MAP Forum

PEDOPHILIA CRIMINAL OFFENCE BUILT ON ON MORALLY BANKRUPT WESTERN PSEDOSCEINCES.” A Critical Examination Of Pedophilia Criminal Laws” I have published this newly constructed research-based theoretical draft on my blog:
https://anticorruptionfight.blogspot.com/
This work represents a significant update and reconstruction of earlier ideas. It offers a critical, evidence-oriented perspective on the foundations of pedophilia-related criminal laws, arguing that they are rooted more in moral panic and pseudoscientific ideologies than in consistent scientific reasoning.
This paper is entirely open source, with no copyright restrictions. Anyone is free to improve, adapt, and publish it—with or without crediting the original source.
Due to limitations of this forum, I cannot share the full paper at once. Therefore, I will be posting it segment by segment, and I hope to continue doing so until the entire paper is available.
In this first part, I am sharing the Index of Subjects and the Abstract.
I eagerly await your responses, opinions, views, and comments.
***************************************
A Critical Examination Of Pedophilia Criminal Laws.

Index

I. Synopsis
1. INTRODUCTION
II. Historical Perspectives of Human Sexuality
2. ANCIENT SEXUALITY RECORDS IN EARLY HUMAN HISTORY
3. MANUSMRITI (CIRCA 1000 BCE)
4. HISTORICAL CONTEXT EARLY MEDIEVAL TIMES EUROPE AGE OF MARRIAGES
5. RISKS AND CONSEQUENCES OF FIRST-TIME SEX AND FIRST PREGNANCIES AT HISTORICAL TIMES
6. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES OF HUMAN SEXUAL RELATIONS THROUGHOUT HISTORY
7. EARLY MARRIAGE AS A SAFEGUARD FOR MORAL AND SOCIAL INTEGRITY
8. ONLY MARRIAGE GIVES MEN AND WOMEN RIGHT TO HAVE SEX AND SIRE CHILDREN
9. ANCESTRAL PRACTICES OF NATURAL PUBESCENT SEXUAL RELATIONS JUDGED BY MODERN WESTERN STANDARDS
10. CASTING DAMNING JUDGEMENT ON OUR ANCESTORS AS PEDOPHILE CHILD RAPIST
11. EXPOSING THE PARADOXES OF MODERN PEDOPHILIA CRIME DEFINITIONS

III. Incest In Animals’ Evolution
12. TERRITORIAL LOGIC OF INCEST EVOLUTION
13. INCEST AS CALCULATED STRATEGY IN MAMMALS TO AVOID RISKS OF WANDERING
14. THE PERILS OF EXILE: SURVIVAL AND STRATEGY
15. CHIMPANZEES AGE OF SEXUAL MATURITY AND MATING
16. THE STUDIES OF INBREEDING IN CHIMPANZEES
17. FEMALE CHIMPANZEES DISPERSAL BASICALLY CONTRADICTS THE TERRITORIAL NATURE OF CHIMPANZEES
18. FEMALE DISPERSAL VALID ONLY IN FRINGE MINORITY CASES
19. INBREEDING AS A REPRODUCTIVE IMPERATIVE IN RESOURCE-SCARCE ENVIRONMENTS

IV. Historical Study of Incest in Humans
20. INESCAPABILITY OF INCEST IN RELIGIOUS TEXTS: ADAM, EVE
21. THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF PEDOPHILIA AND INCEST IN HUMAN SURVIVAL
22. SEXUAL RELATIONS WITHIN BLOODLINES AND SURVIVAL STRATEGIES
23. THE SHIFT FROM ACCEPTANCE TO CONDEMNATION
24. INCEST PRACTICED BY ROYALS, PROHIBITED FOR THE PUBLIC
25. TERRITORIAL INSTINCTS AND UNEVEN SEX RATIO IN FAMILIES LEADS TO INCEST
26. FEMALE DISPERSAL: TO ENSURE SEXUAL PARITY: PRIMARY REASON FOR INCEST PROHIBITION IN HUMANS

