Debate Guide: Doomed from the beginning: Difference between revisions
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''As soon as that child or youth grows beyond their partner's age of attraction, the | [[File:Pedowhiskey.png|thumb|]] | ||
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''As soon as that child or youth grows beyond their partner's age of attraction, the relationship will break down.'''''</font></blockquote> | |||
Even if this is correct, is | Even if this is correct, is this a justification for condemning or denying any "sexual" activity (whether part of a "relationship" or not) that falls under a set definition? Do you believe that any relationship which breaks down, or is likely to, should never have happened? | ||
[[Minor Attracted Person|MAPs]] have a ''range'' of attractions (more intensively [[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>) 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. Taking into account the proportion of non - pedophiles in society, this kind of relationship would probably be more common, as most people are teleiophilic. There is also the possibility that in the absence of mutual sexual attraction, a continued relationship along existing lines of pedagogy, platonic love, or any other form of care, mentorship or support may prosper. Even if this is not possible, "break-ups" are often constructive life decisions, leaving young people with the skills and confidence to pursue renewed goals in life. Lack of interest in aging minds and bodies is nothing new. | |||
==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 22:06, 1 August 2022
As soon as that child or youth grows beyond their partner's age of attraction, the relationship will break down.
Even if this is correct, is this a justification for condemning or denying any "sexual" activity (whether part of a "relationship" or not) that falls under a set definition? Do you believe that any relationship which breaks down, or is likely to, should never have happened?
MAPs have a range of attractions (more intensively nonexclusive than teleiophiles[1]) 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. Taking into account the proportion of non - pedophiles in society, this kind of relationship would probably be more common, as most people are teleiophilic. There is also the possibility that in the absence of mutual sexual attraction, a continued relationship along existing lines of pedagogy, platonic love, or any other form of care, mentorship or support may prosper. Even if this is not possible, "break-ups" are often constructive life decisions, leaving young people with the skills and confidence to pursue renewed goals in life. Lack of interest in aging minds and bodies is nothing new.