Original arguments
Pure and Practical reasoning
Myths
Public perception is coloured by an array of popular myths about Pedophiles and sexual interactions between minors and adults. This page at MHAMIC covers and backs up counter arguments to many of them.
Hypocritical Establishment:
Claims that age of consent and anti child - porn laws' function is to 'protect children' are rendered doubtful by the fact that the very same governments will allow children to be abused (albeit to a preferential state of abuse) in foreign labour for their economies' benefit, and will punish children in much the same way as an adult, when they see fit. For example, in many countries a child is potentially responsible for his decision to commit crime from the age of 10 or even earlier; if capable of choosing to commit burglary or murder crime at 10, why not sex? Established thought hypocritically suggests that we should "instinctively" protect and care for the innocence of our own children, but not that of others. Is such a double standard, based on irrational self-interest to be trusted as an adequate social structure?
If governments were genuinely concerned about protecting children, they would be concerned to ensure that children grew up with full knowledge of sexuality, and the pleasures it can afford as part of their life – instead they repress children and, not only deny their sexuality, but try to keep them ignorant about sexual matters. The best way to 'protect' children is not to deny them education and the freedom to choose, but to empower them to have the choice over their own bodies; the power to say 'yes' as well as the power to say 'no'.
Sexual Repression as a tool of the State
The State, through its punitive agencies, seems to have taken upon itself the role of determining which personal relationships should be permitted and which punished. It is clearly in the State's interest to do so. Behind the façade of its 'protection of children' argument lies the reality that with the decline of both the extended family and traditional church influence, the State had the incentive to increase its investment in its preferred family unit: the heterosexual, nuclear structure. From the State's perspective, this ensures stability for it's national economic interests. The greatest threat to the State's control over the populace is the expansion of personal and sexual relations outside of the preferred unit – and in particular, freedom of choice by those over whom the State has most control (i.e. minors, and the persons with whom they would form relationships). Sexuality represents the ultimate individualism – and hence it's liberalisation is a constant fear to any ruling regime.
Projection, exteriorisation and self-loathing on the part of AntiPeds
To explain why some individuals seem to take a particularly intolerant approach, a relevant quote to remember at this stage might be: “In prosecuting pedophiles, a man struggles against the suspicion that he could be one himself and, seeking reassurance, he exteriorises his own inner battlefield” (Bluher, 1953).
Social construction of 'reality'
Will follow here.
Reverse Sexualisation of Kids
One of the most 'counterproductive' phenomena, which our recent history of kindersex denial will be remembered for, would have to be the reverse sexualisation of children, via the panic that is aroused upon the discovery, making or release of naked photography. By classing any naked picture of a child as 'sexual' or 'pornography', we admit the very truth that we are trying to repress, i.e. that pictures of children arouse sexual emotions throughout culture as a whole. This is not to say that the 'sexualisers' particularly find such pictures highly arousing, but they do at the very least admit a knowledge of what can be a turn on, regarding the bodies of children, unless of course, they have a robotic analysis mechanism for detecting 'what turns a pedo on'. The way that we all intuitively know how a child can aesthetically express sexuality, shows to some extent how human sexuality is a heterogeneous mesh of conflicting and complimenting desires, including attraction to children (preferential or not), or in the case of its repression, a clear 'instinct' towards identifying the sexual appeal of children and / or those brief, quickly suppressed feelings towards our own young or those of others.
An example of reverse sexualisation comes from a Junior Armani poster, which was criticised for sexualising children. It is clear that the 74 moralistic, totally 'non - pedophilic'(!) UK complainants had somehow 'deciphered' just how the boy himself oozed sexuality, and how the (technically innocent) general pose implied a precocious and sexual nature. So here we are, expressing the fear of our inner desires in the form of a complaint, i.e. not only the denial of the image's appeal to oneself, but the counter - claim that 'it must be wrong'. However, for what reason would a human being instinctively perceive something so wrong as overtly sexual? Why do we then need moral perception to tell us that something so 'inherently dangerous' is wrong? In his long evolution, man could not rely on something as flimsy as morality to warn him off universally bad ideas.
