Open secret

[Learning to undeny]

I think it's an open secret among some academics that sexual contact between adults and children is not harmful per se. Recently I learned about Cantor, who researched pedophiles and paraphiles, and I was surprised that he admitted that there is no evidence of intrinsic harm, even though he was editor-in-chief of Sexual abuse.

But the visceral disgust against AMSC among the general public cannot be justifed simply by any power imbalance; the visceral reaction brings images of a lost innocence and a permanent scar that are apparently not supported by anything but biased samples and tearful testimonials? If there is no evidence of intrinsic harm, then "children are often not in the best position to consent" is not enough to justify the stigma against pedophiles, which is based on that much more basic taboo.

I suspect that fear and defeatism is what keeps academics from defending MAPs in public. It is kind of good news if it's true, because if MAPs fight for ourselves enough to shift the window just a little bit, some academic allies will start appearing seemingly out of nowhere. In my opinion, we don't have to convince them ourselves.

Or do you think all the people who researched sexuality in animals, in other cultures, or in history, share the same attitudes towards pedophiles as the rest of the population? I am convinced they could at most have reservations about legal changes, but they cannot have much against pedophiles.

The lack of scientific evidence supporting my largely visceral reactions against pedophilic relationships has been one of the most surprising discoveries of my hopefully ongoing scientific education.

[Not Forever]

It may just be my impression, but I’ve noticed a different attitude among historians when it comes to certain topics. I’ve always had a fairly open view of certain things, also thanks to historians who discussed these subjects without moralizing, focusing instead on relativizing them and avoiding judgment. Recently, though, I’ve been seeing an attitude that is more… built around premises: emphasizing that certain things were horrible and wrong, stressing how much progress we’ve made as a society, and so on.

It’s probably true that there are academics who, among themselves, are more open on certain issues, but I think a tendency is spreading—at least in the field of history—to start judging the past, criticizing it, and distancing ourselves from it. From this perspective, it is definitely a step backward, and if the new generation of historians follows that approach… well, a great deal would be lost, on many topics.

At least, this is the case as far as my country is concerned.

[Learning to undeny]

It may just be my impression, but I’ve noticed a different attitude among historians when it comes to certain topics. I’ve always had a fairly open view of certain things, also thanks to historians who discussed these subjects without moralizing, focusing instead on relativizing them and avoiding judgment. Recently, though, I’ve been seeing an attitude that is more… built around premises: emphasizing that certain things were horrible and wrong, stressing how much progress we’ve made as a society, and so on.

I have seen this attitude to judge the stuff that happenned since the inter-war period. Which is recent history and it kind of makes sense to keep it fresh and to analyse it with our values. If it extends to all History, then I do see a problem. One of the things we "did wrong" in the West was to spread our morality to other places, and paradoxically they are doing the same thing if they judge the past from our current morality.

We are constantly making progress, just like a shepard effect keeps progressing. We focus on the things that are improving and we see progress. We ignore what is getting worse, like climate change, and when the time comes to focus on it, we will again see progress. (It might not be the best example because that's a very hard problem.)

It’s probably true that there are academics who, among themselves, are more open on certain issues, but I think a tendency is spreading—at least in the field of history—to start judging the past, criticizing it, and distancing ourselves from it. From this perspective, it is definitely a step backward, and if the new generation of historians follows that approach… well, a great deal would be lost, on many topics.

At least, this is the case as far as my country is concerned.

I hope they don't go down that path.

[Bookshelf]

I share a similar sentiment with that Michael Bailey quote. I entered my field years ago for unrelated reasons, but it's difficult to look at research done on the subjects of child sexuality and AMSC and not notice that the more common views on both subjects aren't incredibly supported.

Obviously we have historical sources indicating that global revulsion towards AMSC is a relatively new phenomenon, and even when disdain for it was present in the past, it was largely isolated, temporary and usually class-based. As mentioned by Not Forever, these sources are typically discounted through looking at them through a modern moral view. As if to say, "All these other time periods got it wrong — we the lucky morals got it right."

Outside of history, in fields of psychology, criminology, sociology, etc, it's a bit more mixed. Older pieces of evidence (like Rind) for the most part conclude that AMSC is more likely to be neutral than anything else. We've got ourselves in a bit of a muddle with modern evidence though. Rules around studying children make it impossible to get up to date sources in any of these fields. Most interviews and surveys need to be done in the form of memory accounts through adults to avoid having to deal with ethics boards questioning why your research subject is underage.

