Hebephilia is a sexual attraction to pubescent children that are in their early adolescence (typically ages 10 to 14). The reason why we have such classification has to do with the fact that hebephiles prefer individuals from this age range, over any other age group. Their sexual attraction to pubescent children in early adolescence is primary or exclusive. What it essentially means is that indeed hebephilia does exist, because even if we accept your premise that “men are hardwired to be attracted to teenage girls”, they are also more or equally as attracted to fully mature and grown people, as you can see every day, and that is where hebephiles differ from the rest of the society.
That being said, this premise:
Is extremely flawed. Have you thought about homosexual males? Or about pedophilic males who aren’t attracted to pubescent children, considering you made this distinction yourself by bringing the term “hebephiles”? Or about asexual males? All these examples are essentially proving that no, men aren’t hardwired to be attracted to teenage girls.
If you are finding teenage girls to be attractive, then naturally it might make sense for you to assume that others do too. I don’t, therefore it’s easy for me to assume that others also don’t. This is why such a clash of anecdotal evidence is resolved by gaining empirical data.
I doubt we will have any actual research with correct statistics of “how many males find teenage girls sexually attractive” since naturally, anyone asked this question would be marked as “not attracted to teenage girls”. But it’s not really relevant right now. Whenever a male finds teenage girls attractive or not, isn’t wrong with it in itself. The problem is however if they decide to pursue a relationship with such a teenager, for the reasons I will mention later.
Have you ever heard a proverb: “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should?”. Using legality of action as a determining factor of whenever something is an appropriate decision or not a heuristic has any validity. Laws are made by people, often with limited knowledge, and often as a result of corruption. And the lack of laws usually exists due to not yet raised concerns of the people in a given area, not as a result of public consensus about any given matter. There are places in the world where you are legally allowed to murder somebody, does it make it right though? Of course not.
Just because the mob of people you hate is uneducated, doesn’t render anything they oppose valid. All it means is that they are uneducated, it doesn’t prove your thesis is right. It is still very probable that they support the right cause even if for bad reasons or with wrong methods. You could create a mob of uneducated people rebelling against anything. It wouldn’t necessarily make these things revert in their objective consensus. This is not how reality works.
Even though most teen girls are biologically able to create children, the risks to both the wellbeing and life of the baby as well as the wellbeing and life of the teenage mother are significantly bigger than in the case of adult women. Especially in the age range of 11-14 when puberty just began and is still in the earliest moments of its development.
Yes, you can use contraception, but so do adults, and you see how it ends up. There is always a risk, but in the case of minors, the risk is significantly higher, than an already big risk in adult-to-adult relationships.
You used the appeal to law fallacy, and the appeal to nature fallacy, so let me respond with a similar argument:
“It’s natural for parents and families of teenage girls to be worried about their safety and wellbeing, mothers and fathers are hardwired [sorry] to be protective of their children and prevent them from harm and death that could result from early pregnancy.”
But the biggest problem with your entire position is that you essentially commit the same thinking flaws those “barbaric historical uneducated” masses. You attempt to take the moral high ground over such individuals, while it’s clear to me you don’t really know the real reasons behind the opposition of such relationships as well. You are just as uneducated about this topic as them, but they at least have the moral panic as an excuse, what excuse do you have?
In both the case of prepubescent children and pubescent children, the remaining fact stays the same - such individuals are underdeveloped and not prepared for taking the responsibilities that come with many adult life.
Because of that, they can easily be taken advantage of, be easily manipulated, threatened, and coerced. We delegalized such relationships for the very fact that we cannot control and monitor each and every of such relationships to prevent, and even just detect the abuse, and unlike relationships between two consenting adults, wherein the case of any conflict both of them can live independently, find a job, because they have finished education, get a place to live, get a loan, or even begun legal action against their abusive ex-partner without any problems because they have the knowledge and skill, they are developed (at least in the majority of cases, of course, exceptions happen in which external help is needed), teenagers and children alike would simply suffer the abuse without being able to take or even know what are the right actions are.
