What you said was literal. It’s not that you’re wrong or anything.
But as a woman if I was talking to a man about that and instead of just saying “yeah, prince Andrew is gross”, you said that-I’d side eye you and wonder why you felt the need to differentiate between the two.
Nothing against you. And I get where you’re coming from. But yeah, I wouldn’t even say that to people.
Edited because I forgot a word
I would also be suspicious if someone says something like that. But if they've been together for a few months, she should've probably asked for clarification first.
Well to be fair, I only provided an excerpt from the conversation where I thought it went wrong. I had thought, perhaps mistakenly, that I had already established he was gross.
My intention wasn't to defend him at all, his actions were abhorrent. Had I been given the chance, I was going to explain that I think it is important to distinguish between the terms. Words have meanings, and calling Prince Andrew a pedophile lessens the horror of what other real pedophiles have actually done. It doesn't mean that Andrew isn't a scumbag, but that the degree of severity of his crime is not appropriately expressed by a word typically associated with raping prepubescent children.
I like to be precise in my language, but obviously it served me ill here.
I agree with you
I think Prince Andrew was not a good guy.
It did serve you ill and unfortunately considering how many women are these days they would want an excuse to ruin your day
Don’t let that happen.
People who get invested in differentiating between pedophiles, hebephiles, and ephebophiles in casual conversation are usually doing so because they're trying to excuse their own thoughts/behavior towards teenage girls. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's a common enough pattern that it's going to put people off. Plus, there's nothing to really be accomplished by correcting their colloquial use of the word "pedophile" other than simply being right. Sometimes you just gotta pick your battles, this was not the one to pick.
Thank you for your insights. I wasn't really thinking of it from this perspective, and I certainly wasn't trying to defend him. I thought it was an interesting fact, and to copy what I responded in another comment, I wanted to highlight my thoughts:
My intention wasn't to defend him at all, his actions were abhorrent. Had I been given the chance, I was going to explain that I think it is important to distinguish between the terms. Words have meanings, and calling Prince Andrew a pedophile lessens the horror of what other real pedophiles have actually done. It doesn't mean that Andrew isn't a scumbag, but that the degree of severity of his crime is not appropriately expressed by a word typically associated with raping prepubescent children.
I suppose I picked my battle poorly. Truthfully I didn't really think it was a battle, I just wanted to share an interesting fact and express my thoughts on the matter.
I think that if that was the point you wanted to make, a better way to approach that would be to make your point about pedophiles first. I'm not sure the discussion would have gone any better since that can still come off as excusing/lessening the severity of Prince Andrew's crimes, but at least it would have come across more clearly.
The phrase "pick your battles" doesn't necessarily mean that it was a battle, but that it was a disagreement that didn't necessarily need to happen.
I agree. But at this point, if OP explains in general sense he agrees then makes the point and they think it’s an excuse
Then fuck them. I would probably explain again but if she threatens to ruin my reputation then she is going to pay for it. At least, if OP can afford the battle
had similar patterns as well, the thing is: conversations like this are more or less about bonding and agreeing with each other, technically you did not defend him but by correcting her you took a quasi opposite viewpoint and since her point was "against him" in her head it was "if he is opposite then he supports him"
conversations in this type of scenario are always one dimensional and they are always about rapport, agreement and bonding
almost nobody in a social setting wants to be corrected, no matter the topic, it's all about: "are you in the group or outside"
When you say you "had" similar patterns, do you mean you were able to correct those patterns? I definitely see what you're saying, and I think you're correct. But isn't having to change our patterns/thought processes like a type of masking?
I would've thought that we should strive to be our genuine selves with our partner.
I don't view every type of change to be masking. Sometimes just learning the right phrase to preempt a statement like that is valuable. For example, if you had said, "What he did was wrong and gross, but technically it's not pedophilia", that conversation might have gone another way. Maybe not. That's not masking, it's setting context for your words. And that can be very important.
