There is absolutely zero evidence for the hypothesis that sexual experience in childhood or youth is inherently harmful, there is at best proof that there is a correlation between sex in childhood and trauma in societies that are unaccepting of sexual relations between children/minors and pedophiles/adults, no proof whatsoever that sex in childhood or youth in and of itself causes the trauma.
Because pedophobes irrationally feel disgusted and threatened by the topic, they immediately think of certain harmful factors when they try to process it, like manipulation, blackmail, force, anal penetration, STDs, pregnancy, etc, which are all things that are not inherently connected to the act of having sex with a child/minor though.
Children have genitals and can obviously find out about the existence of sexual pleasure by exploring them on their own, without somehow needing to be fooled or violently coerced into doing so, there’s no evidence and/or reason to think it’s the result of some kind of evil scheme by some underground pedophile cabal misleading children through propaganda.
So if a little girl wants to simply experience the same pleasurable sensation from rubbing herself against a pillow by rubbing herself against a pedophile’s leg, and the pedophile isn’t some kind of violent psychopath that does something to her that she doesn’t want later on, like anal rape, there’s no evidence that such an encounter would be harmful to children unless society reacted negatively to it.
There is zero conclusive scientific evidence that children that voluntarily received sexual relief even in societies where pedosexuality was acceptable felt traumatized by sex, and there are zero reliable or coherent explanations from pedophobe professionals as to how this magical process of trauma just poofing into existence out of the great nowhere is supposed to work, even if the child initially engaged in the sex act without having been manipulated or otherwise forced into it and society simply stopped reacting negatively to it.
Pedophobes just like any other group of bigots assume that because they could prove a correlation between sex in childhood and higher depression rates in adulthood, it proves that it’s caused by the pedophilic sex act itself.
It is similar to how a homophobic bigot would assume that if they see some questionable study that says children of gay parents are more likely to suffer from depression, they assume that it’s directly caused by the fact that the parents are gay and definitely nothing else, the child is depressed because their father sucked a dick, not because the bigots are raising their children to harass children of gay couples.
It’s just a post hoc fallacy, correlation equals causation – B happened after A, therefore, A caused B. The child had sex, the child is traumatized by society’s negative reaction to it, so therefore, sex causes trauma, that’s the faulty idea here. The child left the house while it was raining, the child was wetted by the rain, therefore, so leaving your house causes you to be wetted.
When it gets to that point in the discussion, the pedophobes sometimes simply like to commit another fallacy to prove their point by then simply appealing to the extrinsic harm caused by the harsh social reaction that they themselves are creating in response to such sex acts and say something along the lines of:
- ”Even if having sex with children is not inherently harmful, in our society, there are still consequences to this perverted behavior either way, so it’s still just as harmful to the poor child in the end, they’ll feel ashamed later on! Why does it matter by what exactly the trauma is caused? No excuses!”
It is ultimately an argumentum ad baculum fallacy – because it’s an entirely self-created consequence. Instead of proving something to be harmful, society, which you are forming part of, is causing harm to someone for engaging in an activity you don’t like, then pretend that the activity they engaged in is harmful because you harmed them in response to engaging in the harmless activity, frequently followed with standard moronic phrases like ”don’t drop the soap LOL”, i.e if you’re a pedo, you get raped in jail, so therefore, pedo=bad.
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for “argument to the cudgel” or “appeal to the stick”) is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.[1][2] One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one points out the negative consequences of holding the contrary position (ex. believe what I say, or I will hit you). It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
Let’s say you like to wear red hats. I don’t like that, so in response to you wearing a red hat, I cut your head off and set you on fire. Does this prove that wearing a red hat is harmful? No, it does not, it just proves that I harmed you in response to wearing a red hat, but it does not actually prove the wearing of red hats to be intrinsically harmful.
The pedophobe at this point in the discussion is just appealing to a consequence that they themselves are creating.
They pretty much admit that child sex is not intrinsically harmful, they just appeal to the consequences bestowed by the bigoted society they form part of, such as for example:
- The child and the pedophile being separated.
- The child being screeched at by their hysterical parents.