The majority of people who were abused during their childhood, either by their own families, peers, or even schools, simply take the abuse, because they don’t know nor even are able to take any other actions to counteract it. Even teenagers aren’t that well equipped to handle such matters, they struggle with filling their own taxes once they turn 18 years old for instance.
And yes, you can teach people many things, but knowing and understanding are two different things, the latter requires experiencing things, and that needs opportunities, that come with time. And all of that goes in line with the very fact that you have limited time constraints you can use for the education of people, which are not extensive enough to even cover a fraction of the necessary knowledge and skill used in life.
Predatory individuals, even those who aren’t attracted to any minors of any age group, quickly exploit legal possibilities of essentially getting a living sex toy. They already do so and have been doing it for a long time. You see practices like a marriage after parents agreement between let’s say, a well equipped, rich, emotionally mature, having the knowledge of the rhetoric and skill of coercion and manipulation, having lots of influence and connections 20 to 50-year-old male, and an 11 to 14-year-old girl who is dependent on her parents, has no experience of any kind, only finished primary school education, never had a job, doesn’t know much about human psychology, had never developed ability to recognize and counteract manipulation and mind games, never handled any paperwork, can’t get a loan and would be incapable of living on her own, or taking care of children, as a proof or justification that relationship like that is completely fine, and have no issues whatsoever, and it’s just that that pesky uneducated masses that are agitated for no good reason.
I see such legal laws as an unfortunate side effect of the very fact that we have a legal system that doesn’t give expiration dates to the laws it introduces, and as a relic of the past, in which children were treated as a commodity of their parents, as nothing more than a property, that was used for economical transactions of their caretakers, that nowadays is exploited by people, to create bound by law relationships with a power imbalance so enormous, it’s a convincing treat to any predatory individuals with enough money or other means to convince someone’s parent’s, by, for instance, exploiting their poor living situation.
And yes, I know that there is a million of "But what if"s that you can make to any remark I made, for the sake of brevity I cannot preemptively address them all, and I must resort to the single specific way of explaining these concepts, in order to convey their meaning in the clearest way. You really have to adjust my message in a favorable manner and in good faith to better your own understanding, because otherwise, you will follow up it with a large chain of propositions whose logical conclusion would be “we have to adjust everything in our society to make an otherwise unprepared for sex with adults minors, be prepared for it, regardless of the number of negative side effects it will introduce”.
Prostasia was critical of the practices of child marriage, at many occasions they stated, that they are against any not age-appropriate relationships with people under the age of 18 years old. You are not agreeing with Prostasias mission of protecting children from sexual abuse, you simply redefine the terms you are using to seem like what you wrote aligns with the mission of Prostasia, to make all the points in favor of hebephilic relationships is what Prostasia advocates for, while it’s simply not true.
I must admit, I’m quite surprised to see you express so much pro-contact rhetoric all of sudden because so far I took you as a quite reasonable person. At first, I thought that maybe someone got access to your account, to share the same talking points I already addressed on this forum months ago. Maybe whoever has flagged you thought the same.
But if it’s just the case of you simply having a bad day, I believe you really have to rethink your position more in-depth while applying the process of critical thinking. I know that you had your fair share of unpleasant experiences with legitimately insane people who think that if they say that they oppose pedophilia, it makes any of their actions, even abusive and illegal ones, justified. But you need to remember, that such individuals are as big of a pain for you, as for people who are not attracted to minors at all. They might be silent, because they don’t gain anything from speaking out, this topic is irrelevant to them after all, and they might be afraid of being branded as a heretic, but while they would agree with you in your criticism of such individuals, they would definitely not agree with the rest of the contents of your post.
If your intention was to put so many logical inconsistencies, scientific inaccuracies, and common misconceptions on the subject in one post that I simply do not have the time to go through and respond to every one of them, then you have succeeded. Congratulations.
As I said, there are legal ways for men to have sexual or romantic relationships with teenage girls. If that is against your moral beliefs, then don’t do it. I respect your decisions. Respect mine. That is the very essence of civilization.
