Originally posted by Bardock42
First of all, I not once accused AC of being a pedophile. I shared evidence I found that shows him to be a sexual predator and abuser targeting underage girls in particular. These accusations have, imo, be more than proven by the many accounts of KMC members describing his exact same MO.Regarding my relationship, I fell in love with a good friend I had talked to a lot, my girlfriend never felt pressured or abused, I did not do anything illegal with her and her parents knew of our relationship. I have not preyed on anyone. And we are still together 7 and a half years later.
Comparing me and my girlfriend's situation 8 years ago to AC's continuous, ongoing and systematic preying on people, abuse, blackmail, etc. completely trivialises his actions. I know you like to be crass and contrarian, but this is neither the time nor place.
Yeah, this is kind of what I was going to post.
I was also going to point out that you are not a ephebophile because:
1. You were 20 and she was 15: the age gap is usually not enough.
2. You did not seem nor have you ever seemed to have an attraction primarily to girls aged 15-19.
3. Disregarding #2, even if you had an attraction to that particular age group, it would only become a pathology if it interfered with your ability to function.
4. Ephebophilia is generally not considered a pathology.
Works Cited with commnentary:
"...[ephebophile] denotes men who prefer adolescents around 15–19 years of age..."
(this study, in the full text, describes another group that prefers girls older than 14 but younger than 20 indicating that there is another area of preference in some people but this study primarily focused on how they reacted to prepubescent, pubescent, and post-pubescent (adolescents) humans. It should be noted that "phallometry does not equate to pathology" but there is strong evidence that since they were studying people with sexual issues (such as sex offenders), this criticism may not be as strongly applicable as it is in other studies):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18686026
This doctor talks more in depth about things (and the content can actually help shed some light on some of the things AC has done):
http://web.archive.org/web/20110623130406/http://www.usccb.org/comm/kit6.shtml
This section applies to this thread:
"Q. Generally when you read or hear in the news about "pedophilia," aren't the media using the term to refer to anyone who is a minor?
A. Yes. Generally, people use the term "pedophilia" to include ephebophilia. Most men can find adolescents attractive sexually, although, of course, that doesn't mean they're going to act on it.* Some men who become involved with teenagers may not have a particular disorder. Opportunity and other factors may have contributed to their behaving in the way they do."
*If you read the past conversations (they are disgusting examples of how to get diabetes from reading young puppy love) between Bards and Sancty, there was nothing manipulative about what Bard did. It was not an "opportunity" issue, either. Bard just genuinely fell in love with a gal. Also, this gal is not an idiot. She may be shy but there is nothing about Sancty that I would describe as "dumb" or "socially unaware." At no point has she ever seemed like that. So Bard was not preying on someone socially weak, either.
Contrast that with AC and AC seems to have done all of those things and more.
Conclusion:
In conversations and from reading his posts over the years, Bardy does not seem to be ephebophile. He does not seem to a primary preference for that age range. Therefore, his situation with Sancty was just one of coincidence not him preying and creating opportunity to the vulnerable. So the comparison between AC and Bardock42 is not only inaccurate, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Also, it marginalizes the real issue with AC by making it seem like "well, everyone does it, so what's wrong with it?"