Why does nobody ever consider the possibility that the reason children feel traumatized by having sex with adults is because of society's negative reaction towards it?
For example, lets say a 60 year old man dates a 12 year old girl. They both like each other and have sex together. Eventually her parents or someone else finds out about their relationship. The man either goes to prison or gets beaten and tortured to death by a group of people (this happens a lot in third world countries).
Even though the girl agreed to having sex with him, she eventually notices that he is being severely punished for having sex with her. She begins to feel like she was a victim of sexual abuse and becomes distressed and laters view the relationship negatively.
Why does nobody ever think that this is the reason why children are traumatized by having sex with adults? Most people think that the adult is more mature and experienced than the child so this causes the child to become traumatized, but this doesnt really make sense.
Is the reason that children feel traumatized by having sex with adults because of societys reaction to it?
-
pedo233
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2026 10:45 pm
-
OnionPetal
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:04 pm
Re: Is the reason that children feel traumatized by having sex with adults because of societys reaction to it?
Could be, it depends. Case by case basis.pedo233 wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2026 1:35 am Is the reason that children feel traumatized by having sex with adults because of societys reaction to it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trauma_Mythpedo233 wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2026 1:35 am Why does nobody ever consider the possibility that the reason children feel traumatized by having sex with adults is because of society's negative reaction towards it?
In the absence of a clear blueprint, a good imagination is essential.
-
weird.organisms
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2026 2:54 am
Re: Is the reason that children feel traumatized by having sex with adults because of societys reaction to it?
I think so. In other societies were AoC is lower and in previous societies where the stigma didn't exist, trauma from sex with adults didn't seem to be a thing. in some cases like native Americans, the girls were ready for sex at their AoC (14).
Writer, mediocre artist, and total sub!
Westernized society hates youth. MAPs are the cure. Youth are NOT slaves. They are our future and we must fight for their freedom.
Westernized society hates youth. MAPs are the cure. Youth are NOT slaves. They are our future and we must fight for their freedom.
-
NeverLoseKibou
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2026 8:43 am
Re: Is the reason that children feel traumatized by having sex with adults because of societys reaction to it?
It depends on the situation. People are complicated, relationships are complicated, sex drives are complicated. That's why a rigid AoC law makes so little sense, it assumes people and situations are simple and always the same which they never are.
In many situations it will be trauma forced upon a child from the system because they system has no capacity to allow for a positive normal sexual relationship between and adult and child. Since there is no capacity in the system for that, then anyone who would fit that category is pressed into the one category that can be processed by the system, that of a young victim and older abuser. So a perfectly happy, well-adjusted, confident, forward looking child is forced to become a sad, afraid victim. That makes the systems job much easier.
But then there will be genuine cases of abuse. There are in adults with other adults so it follows that there will be with adults and children.
In many situations it will be trauma forced upon a child from the system because they system has no capacity to allow for a positive normal sexual relationship between and adult and child. Since there is no capacity in the system for that, then anyone who would fit that category is pressed into the one category that can be processed by the system, that of a young victim and older abuser. So a perfectly happy, well-adjusted, confident, forward looking child is forced to become a sad, afraid victim. That makes the systems job much easier.
But then there will be genuine cases of abuse. There are in adults with other adults so it follows that there will be with adults and children.
-
amu
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2026 3:17 am
Re: Is the reason that children feel traumatized by having sex with adults because of societys reaction to it?
it definitely depends. but in cases where a legal minor sent nudes to a legal adult, of their own volition without any threat, i do believe that society causes them to feel like they should be victims.
-
John_Doe
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2025 4:57 pm
Re: Is the reason that children feel traumatized by having sex with adults because of societys reaction to it?
I considered replying to this earlier but I had no time so I can't remember exactly what I wanted to say, here's my rushed response.
People do seem to believe that AMSC is inherently harmful to minors but I think their opposition to it goes beyond harm reduction. I know that wanting to protect children and minors from trauma is a common defense but if you really push at least some of them I think that they'd concede that it's not the only value at play (to be honest, as condescending as this is to say, I doubt that most of them have this really thought-out reflective stance on why they feel the way that they do beyond a belief that the child can't consent so adults who have sexual or erotic contact with them are taking advantage of them).