The earliest surviving work of European literature, The Iliad, centers around the great warriors Achilles and Agamemnon arguing over which of them gets to sleep with a certain teen (or possibly preteen) girl. This almost results in the Greeks losing the Trojan War. That to me is far more important than this post “To Catch a Predator” fear of admitting the long accepted fact (seen in literature, art, and music from Homer to Rock & Roll) that heterosexual men, generally speaking, are strongly and primarily attracted to adolescent girls, the most dominant men even more so. Denying this is an insult and affront to both scientific/biological fact and to, if one is a believer, the very God who made is so.
It is no mistake that what is today termed “hebephilia” is named after the wife of Heracles, the hero from whom all of the noble families of Greece and Rome claimed decent. It is a decidedly patrician taste.
TLDR: You avoided reading through my post and reached a wrong conclusion about it’s intention. I’m not your enemy, nor a person from a group you hate. And while I’m willing to assume in good will that you simply react to something else going on in your life, which is why you misread me, I also do have my limit of tolerance. If you aren’t willing to calm down, treat me as an equal, and slowly address what I wrote, then please, don’t waste your time, and have a nice day.
Saying that someone made a logical inconsistency, used scientifically inaccurate information, or shared a common misconception on the subject doesn’t make it true. I put the time to extensively explain to you the problems with the points you made - this is why the post was long, so I could explain my position as clearly as possible. If you cannot respect the person you discuss with to at least return a similar amount of time to address his response, then at least don’t try to discredit his points in such a cheap manner.
All you did effectively is showing that you don’t actually have any way to respond to the points I made, and essentially try to put fingers in your ears while saying “No, you are wrong! And I’m right! My beliefs are scientific! My beliefs are true! You are lying!”. Does it remind you of some kind of person?
Yes, you said that there are legal ways to have relationships with teenage girls, and used this fact to make a point, that it means they are justifiable because they are legal. This was the point I addressed, it’s an appeal to law fallacy, something you could counterargument right now, but you repeat yourself instead.
The very essence of civilization is discussing conflicts in order to get to some consensus, not being ignorant about the topic in order to “respect moral values” of other people, especially when these “moral values” are about 3rd party individuals, and what given person wants to do to them.
That being said, there is absolutely no reason for you to make this discussion about morality. The points I gave were logical and full of substance that wasn’t appealing to morality in any way. There are many parts you could address. It’s was never about differences in moral values, it was about you not having the knowledge of the reasons why what you wrote was met with someone flagging you, which I simply addressed. Nowhere did I made it about me.
I get the feeling that you didn’t really read anything in my previous post, and quickly jumped to the conclusion, that I must be the very boogeyman you believe in, the “hysterical uneducated” individual, who makes everything about morality. Doesn’t it sound kind of ironic, considering you were the one that made the appeal to morality first?
And is this book relevant in what exact way? Are you trying to make an argument that “in the past, such relationships were on a daily basis”? Yes, they were, so was murder in revenge, wars, rapes, and other horrible atrocities. And you cannot really compare the past with the modern-day, because naturally, the lack of resources, knowledge, medicine, and many other factors created the necessity to reproduce earlier, regardless of the risks it took. Nowadays this necessity is gone, and so are the practices we used to rely on delegalized.
First off, this line is clear evidence to me that you didn’t read my post and instead jumped to create a strawman of me. No, this is not a “To Catch a Predator” fear of admitting “the long-accepted fact”. Nowhere in my post is there anything that could indicate that. I expressed that it’s unknown if your hypothesis is true. But that asexuals and gay men are examples of people that aren’t “hardwired to find teenage girls attractive”. What is your source of this conclusion? An ancient fictional book loosely based on historical facts, made in the time where people didn’t really make much sex out of love, but rather to secure their safety once they got older? Would you consider the story, real-life story, of Nero and Sporus as also an argument in favor of such relationships? What is going to be next, are you going to cite Star Wars in order to make an argument about incest? Please get a grip of the reality.
