Plan B Forum

I heard someone make the perfect analogy for this - there is a difference between milk that has been expired for a month and milk that has been expired for a year. You still shouldn't be drinking either of them.

Yes your point is well taken, and I’ve been excoriated in another board for making the same point Megyn Kelly did - which I also made here a while back:

Being attracted to teenaged girls is not pedophilia. Full stop. Pedophilia is a specific paraphilia described in the DSM and it involves primary attraction to very young children, from infants through grade school ages. Children whose bodies are not remotely sexually mature.

Another mind blowing fact: the vast majority of pedophiles never act on their pedophilia, and the large majority of people who sexually molest very young children are not pedophiles, they are opportunistic sexual predators. Often family members who victimize the children in their own family circle not because they are primarily attracted to children, but because children are easy to groom and victimize.

I gather I’m an obsessed asshole for being hung up on these science based concepts, because it seems everyone out there wants to reject them wholly and just call anyone who is attracted to a sexually mature teenager a pedophile.

While means a lot of people have 20 year old sons who are pedophiles.

I'm not focused on the definitions, but rather on the use of "barely legal girls" (which 15 year olds are decidedly NOT). Plus saying "There's a difference between a 15 year old and a 5 year old," suggests that having sex with a 15 year old is defensible.

BSG--while you are corr3ect (and as I recall a mature man attracted to adolescent girls (and I do not know if it applies also to women or same gender attractions) is properly termed a hebephile), Megyn takes it a lot further for him being "into" (and into is a strange word to use here, although I think it applies) "the barely legal type" implying it is different and, somehow, less wrong. Sure, a lot of men find younger adolescents attractive, but damn few are, using her euphemism, "into" them. And it is not right to victimize the adolescents that way--in my work with DYFS, I have seen first hand the kind of damage that those acts can inflict). Sure, I am all for Romeo and Juliet exceptions where the ages are close, but a grown man Epstein's age victimizing girls is not defensible and is not somehow less of a concern than someone molesting a 5 year old. Both are inflicting untold damage on them.

I am not defending Epstein, Trump, or any other fully adult male who preys on teenage girls whether by seducing them into a one on one relationship, nor certainly by trafficking them. I don’t believe I wrote anything that could be construed to suggest that.

I am merely reiterating that such men are not pedophiles, no matter how often the media and lay public asserts it.

As I recall, when i was in college (quite some time ago) the term "pedophile" was applied to men attracted to minor women of any age; some time after, I recall the term "ebephilia" applied to men attracted to adolescents, and this then became hebephile. But I am not surprised much of the lay literature uses pedophile as it was used in the past and applies it across the board.

But whatever you term them, I am not buying Megyn's defense of Epstein based on the terms. It's like saying, "he doesn't have consumption, he has tuberculosis". It doesn't make a difference what you call it, he is still detestable, ans is Trump (and I am sure you'll agree).

Okay on another topic, apparently Donald sucked Bill Clinton’s cock???

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 14, 2025 7:14 pm

....I am merely reiterating that such men are not pedophiles, no matter how often the media and lay public asserts it.

That was something I'd never given much thought to until you mentioned it in that other thread. Since then I've mentioned the technicality to a few people and nobody seems to care. They still believe Epstein was a pedophile. It seems that the term has become an acceptable secondary definition for any adult who is sexually attracted to a non-adult.

As an aside, I'd bet if you went to an internet maga-forum and called Bill Clinton an oenophile, maga-people would demand that he be indicted.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 14, 2025 11:13 pm

Okay on another topic, apparently Donald sucked Bill Clinton’s cock???

Apparently referring to a different "Bubba," but as far as I'm concerned the Rule of Bubbas (like the Rule of Goats) applies.

Tempus fugit - time + files = sanitas

US President Donald Trump has urged lawmakers in his own party to vote to release files relating to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump wrote on Sunday night that Republicans in the House of Representatives should do so "because we have nothing to hide".

Another Beeb Beeb Ceeb misquote!!!! They omitted the words "at last."

A solitary representative voted against the Epstein Transparency Act. Five abstained - maybe not present?

