A detailed refutation of common pedophobe arguments.

Children can’t consent legally.

Appeal to law, something being legal doesn’t tell you whether it’s good or bad (slavery, an arguably harmful act was and is legal in some places), and something being illegal also doesn’t tell you whether it’s good or bad (not wearing a veil, an arguably harmless act is illegal in some places).

The law does not determine whether or not you consent, it just determines whether or not you are allowed to consent, by this ”logic”, if a 16 year old girl from a country where the age of consent is 16 travels to a country where the age of consent is 17 with her partner, she no longer agrees to have sex with him, suddenly, upon trespassing the border, her preferences changed, now she no longer consents and it’s rape! Get away from me immediately!

Whether or not you are allowed to consent legally says nothing about whether or not you can consent. You can consent illegally, it’s just not allowed.

The law is also a representation of the majority consensus in a lot of first world countries, so in a democracy, saying that child sex is bad because it’s against the law is not a great explanation, as the reason why it is illegal to begin with is because everyone finds it so bad that they all voted to make it illegal, that just shows that they all really think that child sex is so bad that it should be illegal, but still does not explain why they actually think that it should be illegal.

Children can’t consent in general.

To deny that children can consent is to deny that children have a will/preference. To consent means to agree, and that means that you’re either fine with something or not fine with something, that your will is in concordance, in harmony with something that is proposed to it.

Of course children can agree, they do it every day. Agree to eat or not to eat, agree to go outside or not go outside, agree to be hugged or not be hugged by an acquaintance, and so on and so forth – children are capable of agreement, they have preferences.

What the pedophobes really mean here is most often a future concept, the ability to conceptualize the future, the ability to plan and think ahead, understand consequences and ramifications of actions, something along those lines, and this is something that children are worse at than adults until a certain age.

This is not necessarily an argument against sex in childhood though, because whether or not you need a great future concept is highly dependent on the consequences of an action, i.e if a child isn’t able to understand traffic rules yet, that doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t consent to ride a bicycle, that just means they can’t consent to ride it in an environment with a lot of traffic going on, in a completely safe and harmless environment it wouldn’t be a big deal.

The adult simply has to make sure there are no harmful consequences that the child fails to take into account if the child wants to do something that might, but doesn’t necessarily have to result in harm, and there’s no reason why that same rule can’t be applied to sex, the pedophile simply has to make sure they’re not subjecting the child to any undesirable consequences that the child may fail to see.

Example, if a child (that isn’t intelligent or mature enough to understand any risks of sex yet) finds out about sexual pleasure by rubbing themselves against a pillow, now wants to get that same pleasure by rubbing themselves against a pedophile’s leg, the child wouldn’t need a great future concept/foresight ability to consent to that act, because there’s no harmful future consequence to it that the child fails to take into account.

But it would be bad to let someone who can’t understand what STDs are have sex where STDs are involved, similar to how it would become unfair to let someone ride on the freeway if they cannot understand traffic rules, whether or not you need to be intelligent and mature depends on the risks of the action you’re about to partake in, and not all sex requires intelligence and maturity.

There are studies that show that adults that had sex as children frequently suffer from depression and other malaise later on in life, sex has a traumatizing effect on children, so they shouldn’t have sex.

Correlation/=/causation, the pedophobes are engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here: B happened after A, therefore, B was caused by A.

The child had sex, is traumatized, therefore, sex causes trauma.

There is absolutely zero proof that child sex is inherently harmful though, there are only some factors that could make child sex harmful to the child, such as:

Manipulation.
Blackmail.
Force.
Penetration at a too young age.
STD exchange.
Impregnation.
Social consequences the pedophobes themselves are at fault for creating.

But if all of these factors are not present, and the 8 year old girl is simply rubbing herself against a pedophile’s leg because she wants the tingly sensation this generates between her legs which she discovered by humping a pillow or riding a pony for example, not because she has been forced in any way, and the pedophile does nothing later on that she doesn’t want to happen, there’s no hysterical social reaction, then there should be no reason to assume this would be harmful, certainly they never offer much of an explanation of this mechanism.

The pedophobes rely on adding these harmful factors in without ever demonstrating some kind of intrinsic harm to child sex, because they simply have no evidence for intrinsic harm, if nothing helps they’ll start to appeal to the social consequences that they themselves are creating in response to the act, e.g. how the parents and society react to it, that their partner will be sent to jail, etc.

The burden of proof is on the pedophobe here if they want to claim that child sex itself is somehow harmful, it’s like arguing with a religious fundamentalist, it’s easy to simply point out that they have no evidence for their belief system, getting them to acknowledge it is the hard part.

They will keep adding certain harmful factors that aren’t inherent to the act in (like manipulation, STDs, penetration, etc) and pretend that this applies to all child sex, because they’re simply disgusted by it, therefore fail to distinguish between harmful and harmless cases of sex in childhood/youth.

”What is the mechanism?” is the question to pose here. Pedophobes claim sex in childhood is harmful, even if the child/minor wanted it too and society doesn’t have a negative reaction to it, fine, then point out how that works. Young girl finds out about sexual pleasure by humping a pillow, rubs herself against a pedophile’s leg voluntarily, society is fine with it. Why would it still lead to trauma? Explain why, when, how trauma would still magically poof into existence out of nowhere.

Even if the idea of intrinsic harm is wrong, which means sex is not necessarily damaging to the child in and of itself, then there are still social consequences to this type of behavior in our current society that the child is not equipped to deal with, and the harm/trauma is still just as real.

