"Minor-Attraction is ephemeral" argument

[Jim Burton]

This argument (see Debate Guide for a generalized treatment) seems to be one of the weaker ones against minor-attraction.

I do not see how it counts as a con in the comparison with other kinds of attraction, since it is entirely plausible that a naturally beautiful boy or girl will have exposure to multiple and different types of MAPs as he or she matures.

Some MAPs are exclusively into very young, prepubertal kids who look like mini supermodels. Some are more into mid-adolescents who still retain some of those characteristics, while being more sexually mature. Others are more like teleios - they like late school and college kids and sometimes full adults as well.

If a youth has basic intelligence, in addition to natural beauty, it is likely they will be able to benefit financially and in other ways from multiple relations with multiple MAPs. This would just be normal - it would become a pro of MAP relationships rather than a con.

The ephemeral argument appears to be rooted in regressive social conservatism, relationship-model normativity, and slut-shaming. The only reason it is popular, is because it targets an unfashionable group - and therefore "liberals" will employ it selectively, suddenly becoming day-trip conservatives to hate on the "peedos".

[OnionPetal]

The crux of this 'argument' is based on the false stereotype that all MAPs sexually objectify youth, and would 'use' and then cast aside their partners like 'objects' once they reach a certain 'expiration date.' The argument relies on the assertion that MAPs only desire sex, and that MAPs are cold, callous, and selfish in their pursuit of only sex, and that they would deceive a young partner into believing otherwise, with no consideration or empathy for the younger partner. This is really defamatory.

Sure, there may be some MAPs somewhere who are only interested in sex, with no romantic or emotional interest, with a strictly specific and exclusive AoA, and would even be willing to deceive to get what they want. But this can be said about plenty of teleiophiles, as well. So it is absolutely unfair to smear an entire orientation in this way.

They cannot really expect that all relationships must last forever. But if they pretend as much, then they have the burden of proving why MAPs are apparently the only orientation that is incapable of long-term commitment beyond sexual activity. If sterile old married couples can honor their commitments to each other, in the absence of gerontophilia, then any orientation can.

But when speaking in true empirical generalities, it's all a moot point, because as in the cited article, young people are the ones most likely to break things off.

[BLueRibbon]

Great topic, and an excellent response (as usual) from OnionPetal.

This discussion really needs a Mu article, which I can write in May if reminded.

[John_Doe]

The crux of this 'argument' is based on the false stereotype that all MAPs sexually objectify youth, and would 'use' and then cast aside their partners like 'objects' once they reach a certain 'expiration date.' The argument relies on the assertion that MAPs only desire sex, and that MAPs are cold, callous, and selfish in their pursuit of only sex, and that they would deceive a young partner into believing otherwise, with no consideration or empathy for the younger partner. This is really defamatory.

Sure, there may be some MAPs somewhere who are only interested in sex, with no romantic or emotional interest, with a strictly specific and exclusive AoA, and would even be willing to deceive to get what they want. But this can be said about plenty of teleiophiles, as well. So it is absolutely unfair to smear an entire orientation in this way.

They cannot really expect that all relationships must last forever. But if they pretend as much, then they have the burden of proving why MAPs are apparently the only orientation that is incapable of long-term commitment beyond sexual activity. If sterile old married couples can honor their commitments to each other, in the absence of gerontophilia, then any orientation can.

But when speaking in true empirical generalities, it's all a moot point, because as in the cited article, young people are the ones most likely to break things off.

I wasn't sure what the argument was because I didn't know what 'ephemeral' meant. I have to somewhat disagree with you because I do think that a preference for younger partners (not just people who happen to be younger than you; in the same way that most people seem to prefer a height gap in romantic relationships where the man is at least slightly taller than the woman, but for infants, children, adolescents or young adults) implies that your interest is inherently transient (I suppose this only applies to exclusive preferences; while I personally am not exclusively attracted to women under 40 I only have a strong attraction to people who look as though they could be in their early adulthood, or 'adolescence'). I suspect that this is part of why so many women (including young women) have such a big problem with significant age-gap relationships between legal adults, because it implies future male rejection (maybe I'm being unnecessarily obnoxious, never mind presumptive because I'm sure opposition has different motivations, but I'm only considering what might be true). I also take issue with your concept of objectification because I don't have a problem with a relationship that is strictly sexual...

I wouldn't personally want to have sex with someone without any emotional connection (it would be uninteresting if I couldn't anticipate cuddling or making out afterward when my libido is at its lowest point so it's hard for me to understand contrasting someone who's 'only interested in sex' with someone who also has some emotional interest in their partner because sex seems like a recreational bonding experience to me) but I wouldn't be interested in formal/committed 'relationships' either, not in any real life scenario (and definitely not exclusivity). It's not a bad rule of thumb to say that you shouldn't have sex with someone who isn't a friend, or whom you couldn't see being a friend, but as long as everyone is on the same page about what the relationship is (so no one suffers from the frustration of unrealistic expectations they had) I don't see a problem with a relationship that revolves around sexual intimacy. The lack of consideration for others doesn't become especially heinous when you combine it with sexual attraction or throw a sexual element into a relationship. If I lost attraction to someone I was with (say a friend-with-benefits, which is not the same thing as a sex buddy), I would probably still engage in some intimacy with them (sexual, if they wanted it; and spending personal time with them although I'd rather avoid groups and being in public in general) but in every relationship both parties are or should be aware of the fact that, unfortunately, their partner might lose their attraction to them, they inevitably will.