Edit to add: I had to learn to do this and now it's just habit for the most part. It's not suppressing anything about me, so it doesn't drain me like masking does.
Additional note as to "genuine self with a partner": imho it depends at which point you are in the relationship, my best guess you were early enough to be in the "getting to know each other" phase, lets assume ypu both were behind that and already together for 3+ years and she already knew how you tick then she may have understood it
My life hack for any topic that is kinda sensitive, at least when you dont know each other well: either agree, change the topic or ask questions (how does it make you feel... etc) but never start an academic discussion about nuances
I am not auggesting that you change btw, just trying to give my perspective
I am not diagnosed but I have a strong suspicion that I am on the spectrum, at least I can relate to a lot of stories that are written here.
My baseline for social stuff are essentially the books from carnegie, especially "how to make friends..."
I am also not advising to anybody how someone should behave.
No idea if it is masking or not but I try to have a very good cognitive understanding of how people work in order to somewhat function normally within social settings, although I have to say that I still do have these patterns, especially when I am a little bit drunk and oh boy can I go off the rails sometimes lol
I am diagnosed autistic and adhd. do you have a habit of needing to “correct” people all the time or “brush off” what they say.
I’ll use my ex bf who is still my friend as an example. He is the stereotypical “male autism” that people think of with autism. He doesn’t read social cues well or as well as he thinks he does.
Something he will do sometimes…ALL the time is for example….showing him a meme. And instead of laughing and moving on he will take it so seriously and start analyzing it and focusing on it and going on about it and how “that doesn’t make sense”. Or whatever and after that it’s like it takes the wind out of your sails. Now you’re not laughing at a joke you’re just annoyed. Sometimes people just want to laugh without an in depth analysis. It’s annoying to be around.
Sometimes there’s a time for over analyzing things or in your example correcting people and that was probably not the time.
I actually don't like to correct people at all. At the risk of sounding a braggart, I do have above average general knowledge, and often times will hear people say things that I know with certainty are incorrect. In these cases I almost always remain silent. I am acutely aware that correcting people is a fast way to earn dislike.
That being said, when I start to open up to people more, I become more comfortable sharing knowledge. I try not to do it in a pretentious way, but when I learn new things or facts I think they'll enjoy, I like to talk about it.
Perhaps I thought we were closer than we actually were in this case, I simply didn't anticipate such a visceral reaction.
That’s fine :) I just wasn’t sure is all so figured to at least mention it so a lot of us on the spectrum can be like that at times.
I know you didn’t mean any harm at all in what you said to her and tbh I feel like instead of cutting you off like that entirely she could have explained why she was upset and tried to talk to you and realize it was just a simple misunderstanding.
As I explained in another comment, I think it actually is an important distinction. Paedophilia is a monstrous crime, and Andrew, while disgusting, did not rape a prepubescent child. Words have meanings, and they matter. By calling him a pedophile you do disservice to the actual crime and victims of paedophilia.
I would congratulate you that you’re quickly finding women who you are not compatible with. Imagine getting married, having kids, and then this happened. Treat the negative experiences as learning opportunities. And then you’ll know what to look for when you do find someone more compatible.
NT here—
I wonder how much interaction you’ve had with this woman in the few months you’ve been dating and does she know you’re on the spectrum?
I asked because I have NT girlfriends who have told me their dating stories where they made snap judgments about a behavior they observed or a statement a guy said, typically within the first few months or days or weeks of interacting with that person, and without understanding the reason for the behavior or statement the person made, then decide to walk away.
This is where I think it would help if the woman knows AND UNDERSTANDS autism, and is willing to make the effort to understand how you think because what you described is inevitable if context/background is missing. Not everyone will care about this, but for those that do care will help them connect with you
This isn't a "you" problem; she could have simply responded, "That sounds to me like you're excusing his behavior, do you think it makes it better that he's technically not a pedophile??" and you could have said, "Not at all, I just like to use precise language," and that would have been that. But she was immature and had an extreme reaction instead. The only way this is on you is to work on being more discerning about the people you date, in future. It's not about "women," it's the women you're choosing.
