The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[ponderingturtle]

The subject matter is children, and normal rules don't apply. Maybe it's the last bastion of generic patriarchs to over-protect our families, but I don't actually care - it's one area where I will allow will to overcome reason.

Should this be Illegal

Note it is a link you google pictures of small children being bathed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

general articulation of things which might fall within the category of "obscenity" by some arbiters, but which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of in terms of distribution or private ownership. I'd also put beastiality, necrophilia, snuff, actual rape, and child pornography using actual children into that category of things which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of. But other things that can fall into the "obscenity" category? No.

So are those plastinated bodies in the body worlds exhibits obsenity? Are animal breeding practices obsenity?

 

[Dave1001]

So are those plastinated bodies in the body worlds exhibits obsenity? Are animal breeding practices obsenity?

If we looked at both objectively rather than through the lense of popular opinion, it might be hard to separate them from other things that have been called obscenity. Such as nonfictionalized, videotaped bestiality and necrophilia.

I do think there are good reasons to consider regulating both of the things mentioned in your post.

 

[The Atheist]

Lets not forget that all nudists must go to jail in your reasoning, they must be child molesters after all.

Nope, you can take that kind of ridiculous reasoning elsewhere. That's nowhere near my reasoning. You're welcome to continue to mis=represent my thoughts in your own mind, though.

If nudists go around asking for relaxation of child-porn rules and insist that sex with underage kids is fine, I might think differently, but nudists are just nudists, in general.

 

[The Atheist]

Should this be Illegal

Note it is a link you google pictures of small children being bathed.

Thanks for letting me know before I clicked. I'll pass, thanks.

You just keep doing your "research". Just beware that you don't fall into the trap Pete Townsend (The Who) did.

He was "doing research" on child pornography as well.

Kids having a bath are suitable for family members, grandparents, etc, but I don't like the idea of them being posted on the internet. Each to their own, but my kids won't be featured there.

 

[The Atheist]

Even on these forums, where skeptics are the majority of the population, it's still nigh impossible to move a discussion past people yelling "Anything involving underage sex is icky and bad, we know it! Anyone who asks for evidence is a child molester!".

If that doesn't make a topic interesting to a skeptic, I don't know what does.

That might even make sense if it related to your own posts.

On its own, what you say above is correct. What you didn't cover is the 8-10 (or more, I haven't read all of your posts) times you have specifically mentioned the supposed "lack of harm" in childeren having "consensual" sex.

Funny how that part never got a mention in your response. Even funnier that you seem to be the only one pushing that barrow.

As I said, enjoy...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That might even make sense if it related to your own posts.

On its own, what you say above is correct. What you didn't cover is the 8-10 (or more, I haven't read all of your posts) times you have specifically mentioned the supposed "lack of harm" in childeren having "consensual" sex.

Funny how that part never got a mention in your response. Even funnier that you seem to be the only one pushing that barrow.

As I said, enjoy...

I see the problem now. Despite being repeatedly told, you still don't understand that it is, to the best of our collective knowledge, just a fact that underage sex in and of itself is generally harmless for sexually mature people.

Not my opinion. Epidemiological fact.

Pregnancy causes harm, STDs cause harm, unwanted and distressing sexual abuse causes harm, sex does not. Or at least, nobody here has ever been able to find evidence that it does, and believe me a lot of loudly opinionated people like yourself and Gurdur have looked in vain for facts to support their beliefs.

This shouldn't really be surprising though. In different legal jurisdictions people can legally have sex as young as twelve (or for that matter be barred from having sex until as old as twenty) and again there is no evidence that bad consequences follow from this.

Why do I keep repeating this point? Because a lot of loudly opinionated people like yourself and Gurdur have not yet absorbed the fact that certain things that fall under the heading of child pornography depict acts that are harmless to the best of our knowledge.