V. Religious Morality Used To Authoritarian Control Over Human Sexuality
27. DIVINE DECREES TOOLS FOR RULERS TO CONTROL OVER SUBJECTS
28. FROM DIVINE LAW’S TO AUTHORITARIAN LEGAL CONTROL
29. THE AUTHORITARIAN ROOTS OF MODERN SEXUAL TABOOS
30. AUTHORITY, AND SEXUAL TABOOS

VI. 20th Century Criminalization and Decriminalization
DSM & ICD Classification and Legislations
Changing Goal Post of Human Sexual Behaviours
31. DSM & ICD CLASSIFICATION DURING 20TH CENTURY
32. SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMACY FOR CRIMINALIZATION OF SEXUAL DEVIANCES BY MEDICAL AND LEGAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN EARLY 20TH CENTURY
33. THE LATE 20TH CENTURY: DECLASSIFICATION, DECRIMINALIZATION, WITH NEW BOUNDARIES
34. DETAILS OF DSM AND ICD CLASSIFICATION OF ADULTERY, PROSTITUTION, AND HOMOSEXUALITY IN FIRST HALF OF 20TH CENTURY
35. US AND EUROPEAN LAWS THAT CRIMINALIZED ADULTERY, PROSTITUTION, AND HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY
36. DE-CLASSIFICATION OF ADULTERY, PROSTITUTION, AND HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE DSM AND ICD CLASSIFICATION
37. DECRIMINALIZATION OF ADULTERY, PROSTITUTION, AND HOMOSEXUALITY BY THE LAWS
38. PEDOPHILIA DEVIANCE CLASSIFICATION IN DSM & ICD BY THE SECOND HALF OF 20TH CENTURY
39. PEDOPHILIA CRIMINALIZATION LAWS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES IN SECOND HALF OF 20TH CENTURY AND THE FIRST QUARTER OF 21ST CENTURY

VII. Emergence of Feminist Inspired Sexual Politics
40. FEMINIST PARADOXICAL FRAMEWORK TO DEFINE CHILD RIGHT
41. SEXUAL CONSENT BECAME THE SUPREME ARBITER EXCEPT FOR ADOLESCENTS
42. RAPE ON WOMEN OVERBLOWN AND EXAGGERATED SIMILAR TO THE MATTERS OF PEDOPHILIA
43. FEMINIST INFLUENCE IN REDEFINING PEDOPHILIA AS RAPE
44. FEMINIST POLITICAL INTEREST IN DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY AND CRIMINALIZING PEDOPHILIA
45. ALFRED KINSEY A CLASH BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY AND FEMINIST IDEOLOGY
46. FEMINIST RESISTANCE TO LIBERALIZING AGE OF CONSENT LAWS
47. FEMINIST HYPOCRISY GENDER DOUBLE STANDARDS IN CRIMINALIZATION OF PEDOPHILIA

VIII. The Paradox in Age of Consent Doctrines
48. THE SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF 'MEANINGFUL CONSENT': OVERREACH OF PROTECTION OVER ANATOMY
49. MEDIA SENSATIONALISM: AMPLIFYING MORAL PANIC
50. VAGINA ENIGMATIC ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA ENDORSEMENT OF FORNIFICATION
51. HOW MEDIA PROFITS BY SIDE-TRACKING CHILD WELFARE INTO PEDOPHILIA MORAL PANIC
52. THE MODERN SEXUAL MORALITY RISE OF CONSENT CULTURE
53. SHIFTING BOUNDARIES OF SEXUAL DEVIANCE:
54. UNRAVELING THE MORAL CONTRADICTION
55. THE EVOLUTION OF CONSENT LAWS: FROM ITS MEDIEVAL ROOTS TO MODERN CONTRADICTIONS
56. VICTORIAN REFORMERS AND THE RISE OF MORAL PANIC
57. THE FEMINIST ROOTS IN PATRIARCHAL CHILD PROTECTION
87. FACTORY ACTS AND THE NEGLECT OF MALE CHILD LABOR
59. FEMINIST INVOLVEMENT AND HYPOCRISY IN MODERN CHILD PROTECTION LAWS
60. FEMINIST AND PATRIARCHY: AN UNLIKELY ALLIANCE: SUPPRESSING ADOLESCENT AGENCY