I can’t wait to find out who the nay vote was and how they explain it.

Clay Higgins from Louisiana. Fucking pedophile protector.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 18, 2025 7:58 pm

A solitary representative voted against the Epstein Transparency Act. Five abstained - maybe not present?

I can’t wait to find out who the nay vote was and how they explain it.

The 5 that didn't vote:

Don Beyer (D-VA-8)

Greg Casar (D-TX-35)

Michael Rulli (R-OH-6)

Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ-11) I think I know why she wasn't present or didn't vote, as she was elected Governor of New Jersey earlier this month. She announced she was resigning from the House effective Nov 20.

Steve Womack (R-AR-3)

Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ-11) I think I know why she wasn't present or didn't vote, as she was elected Governor of New Jersey earlier this month. She announced she was resigning from the House effective Nov 20.

True, but today is the 19th and she is still House member and has all the responsibilities of that position. And it isn't exactly like travel from NJ to DC is a big thing--a 45 (sometimes 30) minute plane ride to National Airport (or an easy train ride to Union Station); I have done it dozens of times for 9:00 AM meetings and got back in my office a little after lunch. My guess is she figured it wouldn't make a difference, but she is the representative of my district until tomorrow and I think she should have been there.

The Trump strategists are semi-clever. Note that the files may not be released in the case of "current investigations" (and other caveats such as protecting the "innocent"). And who is to be "currently investigated"? Why Democrats naturally. Dumb-old's swivel to support release came only days after he'd jinned up his DOJ to take up a couple of "investigations".

Look at them - not me, he said. Oh, and I'm innocent.

Quite a clear hint that.

I need at least one person to acknowledge this brilliant toon share so I know you folks are seeing the attachments I’m posting here. Thanks in advance!

Sure, BSG. I see a nine panel cartoon with clever rhymes about Trumps calling (screaming at?) a female reporter who asked him a question about Epstein on some recent flight onboard Air ForceOne, Piggy. I have not heard anybody speaking to Trumps statement that he seeks more federal investigation into this stuff because all those friends of Epstein were Democrats. Yeah, that includes the active Democrat arm in arm with Epstein named Donald J. Trump.

Yesterday I heard some Trumper spokesperson from the Justice department talking about how important it was to carefully screen all this stuff before it is all released ( I think they call that 'redacted') The identity of the infant victims must be protected.(the law says everybody is either an adult or an infant) specially if there is could be criminal charges yet to be brought against some of these awful perps. We must not tell the potential perps and their lawyers anything that they might be able use as exculpatory evidence. Yes, she used that exact word. Has Trump found a whole crowd of incompetent lawyers? How long do you have to go to law school to know that the prosecution is REQUIRED to give the defense all exculpatory material they have. The dingbat running the case against Casey has totally screwed up the Grand Jury process. She is starting to look typical of Trump's ideal Justice Department.

snailgate

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 20, 2025 3:32 am

Sure, BSG. I see a nine panel cartoon with clever rhymes about Trumps calling (screaming at?) a female reporter who asked him a question about Epstein on some recent flight onboard Air ForceOne, Piggy. I have not heard anybody speaking to Trumps statement that he seeks more federal investigation into this stuff because all those friends of Epstein were Democrats. Yeah, that includes the active Democrat arm in arm with Epstein named Donald J. Trump.

Yesterday I heard some Trumper spokesperson from the Justice department talking about how important it was to carefully screen all this stuff before it is all released ( I think they call that 'redacted') The identity of the infant victims must be protected.(the law says everybody is either an adult or an infant) specially if there is could be criminal charges yet to be brought against some of these awful perps. We must not tell the potential perps and their lawyers anything that they might be able use as exculpatory evidence. Yes, she used that exact word. Has Trump found a whole crowd of incompetent lawyers? How long do you have to go to law school to know that the prosecution is REQUIRED to give the defense all exculpatory material they have. The dingbat running the case against Casey has totally screwed up the Grand Jury process. She is starting to look typical of Trump's ideal Justice Department.

snailgate

But have you seen the legs on her?