Countering the common assertions of 'child advocates' and AoC apologists
Putting the commonest at the top, we show you how to refute what are often logical fallacies (see section 2).
Misdefinition, e.g. 'the pedophile problem':
''He's a CONVICTED PEDOPHILE!!!, yadda yadda yadda''
This is a problem that you will often face, especially if you start a debate by replying to another person. For example, it is hard for a Pedophile to establish a credible identity, when by society's definition, his identity of choice means 'abuser', and media outlets list men as being 'convicted' of this nonexistent crime of pedophlia. Misdefinition comes in many forms, and calling it out is fundamental to your argument. Misdefinition is covered in Section 2.
The 'power disparity' or 'unlevel playing field' fallacy:
''The child or adolescent is almost invariably in a position of lesser physical power and status. Considering this, any sexual contact will function only in the interests of the more powerful partner, and is therefore abusive''
Counter: First of all, if such an argument should be taken in the defence of an age of consent law, you will have to explain the cases in which, for example a 15 year old boy has more physical power, status and money than a 25 year old woman or man.
Secondly, we have to consider whether there is a gap, and it's very nature. Whilst an adult may excel in physical power, they may have absolutely no legal standing in such a relationship. Even the slightest giveaway could have the police knocking at the door, so the adult is technically on the 'backfoot', when trying to maintain a relationship free of threat. Do we ever consider psychological harm because of this? No, because our dogma tells us that the adult is an indestructible perpetrator. Much of a child's power over an adult is discreet and Foucaldian in nature. Most parents should also know that a minor can always say 'no', often in the most expressive of ways. What about voluntary sexual intimacy would override this impulse?
Thirdly, the presence of a natural power gap in no way means that it will be utilised or abused. As a child - lover, a Pedophile would view a sexual interaction as a means of pleasing and receiving pleasure from their partner, not of belittling them (as a violent offender may). Any relationship worth legalising would involve no abuse of any gap, by either party. The mere presence of a gap would cause no psychological harm, if the interaction was understood to be non - threatening, as in the case of a powerful man picking his daughter up with one arm. Frankly, love is neither a fistfight, nor a game of football, and besides, abuse of this physical or status gap would still be against the law, without an age of consent.
It is also no safe bet that an abuse of power will lead to any physical or psychological harm. Children suffer and repeatedly come through beatings and bullying, so to expect that being felt up against one's initial will, by a self - interested family friend, will torture a child for the rest of their life, can only be dangerously conterproductive as a social idea. Regardless of the general ethical soundness of such behaviour, a child may eventually enjoy such an experience, or it may at least help them overcome any socially instilled fears or doubts about being touched. The difference between 'adult leadership' or 'one way mentoring' and 'one way abuse' is unfortunately determined by our morality. In fact, the abuse of power gaps is often inspired by entirely or partly socially constructed gaps between, say, rich and poor, or adults and children. As well as child emancipation, what we need is a more intimate, sex - positive culture, to reduce the need for this occasional abuse of power, which can also be pursued for confidence, psychopathic satiation and social rewards, as well as the traditionally stressed sexual gratification. At the moment, morality is unhealthily crushing the human libido.
The 'Source of harm' misperception:
''Sexual contact between adults and children is intrinsically harmful. Child sex abuse victims are victims of sexual contact''
[Marked for development. Rape is always harmful, but in the case of consent, secondary social victimisation, not sexual victimisation].
The 'Illegal = Wrong. Period' fallacy:
''Having sex with kids is wrong because its illegal''
Counter: Nothing is wrong because it's illegal. Legality is only a flexible category of moral judgement, which varies from place to place and from time to time, having no absolute impact on the rightness of a practice. An example would be Homosexuality, which according such a definition, has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more / totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies. Also, Homosexuality would be wrong in some North African countries, but not elsewhere. If your fallacy held water, all forms of deregulation would be immoral or potentially dangerous, meaning that there would be no acceptable reason for repeal!
The 'Impossible Consent' argument
"Children under age X are not old enough to understand sex and it's implications, and thus cannot possibly give informed consent".
Counter: Aside from the obvious problems of applying a hard age line to guess at an individual's intelligence, sex is not inherently very complicated. It's an instinctive form of physical intimacy and expression of affection, touching each other and deriving joy from that. Aside from the basic precautions of safe sex, which are also very simple (don't let part x touch part y directly, keep something in between it), that is all there is to it. And while many adults associate it with a variety of social rituals and expectations, these are not inherent necessities of sex and vary greatly even among the people adhering to them. As such, it can be expected that children of most ages will understand sex just fine - a better question is whether most adults really do.
