My neutral stance

[infantogirly]

That makes sense; the most likely reason why sex with younger children is more often perceived as a negative experience is simply that the child is less likely to want sex, and so they are also less likely to consent, and so this argument would apply less to the ones with higher libido. But I'm not totally sure.

I believe it has more to do with the brain development and power imbalance. Children are still developing and they don't have morals, they are still learning about how the world is and the evils of the world. If a child gets sexually abused their entire childhood, they aren't gonna be able to tell if that's normal or not, they are going to believe that this happens to every kid and that's it's just normal parenting. Later in life, this can create mental health problems to the child and also make a cycle of abuse. When it comes to power imbalance, the child is much less privileged than the adult. Children are much weaker than adults both mentally and physically. Society has a hierarchy which puts the child below the adult. The adult can hit the child, the adult can force a child to wear whatever they want, the child doesn't owe anything in the home so the parents are allowed to break any tows they want, the child can't deny a hug and etc. This hierarchy makes the power imbalance between child and adult worse, which is used to justify the possible lack of the child's consent.

Now, I personally believe that there are better forms of dealing with this, but I believe these are the main reasons.

[Not Forever]

If a child gets sexually abused their entire childhood, they aren't gonna be able to tell if that's normal or not, they are going to believe that this happens to every kid and that's it's just normal parenting. Later in life, this can create mental health problems to the child and also make a cycle of abuse.

On this point I’m slightly skeptical. I had a mother who had a truly awful childhood, including being beaten in an institution and having a relative who was quite sexually inappropriate. Regardless of whether she interpreted that as the norm (though I don’t think anyone would interpret it as the norm—it’s simply one’s own life experience, which is a slightly different matter), there was never anything like a “cycle of abuse.”

Her character was obviously influenced by those experiences, but not in the sense of imitation. Because if such imitation existed, we would all be living in violent families, since the phenomenon would simply spread like an oil slick from generation to generation, like a genetically transmissible disease.

Not to mention that we live in societies, and learning also takes place during adolescence and adulthood. We are influenced by cinematic portrayals, advertising, stories, and so on… the way of being a parent changes from generation to generation.

[Learning to undeny]

I believe it has more to do with the brain development and power imbalance. Children are still developing and they don't have morals, they are still learning about how the world is and the evils of the world. If a child gets sexually abused their entire childhood, they aren't gonna be able to tell if that's normal or not, they are going to believe that this happens to every kid and that's it's just normal parenting.

In a world where children are more exposed to sexuality and receieve more education, so that they can tell what is normal and what is not normal, do you think this problem would be reduced? (However, of course, being abused will always have negative consequences.)

When it comes to power imbalance, the child is much less privileged than the adult. Children are much weaker than adults both mentally and physically. Society has a hierarchy which puts the child below the adult. The adult can hit the child, the adult can force a child to wear whatever they want, the child doesn't owe anything in the home so the parents are allowed to break any tows they want, the child can't deny a hug and etc. This hierarchy makes the power imbalance between child and adult worse, which is used to justify the possible lack of the child's consent.

While this is true, it applies much more to the parents than to other adults (I don't think another adult would hit the child, for example). The imbalance is the best argument against AMSC because it is ultimately a moral judgement and thus irrefutable. Then the question is why this imbalance is considered pernicious only when it comes to sex.

(Edit: wanted to add one article talking about this raw association with age and negative outcomes of AMSC:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476263/
But again, there doesn't seem to be evidence of this correlation when other variables, especially willingness, are taken into account, as far as I know.)

[infantogirly]

In a world where children are more exposed to sexuality and receieve more education, so that they can tell what is normal and what is not normal, do you think this problem would be reduced? (However, of course, being abused will always have negative consequences.)

Yes, I actually stand by that. I believe that instead of creating a purity culture towards children I believe that they should be taught instead consent, evil and that adults should answers their questions regarding sexuality instead of hiding it from them. I believe this will actually make it safer for them to not get sexually abused and groomed by an adult. I also think that teaching them about contraceptives will avoid children that get sexually abused to get pregnant or at least make teenagers who have sex avoid getting pregnant because they know it quite earlier etc. I believe purity culture does nothing but makes it worse for children and women who have gotten abused.

While this is true, it applies much more to the parents than to other adults (I don't think another adult would hit the child, for example). The imbalance is the best argument against AMSC because it is ultimately a moral judgement and thus irrefutable. Then the question is why this imbalance is considered pernicious only when it comes to sex. [/quote]

I understand where you are coming from, I don't necessarily disagree. But you have to remember that most sexual abuse against children are done by someone who is known by the child and often family members. Often, the family doesn't teach the child consent and creates a hierarchy, in which makes the child fear that if they tell anyone and in the worst cases, the abuse is covered and allowed by the family. It's sad, but it is something to take into account. I believe in a system in which there's a hierarchy between adult and child it makes it easier for the child to get abused and manipulated by an adult. Specially with the artificial Innocence archetype correlated to children. And I agree with the fact that people are often hypocrite because often they only care about the oppression of children when it comes to sex and not other types of oppression.

(Edit: wanted to add one article talking about this raw association with age and negative outcomes of AMSC:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476263/
But again, there doesn't seem to be evidence of this correlation when other variables, especially willingness, are taken into account, as far as I know.)
[/quote]

I will read it latter, thank you for the study.

