70b. FRAUDULENT COMPARISON OF CHILD LABOUR TO CHILD SEX AS EXPLOITATION
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2025 11:52 am
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.
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.