Also, it bears noting that for many other activities, getting a child's informed consent is not commonly considered to be all that vital as long as they are not harmed by the process. Especially for people responsible for the child's care, it is quite commonly accepted to involve them in things they do not yet fully understand or even say they don't want to do, for the purpose of their education, the everyday running of the household or even the caretakers personal convenience. For example, gentle coercion into sexual activities would be as harmless as gentle coercion into a bathtime scrubdown, if only the taboos were behind us. Although it is definitely questionable whether such behaviour is desirable in general, one does have to apply the same principles consistently in condemning or accepting behaviour. Simply vaguely stating "it's sexual" is not an adequate argument to warrant an exception''.
Also, how capable is the average western adult to give consent? Are their opinions really formed with their 'informed consent', amid all of the indoctrination, sound bites and social engineering? If not, could they possibly consent to sex, at such short notice, under such intense emotions? What is consent? Must it involve a person knowing exactly what they will get, regardless of whether the consequences are positive or negative? Shouldn’t we only be legislating against negative consequences?
'The theft of innocence: A childhood lost'
''Childhood is a time to be pure, innocent and uncomplicated by adult emotions such as sexuality, which can indeed destroy the whole package, if unleashed upon a being as delicate as a child''
Counter: This argument relies on a single vague assumption - that sex automatically leads to complicated emotional reactions in the first place. It would be an appeal to motive fallacy (however real the motive) to state that this argument is false simply because of society's record of treating sex as a dirty secret. The assertion that sex leads to emotional complications is often true - but the argument based on it is not.
In fact, for many people sex does cause complicated emotional reactions specifically because society treats sex as a dirty secret. The 'complicated emotions' argument does hold some weight in that context, but only as a broad generalization (just as individual acceptance of social mores is only a general tendency rather than a universal absolute). That context can also be dismantled entirely by removing the stigma surrounding sex. But this argument does make clear that some stigma must be removed for more children to be capable of guilt-free sex.
This is a case in which the problem was created by those complaining about it, and perpetuated by the complaints themselves. The assertion that 'innocence' and 'purity' are somehow the opposites of sexual experience also relies on the assumption that sex cannot be 'pure' or 'innocent,' and operates in a vacuum of definitions as to what constitutes either.
'Profound and Lifelong mental scarring' (here, the counter argument is an example of therapeutic reasoning)
''Child sexual abuse is unique, in that it almost invariably leads to lifelong mental scarring. They/We are victims for life''
Counter: In some cases, notably the unwanted, coerced activities, lifelong mental scarring is ignited by a 'sexual' attack. A lifelong mental scar is a lifelong memory of something that you are repeatedly told to view as dirty, shameful and profound, added to the mental disturbance and depression that this must cause. The social construct of abuse fulfils its own prophecy, in the minds of its victims. How can victims overcome this 'scarring'? One way is by challenging the sex - negative ideals that caused it, and resulted from it; they have no reason to associate their pain with sex, as human sexuality was only the unfortunate mediator or vector of society's guilt, in it's displacement unto them.
'Sexual abusers of children are primarily attracted to their targets' (misunderstanding, spawned by propaganda)
''Child sex abuse and pedophilia are partners in crime. The latter is the cause of almost all cases of the former''
Counter: Only around 2 - 10% of child molesters qualify as true pedophiles [It is estimated that only 2 to 10 percent of child sexual abuse perpetrators meet the regular criteria for pedophilia. (Kinsey-Report, Lautmann, Brongersma, Groth)]. Other sources seem to back this up [A] [B]. The vast majority of offenders are non - pedophiles who have been driven to offend by their personal situations. For example, situational offending is partiularly common in crimes of incest involving children. Possible causes include the removal or disablement of adult partners and the inavailability of alternative adults.
Getting back to the 2 - 10% figure, whilst by extension, one could speculatively argue that child sex offending is lower among pedophiles (compare these percentages to the apparent pedophile frequency in Hall), it is worth noting that most observers attribute a higher number of infringements per captia to pedophilic offenders, as opposed to situational offenders. This may be because pedophiles are driven by their attraction, as opposed to their situation. Another implication of relationships that are primarily driven by love as opposed to a need for sex, power or the breaking of a taboo, is that the relationships will tend to have better outcomes. Put simply, pedophiles are far more 'successful' sex offenders in both numerical and ethical terms.