This is an argumentum ad baculum fallacy, appealing to a self-created consequence, a threat. Exacting a harmful consequence upon someone for engaging in a harmless act does not prove the harmless act to be harmful, if I burn you alive for wearing a red hat, I harmed you, but I didn’t prove wearing red hats to be harmful. Of course the harm/trauma caused is still real, but it doesn’t need to exist in the first place.

Obviously, if society tyrannized people for giving broccoli to children, and a child consented to buy broccoli now and some deranged person of that cult came around the corner, castrating and shooting the broccoli seller in front of the child, you wouldn’t identify the act of selling broccoli to be the real problem just because as a consequence of it the deranged asshole castrated and shot the broccoli seller, you’d see the deranged asshole as the problem.

On the other hand, when a pedophile gives a child a pleasurable sensation in the form of an orgasm rather than any other random pleasure we could pick as an example, pedophobes tyrannize the pedophile in front of the child, then falsely attribute their trauma (over the ordeal they themselves initiated with their hysterical behavior) to the orgasm, when the real problem is them, the pedophobes here are appealing to consequences that they themselves are creating, it’s not a consequence that can’t be gotten rid of (e.g. the child jumps into a fire and the child starts to burn), so the rational thing to do is to just stop the negative reinforcement.

This isn’t different from another bigot saying ”even if gay sex is not inherently harmful, there are still social consequences to gay sex, which is that I’ll burn those faggots alive if they have sex, so therefore, gay sex=harmful” or ”even if prostitution is not inherently harmful, there are still social consequences to being a whore, which is that I’ll rape you if you’re a whore, so therefore, prostitution=harmful”.

That these aren’t the same thing is irrelevant, it’s about the reasoning behind it of ”I’m going to pretend x is harmful, although x is harmless, because I harm people for doing x”, when I’m arguing if the only thing making a thing harmful is our negative reaction to it, we should simply stop having that negative reaction, another example could be children being traumatized by being raised by homosexuals because homophobes raise their children to attack children of homosexuals.

Children do not want to have sex, especially not with adults, so therefore, if a child has sex, we should always assume there was some kind of abuse involved. Children aren’t sexual beings, that’s a pedophilic delusion to justify raping children. Period.

If it were true that children were actually never interested in sex, it would be much more reasonable to assume that whenever they have it, they were somehow blackmailed, manipulated, abused into it, fair enough. The problem is of course that this is simply not true though, sex is a rather basic need for most individuals, asexuality the exception.

Children have genitals, and they can through the exploration of said genitalia find out about the existence of sexual pleasure – this is a fact, even if the pedophobe wants to deny this.

Children may have lower sexual drives in some cases until hormones during puberty kick in, thus are less interested in sex, just like they may also feel less hunger until a certain age where they are able to eat more, but they still get hungry regardless.

They might experience sexual desires differently, e.g. no desire for penetration yet, may not have some kind of intricate or complex fetish yet, but still the raw sensation of sexual pleasure, many adults simply falsely equate all sex with penetration and then say ”of course children are not interested in sex (i.e being penetrated)!).

Children masturbate, not just out of some kind of delusion because the pedominati on disney channel indoctrinated them into believing that orgasms are trendy and you must reach them to be cool, I’m one of many that humped objects when I was a child, and I fail to see why it would have harmed me if I simply got this sensation from humping an older girl’s ass instead.

Pedophobes simply don’t like this to be true, so they tell themselves that yes, it’s just some kind of horrible manipulation that is going on, children would never be interested in sex on their own, it’s some kind of underground pedophile cabal that took over children’s tv shows and education.

It’s psychotic and delusional, a metaphor I always like to use is someone finding children too cute to admit that they are also capable of defecation, so they (without noticing it) degrade children by forcing them to shit into their pants until 18 instead of giving them a toilet to shit in, because then they’d have to face the reality that children are indeed capable of defecation, which is too much for them to face, too brutal of a truth.

”Let children be children” they screech, as if no one under 18 has any sexual needs that if not fulfilled may even lead to quite severe suffering, as though you’re doing them a favor by subjecting them to sexual deprivation. a 12 year old boy is assumed not to be traumatized by jerking off to a hot older girl, but if he were to stick his dick in her vagina that feels even better, it would somehow traumatize him for life? How come?

Children only want sex because they have already been abused by evil pedophiles before, so they developed it as a kind of coping mechanism to relive the trauma, by having sex with the child, you are enabling this unhealthy behavior.

Just because some children perhaps engage in such behaviors, that doesn’t mean that a child could only be interested in sex because they have been abused before, as sexual need can exist regardless of whether or not someone has been sexually abused, just like other needs and wants such as hunger and appetite.

Let’s say a child has been abused by their strict grandmother before, forced to eat brussel sprouts at knifepoint. Would that mean that if the child ever wants to try another green vegetable, we shouldn’t allow it, because it’s only an unhealthy coping mechanism with the abuse that happened before?

No, not necessarily, because hunger and appetite can exist regardless of whether or not you have been pressured and made to eat certain food before, it would depend on the case, perhaps the child simply wants to try another vegetable despite having been abused before, not because of the abuse.

Appetite is not necessarily caused by being abused with food, neither is sexual desire necessarily caused by abuse. I won’t deny that such events can certainly shape your perception of food and sex, but it’d be completely ignorant and unrealistic to conclude that only abuse could be responsible for the child being able to conceptualize appetite and sexual desire in the first place, that’d be dishonest to claim.

Parents don’t allow children to have sex, so it’s bad to have sex with children, parental decision/consent/allowance matters too or even first and foremost, if some pervert wants to touch my children I simply will not allow that!