- The child being sent to a similarly delusional therapist.
- The child receiving strong social pressure to ”accept their rape”.
- The child hearing they now ”lost their innocence” and this is a great problem.
- The child seeing the pedophile tormented/beaten in front of them.
- The child feeling responsible for the pedophile going to prison.
This is no better than any other bigot althroughout human history just using force and threat to explain why the behavior they are bigoted against is somehow bad.
- Don’t be a homo or else I’ll beat you up for it, therefore, gay sex is harmful/bad.
- Don’t be a whore or else I’ll rape you for it, therefore, prostitution is harmful/bad.
Just that the pedophobe is essentially saying:
- Don’t be a pedo or else I’ll beat you up for it in front of the child you gave an orgasm, thereby traumatize the child, then attribute that trauma to the orgasm rather than my uncivilized primitive conduct, therefore, child sex is harmful/bad.
It is akin to a homophobe in Saudi Arabia arguing that even if the homosexual activity itself does not cause harm, when you, as a bigot, set the homosexuals on fire for having homosexual sex, they are still harmed by it, therefore, somehow the sex (rather than the consequences you inflict on homosexuals for having sex) is still harmful, so homosexual sexual relations ought to be outlawed because otherwise you’ll burn these faggots!
It’s ironically the argument of a rapist while pedophobes pretend to be so anti-rape, like saying you can’t go outside dressing like a whore, it’s bad, because if you do that, he’s going to rape you, this proves how harmful it is for women to not wear a burqa, there is a consequence for not wearing one, a consequence which the rapist himself is creating, which is that he’ll rape them for it.
It might even become circular reasoning, i.e it’s harmful to have sex with the child, because if you have sex with the child, we’ll harm you (and by extension through this whole drama the child too) by imprisoning you for it, and why do we harm you for it? Because having sex with the child is harmful, you sick pervert! – That would be circular.
As an example to illustrate just how absurd appealing to self-created, extrinsic harm to demonstrate that an act is harmful is, let’s say society acted about harmless sexual encounters between children and pedophiles about any other pleasure-seeking activity, like eating ice cream.
They all believe that because children don’t have fully developed brains yet, a child can never possibly consent to buy ice cream you sick monster, it’s a crime even if it really seemed like the child consented to taste the ice cream, that’s not real consent because they haven’t reached the age of consent yet where society has decided the child is allowed to consent to eating ice cream.
Whenever there’s an ice cream salesman and the child agrees to buy it, some psychotic lunatic father has a meltdown in front of the child.
- ”OMG this is my daughter you sick fuck, one step closer and I shoot! I don’t care that there’s no actual evidence whatsoever that eating ice cream in childhood in and of itself causes lifelong trauma, once I’ve beaten you pervert to a bloody pulp right in front of my little girl, she’s still traumatized, so that proves that ice cream is indeed very traumatizing, I’m doing this protect your precious wellbeing, little Suzie! You can’t consent!”
The child is then pressured by society to accept that they have been horribly wronged by having been sold exactly the ice cream flavor that they wanted, if they don’t, they’re just the poor dumb child that can’t understand how horribly violated it was by having been sold ice cream and the therapists won’t stop harassing her.
She also hears others joke how the guy that sold the ice cream is now going to prison and has Big Bubba shove his chocolate ice cream in his asshole, teehee, violent anal rape for a completely victimless crime harming absolutely no one, it doesn’t get any funnier than that!
At some point now, little Suzie is kinda sad.
Society concludes – ah see, ice cream is very harmful to children indeed! Doesn’t matter if selling ice cream isn’t ”intrinsically harmful” or any of this weird science and philosophy shit jargon, I’m a simple man, fact is, little Suzie is harmed, so no ice cream! NO ICE CREAM!
- Has this society legitimately proven how bad the selling of ice cream is by harming the ice man in response to selling a child ice cream, have they made a great consequentialist argument as to why selling ice cream to children is always bad?
No, it hasn’t, they just demonstrated themselves to be primitive barbarians in need of psychiatric institutionalization that for some irrational narrative harm others in response to selling ice cream to children, anyone who has not been indoctrinated into their cult can fully see through their non-sensical notions of right and wrong behavior.
