"I am going by science and fact." No, the link you provided defines "pedophiles" as those who are primarily attracted to children. In my post I was talking about all minor-attracted persons and I explicitly included those for whom minor-attraction is a secondary attraction. Circumstantial factors they mention like inaccessibility of adult partners and accessibility of children merely put those secondary attractions into a situation in which they are more likely to be acted upon. Nothing in that article corroborates your attempt to divorce attraction from choice of partner or choice of victim. Neither do the claims made in the article allay the concerns inherent to the question of what role do attractions play in such situations. It is an evasion and it does not do us any service to engage in such evasions. And saying that "MAPs do not proceed without consent" is no less deluded than saying "straights do not proceed without consent" or "gays do not proceed without consent." Minor attraction is simply that: an attraction. But by claiming that simply having some attraction means you're automatically going to abide by some built-in ethical guidelines, you are either profoundly confused or being deliberately dishonest. By going with the former I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But if given sufficient reason I might as well treat you as being deliberately dishonest. "Thank you for the mansplaining here." I don't think you know what "mansplaining" is. "If you disagree, doesn't that make you are a rapist by definition?" Yup. You're definitely being deliberately dishonest. If you make a universal statement about how MAPs do not proceed without consent and I call bullshit on that, it doesn't mean that I'm saying that all MAPs proceed without consent. It means that some do and some don't just like with any other orientation. But you're probably too full of shit to admit that. ![]() |