Why arguments against pro-contact pedophile arguments are bullshit

[PorcelainLark]

One of the strongest reasons, I believe, for legal reform is that the current punitive system seems to be having no effect on rates of CSA.
Another is that sentencing is largely based on the names of the crimes rather than the specific harms caused.

Is that about recidivism or about the total numbers? For example, you could argue that while a CS abuser is in prison, they're not abusing a child. From the anti point of view, if punishment doesn't affect recidivism rates that would be an argument for life imprisonment rather than for more lenient sentencing. In any case, I'd like to see the source.

3. “Kids can consent, they know whether they like or don’t like something and therefore they can say no to what they don’t like — if they don’t say no, it’s because they’re liking it and therefore it’s good for them.”

The idea of implied consent (‘They didn’t say no, so they like it.’) is not a valid excuse for rape in a courtroom, and certainly should not be applied to sexual situations involving children. You don’t have to have followed #MeToo to realise that.

I see they're attacking the weaker version of this claim. If in contrast, you take enthusiastic/ongoing consent rather than just verbal consent this rebuttal doesn't really work. Unless they're trying to say the problem with #MeToo was just the power differences.

[Harlan]

Third is the circular reasoning of anti-c arguments. "Maybe the child knows it’s wrong but doesn’t like the idea of their friend going to jail."

If his friend had done something really terrible, he wouldn't consider him a friend and wouldn't be worried about him going to jail. If he feels sorry for him, then it means he had not harmful experience , but he heard, he knews that everyone around them thinks their erotic games are bad. He's just confused and falls under huge social pressure. As it happened before, when children saw how all the adults around them approved and demonstrated racism and homophobia, after which these children adopted this as a normative behaviour model.

[BLueRibbon]

There's a new pro-reform article coming soon, which will discuss the need for anti-c people to support soft reform on AMSC attitudes for the sake of anti-c success. I think it will just upset everyone on all sides, but a discussion needs to be had.

[Pharmakon]

Fragment: ...the current punitive system seems to be having no effect on rates of CSA.

I think the Finnish data supports the idea that rates of AMSC have declined. This suggests we should not argue that the punitive regime is ineffective. On the contrary, we should argue that it is operating to limit the sexual agency of kids, making them reluctant to explore sexual opportunities as they are entitled to. The CSA campaign, imho, is a form of terrorism that has harmed kids by making them afraid of sex in general, and especially of age gap sex.

[PorcelainLark]

I guess total numbers. What I mean is that just like the War on Drugs didn't seem to impact the rate of drug use in society as a whole, the War on CSA doesn't actually seem to be doing much to reduce CSA. CSA is still rampant. If we look at the social problem of abuse as a whole, and we want to reduce abuse, then we should take policies that actually achieve that.

I don't know if it actually could be the total numbers, because how would they measure the rate of CSA if not as crimes? It's hard to say what the difference between prosecuted versus non-prosecuted CSA because that would be a dark figure. Plus that would mean that every CS abuser that's imprisoned is being replaced by someone else committing CSA while they are in prison in order for the rates to stay the same. Hard to say for sure without seeing the source, but that would be my guess.

Like we spoke once at B4um about, I think there is very likely a "chilling effect" where the harshness of penalties against CSA and the sexphobic nature of society generally actually discourage both open discussion and reporting. I think it's very likely that a society where AMSC was "okay" would result in the ability to talk more openly about the cases where it is definitely not "okay".

This is a good thing to bear in mind if laws change eventually - an increase in CSA with the lowering of AoC could be a sign that the chilling effect has stopped rather than emboldening predatory behavior as most people would spin it.

Surely this only applies to a recidivism rate that is high regardless of punishment. If a 2 year sentence and 20 year sentence both result in a recidivism rate of under 5% is there any reason for the 20 year sentence?

Compare with murder. If a person kills at the same rate for 2 or 20 years, that's an argument for a longer sentence. We know the comparison is a false one, but the overwhelming majority of non-MAPs haven't even been convinced that statutory rape is blown out of proportion. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced it's a persuasive line of argument for our aims. Happy to be proven wrong, though.

I think the Finnish data supports the idea that rates of AMSC have declined. This suggests we should not argue that the punitive regime is ineffective.

This is what I expected the evidence to suggest.

On the contrary, we should argue that it is operating to limit the sexual agency of kids, making them reluctant to explore sexual opportunities as they are entitled to. The CSA campaign, imho, is a form of terrorism that has harmed kids by making them afraid of sex in general, and especially of age gap sex.

I think I agree with this perspective, but I don't think it's persuasive to a non-MAP audience. The current laws are much harsher on MAPs than on minors exploring their sexuality.

Over all, the issue is not just making arguments that agree with the available evidence, arguments have to also "checkmate" people so they can't slip into performative hatred of pedophiles. Everyone is trying to demonstrate how much they hate pedophiles, so if they have an option between saying recidivism makes no difference on CSA rates so "we should reduce sentences" or "we should give pedophiles life in prison", they'll always choose the second option. We need to push people to bite the bullet on these issue, which means cutting off any option to virtue signal about hating pedophiles.

[Bookshelf]

I just think most of the arguments made by original article are circular. It's wrong because it's harmful, it's harmful because it's wrong. There's a lot of emphasis on what sexual behavior is supposed to "mean" and that a lack of understanding on what it means is a contributing factor to the harm; but I'm here to say that, beyond just feeling good, I don't quite know what it means either. It's strange to me that these points of views never know either.

[Jim Burton]

"I was a pro-c, so to cure my illness, I SHOT MYSELF IN THE HEAD"

"I killed the abuser in me, now I do the same, FOR SOCIETY"

[FairBlueLove]

Why is AMSC wrong? "It is wrong because once the child learns it is wrong they feel bad."
There might be reasons to oppose AMSC, but that circular logic loop definitely is not one. The funny thing is that the author claims to have originally been pro-c. And THIS is the logic that made him anti-c? WTF...

It would be great if some anti-c here at Mu are/were following this logic and would expand on it. Maybe some anti-c realized the self-defeating logic of circular reasoning, and converted to pro-c?

[BLueRibbon]

Why is AMSC wrong? "It is wrong because once the child learns it is wrong they feel bad."
There might be reasons to oppose AMSC, but that circular logic loop definitely is not one. The funny thing is that the author claims to have originally been pro-c. And THIS is the logic that made him anti-c? WTF...

It would be great if some anti-c here at Mu are/were following this logic and would expand on it. Maybe some anti-c realized the self-defeating logic of circular reasoning, and converted to pro-c?

Mu would be extremely happy to host well-argued anti-contact positions.

I started off with a NOMAP agenda as a naive teen, and while I no longer agree with anti-c personally, I remain quite balanced and I am happy to academically and philosophically engage with everyone from NAMbLA to Virped.

[Harlan]

I guess for some of the radicals, though, there is no interest in reforming the current system. They want to tear the entire current system down.

Yes. I like to say that "you can't fill a cup with water from a fire hose". Abolishing the age of consent was possible in the past, but society has gone down the path of victimization. Ironically, in an era of tolerance and political correctness, society has become less tolerant and more hysterical. Political correctness makes society less emotional stable and more infantile. It has forgotten how to listen and be restrained. Therefore, the only way at the moment is the path of gradual expansion of the community and the promotion of gradual reforms.