That they are in fact just suffering from a delusion that the selling of ice cream is harmful, and then attribute the harm that they cause in response to ice cream being sold to the selling of the ice cream rather than their uncivilized, backward, moronic behavior.
The vast majority of humans on this planet, neurotypicals, the neurologically typical are socially imitative animals that have a strong tendency to conform to many rules that are taught to them without questioning, this had certain benefits of social security at some point in our evolutionary history, but is also why humans can be indoctrinated into believing things that are completely disconnected from reality or fail to understand science like the earth being round, when their society keeps insisting that it is flat, it produces discomfort to go against their tribe.
Just like someone can be indoctrinated into believing that god is real but allah isn’t rather than to acknowledge that god is just as real as the easter bunny – someone can also be indoctrinated into believing that one particular age of consent, like 18 instead of 14 is the only correct one, and feel uneasy and repulsed whenever this delusional perception of their’s is challenged to any degree at all, although they most likely exactly see the delusion for what it is if they witnessed someone who believed in a special number that were even higher than their’s and thought that sex under 21 is never possible without resulting in harm later on.
Of course the lower we go, the more likely someone might be to be manipulated into having sex, the point is that it is being treated like a religion. Just because someone is more likely to be manipulated into sex, that doesn’t prove that when they have sex, it must be the result of manipulation, it could be, but doesn’t have to be, rape is the problem which can still be illegal regardless of the age of consent, but many pedophobes have a religious mindset in that they would pretend that all sex under the holy age is rape no matter what.
So does this problem apply to the ”victims” of ”rape” (wanting to get raped is an oxymoron, if it’s wanted it ceases to be rape) that they initially wanted to engage in when they were children, obviously, if a social animal is being put under excessive social pressure to pretend they got raped, then they will more often than not simply start to go along with the narrative to avoid being labelled as the poor, dumb rape victim that doesn’t even understand how raped it truly is.
Pedophobes would see their behavior for what it is if were to be manifested in someone else, like the hypothetical society that demonizes particularly selling ice cream to children, they would just as clearly detect that it’s not the selling of the ice cream itself that causes the harm, but the complete overreaction to it of sending someone to prison for it and pressuring the child to accept how it has been wronged.
Yet when a pedophile gives a willing child that discovered sexual pleasure and now wants to receive a pleasurable sensation in the form of an orgasm rather than ice cream (which is probably even healthier in the long run), they torment the pedophile in front of the child, then attribute the resulting trauma to the harmless pleasurable sensation of relief from sexual frustration rather than their fundamentally irrational, psychotic behavior.
Of course, you could even argue that because in response to ice cream being sold, the cult reacts in this violent manner, it might be somewhat negligent of the iceman to sell ice cream when he knows that the reaction has the chance of in some way emotionally harming the child from seeing the iceman being harmed in front of them, but the harm still lies in the reaction.
The social reaction doesn’t need to exist in the first place, so it would still be better to simply get rid of the reaction, just like in the cases of pedophiles and children exchanging sexual pleasure, obviously the real problem at hand is that you’re castrating and shooting people in front of children for selling them ice cream, not the selling of the ice cream itself.
Counterintuitive conclusions 
Although I’m autistic myself, I think it’s unduly pessimistic to imply that neurotypical will inevitably follow the crowd. I sure hope not, anyway!
LikeLike
They’re certainly more likely to automatically imitate the behavior of those they observe around them, this has been shown before in different experiments, like this one by Antonia Hamilton: https://psychcentral.com/news/2013/04/09/autistic-kids-tend-to-imitate-efficiently-not-socially/53604.html
Both autistic and non-autistic children are given a task, such as opening a box, and are shown unnecessary steps in the completion of such tasks by a perceived authority, such as hitting the box before opening it, in conclusion the non-autistic children are more likely to copy the unnecessary steps.
