Why arguments against pro-contact pedophile arguments are bullshit

[Fragment]

Why pro-contact pedophile arguments are bullshit

Any argument is bullshit when you strawman it. I'm not even going to bother going point by point. The weaknesses in logic are self-apparent.

I do think that for a long time pro-c has tunnel visioned too much on trying to explain the benefits of sexual intimacy with minors while waving away cases of CSA as irrelevant. No pro-c person I know supports legalizing rape or abuse. But few pro-c people want to admit CSA as a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

One of the strongest reasons, I believe, for legal reform is that the current punitive system seems to be having no effect on rates of CSA.
Another is that sentencing is largely based on the names of the crimes rather than the specific harms caused.
Third is the circular reasoning of anti-c arguments. "Maybe the child knows it’s wrong but doesn’t like the idea of their friend going to jail." This appeal to wrongness while simultaneously saying "wrong is whatever the law makes it" seems to be appeasement to the majority of the worst kind.
There were a few opportunities to actually get into the nuance of the discussion. But those opportunities were passed by.

The irony seems to be that in reality a lot of moderate anti-c people and pro-c people are closer to each other than they are to the radicals in each camp. Making this into sports teams and maligning each other can't be good for the community. I'm guilty of it, too, at times. Maybe even with this post, to a degree.

But I honestly think there are a lot of important issues that anti-c people talk about. But there are important issues that pro-c people talk about. And legal reform of AMSC and PIM laws are just one tiny (yet massive) part of being a MAP. I understand why it can be polarizing. Yet there's so much we can talk about that doesn't involve directly touching on legal change.

[PorcelainLark]

One of the strongest reasons, I believe, for legal reform is that the current punitive system seems to be having no effect on rates of CSA.
Another is that sentencing is largely based on the names of the crimes rather than the specific harms caused.

Is that about recidivism or about the total numbers? For example, you could argue that while a CS abuser is in prison, they're not abusing a child. From the anti point of view, if punishment doesn't affect recidivism rates that would be an argument for life imprisonment rather than for more lenient sentencing. In any case, I'd like to see the source.

3. “Kids can consent, they know whether they like or don’t like something and therefore they can say no to what they don’t like — if they don’t say no, it’s because they’re liking it and therefore it’s good for them.”

The idea of implied consent (‘They didn’t say no, so they like it.’) is not a valid excuse for rape in a courtroom, and certainly should not be applied to sexual situations involving children. You don’t have to have followed #MeToo to realise that.

I see they're attacking the weaker version of this claim. If in contrast, you take enthusiastic/ongoing consent rather than just verbal consent this rebuttal doesn't really work. Unless they're trying to say the problem with #MeToo was just the power differences.

[Harlan]

Third is the circular reasoning of anti-c arguments. "Maybe the child knows it’s wrong but doesn’t like the idea of their friend going to jail."

If his friend had done something really terrible, he wouldn't consider him a friend and wouldn't be worried about him going to jail. If he feels sorry for him, then it means he had not harmful experience , but he heard, he knews that everyone around them thinks their erotic games are bad. He's just confused and falls under huge social pressure. As it happened before, when children saw how all the adults around them approved and demonstrated racism and homophobia, after which these children adopted this as a normative behaviour model.

[Fragment]

Is that about recidivism or about the total numbers? For example, you could argue that while a CS abuser is in prison, they're not abusing a child. From the anti point of view, if punishment doesn't affect recidivism rates that would be an argument for life imprisonment rather than for more lenient sentencing. In any case, I'd like to see the source.

I guess total numbers. What I mean is that just like the War on Drugs didn't seem to impact the rate of drug use in society as a whole, the War on CSA doesn't actually seem to be doing much to reduce CSA. CSA is still rampant. If we look at the social problem of abuse as a whole, and we want to reduce abuse, then we should take policies that actually achieve that.

Like we spoke once at B4um about, I think there is very likely a "chilling effect" where the harshness of penalties against CSA and the sexphobic nature of society generally actually discourage both open discussion and reporting. I think it's very likely that a society where AMSC was "okay" would result in the ability to talk more openly about the cases where it is definitely not "okay".

if punishment doesn't affect recidivism rates that would be an argument for life imprisonment

Surely this only applies to a recidivism rate that is high regardless of punishment. If a 2 year sentence and 20 year sentence both result in a recidivism rate of under 5% is there any reason for the 20 year sentence?

[BLueRibbon]

There's a new pro-reform article coming soon, which will discuss the need for anti-c people to support soft reform on AMSC attitudes for the sake of anti-c success. I think it will just upset everyone on all sides, but a discussion needs to be had.

[Pharmakon]

Fragment: ...the current punitive system seems to be having no effect on rates of CSA.

I think the Finnish data supports the idea that rates of AMSC have declined. This suggests we should not argue that the punitive regime is ineffective. On the contrary, we should argue that it is operating to limit the sexual agency of kids, making them reluctant to explore sexual opportunities as they are entitled to. The CSA campaign, imho, is a form of terrorism that has harmed kids by making them afraid of sex in general, and especially of age gap sex.