Liberty - Empowerment
We will not properly know the extent of a group's capability to self - determine, until we give them the liberty to do so. Whilst one example is the rise of women from a level of belittlement and social engineering that would have convinced most people (yes, including women) of their 'inferiority', for a large part of the minor population it is only when you give them the rights to act sexually, free from moral constraints, that they will reveal their true, innate desire, acting upon it responsibly, and as often as they so wish. As with women, this does not only count for sexuality, but for any other dogma or belief that replicates itself in reality, blinding us from seeing the true potential of youth. Sadly, a child of today takes their lack of ability or choice as a given, especially in the presence of their 'owners' - overbearing adults.
For those who wrongly think that repealing the age of consent, and enforcing case by case abuse laws, would open the door to the imaginary hoards of 'predators', such a programme of emancipation can, and will almost certainly be actioned slowly and surely, by the government. It is important to remember that the law is unable to prevent genuine "sexual" violence; it serves not as a deterrent, only as a punishment. "Sexual" violence (as violence) must always be criminalised. Decriminalising consensual relationships would therefore not lead to a flood of violence.
Cyclical need for paternalism
Basically the negative of liberty - empowerment theory, this is summed up by Chin-Keung Li on the MHAMic website:
Child protection creates a need for child protection, just like self interested man 1's gun creates a need for self interested man 2's gun. Time has come for us to educate our young and give them the freedom to control at least a few more of their own affairs. This is not only relevant to their enjoyment and freedom, but their welfare and futures, which as with most things, are best under the control of their beholders. But to achieve this, we must make them able. Such a thing can be done via the promotion of ideas similar to those on this website.
Big wide world
Although much overlooked, be warned that this is an outrageous argument. Children may not only need a sex education , but a sexual education. If sex is to be taken as such a big deal, or such a dangerous practice (highly questionable concepts anyway), does it not make sense that young people should be educated in responsible practice; how to use contraception, avoid physically painful inductions, etc? Practical education is always better than a textbook, and in the case of sex, it could teach us how to have fun, bring a partner to orgasm, or differentiate potential rapists from lovers. It also stands, that such an education is best undertaken in the supportive, caring environment of close friends and family - in fact just the situation that we currently restrict 'our' children to. Thus, we can guarantee that our young are confident and ready for independence, once their time comes.
A sexual upbringing should be the natural norm
Throughout our childhood and adolescence, we are open to periods of development. It is natural to explore the urges which are accompanied by these stages of development; indeed it would make sense that the diverse interests which one experiences throughout their development are geared towards the purpose of personal growth and experience. Maybe we should turn today's prevalent social dilemma around from 'the effects of sex on youth' to 'the effects of no sex on youth'. Such a revised dilemma has far more relevance to the socially unspoilt, naked biological human, who's will to experiment for his own pleasure and development is at the very heart of his humanity, only to be repressed as unacceptable in this tiny slice of human history. We must think beyond our times!
Child Abuse Industry
The interplay between the media, children's charities, the state, therapists and abusers (often Fathers) can be seen as an 'industry'. The various components may not be aware of the part they play, but there is a level of symbiosis, built upon gains for each one of these components (bar the fathers). For example, childrens' charities may start by inflating a respectable issue, such as violent abuse in the home. The NSPCC runs promotions [Broadband video], and 'Stop it now' spreads leaflets that create cultural roles for sex monsters™, and inflame society, leaving parents and carers - especially fathers afraid to show any form of intimacy towards their own children (not a very fine example for the child's future conduct). Some charities even describe pedophilia as involving an attraction to 'children' of 15 and under.
Thus, society develops a greater level of fear and sex - negativity, encouraging psychopaths to 'play out' the role of the 'sadistic pedophile'. Society develops an unhealthy 'fear vs fascination' complex, inspiring yet more folk tales. False meanings are attached to harmless activities, false memories are implanted and retrieved by gold - rush Cowboy therapists, and the value of abusers 'shutting up' the real victims of abuse increases. In a culture of frigidity and vigilance, more and more people report abuse. Every man becomes a 'potential offender', whilst the charities, of course, are sacred and unchallengable. Predictably, the donations roll in, campaigners land careers, possibly fame and who knows, maybe even get their hands into the safe.