IX. The Fallacy of "Children Sexually Innocent andIncapable of Consent” Doctrine
61. THE DOGMA OF ADOLESCENT INCAPACITY TO CONSENT
62. THE CORE CONTRADICTION OF THE CONSENT DOCTRINE
63. A DOCTRINE UNDERMINED BY ITS LIMITS
64. UNPACKING THE INCONSISTENT IN PEDOPHILIA OFFENCE PSEUDOSCIENCE BUILD ON IRRATIONAL FEAR
65. SHIFTING THE SEXUAL CLASSIFICATION GOAL-POSTS
66. THOUGHT POLICING AND THE OVERREACH OF LAW
67. EVIDENCES OF SEVERE PSYCHOLOGICAL HARMS IN ADULTERY PROSTITUTION, HOMOSEXUALITY THAN IN PEDOPHILIA
68. ECHOES OF PEDOPHILIA HYSTERIA IN THE WITCH-HUNTS OF PAST MIRRORED IN MODERN PEDOPHILIA PREDATOR HUNT
69APARTHEID IDEOLOGY AND ITS PARALLELS WITH PEDOPHILIA DOCTRINE

X. Fundamental Flaws of Pedophilia Offence Laws
Due to Ignoring Its fundamental Nuances
70. THE INCONSISTENCIES OF CHILD SEXUAL AUTONOMY
71. PEDOPHILIA INHERENT HARM MEDICAL AND CRIMINAL OFFENCE DEFINITIONS
72. ABDICATION OF PARANTAL RIGHT IN "AGE OF CONSENT" DOCTRINE
73. 21ST CENTURY AGE OF CONSENT LAW BASED ON 19TH CENTURY VICTORIAN PATRIARCHAL VALUES
74. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON ADRENARCHE AND GONADARCHE, SEXUAL BEHAVIOURS IN GIRLS DURING PUBERTY
75. WHEN SCIENCE SUCCUMBS TO “SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY OF THE LAW”, IT BECOMES PSEUDOSCIENCE
76. THE CLASH BETWEEN ERAS: WHEN PORNIFICATION BECOMES LIBERATION AND ADOLESCENT ADULT RELATIONS BECOMES RAPE
77. A CRITICAL STUDY OF STATUTORY CHILD RAPE LAWS: 18 U.S.C. §2251–2256 AND 18 U.S.C. §2422 — US LAWS: LEGAL CONSTRUCTS OR MORAL DOGMA?
78. A CRITICAL LOOK AT “NEURODEVELOPMENTAL" “PSYCHOLOGICAL” HARM BEHIND PEDOPHILIA CRIMINAL LAWS
79. SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF ADULT CHILDREN "POWER IMBALANCE” DOCTRINE TO CHILD SEXUALITY
80. NO HISTORICAL RECORDS OF INHERENT HARMS IN PEDOPHILIA
81. CHILD POVERTY: THE ROOT CAUSE OF CHILD ABUSE AND EXPLOITATION

Synopsis
This paper critically examines the contemporary Western medical, legal and moral framework surrounding the criminalization of pedophilia, a consensual sexual relation between adolescent and adult as a heinous sexual offense, under the “Age of Consequent laws”, arguing that these criminal laws are not grounded in demonstrable inherent harm or consistent scientific principles but rather on a confluence of historically contingent moral frameworks, feminist ideological overreach, media fuelled sensationalism to create public outrage and moral panics founded on arbitrary denial particularly puberty associated adolescent sexual maturity and agency in its developmental stages, instead entrenched in Victorian patriarchal values. It begins by highlighting the thousands of years of historical acceptance and endorsement of early-age sexual relations and marriage across various ancient civilizations and religious texts in which homosexuality, adultery prostitution unequivocally condemned, matching it with the contemporary condemnation of adult-adolescent relationships. It suggest that historical sexual behaviours, now labelled pedophilic, were once quite normal a necessary which did not show resulting in the "inherent harms" to the adolescents, cited in modern legal statutes. Crucially, it emphasizes that adolescence is a period marked by significant biological and hormonal changes, including adrenarche, Gonadarche, and puberty, leading to natural increases in sexual interest often starting as early as six and intensifying around ages 11-13 stages in which mark a rise in sexual interest, erotic awareness, and exploratory behavior of reaching sexual maturity. Drawing parallels with animal inbreeding as a survival strategy, it posits that the prohibition of incest among commoners arose primarily from the need for social stability through female dispersal, rather than genetic concerns, with religious authority later solidifying sexual taboos, all while the natural adolescent sexual developments were often integrated into societal norms cultures and traditions of the time.