If we restrict the topic still further, just to child pornography which does not involve real children in its production, and which depicts actions which we have no rational reason to believe would be harmful, what exactly is the moral, legal or practical reason for criminalising such material? I don't currently see any evidence for criminalisation, but since you are such a diligent and rational person I am sure you will dedicate some time to searching for such evidence before you come back here and air unsupported opinions again.

 

[dann]

Despite being repeatedly told, you still don't understand that it is, to the best of our collective knowledge, just a fact that underage sex in and of itself is generally harmless for sexually mature people.

Yes, it probably does not harm the sexually mature people who are having underage sex. The children are the ones being harmed!

 

[The Atheist]

Why do I keep repeating this point?

Good question. Why do you keep labouring the point, all the while crying for evidence and presenting NONE to back up your paedophilic-grooming agenda?

You keep telling us about this "evidence". Where is it?

If we restrict the topic still further, just to child pornography which does not involve real children in its production, and which depicts actions which we have no rational reason to believe would be harmful, what exactly is the moral, legal or practical reason for criminalising such material? I don't currently see any evidence for criminalisation, but since you are such a diligent and rational person I am sure you will dedicate some time to searching for such evidence before you come back here and air unsupported opinions again.

No, completely wrong. I have said that I'm quite happy with the law as it stands.

YOU are the one promoting a change to allow child-free kiddie-porn. Again, YOU provide some evidence to back your position which is contrary to the laws of both your country and mine.

Just have a look at this sentence while you're at it. I've changed your post by adding two letters to let you ponder your own position.

"If we restrict the topic still further, just to child pornography which does not involve real children in its production, and which depicts actions which we have no rational reason to believe would be harmful, what exactly is the moral, legal or practical reason for de-criminalising such material?"

Other than giving paedophiles free jollies to console themselves while they groom their next victim under your proposed "no harm" remedies.

Go ahead. What good will come of it?

Edit: Are you a member of NAMBLA or similar group? If not, why are you pushing their agenda for them?

There is no reason to make vile accusations about other Members - address the arguments and/or claims or do not post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[The Atheist]

Yes, it probably does not harm the sexually mature people who are having underage sex. The children are the ones being harmed!

It's ok, mate, Kevin's off to collate his evidence to show that no harm is done when a 60 year old man has sex with an early-maturing 10 year old.

 

[Rasmus]

Edit: Are you a member of NAMBLA or similar group? If not, why are you pushing their agenda for them?

What if they just happened to be right on some of the points they are allegedly pushing in their agenda?

Have a look at this: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182

I can't find anything better at the moment.

Of course, it is still not necessary to prove that something is harmless; it takes proof that something is harmful if it should be forbidden. I agree that it should be relatively simple to come up with evidence for this if it is as clear and obvious as you assert.

I am rather amused how people insist that harm must be caused. Wouldn't it be a good thing if children weren't harmed? If children weren't harmed, does it follow that it should be legal that adults can have sex with them? (And, if so, what would be your problem?)

 

[DRBUZZ0]

One of the things which (to me) never made a whole lot of sense in the area of child pornography, at least in the United States. It's illegal to possess or to produce sexual photos of those under the age of 18, so if you run a website with pictures of 16 year olds having sex, you're in trouble.

However, it is not illegal to have sex with an individual under the age of 18, if they are above the age of consent in the state. Generally, the age of consent is 16, 17 or 18, I believe it's 16 in most states. I know it was 17 in the state of New York, where I used to live, because I had heard so on news stories.

I believe there are one or two states where the age of consent is 15, but I'd have to double check. There are also laws which make it less serious in certain situations and ages. For example: having sex with someone under the age of 18 but over 14 might be considered statutory rape, but it would not be considered child abuse and would not be a felony, or there are exemptions if both parties are under 21. Also, I don't believe that sex between a 17 year old and a 19 year old would be prosecuted that aggressively anyway.


So in other words: You and a 16 year old can have all kinds of sex, you can look at her (or his) naughty bits, and do all other kinds of things that I don't care to go into. But if you dare take out a polaroid camera...well then you're in trouble, because apparently "consent" applies to everything but photos/videos

 

[The Atheist]

What if they just happened to be right on some of the points they are allegedly pushing in their agenda?