And all these arts, paintings, and other works don’t necessarily have to agree with your interpretation, there is beauty in youth that can be adored regardless of whenever you also find a given person sexually attractive. Lots of heterosexual males can adore a greek statue of David, and it doesn’t have to mean that they find such males to be sexually attractive. There are more aspects to enjoying art than just sex. And I don’t say that “all these arts are devoided of any sexual meaning” because I suspect you will misinterpret me in this way, and of course that many of them were made for the purposes of sexual arousal. I’m not ignorant of history, I know how many wild things we did as a species before.
All I say is that you have a bias that makes you interpret things in the very way you interpret them, and this is why I mentioned that we would have actual empirical evidence that would prove or disprove your hypothesis. This is the very core of the scientific method, so please, ask yourself who is really antiscientific in here?
In my previous post, I have mentioned, that whenever it’s true that many males find teenage girls attractive, doesn’t simply matter to me.
How could you read through this line and conclude, that I think your hypothesis is immoral? Seriously? What things I would have to find immoral in your post, when I mentioned, that it’s not really a concern to me whenever it’s true that all or most males are attracted to teenagers? I disagreed with your hypothesis, not because I found it immoral, but because I noticed logical errors in it. This was the whole point of my post, which you dismissed.
“My hypothesis is true, because I don’t have any evidence to suggest it so, but I feel like it’s true, and that proves you are wrong because God created this world to be this way”. You really sound like an evangelical Q anon supporter right now, many of whom I debated on this very forum months before. Are you sure your account wasn’t hacked?
Yes, the majority of terms in science refer to Greek and Latin words. Congratulations on observing this simple fact. You must be an authority about all the topics that exist in this world because of that.
You have become the very beast you have sworn to defeat. Bigoted, incapable to deal with contrary opinions, following his personal biases, ignorant, uneducated, and hysterical (as seen by you instantly assuming I must be your enemy) person. I’m not going to lie to you that It’s disappointing to see you become like this, you essentially prove all your opponents were right about you all along.
If you aren’t unwilling to actually address the points I made, and prove all the supposed “logical inconsistencies, scientific inaccuracies, and common misconceptions on the subject”, which surely can exist, I’m just a human, after all, then please, just don’t respond at all. Respect your own time even if you don’t want to respect mine. You complained about the uneducated hysterical masses, so I presented myself in good faith with rational arguments and calmness. But the way you respond to it was to instantly categorize me as “one of them”, ignore my post, and began attacking the strawman instead, proving that these people you addressed, are living only in your head, and not in the reality.
You have gone to personal attacks now, and this conversation is ending. I supported Prostasia because I agree with their professed belief that sexual contact with children is inherently harmful. I assumed that they were using terms properly and not pretending that teenagers were children. If I was incorrect then I am perfectly willing to take my views elsewhere.
I did read read your post. You repeated the same thing I’ve debated and answered with antis countless times. I saw no reason to rehash it. I do not care for having the only type of relationship I am capable of having (as I said, perfectly legally) compared to “murder, rape, slavery, and all those other atrocious things people used to do, etc. etc.” I also don’t care to be compared to a Q Anon nutjob just because I mentioned the G-word.
Wholesale hatred of men who admit attraction to teenage girls is a transitory sickness of modern society, in part caused by homosexuality and interracial relationships being (and rightfully so) suddenly taken of the list of things it’s culturally acceptable to hate. The resultant hysteria will pass as quickly as it began.
Personal attacks? I acted in the same way you acted against me, nothing personal was wrote by me. Harsh? Yes. Personal, not really.
I pointed out that you behave in the same way you criticize your opponents of behaving, and this post is another proof of that. You try to dismiss me, avoid the discussion, use cheap tactics to achieve this goal, and put yourself on an unearned intellectual high ground, as I still wait for your first counterargument. You aren’t ending this conversation because of personal attacks, you avoiding it because you know you cannot refute my points.