The paper then delves into the 20th and 21st-century evolution of psychiatric classifications in the DSM and ICD, alongside the development of sexual offense laws in Western countries. It argues that the pathologization and criminalization of pedophilia coincided with the decriminalization of previously condemned behaviours like adultery, prostitution, and homosexuality, suggesting a shifting and potentially arbitrary definition of "deviance" that often ignores the biological realities of adolescent sexual maturation. It critiques the feminist influence in redefining pedophilia as patriarchal oppression and the role of media in amplifying moral panic, leading to increasingly punitive laws that disregard the capacity for consensual sexual exploration among adolescents and between adolescents and adults. It highlight the gender bias in the prosecution of pedophilia and a hypocrisy in a society that readily exposes adolescents to sexualized content in media but criminalizes their own sexual exploration, often pathologizing natural adolescent attractions.

The paper also challenges the dogmatic assertion that minors are sexually innocent and categorically incapable of consent. It critiques the denial of adolescent sexual agency, especially in light of biological and developmental realities, such as the rise of romantic interest, peer sexual behavior, masturbation, and even sexual attraction toward adults. The suppression of these realities under rigid legal regimes is seen not only as unjust but potentially psychologically harmful, contributing to shame, confusion, and fear in adolescents. Furthermore, the double standard is exposed wherein society bombards adolescents with hypersexualized media imagery and adult pornography, while simultaneously criminalizing their own sexual expressions or relationships—particularly those involving older partners.

It contends that the assertion of inherent harm in all adult-adolescent sexual relationships lacks robust scientific evidence independent of post-criminalization studies. It is made into a “self-fulfilling prophecy” based on presumptions influenced by institutional bias. It draws a stark contrast between the modern condemnation of historically accepted child sex in marriage relations while widespread acceptance of adult pornification’s, suggesting an inconsistent and ideologically driven legal framework that fails to acknowledge the developing sexual agency of adolescents. it concludes U.S. statutory rape and pedophilia laws—especially 18 U.S.C. §2251–2256 are rooted more in Victorian-era moral beliefs, rather than in scientific understanding of adolescent development, often conflating consensual behavior with abuse and diverting attention from more significant issues affecting child welfare, such as poverty, comparable with “witch hunt” of middle ages.

In essence, this paper argues for a critical re-evaluation of pedophilia laws, urging a consideration of historical context, the natural biological progression of adolescent sexual development, the potential for adolescent consent in certain contexts, and the influence of social and political factors in shaping current legal and moral stances. It suggests that the prevailing narrative of inherent harm and the absolute criminalization of all adult-adolescent relationships may be a product of evolving societal norms and power dynamics rather than an objective reflection of harm or a consistent application of ethical principles like consent, particularly in light of the established biological trajectory of adolescent sexuality

Good to see you've been working on it further! I'll write my comments in chronological order.

So far it feels to be a defense of child an/or adolescent marriage, more than a general criticism of attitudes and laws about AMSC. For example, pederasty isn't covered by the idea that marriage should determine whether people are allowed to have sex.

