Edit: To those downvoting, could please comment the reason as to why you are downvoting? The comments that are there right now do not explain the reason for the downvotes. I am genuinely curious as to what the thinking behind disliking the post is.

Imagine you are a trans woman in the 15th century. You lack the tech to grow boobs. You lack the tech to make ur dick into a vagina. However, the want still exists and is very real.

Now imagine the year is 2124. You are 55 years old. The tech to look exactly like you looked when you were sayyy 12 exists. You want to look like that. I would say that looking like that is your right. It’s your body after all.

However, you are still 55 years old. You just LOOK like a child. But you possess the ability to consent. Is having sex with such people moral? (I would say it is).

This however introduces problems. How do you differentiate between actual children and people who physically look like children? Would this be a political issue then? Would adults who want to have sex with adults (but those who look like kids) be discriminated against? Would there be movements for this?

  • UraniumBlazerOPEnglish
    42·
    7 months ago

    The reason for the ratio is because this is very close to a pedophilia apologist viewpoint blurring the lines between attraction and consent.

    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).

    If they are an adult with the body of a twelve year old, why would another adult be sexually attracted to them (their body)?

    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.

    At what point is the line between respecting an individual’s autonomy to present as a minor, and sexually objectifying actual minors?

    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?

    Because it is very easy to read the original post as “nah, it’s not pedophilia, they’re technically legal!”

    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).