Have a look at this: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182

I can't find anything better at the moment.

Of course, it is still not necessary to prove that something is harmless; it takes proof that something is harmful if it should be forbidden. I agree that it should be relatively simple to come up with evidence for this if it is as clear and obvious as you assert.

I am rather amused how people insist that harm must be caused. Wouldn't it be a good thing if children weren't harmed? If children weren't harmed, does it follow that it should be legal that adults can have sex with them? (And, if so, what would be your problem?)

I looked at the article and I'm not sure how relevant it is. It discusses the now-debunked RMS, which I'm well aware of after a very high-profile case here with remarkably similar "evidence".

It also discusses sex between 14/15 year olds and older people. I would class that as an adolescent rather than a child, so it isn't quite the same thing. I thnk Holland has laws which specify different laws for children under 13, between 13 and 16 and then 16 and over (free for all). That's possibly right - there's a world of difference between 9/10/11 and 14/15.

 

[The Atheist]

So in other words: You and a 16 year old can have all kinds of sex, you can look at her (or his) naughty bits, and do all other kinds of things that I don't care to go into. But if you dare take out a polaroid camera...well then you're in trouble, because apparently "consent" applies to everything but photos/videos

Good point, the same rules apply here.

We recently had an absurd case of a 17 year old (consent age in NZ = 16) who was working as a prostitute, for which she needed to be 18 to work legally. When she was busted for hooking, the cops tried - but failed - to prosecute several men for having sex with her! If they'd not paid, it was quite legal, but illegal because they gave her cash. Fortunately for them, the evidence had, shall we say, been "washed away".

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Good point, the same rules apply here.

We recently had an absurd case of a 17 year old (consent age in NZ = 16) who was working as a prostitute, for which she needed to be 18 to work legally. When she was busted for hooking, the cops tried - but failed - to prosecute several men for having sex with her! If they'd not paid, it was quite legal, but illegal because they gave her cash. Fortunately for them, the evidence had, shall we say, been "washed away".

I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere, but there's also the issue of judgment (which is why they call the people in charge of the judicial system a judge). If the age of consent is 17 and a 16 year old fools around with her boyfriend who is 18, common sense says that's much different than a 38 year old having sex with a bunch of 12 year olds and probably isn't worth prosecuting.

but I still see major inconsistency in the idea that it's illegal to tape or photograph yourself having sex with someone, even if it's legal for them to do anything sexually that does not involve being taped. So that means, I guess that people could watch, but not via camera? Or they could watch via camera, but not if there's a tape delay?

I personally would say it ought to be more about the act than the image. It's illegal to have sex with a child, so if you make an image of a child having sex with you that's illegal. It's illegal to make a child take off their clothes and pose for your perverted enjoyment, hence images taken of such would be illegal.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, it probably does not harm the sexually mature people who are having underage sex. The children are the ones being harmed!

Whoops! Obviously that sentence was meant to be the other way around.

Good question. Why do you keep labouring the point, all the while crying for evidence and presenting NONE to back up your paedophilic-grooming agenda?

Okay, I'm sick of this. Firstly I'm reporting that post, secondly I demand an apology, and thirdly I demand you cease the accusations that I am a paedophile, have a "paedophilic-grooming agenda", support NAMBLA and so on and so forth. I don't know what makes you think you have the right to throw such baseless accusations around but it's stopping right now.

Since it's clear you simply will not do any research of your own, I direct you to:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues9.html and
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan20/fleming/fleming.html#refbody12

These will refer you to studies done of actual victims of sexual abuse. What you will discover is that even in cases of non-penetrative sexual abuse, properly controlled studies show no long-term harm once confounding factors are controlled for. If distressing and unwanted sexual contact does no long-term harm, but only short-term harm, then is there any sane possibility that consensual contact which does no short-term harm will do long-term harm? You would have to have some pretty damn strong evidence to show that it did, and we all know you have no evidence at all.

