Nominations please, for the all asshole scale

[Lord Jim]

I thought Lo was referring to sexual abuse as immediately after stating she watched her mother being abused as a child, she revealing that her Grandfather was "a womanizer and fooled around constantly".

From reading what she said, I can easily see how one could reach that conclusion, but I suspect what we probably have here is a case of some in-artful phraseology....

First, I suspect Joe is tight; that LoCa meant that the the abuse of her mother was other than sexual; that's the only way the claim that he wasn't a pedophile makes sense...

Second, I also suspect that what she meant to convey is that the abuse began when her mother was a child, but that she witnessed it at a later time. (in other words her grandfather started smacking her mother around as a child, and continued to do so after she became an adult; this is not all that uncommon in cases like this.)

That's my best guess anyway.

[The Hen]

It would make more sense.

Is that what you meant Lo?

[Gob]

I await more obfucsation and lies from the attention whore.

Now if you'd be so good as to not quote her, I won't read her lying shit.

[Andrew D]

loCAtek is right about one thing: Pedophilia is the attraction, not the action.

One could engage in sex with as child without having any sexual attraction to that child. One could engage in sex with a child in order to punish that child's parent(s) for some perceived wrong. That would not make one a pedophile, just as poisoning someone's dog to get back at that person for some perceived wrong would not make one a hater of dogs.

That would, of course, make one a child-rapist, with all of the culpability which that entails. But child-rapist and pedophile are not synonymous. A man who has sex with a boy is a pederast, but not necessarily a pedophile. (Off the cuff, I do not know the words for a man who has sex with a girl, a woman who has sex with a girl, or a woman who has sex with a boy.)

[The Hen]

That's a load of crap with hairy bits on it, Andrew.

If I fuck a dog, I have indulged in bestiality.

That is regardless of whether I did it for pleasure, power, or revenge.

Fucking, or sexually interfering with a child is exactly the same.

If I fuck or interfer sexually with a child, I am, a pederast.

[Andrew D]

If I fuck or interfer sexually with a child, I am, a pederast.

Exactly.

(Or at least, if one sets aside whether the word "pederast" applies only to a man who has sex with a boy (according to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed. (rev.) 2008, "pederasty" is "sexual intercourse between a man and a boy"), exactly.)

But you may or may not be a pedophile.

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children: It is the attraction. That's what the "phile" part means, and that is why the "phile" part does not occur in "pederast".

Unsurprisingly, a medical diagnosis of pedophilia also involves one's actions, distress, or interpersonal difficulty. (See DSM IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia (quoted by dales above).) Unsurprising, because a condition which has no effect on one's actions, causes one no distress, and results in no interpersonal difficulty is hardly a condition worth diagnosing at all.

But words have meanings. And "pedophile" does not mean "person who has sex with children, regardless of that person's motivation". It means "a person who is sexually attracted to children". (Oxford again, under the quaint spelling "paedophile".)

Again, a person who has sex with children, regardless of that person's motivation for doing so, is a child-rapist. And I carry no brief for child-rapists.

I do, however, carry a brief for the meanings of words: Language is the engine of meaning; it is the way that ideas are conveyed from one sentient mind to another. If we use words to mean things other than what they actually mean -- or, perhaps worse, if we start attaching to them conventional meanings divorced from their structures and etymologies -- the inevitable result is impairment of communication. Which, it seems to me, can lead only to disaster.

In short, as Mark Twain pithily put it: "Use the right word, not its second cousin." (Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses (1895).)

[loCAtek]

Thank you AndrewD, I appreciate your erudite support with the legal facts.

For further clarification: I said, I was aware of the history of my mother's abuse; while nowhere did I say I was an eye-witness to it. You can know of a person's past without having been a party to it.

Forensic psychology will indicate that a person is behaving in such a way now, because of influences, perhaps traumatic, in their past.

While I rant about my mom being psychotic, that doesn't mean I don't know WHY she is that way. I do know why; I can see the evidence of her physical/sexual trauma quite clearly imprinted on her personality today.
...with this knowledge, I try not to harbor hate towards her, but I do understand it would best for my health to not associate with her.

Also, I can see the motivation for my Grandfather's behavior, and it is not based on sexual attraction to children. It is not based on sexual attraction at all, but on low impulse control to instant gratification. Common over-compensation to having lived in extreme poverty; the attitude of 'take-take-take what you can now, it may not be available tomorrow.' What they call 'The Thug Life' now-a-days.

Rationally, I can see what it is. The hard part is to emotionally distance yourself from it. When I can to that, I will have achieved true compassion.

[The Hen]

nowhere did I say I was an eye-witness to it. You can know of a person's past without having been a party to it.

God you are a complete Hurp Derp, Lo.

Allow me to repost your words.

Case in point (seen with my own eyes): My Grandfather abused my mother.

[The Hen]

Come on doofus.

Explain that crap away.

[Gob]

I can explain it! What Lo meant to say was;

Cha', me, me me, look at me, look at me, give me attention, give me attention, me, me me, me, me me, look at me, give me attention, look at me, give me attention, me, me me, me, me me, look at me, me, me me, me, me me, look at me, me, me me, cha, me, me me, look at me, give me attention, give me attention, give me attention, give me attention!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[loCAtek]

Yes, I can see my mother's personality with my own eyes.

...as I can see yours.

[The Hen]

Weak Hurpytek, weak.

[loCAtek]

Whatever, I'm happy. I have no idea why that threatens you.

[The Hen]

Your happiness doesn't even enter into my sphere of existence Hurpytek. You don't matter that much.

Your confused postings amuse me no end though.

[loCAtek]

Contradict yourself much?

[The Hen]

Not as much as you dear.

[loCAtek]

Which is contradicted by that post, you and I are not dear to each other.

[The Hen]

Sorry Hurpytek.

The 'dear' was sarcasm.

I forgot you were so slow.

[loCAtek]

ThX for your wishes of my Happiness.

[loCAtek]

Way cool!