I was surprised about the topic of inbreeding, but you seem to be right. Even though exogamy seems to be more common than endogamy among humans, apparently animals rarely avoid inbreeding. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01453-9

I'm not entirely clear about why incest is brought up in relation to pedophilia. Are you also arguing that incest should be permitted or that isn't harmful? The only thing that springs to mind is that section of Plato's Republic where he suggests allowing brother-sister incest but completely restricting intergenerational relationships (it goes back to the mistaken belief that men, like women, cause malformed offspring if they reproduce as they get older). Still, incest isn't necessarily intergenerational, so it still feels like there's a missing link between incest and pedophilia in this context.

The taboo against incest seems to be global rather than distinctly characteristic of Western culture. Even in Western culture, however, marrying cousins wasn't always that unusual.

From an evolutionary perspective, isn't a simpler explanation not a specific attraction to "immigrant females" but rather an opportunity for the total amount of offspring to be greater than males that engage in exclusively endogamous relationships?

It would have been interesting to also mention the sexual behavior of bonobos as they are also very closely related to humans, and sex serves a bigger role than just reproduction (e.g. it serves as way of resolving conflict and improving group cohesiveness). Given than pedophilia often involves non-reproductive sexual relationships, perhaps bonobos can give more insight into those relationships from an ethological perspective?

The discussion about fathers and sons in relation to private property runs into difficulties with matrilineal forms of inheritance. When inheritance is based on who the mother is, it seemingly runs contrary to the view that property is tied to the territorialism of males.

I'm interested to hear what you think of female infanticide in China. If reducing the number of females is evolutionarily disadvantageous, then how does that happen?

What do you think about cultures that permit prostitution? In particular, I have in mind the practice of Sacred Prostitution, where the religion actually facilitates prostitution.

Regarding the moral outrage concerning pedophilia, I think you should mention the role of tabloids and yellow journalism in whipping up moral panic about this stuff. Sensationalism, going back at least to the 19th century, up to the present day, has dictated how we can talk about these topics.

Ego-dystonic homosexuality means that homosexuality is only a disorder when you don't want to be homosexual, when it doesn't fit with your sense of self.

Feminist opposition to child marriage has to do with such marriages preventing the opportunity for education and other occupations besides being a wife. A lot of feminists are also opposed to prostitution, for the same reason of preventing economically upward mobility of women.

The restrictions on sexual liberation were a combined effort of feminists and religious/social conservatives. If you go back and look at the co-sponsors of these restrictive laws, the proportion of conservatives is consistently higher than progressives.

Prostitution is still largely illegal.

Feminists are often critical of pornography and sex work, even with adults. For example, they say it's objectifying.

Meanwhile, millions of children continue to die from malnutrition, inadequate healthcare, and preventable diseases—humanitarian crises that receive far less media attention (UNICEF, The State of the World's Children, 2023). “The disproportionate focus on pedophilia is not merely about protecting children; it is a carefully engineered, profit-driven strategy that thrives on fear and emotional manipulation. Media outlets, driven by engagement metrics and advertising revenue, amplify public anxieties, ensuring that moral outrage takes precedence over rational, evidence-based discussions. This relentless sensationalism shapes policies rooted more in fear than in empirical data, diverting attention from systemic issues that threaten child welfare on a much larger scale. As a result, critical resources and policy efforts are disproportionately allocated, reinforcing a cycle where fear-based narratives dictate public perception. This commercialized moral panic, as Cohen described in Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972), exemplifies how social issues are often distorted and exploited for economic and ideological gains.”

This is a great quote!

Butler’s shift from opposing the Contagious Diseases Acts to fighting child prostitution, and Booth’s Salvation Army ties, underscored a religious-patriotic mission to “save” girls.

There's also a bourgeois horror of 19th century women's literature against becoming a "fallen woman." Everyone aimed towards class mobility, so anything that could get in the way of becoming a respectable middle-class family was strongly opposed.

History's clearest warning is how easily societies mistake persecution for protection.

I like this line.

This double standard is baffling: children can navigate a vast array of adult-guided decisions without issue, yet in this one domain, their capacity for consent is nullified, and adults are vilified.

This is also a good line.

Science differentiated from pseudoscience, must remain cautious not to conflate legal judgments with objective harm (Seto, 2008; Levine, 2002).