Absolute nonsense. I could say exactly the same line, “Yo urepeated the same thing I’ve debated and answered with pro-contact MAPS countless times. I saw no reason to rehash it.”. But I didn’t, because you aren’t the people I talked to, and so I put time to once again explain my position to a new person. You have no right to use such an excuse when you see me doing the opposite.
Another example of you not understanding what I wrote, and using a strawman to attack. I was not equating your relationship to such acts, I made a point that in the past many practices were present, but today they are no longer acceptable, because times have changed, and the necessity that made these practices acceptable, is no longer present. But of course, having a good faith argument with me wouldn’t be possible instead, isn’t that right?
You were compared to a Q Anon nutjob, not because of “G-word”, but because you display the same stubbornness, ego, and immaturity in discussion as them.
Good luck achieving that when all you can do is throwing slogans instead of actual reasons. Right now you had an opportunity to address these points that the hysterical people will have, and you failed to do so. You had an opportunity to convince me that you are right, but you achieved the opposite.
Prostasia doesn’t “pretend that teenagers are children”, using the term “child” in referring to teenagers is simply a form of keeping descriptions brief, not some ideological compulsion to pamper young adults as it seems to you. Your pro-content agenda doesn’t go in line with Prostasia’s mission, it’s surprising that you reached this conclusion considering in how many articles on the main site it’s clearly stated.
Your entire belief about hebephilic relations commit:
And you will never address these points because you know you cannot do that while keeping your belief intact. So you prefer to live in ignorance, accusing me of personal attacks after you implied that I’m uneducated about the topic, illogical, and lie about scientific statistics. But ask yourself this simple question, how can I even respond to you, when your posts don’t carry any substance, any counterarguments, any data? Your responses to me try to discredit me without any foundation while trying to get a high ground, and nothing more. How insecure you have to be about your own belief if all you can do is tear me down in order to build yourself up.
Any post you will make from now on, without addressing my points, will be a sign of your defeat. If you want to further humiliate yourself, then please, go ahead and prove me right, that you simply have no points to make.
Because I refuse to argue point for point with you does not mean I cannot answer your argument, so you can stop your attempts to bait me into doing so. You obviously have a lot of spare time on your hands. I do not. I’m currently producing a feature-length movie and preparing to perform a magic show at the gravesite of Edgar Allan Poe in Baltimore – a show which, by the way, is sponsored by a local radio station that is part of a national network, is hosted by a well-known local personality, and features a 13-year-old actress I manage as the “Ghost of Virginia Clemm Poe”.
I’ve heard it all before, my friend. I’ve had literally thousands of people make false reports about me to the BPD and the FBI. Those organizations know that I’m a law-abiding citizen. If that isn’t good enough for your obsession with degrading me for being a man with a perfectly normal preference for younger ladies, then I’ll be enough of an educated (in that Greek and Latin literature that is the basis of our civilization but you consider irrelevant) gentleman to avoid telling you were you can insert it.
As for Prostasia, if by children they actually mean minors, I respectfully suggest that they should correct that to be more precise. It’s not difficult to think of numerous legal problems such ambiguity could cause this (I’m sure) well-meaning organization.
Baiting into making you actually articulate why you disagree with me? Is it wrong for me to expect you to actually talk to me about the points I make, instead of addressing my character and making baseless conclusions? This is what discussion is all about, exchange of information, not shouting slogans at each other, and expecting the other person to yield. I did my part, and you refused to do yours, not by just claiming that you disagree, but by claiming that what I said is wrong, which it isn’t.
But sure, sorry for ever expecting that you actually have good reasons behind your beliefs that essentially justify adults having sex with people aged from 11 to 14. How horrible I must be?
You cannot answer my arguments, which is why you don’t do it. You clearly are in disagreement with my points, and you insist by making constant replies that you are still right. Well, then go ahead and make a case that what you believe in is right, instead of wasting your time. You are clearly motivated to achieve that goal, but you do nothing that would actually bring you closer to it, so the only logical conclusion I have, is that you refuse to let your bias go, and you don’t have any ways to respond to me in ways that would actually matter.
