The reason for the ratio is because this is very close to a pedophilia apologist viewpoint blurring the lines between attraction and consent. If they are an adult with the body of a twelve year old, why would another adult be sexually attracted to them (their body)? At what point is the line between respecting an individual’s autonomy to present as a minor, and sexually objectifying actual minors?
But that is why the downvotes. Because it is very easy to read the original post as “nah, it’s not pedophilia, they’re technically legal!”
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 months ago
I don’t understand. Do pedophile apologists say that consent isn’t necessary if one is attracted to kids or something? Like those rape defenders who invoke nature to say “rape happens in animals, hence there is nothing immoral about rape in humans”?. Sorry if I come off as a little dense. I am unaware of this viewpoint (in fact, I’ve never really discussed about this topic with anyone before).
Cuz they’re likely a pedophile. But this wouldn’t be immoral as the other party has all the knowledge and experience of a consenting adult.
I imagine that minors are sexually objectified either ways. Like… A pedophile probably thinks of some kid while masturbating, no? How’s that different from having sex with an adult who looks like a kid?
But that is what it is a little, no? Forget legality, I’m talking more on morality grounds. According to my definition of pedophilia, you would still be a pedophile if u were attracted to kid-like people. But in this case, consensual sex would be permissible as no damage is being done to anyone (as both parties can consent).