By the way "pseudoscience" tends to be a pejorative, it might be better to say these claims are "unfalsifiable," since the issue is that there is no test that could falsify them. In other words, since there's no conditions under which you could know they're wrong, they are unscientific. That way the tone can sound more neutral and objective.

The claim that children or adolescents can never consent ignores the research showing that cognitive and emotional development is a spectrum, not a switch.

Another good line.

Parents, teachers, and mentors make life-altering decisions for minors daily, yet we accept these imbalances as necessary for development.

I think the issue is that there is a conflict of interest. For example, if you needed a kidney and you had the authority to choose whether a person gave you one, you have a "Principle-agent problem." Choosing whether a minor participates in a sexual act runs the risk of a person exploiting the minor, because there is an incentive to violate the will of the minor. In other words if you get to choose whether a minor has sex with you, but they don't want to, they lack the ability to refuse.

Modern research on "inherent harm" of pedophilia crime has largely taken place after these relationships were criminalized, often focusing on coercive or abusive contexts that introduce stigma, shame, or violence. This framing may not apply to all cases.

Mentioning the terms "iatrogenic" and "sociogenic" as alternative explanations of sexual trauma, might be useful here.

These statistics reveal a stark reality: child sexual abuse prevention campaigns in Western countries, under the guise of child protection, often divert public attention from the true, pressing issues of child abuse — namely, the violence, neglect, exploitation, and psychological trauma that stem from poverty. By scapegoating so-called 'pedophiles,' these advocacy efforts risk ignoring the systemic causes of child abuse, such as economic deprivation, inadequate access to education, and lack of healthcare and housing.

This is a good point to end on. I've often thought, without the fear of poverty, there would be no fear about prostitution/"Survival sex" and economic mobility; and without those fears, would we still care about AMSC?

Over all, it's definitely going in the right direction. If I was writing it, I'd be tempted to make it more condensed and to make the tone more neutral. Keep it up!

Dear PorcelainLark,

Thank you sincerely for your careful reading and thoughtful commentary on my recent paper, “Pedophilia Criminal Offence Built on Morally Bankrupt Western Pseudosciences.” Your detailed engagement is not only intellectually stimulating but also heartening—especially your recognition of key insights and powerful lines that capture the paper’s broader concern with moral panic, ideological bias, and systemic neglect in child welfare discourse. I am truly grateful for your encouragement and the valuable perspectives you've contributed.

That said, I feel compelled to clarify that a few interpretations in your review stem from a misreading of the paper’s central thesis. The work is not intended to defend child or adolescent marriage, nor is it proposing incest as an acceptable norm. Rather, these examples are used to critically examine how current legal and moral frameworks have been shaped more by historical dogmas, social fears, and economic ideologies than by consistent scientific evidence or rational policy goals. For instance, the discussions around endogamy, patriarchy, and incest are presented as socio-evolutionary and anthropological contexts—illustrating how societies have constructed sexual taboos based on shifting material conditions and not always with demonstrable evidence of inherent harm. These cases are not meant to advocate for their normalization but to show that what we criminalize today has often evolved from contested and politicized histories, not from clear, objective, or universal standards of harm.

Your observation about pederasty falling outside the marital frame is valid—but it reinforces, rather than contradicts, the point: modern legal frameworks selectively criminalize certain relationships not based on intrinsic harm, but based on arbitrary constructs like age thresholds, marital status, and moral ideology. This inconsistency is part of what the paper critiques. Similarly, your point about the “principle-agent problem” rightly highlights the potential for exploitation—but this concern should urge us to analyze actual contexts of abuse and coercion, rather than blanketly criminalizing all non-normative age-differentiated relationships under the assumption that all are inherently harmful. In fact, the paper critiques exactly this legal absolutism that erases nuance and individual agency, and instead fuels public anxiety through sensationalist and often pseudoscientific claims.

I particularly appreciate your mention of bonobo ethology, sociogenic trauma, and the importance of neutral scientific framing—these are extremely valuable suggestions for future refinement. And your insight about the alliance between feminist and conservative forces in shaping restrictive laws is well taken; it supports the paper’s broader claim that these laws are ideologically driven.

