Question about pedophila, prompted by the furor over Cuties

[conuly]

So you know how people are all talking about this movie and the messages, marketing, and/or filming thereof.

Several people known to me have expressed the opinion that showing children, tweens, or teens doing things which adults know look "sexual" is clearly something "designed to appeal to pedophiles".

But what I want to know is - is it? Obviously everybody is different, even people who are sexually attracted to children, but is it the case that people with those desires are, in general, more interested in this sort of scene than pictures of kids acting less overtly "sexual"?

I don't even know how to find this out without ending up on some sort of watch list or, worse, seeing things I actually don't want to see.

Note: this is a separate question from "are those scenes appropriate in this, or any movie" and "whether or not they'd be appropriate in some movies, are they appropriate when acted out by actual children" and anything of that sort. Those are all good questions which people are arguing strenuously over everywhere.

Comments

[elf]

Welcome to the newest round of fannish drama, aka "The Discourse."

Right now, the hot-button topic is "pedophilia," which has been defined as:
1) Adults who are (sexually) interested in prepubescent children,
2) Adults who are interested in teenage minors,
3) Adults who are interested in non-minors substantially younger* than themselves, e.g. 40-year-old men who date college students,
4) Teenagers who are interested in other teenagers,
5) Anyone who is interested in someone more than 3 years younger than themselves.

...I wish I were exaggerating.

Among the issues involved, are the claims that:
1) Any child appearing an an adult-ish context is "pedo-bait" (which especially applies to "sexy" clothes or settings, but is not limited to those);
2) Any adult appearing in a child-ish context is likewise designed to appeal to pedophiles;
3) Any fictional character who is "child-coded" and shown in a romantic or sexual relationship is pedophilic.

There is, in all of this, no comprehension that Hollywood & related beauty cultures have a vested interest in aging up kids ASAP so they can sell the various products and services designed to keep people, mostly women and girls, stuck in the "you must be pretty at all times" trap. I don't think child beauty pageants are designed to appeal to pedophiles.

Somewhere in this tangled mess, there is the notion that it really is damned creepy for adults to lust after children, and very illegal to act on those lusts, and that people who encourage either should be stopped. But that message is very much drowned under the wave of insisting that an adult writing a story about two teenagers who kiss, is somehow promoting pedophilia.

Again. I wish I were exaggerating.

* Substantially younger = more than 10 years, or more than 5, or more than 2, depending on who's playing the definition game at the moment.

[conuly]

Sorry, wrong tangent - in this case these are homeschoolers and few, if any of them, appear to be any more involved in any sort of fandom other than vaguely knowing that it exists.

[kengr]

There are actually defined terms that distinguish between "attracted to pre-pubescent" and "attracted to pubescent" but only professionals make the distinction and reporting on their work tends conflate them again.

And I hear you about "teens with teens" is pedophilia. I got involved in a *nasty* argument years back when I mentioned I'd written something involving teens and sex.

Never mind that it was based on fantasies I'd had when I was that age. Nope. I had to be a sick person who wanted to have sex with teens....

Though I am tempted to argue about some of the other "definitions" you mention. The "more than 3 years age difference" is a part of the criteria for statutory rape in some places for example.

But being different *legally* isn't something that these sorts of idiots will pay attention to.

[elf]

The "more than three years" in this case, includes adults.

As in, there are actually people saying a 30-year-old dating a 26-year-old is pedophilia. (Including: a 30-year-old fictional character dating a 26-year-old fictional character, indicates that the author is a pedophile.)

And while I see this in fandom because that's where I hang out, I suspect these ideas have spread through a lot of the general population. I don't know if they started in fandom or not; that's just where I see all the worst examples.

[kengr]

[censored][censored][censored]

That is simply *nuts*. Even *if* you accept the idea the idea that too large an age gap (between adults) is wrong, it needs to be *relative*, not absolute.

Three years difference is 16% with an 18-year-old and a 21-year-old. But between 40 and 43 it's only 7.5 percent.

Plus, they are *adults*. If both people are legal adults there *can't* be any "pedo" about it.