This is an appeal to authority fallacy which proposes that whether or not it is good to do something with a child is determined by an authority’s, in this case the parent’s opinion about it, and it fails for that exact reason pretty much.

A decision isn’t sensible and in the child’s interest just because it has been made by a parent, parental decisions are up to scrutiny like all decisions made by any other authority.

If a parent locked a child in a basement and didn’t allow it to go outside anymore, that wouldn’t be a great decision just because a parent made that decision, if a parent allowed a child to set a forest on fire, that wouldn’t be a great decision just because a parent made that decision, so parental decision in and of itself, per se, is not an argument for why the decision is in the child’s interest.

So you need to do more than just say ”but this is what the parents allow and have decided!” when someone asks you why it’s fine for the parents to hug a willing child, but not for the pedophile to hug a willing child. If the parents decided to put the child in the oven and make a big pot roast out of the child, would that be fine? No, so just saying ”the parents said this and that” isn’t a coherent argument.

In a pedophilic relation there is always a power imbalance, so it’s always abusive to have sex with a child considering the relationship is unequal, adults have authority over children, so at least there’s always potential for abuse!

This presupposes that having power is the same as abusing that power, which it is not, pedophobes primarily assume this when it comes to sex, or it’s simply inconsistent with how we treat power dynamic differences in other areas of life, potential for abuse can exist everywhere, that isn’t a reason to stop all social interaction between the less and the more powerful.

Let’s say a child/minor mowed the lawn of an adult for a little extra pocket money, then someone came around the corner and accused that adult of using his authority to force children to do slave labor in his garden.

It would require evidence, did the teacher threaten the child with a worse math grade if it did not do the garden work? Then it is abusive.

In the case of sex, the pedophobe doesn’t care about evidence, they see the fact that the teacher has authority as evidence enough to think the child has been abused, because of the other false assumption that they have already made, which is that children would only have sex if they were in some way forced, manipulated, blackmailed into it.

We could even apply this to adults ultimately, doesn’t matter. Am I rapist if I own a gun, thus have a certain level of power over you and you suck my dick?

Depends on whether or not I used my gun to force you to suck my dick, if you just wanted to suck my dick in spite of my gun, or perhaps even because you’re attracted to guns (just like a younger girl might be attracted to an older man’s authority without the authority having to be abused for her to agree to sex though), there’s no problem.

That is also a possible scenario, the person with less power is attracted to their partner particularly because they have more power, in which case it’s not abusive either, it would be a lie to say that younger girls only have sex with older, famous musicians they idolize because they are scared to death of their higher position of authority.

So you can have sex with someone in spite, but not because of their power, or you could also have sex with someone because of their power, but not because you felt threatened by it, but sexually aroused instead, that’s also perfectly possible. Pedophobes just say ”there’s the knife on the couch, they had sex, therefore, rape”.

Children are too small to be penetrated yet, it’s bad for them. You think it’s ok to just rape an infant with your fist?

The subconscious assumption or dishonest accusation the pedophobes frequently make, although they likely won’t admit, is that all sex inherently equals penetration, a pathetic strawman attempt to conflate something that is already intuitively disgusting to many with something harmful.

A similar move/tactic here is also that some will make emotional appeals and bring up how they or someone they know has supposedly been brutally sodomized by a pedophile, then painting it as if that describes all sexual encounters between pedophiles and children just because the encounters happened around the same age. I know that rape happens, this is not what I’m talking about.

Just like any other bigot, the pedophobe likes to pretend that the sexual practice they’re irrationally opposed to cannot be practiced in a safe manner, so that then they’d have a rational reason to oppose said sexual act.

Just like incestophobes like to bring up crippled kids with genetic defects or homophobes liked to bring up AIDS in the past, pretending contraception doesn’t exist somehow, you can’t have sex with your sister and simply use a condom while doing so, the pedophobes like to bring up the fact that children’s holes are too small to be penetrated yet, pretending there are no other sexual activities to engage in somehow. A pathetic conflation tactic indeed.

Children/minors don’t have a fully developed brain yet, children are not fully mature yet, they are lacking in emotional maturity, etc, therefore, it’s bad to have sex with them. Period. You just need to have a fully developed brain and maturity.

Children do not have fully developed brains when they engage in activities other than sex either, so if the lack of maturity/a developed brain is what makes having sex with a child bad, then so is essentially doing anything at all with a child bad until its brain has fully developed.

P1 – It’s wrong to have sex with children because they don’t a fully developed brain.

P2 – Children do not have a fully developed brain when they do anything else either.

C – Engaging in social interaction with children is wrong.

The pedophobe is either making an argument that would require us to keep all children chained up in a basement until their brains have fully matured, or they are committing a special pleading fallacy by saying that ”children shouldn’t have sex because they’re not fully developed yet” without specifying why that is the case only with sex, obviously sex is just one of many interactions.

If you just regurgitate such phrases as ”but they can’t consent!” and ”the brain develops until 30!” and say this is literally why it is wrong, then there’s no reason it can’t be applied to any other activity the child/minor is doing. It’s wrong because the child is not fully matured? Fine, the child is not fully matured when riding a bicycle either, therefore, letting a child ride a bicycle is always wrong.

It would be good to also specify why a fully matured brain is necessary to have any kind of sex act, and then we can get into the discussion about whether or not really all sex requires one to be that smart to comprehend all the risks, which I think is not something that has been proven.

Children/minors also can’t do x (drive a car, vote, join the military, sign contracts, etc), so therefore they can’t consent to sex either/it’s bad to have sex with them.