'Recidivism is highest in sex offenders' (propagandic misconception):
''Sex offenders, especially pedophiles show higher levels of recedivism than any other category of criminal, possibly 95%''.
Counter: You have fundamentally misdefined child sex offenders as pedophiles, for a starter (also see the above argument). The 95% figure is pure propaganda. Let's look at the facts: [13.4% for sex offenders = lower than mean. 9.9% for child molesters] [child molesters lowest of all (see graph)], [child molesters - low among sex crimes][Sex offenders have far lower rates] [Far lower in sex offenders] [again, far lower] [a range of very low rates] [info].
'Stranger Danger' (a position that most people have already rejected, in the face of overwhelming evidence)
''Protecting a child against sexual predators is a matter of constant vigilance in every public place. Children are only safe in our homes''.
(marked for development)
The 'harm is everything' argument:
''The best assumption is that children are hurt by sexual situations. This assumption is made because we must apply the 'precautionary principle', as any harm done to a child offsets any benefit the sex act could bring''.
Counter: Explain how your original 'best' assumption is anything but a currently in - fashion way of thinking, and how any harm has an absolute quality which overrides all benefit. Could you not oppose virtually anything with such a 'negative utilitarian' argument?
I prefer to apply a realist principle that states that a lack of benefit is just as bad as a comparable burden of harm. In reality, we cannot risk repressing our sexuality, as the risk of losing out on some great experiences is too high. Also, many beauty spots must be accessed via a bumpy road; life is not about avoiding all harm and ignoring the rewards our adventures may present. This is not to say that sex with a young person should represent the bumpy road, but to the contrary, our society should celebrate and accept this inevitable love''.
'Evidence from the Brain' (A series of hasty generalisations and a hasty conclusion):
''With scientists discovering that the brain does not stop developing until 25, how can minors give fully informed consent, and why should we change the law?''
Counter: Regardless of the experimental conclusions of Giedd (which refer to impulsiveness), to consider this argument, I must have exaggerating assumptions about the acceptability and natural complexity of sex, and the again, unproven 'perpetrator' image of the adult, based solely upon the age gap. For example, 'fully informed consent' sounds like a contract, considering that I see fondling as potentially no more socially complex than the 'decent, acceptable' codes of kissing and touching that we have all got used to. I would also have to believe that broadsweeping law must be favoured over regulations that allow case by case investigations to determine whether the individual was mature enough, or was victimised as a result of immaturity. I may then irrationally go on to extend my theory to other groups who tend to be less mentally capable, e.g, low IQs, low grades, mentally ill, or vulnerable, e.g. blacks, the poor, the elderly. I could even legislate against the sexual expression of these people and raise the age of consent to 25! After all, that would be logical, wouldn't it?
The way that your arguments have been 'logically' concluded from the science itself, reeks of Dr. Dino at his best! Your conclusion is based upon a logical leap from physiological (physical brain development) to cognitive, in that you fail to point out how exactly structure impairs ability, let alone how this could be reliably observed throughout the population. You then make another logical leap from cognitive to victimological!
Cognitive Distortions: Pedologic
'Minor attracted perverts preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express cognitive distortions, often read like NAMbLA pamphlets''
Counter: This argument implies faulty ad hominem, appeal to motive, and style-over-substance lines of reasoning. Style-over-substance is a fallacious line of reasoning, which basically states that "You called me dirty names while saying 2+2=4, therefore 2+2=7" or "I don't like the way you phrased your explanation of how a car engine works, therefore it runs on water."
It is also worth pointing out that rationalisations may be rational. To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalistion is a sure sign of weakness. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are in fact identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo. By defining a common argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common in a certain sample, that sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled Circulus in Probando argument. So in conclusion, the rare, but often abused "Cognitive Distortion" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority if ever there was one.
The 'dirty pedo' argument:
'The arguments you are making stink of the well revised plotting of a self - interested pervert. How can we guarantee that you are not just trying to excuse your actions, without a care for humanity?''
(You may wish to explain what you are, here. Honesty, even when logically irrelevant to the debate, is valued)
Counter: ''Do not divert from the discussion. I have presented you with arguments, and you must dismiss them with logic, not speculation. The argument is there for you to see, the author is not.