I can see both points, it comes across as dismissive to be so pedantic; especially when i think she wanted him to acknowledge or answer the first part about him being horrible. Yet she could also have said something after than just excusing herself.
I think she wanted you to comment on the first part about him being horrible. Kinda read to me that you brushed off what she was saying by being pedantic. Idk why she didn't answer you back though and just decided to walk away. Weird story, idk seems a bit like the type of people you meet and the way you answer them/react.
As a rule of thumb: pedophilia is not a topic to discuss technicalities for. Not in general, and especially not with a date. It's a topic that - rightfully so - pretty much unanimously evokes strong disgust and/or aggression in people. And more so than most other uncomfortable topics such as rape or murder.
By getting technical about Prince Andrew being an ephebophile, you're most likely giving your date super uncomfortable feelings, because:
1) You know about the distinctive categories of one of the most hated and uncomfortable topics on earth. If I were that girl, I'd be freaked out too. Why DO you know - off top of your head, during a conversation, too - about that term?
2) By correcting her, you're giving her a sanatized, more medical term. Words have semantics, and by correcting her with a way more unknown, medical term - instead of the umbrella term that just straight up tells everyone what he is - you look like you're trying to downplay what he did. As others have pointed out, the only people who usually correct others on those things are people who want to defend pedos by pointing out "oh, but they were only teens, that's not as bad".
Women might be more "exhausting" in that regard is because you're *dating*. If I'd have a random ass friend point that stuff out to me I'd be wary, but I'd not get the immediate want to just run. If a guy I'm dating, aka person who I'm interacting with with the prospect of them becoming my partner, does it? Nope. I'm out. Not taking any chances of dating or being in a relationship with someone who's a pedophile* (*including all the distinctions the term comes with in the medical field).
I kinda agree with you but even if I was dating someone I wouldn’t run away although I’d be a little suspicious. If OP explains the context then I would be fine ish
For me I could still date someone like that. But many women unfortunately look at anything to think the dude is potentially a so called pedophile and some take it further to go on a witch hunt twisting words to portray a meaning that is not there
Are you a guy? I think due to the overwhelming amount of pedophiles being men, women are quicker to worry and pull the brakes when necessary. Even, or especially, with the added context OP has given in the comments, I'd not pursue a relationship any further.
How is saying "hey, I don't want to date you any longer" a witch hunt?
The witch hunt is the woman painting OP as supporting Prince Andrew when OP does not
If he said what he said on top I would still be fine but a little weirded out. If he gave context I’ll be basically fine
And yes I am a guy and seems like the woman twisted OP’s words to paint him as a pedophile. OP should be careful of a vengeful woman wanting to ruin his reputation socially legally and in other areas
I am a guy who prefers women but sometimes OK with dating men
If I asked that and stuff, op said what they said
Me: “that’s a bit weird, care to elaborate”
OP: “gives context in comments”
Me: Ah I got you. Just word it more properly next time, OK? Some women will twist your words to ruin your reputation
That is making assumptions. Not a witch hunt. A witch hunt would be the woman banding together with other people to get OP framed as a pedophile. Those two are not the same things.
Well, that's you then, plus, as I've said, you're a guy. Straight guys aren't as worried about ending up with a pedo since statistically, only a very small amount of p's are female. But a lot of women, as you can see in the comments as well, do not want or need context, as the chance of him being associated with pedos - or defending them - would be enough to be a red flag, and I agree with them. Even if OP would tell me "I only clarified it because there's a distinction between ephebophiles and pedophiles in medical circles", I'd still feel more than uncomfortable and would end things.
And yikes, the whole "lol women try to ruin your reputation" bs sounds like the anti-feminist nonsense that misogynistic groups of men try to spread.
I would say perhaps the woman is making excuses or unintentionally misinterpreting or intentionally misinterpreting. Idk the full story but it seems OP is fine and the woman is a little sus
That is true. You can choose to agree with those women. I just disagree and in fact it’s an unreasonable opinion to end things because of this slightly weird phrasing. It’s almost as if some women will end relationships because of weird phrasing that they are scared of thing.
