But, hypothetically,if we called it paedosexuality, and it wasn't abnormal and almost universally condemned...? — Sapientia

Big IF. Sexuality has more than one axis. It isn't just gay or straight. There's also object choice (boys, girls, men, women, horses, corpses, etc.). Apparently some people are even attracted to Donald Trump. There are mating patterns: 1 mate for life, as many mates as possible, 2 or three mates, and so on. There is frequency of mating: once per male bee (but mostly never) and continuously for bonobos of both sexes. (BTW, humans and whales (one other animal, can't remember) are the species that have menopause. Cows, for instance, can continue calving until they drop dead from old age. (Some of these old gray cows look like they really need a rest with menopause.)

So, to be more accurate we could devise words for various positions on the several axes, but that would get very complicated.

Sex between adults and minors (sex between minors, for that matter) is a too-hot-to-handle topic in most settings. Some sort of sexual contact between adults and older minors--hebephilia and ephebophilia--seems common enough that one might wonder if it is possibly "normal" and tolerable. By "normal" I don't mean to suggest that it is a matter to which we should be indifferent.

The problem isn't that pubescent children (and older teenagers) aren't interested in sex. The problem is that adults are interested in the youths as sexual objects, and youth and adult can not enter into a sexual relationship without some sort of complicating leverage being applied by the adult. Many youth (talking teenagers here) are really, really naive, and can't assess an adult's trustworthiness.

MAYBE if we were very good about education children and youth about sex and sexuality, teen agers could better deal with hebephiliacs and ephebophiliacs. Paedophilia (pre-pubescent children) is unacceptable because, as has been observed many times, young children can not give informed consent to sexual activity with an adult. They are incapable of informed consent at that age. Prepubescent children are also not physically and/or psychologically equipped to engage in sex.

Puberty, of course, is not the enlightenment and many physically capable youth know jack shit about sex and sexuality, and that may remain the case well into adulthood.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you just said. (And yeah, that was a very big "if"). One point, though, regarding what you've said about ephebophilia (sexual interest in late adolescents: 15-19). The age of consent for sexual activity in the UK is 16, and, as far as I'm aware, there's no law about how old you have to be to have consensual sexual activity with anyone 16 or over, provided you yourself are 16 or over. There's a minimum age, but not a maximum age. I realise that the law and morality, and the law and sociology, don't necessarily correlate, but I think that in this case, the former two do correlate to an extent. The latter two do not correlate so much, in that many people in many societies frown upon such relations, and do not consider them to be socially acceptable or "normal". But I think that prejudice has a large part to play in that.

as I'm aware, there's no law about how old you have to be to have consensual sexual activity with anyone 16 or over, provided you yourself are 16 or over. — Sapientia

If you're 18 or over then you can't be in a position of authority over someone under 18.

If you're 18 or over then you can't be in a position of authority over someone under 18. — Michael

Yes, I was aware of that exception. Setting that aside then - all else being equal.

I think I can safely assume that just because homosexuality is innate doesn't make it 'justified' (aka naturalistic fallacy, or appeal to nature.)
Sorry for the lack of a better word. — NukeyFox

It also doesn't refute homosexuality.

Homosexuality seems (at least to me) to be quite a shaky topic. And I think it is so, because it's just a specific case of moral luck. And the consequence is something that not everyone can agree too. — NukeyFox

I think so too. There are too many variables to consider (religion, law, disease, children, etc.) and we don't agree on any of the above.

Apologies for bumping this thread, but I have a few thoughts to share:

@andrewk: "What we say about paedophiles and homicidal maniacs (not psychopaths, because psychopathy is about the absence of a constraint, not the presence of an urge) is that, because expression of those urges causes harm, people who are inflicted with those urges will be incarcerated if they are unable to suppress it. This is purely a matter of harm minimisation."

OK; I'll bite: What if *some* people with such inclinations could be *permanently* satisfied *exclusively* through harm-free outlets for their desires such as *cartoon/animated* child porn, child sex dolls, child sex robots, and virtual murder in things such as video games (possibly in extremely realistic and lifelike video games)? If someone (not everyone, but a specific person) with such inclinations is indeed capable of being *permanently* satisfied with things such as child sex dolls, should they actually be given the opportunity to own/possess and have sex with child sex dolls (and I also obviously mean pushing to change the relevant laws in regards to this beforehand) or should they still be compelled to get castrated?

@Bitter Crank: Technically speaking, even pedophiles have harm-free outlets to express their sex drives--such as child sex dolls--at least if the governments of their countries would not prohibit such things.

Now of course it's VERY possible (and indeed probably even very likely) that some pedophiles will NOT be satisfied with harm-free outlets to express their sex drive and still be hungry for the real thing (possibly in part because they will be sociopaths and lack empathy), but it's also possible that some other pedophiles might indeed be permanently satisfied with harm-free outlets for their sex drives (such as, again, child sex dolls--especially if they're extremely realistic). MUCH more research needs to be done on this, frankly--assuming that such research is actually possible to ever conduct safely, of course.