If you were to, for example, propose a study interviewing 12-15 year olds that had a confirmed history of sexual 'abuse' taking place between the ages of 8-11, and aimed to study their psychological state at least 1 year after the events to compare their well-being to other similarly aged youth, this would likely be denied on ethical grounds. You would have to wait until they turned 18, or take so many safeguarding steps that you poison your results by rejecting the vast majority of accounts.

It's not all absent though, it's just usually not painted with an AMSC brush. Outcomes of Early Adolescent Sexual Behavior in Australia (Prendergast et al, 2019) for example found no correlation with early sexual behavior (pre-15) and psychological stress in adulthood. Early Sexual Initiation and Mental Health (Wesche et al, 2018) found that girls that had consenting sex at younger ages showed the same levels of internal stressors like depression and anxiety as girls that first had sex at older ages, and the same as for girls that didn't have sex as teenagers at all.

Despite studies like the above acting as evidence that sex as a minor isn't really as harmful as people say it is, they get away with it today because it's not about AMSC. Involve an adult and "that's different" — however modern rules on ethics make that hard to prove/disprove. You just have to take their word for it.

[Learning to undeny]

I share a similar sentiment with that Michael Bailey quote. I entered my field years ago for unrelated reasons, but it's difficult to look at research done on the subjects of child sexuality and AMSC and not notice that the more common views on both subjects aren't incredibly supported.

Obviously we have historical sources indicating that global revulsion towards AMSC is a relatively new phenomenon, and even when disdain for it was present in the past, it was largely isolated, temporary and usually class-based. As mentioned by Not Forever, these sources are typically discounted through looking at them through a modern moral view. As if to say, "All these other time periods got it wrong — we the lucky morals got it right."

Outside of history, in fields of psychology, criminology, sociology, etc, it's a bit more mixed. Older pieces of evidence (like Rind) for the most part conclude that AMSC is more likely to be neutral than anything else. We've got ourselves in a bit of a muddle with modern evidence though. Rules around studying children make it impossible to get up to date sources in any of these fields. Most interviews and surveys need to be done in the form of memory accounts through adults to avoid having to deal with ethics boards questioning why your research subject is underage.

If you were to, for example, propose a study interviewing 12-15 year olds that had a confirmed history of sexual 'abuse' taking place between the ages of 8-11, and aimed to study their psychological state at least 1 year after the events to compare their well-being to other similarly aged youth, this would likely be denied on ethical grounds. You would have to wait until they turned 18, or take so many safeguarding steps that you poison your results by rejecting the vast majority of accounts.

That's interesting. I was not really aware that ancient history was moralised like this by the experts.

And those ethical issues would remain even if AMSC were legal, right? Meaning it will be hard to get good evidence in the future even in that case? This could be a problem.

Until recently I thought that I might be missing "the key" that justifies society's perceptions of AMSC, and while I have just skimmed the surface and I am certainly missing a lot, there doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence against AMSC, which is noteworthy.

It's not all absent though, it's just usually not painted with an AMSC brush. Outcomes of Early Adolescent Sexual Behavior in Australia (Prendergast et al, 2019) for example found no correlation with early sexual behavior (pre-15) and psychological stress in adulthood. Early Sexual Initiation and Mental Health (Wesche et al, 2018) found that girls that had consenting sex at younger ages showed the same levels of internal stressors like depression and anxiety as girls that first had sex at older ages, and the same as for girls that didn't have sex as teenagers at all.

Despite studies like the above acting as evidence that sex as a minor isn't really as harmful as people say it is, they get away with it today because it's not about AMSC. Involve an adult and "that's different" — however modern rules on ethics make that hard to prove/disprove. You just have to take their word for it.

Thanks for the studies. In the first one there is a correlation between early adolescent sex and drug use (which I find unsurprising and maybe not causal, although I can't see the controlled variables). The second one is quite interesting. Girls tend to have an initial negative reaction (only intercourse was tested) but it is not long-term. I am not sure how much culture comes into play.

[Bookshelf]

And those ethical issues would remain even if AMSC were legal, right? Meaning it will be hard to get good evidence in the future even in that case? This could be a problem.

I suppose it depends on what changes culturally to cause AMSC to become legal. If it's largely a change in how we view children and their ability to consent, the ethical issues around studying children regarding their ability to consent to studies would probably relax as well. If it's caused by a change in how AMSC is perceived in relation to long-term harm, then presumptions around more harm through talking about it ("reliving" it) would likely lessen.