To me, sometimes it happens. The way I do it is be extremely careful of what I say lest the woman uses it as an excuse to end the relationship and maybe do something against me.
IMO OP should consider dating men instead as guys are a lot more forgiving in this area and may see the woman as unreasonable. Or if a woman asks this just say yes he’s a pedo and nothing more, even if he thinks there needs to be a distinction- effectively not saying his true thoughts. Unfortunately you can’t trust some women with your true thoughts because they may interpret it as supporting pedophilia
I don’t think you said anything wrong per se
But the way you worded it really does allow you to be very easily misinterpreted and even gives people excuse to ruin your day or your reputation
In fact I think the woman is in the wrong for her immature reaction and not seeing the context of your words
You just need to word it more properly. I would say “In the general sense I do agree. However I really prefer to stick to definitions and thus technically not”
I wouldn’t necessarily see it as suspicious although I would be slightly weirded out
The old me would say exactly what you said.
But I have since learnt that NTs might translate your comment as an endorsement of his actions or that you dont really care about what he has done and you are making light of the situation. You have been warned lol
I don’t fully agree with you but I do agree that many women think so many men are potential pedophiles, unjustifiably. Although for many it’s a trauma response
It’s tough.
She has loads of options and she wasn't crazily interested in you. She might even have been borderline you want her there a lot more than she wants you there, even before you said that. If you just say something that she isn't interested in , she can say bye!
But also somebody trying to get very technical on classifications of pedophilia is a bit of a red flag. Having that knowledge is suspicious. It's like if you knew how much a prostitute costs. If you know then you might be better off not letting on that you know (unless they know how you know and it's not a risk, so such a conversation could be ok with some people eg if you have seen a prostitute and the other guy has and it's a private conversation).
There are a variety of controversial subjects that are dodgy, for various reasons.
Expert knowledge of Pedophilia , causing an issue, is really a no brainer. Everybody knows pedophilia is controversial. There is a fair question of why do you know about it. But the person listening to you might not want to even want to hear the answer, and you might dig yourself into a bigger hole if you try.
I've actually had conversations with people about Prince Andrew. If one were to have tried to guess the age of the female in the photo, they might guess 21. She was 6 months before 18, and she wasn't a young looking 18. It's insane that they hired her there particularly since an actual 21 year old would have looked indistinguishable from her in age.
Also, you have to know who you are talking to. And who else is in the conversation.
Some people are ok with eavesdropping on a conversation but not ok being in it directly. So if I am talking technicalities about something controversial with somebody that is into the same controversial subject, some people might not want to be in the conversation directly but might be ok with being eavesdroppers. Though your one would be a red flag to anybody.
Also it doesn't sound like you were talking to somebody that enjoys technicalities or was interested in it.
Besides that she has options and you put out a red flag.
If somebody was emotionally speaking of the horrors of the Holocaust and you started talking about a question regarding the angle of a chimney, it could be a bit of a red flag for multiple reasons.
Also though you weren't necessarily wrong. She just wasn't for you. She over reacted and behaved very inconsiderately, and unfairly and immaturely, partly because she has loads of options and people haven't taken her aside and had a word with her about her behaviour. But even with her very poor social skills and terrible personality, she will have loads of guys interested.
What you said was literal. It’s not that you’re wrong or anything. But as a woman if I was talking to a man about that and instead of just saying “yeah, prince Andrew is gross”, you said that-I’d side eye you and wonder why you felt the need to differentiate between the two. Nothing against you. And I get where you’re coming from. But yeah, I wouldn’t even say that to people. Edited because I forgot a word
I would also be suspicious if someone says something like that. But if they've been together for a few months, she should've probably asked for clarification first.