Even if I was a known pedophile, this would not detract from your duty to deconstruct my arguments, which would be just as valid on their own. Would we want to undermine the campaigning of Black Egalitarians, because their arguments were in their own interests? Of course not, although it isn't surprising that it happened in the past, and continues to. And anyway, is experience not valued in most fields of insight? You could even say that deliberately rejecting, or not asking for a pedo's POV, is equivalent to excluding Party members from a vote on the Party leadership, or NRA members from a referendum on gun control!
Anyway, if these 'perverts' continue to face such a current of prejudice as you are promoting, then I will be long dead before their aims are satisfied''.
Online example - Daniel vs Regis
Your opponent may also try to 'poison the well' by categorically rejecting data or arguments, simply because of the website or source at which they are located. This 'Rogue Source' argument deserves similar treatment.
''Only the argument of a Pervert'''
'No one but a pedophile would argue for the age of consent to be abolished''
(You may wish to explain what you are, here. Honesty, even when logically irrelevant to the debate, is valued)
Counter: According to this, every supportive member of the UK Communist party must be a pedophile. But there does seem to be a trend towards a high representation of such people among advocates. Why? A deviant can't just ignore a society that crushes their feelings and aspirations, whilst unfairly labelling as an 'evil monster'. Also, anyone who orignally pursues the topic from a 'non-pedophile' perspective is more likely to be sexually self - honest, or subsequently admit / discover how their sexuality deviates largely towards minors. After all, the prevalence of lust towards children (even in those who are not pedophiles) is far more common than we realise. A study by Hall goes some way to revealing this (around 30% of men were equally or preferentially aroused by prepubescent stimuli).
There are still a lot of non pedophiles who would argue my way, though. Notably, ephebophiles (who prefer pubescents) and those who have a very broad sexual interest which may encompass prepubescents at some level (who cannot be called pedophiles, as their primary interests lean elsewhere). Other non-pedophile advocates include various academics and authors who suggest that sex acts are not harmful before society interferes with them; the whole debate is far more liberally weighted in professional circles.
The 'free children from what?' emancipation simplification:
''You say that children should be emancipated to have sex with adults. They already are, as no law works against them''.
Counter: Firstly, minors must always be allowed to interact sexually with each other. Unfortunately, this is not the case, even legally. Nor is it the case with their adult interactions, in a social sense, despite the relationship being technically legal on the minor's part. As well as having to keep quiet, a minor may feel intermittently guilty about the ongoing relationship, and especially guilty if they are found out, in which case they may be told that what has happened to them was very wrong, even if they did not originally feel that way. The minor may be punished, with extensive legal proceedings, interrogation and intrusive physical examination. Even in a relationship that evades the eye of authority, they will be denied a partner who is as confident and happy as they should be, and their relationship will be hidden. And I am yet to mention all of the minors who never achieve the relationship that they want, and moreover, those who have been taught that such a thing would be morally disgusting or fatal. Simply focussing on legality presents a false viw of freedom. This example could be compared to the freedom of a gay teenager to discuss his sexuality with his mother. Even though his mother is a Roman Catholic, and the discussion would be disasterous, he still has as much freedom to dicuss his sexuality as the next man.
'Shouting from the rooftops?' (an argument that often fuses with the one above):
'Your arguments will only come into play, once children themselves start asking for sex. I have not heard a single one making such requests!''
Counter: And the female half of Saudi Arabia aren't shouting from the rooftops for equal rights either! Why? Both them and western children have been excluded and alienated from the civil rights discourse.
Anyway, I am advocating freedom, so firstly I do not need someone's explicit will to act, in justifying law reform. Even if I did, I could refer to lists of accounts and studies to back myself up. On the other hand, you are advocating coercion (from sex). If you were to neutrally poll children on their sexual freedoms, you would have to drop scare phrases such as 'rape' and 'molestation'. In such a case, you will find that kids generally want to be allowed to follow their instinct, despite conditioning to the contrary. Unfortunately the current social situation (withholding of information, scare tactics) has conspired as not to lead children into actively demanding their sexual freedoms without prompting. For example, I wanted some really good sex as a youngster, and a hell of a lot more actually got it. None of us held a firm enough concept of rights, though.
'Legal Pragmatism' (a series of legal - technical arguments for keeping the age of consent)
'The AoC provides a firm line where one is needed; the public needs to know where they are. This also goes for the courts, since objective, simple legislation is technically superior to subjective interpretations. A few unfair convictions is no loss, when this law allows us to get the bad'uns''.
(marked for development)
'Sexualisation' (a logical argument, but ignorant of reality):
''If kids are constantly having sex, what is to stop them interpreting every relationship as sexual, and most dangerously, believing that they must act sexually to please adults, or that they are only valued as sex objects?''