Once again, I thank you for your generous and constructive input. Even where we may differ in interpretation, your response reflects a spirit of scholarly curiosity and integrity that this kind of controversial and sensitive subject badly needs. I look forward to more such discussions as we continue examining how moral norms and legal systems shape, and sometimes distort, our understanding of justice and harm.

Warm regards,
Valerian Texeira

Valerian wrote: Sun Apr 20, 2025 3:41 pm I am truly grateful for your encouragement and the valuable perspectives you've contributed.

No trouble! I'm glad to be trying to make myself useful.

That said, I feel compelled to clarify that a few interpretations in your review stem from a misreading of the paper’s central thesis. The work is not intended to defend child or adolescent marriage, nor is it proposing incest as an acceptable norm. Rather, these examples are used to critically examine how current legal and moral frameworks have been shaped more by historical dogmas, social fears, and economic ideologies than by consistent scientific evidence or rational policy goals. For instance, the discussions around endogamy, patriarchy, and incest are presented as socio-evolutionary and anthropological contexts—illustrating how societies have constructed sexual taboos based on shifting material conditions and not always with demonstrable evidence of inherent harm. These cases are not meant to advocate for their normalization but to show that what we criminalize today has often evolved from contested and politicized histories, not from clear, objective, or universal standards of harm.

Your observation about pederasty falling outside the marital frame is valid—but it reinforces, rather than contradicts, the point: modern legal frameworks selectively criminalize certain relationships not based on intrinsic harm, but based on arbitrary constructs like age thresholds, marital status, and moral ideology. This inconsistency is part of what the paper critiques. Similarly, your point about the “principle-agent problem” rightly highlights the potential for exploitation—but this concern should urge us to analyze actual contexts of abuse and coercion, rather than blanketly criminalizing all non-normative age-differentiated relationships under the assumption that all are inherently harmful. In fact, the paper critiques exactly this legal absolutism that erases nuance and individual agency, and instead fuels public anxiety through sensationalist and often pseudoscientific claims.

To flip the chess board, I'm not sure. Say I was an anti, I could argue that in spite of the historical and cultural relativity of these norms, we've reached an objective standard that we have today; for comparison, consider modern medicine versus the varieties of traditional medicine. People don't tend to say because there were varieties of traditional medicine, that's evidence that modern medicine is false. If traditional views are incommensurable with modern views, there has to be a choice to either judge the modern view by traditional standards, or the traditional view by modern standards. Showing that different perspectives have existed isn't sufficient to say we should take them as seriously as the ones we currently hold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensur ... f_science)

My temptation would be to pursue a kind of Aristotelian or Rousseauist rehabilitation of ethical naturalism. We can show AMSC is natural, but because of the current popular rejection of ethical naturalism, there can never be any recognition of the alienation and lack of actualization that comes from suppressing these kinds of actions and behaviors. In practice, as long ethical naturalism is rejected, we're stuck with consensus as the basis of morality, and no amount of evidence that the consensus is detached from reality can change ethics. If ethical naturalism is valid, then you have a broad framework for critiquing the modern norms of sexuality (with the added advantage of not needing to defend the traditional views in order to criticize the modern views): you can say that they're contrary to human nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

I particularly appreciate your mention of bonobo ethology, sociogenic trauma, and the importance of neutral scientific framing—these are extremely valuable suggestions for future refinement. And your insight about the alliance between feminist and conservative forces in shaping restrictive laws is well taken; it supports the paper’s broader claim that these laws are ideologically driven.

Once again, I thank you for your generous and constructive input. Even where we may differ in interpretation, your response reflects a spirit of scholarly curiosity and integrity that this kind of controversial and sensitive subject badly needs. I look forward to more such discussions as we continue examining how moral norms and legal systems shape, and sometimes distort, our understanding of justice and harm.

Warm regards,
Valerian Texeira

Happy to be of assistance! I look forward to your future writing. Good luck.

Thank you once again for your valuable feed back