The problem with this idea is that your ability to understand or enjoy a sexual experience is not necessarily measured by your ability to do any of these other things, your intelligence or lack thereof doesn’t make sex suddenly harmful for you.

There are adults that cannot drive a car due to perhaps visualization disabilities, many that cannot understand politics, even more that aren’t competent for the military and some also need help with contracts. But can we based on that fairly determine that sex must somehow be more harmful for them than those that can do these things, that they cannot understand the arguably much simpler act of sex? No.

Should we according to the pedophobes also deny our grandmothers the right to get fucked once they’re intellectually impaired enough to fall for a scam artist on the telephone, demonstrating themselves to not be perfect with contracts anymore?

It would be non-sensical, because your grandmother’s ability to understand her sexuality is not necessarily determined by how well she understands contracts, and neither is intelligence what determines whether or not sex is harmful for you.

You can’t even deduce she can’t sign contracts in general anymore, perhaps a different one, presented to her in a different, better explained manner she would be able to agree to just fine.

Pedophilia is a mental illness or sometimes even the result of brain damage, therefore it’s bad to have sex with children.

Whether or not pedophilia is a mental illness is not even necessarily relevant here, in principle this argument simply fails because even if something is a mental illness, that doesn’t prove that the act resulting out of it is necessarily bad.

Even if a schizophrenic with brain damage only donates all his money to children in Africa because he hears voices telling him he’d go to hell and get assraped by a demon otherwise, that still wouldn’t prove that the act of donating your money to starving children in Africa is a harmful act. Let’s say helping grannies cross the street is just an OCD compulsion, the result of mental illness, does that make the act itself wrong? No.

So you need to demonstrate that the act itself that results out of said mental illness or brain damage is actually bad, not just point to the fact that it is the result of mental illness or brain damage.

On the inefficient, dishonest usage of the word pedophilia.

In many cases, delusional idiots use the word pedophilia in a completely incoherent fashion which complicates any discussion on topics dealing with pedophilia, as they don’t even know how to use the word efficiently.

Pedophilia best describes sexual or romantic attraction to the stage of prepubescence, it isn’t useful to describe attraction to fertile teenage females under the age of what your local bigot committee deems acceptable (by that logic you could also change whether or not you’re a pedophile by what country you are currently in) because someone who is attracted to secondary sexual characteristics is not necessarily attracted to prepubescents, the average 14 year old is way too old for an exclusive pedophile, and neither does pedophilia, attraction to children, mean rape.

The media however constantly uses the word pedophile to describe rapists or ”rapists” of children or ”children”, which creates a conflation between pedophilia and rape in the minds of most as they already instinctively feel disgusted by the notion of children being sexual in any way anyway.

To call a child rapist a pedophile as a description of his crime is idiotic, it is like calling a mass murderer a gun owner.

It’s true that he may own a gun, but the possession of the gun itself is not what caused the damage, the damage was caused by the gun having been utilized to shoot his victims. Similarly, the erection in response to a child itself is not what caused the damage, if a child was raped at all and the media is not lying as they’ll automatically say anything under the particular holy age of their country is rape no matter if the ”victim” wanted to have sex, the fact that the child has been held down and had said erection forced inside their anus is what caused the damage.

In fact, even to the raped child, if really raped, it is kind of extremely insulting, it’s like you’re saying that the only issue with the rape of that child is that the rapist had an erection (because he is a pedophile, sexually aroused by the child) whilst raping it, if he just raped it with a flaccid dick instead, less pedophilically so, it would have been much better.

A gun owner or anyone can kill a person, but gun ownership itself does not equate to the shooting of a person.
A pedophile or anyone can rape a child, but pedophilia itself does not equate to the raping of a child.

Not to mention, a child rapist doesn’t even necessarily have to be motivated by pedophilic desires, he could just get off on a different aspect of raping the child than the child’s childishness, e.g. an extreme sadist could get off on destroying a newborn infant’s anus instead of the fact that the infant is prepubescent, but he would find it equally arousing to destroy an adult’s anus with a sharp object like a jackhammer or screwdriver.

”Convicted of gun ownership.”

How idiotic does that sound when it is supposed to mean someone was convicted of shooting 10 people? Exactly how idiotic it sounds to any rational mind to say ”convicted of pedophilia” when someone raped a child.

”Convicted pedophile.”

Convicted of what, arson, driving over the speed limit, tax evasion? Am I just supposed to assume that a pedophile can only be convicted of one crime? Pedophilia just tells that they are attracted to children, how am I to know that this means this person has been convicted of child rape?

If a man is a ”convicted homosexual” am I automatically to assume that this person has been convicted of raping other men? It’s just one of many characteristics this person possesses, he could also just be convicted of driving over the local speed limit.

”OMG you can’t seriously compare homosexuals to pedophiles, how insulting! This is bigotry and slander, homosexuals are NOT pedophiles!”

Depends entirely on which aspect we are comparing, the attribute roundness in apple is the same as roundness in orange, just like the attribute ”not being a rapist for simply having a slightly less normal sexual fantasy” is the same in homosexual as in pedophile, even if you believe that a pedophile could only have sex with the someone they are attracted to by causing harm to them, which there isn’t any great evidence for, but whatever.

Also, why would it be shameful to be a pedophile in particular? It just implies that you are attracted by children, this means you probably fantasize about them in a sexual context sometimes, the implication here is often times that the pedophile in question already somehow harmed children by thinking about them, particularly if they looked at pictures of children, although no one would go to jail even for jerking off to pictures of children being stabbed or run over by cars.

