Legality has nothing to do with it. Abuse is abuse whether or not it’s legal.
And you don’t need that to be explicitly excluded from the formal definition of sexuality for it to be obvious. Asking for a definition mentioning that is like asking for a definition of strawberries that explicitly mentions they’re not cyanide.
If sexualities included mental illnesses and abusive behaviors, we would treat them as such. Putting pedophilia and beastiality in the same category as normal sexualities is not only wrong, it’s harmful and disparaging to LGBTQ+.
You need it in the definition if you want to claim it as such. If cyanide strawberries were found in nature they would be part of the definition of a strawberry, and claiming otherwise would be silly.
Generally speaking what may seem obvious to you may very well not be. I could claim that donkeys are fish, and should you complain that nowhere is said that, I would reply “that’s because it’s obvious”. Not the best of arguments.
If sexual orientation is the classification of what you are attracted to then men, women, everything in between, kids, horses and warplanes are a - semantically - “valid” sexual orientation.
As for harming LGBTQ+ I disagree with that. Whenever someone says “I don’t care who or how you fuck” they generally add “as long as they are consenting adults” - clearly it’s not that obvious.
With this said I think I did my best to make my case and I do not think I can do more if this is not enough, so I will disengage from further discussion.
Legality has nothing to do with it. Abuse is abuse whether or not it’s legal.
And you don’t need that to be explicitly excluded from the formal definition of sexuality for it to be obvious. Asking for a definition mentioning that is like asking for a definition of strawberries that explicitly mentions they’re not cyanide.
If sexualities included mental illnesses and abusive behaviors, we would treat them as such. Putting pedophilia and beastiality in the same category as normal sexualities is not only wrong, it’s harmful and disparaging to LGBTQ+.
You need it in the definition if you want to claim it as such. If cyanide strawberries were found in nature they would be part of the definition of a strawberry, and claiming otherwise would be silly.
Generally speaking what may seem obvious to you may very well not be. I could claim that donkeys are fish, and should you complain that nowhere is said that, I would reply “that’s because it’s obvious”. Not the best of arguments.
If sexual orientation is the classification of what you are attracted to then men, women, everything in between, kids, horses and warplanes are a - semantically - “valid” sexual orientation.
As for harming LGBTQ+ I disagree with that. Whenever someone says “I don’t care who or how you fuck” they generally add “as long as they are consenting adults” - clearly it’s not that obvious.
With this said I think I did my best to make my case and I do not think I can do more if this is not enough, so I will disengage from further discussion.