70b. FRAUDULENT COMPARISON OF CHILD LABOUR TO CHILD SEX AS EXPLOITATION

[Valerian]

Theis is newly added paragraph numbered 70a. Sub-titled: FRAUDULENT COMPARISON OF CHILD LABOUR TO CHILD SEX AS EXPLOITATION In my
https://anticorruptionfight.blogspot.co ... aboos.html
PEDOPHILIA CRIMINAL OFFENCE BUILT ON MORALLY BANKRUPT WESTERN PSEDOSCEINCES.
“A Critical Examination Of Pedophilia Criminal Laws.”
Please visit and share it with other like minded people and forums

70b. FRAUDULENT COMPARISON OF CHILD LABOUR TO CHILD SEX AS EXPLOITATION
Apart from the puritanical moral virtues surrounding child sexuality embedded in Age of Consent (AoC) laws, the primary legal foundation for criminalizing child sex is rooted in its comparison to child labour, both being construed as forms of exploitation. According to this rationale, children should neither engage in labour nor sexual activity before the age of 18, as both are deemed inherently harmful and contrary to the natural state of childhood. This modern conception of AoC laws can be historically traced to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, which raised the age of consent from 12 to 16 and in an effort to combat child sexual exploitation seen in the form of child prostitution. That legislative shift laid the groundwork for the contemporary AoC framework that persists today.
However, a closer examination of this parallel between child labour and child sex reveals fundamental contradictions, confirmation biases, and possible moral inconsistencies—if not outright hypocrisy. These two domains, though both legally prohibited, differ significantly in nature, as elaborated below point by point:
1. Nature of the Act vs. Context of the Act: Child labour involves sustained physical or mental exertion, often under discipline or pressure. It depletes the child’s energy and disrupts the natural rhythm of childhood—curiosity, play, and rest. Crucially, labor is not something a child naturally desires or seeks out for its own sake. The work or labor practice is thus alien to the child's constitution, forced upon them either by necessity or adult expectation. In contrast, many children—especially during late childhood commonly exhibit spontaneous curiosity or interest in sexual feelings or touch, including with older individuals. When non-coercive, such experiences known to be inherently pleasurable to the children creating an affectionate attachment. This reveals that labor is resisted by the childs nature, whereas sexual behavior is a appealing biological or physical attraction both are entirely different.
2. Subjective vs. Objective Harm: Child labor’s harm is visible and objective. It weakens the body, drains mental focus, and suppresses healthy development. Whether in a factory or home, it erodes childhood by design. On the other hand, child sexual activity—when not violent or coercive—may not register as trauma in the moment. Studies show that negative outcomes are often produced in post hoc, influenced by social condemnation, secrecy, stigma and discovery trauma. Where child labor exhausts and overburdens, child sexual activity—however controversial—does not inherently strain or suppress the child's physiology or psyche in the same measurable way.
3. Function and Role / 4. Historical and Cross-Cultural Data: Labor imposes adult responsibilities and roles on children to serve external economic ends. This is universally seen as exploitative. In contrast, child sexual behavior, though heavily stigmatized now, has not always been criminalized or morally condemned. In the historical periods, it was treated as initiation, into sexual maturity affection and mentorship. The variability suggests that labor’s wrongness is rooted in functional exploitation, while sex's wrongness is tied to moral ideology rather than inherent harm.
Therefore it leads us toward a strong conclusion that Child labor is inherently harmful because it violates the child's natural needs and inclinations, forcing them into exertion they do not desire and cannot sustain. It extracts value from them. In contrast, child sexual activity—though morally contested—may arise from within the child’s own developing curiosity. Thus, child labour suppresses the child’s nature, while child sexual expression may, in some cases, emerge from it. This difference is fundamental and challenges the basis of treating both as equivalently harmful.

[Outis]

A good evaluation, it reads well and I agree with the logic.

[PorcelainLark]

I think you're going in the right direction (Although I might make a caveat concerning labor. Some forms, e.g. sweeping, collecting eggs from a chicken coop, collecting kindling for a fire, don't necessarily put the child at risk. Some can even be fun for children!). However, you are completely correct to say the outrage against non-coercive AMSC should be less than we feel about children in dangerous kinds of work like mining. Chimney sweeping may be objectively more harmful (coal dust inhalation) to a child than sexual touch, yet it's a trope we are willing to tolerate within mainstream media (for example Mary Poppins).

I think you'd also find some of Marx's interpretation of Hegel thought interesting and/or relevant for this topic, so I'll quote some.

The whole history of the alienation process [Entäußerungsgeschichte] and the whole process of the retraction of the alienation is therefore nothing but the history of the production of abstract (i.e., absolute) ||XVII| thought – of logical, speculative thought. The estrangement, [Entfremdung] which therefore forms the real interest of the transcendence [Aufhebung] of this alienation [Entäußerung], is the opposition of in itself and for itself, of consciousness and self-consciousness, of object and subject – that is to say, it is the opposition between abstract thinking and sensuous reality or real sensuousness within thought itself.

The appropriation of man’s essential powers, which have become objects – indeed, alien objects – is thus in the first place only an appropriation occurring in consciousness, in pure thought, i.e., in abstraction: it is the appropriation of these objects as thoughts and as movements of thought.

The “unhappy consciousness”, the “honest consciousness”, the struggle of the “noble and base consciousness”, etc., etc. – these separate sections contain, but still in an estranged form, the critical elements of whole spheres such as religion, the state, civil life, etc. Just as entities, objects, appear as thought-entities, so the subject is always consciousness or self-consciousness; or rather the object appears only as abstract consciousness, man only as self-consciousness: the distinct forms of estrangement which make their appearance are, therefore, only various forms of consciousness and self-consciousness.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... /hegel.htm

It strikes me that this could describe what happens with child sexuality; children are estranged/alienated from sexuality with terms like "privacy," an abstraction away from the sensory reality of the genitalia. Likewise for pedophiles themselves, consent switches from being concrete (willingness) to abstract (capacity to understand), and desire is permitted as long as it remains private and unactualized (in other words, abstract). In general, the current general views on sex, treat it as something abstract, transcending the people who experience and engage in it, making "sex" independent of them.

[Valerian]

Thank you PorcelainLark and Outis
It takes time and the degree of concentration to comprehend the 'Marx's interpretation of Hegel thought' the great quality of thier intellectual capacity. I am happy to see someone having such a deep level of knowledge of Marxian philosophy.