Do you by sexually fantasizing about children (even if you imagine something that would actually harm them, like anally raping infants) somehow telepathically injure an infant whenever you ejaculate? You’re the bigot for thinking that pedophile is an insult in the first place.

Some homosexuals are also pedophiles, it just means that you are of one sex, and you are attracted to prepubescents of that same sex, a male attracted to prepubescent males is a homosexual pedophile/pedophilic homosexual, a female attracted to prepubescent females is a homosexual pedophile/pedophilic homosexual.

Assuming that pedophiles are automatically rapists is an absurd conflation, a considerable amount of idiots are ignorant to the point that they essentially subconsciously believe:

being attracted to fertile adolescents=being attracted to prepubescents
being attracted to prepubescents=being a rapist

The most intellectually impaired pedophobes of all believe if you are attracted to a 14 year old girl for the same reason you are attracted to an 18 year one, i.e because she has secondary sexual characteristics in the form of tits and ass, you must be a pedophile who is attracted to 4 year old girls as well, and if you are attracted to 4 year old girls, well, then that must obviously mean that you rape infants, so we should publically castrate and shoot you right away! Attracted to adolescents=attracted to prepubescents=rapist of prepubescents, it’s obvious!

Now we’re in the mood for ruining someone’s life, this disgusting fuck is attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, what an infant raper! Don’t let this guy that is attracted to 14 year old girls for the same reason he is attracted to 18 year old girls around your newborn, he’ll rape it in the ass when you’re not looking!

Kill all pedophiles, because they rape children!
Kill all gun owners, because they shoot people!
Kill all knife owners, because they stab people!
Kill all straight men, because they rape women!

Even though these moronic bigots would of course never admit it that boldly, those are the subconscious assumptions that are instinctively made by them, and they hate being educated about how ignorant they are. If you try to educate them, many of them essentially respond as any other religious bigot would, they assume you must just be a sinner against their religion.

They’ll say they don’t care, it’s all pedophile scum, you’re justifying pedophilia you pedo/nonce, which is their little buzzword to immediately spiral themselves into hysteria over, similar to how islamists have infidel, christians have sinner, the nazis had untermensch and the slave owners had nigger. If someone’s a ”pedo”, every uncivilized, inefficient, backward behavior is justifiable.

Just like some religious retard will accuse anyone who doesn’t pander to their retardation as just wanting to sin against god and ”make excuses” for it, just like some extreme racist might demonstrate themself to be completely unwilling to acknowledge the difference between a black thief, an impoverished black person and a Mexican, when you could just conveniently like the ignorant simpleton you are throw them all into category ”nigger scum”.

This harmless black person shares one characteristic with a black bank robber, and because I find the attribute ”black” disgusting, I will simply put them into the same category, they’re both nigger scum, period. Why not?

It’s simply an inefficient usage of the word resulting out of your bigoted assumptions about all individuals of one big group, (real, not make-believe) child rape is bad, not pedophilia, just like stabbing someone to death is bad, not the possession of a knife, or like strangling someone is bad, not the possession of a skipping rope, or shooting someone is bad, not the possession of a gun.

It is instrumental to strangle someone to be in possession of the skipping rope, but it’d be non-sensical to try to ruin the life of everyone who owns a skipping rope just because some stranglers use their skipping ropes to strangle children, because it simply doesn’t prove all skipping rope possessors to be child stranglers.

Similarly, it is instrumental to rape a child to get an erection in response to it, but it’d be non-sensical to try to ruin the life of everyone who gets an erection in response to children just because some child rapists use their erections to rape children, because it simply doesn’t prove all pedophiles to be child rapists either.

On ethics of child pornography viewership.

The ethics of child pornography are different from the topic of just underage sex in my view, it’s more about viewership rights than just child/underage sexuality. Even if we presuppose that all children participating in any form of pornography are being abused, that wouldn’t necessarily be an argument against the legality of viewership alone.

If it’s seen as wrong to watch CP because ”children can’t consent!”, ”someone had to be abused to make that!” or ”it depicts grotesque violence!”, etc, any such variation, then obviously all other media that fits that description would have to be illegal to view as well, so for example holocaust pictures, 9/11 footage, gore videos, like ISIS decapitation videos, or in fact videos and photographs that depict child abuse, like footage of someone shaking infants or mutilating their genitals.

But they’re not banned, because we can mostly realize that watching such footage for free, even if someone had to be abused to make it doesn’t inherently cause harm to someone else or at least not significantly enough to start sending police forces to someone’s house to imprison them, with CP the disgust factor plus social indoctrination is simply too strong for most to think rationally about it although objectively speaking there’s no reason to be more upset about it.

When someone jerks off to gore videos, fair enough, society might see it as tasteless and weird, but they wouldn’t say someone is a murderer for jerking off to a picture of a decapitated corpse, now with CP on the other hand, the viewer is treated as almost equivalent to a child rapist.

It’s true that the person had to be abused to produce photographs of the decapitated corpse, but looking at such a photograph of a decapitated corpse doesn’t make you guilty of decapitation, even if you jerk off to it.

Likewise though, the child had to be abused to produce the photograph of the raped child, but looking at such a photograph of a raped child doesn’t make you a child raper, even if you jerk off to it.

At the end of the day, society thinks it doesn’t really matter if you’re jerking off to 9/11 footage, as long as you didn’t actually pay Osama Bin Laden to fly into the twin towers, there is generally no problem.

So what’s the difference?

