Children generally do not get traumatized by *consensual adult/child sexual experiences. Rather the trauma is caused by the reaction of parents, peers, teachers, police, and, yes, therapists. Therapy is often traumatizing.
This conclusion is so drastic and shocking that even we, at Human-Stupidity.com only recently understood the profound implications. The hysterical falsification of science doesn’t just put men in prison with draconian punishments, it actually causes damage to children it purports to protect (compare also Milton Diamond) .
Prohibition of adult/child sexual contact must be justified on ethical, not on scientific grounds. In other words, don’t use false science to justify your moral rules
45 comments
Way to blame all those "meddling, do-good" adults from letting you do what you want from kids.
"Prohibition of adult/child sexual contact must be justified on ethical, not on scientific grounds."
Try to explain that to the numerous child abuse survivor groups such as SNAP, RAINN, HAVOCA, and ASCA. They, along with family and friends, usually push for these laws you detest so much.
Finally, they're kids you sicko.
In other words, don’t use false science to justify your moral rules
You do realize you're talking about yourself, right?
Who am I kidding, of course you don't. That would require empathy,self awareness, an understanding of the concept of informed consent, and the fact that being a child means a lack of life experience and knowledge that would enable the to give said consent.
You are a filthy creep and hopefully not a criminal one although I suspect that hope is in vain. Die. Just die.
Lack of ability to give informed consent is plenty of ethical grounds. The inability to judge the extent of trauma in the future, PLUS the reactions of parents, peers, etc., is plenty of grounds to consider the abuser to be an evil, low-life scum-creature who writes self-serving justifications for his actions, due to the human being's infinite capability for self-deception.
Therapy is often traumatizing
Yes, I imagine being told you're a scumbag who needs to drastically rethink his entire life was very traumatic for you.
Children can't give informed consent, so there is no possibility to have consensual adult/child sexual experiences.
The traumatized children often carry their trauma for years and years before they tell anyone. It's not the reaction of others, but the traumatic molestation that cause the trauma.
Men (and women) who molest children ought to get draconian punishments, asshole!
We use valid science to justify our moral rules.
Yes, Therapy is often deeply traumatising. The reason it's traumatising is because it inevitably involves confronting and reliving the equally traumatising events that lead to the need for therapy in the first place.
Usually the trauma from the original event is suppressed or behaviours (such as drinking & drug taking, violence, isolation, self-harming, eating disorders etc) are put in place to 'self-medicate' and cope with the trauma. Therapy brings all that to the surface and, hopefully, resolves it.
I would say that because the fear/horror was suppressed at the time, my own 6 months treatment for PTSD arising out of childhood abuse was far more traumatic than the actual event. However, the actual event effectively ruined my life from then until it was resolved.
So yes, therapy is usually deeply traumatic, but only because it involves revisiting traumatic events. It's akin to having brain surgery to remove cancer, or heart surgery to replace a valve - traumatic, but necessary trauma only to correct what's really wrong.
What the fuck is this shit? Yeah, this is human stupidity at work.
Maybe if both parent/child are rational adults who genuinely love each other as equals, but I doubt someone as stupid as this would ever consider a rational argument in favour of incest. This just sounds like pedophilia.
OP is aptly named, it seems.
Yesterday, I saw a bumper sticker that read, "STUPIDITY... should be painful."
A hot rich famous guy like Bruce Willis, 58 years, born in 1955, is highly attractive to a 20 year old woman.
According to conventional wisdom, if the woman is 5 years younger and the man 40 years younger, then this is a terrible abuse and trauma for the "jailbait" woman.t See our 60 articles on teenage sexuality and its pitfalls.
Children generally do not get traumatized by *consensual adult/child sexual experiences.
Since minors cannot give legal consent, you're point is completely moot.
@Indicible "How is his arse still not behind bars?"
Because preemptive kiddie-diddling isn't an arrestable offense yet, unfortunately.
@Bernd
It's not, but that's not what's happening here. If you think this vile shit contains logic and evidence, or indeed consists of anything other than baseless assertions pulled directly out of his ass, then there's something wrong with you.
Good fucking god... It's not the difference in age that is the factor, it's that children are not adults. They are still developing, learning about themselves and the world around them. They are vulnerable. They are not socially or psychologically mature. They can't give consent. A 25 year old can give consent and sleep with a 50 year old if they want to. They're both adults.
What's with the apologists, here? How is stating that children are not "generally" harmed when adults engage in "sexual experiences" with them (aka molestation or sexual assault or rape) based on factual evidence and reality? Children don't always tell anyone about sexual abuse or coercion and they then have to deal with it as an adult. That doesn't make it any "better."
Children generally do not get traumatized by *consensual adult/child sexual experiences.
In most jurisdictions, there is an age below which no contract is valid, because the subject is suposed unable to have a meaningful consent, and so such contact is as wilful as you being fucked in the arse by your cellmates.
Therapy is often traumatizing.
Yes, and an amputation can hurt, but gangrene will kill you, slowly and painfully.
A hot rich famous guy like Bruce Willis, 58 years, born in 1955
This being 2016 he would be 61, not 58, but who's counting?
The ethical grounds is consent, as others have pointed out.
The basic argument here is that there is no <b>scientific</b> argument for prohibiting sexual contact with a child. If you want to call if fundie, then you you ought be able to present a <b>scientific</b> argument.
The fact that our legal system does not allow children to legally consent to anything, sexual or otherwise, in order to allow adults to protect them is not a scientific argument. It's a legal argument and an ethical argument, which this in no way refutes.
You can call this reprehensible if you want, but it's not fundie.
@more from human stupidity
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
