Why is Sex so taboo?

[Dave A]

"A relationship"? Not a romantic one no. Is that shallow? I guess that depends on what you think is shallow. A relationship without a physical connection is a friendship. I could definitely be friends with someone who looked like a child. No question.

I didn't define it as a non-physical relationship, so take it in the context of the discussion, as a physcial relationship.

You're assuming that being a pedophile makes him questionable. This is my whole point with bringing this up. I think he's a pedophile, and I think that what he's doing dating this woman is great, and that it's good for each of them that the other exists. This is how a pedophile finds love without hurting anyone. Why is that "questionable"? Keep in mind that I do not assume that a pedophile is a rapist or aspiring rapist, though some people do use the term that way.

Of course it does, how long could a person go openly calling themselves a paedophile before getting beaten up / shunned. You can argue that puts the other people in the wrong, but it doesn't negate the huge negative stigma attached to paedophiles regardles of if they've ever acted on their impulses or not.

Now I do agree with you that if a person has those tendacies, it is better that they find and date a young looking adult than abuse a minor, of course it is. However I disagree with your notion that a person is likely a peadophile because he's in a relationship with a girl who is small and child like in some aspects physcilaly despite being a fully compos mentis adult. I think that's a very narrow view on it to be honest.

Of course it is possible that he is attracted to child like appearance, but it's also very possible (more so IMO) that they simply connected on a mental level and the attraction resulted from that. You don't have to label someone because of their choice of partner.

What your argument essentially boils down to is that only paedophiles would date that girl which I cannot agree with on any level and I'm pretty sure would be a claim that she would find upsetting. The guy even states that he connected with her personalty but we can't accept that at face value and instead label him a paedophile under the guise it's not a bad thing therefore isn't harmful when it is exactly that, a person being labeled a paedophile could lose his career, be hounded out of his neighbourhood or worse regardless of if it is true.

Now if you want to discuss the treatment of paedophiles and how they can live in society in a perfectly acceeptable manner, then we can open this much further and we might agree much more. But on this specific example, there is nothing beyond outward appearances observed from a distance that would suggest in any way whatsoever that this man is a paedophile.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't define it as a non-physical relationship, so take it in the context of the discussion, as a physcial relationship.

I answered that. I could not do that with someone who looks like a child.

Of course it does, how long could a person go openly calling themselves a paedophile before getting beaten up / shunned. You can argue that puts the other people in the wrong, but it doesn't negate the huge negative stigma attached to paedophiles regardles of if they've ever acted on their impulses or not.

...which is why I brought this topic up.

Now I do agree with you that if a person has those tendacies, it is better that they find and date a young looking adult than abuse a minor, of course it is. However I disagree with your notion that a person is likely a peadophile because he's in a relationship with a girl who is small and child like in some aspects physcilaly despite being a fully compos mentis adult. I think that's a very narrow view on it to be honest.

Of course it is possible that he is attracted to child like appearance, but it's also very possible (more so IMO) that they simply connected on a mental level and the attraction resulted from that. You don't have to label someone because of their choice of partner.

What your argument essentially boils down to is that only paedophiles would date that girl which I cannot agree with on any level and I'm pretty sure would be a claim that she would find upsetting. The guy even states that he connected with her personalty but we can't accept that at face value and instead label him a paedophile under the guise it's not a bad thing therefore isn't harmful when it is exactly that, a person being labeled a paedophile could lose his career, be hounded out of his neighbourhood or worse regardless of if it is true.

Now if you want to discuss the treatment of paedophiles and how they can live in society in a perfectly acceeptable manner, then we can open this much further and we might agree much more. But on this specific example, there is nothing beyond outward appearances observed from a distance that would suggest in any way whatsoever that this man is a paedophile.

Like I said:

Yea it's totally possible that he's not a pedophile. I just think the odds are he is - specifically I mean attracted to child-like appearance.

I agree that there is nothing beyond outward appearances to presume that he is a pedophile. I just think that's enough to pretty much seal the deal. Maybe she would find that claim upsetting, and it is apparently similar to what her parents said to her, but I'm not sure she should find that upsetting. You seem to find it upsetting as well, and I'm not sure you should either.

I wish this guy could just be outspoken instead of having to dance around like he seems to be doing. We shouldn't treat pedophiles the way we do, I don't think it leads to anything good. A lot of them need psychological help with some kind of childhood trauma. And the rest of them probably need some form of guidance for finding consensual partners.

 

[Dave A]

I answered that. I could not do that with someone who looks like a child.

And maybe others couldn't either, I will honeslty say I don't know simply because I have experienced and am fully aware that a phyiscal attraction can be founded on a mental attraction. Therefore if I met someone I had a very strong mental attraction to, I question how much their physical appearance would prevent me from reciprocating interest/initiating interest in taking a hypothetical relationship further.