Some will say that holocaust pictures and ISIS decapitation videos are just there to inform us that such things happen in our world, it’s information, whereas CP on the other hand only exists for sick fucks to jerk off to which makes it wrong because it would for instance create a greater demand for CP and thus supply of it.

CP is also information, so by their reasoning it should also be shown on the news to inform us that a child has been raped, but the fact is we don’t have to show CP or any harm-depicting footage to verbally inform others about it, you don’t have to see a picture of a terrorist attack or murdered cadaver to know that the crime happened, this goes both ways.

You increase financial demand when you pay for CP, but if you’re just looking at it for free, you don’t create a financial incentive, it is considered bad to download music for free particularly because that gives musicians less of a financial incentive to produce music as they’re not making as much money off of it as they could.

But let’s assume we have an isolated case of where a child pornographer simply gets off on showing others footage of him raping children, then how is that different from other criminals that might get off on showing us their crimes?

Islamic terrorists certainly sometimes produce decapitation videos just to show it to others, but we can still just go after them and not arrest every single viewer of said videos who wants to satisfy their curiosity or whatever urge they might have, and it certainly is not an argument for why we need to arrest someone for watching CP of which the producer is already in jail.

Or they think it’s bad because they people derive sexual pleasure in particular from it, but this also happens with other violent footage.

Necrophiles may jerk off to pictures of murdered corpses.

Erotophonophiles may jerk off to pictures of stabbings.

Sadists may jerk off to pictures of all sorts of torture, in fact, a sadistic pedophile could already perfectly legally jerk off to a video in which a child has their heart cut out by a Mexican drug cartel, as long as the clothes stay on that child the entire time of course.

They might still argue that if someone takes pleasure in watching footage of children getting raped, we can tell that this person is a danger to children so that would justify arresting said person simply for safety purposes, but this is too simplistic because there’s a difference between affect and cognition, emotion and intellect. One can have wishes that conflict with each other, that’s not impossible.

Just because I feel like I want more money, this doesn’t give you the right to arrest me based on the belief that I must have no problem with bank robbery, you can’t tell my opinion on the topic of bank robbery by knowing I like money, so equally you can’t tell someone’s opinion on the topic of child rape just by knowing that they would like to rape children, feeling like doing something and thinking it is justified to do it are of course two different things.

Or if you wish to be extra-nitpicky and say ”but you can attain money without harming someone by stealing, you cannot rape children without harming someone”, take the example of wanting to punch someone and actually punching someone in the face, would it be sensible to arrest you just because you feel like punching someone in the face?

Yes, many individuals use a punching bag because they want to punch someone in the face in real life, does that mean we should arrest all of them because they wish to do it, so therefore, that somehow proves that they have absolutely no restraint and will definitely do it?

No, because by the fact alone that they would like to punch someone in the face, we cannot tell what your actual opinion of punching someone in the face is on a deeper, intellectual level.

Then some argue it would increase rape rates to allow people to watch it, as far as I know based on studies of certain offenders that admit they had watched such content prior to raping someone, however, I don’t find that that convincing, of course a mass shooter might be more interested in violent video games, but does that mean they shot someone because they played said video games? I’m sure many rapists also watch adult porn.

Likewise, there is some evidence that it might actually decrease rape rates, makes sense, it’s a certain sexual outlet.

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.

Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.
https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0

I theorize there’s a good reason why the current way people treat this issue might cause an increase in rape, think about it like this:

You want to do something, society already treats you like shit for it, so you feel you got nothing to lose, so you just do it.

If we treated someone like they committed a robbery just because they looked at pictures of money and a luxurious life, this would probably decrease their inhibition to commit robbery.

If we treated someone like they brutally murdered someone just because they have an unfortunate fetish where they jerked off to a decapitation video, this would probably lower their inhibition to decapitate someone.

So someone gets arrested for CP, society labels him as a child rapist because he looked at it for free, which sounds silly, like labelling someone as a terrorist for watching freely available decapitation footage, so they stop caring about that society treating them that way. Couldn’t that very likely be the case?

On child sexuality.

While there are many different non-sensical arguments used to justify the sexual deprivation and repression of children, I think the most important thing to point out in discussions/debates about the topic of pedophiles and children having sex is that there is no actual evidence that child sex is intrinsically harmful.

There are some things that are inherently harmful, such as getting slowly tortured to death, getting violently gang raped with a baseball bat, burning kittens alive, etc, no matter what your surrounding culture opines on it, some things are simply guaranteed to cause harm.

Sex in childhood is not such an activity, it’s a fact that children have genitals through which they can theoretically find out about the existence of sexual pleasure on their own, without having to be manipulated or violently forced into it by anyone.

So if let’s say a little girl actually wants to obtain the same pleasurable sensation from rubbing herself against a pillow by rubbing herself against a pedophile’s leg, there’s no logical reason or evidence to assume this would be harmful outside of the social consequences that the pedophobes themselves are creating in response to such encounters, no evidence for intrinsic harm, only evidence for children feeling harmed once they see how negatively society reacts to it.

The theory that sex in childhood is inherently harmful is based on wrongful implicit assumptions, pedophobes immediately think of all kinds of different factors that are not inherent to the act of having sex with a child or minor when they even hear the word pedophilia, such as:

an unwilling, innately asexual, ”innocent” (sex=guilt) child
force
manipulation
blackmail
anal penetration
STD exchange
pregnancy
social consequences (that the pedophobes themselves are creating)
violent abduction, rape, murder

without ever demonstrating an intrinsic harm to the activity of having sex with a child/minor itself.

