Debate Guide: Doomed from the beginning: Difference between revisions
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
The Admins (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==The basis of the argument is flawed, regardless== | ==The basis of the argument is flawed, regardless== | ||
Regardless of the ethical questions, the idea of a fundamental, fatal flaw rooted in the "time-sensitive" nature of [[chronophilia]] is a non-starter for a number of reasons. Not only can those who prefer adults fall in love with minors, but actual [[Minor Attracted Person|MAPs]] have a ''range'' of attractions. For a starter, MAPs are more typically [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation|nonexclusive]] than [[Teleiophilia|teleiophiles]],<ref>[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3 Blanchard, R., Kuban, M.E., Blak, T. et al. Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men. Arch Sex Behav 41, 13–29 (2012).]</ref> experiencing secondary attractions that often span upwards into adulthood. So in fact, the older partner's affinity for the minor may grow or at least persist, if their attraction to younger people is not exclusive. And since most people are teleiophilic and most pedophiles are non-exclusive, this kind of relationship would likely be | Regardless of the ethical questions, the idea of a fundamental, fatal flaw rooted in the "time-sensitive" nature of [[chronophilia]] is a non-starter for a number of reasons. Not only can those who prefer adults fall in love with minors, but actual [[Minor Attracted Person|MAPs]] have a ''range'' of attractions. For a starter, MAPs are more typically [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation|nonexclusive]] than [[Teleiophilia|teleiophiles]],<ref>[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3 Blanchard, R., Kuban, M.E., Blak, T. et al. Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men. Arch Sex Behav 41, 13–29 (2012).]</ref> experiencing secondary attractions that often span upwards into adulthood. So in fact, the older partner's affinity for the minor may grow or at least persist, if their attraction to younger people is not exclusive. And since most people with some form of pedophilia are preferentially [[Teleiophilia|teleiophilic]] and most preferential pedophiles are non-exclusive, this kind of evolving long-term relationship would likely be common. | ||
There is also the possibility that in the absence of mutual sexual attraction, a relationship may continue along existing lines of pedagogy/tuition, platonic love, or any other form of care, mentorship or support. Even if this is not possible, "break-ups" are sometimes constructive life decisions - often insisted upon by the younger partner, leaving them with the skills and confidence to pursue renewed goals in life. | There is also the possibility that in the absence of mutual sexual attraction, a relationship may continue along existing lines of pedagogy/tuition, platonic love, or any other form of care, mentorship or support. Even if this is not possible, "break-ups" are sometimes constructive life decisions - often insisted upon by the younger partner, leaving them with the skills and confidence to pursue renewed goals in life. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]] | [[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]] | ||
Revision as of 18:30, 3 April 2024
As soon as the young person grows beyond their partner's age of attraction, the relationship will break down.
Even if this were correct, it is not a justification for arbitrarily condemning or denying any "sexual" relations within a certain (as yet undefined) age range. Lack of interest in aging minds and bodies is nothing new. If every relationship which eventually broke down were a terrible injustice and abomination, we would be judging and intervening in a lot of adult-adult relationships. This includes relationships between older and younger adults, where rather unsurprisingly, it tends to be the younger partner who ends the relationship.[1]
The basis of the argument is flawed, regardless
Regardless of the ethical questions, the idea of a fundamental, fatal flaw rooted in the "time-sensitive" nature of chronophilia is a non-starter for a number of reasons. Not only can those who prefer adults fall in love with minors, but actual MAPs have a range of attractions. For a starter, MAPs are more typically nonexclusive than teleiophiles,[2] experiencing secondary attractions that often span upwards into adulthood. So in fact, the older partner's affinity for the minor may grow or at least persist, if their attraction to younger people is not exclusive. And since most people with some form of pedophilia are preferentially teleiophilic and most preferential pedophiles are non-exclusive, this kind of evolving long-term relationship would likely be common.
There is also the possibility that in the absence of mutual sexual attraction, a relationship may continue along existing lines of pedagogy/tuition, platonic love, or any other form of care, mentorship or support. Even if this is not possible, "break-ups" are sometimes constructive life decisions - often insisted upon by the younger partner, leaving them with the skills and confidence to pursue renewed goals in life.