Overall, I am pretty much just like you. I have a mix of pro c and anti c believes. I am 100% pro c when it comes to teenagers having sex with adults, but 100% anti c when it comes to adults having sex with children below the age of 4. Just a shallow example of my believes.

[FairBlueLove]

Hey infantogirly, just a quick note on proper quoting. I see you only use the [/quote] tag, but you also should use a quote tag in square brackets without the "/" character at the beginning of the quoted snippet, like this:

Code: Select all

[quote]
quoted text
[/quote]

[CantChainTheSpirit]

While I do respect your views and the views everyone here, I don't really share them.

While you have little doubt that AMSC is harmful, I don't have the same confidence since I don't believe the evidence supports it. Not least because I had sexual contact as a young person as early as 6 and only have positive memories of the experience and it hasn't impacted me in a negative way at all. As well as personal experience, I have read similar cases and I've even seen researchers acknowledge that the case isn't as closed as people think.

Am I saying that AMSC is always positive? No.
Am I saying that it's mostly positive? No
Am I saying that it's mostly harmful but sometimes positive? No

I'm saying that I can't draw a conclusion on the evidence presented. I've read other articles similar to this and I've spoken to researchers in the past who have attempted to carry out research into this subject and have been closed down by their universities or sponsors.

https://medium.com/@dremmapsych/methodo ... 8a13e14148

So what's the truth? I don't know, I think we are far from knowing and there's a willful ignorance to the subject because people are afraid of where the facts could lead. My neutral stance is to say keep trying to collect data and try to be neutral on the findings.

If there is truly open and neutral research at scale and it concludes that AMSC is primarily harmful then I'll be the first to say we need to be anti-contanct and fight the scourge of abuse. But without that, the only neutral position IMHO is to say collect the data, remove all bias and opinion and interpret the results without fear.

[Learning to undeny]

I understand where you are coming from, I don't necessarily disagree. But you have to remember that most sexual abuse against children are done by someone who is known by the child and often family members. Often, the family doesn't teach the child consent and creates a hierarchy, in which makes the child fear that if they tell anyone and in the worst cases, the abuse is covered and allowed by the family. It's sad, but it is something to take into account. I believe in a system in which there's a hierarchy between adult and child it makes it easier for the child to get abused and manipulated by an adult. Specially with the artificial Innocence archetype correlated to children. And I agree with the fact that people are often hypocrite because often they only care about the oppression of children when it comes to sex and not other types of oppression.

I agree, and that's a good reason why an age of consent will probably be necessary as long as children's role in society remains as it is nowadays. One thing is theoretical discussion about AMSC and another thing is how it would happen in our society, which is also why I proposed a way to allow only the highest-quality relationships, an idea that was criticised on the grounds that the state nosing around private affairs is not desirable, and it's as far away as lowering the age of consent anyway.

I will read it latter, thank you for the study.

Really it's just an example of the trend I've seen in a few studies that the average / median age of abused children tends to be lower than that of minors who had consensual relationships. I got it from the more interesting study by Rind on boylove i.e. pederasty, but I guess the same would be true for girl love.

While I do respect your views and the views everyone here, I don't really share them.

While you have little doubt that AMSC is harmful, I don't have the same confidence since I don't believe the evidence supports it. Not least because I had sexual contact as a young person as early as 6 and only have positive memories of the experience and it hasn't impacted me in a negative way at all. As well as personal experience, I have read similar cases and I've even seen researchers acknowledge that the case isn't as closed as people think.

Am I saying that AMSC is always positive? No.
Am I saying that it's mostly positive? No
Am I saying that it's mostly harmful but sometimes positive? No

I'm saying that I can't draw a conclusion on the evidence presented. I've read other articles similar to this and I've spoken to researchers in the past who have attempted to carry out research into this subject and have been closed down by their universities or sponsors.

https://medium.com/@dremmapsych/methodo ... 8a13e14148

So what's the truth? I don't know, I think we are far from knowing and there's a willful ignorance to the subject because people are afraid of where the facts could lead. My neutral stance is to say keep trying to collect data and try to be neutral on the findings.

If there is truly open and neutral research at scale and it concludes that AMSC is primarily harmful then I'll be the first to say we need to be anti-contanct and fight the scourge of abuse. But without that, the only neutral position IMHO is to say collect the data, remove all bias and opinion and interpret the results without fear.

Good points too. I don't think the evidence points to inherent harm but I would like to see more research before drawing conclusions.

[InuYasha]

I understand pro-reform position, because contacts between teens and adults seems more "natural" than between pre-pubescents. But even if a goal is to lower the AoC to 12, and partly legalize AMSC, it's very important to not throw anyone under the bus, like LGBT did in 1994. For "real" pedophiles (i know that hebephiles also called pedos), simply lower AoC and made a little changes in laws do nothing. If one sincerely believe, that we need more tolerant society, then they have to emphasize that all feelings and orientations are valid and have a right to exist, even if it's not possible to act upon it. A month or more ago one persone here was banned after his rants against nepiophiles. He probably don't understand, how hypocritical were his words, and tried to make difference between "normal" and "degeneracy". But there's nothing like "degeneracy" in our world. It was just a label that society use to mark persons or groups, or behaviour that they don't like to exist.

And that's concerns only the sexual part of it. What's about the non sexual, but romantic relations between adults and pre-teens?