The topic of pedosexuality, age of consent laws, trauma, etc is indeed a great example of this behavior I would say, a great majority of them believe all sex under their particular holy age will inevitably result in harm, they think exactly their holy age is ”just right”, and individuals that did not initially feel harmed by a sexual experience later on give in to the social pressure on them to say that they got raped.
I think that through intelligence, non-autistics can learn to overcome their social instincts, whereas the more autistic you are, the more you probably naturally lack such instincts in the first place, that’s how I would put it. So I guess the blanket statement ”will conform to any rule” isn’t true, I just changed it to simply stating that they have a strong tendency to copy many behaviors without questioning them, of course everyone has different levels of predisposition to social mimicry.
It was certainly intense enough in the average person to imitate someone like Hitler in front of them angrily signalling and gesticulating there to be a great threat to their tribe before, so I wouldn’t underestimate their inclination to automatically imitate.
LikeLike
So this is what the search cat dragged in … a pedophile trying to justify his mental illness 🤦♂️
FYI, a “pedophobe” would be a person afraid of children, so the stupidity starts right in the title.
Don’t even get me started on the pathetic attempt of labeling someone who dislikes people who want to abuse children as “phobic”. Nope, that’s not a “phobia”, that’s sanity!
And for the existence of a fallacy, there would have to be a debate, as in “Is it bad to abuse children?” But that debate is over – has been over since the dawn of history: adults do not get to abuse children!
Prepubescent children are not interested in sexuality. An adult trying to get children interested in sexuality is a mentally ill psychopath.
Children who were abused ALWAYS end up with life-long trauma. That’s not debatable, either.
A French woman just published a book about how the commie writer Matzneff abused her when she was 14-15. He wrote about his pedophile lust and it was tolerated because he was part of the leftist establishment. Even that women’s parents did not protect her against that sexual predator – totally contrary to your idiotic excuses.
She admits that she suffered life-long trauma which finally pushed her to write her book 40 years after the abuse. And shortly after her, another woman, also abused by Matzneff, came forward with her own story and trauma. And they did not make up their stories – the facts are clearly established. Matzneff even mentioned them in his books.
Pretending that abused children would NOT suffer is a colossal lie.
And it’s absolutely obvious. Hence telling pedophiles that I would f*king shoot them if they tried to come anywhere near my daughter is not a “fallacy”, it’s a simply a statement of FACT: this is how any reasonable parent protects their child. It’s not a debating argument, it’s a warning.
Psychopaths who abuse children deserve the death penalty. Period.
LikeLike
”So this is what the search cat dragged in … a pedophile trying to justify his mental illness”
Someone supporting pedophile rights does not make someone a pedophile, or does supporting gay rights make someone a homosexual? No, so I don’t know why you immediately make this assumption with no evidence, not that it should even be a problem if someone is a pedophile though of course.
Even if you think for some irrational reason that sex with children is always harmful, I could still be a sociopath/psychopath who supports it based on carelessness about the welfare of others, so it would still not follow that I’m a pedophile, you’re already starting off with bad reasoning here but let’s see if it gets better (spoiler alert: it doesn’t).
”FYI, a “pedophobe” would be a person afraid of children, so the stupidity starts right in the title.”
I really think it can be used to mean both: idiots who hate pedophiles and idiots who are scared of children’s sexualities, because I do legitimately believe you idiots have some kind of deep-rooted problem with the notion that children could be sexual. You find it icky so you deny it, as if someone had a big problem with acknowledging that children can produce excrement and tried to pretend as hard as possible that this does never happen, innocent children don’t press poop out of their asses, we just can’t admit it because it’s gross!
I mean, who cares in the grand scheme of things, I can also just call you a bigoted turd with no critical thinking skills, that’d be an acccurate description as well.
”Don’t even get me started on the pathetic attempt of labeling someone who dislikes people who want to abuse children as “phobic”. Nope, that’s not a “phobia”, that’s sanity!”
The whole point was that sexual pleasure is not harmful if the child/minor wants to have it plus idiots like you simply stopped having a negative reaction to it. If idiots like you didn’t have a negative reaction to it, where would the harm in receiving a wanted orgasm whilst being under the holy age come from? I’m thrilled to know.