In light of the above, what would best suit a 'violent abuse' charity as already described? A new campaign! It makes sense not to put all of your eggs in one basket, and besides, the more we fire up the moral majority, the more we will rake in. The focus of our new campaign is best centred on something that is already taboo and despised (best start with the mob on our side), hidden (nothing better to raise suspicion) and supposedly linked to our previous successful campaign on violence. It makes absolute economic sense that we promote ourselves as the saviours of sexually abused children.
As for the media, folk devils (pedophiles) can inspire spontaneous, addictive, outrageous and highly profitable stories, meaning that political parties can gain respect by playing to these disproportionate fears. The vicious circle of abuse > profitable publicity > hateful 'child protection' > inflammation > abuse, will continue in its myth - ridden and exaggerated manner:
[image omitted]
In one example of charitable activism, the NSPCC sent postcards to British schools, in an attempt to convince youths that any sex between an adult and a minor is abusive. Previously, 88% of these young people had correctly assumed that a relationship between a 15 year old boy and a 23 year old woman was non - abusive. Also, as can be seen in the 'leaflets' link, 'Stop it now' have published a poster, titled 'JUST GOOD FRIENDS?', depicting two kids running for an embrace, followed by the text:
"Of course children and young people need the opportunity to explore and develop sexually throughout their childhood. But they also need help in setting boundaries when relating to their brothers, sisters, cousins and friends. What appears to be a safe and mutual activity may in fact be harmful".
Here we have evidence of this charity blatantly fearmongering, and thus creating false problems that contribute to the sustainment of its own funding. Indeed, one of their leaflets contains these gems:
"Children, particularly in the younger age groups, may engage in such behaviour with no knowledge that it is wrong or abusive".
"Sometimes abusers make children believe that they enjoyed it and wanted it to happen".
Always remember that whatever a charity does, it's basically a business struggling for its own survival. If they eradicate or fail to construct the problem that they claim to stem / remedy they will lose their jobs. For example, we hear this, concerning the 'debriefing' of underage camwhores:
"Young people often argue with you that what they're doing is what they want to do and the person on the Internet is really their boyfriend, they weren't sexually exploited and they wanted to raise their shirts and show their breasts over the Internet ... It takes a lot of debriefing and deprogramming to get those children to view themselves as victims, which they truly are, a compliant victim." (Rosalind Prober, Beyond Borders)
Charity is only one area of vested interest, though. Governments and therapists are also putting huge amounts of pressure on researchers, with organisations like the Leadership Council, composed of psychological therapists and other parties who go on to coordinate and produce favourable research.
Associative slogans - Mind control by the powerful
Punchy, easy to remember catchphrases, memes or slogans are an extremely potent tool for the powerful. For example, retailers and advertisers take advantage of 'retail therapy', which associates spending with a higher state of consciousness. It can also be said that politicians, therapists, the media and campaigners use 'child sexual abuse', which associates child sex with coercion and psychopathy (also note 'sex abuse', 'sexually perverse' and 'sexually violent'). If two different things such as sexuality and psychopathy can become rhetorically intertwined, and the phrase is repeated enough, whole ways of thinking can be altered.
Problems with the Age of Consent
1. Arbitrary: In the absence of 'Romeo and Juliet' laws, the age of consent is an 'all or nothing' law, regarding whether a crime has been committed. Although courts do take into account the nature of a relationship, in sentencing, the crazy example of two partners either side of their birthday (also the age of consent) will always haunt such a law. The law is quite unlike most others concerning the ethics of personal conduct in that it draws a line in the sand, and does not garner information from the qualities of what should be very complex for an outsider to fully understand.
The AoC is absolutism in practice. The worst cultures and religions have thought in absolutes.
