Serve, then Follow Through

Continuing my underage sex talk from 2 posts ago, it was pointed out to me that the reason we think of age-different pairings as abusive is the low probability of emotional attachment. 24 will tend to think of 15 as a toy or a challenge rather than a serious relationship. (also the 15 is easier to ply) The tendency to form emotional connection is rather lower than if 17 paired 15. While 15 is arguably young for a romantic relationship it is entirely reasonable to assume that 17-15 has a greater possibility of forming true bonds between individuals rather than something to be enjoyed momentarily and shelved when no longer fun.

Another point made was that the imaginary age line I spoke of is placed there to demographically screen at what point in peoples lives are they least likely to form abusive connections.

I agreed with this reasoning, but I was not convinced that people below that line should not be thought of sexually. I realize that as a 21 expressing sexual interest in a 17 one may be called a pervert, a sicko, or any number of unpleasant adjectives, but if an 18 is allowed to lust after a 17 why isn't a 21? Or 34?

Lust does not automatically equate to something we'd like to carry through and get on with. Watching the Matrix made my heart stop, and the idea of being a redpill with two of these babies strapped to my hip excites my senses and fills my thoughts. But when it comes to actually shooting someone in the neck? Not bloody likely.

This has led me to believe that a major part of the problem lies in the reality/fantasy line.

You know how people are always blaming video games for real life violence? Or sex in the movies as the cause of societal ill?

Yeah. And Wile E. Coyote made kids fall off cliffs with anvils strapped to their backs.

Essentially, there has always existed some level of skepticism re: the difference between our heads and hearts. The problem stems from a general fear and lack of faith... rather, the belief that just because you think something means you're somehow more prone to do it sooner or later.

On topic: If someone fantasizes about having sex with children, our initial reaction may be to lock him up. Make sure that person never goes near a kid again. Q: Why? Because we fear the thoughts may be translated into actions and we want to protect the children. Quite right. This is a sensible course of action only if it was highly likely that they were going to do so. The same person may fantasize about walking into a supermarket and opening fire. Should we lock them person up? Yes, if it is highly likely that they are going to do so.

The problem here is the difference between thinking and doing. Thinking about something does not bring it closer to the truth. Desiring something does not make it more likely. It's only when those thoughts are combined with some sort of action does that danger becomes inherent. I could lust after Krispy Kremes for the rest of my natural life but only if I start lounging in airports and putting aside money for a ticket should my friends handcuff me to a chair.

I think the fear comes from not knowing, and indeed that is the scariest thing of all.