This Substack post by Scott Alexander (Astral Codex Ten) caught my eye — especially this passage:
[F]rom … a … biological … point … of … view … , homosexuality … and … pedophilia … are probably … pretty … similar. Both are “sexual targeting errors”: from an evolutionary point of view, our genes get passed down through couplings with sexually mature opposite-sex partners, and our instincts probably evolved to promote this. But instincts are hard - ducks sometimes decide humans are their mother and imprint on them - so sexual targeting errors are pretty common….
If this is accurate, the … relevant … difference … between … homosexuality … and … pedophilia … is … moral … , not … biological. Both are sexual targeting errors, but one re-targets sexuality onto other people who can consent and won’t be harmed, so it’s fine. The other targets people who can’t consent and will be harmed, so it’s bad.
The ellipses replace Ns, which Alexander placed in the quoted sentences in the hope that they wouldn’t be taken out of context. I am not about to take the quoted sentences out of context. I am going to use them as a springboard for a different perspective on homosexuality and pedophilia.
Human beings aren’t ducks. Human homosexuals and pedophiles don’t make “sexual targeting errors”, they make deliberate choices about the kinds of persons with whom they want to have sexual relations.
In the case of homosexuality, a “real” homosexual may find a willing partner in a neophyte of the same sex. The neophyte may be a psychologically immature person who is
too shy to approach a member of the opposite sex;
in need of emotional comfort and sexual release; or
just “trying it out” because non-binary is trendy.
In any case, the person may be deflected (temporarily or permanently) from heterosexuality, with resulting feelings of shame, guilt, and remorse. (The blithe assumption that “consent” means “won’t be harmed” is utterly stupid.)
I take the statement that pedophiles target “people who can’t consent” to mean that the “people” in question are minors who are either raped (i.e., don’t consent) or are too young to make make informed judgements about engaging in sexual relations. In either case they will have been harmed physically, emotionally, or both.
Rape is rape, and the fact of it doesn’t depend on the age of the victim or the sexual preferences of the rapist.
That leaves us with the seduction of a same-sex minor. The seducer finds a willing partner (willing at the moment) who may be in need of emotional comfort or who badly wants whatever “gift” the seducer may be offering. Depending on the psychological age of the seduced minor, willingness might also have a sexual component (including curiosity about homosexuality).
In sum, the only bright line between homosexual seduction of a neophyte of any age and homosexual pedophilia is whether there is rape (physically, not statutorily):
If there is rape, any distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia is irrelevant, morally.
If there is no rape, there is no essential difference between homosexual seduction and homosexual pedophilia. They belong in the same moral bin.