2. Varied: A quick look through an ages of consent list will show that even the US states are completely disagreed on what is appropriate. The AoC varies so widely across the world (7 - 21), that some of the harm that you predict must be happening legally. Yet do we hear more complaints coming from countries with low AoCs? Are 'ills' such as teenage pregnancy not lower in countries such as the Netherlands (when the AoC was 12)? Have campaigns to increase AoCs, such as in Canada (14 - 16) really been anything but morally reasoned?
3. Ignored (among the young): Although if anything, like psychoactives, its a boundary to be smashed if those who break it actually know what it is! Regarding youth - youth sex, all the AoC does is to persecute something that is standard and almost unstoppable. Among the varied AoCs, the age of consent seems to have little correlation to one's age of first penetrative sex. Compare these figures for the latter age with the age of consent list, and you will find that if anything, the countries at the extreme ends of the age of first sex scale have AoCs which reflect their society's acceptance of young sex. The pattern is varied, though. Refer to Spain at 17.5 (AoC 13) and Italy at 18.1 (AoC 14) and compare to the USA at 16.9, where the AoC is often 18. Many people have non penetrative experiences way younger than the virginity loss ages (and the ages of consent), and this brings in a fourth criticism: the law goes against instinct, even reproductive ability (which at as young as 10/11 should be well above the minimum age for any naturally caused harms).
4. Not required: Since physical abuse can be a punishable crime, whatever the age of consent, all the absence of such a law would do would be to give partakers a choice in deciding what equals abuse in the context of their relationship. Harmful abuse as it would happen under more liberal laws, would continue regardless of the AoC, since it is coercive, psychopathic, and has very little respect for the law. According to criminological studies, only about 2 - 10% of child sex criminals are pedophiles, the majority are 'situational offenders'.
Without an age of consent, along with the sex taboo, witch hunt and harsh punishments it supports, less of these relationships would be hidden, meaning that any abuse would be more visible, easier to speak out about and less inductive to blackmail and gagging by abusers. If law pinpointed what exactly was unacceptable to those involved, instead of performing a simplifying broad sweep, society as a whole could become aware of what constitutes abuse (i.e. coercion / harm, on the complaint of a victim or observer), and the courts could consider what went on by considering a healthy, diverse number of questions rather than the one main 'yes or no'. The 'age of reason' would have finally overcome our curious sex laws.
Sexual maturity = Adult irrationalism
It may be important to consider that the adult - driven idea of ‘sexual maturity’ involves conformity to the morals and dogmas that are learnt as part of one's social education. Sexual maturity is defined by those who claim it, and thus, it will tend to suit them. The mores that constitute ‘sexual maturity’ are among the very same factors in one's belief set that complicate sex beyond its simplistic, hedonistic basis in humanity. We get moral expectations, correlations, and rules as a result; a sexual culture that just needn't be!
Therefore, much of what constitutes 'maturity' is simply knowing of / being able to conform to those complicating social rules which allow us to avoid the simple shame felt by a child (alas, the only reaction to sex that kids are taught). One has to hold 'serious, rational' anti - sex viewpoints, to be accepted as part of the clan. Someone who through disagreement, ignorance or naivety, does not conform in this regard may not have a very good time in the presence of such rules. For a child involved in a sexual relationship, much of the trauma may come from simply not knowing about the 'need' for rules, and not being able to rationalise the source of all the pain. We should learn from the kids, and dump all this sexual dogmatism from our personal lives. At the very least, let the kids define a few of our dogmas, so that they can feel comfortable with them.
Sex Starvation
If we want to discover real 'harm in later life', we need only look towards the consequences of bringing children up without any exposure to or allowance to engage in sexual expression. A Humanist would call it incongruence, where the true perception of oneself (i.e. sexually interested in diverse ways) clashes with one's concept of society (pure, unperverted). It is quite likely that many children are misleading themselves as to how strange or immoral they are - when, in fact, we are nearly all 'strange' in our own way. Upbringing should be congruent with the sexual desires of a child (which are detailed by NVSH). This means that at the very least, parents should be open to the child's curiosity, and further, there should be no 'passive absence' of sexual discussion, or neglect of the genital area in child - parent intimacy. If the sexually neglected child cannot eventually come to terms with his sexuality (as a teenager or young adult), they may be left lacking in the ability to show general and sexual affection, misguided about the importance of sex, and confused about the validity and meaning of their own desires. This article goes to some length in explaining the sexual needs of children and the fantasies of adults towards them.