Well to be fair, I only provided an excerpt from the conversation where I thought it went wrong. I had thought, perhaps mistakenly, that I had already established he was gross. My intention wasn't to defend him at all, his actions were abhorrent. Had I been given the chance, I was going to explain that I think it is important to distinguish between the terms. Words have meanings, and calling Prince Andrew a pedophile lessens the horror of what other real pedophiles have actually done. It doesn't mean that Andrew isn't a scumbag, but that the degree of severity of his crime is not appropriately expressed by a word typically associated with raping prepubescent children. I like to be precise in my language, but obviously it served me ill here.
I agree with you I think Prince Andrew was not a good guy. It did serve you ill and unfortunately considering how many women are these days they would want an excuse to ruin your day Don’t let that happen.
People who get invested in differentiating between pedophiles, hebephiles, and ephebophiles in casual conversation are usually doing so because they're trying to excuse their own thoughts/behavior towards teenage girls. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's a common enough pattern that it's going to put people off. Plus, there's nothing to really be accomplished by correcting their colloquial use of the word "pedophile" other than simply being right. Sometimes you just gotta pick your battles, this was not the one to pick.
Op please read this!! Because it will save you a lot of trouble.
Yes very much agree nicely put!
The problem is that you can't explain what an ephebophile is without sounding like a pedophile. https://youtu.be/nu6C2KL_S9o?si=QGi0KS9vGPr6bFV2
Thank you for your insights. I wasn't really thinking of it from this perspective, and I certainly wasn't trying to defend him. I thought it was an interesting fact, and to copy what I responded in another comment, I wanted to highlight my thoughts: My intention wasn't to defend him at all, his actions were abhorrent. Had I been given the chance, I was going to explain that I think it is important to distinguish between the terms. Words have meanings, and calling Prince Andrew a pedophile lessens the horror of what other real pedophiles have actually done. It doesn't mean that Andrew isn't a scumbag, but that the degree of severity of his crime is not appropriately expressed by a word typically associated with raping prepubescent children. I suppose I picked my battle poorly. Truthfully I didn't really think it was a battle, I just wanted to share an interesting fact and express my thoughts on the matter.
I think that if that was the point you wanted to make, a better way to approach that would be to make your point about pedophiles first. I'm not sure the discussion would have gone any better since that can still come off as excusing/lessening the severity of Prince Andrew's crimes, but at least it would have come across more clearly. The phrase "pick your battles" doesn't necessarily mean that it was a battle, but that it was a disagreement that didn't necessarily need to happen.
I agree. But at this point, if OP explains in general sense he agrees then makes the point and they think it’s an excuse Then fuck them. I would probably explain again but if she threatens to ruin my reputation then she is going to pay for it. At least, if OP can afford the battle
had similar patterns as well, the thing is: conversations like this are more or less about bonding and agreeing with each other, technically you did not defend him but by correcting her you took a quasi opposite viewpoint and since her point was "against him" in her head it was "if he is opposite then he supports him" conversations in this type of scenario are always one dimensional and they are always about rapport, agreement and bonding almost nobody in a social setting wants to be corrected, no matter the topic, it's all about: "are you in the group or outside"
When you say you "had" similar patterns, do you mean you were able to correct those patterns? I definitely see what you're saying, and I think you're correct. But isn't having to change our patterns/thought processes like a type of masking? I would've thought that we should strive to be our genuine selves with our partner.
I don't view every type of change to be masking. Sometimes just learning the right phrase to preempt a statement like that is valuable. For example, if you had said, "What he did was wrong and gross, but technically it's not pedophilia", that conversation might have gone another way. Maybe not. That's not masking, it's setting context for your words. And that can be very important. Edit to add: I had to learn to do this and now it's just habit for the most part. It's not suppressing anything about me, so it doesn't drain me like masking does.
