>1st: Social Morals in the west are created by a small minority and enforced by their immense wealth
True, but that does not mean that it's inherently bad. If a minority stumbled upon the One True Morality, it would be immoral to not force it on the rest. This is a genetic fallacy. So long as you accept that there is a correct morality, that is. And if you reject that, then it's still not relevant, because what you make your moral judgement more correct than theirs?
>2nd: Age Difference between teenage girls and older men is a better match economically, psychological and even sexually. Older men = lower libido, mature enough to wear a rubber and economically evolved enough to support a teenage girls fairytales.
>3rd: A teenage boy's hormones are far more relevant to a cougar who's hormones are also in a similar state. She is mature enough to manage birth control without having to wait to get pregnant, financially mature enough to show the young man a good time and appreciate is appetites. And psychologically adept enough to reassure the young man he's safe, there is nothing dirty about fucking your mom's best friend.
These cannot both be true. But anyway, that's speculation.
>4th: Vilianizing pre-adult/adult sex that is consensual does as much harm if not more harm than the intense effort to prevent it.
True, but the money spent incarcerating thieves is also much more than any individual thief ever stole, yet we still do it. If your goal is to reduce harm, and you think that pedophilia causes harm, it is an acceptable loss to cause farther harm to 5% of total children in order to disincentive pedos from interacting with the rest. Morality is for the majority, especially in the utilitarian morality that "practical attraction" would fall under.
>5th: Girls that are encourage to date age appropriately at earlier ages are more mature when they become adults about how the male-female dynaimc work. Less likely to be a date-rape drug reciepent/cum dumpster at a frat house.
Meaningless without your above premise that age appropriate is to date older men. Begging the question with it, meaningless statement of fact with no connection to the rest of the argument without it.
>Summary: turning human beings into victims and villians because your morals inhibit your reasoning is truly criminal.
Funny, you're making a moral argument right now. Logic is value-free and a priori. It tells us nothing about the world without having to interpret the statements, any more than 2+2=4 does (though 2 meters + 2 meters = 4 meters would tell us about the world, because 'meters' grounds it in reality). Anything saying anything of how the world should work is a moral argument.
>The harder the age-gap attraction is repressed the more secret/dirty it has to become. Does the 14 year old virgin boy having sex with his 14 year old virgin girlfriend tearing her hymen (he's never heard of) cause more harm or less than a grown man who's not in a hurry and is trully curious about what feels good and what doesnt?
So what? Does physical pleasure determine what is right and wrong?
>Or do those of you who protest pre-adult/adult intimacy believe only crude, unevolved adults are attracted?
What?