I wouldn't say that it's a moot point based on statistical norms. Some young people might want to continue a relationship that an older party is no longer interested in.

You mention defaming an orientation but the extent to which someone is a 'MAP' is the extent to which they wouldn't be interested in people who aren't minors. In other words, MAPs can be interested in legal adults because they are also 'teleiophiles,' in the same way that 'gay' (same-sex-attracted ) people can be attracted to the opposite sex only if they're also 'straight' (opposite-sex-attracted), but if they are we'll probably note them as bi-sexual (which, logically, means both gay and straight but people often want to differentiate them from pure gay and pure straight people). If I have a bottom line it might be that you should value the happiness of all people and if someone is your friend (which is more related to the psychology of that than 'romance' or sexual attraction) then you won't end your friendship with them just because you lose sexual attraction to them, even if maybe you agree that sex will no longer be a part of your friendship. It's pretty messed up to not be friends with someone because of what they look like but we expect people to not pursue sexual relationships with people who look a certain way because attraction is totally amoral and involuntary and some of the critiques of 'objectification' seem to miss that.

[OnionPetal]

I wasn't sure what the argument was because I didn't know what 'ephemeral' meant. [...]

Thanks for your honesty.

[...] I also take issue with your concept of objectification [...]

Not my concept. Antis making this argument are the ones who suggest that all MAPs treat minors like 'objects.' This smear is well documented.

I don't have a problem with a relationship that is strictly sexual...

My issue is with people who assert that ALL MAP relationships are strictly sexual, and that MAPs don't actually care about their partners, only about sex. This is objectively false. It's the type of smear that pseudo-intellectual antis use when they can't easily get away with just calling all MAPs 'predators.'

I wouldn't say that it's a moot point based on statistical norms. Some young people might want to continue a relationship that an older party is no longer interested in.

Sure, let's talk about those rare minority of cases, which DISPROVE everything antis assert about children. Antis assert that sexual activity is inherently 'harmful' to minors. But if the older partner no longer consents to sexual activity, then they are also harming minors by withholding this 'harmful' activity? Antis frequently assert that children aren't mature enough to feel true romantic love. And at the same time, if the relationship fizzles out, we are to believe that the child will be romantically devastated by the love they could not even feel? Well which is it? Nevermind how exceedingly rare it would be for a MAP to suddenly ditch a kid, despite the kid pleading for their kisses.

It is a moot point in the context of false stereotypes. The data indicates that the above rare scenario is far from a majority of cases, and not an accurate generalisation of MAP relationships, despite what antis would like you to believe.

[...] their partner might lose their attraction to them, they inevitably will.

Not 'inevitably.' Perhaps the simplest rebuttal is the relationship of Eunice and Charlie Johns, whose happy marriage lasted a full lifetime.

[John_Doe]

OnionPetal,

I can't disagree with most of this.

Sure, let's talk about those rare minority of cases, which DISPROVE everything antis assert about children. Antis assert that sexual activity is inherently 'harmful' to minors. But if the older partner no longer consents to sexual activity, then they are also harming minors by withholding this 'harmful' activity? Antis frequently assert that children aren't mature enough to feel true romantic love. And at the same time, if the relationship fizzles out, we are to believe that the child will be romantically devastated by the love they could not even feel? Well which is it? Nevermind how exceedingly rare it would be for a MAP to suddenly ditch a kid, despite the kid pleading for their kisses.

To play 'devil's advocate,' not that I don't think this is something that should be seriously considered, a personalized rejection from an older partner whom one has history with might be more damaging than their never having been open to a relationship to begin with (especially if it's understood that their justification is not wanting to 'exploit' or hurt the younger partner and not the younger party's lack of attractiveness as an individual). When you already have a relationship with someone (and I think this applies to sources of happiness in general) you become 'addicted' to them, it becomes familiar and something you expect which is why the death of someone you're emotionally attached to will probably hurt more than the death of someone you like and respect but never had a close long-term relationship with (I don't think this contradicts my belief that, unlike emotional attachment, over-familiarity breeds sexual desensitization). Even though I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with incest (parent-child or otherwise) and I'm not turned off by the idea of a sexual/romantic relationship with a hypothetical/fantasy daughter, I think there's an argument to be made that people benefit when they can rely on their opposite-sex parent (or same-gendered parent if they're gay) for an unconditional love that stands regardless of how attractive they are (I can think of one or two youtubers who have stated this better than I have). That unconditional love isn't necessarily incompatible with self-serving sexual attraction but it might 'complicate' things for some people or you could argue, for example, that a girl's father should be the 'one' man she never has to worry about what she brings to the table in their relationship or 'pleasing' him in order for him to reciprocate her attraction (I'm definitely not trying to come up with a hard fast rule that applies to all scenarios, even practical ones, I'm just considered arguments rooted in risk aversion). Imagine, for example, that even at a young age your appearance changes and the insecurities that might stem from an older partner breaking things off because they're no longer physically attracted to you. To be fair, that has nothing to do with age-gap relationships per se; children and teens can be rejected by other children and teens, adults are rejected by other adults, the only way I can see that being notable when it's children is because they are especially vulnerable but I don't think the distress of the vulnerable fundamentally matters more; vulnerability should be considered because vulnerable people are more likely to suffer to begin with (and again, young people can be rejected by other young people).

