You're right: I'm caught being pedantic about a point while simultaneously not being specific/accurate enough myself!I believe the proper term is ephebophilic, though people have a tendency to not differentiate between the two words.
Precisely. People see what they want to see when it comes to who they want to be with. That's just one of numerous reasons why we cannot afford an exception to the general standard because "Ahhh, she gets! She's a very bright 15-year-old." Personally, I would be horrified to feel that in my twenties (let alone later) I was no further developed than I was at 15. What a shit show life would be if that were actually true. I don't think Tres or Dante are really doing themselves as much credit as they probably should in that respect of their shared argument along those lines above--self-introspection twenty years after the fact is hardly very good evidence of anything, and I'd guess the both of them have evolved much more than they self-evaluate as to having done. Regardless, the legal (and responsible moral) standard cannot abide a "No, this underage girlfriend is totally hip and mature--she totally gets it, trust me!" exception.As for everything else, I doubt I’d have too much to contribute. Partially because I haven’t read over the situation in question and partially because I lack much experience with interpersonal relationships (specifically social interaction in general). So far it seems as though I am one of the younger users on 8wayrun (recently turned 21) and, despite being told repeatedly that I’m mature for my age, I can safely say I was extremely naive for the majority of my teenage years. From my experience, it seems like what was viewed as ‘maturity’ was actually just me being disinterested in social interactions with others of my age group and thus a lack of stereotypical teenage behavior.
I can say that I probably did show more maturity than a majority of my peers over the past few years, though that likely developed during my late teens as opposed to age fifteen.
Well, first off, I'd disagree as to that: his own response actually seems to more or less acknowledge exactly how problematic his behaviour was and why. But even if that weren't the case, I don't see why we would give him the benefit of the doubt as to his motivations.The "She Said" includes grooming and deliberate emotional manipulation. The "He Said" does not. Intent is pertinent to a question of morality.
That's splitting the hair pretty thin when we are talking about a 15-year-old. A 15-year-old whose level of development at the time you have no first hand knowledge of. And it ultimately doesn't matter: she's clear that she was not prepared for what he tried to put on her. I'm not going to further protract the discussion by entering into the discussion of whether what happened between your brother and his ex is problematic enough, but I will point out that it's a completely different scenario (at least as you describe it) in that nobody left it feeling used or traumatized. That is clearly not the case with LuminAbyss and the girl he fixated upon, from both sides of the story."Pedophilic" denotes prepubescence. This distinction is extremely relevant.
All of that said, I feel like we are moving to opinions that are farther apart than where we started, merely by virtue of protracted debate about the particulars. Suffice it to say we are too far apart to have a meeting of the minds on the matter of this one man's conduct and whether/why it was appropriate for it to be lifted into the public view at this time (regardless of whether there are "worse actors" currently sharing the creep limelight). I think his behaviour was clearly reprehensible, that it is not much ameliorated by the fact that he never had an opportunity to physically abuse her, and given the particulars of how he approached her, I'm pretty dubious that the fact the abuse never got that far has anything to do with him: had she not had the presence of mind to run from that situation, I would be very worried about where it likely would have gone next. And without question, I am not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as to any of that.
But at the same time, as powerfully as I disagree with you as to how much this case was cause for concern, the fact of that matter is that she already exercised her right to talk about these events publicly and both you and I (and everyone who has commented here on the matter here that I saw) at least seem to agree that she should not be stifled or condemned for doing so, once she has made that decision. That will just have to suffice as the nexus of our agreement in this instance, since I think perspectives have been expressed to their fullest and continued debate will probably only, if anything, push us farther apart. I would only add that my own perspective, based in my own professional background, inclines me towards a version of the precautionary principle that prioritizes the safety of minors over the privacy of adults who consciously took actions which opened their conduct to scrutiny.