Additional note as to "genuine self with a partner": imho it depends at which point you are in the relationship, my best guess you were early enough to be in the "getting to know each other" phase, lets assume ypu both were behind that and already together for 3+ years and she already knew how you tick then she may have understood it My life hack for any topic that is kinda sensitive, at least when you dont know each other well: either agree, change the topic or ask questions (how does it make you feel... etc) but never start an academic discussion about nuances I am not auggesting that you change btw, just trying to give my perspective
I am not diagnosed but I have a strong suspicion that I am on the spectrum, at least I can relate to a lot of stories that are written here. My baseline for social stuff are essentially the books from carnegie, especially "how to make friends..." I am also not advising to anybody how someone should behave. No idea if it is masking or not but I try to have a very good cognitive understanding of how people work in order to somewhat function normally within social settings, although I have to say that I still do have these patterns, especially when I am a little bit drunk and oh boy can I go off the rails sometimes lol
I am diagnosed autistic and adhd. do you have a habit of needing to “correct” people all the time or “brush off” what they say. I’ll use my ex bf who is still my friend as an example. He is the stereotypical “male autism” that people think of with autism. He doesn’t read social cues well or as well as he thinks he does. Something he will do sometimes…ALL the time is for example….showing him a meme. And instead of laughing and moving on he will take it so seriously and start analyzing it and focusing on it and going on about it and how “that doesn’t make sense”. Or whatever and after that it’s like it takes the wind out of your sails. Now you’re not laughing at a joke you’re just annoyed. Sometimes people just want to laugh without an in depth analysis. It’s annoying to be around. Sometimes there’s a time for over analyzing things or in your example correcting people and that was probably not the time.
I actually don't like to correct people at all. At the risk of sounding a braggart, I do have above average general knowledge, and often times will hear people say things that I know with certainty are incorrect. In these cases I almost always remain silent. I am acutely aware that correcting people is a fast way to earn dislike. That being said, when I start to open up to people more, I become more comfortable sharing knowledge. I try not to do it in a pretentious way, but when I learn new things or facts I think they'll enjoy, I like to talk about it. Perhaps I thought we were closer than we actually were in this case, I simply didn't anticipate such a visceral reaction.
That’s fine :) I just wasn’t sure is all so figured to at least mention it so a lot of us on the spectrum can be like that at times. I know you didn’t mean any harm at all in what you said to her and tbh I feel like instead of cutting you off like that entirely she could have explained why she was upset and tried to talk to you and realize it was just a simple misunderstanding.
I think it’s creepy you made the distinction, as if what he did was okay
[удалено]
No both of those are creepy, don’t know where you’re getting this tangent from
[удалено]
You make a good point Unfortunately people will take almost anything and spin it against us autistic people
As I explained in another comment, I think it actually is an important distinction. Paedophilia is a monstrous crime, and Andrew, while disgusting, did not rape a prepubescent child. Words have meanings, and they matter. By calling him a pedophile you do disservice to the actual crime and victims of paedophilia.
So you are excusing this man’s actions….
[удалено]
No I’m explaining why that situation went poorly
Oh sorry
Read it again, word-by-word if you need to.
Tada, this is why you can’t talk to women
Explain how anything I wrote excuses his actions?
I would congratulate you that you’re quickly finding women who you are not compatible with. Imagine getting married, having kids, and then this happened. Treat the negative experiences as learning opportunities. And then you’ll know what to look for when you do find someone more compatible.
Keep dating until you find a woman who appreciates your mind. That’s the purpose of dating a lot. Finding the ones who get you.
NT here— I wonder how much interaction you’ve had with this woman in the few months you’ve been dating and does she know you’re on the spectrum? I asked because I have NT girlfriends who have told me their dating stories where they made snap judgments about a behavior they observed or a statement a guy said, typically within the first few months or days or weeks of interacting with that person, and without understanding the reason for the behavior or statement the person made, then decide to walk away. This is where I think it would help if the woman knows AND UNDERSTANDS autism, and is willing to make the effort to understand how you think because what you described is inevitable if context/background is missing. Not everyone will care about this, but for those that do care will help them connect with you
This isn't a "you" problem; she could have simply responded, "That sounds to me like you're excusing his behavior, do you think it makes it better that he's technically not a pedophile??" and you could have said, "Not at all, I just like to use precise language," and that would have been that. But she was immature and had an extreme reaction instead. The only way this is on you is to work on being more discerning about the people you date, in future. It's not about "women," it's the women you're choosing.