[Fragment]

Fragment: ...the current punitive system seems to be having no effect on rates of CSA.

I think the Finnish data supports the idea that rates of AMSC have declined. This suggests we should not argue that the punitive regime is ineffective. On the contrary, we should argue that it is operating to limit the sexual agency of kids, making them reluctant to explore sexual opportunities as they are entitled to. The CSA campaign, imho, is a form of terrorism that has harmed kids by making them afraid of sex in general, and especially of age gap sex.

AMSC has declined since the 80s, but so has MMSC has it not?

Has Finland actually seen changes in the law or sentencing guidelines over the course of the 3 studies?

Like if you locked every single adult male over 16 in jail, that likely would reduce (C)SA substantially. My point is more that we're reaching the point of threatening the death penalty in some places (Florida) and despite that the cultural problem of CSA seems to be as present as ever. It's hard to argue about exact numbers, much like with alcohol prohibition or the war on drugs. But we can say that the problem isn't being solved.


That we're limiting the sexual agency of kids is definitely true. But I'm not sure it's a particularly compelling argument. How many people care? Even when talking about Romeo and Juliet laws most people argue "it can't be stopped anyway so we shouldn't throw kids in jail for it" rather than "teens have the right to sexual autonomy".

[PorcelainLark]

I guess total numbers. What I mean is that just like the War on Drugs didn't seem to impact the rate of drug use in society as a whole, the War on CSA doesn't actually seem to be doing much to reduce CSA. CSA is still rampant. If we look at the social problem of abuse as a whole, and we want to reduce abuse, then we should take policies that actually achieve that.

I don't know if it actually could be the total numbers, because how would they measure the rate of CSA if not as crimes? It's hard to say what the difference between prosecuted versus non-prosecuted CSA because that would be a dark figure. Plus that would mean that every CS abuser that's imprisoned is being replaced by someone else committing CSA while they are in prison in order for the rates to stay the same. Hard to say for sure without seeing the source, but that would be my guess.

Like we spoke once at B4um about, I think there is very likely a "chilling effect" where the harshness of penalties against CSA and the sexphobic nature of society generally actually discourage both open discussion and reporting. I think it's very likely that a society where AMSC was "okay" would result in the ability to talk more openly about the cases where it is definitely not "okay".

This is a good thing to bear in mind if laws change eventually - an increase in CSA with the lowering of AoC could be a sign that the chilling effect has stopped rather than emboldening predatory behavior as most people would spin it.

Surely this only applies to a recidivism rate that is high regardless of punishment. If a 2 year sentence and 20 year sentence both result in a recidivism rate of under 5% is there any reason for the 20 year sentence?

Compare with murder. If a person kills at the same rate for 2 or 20 years, that's an argument for a longer sentence. We know the comparison is a false one, but the overwhelming majority of non-MAPs haven't even been convinced that statutory rape is blown out of proportion. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced it's a persuasive line of argument for our aims. Happy to be proven wrong, though.

I think the Finnish data supports the idea that rates of AMSC have declined. This suggests we should not argue that the punitive regime is ineffective.

This is what I expected the evidence to suggest.

On the contrary, we should argue that it is operating to limit the sexual agency of kids, making them reluctant to explore sexual opportunities as they are entitled to. The CSA campaign, imho, is a form of terrorism that has harmed kids by making them afraid of sex in general, and especially of age gap sex.

I think I agree with this perspective, but I don't think it's persuasive to a non-MAP audience. The current laws are much harsher on MAPs than on minors exploring their sexuality.

Over all, the issue is not just making arguments that agree with the available evidence, arguments have to also "checkmate" people so they can't slip into performative hatred of pedophiles. Everyone is trying to demonstrate how much they hate pedophiles, so if they have an option between saying recidivism makes no difference on CSA rates so "we should reduce sentences" or "we should give pedophiles life in prison", they'll always choose the second option. We need to push people to bite the bullet on these issue, which means cutting off any option to virtue signal about hating pedophiles.

[Bookshelf]

I just think most of the arguments made by original article are circular. It's wrong because it's harmful, it's harmful because it's wrong. There's a lot of emphasis on what sexual behavior is supposed to "mean" and that a lack of understanding on what it means is a contributing factor to the harm; but I'm here to say that, beyond just feeling good, I don't quite know what it means either. It's strange to me that these points of views never know either.

[Fragment]

I just think most of the arguments made by original article are circular. It's wrong because it's harmful, it's harmful because it's wrong. There's a lot of emphasis on what sexual behavior is supposed to "mean" and that a lack of understanding on what it means is a contributing factor to the harm; but I'm here to say that, beyond just feeling good, I don't quite know what it means either. It's strange to me that these points of views never know either.

Why is AMSC wrong? "It is wrong because once the child learns it is wrong they feel bad."

There might be reasons to oppose AMSC, but that circular logic loop definitely is not one. The funny thing is that the author claims to have originally been pro-c. And THIS is the logic that made him anti-c? WTF...