(I’ll shorten “sexual activity” to “sex”, though I’m not primarily thinking of intercourse). I suspect that among the many millions of 8-year-old girls on earth, there are a few who would really like to engage in sexual activity with another person – to give and receive pleasure. What are the costs and benefits to children? But no decent person wants to allow sex unless it’s good for both parties. The benefits to pedophiles are obvious – they might get to have sex without fear of legal repercussions. Should society accept and allow adult-child sex with a willing child? This post contains the heart of my anti-contact argument. One way to reconcile this with the Rind studies is that a low percentage of people are seriously harmed, but they are deeply harmed.Ī week later, Ethan posted his core argument why child-adult sex is fundamentally wrong: Costs and benefits for prepubescents There are presumably a great many more who share these views privately. Many understand that they did not struggle or clearly say “no”. On the other hand, the world has many thousands of adults who say publicly that they were abused and they have been terribly traumatized.
A low rate of harm would lend credence to the idea that children can be trusted to consent to sex after all. If something is not harmful, liberty would suggest that it ought to be legal. Indeed, pedophiles publicly jumped on this study as evidence that adult-child sex should be legalized. It is interesting that these studies include cases that were reported as not consensual – cases that everyone (including pro-contact pedophiles) recognize as being morally wrong.īut moderates could understandably be alarmed that pedophiles would read this as implying that secret sexual activity with kids was really OK. Maybe a few sessions of therapy will be enough to process this enough so that it won’t interfere with leading a happy life.
The good news from a moderate perspective is that sex abuse survivors can take a more positive attitude. In a typical study, investigators surveyed college students about child sexual abuse, then asked them if they felt they were harmed. The key findings were that child sexual abuse was often not harmful, and rarely extremely harmful. But serious scientists with no particular ax to grind will tell you that it is actually good science. The initial has the distinction of being the only scientific study condemned by the US > Congress. Virtuous Pedophiles co-founder Ethan Edwards commented on the Rind meta-analyses in his blog post “ The failure of absolutes” in 2015:
0 kommentar(er)