Then, they lump both the 8 year old girl voluntarily humping the leg of a pedophile into the same category as the 8 year old girl getting violently raped by some psychopath, their disgust inhibits any trace amount of rational and critical thought they had left.

They never prove the sex itself to be harmful, just that sometimes it can be made harmful, so that then they can use that as an excuse to lump all child and underage sex into one category because they feel equally disgusted by it, thus failing to draw a distinction between harmful and harmless cases of child sex – there is no proof that child sex itself causes harm, the pedophobe just foolishly confuses their disgust for evidence of harm like any other bigot would do.

They’re employing post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning – B happened after A, therefore, B was definitely caused by A. Person left the house while it was raining, got wet from the rain, therefore, leaving your house causes you to be wet, even when it’s not raining.

Children have sex, are traumatized, therefore, the trauma must have been caused by the sex, despite us having absolutely no objective explanation or evidence that children even in societies where it was more acceptable felt traumatized by witnessing sex, and not taking into account the harsh social reaction that we have to such encounters.

A child may be more likely to be manipulated into having sex, but this doesn’t mean that just because a child has sex, it must be the result of manipulation.

Just as a child may be more likely to be manipulated into anything else as well, but it’d be bad to therefore just ban adults from interacting with children, because obviously not all interactions between children and adults are automatically the result of abuse, this doesn’t suddenly change when it comes to sex just because you find it disgusting.

For example, just because some narcissistic, abusive parents force their children to participate in beauty contests, that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for me to assume that whenever a little girl is wearing make-up, it must be the result of abuse, so I go up to the person that gave them the make up and decapitate them, because little girls can never under any circumstance consent to wearing make-up you sick fucks.

It’s better put a ban on the abuse element, not on harmless acts, you don’t arrest every person teaching children about religion just because some radical islamists try to use the freedom to teach children about religion to manipulate children into joining terrorist organizations like ISIS, that would be unfair to all the peaceful ones, and arresting all adults that have sex with willing minors because some manipulate and/or abuse minors is just as stupid of a concept.

I believe the pedophobes that there are probably many studies that show some kind of vague correlation between sex in childhood and various malaise, but that’s it, a strong case of correlation not implying causation. You could say children of gay couples are more likely to be depressed in a society where homophobes raise their children to harass children of homosexual couples, but this doesn’t prove that they’re depressed just because their parents are homosexuals.

They never demonstrate any conclusive proof that children even in societies were pedosexuality was acceptable felt traumatized after having had some sort of sexual experience, or scientifically explain in any way why we should assume that children would automatically be traumatized by sex itself, what is this mechanism of how wanted sexual encounters traumatize children.

Just like we can demonstrate that alcohol destroyed livers in the past as well as present, can you show us any piece of evidence that children have always been traumatized as a result of having had sex that they voluntarily engaged in, even in societies where it was more acceptable?

How, why and when does trauma magically poof into existence out of the great nowhere for no tangible, explicable reason whatsoever?

They just assume that correlation equals causation because they feel disgusted by it, similar to how homophobes in a society where they frown upon homosexuals would in their bigotry assume that children of homosexual couples are depressed because sex=evil, then may even ask you to disprove their theory that sex in childhood is intrinsically harmful, a theory that they’ve never proven to begin with, like a christian fundamentalist would ask you to prove that god doesn’t exist without demonstrating any proof for god first.

You can potentially raise children to feel bad about anything, humans had moral panics about all sorts of trivial things such as certain cutlery like forks in the past.

Your social delusions are more malleable than you likely think they are, with enough social indoctrination, there’s a possibility we could also create a cult in which giving children tomato sauce on their spaghetti would be seen as the ultimate crime against humanity, and children that have been given tomato sauce by an older friend would most likely grow up to feel quite bad about it.

Certainly, you could equally set up a study demonstrating a correlation between having been given tomato sauce by an older friend as a child and feeling traumatized, but would that in any way prove that tomato sauce is in any way inherently damaging to children no matter what, even if they wanted to have the tomato sauce on their spaghetti?

No, it would not. We simply know that it is not, we could show in an unbiased laboratory setting that if a child willingly consumes tomato sauce, it would have the overall same positively stimulating effect on said child as it would on the person over the socially acceptable age for tomato sauce consumption of their primitive tribe, so if the child wanted to have the meal, wasn’t forced to eat it, there should be no intrinsic harm element to tomato sauce itself.

And the same goes for orgasms. In an unbiased laboratory setting, we could demonstrate that if a child willingly receives a sexually pleasurable sensation, it has the same exact positively stimulating effect on them as on the person over the holy age of their primitive tribe, so if the child wanted to have the pleasurable sensation of relief from sexual frustration, wasn’t forced to receive it, there should be no intrinsic harm element to sexual pleasure itself.

So if the child wanted to have the harmless pleasurable sensation, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that the only thing making sex harmful for the child is the consequences bestowed by the bigoted, pedophobic society they live in, that’s the only thing left that we could realistically point to.

When pushed to this point in the conversation, the pedophobes then sometimes like to commit the argumentum ad baculum fallacy immediately and say it doesn’t matter by what the harm is caused.

”But we still live in that society then and even if it’s just the social consequences that traumatize the child, well, then there are still consequences either way, so no excuses!”.

It is a cheap appeal to a self-created consequence, just because someone harms you or someone else in response to doing something, that doesn’t actually demonstrate the act itself you committed to be inherently harmful, the pedophobes are simply appealing to consequences they themselves are creating at this point like any other bigot althroughout history, it’s an extrinsic harm, not an intrinsic harm.