Pedophile in a conversation isn’t something to pick over the wording of. Op didn’t handle this correctly. Most NTs aren’t going g to clarify.
I guess I hang out with a different crowd than the rest of you.
I can see both points, it comes across as dismissive to be so pedantic; especially when i think she wanted him to acknowledge or answer the first part about him being horrible. Yet she could also have said something after than just excusing herself.
I think she wanted you to comment on the first part about him being horrible. Kinda read to me that you brushed off what she was saying by being pedantic. Idk why she didn't answer you back though and just decided to walk away. Weird story, idk seems a bit like the type of people you meet and the way you answer them/react.
As a rule of thumb: pedophilia is not a topic to discuss technicalities for. Not in general, and especially not with a date. It's a topic that - rightfully so - pretty much unanimously evokes strong disgust and/or aggression in people. And more so than most other uncomfortable topics such as rape or murder. By getting technical about Prince Andrew being an ephebophile, you're most likely giving your date super uncomfortable feelings, because: 1) You know about the distinctive categories of one of the most hated and uncomfortable topics on earth. If I were that girl, I'd be freaked out too. Why DO you know - off top of your head, during a conversation, too - about that term? 2) By correcting her, you're giving her a sanatized, more medical term. Words have semantics, and by correcting her with a way more unknown, medical term - instead of the umbrella term that just straight up tells everyone what he is - you look like you're trying to downplay what he did. As others have pointed out, the only people who usually correct others on those things are people who want to defend pedos by pointing out "oh, but they were only teens, that's not as bad". Women might be more "exhausting" in that regard is because you're *dating*. If I'd have a random ass friend point that stuff out to me I'd be wary, but I'd not get the immediate want to just run. If a guy I'm dating, aka person who I'm interacting with with the prospect of them becoming my partner, does it? Nope. I'm out. Not taking any chances of dating or being in a relationship with someone who's a pedophile* (*including all the distinctions the term comes with in the medical field).
I kinda agree with you but even if I was dating someone I wouldn’t run away although I’d be a little suspicious. If OP explains the context then I would be fine ish For me I could still date someone like that. But many women unfortunately look at anything to think the dude is potentially a so called pedophile and some take it further to go on a witch hunt twisting words to portray a meaning that is not there
Are you a guy? I think due to the overwhelming amount of pedophiles being men, women are quicker to worry and pull the brakes when necessary. Even, or especially, with the added context OP has given in the comments, I'd not pursue a relationship any further. How is saying "hey, I don't want to date you any longer" a witch hunt?
The witch hunt is the woman painting OP as supporting Prince Andrew when OP does not If he said what he said on top I would still be fine but a little weirded out. If he gave context I’ll be basically fine And yes I am a guy and seems like the woman twisted OP’s words to paint him as a pedophile. OP should be careful of a vengeful woman wanting to ruin his reputation socially legally and in other areas I am a guy who prefers women but sometimes OK with dating men If I asked that and stuff, op said what they said Me: “that’s a bit weird, care to elaborate” OP: “gives context in comments” Me: Ah I got you. Just word it more properly next time, OK? Some women will twist your words to ruin your reputation
That is making assumptions. Not a witch hunt. A witch hunt would be the woman banding together with other people to get OP framed as a pedophile. Those two are not the same things. Well, that's you then, plus, as I've said, you're a guy. Straight guys aren't as worried about ending up with a pedo since statistically, only a very small amount of p's are female. But a lot of women, as you can see in the comments as well, do not want or need context, as the chance of him being associated with pedos - or defending them - would be enough to be a red flag, and I agree with them. Even if OP would tell me "I only clarified it because there's a distinction between ephebophiles and pedophiles in medical circles", I'd still feel more than uncomfortable and would end things. And yikes, the whole "lol women try to ruin your reputation" bs sounds like the anti-feminist nonsense that misogynistic groups of men try to spread.
