LogFAQs > #891936908

Zeus posted...

For starters, your two years argument isn't based on biology but instead sociology -- ie, the responsibilities thrust on youths -- which, if anything, undermines your entire argument and makes things MORE arbitrary.

Sociology is not a more arbitrary basis than biology. Living in a society with those norms is pretty unavoidable when we're talking about a society with those norms. Go to a different country, where people tend to start living on their own during high school? Yeah, the expectations of maturity would differ. But we're not looking at a different country.

Zeus posted...

Second, the maturity leap is nowhere near as large as think.

It's the difference between not needing to have your own money to survive and needing to. That's a pretty big deal, in terms of the need to make responsible life decisions. Student loans and continued support from parents tend to mean the transition is relatively gradual, but it's still a very big difference. Somebody who completed that transition over a decade prior actively seeking out a romantic partner who hasn't started it yet is definitely no bueno.

Zeus posted...

And third, and more importantly, you have different kinds of maturity. The idea that because somebody is mature in one area that they're going to automatically be mature in others is flat-out wrong.

One could pretty easily argue that financial independence is the most important form of maturity here. When you get one person who's financially established picking up someone who isn't, there's always room to question whether the allure of financial support is playing a role in the latter person agreeing to the relationship. When the latter person is a minor, and the better-off person can offer them freedom from the looming threat of needing to support themselves? There's definitely a power imbalance there, and it's power imbalances that are the basis for the concept statutory rape.

That, and while different forms of maturity certainly exist, they're not entirely independent of each other, barring some considerable mental health concerns. Acting as though they typically are is pretty absurd.

Zeus posted...

Which is why you should stop misusing it because the standard, readily understood definition is something else entirely.

The standard, readily-understood definition is the vernacular one. That's what "vernacular" means. "Ephebophile" is not in the vernacular. It's a term used almost exclusively by people who are trying to downplay how creepy it is to pick up romantic partners in a high school by using pedantry to distract from the core issue, typically either because they are themselves inclined toward such behaviours, or because they can't handle the cognitive dissonance associated with somebody they like being a creepy wanker.

Zeus posted...

Nothing I said then conflicts with what I'm saying now.

Saying? No. How you're acting? Absolutely. That was "What a creep." This is "guys, don't be so hard on him. He's not THAT much of a creep."
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.