Would you not say that speaks more about you though than it does about a person who is open to it and won't allow outward appearances to dicate who they can and can't be in a physical relationship with?

...which is why I brought this topic up.

And I agree with the implication (if I am reading you right) that a person having the tendancy but not acting on improperly shouldn't be shunned by society, but the fact is that currently, they are. Of course, a person who acts on that impulse improperly with minors deserves much time in jail.

Like I said:

Yea it's totally possible that he's not a pedophile. I just think the odds are he is - specifically I mean attracted to child-like appearance.

I agree that there is nothing beyond outward appearances to presume that he is a pedophile. I just think that's enough to pretty much seal the deal. Maybe she would find that claim upsetting, and it is apparently similar to what her parents said to her, but I'm not sure she should find that upsetting. You seem to find it upsetting as well, and I'm not sure you should either.

But why is that enough to seal the deal? If that's the case then you are completley dismissing the possibility that he might not be a paedophile despite your other comment. If all it takes is outward appearance and that's enough to seal it then there's absoutely zero chance of it being anything else right?

I don't find it upsetting at all by the way, not sure why you'd get that impression. Interesting and in some ways bemusing perhaps. I totally understand her parents having that kind of concern and conversation with her, I'd say that's normal parental concern to make sure she is being careful and that's absolutely fine and undertandable.

There will be people with fetishes and unusual desires interested in someone with stunted growth, absolutely, I'm not claiming otherwise but at the same time that doesn't mean getting involved with such a person is her only chance of love. It just means she should be aware of that possiblity, which is not nearly equal to anyone interested in her is a paedophile.

If you think she shouldn't be upset if the general public were calling her boyfriend a paedophile and implying she can't have a boyfriend that isn't a paedophile then I'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I wish this guy could just be outspoken instead of having to dance around like he seems to be doing. We shouldn't treat pedophiles the way we do, I don't think it leads to anything good. A lot of them need psychological help with some kind of childhood trauma. And the rest of them probably need some form of guidance for finding consensual partners.

He has been outspoken, it's hard to disagree with much of what he has said, it simply seems he's not saying what you want him to say i.e. "I am attracted to children so I'm in a relationship with this person because she's an adult but is small like a child." I agree with the rest of your comment, but I simply can't agree to label somoene using the criteria which you are using, which is how it might look to the casual observer and nothing more.

 

[Danoff]

And maybe others couldn't either, I will honeslty say I don't know simply because I have experienced and am fully aware that a phyiscal attraction can be founded on a mental attraction. Therefore if I met someone I had a very strong mental attraction to, I question how much their physical appearance would prevent me from reciprocating interest/initiating interest in taking a hypothetical relationship further.

Would you not say that speaks more about you though than it does about a person who is open to it and won't allow outward appearances to dicate who they can and can't be in a physical relationship with?

You're kinda doing the same thing. You're just holding open the possibility that any outward appearance might become attractive to you given the right circumstances. I think I'm mostly right by definition. If you fell in love with someone that looked like a child, and then became attracted to them because of a deep emotional connection, I might say you're a pedophile as well. Especially if you start to view those characteristics that you see in your spouse as attractive in others as well. I must admit that when I see people that look a lot like my wife, I'm attracted to them. That's partly because I've grown more attracted to my wife over time, and now have preference for those characteristics. I don't think we have total control over who we're attracted to - otherwise we'd have Christian groups successfully converting gay people by getting them into a long friendship with someone of the opposite sex.

What you're saying is kinda like saying that just because a guy is in a romantic relationship with another guy doesn't mean he's gay. I mean... that's kinda the definition. This guy is in a romantic relationship with someone that looks like a child. I'm willing to entertain the small possibility that he isn't attracted to that and sees.... something?... else that he's attracted to. Or that he simply isn't attracted to her and they have what they call romantic and that I might just call friendship. But for the most part if someone's in a romantic relationship with someone that looks like a child, I'm calling that pedophilia, just like being in a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender is gay.

Edit:

I suppose the same line of discussion could be had for anyone that is guilty of sexual assault against a minor. They could argue that they're not a pedophile because they weren't interested in the minor for their child-like characteristics. They just had a deep emotional connection with someone who happened to be 8 years old. I think by definition they are a pedophile rapist - regardless of the "why".

 

[Dave A]

You're kinda doing the same thing. You're just holding open the possibility that any outward appearance might become attractive to you given the right circumstances. I think I'm mostly right by definition. If you fell in love with someone that looked like a child, and then became attracted to them because of a deep emotional connection, I might say you're a pedophile as well. Especially if you start to view those characteristics that you see in your spouse as attractive in others as well. I must admit that when I see people that look a lot like my wife, I'm attracted to them. That's partly because I've grown more attracted to my wife over time, and now have preference for those characteristics. I don't think we have total control over who we're attracted to - otherwise we'd have Christian groups successfully converting gay people by getting them into a long friendship with someone of the opposite sex.

