Is it true that adults having sex with children causes physical trauma?

[pedo233]

I often see people claim that a childs body is not prepared for penetration from an adult and it will cause physical damage if an adult has sex with them. Is this true?

[OnionPetal]

I often see people claim that a childs body is not prepared for penetration from an adult and it will cause physical damage if an adult has sex with them. Is this true?

It depends on how 'child' is being defined. If you go with the mainstream definition of 'a literal 17-year-old cHiLd!' then clearly that is rubbish.

But if you're talking about a 3-year-old, then yes, that can and has caused serious injury. Fortunately, most nepis that I know are not even interested in adult-style penetration. People who love children do not want to harm them, so there seems to be a natural inclination for nepis to avoid situations that risk injury to the child, even if it were hyopthetically 'legal'. People who love children are also strongly inclined to protect them from harm.

[Bookshelf]

It is true that if you forcefully penetrate something with an object that literally cannot fit inside of that thing, it may cause damage, yes.

I've never considered this a legitimate argument an inability to consent though. This is because the majority of sexual acts just aren't harmful like that. You won't cause any physical damage by performing oral, stimulating an area, or even just asking them to undress, but all of this is still illegal. There's also the reality that any potential physical damage becomes irrelevant after a certain age, but it remains illegal for many years afterwards.

[Kierkegaard]

Of course. Having sex with adults can cause physical trauma too if you force yourself into somebody or don't prep properly. But any pro-C MAP who actually cares about children will recognize that rape and abuse are wrong and children should never be made to participate in any sex act which causes them harm or distress. When it is developmentally appropriate for a child to have penetrative intercourse depends on a lot of factors, the most important being whether or not the child feels comfortable with it and can participate safely.

Also, the idea that the only real sex is penetrative intercourse is a very heteronormative, teleiophilic way of thinking. There's a whole world of sex outside of penis-goes-in-hole. Oral, rubbing, massaging, frotting, sexual games and roleplay, etc. Which is why having one blanket age of consent for all activities considered "sexual" makes zero sense. There's no reason a child of any age can't have their genitals rubbed in the same way a loving adult might rub other parts of a child's body. Same goes for witnessing sex, or playing erotic games. Right now it's illegal to even have sex in the same room as a child. Because not only can children apparently not consent to sex, according to antis they can't even consent to witnessing sex. Which is ridiculous. There's not even tenuous evidence that children raised to be comfortable around displays of adult sexuality in culturally open environments are "harmed" by it, and there's good reason to think cultural openness to sex like this would be beneficial. (Of course, you should take the child's feelings into account and not have sex in front of them if they actually do not consent, ie express discomfort and ask you to not do it in front of them.)

Most pre-pubescent children probably do not want to be fucked in the ass by an adult, but plenty of pre-pubescent children would love to play sexual games and explore their bodies with other kids or trusted adults if given the chance.

[OnionPetal]

[...] Also, the idea that the only real sex is penetrative intercourse is a very heteronormative, teleiophilic way of thinking. [...]

Bravo! You have my great respect for saying this! Very important point.