Would it even work?

[mrlolicon93]

Would a long term relationship between a minor and an adult even work?

Considering the massive age difference and where both people are in life i am not so sure.

Not to mention when the child grows up they will not be the same person and throughout their youth they are constantly changing.

[PorcelainLark]

How long does a long-term relationship have to be? And how clear cut is AoA?
My AoA is 8 to 10, though I could be attracted to girls that are a year older or younger. 4 years feel like enough for a long-term relationship, but if you were also non-exclusive (as I am), it could last longer.
I was thinking most adult-minor relationships would be pederastic like, where MAPs would train as private tutors and serve like a teacher or nanny as a profession. If you didn't have a taboo of AMSC, it just makes sense for MAPs to be involved in bringing up children. You have a group of people that naturally pay more attention to children, so why not make use of that? That's also my evolutionary theory of why pedophilia exists (since the argument that it's to encourage breeding at the earliest possible point doesn't explain true pedophilia).

[gedjarvis]

I don't believe in adult relationships, so relationships between men and boys I judge the same way.

[John_Doe]

I had this vague idea for a thread related to this. Does a preference for significantly younger partners undermine the concept of romantic commitment. A relationship that lasts for years is still 'long-term' but a preference for people under a certain age seems to negate the possibility of a 'life partner' (unless maybe anti-aging medical advancements led to a world where everyone stays young but that's irrelevant to the world as it currently is). A few years will probably seem longer to a child than to an adult, if that makes a difference (so maybe the child would be less interested in a commitment, especially or at least if it's exclusive).

I was thinking most adult-minor relationships would be pederastic like, where MAPs would train as private tutors and serve like a teacher or nanny as a profession. If you didn't have a taboo of AMSC, it just makes sense for MAPs to be involved in bringing up children. You have a group of people that naturally pay more attention to children, so why not make use of that?

I have to be honest, even though I can somewhat see your point, one thing I don't really agree with is the idea of pedophiles having a special 'interest' in children in certain areas/ways (e.g. the idea that MAPs are better suited for certain professions; I think there's a thread about that I haven't read, or generally with the idea of MAPs being more empathetic to children). Even as I write this out I do see your point and I can imagine this being the case in some scenarios, but not in the ways some people seem to think (if that's vague, it's hard for me to articulate). I think some of the rhetoric about pedophiles as pedophiles loving children and just being people who are wired to devote themselves to children's welfare is dishonest or naive but I can see how, 'politically,' separating sex from love can make pedophiles seem more monstrous (in the same way that LGBTQ activists emphasized homosexuality being about 'love' and not sexual pleasure and polyamorous people also seem to want to emphasize their lifestyle being about 'relationships' and not sex). I can't personally see the appeal in sexual intimacy without affection or emotional intimacy, affection is a natural consequence of attraction and intimacy for me but, at the same time, sexual attraction is ultimately about self-gratification, it's not altruistic. You don't have to like the people you are attracted to either, it can be a burden/unwanted, so it doesn't seem inconceivable to me that there are pedophiles who don't care about or actively dislike specific children they're attracted to (never mind the ones they're not sexually interested in) or children in general (even if you don't want them to be the face of the MAP movement, my point is such a person could exist and would be a genuine pedosexual), and disliking someone counteracts felt physical attraction to them since stress lowers felt attraction/sexual pleasure but even if we associate people with their bodies and appearance, the traits that trigger primal attraction have nothing to do with what makes you like someone as a person (if you truly love a child, that won't go away once they start puberty, or finish it if you're hebephile).

I don't believe in adult relationships

You haven't posted in a year but, if you ever do again, I'd be interested in your perspective on this.

I would love it if there were a term for people who have no interest in 'structured romantic relationships' and prefer casual sex but find sex without affection and emotional intimacy to be boring (so 'romance' without commitment or exclusivity), and/or people who oppose sexual exclusivity under a pro- 'sexual happiness for all' worldview (which isn't to say that I personally want to think about everyone sexually, my point is that if two very unrealistic women were attracted to me I wouldn't want there to be competition between them, even if I wasn't with them for entirely altruistic reasons I would value the sexual happiness of each so beyond personal preference I think there's an ethical reason to oppose contractual monogamy/exclusivity for the sake of exclusivity. Even though the idea of sharing a partner with certain men, like a family member or someone who looks as though they could be a family member, is repelling to me it's a similar idea with valuing the sexual happiness of other men, and women, who could be attracted to my hypothetical partner. Being open to everyone you're physically attracted to helps to ensure sexual gratification for as many people as is possible).

[Bookshelf]

I think a "natural" relationship with a minor would end as they get out of your AoA, and they would move on to other people while you remain friends. In a pro-c society you wouldn't feel the need to hold on to it as you'd have a new minor in your AoA to start a relationship with.

I don't necessarily think this means MAP relationships are doomed. It should realistically be viewed as a normal phase of people's lives, and when it's over, you stay close as you start relationships with other people.

It's not like adult relationships are any better anyway. Most of them only last a few years, and of the ones that do make it decades, they usually end up hating eachother. Divorce rates are 50%, and a good chunk of them that stay together just devolve into loathing, abuse, cheating...

[David24828]

well if it did back then why wouldn't it work now, I remember when my grandpa meet my grandma when they were young I guess 13 and 17 is not that big of an age difference but going back a few hundred years, you would see that kind of relationships anywhere really, and it was acceptable in society, like for example pederasty in ancient greece or man - girl relationships that were back then world wide.

[Theendoftheline]

well if it did back then why wouldn't it work now, I remember when my grandpa meet my grandma when they were young I guess 13 and 17 is not that big of an age difference but going back a few hundred years, you would see that kind of relationships anywhere really, and it was acceptable in society, like for example pederasty in ancient greece or man - girl relationships that were back then world wide.

These days most people view that as "sick" for whatever reason. even now if a17 is flirty with a 15 yo people go "omfg ur almost 18 pedo"....I, i dont get it and I cannot and do not think I will EVER be able to fathom why people are this way now.

[bnkywuv]

People change even after adulthood yet some can maintain long term relationships despite this. I don't see how it would be different with certain age gaps.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

It depends on the people and sexual attraction and romantic interest are not always the same thing.

Many people date, have active sex lives that then dwindle and die out. That physical attraction reduces and for many goes completely, but they remain in love and maintain an element of romance. Any marriage counsellor will tell newly weds to not expect sexual desire to remain at the level of a new couple.

For some people, the love and romance is enough that they remain strong together as a couple without the same sexual feelings.
For others, sexual desire is a stronger need and that leads to men and women cheating on each other or divorcing.
For others, especially younger people, a sex life is more important than love and romance and they stay single and just enjoy a sex life with multiple partners.

I think it's the same for maps and young partners.

Some maps would maintain short term relationships, driving more by sexual fulfillment. That will suit many young people more because young people are unlikely to want to settle down to a long term commitment. They would want a caring partner and fulfilling sex life but not marriage, they have education and career to think about.

Some maps would find themselves in relationships that do become long term through mutual wants. The mutual sexual attraction would reduce and go away but the love and romantic interest would remain as it does in most marriages.

Some maps would try to maintain a long term relationship but just find they can't and those relationships would in time end.

It's just the same as for non-maps really.