Pedophilia Activism -- Does Sex Harm Children?

Could you clarify that last sentence please?

I'm saying the emotion scarring WON'T go away after ten or twenty years...

II'll propose one:
The act of having sexual relations with a minor who does not consider themselves physically or mentally ready for sexual relations.

So what you are  actually saying is.. rape? Just trying to make it clear :O.

and they're I was flashing my ass, on the streets in a very very unstable drunk mood. Does this consider you all ? No, does it make me a freak ? Yes ? Is this in the right topic you may ask yourself, I have the answer to that,

no

i dont think on a site like this you should be discussing shit like this

after a child reaches sexuall maaturity then sure firn go ahead...
BUT! and this is a big but before that happens then it is fucking sick!

The problem is, if exsposed to it to early, the emotional scarring leaves the child unable to enjoy it later in life.

This is a fine argument. The pedophila advocates will claim that most children are not emotionally scarred and if there is emotional scarring it is due to them growing up and socialized in an environment that suppresses child sexuality.

W.T.F.... How is is this "alternate science"?

Now about the child thing, depends on age and whether or not the child is willing or not.

16-18+ is okay I think, as long as it isn't rape, and the guy isn't over 25 or so.

Quote from: "Silent Knight"

II'll propose one:
The act of having sexual relations with a minor who does not consider themselves physically or mentally ready for sexual relations.

So what you are  actually saying is.. rape? Just trying to make it clear :O.

Basically a non-minor having sexual relations with a minor who doesn't think they're ready.

Well, lets see now. Perhaps edit it so that only non-minors can be convicted of it. After all, a pair of 15 year olds. Are they guilty of pedophilia?

If you can improve on this, please don't hesitate.

...only non-minors can be convicted of it. After all, a pair of 15 year olds. Are they guilty of pedophilia?

Many argue that pedophilia is wrong because young people are not ready for it. If young people are not ready for sex, it wouldn't matter how old the sex partner is. It's not like having sex with someone younger will make you more ready. If anything, having sex with someone more sexually experienced will make you more ready. But with someone more sexually experienced there may be a power difference.

Jonathan Rauch's Washington's Other Sex Scandal in Reason Magazine say the following:

The July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, a scholarly journal published by the American Psychological Association, carried a dense, 31-page article titled "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples." The authors are Bruce Rind of Temple University, Philip Tromovitch of the University of Pennsylvania, and Robert Bauserman of the University of Michigan...

First, the students who had experienced child sexual abuse (called "CSA") were on average only slightly less well-adjusted than others in terms of objective psychiatric and medical symptoms. Individuals can and do suffer severely, but they were the exception rather than the rule.

Second, most women (72 percent) recalled their childhood sexual episodes negatively, but most men recalled them positively (37 percent) or neutrally (29 percent).

Third, only a minority of men and women reported lasting negative effects, although temporary negative effects were reported by a majority of women.

Such findings, the authors state, "are inconsistent with the assumption of pervasive and lasting harm." As a result, the authors suggest that psychological researchers should abandon the current custom of referring to all adult sexual encounters with minors, regardless of the circumstances and results, as "child sexual abuse." Researchers could perform finer-grained analyses if they used "abuse" to designate injurious or unwilling encounters. Other encounters could be called "adult-child sex" or "adult-adolescent sex."

The authors said they were talking about scientific definitions--not law or morality. "The findings of the current review," they said, "do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on the behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered."

As I said, I'm not taking sides, but discussion of these issues is important if it is to be understood. Only if the science underlying the problem understood can useful action be taken to help children.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to side with Flatearthersareretards on this one.  The primary reason humans have sex is to procreate.  To procreate, a girl must have a menstrual cycle.  Ever wonder why girls don't get their period until between the ages of 11-17?  It's because, before puberty, the child's body is not equipped to deal with sex.  And in a day and age where there is still so much taboo and stigma regarding child and teenage sex, emotional preparation is required.  I simply do not understand how any normal adult would feel sexually attracted to an 8-year-old.  Children are not supposed to have sex.

I am not a theist and we can argue 'till the cows come home about what is "right" and what is "wrong", but I see no rational reason for an adult to have sex with a child.  Would YOU do it? Why would you do it??

Its the round earthers who think pedophilia is wrong!

Here's my view:

I think that in a discussion like this it is necessary to take a look at the bigger picture instead of focusing on one small part of it (Unfortunately in taking such a broad view it is extremely difficult to structure this argument).

I think that the reason pedophilia is harmful to children is the way that our society is conditioned to view things. Common socially constructed ideas that would be inconsistent with child sexuality/pedophilia include our notions of:

- childhood/adulthood and maturity*
- love/sex
- emotional and physical defensive barriers
- responsibility
- parenthood
- guilt associated with sex crimes
- rights
- morality

*I emphasize that this point denotes a MAAASSIVE region of socially accepted views that are nurtured in most people from cradle to the grave.