The Hedonic and Evolutionary Arguments
The idea that sexual experiences (or the adults who participate in them) should hurt the young can be neatly contested with the concept of hedonics. As makes evolutionary sense, it is often observed in humans and other animals, that activities which bring benefits (such as eating and sex), bring pleasure - especially at times of great need. The same principle works for pains that follow harmful behaviours. Assuming this, why would parents sexually enjoy harming their own offspring, in whom they have a genetic investment? Shouldn't such behaviour be not only undesireable, but painful to the adult, as well as the child? It could be said that this incest is because of a personal malfunction, but then why is it so often brought on by situational factors, such as the absence of a parent where before, the behaviour had been totally 'normal'?
In addition, why should children feel psychological pain as a result of something that was carried out in an initially painless, voluntary fashion? Why would this fear of sex be kicking in, just as the child should be starting to reproduce, thus greatly harming their 'biological fitness'? Is there anything in the long story of man's arrival that would suggest such a maladaptive mechanism? As far as evolution goes - bad logic!
To turn the argument around, there are evolutionary reasons for intergenerational intimacy, e.g. the lifespan of children to young mothers [1] [2], sexual induction and bonding before the age of fertility (which considering the shorter lifespan of our ancestors, may also have had to be the age of reproduction or at least advanced courtship). That possibly 15% of the male population are pedophiles, is a good indication of the trait's strengths in the evolutionary history of man (note that 'pedophile' does not equate to 'non reproductive', as with homosexuality). If one thinks of the benefits to a primitive community of maybe 30 human ancestors, it makes sense that around three or four of the adults should have an interest in the emotional development and sexual education of the group's young. It also makes sense that these interests are shared, albeit less preferentially, by most of the community, and that for the individual, a lust for a range of ages, genders, looks, etc (polymorphous perversity) is beneficial for their reproductive and social interests. Sexual education, intergenerational love and communication are just some tribal functions that need to be fulfilled, and thus, a sexually diverse population of pansexuals is favourable.
The nonhuman relative argument
Our animal relatives do not only engage in masturbation and casual homosexual behaviours, but sexually induct their young in ways that would often be described as incestuous by human standards. Yet, no harm is done. Indeed, such complex behaviours appear to be evolutionarily adaptive in these species. So why should the innate 'pedophile impulse' be any different for us? Animals, it seems, have no reason to limit child sex play to the nursery, i.e. they lack a restrictive moral structure. To them, it feels good and helps you get on.
So, using our own terms, who in the animal kingdom does what? Various primates engage in behaviours including incestuous matings with juveniles (both sexes, sometimes for reproductive purposes), intense relationships involving pederastic fondling, oral sex between younger and older males, fellatio, motherly sex play, masturbation and mounting with infants, child - child and child - parent faux - mountings, adult - pubescent lesbian relationships, adult male - infant female babysitting that involves masturbation and thrusting, adolescent anal sex (to ejaculation), sexualised greetings as normal interactions, studly, penetrative behaviour in very young infant males, multipositional homosexual mounting and masturbation during juvenile / adolescent wrestling games, infant initiation of intercourse and fatherly acceptance of mother - son cunnilinguis. This article and this thread explain the issue in more detail.
Of course, one could employ a fallacious argument by saying that other animals can behave in savage and unethical ways (sometimes in combination with the rape of infants). But that's beside the point; animals do not see or suffer these child love experiences as 'sex abuse', which is an entirely human construct, not far from a negative equivalent to the way that humans justify their own behaviour as being more civil and ethical than other animals; civility and ethics being human standards, anyway!
