Uncle Ted properly characterized normies (he used the term "leftist", but the overtone window is so far shifted to the left that the normie of today would be seen as a radical commie in 1995 when "The Industrial Society…" was written) as people who are willing to "rebel" occasionally, but only within the confines of the commonly accepted morality. In order to rebel the normie has to take some value with which everyone agrees and either changes its definition or pushes it to some absurd unattainable level (in case someone hasn't noticed: social justice is basically neo-puritarianism), so that it seems like the rest doesn't agree with the base value.
The meaning of "pedophilia" has shifted from "sexual attraction to prepubescent children", which can result in raping children, to things which used to constitute elements (not necessarily essential) of pedophilia and are thus loosely related, but aren't the original definition. Ironically the actual pedophilic rape of a child may not be a rape at all according to the new definition of "rape" according to which rape is not about sex or attraction, but rather about domination or control: a pedophile who rapes a child out of pure sexual attraction and not some domination fetish doesn't conduct a rape according to this definition. Maybe that's why normies don't care about actual children getting raped by alphabet people or rapefugees, but won't stop screeching about some imagined pedophilia in their heads.
Anyway, these are the two main modern definitions of pedophilia used by normies:
That's the reason why words constantly change definitions: racism, rape and notably pedophilia which is the subject of my thread.
The meaning of "pedophilia" has shifted from "sexual attraction to prepubescent children", which can result in raping children, to things which used to constitute elements (not necessarily essential) of pedophilia and are thus loosely related, but aren't the original definition. Ironically the actual pedophilic rape of a child may not be a rape at all according to the new definition of "rape" according to which rape is not about sex or attraction, but rather about domination or control: a pedophile who rapes a child out of pure sexual attraction and not some domination fetish doesn't conduct a rape according to this definition. Maybe that's why normies don't care about actual children getting raped by alphabet people or rapefugees, but won't stop screeching about some imagined pedophilia in their heads.
Anyway, these are the two main modern definitions of pedophilia used by normies:
- Taking advantage of someone: I've seen it many times. A 30-year-old having sex or even just a romantic relationship with a 20-year-old is a pedophile. Why? Because he takes advantage of her (I won't bother with making this statement gender-neutral because we all know the double standard). Taking advantage is a mysterious term on its own and it seems to mean that the person taking advantage of someone is more knowledgeable (about relationships or the world in general) than the person who is being taken advantage of. This is absurd as it assumes knowledgeability is measurable and that two people can be exactly equally knowledgeable (about everything, I guess). If you took this definition to its extreme, dating or having sex with anyone who's not your perfect clone would be pedophilia. Furthermore, it makes a weird assumption that knowledgeability is only measurable by age which is evidently wrong: people the same age can have vastly different knowledge about the world (not even necessarily different in some abstract quantity, possibly simply different i. e. differently specialized). Can a high school dropout even consent to sex with an university professor? They're not equally knowledgeable, the dropout is being taken advantage of! It opens a gateway to classicism or possibly other forms of discrimination. Who knows if soon having a relationship with someone differently educated won't be considered pedophilia.
- Youthful aesthetic: This is mainly seen in opposition to anime. Enjoying media depicting someone even vaguely resembling a child is apparently pedophilia. The double standard is even more pronounced in this example as foids looking for tall partners, whom they often call "daddy", aren't called out for something that, according to this definition, is promotion of pedophilia. In a normie's mind, a foid engaging in dd/lg ("daddy dom / little girl", basically pedophilia role-play) is innocent while a guy watching moe anime is a disgusting pedo. If taken to its extreme, liking anything with neotenic features should be an offense: anime, chibi art, most pets and even humans themselves if you're not being anthropocentrist.
Of course, actual pedophilia resulting in child rape is and unfortunately probably will continue to be an issue, but as I've said above: normies aren't interested in fighting it, they're more interested in a crusade against things that vaguely remind them of pedophilia even if they aren't. Why? Because actual data about child rapists might not be politically correct (and thus it attacks the NPC values) and probably simply because it's easier to virtue-signal and screech at anime fans on Twitter than fight actual child rapists (which is what the evil raycist cops do).