Counter: Firstly, this argument becomes totally irrelevant during and soon after puberty, when the young person becomes naturally hyper - sexual anyway.
Secondly, this argument works, by not only assuming that all behaviour within a sexually bonded adult - minor coupling is judged against a sexual standard, but that nearly every relationship of that minor, is of such a nature. This is impossible, in that a minor always has to learn the relevance of various forms of care, responsibility, etc. Moreover, we know that even babies can soundly rely on different adults for different life purposes - mother, nanny, doctor, affectionate sibling, for example. Thirdly, who is to assume that of all emotions, sexuality will be the ultimate "force" that "poisons" or "takes over" all of a child's relationships by its mere presence? Isn't this to admit that kids actively seek sexual gratification, given that all I am calling for is a level of freedom? Lastly, why should sexual relationships be seen as especially 'objectifying'? All this says is that your views regarding these, if not, all sexual relationships are fundamentally negative! In reality, a sexual interaction or relationship involves far more than a robotic reaction to the partner's aesthetic, and the simple decision to 'fuck it'.
Regardless of the above points, we also have to be careful before casting externally derived self-worth in a negative light. On many issues (including sex but also economics, religion, and platonic relationships) there are many popular sentiments for which people are obligated to others first and themselves second. Neverthless, one could say that children in particular, need to be taught to operate by their own judgment and in their own interests first and foremost. They must be taught that all adults are fallible, and that they have a moral obligation (to themselves) to question the motives and judgment of others if the need arises. Of course, most endeavours (like all sexual relationships) are cooperative - but the others to do the same. Each respects the other's self-worth. In that way, rational self-interest leads people to work together with an enthusiasm not otherwise possible.
'Out of fashion' (an incomplete and simplifying argument against relationships with young people)
''As soon as that child or youth grows beyond their partner's age of attraction, the relatonship will break down''
Counter: So I assume that you would prefer that the relationship had never happened? Do you believe that any relationship which breaks down should never have happened?
Realistically, minor attracted adults have a range of attractions that often span upwards into adulthood. But even if this 'problem' of 'narrow attraction span' does end a relationship, it's barely a new phenomena, in that we may loose interest in an adult partner due to their senescence. In fact, the older partner's affinity for the minor may grow, if their minor attraction is not preferential. Taking into account the proportion of non - pedophiles in society, this kind of relationship would probably be more common.
There is also the possibility of a continued relationship along the lines of pedagogy, platonic love, or any other form of care, mentorship or support that characterised the 'sexual' relationship beforehand. But even then, break ups can be constructive life decisions, possibly chosen by the younger partner who as a result of their relationship, has hopefully gained the skills and confidence to pursue their new social and sexual goals.
Porn is the theory, rape is its practise'
''Child porn increases the incidence of child sex abuse''
Counter: Ignoring the fact that many acts of so called 'child sex abuse' can be defended as ethical, hard evidence suggests otherwise. Predictably, the presence of any kind of relationship is unclear, due to limitations in the amount and scope of research. One may theorise however, that porn in general is a 'substitute for action', and that any behaviour it does normalise is in line with the behaviour expressed in the pornography. Thus, most normalising effects, if they do exist, will tend to be towards uncoerced sex - the overwhelming focus of child porn that depicts interaction. For more information, see Critest, Ipce: [A] [B]
'Sex and violence are as one in the psyche'
''In an intergenerational relationship, involving an adult and a minor, exploitation is not only an automatic consequence, but the willed action of the adult. At the most extreme end (with pedophiles), this lust is as destructive as it is affective, as eventually violent, as it is initially civil''
Counter: There is no evidence to show that such sexual affection is psychologically intertwined with a destructive impulse. It makes no evolutionary sense either, especially concerning pedophilia, since children are our most vulnerable. One who argues this position has clearly failed to understand, let alone take a look at the online pedophile community - a group of individuals who seem to contradict this argument to the point of sounding more like good, highly affectionate parents. Pedophilia, is as its etymology suggests, an affective condition. Ask a pedophile, or someone who admits to feeling sexually attracted towards children.
It's more likely, in fact, that sex and violence are opposites. It makes more sense that one who is denied sex will become a less loving, more violent person, not only because of the poor example that denial of affection sets, but because sex is a major source of pleasure, as is violence (see this article, and the associated website). In a nutshell, you have to make a convincing argument as to how this picture would be any different regarding sexual attraction to children.