I don’t think there is any such evidence. Of course sometimes children are manipulated, blackmailed, forced into sex, in that case, the harm is the use of manipulation, blackmail, force, not the sex. If it was a voluntary sexual encounter, it might later on result in heavy feelings of regret because of idiots like you creating strong societal negative reinforcement in response to it, but that’s it.
So why this imbecilic insistence on calling it abuse?
What’s the evidence that in and of itself child + orgasm from older person=trauma? Prove it to me like you would prove that alcohol causes liver alterations, don’t appeal to cases where the child was manipulated or forced, don’t appeal to social consequences that idiots like you are responsible for creating.
”And for the existence of a fallacy, there would have to be a debate, as in “Is it bad to abuse children?” But that debate is over – has been over since the dawn of history: adults do not get to abuse children!”
No, it is a debate about what constitutes abuse, you are just presupposing that it is with no great evidence, all you ultimately got is ”I feel it’s icky!”.
The point here was that appealing to a threat is not evidence of harm, I’m posing a clear question: ”why is sex harmful to a child if the child wants it and society just wouldn’t make a big deal out of it?” and then idiots like you sometimes like to say something like ”but we do make a big deal out of it!” as if that that proves that somehow the sex rather than your violent reaction is harmful.
Well, it is not. If you wear a red hat and I stick a knife in you for wearing one, that doesn’t prove that wearing a red hat is harmful, that only proves that I did something harmful to you in response for it, which is sticking the knife in you. That was the harm, not the wearing of the red hat. Are you following, bigoted turd with no critical thinking skills? Harming someone in response to doing x is not proof that x is harmful.
”Prepubescent children are not interested in sexuality. An adult trying to get children interested in sexuality is a mentally ill psychopath.”
Big fat lie, I discovered sexual pleasure as a child by rubbing myself against balloons.
What do you mean by ”getting them interested”? They are interested or they are not, I would agree that forcing them into it is bad, yes, I never said anyone should do that.
But if they are interested, what is the harm in letting them explore that interest? Is sexuality something awful or why would someone be a monster for getting someone interested in it?
”Children who were abused ALWAYS end up with life-long trauma. That’s not debatable, either.”
Not even true, I’m sure that there is the occasional person who gets raped (real rape, not fake rape like you are talking about) and it doesn’t necessarily destroy their life, if that’s what you mean by it.
But the thing is, we’re not even talking about real rape here, it is crystal clear that you are just a delusional moron living in a fantasy world where children are all asexual, so the only reason why they would have sex is if some evil pedominati propagandist manipulated them into it! Oh no!
”A French woman just published a book about how the commie writer Matzneff abused her when she was 14-15. He wrote about his pedophile lust and it was tolerated because he was part of the leftist establishment. Even that women’s parents did not protect her against that sexual predator – totally contrary to your idiotic excuses.”
So exactly one french woman having felt bad for life after rape is proof that all people that get raped feel bad for life? What kind of evidence is that?
You are also not being specific enough because you are a bigoted turd with no critical thinking skills, so none of your example tells me whether or not this woman was manipulated, blackmailed or forced into sex, which I’m readily willing to admit can harm a minor. But in that case, the harm stems from being coerced/forced into sex, that does not mean sex itself is harmful to children/minors who actually want to have it.
Her parents are also not the only example of a social environment, it could very well be that for people who are very susceptible to social pressure, living in a society where people have generally negative attitudes towards this practice can be enough, or just the fact that today it is socially unacceptable is enough for them and they feel the need to conform to said expectations, it also really sounds like a story that sells really well, evil powerful person abused me and the evil leftists tolerated it.
Could be, could not be, I do not know the details of this story, but really, if you’re that convinced that minor + orgasm=harm, even if wanted, even if no one makes a big deal out of it, explain how it works. Alcohol alters the liver in this and that way, we explain that objectively. Now prove minor + orgasm=suffering. Go ahead.
People who are attracted to 14/15 year olds are also not necessarily pedophiles, but that’s a less relevant side note, just pointing it out since many bigoted turds with no critical thinking skills like you believe that being attracted to adolescents=being attracted to prepubescents=being a rapist.