Sure, I see how much “spare time” you don’t have seen how that you keep responding to me, instead of leaving this thread as you stated before. Who you try to convince, me or yourself?
Good for you, it doesn’t prove that you are right nor that I’m wrong. It simply shows that you out of ideas to respond.
Are you delusional at this point? Quote at least one statement in which I degrade you for having a preference for 11 to 14-year-old children. You are the one who has been degrading me this whole time, so I’m sorry, mirror argument will not work on me.
I have never considered ancient literature to be irrelevant, it’s yet another strawman you created. I’m saying, that it’s not proof of the very hypothesis you brought up. It’s not how the scientific method works.
All such works show, is that indeed, in the past, people found teenagers as attractive, and had relationships with them. Which is an anecdotal argument in favor of the hypothesis, that some people are attracted to teenagers. Something we had an agreement on, but you insist we didn’t, in order to have at least something to write about when you reply to me.
I know that you had thousands of people making false reports about you, seeing the nonsense you spew in here, I can now see why, even if I disagree with such practices. So far I used to empathize with you, but seeing how manipulative, narcissistic and bigoted you have been to me so far, I no longer feel bad for that.
The reason why these people report you is because they suspect you to someday try and pursue sexual relationship with a minor.
The reason why FBI and BPD don’t do anything is that people aren’t locked in jail for suspicions, you need to actually commit a crime, and they need evidence to prove it. It’s not because they believe you are a good person and trust you, it’s because they are limited by the justice system.
And seriously, what is with all this nonsense about your work all of sudden? Do you feel good about yourself mentioning that? Are you seriously so insecure about your beliefs, that you now think that showing yourself as some sort of authority will change my mind?
All I ever did, is made points, which no other person has ever made to you. And you have proven to be incapable of responding to them. You aren’t an evil person for being born attracted to pubescent children. You are an evil person because you treat others as worse than you, and you seek to rationalize an act of sexual exploitation of a minor. I genuinely couldn’t care less about what your job is, or how many Twitter followers you hare. All I’m here about, is to learn more about the topic, something you insist you know more about than me, yet refused to elaborate when asked on multiple occasions.
And you keep trying and keep trying to essentially gaslight me, accuse me of saying things I never said, trying to discredit my arguments by judging my character, making a case that I’m just too stupid and uneducated to even comprehend the inner mechanisms of the great Daniel Rumanos mind!
And when after not giving me anything to work with, and treating me as a worse human being, I became agitated and pointed out your hypocrisy, you began shouting that I throw personal attacks at you. Yet again avoiding addressing the points that completely debunked the absurd nonsense that you proposed.
You spend an entire day, to make 3 posts in a row, responding to me, and not even once did you attempted to respond to any of my points. Not even a single one. And you have the audacity to show yourself as a superior individual, in this discussion?
Look, I’m going, to be honest with you, I know you grandiose narcissists really like the attention, but I genuinely couldn’t care who you are. I give you the benefit of the doubt, I made a clear statement that I will consider your response without addressing my points as proof of you admitting your defeat, and you did exactly what I stated. You had an opportunity to rescue your reputation, and you choose not to do so.
I will leave this thread and never respond nor read any of your further posts in here, so don’t even bother responding (I still know you will write a post, just to have the last say, because you know you lost and it’s insufferable to you to admit it). You clearly aren’t open to have a good faith discussion, and I don’t enjoy having cheap manipulation thrown against me for an entire day.
But I know you have a lot of fans and a lot of anti-fans, who will now go into this thread, see that all their suspicions were true, see how strongly you humiliated yourself, and how uneducated, hysterical of a hypocrite you are, having all of their beliefs against MAPs reaffirm and associating them with Prostasia, simply because you had the delusion that they also play in word games and rhetorical manipulations like you do to rationalize exploitation of minors. I really hoped you will be a better person, but now I see some people are simply irredeemable. So I hope you enjoy that you undermine all the effort this organization is putting to improve the current situation, simply because you prioritize your own sexual pleasure over the wellbeing of others.