If you don't like those facts, don't blame me. Blame the actual victims of sexual abuse who filled out the surveys.

You keep telling us about this "evidence". Where is it?

There's mine. Now where's yours?

No, completely wrong. I have said that I'm quite happy with the law as it stands.

YOU are the one promoting a change to allow child-free kiddie-porn. Again, YOU provide some evidence to back your position which is contrary to the laws of both your country and mine.

Just have a look at this sentence while you're at it. I've changed your post by adding two letters to let you ponder your own position.

I dislike repeating myself, but I will do so. You have a very strong and manifest belief that child pornography is rightfully illegal. I ask you again what the evidence is for your belief.

Disregard for the moment the political issue of changing laws. Just show us the evidence that led you to form this strong belief you are displaying. Surely there must be a reason you hold this belief? Share it with us.

At this stage I am convinced you have no evidence and you are deliberately avoiding the question.

Other than giving paedophiles free jollies to console themselves while they groom their next victim under your proposed "no harm" remedies.

Go ahead. What good will come of it?

A few different potential benefits have already been raised in this thread. Please refer to them and reply to them directly, rather than asking me to repeat what myself and others have already posted.

Edit: Are you a member of NAMBLA or similar group? If not, why are you pushing their agenda for them?

This is classic team jersey thinking. "If you agree with anything NAMBLA says, you agree with everything they say!".

If some aspects of current attitudes to underage sex and child pornography are, to put it bluntly, stupid, that gives groups like NAMBLA ammunition. They can quite correctly say that their opponents espouse positions which are irrational and stupid. I don't want them to be able to say that, do you?

Much better to get our own attitudes in line with the available evidence, and deny groups like NAMBLA any good arguments.

 

[The Atheist]

Okay, I'm sick of this. Firstly I'm reporting that post,

That is no surprise at all having read both your posts and your sig line. I find it more than slightly ironic that sex with children does no harm - according to you - yet you obviously feel harmed by my mere words.

Nothing like living down to stereotype, is there?

secondly I demand an apology,

YOU demand an apology? I quoted at least half a dozen posts where you wrote eloquently on the lack of harm in adult/child sex. Please do feel free to hold your breath waiting for the apology.

and thirdly I demand you cease the accusations that I am a paedophile,

As yet, I haven't accused you of being one, so you can stop making stuff up, thanks. I have asked the question as to why you keep insisting that sex with children is a good thing but have not yet had an answer.

have a "paedophilic-grooming agenda",

That one, you do. The agenda you're promoting could easily have come from a pro-paedophile group. Remember, this isn't something you've suggested once or even twice, you have repeatedly denied that harm comes to children from having sex with adults. That is precisely what a paedophile agenda is. Do you understand the term?

support NAMBLA and so on and so forth.

Again, I asked if you were a member, I didn't say that you were. Wrong country for starters.

I don't know what makes you think you have the right to throw such baseless accusations around but it's stopping right now.

Well, if you stop trying to promote it, I would certainly stop pulling you up on it. I will note that "baseless" accusations are those without basis. On the strength of your repeated posts stating that sex with children does no harm, I am compelled to think there's more to it than you are stating here. I asked what good could possibly come from relaxation of current laws, but haven't received an answer to that, either.

Since it's clear you simply will not do any research of your own, I direct you to:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues9.html and
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan20/fleming/fleming.html#refbody12

Thanks, I'll get to that shortly.

These will refer you to studies done of actual victims of sexual abuse. What you will discover is that even in cases of non-penetrative sexual abuse, properly controlled studies show no long-term harm once confounding factors are controlled for. If distressing and unwanted sexual contact does no long-term harm, but only short-term harm, then is there any sane possibility that consensual contact which does no short-term harm will do long-term harm? You would have to have some pretty damn strong evidence to show that it did, and we all know you have no evidence at all.