Today, these concepts form a complex system that influence all members of society, especially children, pedophiles and parents (with regards to the issues being discussed). In order for pedophelia to even begin to be accepted in our society these views must be radically altered.

I also believe that is largely our social system that is responsible for creating a 'sexual predator' mentality in many individuals (as well as many other social problems) due to the way people are categorized and segregated emotionally, physically, intellectually, monetarily and spiritually. This social categorization would have been of significant benefit to people at the dawn of civilization and it still is today, although there are a few relatively minor drawbacks as a result (basically every social problem known to man).

Anyway my basic point is that if pedophilia is ever going to be accepted it will be through EXTREMELY gradual social change in basically all areas of modern life. Society would have to progress to a utopian state where almost everyone can be trusted and people are completely honest and open for pedophilia to be either conducive or neutral towards everyone's wellbeing and even then it might not be accepted.

In other words, a direct attempt to bring pedophilia into acceptance can only result in harm in society's current state.



Once again I'm sorry about the highly unstructured nature of this. Hopefully you can understand my line of thought.

On the one hand, paedophilia could certainly be a class issue -- in antiquity, upper-class men would often take boys as "companions", and this was perfectly acceptable and not deemed harmful to the boys.  In fact, the man was responsible for properly educating and raising the boy.

Perhaps modern society's abhorrence of paedophilia stems from a distaste for men of the lower classes taking such companions, which would presumably not result in a proper upbringing of the child.

This latter feature of the explanation, I hope, is more sociobiological than social constructivist.

On the other hand, I think social constructivism is mostly reactionary fiction.

-Erasmus

On the one hand, paedophilia could certainly be a class issue -- in antiquity, upper-class men would often take boys as "companions", and this was perfectly acceptable and not deemed harmful to the boys.  In fact, the man was responsible for properly educating and raising the boy.

Perhaps modern society's abhorrence of paedophilia stems from a distaste for men of the lower classes taking such companions, which would presumably not result in a proper upbringing of the child.

This latter feature of the explanation, I hope, is more sociobiological than social constructivist.

On the other hand, I think social constructivism is mostly reactionary fiction.

-Erasmus

I think that sociobiology places too much emphasis on the *perfection* of adaptation. Adaptation implies improvement, IMO a slightly more accurate word for what actually occurs would be progression (not implying progress or improvement but change over time). Progression is not a perfect process. It can veer one way or another, it is usually-short sighted and the long term effects may not be conducive to the species, although I think it solves more problems than it causes. I think our social constructs are the result of this progression and are in turn inflenced by more social constructs. Chaos theory springs to mind in describing the way I see these things interacting. I think my views take more into account than pure sociobiology.

Here's my view:


I think that the reason pedophilia is harmful to children is the way that our society is conditioned to view things.

I think that there is an inate moral sense in humans.  I think that the majority have it.  BUT it is the result of evolution (atleast partially), not some grand moral absolute.
-(For males) Having sex with children or prefering children sexually will greatly hinder your ability to pass on your genetic information, while prefering young women and teens who are just becoming fertile will greatly increase your chances of passing on your genetic information.

The point is, natural selection does not favor pedophilia, so you would expect to see most people opposed to it.  And this explains why hebephilia is tolerated much more than pedophilia.

*** It is harmful to children because it goes against the grain of what evolution has conditioned in us (same thing, to a much greator degree, would be, say, putting a gecko in the artic).  There are anomolies, but evolution has ensured that members of our species become sexually mature at a certain time in the life-cycle.  Just like rabbits trying to fly with a piece of string, it is harmful to children because nature has not designed them to engage in sex.  (there are behaviors among children that are precursers to adult sexual behavior, but these are DEVELOPING, not DEVELOPED.  Development takes time, and nature does not favor pre-pubescent sex in children.)

-(For males) Having sex with children or prefering children sexually will greatly hinder your ability to pass on your genetic information, while prefering young women and teens who are just becoming fertile will greatly increase your chances of passing on your genetic information.

One of the great things about being male is that there's a really low minimum cost of childbirth.  If you make a mistake and mate with an infertile female, or another male -- oh well, try again later this afternoon with somebody else.

The point is, natural selection does not favor pedophilia, so you would expect to see most people opposed to it.

It wouldn't select it as a trait, but it wouldn't, as far as I can tell, reject individuals who practice it as part of a more conventional reproductive strategy.  I don't think it can be the case that pedophilia is frowned upon because it has been naturally selected out of us for purely it's-bad-for-reproductive reasons.  There has to be a role-in-society relationship as well.  I think that's the case, and that pedophilia-is-bad is a socially selected meme.