The sexual character of Humanity
Humans are highly able to separate the act of mating or the desire to mate immediately from sexuality itself. Humans, with their long life cycles and complex relationships, often use sexual behaviour (generally innuendo and suggestion, since Victorian times) to achieve general goals, or simply to pass time that they have created with their intelligence. Far from being reflexive and automatically driven, when it comes to relationships of all sorts, humans rely on biologically and socially appropriate variations of the same theme (love / philia), meaning that there is a blurred, or more accurately, nonexistent line between the love that a young couple show for each other, and the love that a parent feels for their child, vice versa. This is an adaptive trait because human relationships have always been diverse, with individuals having diverse needs, which the more intelligent human species is capable of catering for with extreme precision and sensitivity. This doesn't mean that humans are incapable of denying feelings which would 'inappropriately' expose such absences of clear distinction. Indeed, they may create social rules for what one form of love is 'supposed to be like'. In fact, this ability to play with reality is a fundamental feature of human adaptiveness, and alas we are currently adapted to a state of pigeonholing conformity, as far as philia goes.
The Historical and Anthropological Arguments
Will follow here.
Corresponding age attraction?
Whatever your age, it is generally seen as acceptable to 'fancy' an age peer - that is to express romantic or sexual love for children as a child, and possibly even to act on it in some mild manner. But is it really true that your peak age of attraction should rise slowly, in line with your own age? Is it possible for the structure of the brain to change so much, as to go from expressing pedophilic traits, to not only a state of preferring adults, but showing no sexual or romantic attraction towards children at all? If not, as I predict, could it be that so many of us are in denial? Combine this supposed 'correspondence' theory with the findings of scientists investigating the attraction of females to adult and infant faces (study, follow up) before and after menarche, and it becomes even more futile.
Parenthood structures perceptions
Becoming a parent has a structuring effect upon a person's view of pedophilia / child loving. First of all, the person is immediately exposed to their own feelings of affection towards children, but in 'no way' could they see this as even remotely similar to pedophilic feelings, since they are 'not pedophiles'. Therefore, 'pedophilia' or any 'sexual attraction' towards minors must be set apart as something completely different to what they are feeling, i.e. it must equate the lust to hurt and destroy young children.
Social Conservatives: Fighting fire with fire
Those, who in response to the 'sexual traumatisation' of young people, call for tougher legislation or stricter 'moral coaching' are putting a flame - thrower to an inferno. They are fighting the harmful effects of dogmatic and complicating moral teachings, by reinforcing those very values. They are blind to the harm which they are causing, much like the parent who responds to their underachieving and volatile child, by simply beating them even more. By legislating against 'risky' behaviour, they reinforce moral preconceptions against acts that may have turned out just fine, had the social situation not been so Oprah - like, reactionary, puritanical and over complicating. However, if we legislated against harm, we would not demonise and ruin so many peoples' lifestyles.
Jabs (Short Arguments)
Unleash a jab at any appropriate time during a debate:
''The disestablishment of pedophilia as a mental illness will make Adult - Child sex less 'excusable'. So why are the same people who fight for harsher sentences so often against this?!''
''Our society is blatantly hypocritical regarding child sex, hence the efforts towards legally trying children as adult suspects, alongside the idolisation of children as innocent and pure of all sexual lust. A society that treats you as if you are helplessly innocent, but changes direction rapidly when you have commited just one crime, is an ethically flawed and harmful society''.
''Since kids, especially boys can now only imagine themselves as the object of a psychopath's lust, this does not do too well for their self concepts. Maybe we should ask a child what it feels like, to only be sexually beautiful in the eye of either another child, or a psychopath like Marc Dutroux (BTW, not an actual pedophile), who wants to kill you''.
''In this culture, where children are treated as inferiors, beaten and told that their opinion doesn't count, maybe becoming a lover could gain them respect. One rarely patronises their lover, and assuming that they are a child, should not expect too much, either''.