It does just depend on what changes to make it happen though, assuming it ever does.

[Harlan]

I suppose it depends on what changes culturally to cause AMSC to become legal. If it's largely a change in how we view children and their ability to consent, the ethical issues around studying children regarding their ability to consent to studies would probably relax as well. If it's caused by a change in how AMSC is perceived in relation to long-term harm, then presumptions around more harm through talking about it ("reliving" it) would likely lessen.

It does just depend on what changes to make it happen though, assuming it ever does.

Changes are inevitable. The only unknown is how long it will take. I am not a fan of the term AMSC, I prefer ISE (inter-age sexual experience). Rethinking this experience can come about through rethinking "innocence," in other words, exploring and embracing youth autonomy and sexuality is a higher priority. But something must spark interest in the study of youth sexuality, and it could probably be the activity of future youth and the MAP community. And In general, all of this is inextricably linked with each other and should happen in parallel.

[Scorchingwilde]

I suppose it depends on what changes culturally to cause AMSC to become legal. If it's largely a change in how we view children and their ability to consent, the ethical issues around studying children regarding their ability to consent to studies would probably relax as well. If it's caused by a change in how AMSC is perceived in relation to long-term harm, then presumptions around more harm through talking about it ("reliving" it) would likely lessen.

It does just depend on what changes to make it happen though, assuming it ever does.

Changes are inevitable. The only unknown is how long it will take. I am not a fan of the term AMSC, I prefer ISE (inter-age sexual experience). Rethinking this experience can come about through rethinking "innocence," in other words, exploring and embracing youth autonomy and sexuality is a higher priority. But something must spark interest in the study of youth sexuality, and it could probably be the activity of future youth and the MAP community. And In general, all of this is inextricably linked with each other and should happen in parallel.

I feel like a key difference between AMSC and ISE is that some forms of ISE are perfectly legal in some or all countries and jurisdictions, i.e. 25 and 80, for example. It's a useful term in the same way 'undocumented' is for immigrants who aren't granted legal protections.

[aeterna91]

I think there's quite a lot of potential in the academic field, yes, and a lot of progress could be made. In fact, it has already been made. Rind et al. is always cited, but there are many other interesting works... Constantine (1981) is great too. Years before Rind et al, it also points out quite clearly that there is no intrinsic harm in AMSC and that social attitudes and intervention by the authorities are often the real cause of harm.

Now, the potential of academia to impact society at large is limited. I believe we must bear in mind that much of the persecution of MAPs is based on two premises that cannot be discussed according to the scientific method: minors can't consent to sex and every AMSC is harmful. These premises are a dogma of faith: they are not scientific because they cannot be disproved. There is no evidence that can refute them, thanks to concepts such as grooming or hidden trauma.

How do you refute the premise that no minor can consent?
Let's suppose that a person says "hey, when I was a minor, I consented to have sex with an adult"... No, you didn't! The adult used his mental powers to make you believe that you could, but you couldn't really consent!

How do you refute the premise that AMSC is intrinsically harmful? Let's suppose that a person says "hey, when I was a minor, I had sex with an adult, I suffered no harm and I enjoyed it"... No! You actually suffered terrible damage, only you haven't realized it yet! The adult used his mental powers to make you believe you weren't being harmed, but in reality you have enormous trauma!

So, that's it! Minors can't consent, AMSC is intrinsically harmful, there is a porcelain teapot between Earth and Mars, and an invisible, incorporeal dragon in my garage.

So, in society, these assumptions are very difficult to change. But in academia, it should be easier. Someone familiar to critical thinking, questioning hypotheses, and looking for hidden variables should be able to recognize more easily that something is wrong with the prevailing discourse and preconceived ideas that exist on this subject.

However, it should also be considered that academics also face censorship and public shaming, so they may be afraid to express their thoughts on this.

[Learning to undeny]

I think there's quite a lot of potential in the academic field, yes, and a lot of progress could be made. In fact, it has already been made. Rind et al. is always cited, but there are many other interesting works... Constantine (1981) is great too. Years before Rind et al, it also points out quite clearly that there is no intrinsic harm in AMSC and that social attitudes and intervention by the authorities are often the real cause of harm.

That was an interesting study, thank you. She makes a good point on the harm of the 'unwilling but passive' scenario—in other words, it is very important for one to always have the option to escape from the situation. Also, looking for it I found a 1983 article where she proposes a reform on age-of-consent laws.