What you're saying is kinda like saying that just because a guy is in a romantic relationship with another guy doesn't mean he's gay. I mean... that's kinda the definition. This guy is in a romantic relationship with someone that looks like a child. I'm willing to entertain the small possibility that he isn't attracted to that and sees.... something?... else that he's attracted to. Or that he simply isn't attracted to her and they have what they call romantic and that I might just call friendship. But for the most part if someone's in a romantic relationship with someone that looks like a child, I'm calling that pedophilia, just like being in a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender is gay.

There's a very big difference to falling in love with someone who looks like childlike in some ways and then forming a deep emotional connection and forming a deep emotional connection and then falling in love with someone who looks like childlike in some ways.

It is an odd one, I don't completely close down the possiblity purely because I know how much of a difference that deep emotional conneciton can make, but at the same time I'm certainly not going to start dwelling on the idea of falling in love with someone who looks childlike, it's something you would have to deal with if you were ever in that situation surely?

But the possability that a deep mental connection can give rise to physical attraction is not small, and my view is that it's a very real possability here. In fact it's far easier and more common for mental attraction to lead to physical attraction than vice versa. Not only that but it's also what the couple have claimed to be the case.

I suppose we are arguing in a similar manner but from opposite sides in some way but not entirely. I'm not being so dismissive of other possibilities here, whereas you've already come at it as an absolute it looks like therefore it is angle. I'm not calling them liars and I'm not judging based on nothing more than outward appearances taken from an uninvolved distance and nothing more. It's a possibility, sure, but there's nothing here to say that they're liars either.

On the comparison, two men in a phyisccal relationship might be gay, but one of both of them might be bisexual. I'm not sure I see that as comparable either way, it's more comparable to assuming a guy in a physical relationship with a woman is heterosexual which is an assumption not without it's own flaws.

I do get where you are coming from, I understand why you come to that conclusion, I just disagree with it. And with that it seems we're at an impasse.

 

[Danoff]

On the comparison, two men in a phyisccal relationship might be gay, but one of both of them might be bisexual. I'm not sure I see that as comparable either way, it's more comparable to assuming a guy in a physical relationship with a woman is heterosexual which is an assumption not without it's own flaws.

It is a fair assumption though. If you want to put it on that level, it's fine with me. Assuming this guy is a pedophile is like assuming (knowing little else) that the members of a heterosexual couple are heterosexual.

 

[Famine]

Assuming this guy is a pedophile is like assuming (knowing little else) that the members of a heterosexual couple are heterosexual.

If one of them is a Republican senator, that's not entirely a safe assumption


On that topic and for a fun twist, imagine that she's actually the paedophile in the relationship (like, she looks like a kid so she can get away sneaking into schools and other kids' places) and he's just her "beard" of normalcy.

(for clarity I'm sure that's not true and she isn't; just challenging assumptions here)

 

[Danoff]

On that topic and for a fun twist, imagine that she's actually the paedophile in the relationship (like, she looks like a kid so she can get away sneaking into schools and other kids' places) and he's just her "beard" of normalcy.

(for clarity I'm sure that's not true and she isn't; just challenging assumptions here)

You mean he's Ghislaine Maxwell to her Jeffrey Epstein. Would be quite the plot twist for the next season of the show.

 

[Imari]

But why is that enough to seal the deal? If that's the case then you are completley dismissing the possibility that he might not be a paedophile despite your other comment. If all it takes is outward appearance and that's enough to seal it then there's absoutely zero chance of it being anything else right?

It's interesting that when someone is in a relationship with a partner significantly younger than them, it's assumed that it's primarily about physical appearance for them.
And when someone is in a relationship with a partner significantly older than them, it's assumed that it's primarily about something other than physical appearance for them.

We accept that people can be in relationships where physical appearance isn't a primary concern in general principle, but when it's someone dating down people seem to find it almost inconceivable that it might be the case. Which I suspect is rather more about projecting their own feelings than any objective observations.

I think I'm mostly right by definition. If you fell in love with someone that looked like a child, and then became attracted to them because of a deep emotional connection, I might say you're a pedophile as well.

But a child is more than just physical appearance, no? I don't think you can take physical appearance as the only relevant defining characteristic of a child. Driving a basic Civic that's been kitted out to look like a race car doesn't make you a race car driver, it just makes you look like one. Dating a woman that looks like a child doesn't make you a pedophile, it just makes you look like one.

The problem with pedophilia isn't that children look like they do. It's that they're inexperienced and vulnerable to manipulation and coercion in ways that adults are not, and that people who would take advantage of this can do staggering amounts of damage.

