Trigger warning - paedophilia : Childhood ‘Innocence’ is Not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child–Adult Sex

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

I apologise for posting such grotesque quotes, and for posting this at all. I felt it was important to highlight that paedophilia is not hiding in the shadows, it is openly publishing pieces designed to persuade in journals.

Some people will read this sort of thing and nod along, agreeing. Many people are incapable of critical thinking and this sort of word salad can seem very "scientific".

I haven't read the article in depth but the author seems to argue that ages of consent are a social construct, not based on any evidence. That child-adult relationships are common in animals, and in other cultures. That peoples view of paedophilia is not based on evidence. That children should learn about healthy sexual relationships in a practical way from trusted adults including the parents.

Don't read the quotes or linked article unless you have a strong stomach.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12119-018-9519-1#citeas
I will argue that (a) child–adult casual sexual pleasure as “play” is morally permissible and (b) that child–adult sexual encounters, especially when they are part of a deeper relationship than might be suggested by the word “play”, need not be inimical to lives lived with the highest of ideals, and may indeed help define and contribute to those ideals.

But why they should not be regarded as persons specifically for the purpose of sexual activity requires independent justification. Instead of asserting a priori that children are not persons, therefore they cannot do x, or have type of relations y, with another person, their capacities for x or y first need to be established empirically, and their personhood status then determined accordingly.

Secondly, the assertion that children are incapable of reciprocal sexual relations is empirically unfounded. Where is the evidence?

Who benefits, then, in post-patriarchal societies, from the continued defence of “innocence” and virginity? In what respect is the radical separation of childhood from adulthood functional and healthy, as opposed to the alternative, and surely more realistic, view that children’s capacities and understanding develop gradually over time, in relation to sex as much as they do with everything else? While there is an unarguable case for saying that the beginning of reproductive capacity marks a clear developmental landmark, there are also grounds for claiming this is something children need to be made aware of beforehand, and that it may be beneficial (as discussed below) to practise intimate relationships well before the time when there might be reproductive consequences

Malón continues: “The pedophile desires not the person, but the person at a stage in their life in which they have not yet fully developed as a person” (Malón 2017, p. 255). We have already seen, above, that such development may be morally relevant if the child is to be held to account (the age of criminal responsibility was mentioned) but it otherwise lacks traction as an ethical issue.

Children will inevitably outgrow their sexual attractiveness to the exclusive paedophile when secondary sexual characteristics develop, such as genital hair. Additionally, the onrush of developmental hormones may temporarily blight their looks through the ravages of acne

The idea of a sexual “sandpit” may be invoked, where sexual and relationship learning can take place without the burden of adult responsibilities, just as, traditionally, little girls have long been able to rehearse motherhood by playing with dolls.

The trouble with looking at survivor's stories is that they generally happen in a context where the behaviour was non-normative. Guys like this will then ask the question, in a society that did not have those taboos, what would be the effect?

Which are the societies in which child-adult sex is normative? I don't know of one.

But as westerners, I think we tend to have a very visceral reaction that goes well beyond that, that there is something much more inherently negative about children having sexual interactions, and we sometimes even extend it up into the teen years to some extent, and to situations between children.

I'm glad we "Westerners" and I bet a fair few non westerners

I think finding evidence for that kind of harm is more difficult

Fred and Rosemary West were brought up in families where aberrant sexual behaviour had been the norm for gene rations. That is a common feature in cases of abuse

Which are the societies in which child-adult sex is normative?

I have a vague memory of "Dr Christian" saying something similar? Something about different cultures see things differently re child marriage?

Which are the societies in which child-adult sex is normative? I have a vague memory of "Dr Christian" saying something similar? Something about different cultures see things differently re child marriage?

This fits beautifully with the pomo wokeness currently going on in academia.

We are just decolonialising sexuality.

Yeah. Go us.

FFS.

Wow, the editorial board should not have touched this with a barge pole. I am not sure I can bear to read the whole article or want it on my digital tracks. Academics have an enormous amount of freedom in research, which is a good thing, but with that also comes a responsibility not to do or promote research which will do people harm.

This kind of research and writing is harmful because people who wish to violate social and legal boundaries on consent will find rationale for doing so in here. Even material which is not intended to promote paedophilia but to analyse concepts of sexuality in relation to children runs that risk.

The point about abuse is that it thrives where there are power differentials. There are clear power differentials between adults and children. One can prepare children for relationships by explaining, helping them set boundaries and talking about friendships and feelings - one does not have to practice intimacy.

Children of course learn about their bodies and relationships as they grow up, and hopefully do that in a safe and nurturing environment, with someone their own age as they are teenagers and young adults. Adults can provide age appropriate information and education but anything else is just inappropriate and abusive.

I have seen the argument that it is our attitudes to CSA which create the stigma and trauma for children experiencing sexual contact/abuse. I do not believe this is an argument which can be substantiated. How are children supposed to judge who is safe to be intimate with and who is not? Many grown adult females do not manage to make that judgement! Predators are difficult to spot, precisely because they can be charming an for manipulative. And it would be the predators, because most decent people have boundaries of what is appropriate or not. You would expose children to predators, and it would be the vulnerable unprotected children in that position.

The pomo wokeness connections are disturbing.

Also good with my visceral reaction thanks. It's probably not unrelated to the one which stops me eating poo and various other harmful activities.

However I do think that our society normalises other power imbalance relationships between men with money or influence and more vulnerable women and I don't think that helps. It's yet another message to men that they are the subjects and women or children are objects to be used. Healthier relationships tend to be between relative equals.

Can't stomach reading the article, the quotes are bad enough[angry
I'm sure Fred Wests children would disagree with him.

I have no need to google Tom O'Carroll: I know exactly who and what he is .

I remember the PIE scandal and no decent person should be giving this piece of utter filth the time of day, let alone a platform for his vile agenda.

The pomo wokeness connections are disturbing.

Yes. There is almost a string of moral nihilism running through it all. Nothing matters. There are no ethics or morals. Let's just do whatever we like and fuck the consequences. Whether its people consensually eating eat each other, paedophiles arguing that CSA is an important part of child development, or doctors experimenting with untested medical treatments on children (note to mods, I am not conflating all of these, they are all symptoms of a bigger whole, but are not in themselves related) there seems to be something going wrong somewhere.

Society seems to be like my right year old, pushing and pushing at the boundaries just for fun to see how far they can push it.

I am not clicking on that and I won't read past the first line of your quote. Some things need to not be read.

Tell me who I write to to ask that they apply the law and consider the consequences.

I wonder if the academics on the journal's board actually realise who they've published. If I were a journalist, I'd be writing to them all.

@EarlyModernParent
I live in northern Australia, where a lot of traditional aboriginal culture is still practiced eg the giving of "promised wives" and young girls being betrothed or promised to much older men.
Now, these days the more "modern" amongst the men don't claim their promise wives duties (ie consummating the marriage) until they are of an age to consent (eg over 18), and many often release their promised wives to have relationships with others.
But some men still have a sense of entitlement, that their young betrothed owe them sexual intimacy, and they will take it by force.
Also, aboriginal culture is a "demand/share" economy, whereby someone's relationship with you as a family member means they have the right to demand things from you, and you are expected to reciprocate. People demand money, food, and sometimes even sex. Young girls and boys don't feel they can say no, because their culture has taught them that certain people are allowed to ask them for anything, and they need to give it to them.
If any culture has "normalised" child sexual abuse, it's aboriginal culture.

And you don't need a psychology degree to see the extent of damage this causes to the population. Much higher than national averages in youth substance abuse, youth suicide, youth incarceration rates, child protection involvement, unwanted pregnancies and the like.
A tell-tale sign of a damaged young person is that they have no dreams for their future, except to survive another day and have enough food.

Very timely with the Michael Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland just starting now on Ch 4.
These men are quite clear that they were sexually abused.

I think finding evidence for that kind of harm is more difficult.

Yeah, no. It's not. I was only 'lightly' sexually abused as a child, and it's definitely, clearly, affected me for life.

Fuck off with evidence for that kind of harm being more difficult.

How on earth did this get past any kind of peer ‘review’ or basic human ethical consciousness??? Appalled at this journal for publication, academic freedom aside.

I've not defended anything, nor do I think it's necessarily bad to have a visceral reaction.

I do think that it's usually a good idea to make logically strong arguments against against ideas that you object to, and to follow appropriate rules for evidence. Otherwise people are less likely to take you seriously and are more likely to be swayed by the point of view of the person you oppose.

I really don't understand how people here can make all these arguments around the problems of emotive and fallacious reasoning, and improper evidence, around trans issues, and not see how they could cause problems with something like this - something, for the record, which I think may become a bigger issue in the future.

So, you say there are negative effects from being abused, and this guy responds that is due to the stigma, and where do you go from there? It could be true, or not, if you leave it at that.

The fact that something is wrong, or right, does not mean every argument people make for that thing is sound. If the issue is important, it's worth while to find the best evidence and arguments.

The last thing I'd like to say, from a personal standpoint, is I am super-pissed off that someone offering what is a pretty reasonable thought is jumped on here in that way. I was molested as a kid, I have some experience of the psychological effects, if that matters, since that seems to be the only thing now that does. I've lurked here because I'm particularly concerned about some of the issues that get addressed here, and yet I pretty consistently see that when someone disagrees, or even just points out some sort of alternate approach, they get really nastily treated, to the point of being accused as a fucking apologist for pedophiles. It's no different than the way people on the left treat each other when they transgress other orthodoxies, as you all so often note. Maybe you all need to bloody well look at your own behaviour if you want to understand why others do it.

I've considered a few times pointing people here to get information, and I've hesitated because of this kind of thing, but I really have no doubt now that would be a bad idea.

2 pieces of advice for anyone who doesn't want to inadvertently come across as a rape/paedophilia apologist

1. Don't suggest that the narratives and the ongoing trauma of abuse survivors can tell us nothing about whether or not what happened to them was harmful

1. Don't imply that child rape is a matter of cultural relativism

Hth

I'm lost for words at Goosefoot's post.

It basically is chastising us for not having an open mind about paedophilia.

I do think that it's usually a good idea to make logically strong arguments against against ideas that you object to, and to follow appropriate rules for evidence

Sorry are we still talking about adults having sex with children? I just want to be sure I didn't miss a derail into a debate about the merits of wind farms, or fracking or the need for setting immigration levels or whether prisons help to deter crime. Or any subject where it is legitimate for a range of opposing views and one is expected to argue one's case.

I think finding evidence for that kind of harm is more difficult.

I think setting the bar as having to prove harm (define harm) in a hypothetical cultural utopia as a precursor to arguing with pedophiles is completely crazy.

Don't let the pedophiles groom you into allowing them to set the standard. Their standard is 'let me abuse kids'

We have ample evidence that abusing children causes harm, here and now, in our current cultural settings. Giving legitimacy to these nonsense faux academic 'arguments' is not helpful.

A horrible article. My personal feeling is that while we DO need to move away from a Victorian notion of the 'purity' of children, the only permissible sexual play and learning is that which occurs between peers ("Doctors and Nurses"). Even then issues of consent, coercion etc can make it rather undesirable or at least not to be actively encouraged.
There are no circumstances where it is necessary or appropriate to childhood development to have a sexual encounter with an older sexually mature person!!!!!

As so often happens when people try to defend the indefensible, a recognisable tactic is being used: make the victim justify their feelings and actions and reactions to the abuse. This reversal is a really, really shitty move.

How about we return the focus to where it should be: on the perpetrator. What sort of sad fuck-up of an adult knowingly victimises a child for their own pleasure, in the knowledge that that child is a child and therefore cannot give (and indeed is not cognitively capable of giving) consent?

I'll tell you what sort of adult: a rapist. A particularly evil sort of rapist.

Back in the day I spent a number of years as a philosopher (in a technical backwater of philosophy). One thing I noticed was that a fair few moral philosophers (there were notable and quite wonderful exceptions) were actually deeply amoral and in some instances immoral people, who used their intellect at best to play ego-boosting "look at me, I'm so clever" games, and at worst to try to confuse people into thinking up was down and that their own awful behaviour was in fact okay. Having seen them in action, I have very little patience with pseudo intellectual defences of the indefensible.

@Goosefoot your post just serves to remind us that abuse can lead to very unhealthy thoughts and relationships in later life.

Goose I am very sorry to hear you were molested as a child.

May I ask (you obviously don't have to answer) whether you have children yet? It is not unusual for survivors of childhood abuse to have been subjected to such a thorough grooming process that they still feel (even if they know rationally that they shouldn't) some residual guilt or complicity in what goes on. Often that lifts when they have children of their own, and their child reaches the age at which the parent was abused - that is the point at which the parent finally realises, on a really deep emotional level, that no matter what their abuser told them, they cannot have been complicit. Because they look at their own child and finally, finally realise that children can never, ever be complicit in, or consenting to abuse. And that includes the child they once were.

So, you say there are negative effects from being abused, and this guy responds that is due to the stigma, and where do you go from there? It could be true, or not, if you leave it at that.

Well, no-one knows about mine, so external effects don't exist. Are you seriously suggesting that I'm affected not by the abuse, but by the fact that society says abuse is bad and secret? Because that's pretty squirly reasoning, suggesting that the effects are due to a secondary cause, not the original act!

Like saying that someone getting a punch to the face is more upset because violence is bad, than because they have a broken nose!