Don’t be a whore or else I’ll rape you for it, therefore, being a whore is bad.

Don’t be a faggot or else I’ll beat you for it, therefore, being a faggot is bad.

Don’t have sex with the child or else I’ll traumatize the child by beating you in front of it for it, therefore, child sex is bad.

Example, let’s say a child consents to buy chocolate ice cream, now some insane person escaped from the madhouse comes around the corner and castrates and shoots the iceman in front of said child because he believes that children are terribly harmed by eating chocolate ice cream without having studied every single ingredient in it first.

Consenting to taste ice cream requires rocket scientist level intelligence in this person’s distorted view of reality, obviously the problem here is the deranged person, not the act of selling ice cream itself.

On the other hand, when it comes to a pedophile giving a child a pleasurable sensation in the form of an orgasm rather than chocolate ice cream, society mistreats the pedophile in front of the child for it, for example:

An angry father may beat the shit out of the pedophile in front of the child.

In general, the parents may act hysterically towards the child.

The child is sent to a therapy indoctrination center where they receive strong social pressure to ”accept their rape”, the child feels social pressure to go along with this narrative for social acceptance.

They may feel responsible that their partner that gave them a harmless pleasurable sensation is sent to jail.

They hear others joking how said partner is now going to get raped in the ass in said jail by a big black cock upon dropping the soap.

As that then indeed upsets the child, they then falsely attribute that trauma to the entirely harmless pleasurable sensation rather than their primitive, uncivilized conduct towards the pedophile, when the real problem is them and no one else, just like in the example of the person castrating and shooting the iceman in front of the child, concluding that icecream is harmful because the child was traumatized by seeing him castrate and shoot the iceman.

We have at best proof of a correlation between sex in childhood and trauma in a society where sex between children and pedophiles is systematically demonized and violently interferred with, that’s all, the compilation of actual evidence of voluntarily received orgasms harming children is zero.

Or, the pedophobe simply resorts to denying that children could be sexual, that can also happen and is frequently a snuck in premise that the pedophobe presupposes to be the case, they deny that such children as the 8 year old girl that would voluntarily hump said pedophile’s leg even exist, so if child sex is happening it must always be the result of some kind of manipulation or scheme by an evil pedophile, but that is all that it is, a denial of objective reality.

Again, children have genitals, and through said genitals they can find out about the existence of sexual pleasure, this is a fact, whether or not that conflicts with the worldview of some delusional parent who wants to think of children as innately asexual. Many simply imagine all sex as being stereotypically penetrative rather than a sensation, so when they hear sex they already start to make all kinds of implicit assumptions again, imagining someone anally raping an infant.

If it were true that children are purely asexual and could never want to have sex for any reason at any point in the first place, then it would of course be reasonable to assume that whenever they are having sex, it must be the result of some sort of prior manipulation, that they’re being violated – fair enough, then that would be the problem.

But this is not the case in objective reality, the pedophobe simply frequently has a delusional fairytale narrative where children aren’t sexual beings and all sexual impulses in children are said to be caused by some kind of external manipulation, i.e the pedominati on disney channel told children they must have sex and unfortunately they ended up believing it, they’re putting something in the water to make everyone gay and also sexualize children although children would obviously never be sexual on their own.

It is like someone finds children too cute to admit that they are also capable of something dirty, like defecation, so they opt to completely degrade their children’s welfare by forcing them to shit into their pants until 18 (masturbation/abstinence) instead of giving them a toilet to shit in (the more exciting sexual experience with someone else).

The pedophobe insists the 12 year old boy is only allowed to jerk off to a hot pornstar fucking, not stick his dick inside her much softer, pleasant vagina if he were given the chance as that would supposedly then traumatize him for life to have the more efficient sexual outlet. Somehow soft vagina is traumatizing, bony hand whilst staring at the exact same vagina on a screen is not.

Children masturbate, I masturbated as a child and definitely under 18 purely for the harmless pleasurable sensations of relief from sexual frustration this generated inside my penis and so do many other children and minors in this day and age as well, there is absolutely zero reason to assume that if I as a child simply got this relief from humping an older girl’s ass as opposed to a pillow or some other object, I would have somehow been horribly devastated by it.

The problem is the pedophobes, sex is not an intrinsically harmful activity, so if they are legitimately interested in it with another child or even with a pedophile, there is zero reason to assume that this would be harmful outside of the confines of the social consequences the pedophobes bestow on children and their partners, they are creating this very problem they lament by acting like deranged chimpanzees in front of their children upon discovering that the child is not the asexual cute little accessory that they in their delusional fantasy worlds have made it out to be.

As such, it’s more sensible to simply remove the child sex taboo rather than trying to eliminate pedosexuality, just like it’d also be more sensible to remove the anti-gay taboo in Saudi Arabia rather than homosexuality, or any other taboo so as long as the act it demonizes is not legitimately harmful like burning puppies and kittens alive for example, something that is guaranteed, in principle, to always cause harm, suffering, negative sensations.

If the only bad thing about an activity is that irrational bigots will act negatively in response to it, the problem is of course the irrational bigots, not the act itself, and that is the point here, there’s no evidence for the intrinsic harmfulness of child sex.

Don’t socially transform a non-problem into a problem, it is no better than demonizing any other intrinsically harmless act, like giving children a certain type of food, like spaghetti with tomato sauce, and then pretending that the food itself is harmful just because society harmed someone in response to giving it to children. In the same way, a rational agent judging from outside, with no indoctrinated pre-existing bias from your society would look at your idiotic pedophile hysteria.