Wouldn't work well in fandom, but in groups like those homeschoolers, you can put the cat among the pigeons by pointing out the ages of various old Testament men and their wives.

Come to think of it, in fandom you could have fun with Sarek & Amanda's ages.

And besides the "they're adults" bit, I think that if you need to check ID to see if one of them is too old/young, then you are really reaching.

If one of them might be a minor, yeah then you gotta check ID. But if they are both adults? Gimme a break.

And it couldn't hurt to point out that the "three years" rule was added so that "normal" teen dating behavior wouldn't be classified as statutory rape.

[conuly]

Sheesh.

Very large age differences between adults can be problematic*, but we generally expect that adults are competent enough to make their own choices, even if they're bad ones.

And 4 years isn't a very large age difference when the younger person is 20 or older.

* Or, rather, they often occur when the whole relationship is shit, and that's part of it but not the reason for it.

[elf]

Yeah. There's a huge, bizarre wave of complaints about depictions of minors in adult-ish situations, and declarations about how that is or isn't indicative of some kind of abuse or perversion. And almost none of those complaints are focused on real-life people involved in those situations: it's about art depicting them.

There's no wave of complaints demanding that high schools prevent freshmen/sophomores from dating juniors/seniors. But there are complaints that fiction should not show a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old dating. (Or worse, an 18-year-old because that is an ADULT taking advantage of a CHILD.) And complaints that adult authors should not write stories about fictional teens in sexual situations.

Regarding Cuties in particular: the discussion is not coming from a place of good-faith assumptions. Yelling about "this movie appeals to pedophiles" entirely ignores that this movie is about an existing industry with these standards.

Are they insisting on dismantling the 10-13 year old dancing/acting/modeling industries? Are they saying pre-teens should not have access to mainstream social media accounts? If not, they can STFU. The movie is not the problem. The movie is highlighting (some of) the problems, and people are yelling because they're uncomfortable knowing these trends exist.

It's worth discussion how media portrays kids; whether our culture pushes kids into adulthood, or some aspects of adulthood, too quickly; how best to deal with adolescent sexuality. But I've found that people complaining about how movies depict those things are rarely interested in those discussions; they mostly want to avoid the subjects entirely.

Side note: they rarely complain about exposing kids to adult levels of violence; it's only sexuality that kids are supposed to avoid/be protected from.

[mindstalk]

> whether our culture pushes kids into adulthood, or some aspects of adulthood, too quickly

While our culture ('our' meaning US/UK, bleeding into Australia) aggressively infantilizes children with regard to being able to go for a walk or play in the park. And that's a fairly recent development.

[conuly]

The two things are interlinked - we HAVE to protect the kiddies AT ALL TIMES because PREDATORS LURK IN EVERY BUSH.

[alexseanchai]

xkcd "Dating Pools" seems like a way better guideline

[mindstalk]

> There are actually defined terms that distinguish between "attracted to pre-pubescent" and "attracted to pubescent" but only professionals make the distinction and reporting on their work tends conflate them again.

I know a progressive site where someone got an instant permaban, contrary to the usual escalation policies, simply for using the word ephebephilia.

[moon_custafer]

That sounds like another facet of the “it’s hard to discuss the topic without being suspected of defending it” problem; likely worsened by there being just enough people who *do* try to defend ephebephilia that a lot of people have a “this guy knows the exact legal age of consent in each state” red flag.

I myself used to interact with someone on Tumblr who kept making posts about how she was triggered by any mention of punching or fighting nazis, because, she said, she’d been abused in the past and felt that if anyone approved of hitting nazis then their non-violence was conditional and she feared what they’d do if *she* ever crossed a line in their opinion. I kind of side-eyed this, because it really seemed to be taking pacifism to extremes; but didn’t want to argue with the particular triggers of a survivor. Then she complained one day about how people were prejudiced against “minor-attracted persons” and it all made a nasty kind of sense. I didn’t hit her (obviously) or even want to, but I sure as hell blocked her.

[conuly]

Re: that anecdote

Given that people *are* prejudiced - and not without reason! - against, ahem, "minor attracted persons", you really do have to wonder about the sort of person who complains about this fact of life in a mixed group.