For example, I'm willing to concede that a child who is raised in a society where corporal punishment is forbidden, frowned upon or even just controversial is probably more likely to suffer long-term than a child who is raised in a culture where corporal punishment is the norm; where there's a strict social hierarchy of respect with children at the bottom and adults on top, and is less likely to feel entitled to non-violent treatment from their parents. In many scenarios the validation of the broader society will be very helpful but I doubt that most people will ever really challenge most of the cultural norms that they were raised with so if your society says that getting beaten for not obeying your parents is not an injustice, especially if they're providing you with shelter, food, clothing, etc. (even a libertarian can take issue with this if the child isn't free to attempt an independent life) and you ought to be grateful to them for their having given you life then you are probably going to internalize that. It's not lost on me that in publicly condemning corporal punishment (I don't think it's practically justified. It could be in theory, as a calculated necessary evil, but that wouldn't be in-line with the idea that children owe their parents obedience morally and it wouldn't justify violence out of anger. A good parent would hate causing their child pain under any circumstances with everything inside of them) I am potentially, in some cases, introducing a source of stress to children who, despite obviously not liking it when they are beaten, might not view their predicament as unjust but I think that ethical principle needs to be established (it's also validating to many children/adults who were beaten as children. Again, in practice, I do suspect that it can over-stimulates children's fight or flight response and can lead to long-term anxiety and aggression issues even without a sense of it having been unjust in a way that non-violent discipline probably will not). That might not be the best example since corporal punishment causes pain, it's designed to, and AMSC doesn't have to, but hopefully I've made my point.
If I tell a child that the suffering of other people matters; that the sun doesn't rise and set on his needs alone, I'm conditioning him to feel bad about other people's misfortunes. If I tell him that his happiness has inherent value, I'm conditioning him to respond negatively to its absence. You can replace happiness and emotional distress with anything that people consider to be good and bad and it's the same thing.
It's not totally clear to me what I wanted to say or why I felt this was worth noting earlier but if people are honest about viewing something other than emotional distress as inherently bad or harmful then they have to defend that value even if internalizing it means that people whom they in some sense 'love' will suffer as a result of that value being violated. In other words, all of them might not even claim that the single only reason that they oppose AMSC is to prevent children from feeling emotional distress even though a lot of the arguments will center around that on paper (again, I'm not sure how many people have really thought through their position on AMSC or child sexuality, as much as I don't want to condescend).
People do seem to believe that AMSC is inherently harmful to minors but I think their opposition to it goes beyond harm reduction. I know that wanting to protect children and minors from trauma is a common defense but if you really push at least some of them I think that they'd concede that it's not the only value at play (to be honest, as condescending as this is to say, I doubt that most of them have this really thought-out reflective stance on why they feel the way that they do beyond a belief that the child can't consent so adults who have sexual or erotic contact with them are taking advantage of them).
For example, I'm willing to concede that a child who is raised in a society where corporal punishment is forbidden, frowned upon or even just controversial is probably more likely to suffer long-term than a child who is raised in a culture where corporal punishment is the norm; where there's a strict social hierarchy of respect with children at the bottom and adults on top, and is less likely to feel entitled to non-violent treatment from their parents. In many scenarios the validation of the broader society will be very helpful but I doubt that most people will ever really challenge most of the cultural norms that they were raised with so if your society says that getting beaten for not obeying your parents is not an injustice, especially if they're providing you with shelter, food, clothing, etc. (even a libertarian can take issue with this if the child isn't free to attempt an independent life) and you ought to be grateful to them for their having given you life then you are probably going to internalize that. It's not lost on me that in publicly condemning corporal punishment (I don't think it's practically justified. It could be in theory, as a calculated necessary evil, but that wouldn't be in-line with the idea that children owe their parents obedience morally and it wouldn't justify violence out of anger. A good parent would hate causing their child pain under any circumstances with everything inside of them) I am potentially, in some cases, introducing a source of stress to children who, despite obviously not liking it when they are beaten, might not view their predicament as unjust but I think that ethical principle needs to be established (it's also validating to many children/adults who were beaten as children. Again, in practice, I do suspect that it can over-stimulates children's fight or flight response and can lead to long-term anxiety and aggression issues even without a sense of it having been unjust in a way that non-violent discipline probably will not). That might not be the best example since corporal punishment causes pain, it's designed to, and AMSC doesn't have to, but hopefully I've made my point.
If I tell a child that the suffering of other people matters; that the sun doesn't rise and set on his needs alone, I'm conditioning him to feel bad about other people's misfortunes. If I tell him that his happiness has inherent value, I'm conditioning him to respond negatively to its absence. You can replace happiness and emotional distress with anything that people consider to be good and bad and it's the same thing.
It's not totally clear to me what I wanted to say or why I felt this was worth noting earlier but if people are honest about viewing something other than emotional distress as inherently bad or harmful then they have to defend that value even if internalizing it means that people whom they in some sense 'love' will suffer as a result of that value being violated. In other words, all of them might not even claim that the single only reason that they oppose AMSC is to prevent children from feeling emotional distress even though a lot of the arguments will center around that on paper (again, I'm not sure how many people have really thought through their position on AMSC or child sexuality, as much as I don't want to condescend).