Ok. What are we calling Rape here, or is this yet another news article that uses inflammatory and sensational language to garner attention? In reading the article you notice phrases like no sexual gratification. So what is it? she made her daughter watch porn? Watch her have sex? Told her about sex using graphic descriptions and physical examples? Because these things are NOT rape, nor are they statutory rape. However that sounds more like what is being described rather than it repeatedly being called rape.
On the question of the difference between pedophilla and sexual abuse of a child, there are distinctions from a psychological standpoint, but they are fairly narrow distinctions in scope. For one people need to stop using the term pedophillia. It is a gross misuse of the term as a blanket term. If you NEED a blanket term its called Chronophillia. Specifically that is sexual predilection based upon age. You have pedophillia which is pre pubescence or roughly 0-10, Hebephilia which represents pubescent ranging from 11-14, ephebophilia are post pubescent from 15-18, and theres other names that I cant recall off the top of my head that represent stages of adulthood like geriantrophilla which is attraction to someone roughly 50 or greater. So with that stated refering to it as pedohillia is a gross misuse of the term because it is not applicable to this specific girl because she was in a pubescent range, not prepubescent. Using the wrong terminology for something this sensitive is sort of like telling someone you gave them AIDS when in fact all you have is HIV.
Now the difference between the chronophilla in question and sexual abuse regarding a child. Again we are dealing with blanket terms. Chronophillia again is sexual attraction based upon a specific criteria. That in and of itself is no different than any other sexual predilection such as BDSM, Balloons, Feathers, Androgyny, Smothering ect. They are all simply sexual preferences. The more intense of which, that the individual is practically born with. (There are still studies being produced that certain layers of sexual attraction may even have genetic components) It is also worth noting at this point that many forms of chronophillia ARE examples of practically born in conditions, and there is essentially no difference physiologically between the way true chronophillias work and the way homosexuality works. The only practical difference between them is one is legally tolerated in most places on the globe, and the other is condemned to be killed with fire. But I digress. The point is that sexual predilections are in and of themselves not harmful. In the case of inappropriate chronophillia it is something that so long as it is not acted upon directly. (though many with the affliction end up finding more appropriate outlets in order to not act on those impulses ranging from the benign as in "Daddy" roleplay, to the extreme in voluntary castration.) However, sexual abuse of a child IS something more severe, but also much more vague in definitions..
The thing is again we deal with blanket terminology. Sexual abuse of a child can range from statutory rape, to molestation, watching/peeping/flashing, or much like what is suggested in this article exposing a child that the courts/CPS agencies deem as an inappropriate age to sexually explicit materials such as pornography or even live sexual exhibition.
So really the difference is between desire, intention and action.
Now as it relates to this case, this is why we need more information. Because honestly one can make the case that if its simply a matter of a mother showing her child porn that the mother was well within her right to do so because she was a mother emparting her knowledge and values onto her offspring. Again if it was just showing her porn, and her child was of a pubescent age and trying to explain to her what sex is, when it is appropriate, when it is not, and expose her to the information so as she doesnt learn it a year or so later in the back of a camaro behind a liquor store or with three dudes in a church parking lot, then she was preparing her child for a world she was about to enter and really neither public opinion nor the courts have any right to dictate how that child is raised any more than the courts or public opinion has the right to force a specific religion on a child. However we are talking about walking a razor wire on what IS actually within a parental right to educate a child vs what is simply corruption of a minor.
Honestly , with this poorly written article that lacks proper details of the event it really sounds more along the lines that the mother was teaching her daughter about sex by showing her porn and explaining about sex, and some nosy busy body got involved because THEY felt that the child was being raised inappropriately. Until other details come to light explaining how this was actually rape, or gives some indication as to exactly how what the mother was doing was inappropriate, then all we are able to do is go by the cited article in question which is a bad representation of this case. If for no other reason than the fact it is unable to distinguish the difference between various chronophilias, and what seems to be using the words like rape for sensational attention as most of the article is filled with sensational phrases and not a lot on fact.
Now the difference between the chronophilla in question and sexual abuse regarding a child. Again we are dealing with blanket terms. Chronophillia again is sexual attraction based upon a specific criteria. That in and of itself is no different than any other sexual predilection such as BDSM, Balloons, Feathers, Androgyny, Smothering ect. They are all simply sexual preferences. The more intense of which, that the individual is practically born with. (There are still studies being produced that certain layers of sexual attraction may even have genetic components) It is also worth noting at this point that many forms of chronophillia ARE examples of practically born in conditions, and there is essentially no difference physiologically between the way true chronophillias work and the way homosexuality works. The only practical difference between them is one is legally tolerated in most places on the globe, and the other is condemned to be killed with fire. But I digress. The point is that sexual predilections are in and of themselves not harmful. In the case of inappropriate chronophillia it is something that so long as it is not acted upon directly. (though many with the affliction end up finding more appropriate outlets in order to not act on those impulses ranging from the benign as in "Daddy" roleplay, to the extreme in voluntary castration.) However, sexual abuse of a child IS something more severe, but also much more vague in definitions..
The thing is again we deal with blanket terminology. Sexual abuse of a child can range from statutory rape, to molestation, watching/peeping/flashing, or much like what is suggested in this article exposing a child that the courts/CPS agencies deem as an inappropriate age to sexually explicit materials such as pornography or even live sexual exhibition.
So really the difference is between desire, intention and action.
Now as it relates to this case, this is why we need more information. Because honestly one can make the case that if its simply a matter of a mother showing her child porn that the mother was well within her right to do so because she was a mother emparting her knowledge and values onto her offspring. Again if it was just showing her porn, and her child was of a pubescent age and trying to explain to her what sex is, when it is appropriate, when it is not, and expose her to the information so as she doesnt learn it a year or so later in the back of a camaro behind a liquor store or with three dudes in a church parking lot, then she was preparing her child for a world she was about to enter and really neither public opinion nor the courts have any right to dictate how that child is raised any more than the courts or public opinion has the right to force a specific religion on a child. However we are talking about walking a razor wire on what IS actually within a parental right to educate a child vs what is simply corruption of a minor.
Honestly , with this poorly written article that lacks proper details of the event it really sounds more along the lines that the mother was teaching her daughter about sex by showing her porn and explaining about sex, and some nosy busy body got involved because THEY felt that the child was being raised inappropriately. Until other details come to light explaining how this was actually rape, or gives some indication as to exactly how what the mother was doing was inappropriate, then all we are able to do is go by the cited article in question which is a bad representation of this case. If for no other reason than the fact it is unable to distinguish the difference between various chronophilias, and what seems to be using the words like rape for sensational attention as most of the article is filled with sensational phrases and not a lot on fact.
Except the possibility that this is the possibly the first time in history where it is legal acceptable and even encouraged to discriminate against poor, straight white men.GeneralTwinkle said:
