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.