If you think that there's value in defining pedophiles as people attracted to a specific physical look, then I'd ask what value you think that brings. I think there's value in having a term to define people who are romantically or sexually attracted to actual children in general, because that's where the harm lies. There are children who are physically quite mature, but someone who is attracted to them is still a pedo/hebephile.

I think someone like F1nnst5r can probably be used as an analogy here - the dude passes extremely well as an attractive woman, visually at least. He's not trans, he just crossdresses because he likes it and it makes him a lot of money to do it basically full-time. If he had a girlfriend, does that mean she's gay? That doesn't seem sensible.

 

[Danoff]

It's interesting that when someone is in a relationship with a partner significantly younger than them, it's assumed that it's primarily about physical appearance for them.
And when someone is in a relationship with a partner significantly older than them, it's assumed that it's primarily about something other than physical appearance for them.

We accept that people can be in relationships where physical appearance isn't a primary concern in general principle, but when it's someone dating down people seem to find it almost inconceivable that it might be the case. Which I suspect is rather more about projecting their own feelings than any objective observations.

I know you didn't quote this being responsive to me, but in case this is directed at me, I'll remind you about this post:

Yea it's totally possible that he's not a pedophile. I just think the odds are he is - specifically I mean attracted to child-like appearance.

I can accept that some people have relationships that are not about physical appearance. I also don't assume that just because someone is older, maybe even significantly older, or unattractive to most, doesn't mean that the relationship is NOT about physical appearance in any capacity.

But a child is more than just physical appearance, no? I don't think you can take physical appearance as the only relevant defining characteristic of a child.

Of course not. Actually physical appearance has nothing to do with whether someone is a child.

Dating a woman that looks like a child doesn't make you a pedophile, it just makes you look like one.

It's not entirely dispositive, but I think it's a strong indicator. Just like dating a man, if you're a man, might not be dispositive for defining you as gay, but it is a strong indicator. Whether someone is actually a child is not the point when defining pedophilia. In fact, I would go so far as to define pedophilia as being attracted to child-like characteristics, rather than children per se. I would wager that if someone is a child but doesn't have child-like characteristics, a person who is attracted to them is actually not a pedophile, despite being attracted to a child.

Let's pretend for a moment that I'm attracted to a man who looks extremely feminine. Does that make me gay? I'd argue that it's the characteristics of attraction that define gay, rather than the actual gender itself. If I'm attracted to feminine characteristics, being male, that makes me heterosexual. If someone is attracted to a drawing of a child, because of child-like characteristics, that makes them a pedophile, regardless of the fact that what they're attracted to is actually marks on a piece of paper and not an actual child.

The problem with pedophilia isn't that children look like they do. It's that they're inexperienced and vulnerable to manipulation and coercion in ways that adults are not, and that people who would take advantage of this can do staggering amounts of damage.

Of course. And that's why pedophilia isn't a problem in this case.

If you think that there's value in defining pedophiles as people attracted to a specific physical look, then I'd ask what value you think that brings. I think there's value in having a term to define people who are romantically or sexually attracted to actual children in general, because that's where the harm lies.

Children come in a wide range of appearances. An 8 year old child generally has a very different appearance than a 12 year old or a 16 year old despite all of them being children.

If anything, legally we could use some more refined definition, because an adult who coerces a 17 year old poses a different kind of social risk than an adult who is coerces an 8 year old. I don't know the details of sentencing in US law for these kinds of cases, but I would hope that we treat them significantly differently. I know that edge cases, where say the adult was 18 would be treated differently. But I would hope that we would assess the risk differently for an adult of any age.

I don't think that your definition of pedophilia brings a great deal of value because it lumps too much together that is meaningfully distinct. We could probably find a 16 year old (likely on instagram this second) that is sexually attractive to a huge percentage of people worldwide. I'm confident we could not do the same for an 8 year old. Defining pedophilia based on the legal definition of adult/child would eliminate essentially all meaningful distinction in this category. Going from a specific kind of attraction, often associated with some kind of past trauma, and very rarely associated someone who can consent, all the way to a kind of attraction that applies to a huge swath of the population, not particularly correlated with trauma, and usually correlated with someone who can consent.

I think someone like F1nnst5r can probably be used as an analogy here - the dude passes extremely well as an attractive woman, visually at least. He's not trans, he just crossdresses because he likes it and it makes him a lot of money to do it basically full-time. If he had a girlfriend, does that mean she's gay? That doesn't seem sensible.

If she's attracted to feminine characteristics, it would, at least in that respect. I think that's the only sensible way to define it. When it comes down to it, as @Famine likes to say, nobody can tell what you have in your pants. You can be attracted to a photo of a person, but you don't know their gender (unless it's a very explicit photo). You're attracted to the characteristics of the person in the photo, and often that attraction lines up with characteristics associated with gender. If you're attracted to feminine characteristics and you're female, that would make you gay.

And there's zero wrong with that.