• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      This is one of those technical distinctions where if you’re making the distinction, you’re already on the wrong side of everything.

      • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Psychology and precision in language using the diagnostic terminology of the DSM V is on the wrong side of everything?

        No one is excusing or belittling anything. People who hurt children must fry.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 minutes ago

          Yeah, if you’re quoting the DSM V to defend yourself as technically not a pedophile, then yes you’ve crossed the rubicon of decency.

    • TheBlackLounge@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I’d say there’s nothing inherently wrong with any of these. It’s the child trafficking and child molestation that’s the issue.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Another technical aspect: all of the philias relate to attraction to something, rather than having sex with it.

      One could have necrophilia and yet never have sex with a corpse or not have necrophilia and still have sex with a corpse.

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yep. I don’t care if he’s a pedophile, not, or something else entirely. He is a rapist and child sexual abuser.