''Parents will always react like vigilantes, when they falsely believe that a child is automatically their property. This belief clashes terribly with the moral dogma that sees sexual acts; especially involving loss of 'virginity' or 'innocence', as an act of 'owning' or 'putting one's mark upon x'. Kindersex becomes theft''.
''If you believe that sex requires maturity in the form of mental development, and an ability to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad', do you think that we should stop adults with low IQs, learning disabilities or infantile mentalities from expressing themselves sexually with another adult, because the sex will invariably lead to abuse and harm? Should we allow smart minors to do what stupid adults are incapable of?''
''A 'physical imbalance' between adult and minor is not intrinsic to such relationships. For example, if a 'physically level playing field' is required, what would you do with relationships between boys and young women, who may be very similar, physically? If the female cannot overpower or rape her partner, how can she inflict mental pain on a horny young dude?''
''If sex crime is a matter of perpetrator and victim, how exactly would you justify the real examples in which both partners (youths) have been treated as victims, and therefore perpetrators? Does such an occurrence not highlight our incomprehension of child sexuality?''
''Can a legal system that puts kids on sex crime registers, really claim to be protecting the vulnerable honourably?''
''So, if to massage or tickle the genital area of a child, as opposed to the armpit or skin is 'molestation', how is it not variably wrong to stimulate the other erogenous zones, such as the lips or nipples? In fact, if skin contact brings sexual pleasure to adults, why is hugging, or even bathing a child acceptable?''
''A marker of the falseness that characterises the current moral panic concerning sex and children would be our attitudes towards nepiophilia. Television networks allow adverts in which mothers intimately coddle, even kiss the buttocks of their babies. Would this ever be allowed with the father?''
''If we tell minors that their “no” has weight and meaning, we cannot tell them that their “yes” has none. With the forward marching of civil rights, we cannot trust them to behave as if this is insignificant.''
''It is in the interests of big business to maintain the panic associated with 'stranger danger', in that it keeps children housebound, where they will consume food and expensive products. Notice that post 1970s, hardly any children's toys / products promote independence beyond the house (and back garden, in the summer)''
''If pedophiles are 'childlike', 'regressive' and 'weak', only coping with 'childish' relationships, how come the damage from such relationships is said to come from deliberate, intelligent manipulation and the abuse of a seemingly absent power gap?''
''If 'adult babies' are regressing to an earlier phase, to achieve sexual gratification, could it be that real babies are gaining sexual pleasure from tactile intimacy, sucking and feeling protected by an older person?''
''Even penetrative sex between an adult and a minor is not automatically rape. If you want to find the real predators, look no further than 'the.rapists''
''Imagine a small island upon which a child had been brought up not to associate sex one bit with shame, or dirtiness. If they were allowed to choose their partner and the kind of act in which to indulge, where would this 'psychological scarring' originate from?''
''Both pedophiles and psychopathic child molesters are attracted to children. The former as a matter of sexual preference, and the latter as a matter of convenience''
''Society shouldn't work by excluding or weakening people and then protecting them, but rather society should protect itself as a whole, whilst always leaving open the option of dependency for the young or incapable. The current systems of exclusion (e.g. of children) are manifest within not only legal structures, but discreet social dynamics''
"Among those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo, the censorship of child pornography serves as a useful tool in hiding the truth as to childrens' enjoyment of sexual experiences"
"Many investigations are conspicuously distorted by researcher bias. In labeling the sexual activity "abuse," "offense," "indecent assault," "molestation" or "rape"; calling the adult partner "actor," "perpetrator," "delinquent," "offender," "criminal," "abuser" or "molester," and the child "victim," authors betray the fact that they are operating upon premises which have yet to be proven." (E. Brongersma).
"What a total insult to our established constructions of masculine resilience and sexuality, is the notion of a teenage boy being "emotionally scarred", "manipulated", or having his "innocence" robbed by a man. Are such justifications not a modern excuse for homophobia?"
''If every adult who is having sex with a minor is behaving in a predatory or exploitative way, I seriously fear for the majority of adults, involved in any form of sexual relationship''