ten years older, or the same age—whether they're 27 or 67, it plays out the same way.
Man, talk about naive... "Handle them with care," my ass. Teenagers drink, smoke, do drugs, and rebel against the very authorities who are trying to "handle them with care." Honestly, the kids living on the edge usually blow through their "adolescent crisis" way faster than the ones being coddled and walked on eggshells.
Look, those people are adults. Mentally and physically, they're fully developed. Period.
But looking at an innocent kid—a 13 or 14-year-old—as if they're just a piece of meat? I don't know about you guys, and I'm not here to judge, but something about that feels fundamentally wrong to me. Those are children trapped in adult bodies. Quincy:
How incredibly naive is this crowd... "Careful," my ass. Teenagers smoke, hook up, do drugs, and rebel against any authority that tries to be "careful" with them. They actually breeze through their "adolescent crisis" faster than the kids who are coddled and handled with kid gloves.
Being careful means being disciplined and strict, but with actual empathy and tolerance. It’s about being both autocratic and democratic at once. It's hard to pull off, but that’s how you raise a functional, independent person. But that wasn't even my point. Sure, they drink, smoke, and hook up, but that doesn't mean they should be "easy targets" or whatever. Laws exist for a reason; the rest comes down to internalized norms and conscience. Personally, I won't stand for someone touching my twelve-year-old sister just because she hit puberty early—back when creeps used to catcall me on my way to school because I was more developed than my peers (and you can't do anything because you're paralyzed by shame and fear). It could have been worse if my parents hadn't been absolute tyrants at home, but I still wouldn't allow it. People like that deserve to pay if they ever get the chance. Or some guy who thinks he has the right to rape my 16-year-old friend just because, get this, he decided she was hot. I have nothing to say to that. 🤷
People take way too much liberty when it comes to following their primal instincts. 😉 Look, someone might say: "Whatever, you have eyes, but you also have a brain." Having sex organs isn't a free pass for everything.
granitewolf6 said:Fair point, but honestly, most of this applies just as much to a 28-year-old woman as it does to a 28-year-old guy.
If people actually sat around considering the psychological trauma others go through during sex, we probably wouldn't be having sex at all.
I’m not strictly talking about sex here. Fine, let’s put it this way: they hook up, she decides she’s done because she saw it for what it was—just casual—but he falls head over heels because he’s easily swayed. He feels like a man because she told him he’s special, more mature than other guys his age, blah blah blah... You think that doesn't happen? Sure, it happens to women more often, but still. It’s not impossible, and it’s definitely not rare.
Look, I can't stop anyone from doing anything. But if you’re going to sleep with a 15-year-old, the least you can do is be honest about where things stand so nobody gets played. No "you're so special" or "I think I'm falling for you" nonsense if it's just about sex. And it'd be decent if the kid didn't end up feeling discarded or like total trash afterward.🤷
Of course, like I said, everything is relative. We see extremes everywhere, like when bitter moms in the US start crying statutory rape because their 17-year-old daughter slept with a 19 or 20-year-old boyfriend.
BTW, a huge chunk of depression, neurosis, and crimes committed during adolescence gets brushed off as just an "adolescent crisis." That just proves how sensitive this stage of life is and why we really need to handle these young people with actual care.
granitewolf6 said:So how is that actually any different from 90% of the relationships out there?
How is it not different? Whether people want to admit it or not, if someone is finishing up high school, they're basically hitting their physical peak in their early 20s. Meanwhile, a 13-year-old is still just a kid. And don't even get me started on sex with girls who haven't even hit puberty yet.😱
The psychological gap between a 14-year-old and a 28-year-old woman is massive. There's a huge difference in what she possesses—or should have developed by now—that he hasn't touched yet: a sense of responsibility, thinking about consequences, actual independence, and emotional maturity. I mean, she isn't going to spiral and contemplate self-harm just because her first crush used her for sex...
Then there are the social differences. She’s working, she can drive, she can grab a drink, stay out as late as she wants, and doesn't rely on anyone. She can travel or go to a concert alone without asking permission. He's still in school. He can't even buy a beer at a gas station.😁 He has curfews, he can't go anywhere without an adult present, and he needs parental consent for everything.
Look, my issue is simply that I find it disgusting to see a twelve-year-old girl acting like some hyperactive little rabbit. But hey, I guess I'm just supposed to "adapt to the times."😬
Look, let’s be real: there is absolutely no difference between a male or female pedophile. This isn't just about sex; it's about the massive power imbalance between two people in a relationship. You have one person who is significantly more emotionally and physically mature, someone who can easily manipulate a younger individual, who is financially independent (whereas a minor can't even get a 🤷), and who has clear life goals and views sex much more casually than a thirteen-year-old, for whom everything feels like life or death. 🤣
I’m pretty sensitive about this topic, and honestly, it’s one of the few things that can actually make me lose my cool. I know why, too. It’s because the thought of stripping away a child's innocence is just devastating. To me, it’s pure violence, regardless of who is doing it or how they justify it.
Besides, it’s common knowledge that even if you’re generally bad at dating men or women, it’s always easiest to just find some kid to manipulate.