That might be a moot point in terms of the stereotypes that actually exist (or the actual reasons why people condemn minor-adult relationships), but it's something to consider (and individuals matter even when they're statistical anomalies). I've also never understood the idea that what teenagers feel is 'puppy love' and they don't know what 'real love' is (I probably disagreed with that assumption long before my attitude on child-adult sex changed, all of the hormones that play a role in romantic infatuation are present in teenagers) but I think so much of the idea of 'love' or romantic relationships has nothing to do with what people actually feel, so maybe some of them mean that they're not mature enough to take commitments seriously which I think is still backwards.

Sexual/romantic frustration in children is something people should care about but most will never, ever take it seriously (it might be because we're not used to thinking of happiness as having 'moral value' so sexual pleasure/the euphoria associated with infatuation is seen as supererogatory and if one eliminates their desire for sex and romance then the absence of it won't bother them anymore). It's not even a factor in the equation, to be weighed against risks and costs of a less restrictive approach to adolescent sexuality. That said, I want to be honest in assuming that adults would be the primary beneficiaries of loosening up restrictions (when it comes to age-gap stigma where the young party is seen as a victim, not necessarily condemning or socially ostracizing teenage girls for being 'sluts'). I don't want to undermine the heartache a child or teenager might feel as a result of not being allowed intimacy with a specific adult, or even another child or young teen, whom they love (and no one knows what tomorrow brings so the opportunity might not exist later, which relates to the point I'm getting ready to make. It's also worth noting that the stigma around older teens being with significantly older partners could affect them the same way even if sex with legal adults after 16 or 17 is perfectly legal. Many people might not even want to have sex, they might just want to go on dates and be in relationships in the same way that a Christian couple can date while waiting until marriage before they have actual sex), but at least with them the idea is that you can have all the sex you want to when you come of age but if you prefer significantly younger partners you're not just expected to endure a delay in gratification; you are never supposed to have the opportunity to be with someone you're attracted to (or prefer, depending on how exclusive your interests are). That doesn't apply to children or young teens who will strongly prefer their own age group even as they age though.

Not 'inevitably.' Perhaps the simplest rebuttal is the relationship of Eunice and Charlie Johns, whose happy marriage lasted a full lifetime.

I can't disprove this but I don't believe it. I don't doubt that many people love their spouses until the day that they die but a relationship built on basic companionship, loyalty and commitment is not sexual attraction or even infatuation. Commitment is a choice but people have no direct control over who they're sexually attracted to (I'm not convinced that they even have indirect control, say through some kind of conversion therapy). I don't believe that people's sexual preferences change in 'significant' ways over time, even if they settle for less than ideal partners as they age.

To go back to the point I made in my other post, insofar as someone admits to a preference for young people I don't think it's unreasonable to assume an aversion to long-term commitment (romantic commitments, not 'I will always care for you' commitment), depending on how strong or exclusive their preference is. I'm not sure how common it might be for people to claim that their partners in their 60s, 70s and beyond are their physical ideal or even that they're sexually attracted to them, the idea is often that as you get older 'you care less about looks' which might imply that they're not claiming to be strongly physically attracted to them which might undermine my point but when you remove physical attraction I don't know what besides cohabitation and a sense of exclusivity (or the formal label of wife/husband, girlfriend/boyfriend or significant other) distinguishes a 'romantic' relationship from platonic ones. If you can reasonably ask people to commit to people they're not physically attracted to, I don't see why you can't expect gays to open themselves up to long-term relationships with opposite-sex people. It seems to me that the general cultural norm is some level of dishonesty about one's attraction or the nature of sex and 'romance' and that if we were all brutally honest about how sexual attraction works, the idea of a free love culture without formal commitments ('romantic' commitments, not friendship or valuing the welfare of the other person unconditionally) or exclusivity; where sex and physical intimacy associated with it (e.g. cuddling and kissing) were just seen as recreational/casual bonding activities with people you're attracted to, might seem less unacceptable.

[reaver]

The ephemeral argument appears to be rooted in regressive social conservatism, relationship-model normativity, and slut-shaming.

OK, then let the woke crowd ante up their 4-year-old daughters, so they can get the benefit as would-be whores, to be discarded at will by straight men, as they grow!