Bait away. Everything you say is so cliche and predictable. Do yourself a favor. Get off the internet and have a look around the real world. Go to the mall (yes they still exist), restaurants, amusement parks (they’re open again!). Amongst the many people having fun here you will see teenage girls with older gentlemen involved in loving, caring, consensual relationships – perfectly legally. I may be one of them. On second thought, maybe you had better not, because the reality of this might just drive you mad.
Realize you don’t come across as someone who cares about the safety of children or anyone else. You come across, like all internet trolls (and that is exactly what your bald-faced baiting and accusations prove you to be), like someone who is desperately and hatefully jealous that someone somewhere might be enjoying life.
You children need to play nice with each other. Otherwise @terminus will have to come spank you. Clearly you have differing beliefs about age. For my part I am a hebephile (non exclusive), but instead of age based, I go more with Tanner Stage of development. I suspect most MAPs with a specific range consider that more calendar years. Just my opinion. Now as for desires, DR does have a point. Advertisers do perform this kind of research and have been using VERY young models for a long time.
Further, my state has the most common AoC in the US at 16, but has a caveat that a 13 year old may consent with a partner no more than 4 years older. And they say that means 4 years and 1 day does not count. The age of marriage is 14 with parental and judicial approval, which means the AoC kind of goes out the window in that case. However, Prostasia is trying to protect all minors from exploitation and simply refuses to discuss any lowering of the age of consent as a means to address this. A very laudable position. However, horny teenagers who want sex, will find a way. Teens should be allowed a chance to experiment, just not with people who would use and abuse them. We all want to protect minors from abuse, but sometimes the lines can be a little fuzzy.
And honestly, that’s why we have such a strict position… we don’t want to be arguing about fuzzy lines because that would be such a distraction from the rest of our work. If society has made the judgment to accept a certain age of consent, then that defines the legal parameters of child sexual abuse in that jurisdiction, and that’s our starting point. Arbitrary as it may be, we’re not going to try to re-invent that wheel.
3-17 year olds are not adults, but maybe you are right, some ages within the under 18 maybe should be classified as a different type of minor. Like in the UK where 16 and 17 year olds are not considered adults, but are also not considered children either. But the fact remains, under 18s are not adults and therefore lack the capacity to consent to sexual activity with adults. Finding a certain person “attractive” is not an excuse. My age of attraction is from 15-45, but I would never engage in sexual activity with minors. A rational person can understand that minors cannot consent to sexual activity. Especially not with adults. Minors who engage in sexual activities with even with close age partners should still be heavily discouraged.
Oh my, what racist incel community did you suddenly crawl out of?
The age of consent in the UK and the majority of US states is 16. As pointed out in this thread, it is legally possible to marry a minor years younger than that. If my belief in the rule of law (instead of your poor understanding of biological development and misunderstanding of the purpose of the age of majority) makes me a bad guy in your estimation, well, deal with it.
Cut the fascism and stop telling others what the “need to” do, hmmm? No, I’m not giving up my right to possibly have a loving, fulfilling, caring, mutually-respectful romantic relationship with a beautiful and intelligent young lady just because it offends your inability to work out problems in your own personal life.
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” - H. L. Mencken
If you paid attention you’ll note I didn’t take a stance on those relationships (I did take a stance on marriage to minors which reflects my stance on marriage as a whole), that’s not an issue I’m interested in discussing, certainly not here, I just pointed out your flawed thinking.
Things are not so simple, much that is illegal is not wrong, much that is legal is not right. Law is often not dictated by what is right or wrong but by the interests of those in power.
“Rule of law” is not fascism. Fascism is an individual (or select group of them) forcing their personal, political, or religious beliefs upon others. It thrives via chaos and conflict, not order and peace, as the nazi reversal of the swastika was intended to indicate.
If you are not willing or able to detail the particular reasons behind your opposition to laws permitting marriage to minors, perhaps you could be so kind as realize that they may not apply to me. Just because some people abuse certain privileges does not mean they should be denied to everyone.