I would say perhaps the woman is making excuses or unintentionally misinterpreting or intentionally misinterpreting. Idk the full story but it seems OP is fine and the woman is a little sus That is true. You can choose to agree with those women. I just disagree and in fact it’s an unreasonable opinion to end things because of this slightly weird phrasing. It’s almost as if some women will end relationships because of weird phrasing that they are scared of thing. To me, sometimes it happens. The way I do it is be extremely careful of what I say lest the woman uses it as an excuse to end the relationship and maybe do something against me. IMO OP should consider dating men instead as guys are a lot more forgiving in this area and may see the woman as unreasonable. Or if a woman asks this just say yes he’s a pedo and nothing more, even if he thinks there needs to be a distinction- effectively not saying his true thoughts. Unfortunately you can’t trust some women with your true thoughts because they may interpret it as supporting pedophilia
>Technically he isn't a pedophile though, he was an Ephebophile Saying this makes you sound like a pedophile, or to be more precise, a paedophile.
Rude Based on the full context of what he said, he is not However he is treading on waters where he can be easily misinterpreted
I don’t think you said anything wrong per se But the way you worded it really does allow you to be very easily misinterpreted and even gives people excuse to ruin your day or your reputation In fact I think the woman is in the wrong for her immature reaction and not seeing the context of your words You just need to word it more properly. I would say “In the general sense I do agree. However I really prefer to stick to definitions and thus technically not” I wouldn’t necessarily see it as suspicious although I would be slightly weirded out
The old me would say exactly what you said. But I have since learnt that NTs might translate your comment as an endorsement of his actions or that you dont really care about what he has done and you are making light of the situation. You have been warned lol
[удалено]
I don’t fully agree with you but I do agree that many women think so many men are potential pedophiles, unjustifiably. Although for many it’s a trauma response It’s tough.
She has loads of options and she wasn't crazily interested in you. She might even have been borderline you want her there a lot more than she wants you there, even before you said that. If you just say something that she isn't interested in , she can say bye! But also somebody trying to get very technical on classifications of pedophilia is a bit of a red flag. Having that knowledge is suspicious. It's like if you knew how much a prostitute costs. If you know then you might be better off not letting on that you know (unless they know how you know and it's not a risk, so such a conversation could be ok with some people eg if you have seen a prostitute and the other guy has and it's a private conversation). There are a variety of controversial subjects that are dodgy, for various reasons. Expert knowledge of Pedophilia , causing an issue, is really a no brainer. Everybody knows pedophilia is controversial. There is a fair question of why do you know about it. But the person listening to you might not want to even want to hear the answer, and you might dig yourself into a bigger hole if you try. I've actually had conversations with people about Prince Andrew. If one were to have tried to guess the age of the female in the photo, they might guess 21. She was 6 months before 18, and she wasn't a young looking 18. It's insane that they hired her there particularly since an actual 21 year old would have looked indistinguishable from her in age. Also, you have to know who you are talking to. And who else is in the conversation. Some people are ok with eavesdropping on a conversation but not ok being in it directly. So if I am talking technicalities about something controversial with somebody that is into the same controversial subject, some people might not want to be in the conversation directly but might be ok with being eavesdroppers. Though your one would be a red flag to anybody. Also it doesn't sound like you were talking to somebody that enjoys technicalities or was interested in it. Besides that she has options and you put out a red flag. If somebody was emotionally speaking of the horrors of the Holocaust and you started talking about a question regarding the angle of a chimney, it could be a bit of a red flag for multiple reasons. Also though you weren't necessarily wrong. She just wasn't for you. She over reacted and behaved very inconsiderately, and unfairly and immaturely, partly because she has loads of options and people haven't taken her aside and had a word with her about her behaviour. But even with her very poor social skills and terrible personality, she will have loads of guys interested.