Few people are talking about paedophilia

[deleted]

You do realize this is a movie...right?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Well, that is actually the case, like it or not. Pedophilia has nothing to do with developed men of any age group finding post-pubescent teenagers attractive. That is actually fairly common, and there are entire pornography genres devoted to the topic of "babysitter" and "schoolgirl" style fantasies (all played by women of consenting age, naturally), not to mention "jailbait", which even directly acknowledges that the topic of the fantasy is forbidden in its own terminology. So while society does not condone men actually doing what is portrayed in the film (or the porn) and for very good reason, society also does not condemn the fantasy because it is in a grey area in terms of acceptability. It being unacceptable is a fairly modern concept. It was much more common for women to become married and start being sexually active close to puberty, in the past. There are many factors for why this has shifted, and as is often the case, the concept of morality has shifted as well as the reality. It is perhaps possible that in another century of time, even such forms of pornography that fantasise this behaviour will become illegal. We are undeniably on that road already. It is illegal to even fictionally depict certain sexual acts - even in cartoons and drawings. So this is definitely trending away from acceptance, but we are nowhere near that point yet.

So the reason why pedophilia is not being heavily talked about here has absolutely nothing to do with Eckhart being "cute". It has to do with the fact that this movie has nothing to do with pedophilia, and anyone who thinks it does is just flat-out ignorant (note, I don't say stupid, just naive and ignorant). There are many varieties of attraction, fetish and perversion of attraction (as we might say), and pedophilia is only one type that specifically refers to male or female attraction to children (gender specific or bisexual in nature) within the age group of roughly seven to ten or eleven years of age (some are attracted to even younger children, all the way to infants - but there is another word for them that I do not at this point recall). A true exclusive pedophile would not find Jasira attractive in the least because she has developed and is pubescent. He or she would consider her to be "too old". A man or woman attracted to a girl Jasira's age would be referred to as a nominal hebephile, and after she finished going through puberty, a ephebophile - which is where you start to see most jailbait and schoolgirl fantasy porn take off; correspondingly we can assume this class of attraction to be the most common, and as with the other types, can often be blended with an attraction to men or women of an adult age teleiophile, as well as men or women of older age groups, and finally the sexual attraction to elderly men or women, gerontophilia , which is more rare. All of these are within the realm of paraphilias, of which their are thousands of forms of sexual preference.

This has nothing to do with "validation" as you seem to think. Using correct terminology and assigning accurate labels to things is not credence. It's just being accurate and not being a blanket phrase using simpleton. Life is way more complicated than you seem to think it is.

Storming in here and righteously demanding to know why everyone isn't talking about Vuoso being a pedophile is like storming in here and asking why everyone isn't talking about him being a serial killer and we all must be sympathetic to serial killers because we aren't and we're glossing it over because he is cute.

As for women who think it's funny to say "I'd totally do him" because Eckhart is cute, they probably aren't her age and they don't remember what it was like when they were.

So you are speaking in an anecdotal sense, and assuming that your experience qualifies for every other female going through transition? Surely you cannot be that ignorant. I say that in the nicest possible way. I realise from your above sentiments that you aren't exactly what one might refer to as "scientific" in your assessment of life. You're one of these flag waving fear chasers, and that's okay, we need those kinds of people in the world as well - but surely you can fathom that just because you experienced life one way, that does not imply that all people experienced life the same way, right? Because while we're on the topic of attractions, it is in fact quite common for pubescent and post-pubescent females to start feeling attraction toward well-developed males. Biologically speaking for the same reason it is so common for the same men to be attracted to them! It's really not that mysterious. In modern society we live much longer and giving birth to 9 or 12 children is not nearly as important or necessary in order to continue the localised tribal unit (and in fact we struggle with the fact that we have no tribal unit, psychologically, too). So people start later in life and only have one or two children if they live in a developed country with high quality medical treatment. In these countries you'll find moral quality has shifted away from considering young women as sexually ready. Step outside of your posh little exceedingly expensive life however, and you'll find that your attitudes and assumptions about life are quite wrong and invalid.

Does that mean you are wrong and invalid, being contextually placed within your posh and privileged life? Nope. See, that's where we get into the whole "life is complicated" thing. Morality isn't so cut and dry as you seem to think. It follows along with human culture and development, rather than the other way around. It is possible for two different societies to have different moralities.

That's all well and good, but beneath that we have the biological imperative of the human mind, and a great many girls who have recently become capable of reproduction will find themselves starting to "mate" - very often seeking older men rather than boys their own age - and men of all ages will find that attractive and reciprocate, because for 179,700 years out of the past 180,000 years of human history, that's been the safest, most necessary way for the tribe to continue being fruitful.

That's not to say it is right, in this present modern context, that's just to say it is what it is. And confusing that with pedophilia is laughable; sheer comedy.

But ignorance is rampant here. I saw someone refer to Vuoso as a "pederast", which is just ridiculous as pederasty is very specifically constrained to older men having sexual relations with pubescent boys. Not Jasira!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

There's a cultural context as well.

Most girls in the part of the world that Jazira comes from are married off as teenagers (often as young teenagers) to their cousin or uncle who is almost never a teenager, usually mid-to-late 20s.

So Rifaat has to notice that his well-developed 13-year old is ready for the next step in life, and therefore it doesn't shock him. If anything, he's only shocked that she is getting physical outside the family. But that doesn't seem to be a big deal for him, he married outside the family. Lebanese are much more liberal like that than their neighbors.

If a 13-year old Arab girl's sexual awakening shocks us, there are several tens of millions of other real-life cases in the middle east and north africa we could choose to get shocked at if we wanted.

WARNING!
Objects under T-shirt are larger than they appear!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Few people are talking of paedophilia because it was not considering paedophilia is being attracted by prepubescent children, which Jasira was clearly not at this point.

reply share

add reply

formatting help