”She admits that she suffered life-long trauma which finally pushed her to write her book 40 years after the abuse. And shortly after her, another woman, also abused by Matzneff, came forward with her own story and trauma. And they did not make up their stories – the facts are clearly established. Matzneff even mentioned them in his books.”
Again, no one is denying that abuse harms people. I assume abuse to mean that you were in some sense manipulated, blackmailed, forced into sex, that is abusive, yes, that is harmful. Now what? How does that prove that all sex under whatever you believe is the holy age (I’m guessing somewhere from 16-18 or 21) is the result of coercion and force? That’s just a delusion you have, you revealed earlier that you are suffering from a delusion that children are never interested in sexual gratification.
”Pretending that abused children would NOT suffer is a colossal lie.”
I’m not pretending that abused children would not suffer, I’m pointing out that wanting an orgasm and receiving it is not abuse, even if your society believes in a religion that says people under a given holy age are incapable of wanting orgasms and thus if they receive them, it must be the result of manipulation and coercion.
And then, I’m also pointing out that even if the orgasm was completely wanted by the person under the holy age, it can obviously result in strong backlash from the true believers of the only true holy age, which in return might make the person under it feel bad.
”And it’s absolutely obvious. Hence telling pedophiles that I would f*king shoot them if they tried to come anywhere near my daughter is not a “fallacy”, it’s a simply a statement of FACT: this is how any reasonable parent protects their child. It’s not a debating argument, it’s a warning.”
No, I agree with you here, bigoted turd with no critical thinking skills. That would not be in and of itself a fallacy, that would just be a threat. The faulty line of reasoning is when you pretend that you saying ”I shoot someone giving my daughter an orgasm she wanted to have, then she feels bad, this proves that giving my willing daughter an orgasm is harmful” is evidence of harm in the sex act rather than evidence of the harm in your actions.
No, it simply does not, all that then proves is that we should probably have better gun control laws for retards like you. Again, I know it is really hard for you to grasp, but ”I harm you for doing x, therefore doing x is harmful” is not proper reasoning, if I shoot you for wearing a red hat, that doesn’t prove wearing red hats results in harm, all it proves is that I harmed you for doing it, but of course it is perfectly possible to wear a red hat without being shot, as long as we arrest insane psychotics who go after people with red hats and shoot them because they believe that wearing a red hat is harmful, because if they wear one, then they shoot them, and they shoot them because it’s harmful to wear a red hat, and it’s harmful because they shoot them for it.
”Psychopaths who abuse children deserve the death penalty. Period.”
Well, you think believe something along the lines of child/minor=asexual so child/minor + orgasm=harm because minor is never interested in sex, so therefore it must always the result of manipulation when they receive an orgasm, which is simply not true.
In that case, I can simply not bring myself to agree with such a notion, that for some reason, we should do violence to such people, for the same reason I would not support doing violence to people for giving a willing child broccoli to eat, just because for some reason some psychotic lunatic like you lives in a delusional fantasy world where children are always incapable of desiring to eat broccoli.
But even beyond that, I’m very skeptical about using the death penalty. As you probably now, I’m a consequentialist/utilitarian, so I do not believe in some kind of inherent deserve-notion where if you have done x, you simply deserve to have x punishment done to you.
Even if someone actually raped a child (real rape now, not fake rape like you love to talk about as we’ve found out), I think that that is bad of course, as in, it causes suffering in the child, suffering is bad.
But that’s also exactly why I would be skeptical about inflicting any kind of punishment beyond arresting the rapist (which is not even necessarily intended to be punishment, but the stopping of the threat of suffering) onto the rapist, because suffering is the problem, yes.
The rapist raped for his pleasure, causing intense suffering, and now the rapist is arrested, no longer a threat, and you wish to inflict intense suffering for your pleasure. In and of itself, I would argue this is no better. Suffering is bad, period, don’t inflict it if you don’t have to stop a threat of suffering, I’m not convinced that inflicting more draconian punishment on top of just arrest is necessary.
LikeLike