-Erasmus

I think that's the case, and that pedophilia-is-bad is a socially selected meme.

-Erasmus

Good points, but I say that memes are just extended phenotypes, so they are subject to natural selection as well.  But what caused this meme?  Was it a random idea?  What is it about it that has caused it to be such a widely accepted meme? Every native culture has this meme, with pedophiles regarded as outcasts by the majority of society.  This suggests to me that the meme has evolved independently many times.  And if that is the case, then it suggests to me that there is a biological bases for this meme, or rather, a biological pressure for the creation of this meme.  A similar thing is the evolution of the eye.  It has appeared many times indepentently, and that suggests that there is a strong biological advantage for it(and a disadvantage for not having it).

One of the great things about being male is that there's a really low minimum cost of childbirth.  If you make a mistake and mate with an infertile female, or another male -- oh well, try again later this afternoon with somebody else.

All that said, if natural selection did not affect pedophilia in any way, then you would expect to see an equal number of people engaging equally in these different reproductive strategies.  But in fact, you do not.  The vast majority of people only engage in reproductive behaviors that are likely to be successful (or would be if not for contraceptives), and find pedophilia personally disgusting.

this forum board is very interesting

when you think about it, can non-violently molesting a child really harm a child?  either they enjoy it, they don't know what's happening, or they don't want to (in which case it's clearly nonconsensual and would be forced molestation)

but in the first two cases, please explain how the child is harmed...

of course, we see psychological problems later.  but is it from the act itself?  after being molested, there is a strong reaction from the people who find out, in addition, they are taught all their life in subtle ways and also in not so subtle ways, that sex is BAD.  if sex is an early experience for them, and this attitude is deeply ingrained in them, that's going to lead to problems

ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles (nice name btw, i love prometheus rising), natural selection/evolution is probably why we have a seemingly physiological moral compass.  it MAY be why many societies condemn pedophilia

but evolution is also why we have a tail bone, and useless organs, and a very aggressive history...

there are also plenty of socities including early western society where marriage is done much earlier than is normal for us, the pedophilia-is-bad meme is certainly not universal... i'm pretty sure there is no universal moral meme...

I would have to bring up the fact that in ancient greece, and in ancient rome to a certain extent. Homosexuality among men and young boys was acceptable. Infact in greece, male tutors/teachers/professors would commonly have sex with their young male students. The love between men was considered on a higher level then love between a man an a woman, even if one of the "men" was a child.

I'm not saying I personally agree with pedophillia or sex with children, I'm just bringing up the past views on it.

^as i said, the anti-pedophile meme is not universal.  also, in modern rural india, marriages are often between people of 12 or much younger

I feel dirty even replying to this topic. But I find Erasmus' defending of peadofilia to be disgusting. How anyone can think that having sex with a child is anything but a morally reprehensive act needs to have thier head examined.

I feel dirty even replying to this topic. But I find Erasmus' defending of peadofilia to be disgusting. How anyone can think that having sex with a child is anything but a morally reprehensive act needs to have thier head examined.

I think I would have to say that sex with children has only become taboo recently(like the last 200 years), and mostly in this country. Probably because it started our trying to tout "Christian values" (like slaughtering indians and enslaving black people). slowly most have eroded away but some, such as sex with children being bad, were left.

I feel dirty even replying to this topic.

You are dirty.

Seriously what is wrong with you people?! How could one person even consider having sex with a human being that is not even capable to know what is going on. Isnt this rape? You prefer rape? If so you people are very sick, and should get help. These fat pieces of shit that have sex with an 8 year old do it because they cannot get anyone or anything else, they make me sick, and i almost break down and cry. These defects to the human race should take themselves off the face of this nice SPHERICAL earth that we have. In conclusion i beliave that you people are very sick individuals, and you need help.

^ my main problem with human morality is that when we discuss something that we've been brought up to see as very morally wrong, we are incapable of having a rational, productive discussion, and instead revert to silly judgements, unproven ideas, and all sorts of logical fallacies

why don't you actually reply to what i said?

Ok im am putting all my upbringing behind me and i am ready for a debate with my mind free of all the things that have been pounded into my mind that would make me beliave that having sex with children is bad.
This is my question to anyone that could answer me logically: How is it ok to have sex with a child?

This is my question to anyone that could answer me logically: Why would you have sex with a child?

Maybe you and the child both agree that it would be fun?

But a child does not understand what they are getting themselves into. Also i am sure that it would be loads of fun for the pervert thats fucking an innocent  child. That i wont deny you, because they are sick.