Tal, in my previous post, I said, "call me all the names you want."
1). Nope. See my response above. Did not willfully invent. Did not imply you were in favor of pedophilia, just that if we remove all limitations on the definitions involved, then all subsets would be included (which is true). That argument makes no reference to any individual and implies nothing of the sort:
<I would argue that a blanket prescriptive such as 'no wrong way to love' might not work out terribly well for many others who need social and legal protections (minor children, for instance).>
And this:
<removing any and all restrictions to a definition (saying there is "no right way to be a couple") means that the subsets now included in that pool might be much larger (and more unintentional) than originally thought."
See, no reference to Tal anywhere -- not even a hint. The salient point here is about blanket prescriptives: that creating an all-inclusive rule might lead to problems when subgroups that shouldn't be included, are -- like minors. I'm glad to know we both agree that social and legal protections for minors are necessary.
Also, I addressed "no wrong way to be a couple" on its own merits in the post above -- and there's no response to that.
2). Ad hominem attacks: Yes, I think that labeling someone an "elitist," "unbelievably presumptuous," and accusing them of "rash judgment" and "ignorance," (plus assuming they're "unhappy") because they disagree with you is ad hominem. If you need a refresher on ad hominem attacks, try this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominemLooks like there's some labeling, inflammatory epithets and emotional appeals out there without analysis or reasoning. Besides, that's a non-response that fails to address the issues. Simply repeating the assertion that my arguments arise from "ignorance" and "rely on ignoring or discounting the testimonies of millions of happy couples" doesn't do it: where's the evidence for those millions -- or even any kind of thoughtful, reasoned analysis and discussion about why this position is "ignorant" or how suggesting that age-gap relationships can have very real costs is "rash" and "prejudiced?"
3. I never outlined any version of equality, nor implied that it was an ideal -- just that <Although some couples may neither value nor desire equality and mutuality in their relationships, these qualities are, as Hara Estroff Romano explains in “Love and Power” (Psychology Today, 47.1 (Jan/Feb. 2014), p. 55-80), essential to a healthy long-term relationship in many ways...>
Romano is a credible source who's done research on this topic for years and interviewed many couples and women about equality in relationships. Are you now arguing that equality is unimportant or that the research which finds most women are happier in marriages which feature equality is "presumptuous" and "ignorant?"
You characterize the evidence presented as "pronouncements of academic ideologues insulated from the complexities of real humans in the real world..."
Interesting, since the previous post criticized lack of evidence to support my ideas. So, I cited some well-researched studies published in credible sources (including peer-reviewed journals), they're dismissed with the generalization above -- even though these researchers arrived at their conclusions by interviewing real-life people involved in complex relationships in the real world.
From my previous post:
<While we may, in theory, claim that there is "no right way to be a couple," I suggest that age-gap couples should, at a minimum, consider the human costs of their relationship, particularly to children (and step-children) involved.>
How is this NOT "real-world," as well as the situations described, including the relationships between a student and teacher, doctor and patient's parent, my student, my daughter, and my great-grandparents?
I think you miss the point here, which is that anyone involved in an age-gap relationship should consider the social, familial, and personal costs involved at least as much as their own desires.
4. <implying that your version of "equality" is the one true highest value for all people at all places>
No, I've never stated or even implied that there's any kind of "ideal" relationship out there for everyone -- not even close. In case you missed it, I've stated at least three other times that if age-gap (or any other kind) of relationship works for an individual couple, good for them.
5. <*you would be all in favour of a relationship between an OLDER WOMAN and a YOUNGER MAN>.
Nope. Notice that in both the student/teacher and doctor/client situations referenced, the relationships were older woman/younger man. Also, I've used gender-neutral phrases like, "younger partner," and "participant," as well as describing my personal feelings about a relationship in which one partner is old enough to be the other's biological parent. It doesn't matter who's older or younger.
Even if I were inclined to do so (and I'm NOT), I wouldn't date someone in my kids' age bracket out of respect and consideration for them. As other posters have noted, that situation usually doesn't work out well for the children.
6. How is it "stigmatizing" these relationships to observe they may not work for everyone, that they come with very real risks and consequences, and that participants should consider the human costs before engaging?
Other posters have mentioned how these relationships can affect the children and step-children, as well as the social dichotomies that seem to be present with respect to gender and age-gap relationships. Are you going to call them <elitist and presumptuous...sexist and illiberal>, too?
7. This has been interesting, and I'm glad many diverse voices and opinions have contributed to a spirited and often heated discussion of this topic (as Tevai said very well above), but I think I'd rather be off hiking with my kids, whipping up a nice batch of vegan curry, and enjoying some laughter, adventure, and maybe a bit of peace and quiet. Cheers!