If you don't like those facts, don't blame me. Blame the actual victims of sexual abuse who filled out the surveys.

There's mine. Now where's yours?

Here you go:

I submit these statements:

There is now an established body of knowledge clearly linking a history of child sexual abuse with higher rates in adult life of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, substance abuse disorders, eating disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders (Briere and Runtz 1988; Winfield et al. 1990; Bushnell et al. 1992; Mullen et al. 1993; Romans et al. 1995 and 1997; Fergusson et al. 1996; Silverman et al. 1996; Fleming et al. in press)

A review of 12 studies conducted prior to 1995 indicated that the rates of child sexual abuse among those in treatment for alcohol abuse varied from as high as 84 per cent to as low as 20 per cent (Fleming et al. in press (b)).

There is a wide range of potential adverse adult outcomes associated with child sexual abuse.

This suggests that child sexual abuse is best viewed as a risk factor for a wide range of subsequent problems.

Those with histories of child sexual abuse, particularly of the more physically intrusive types, have an increased risk of social, interpersonal and sexual problems in adult life.

A plausible hypothesis can be advanced that the developmental disruption engendered by child sexual abuse in the victims' sense of self-esteem, sense of agency, sense of the world as a safe enough environment, in their capacity for entering trusting intimate relationships and, finally, in their developing sexuality, leads in adult life to an increased risk of low self-esteem, social and economic failure, social insecurity and isolation, difficulties with intimacy and sexual problems.

Now, where did I find all that so promptly?

Here!

Crikey! That link looks familiar! Guess what, Kevvy? It's the ONE YOU GAVE ME ABOVE!


Next time, buddy, read the stuff first to make sure it doesn't actually support the other guy, as it clearly does here! Read those quotes carefully - and thanks for the link to that site, saved me heaps of time and trouble. Bloody nice of you, cheers!

I dislike repeating myself, but I will do so. You have a very strong and manifest belief that child pornography is rightfully illegal. I ask you again what the evidence is for your belief.

I dislike repeating myself every bit as much as you do, but I'm going to have to right here. As noted above, go check your own links!

Disregard for the moment the political issue of changing laws. Just show us the evidence that led you to form this strong belief you are displaying. Surely there must be a reason you hold this belief? Share it with us.

As noted above, go check your own links!

At this stage I am convinced you have no evidence and you are deliberately avoiding the question.

As noted above, go check your own links!

A few different potential benefits have already been raised in this thread. Please refer to them and reply to them directly, rather than asking me to repeat what myself and others have already posted.

Sure, I've seen them. I was wondering what makes you, personally, so very interested in promoting the FALSE opinion (thanks to your own evidence) that sex with children does no harm.

This is classic team jersey thinking. "If you agree with anything NAMBLA says, you agree with everything they say!".

Sorry, Kevin, they're not on my team, so I have no idea whether or not you agree with everything they say. I merely noted that your stance that "having sex with children does no harm", would be something they'd be very much in agreement with.

If some aspects of current attitudes to underage sex and child pornography are, to put it bluntly, stupid, that gives groups like NAMBLA ammunition. They can quite correctly say that their opponents espouse positions which are irrational and stupid. I don't want them to be able to say that, do you?

Do you think anyone but you is going to give a flying fig what NAMBLA says? Do you think that if they made a press release, anyone would report it? Do you think people who stand up and promote sex with children are going to be listened to by Mr and Mrs Public? NAMBLA could be legally and morally correct in every statement they make, but nobody would notice, or care.

I do note that you've gone from saying that sex with children is harmless to "Current attitudes to underage sex is stupid". You just keep 'em coming!

Much better to get our own attitudes in line with the available evidence, and deny groups like NAMBLA any good arguments.

As noted above, whatever arguments NAMBLA make are water off a duck's back as far as the enormous majority of people are concerned.

I submit that thanks to the links you so generously provided, the current laws and attitudes are pretty much bang-on.

 

[Dave1001]

Yes, it probably does not harm the sexually mature people who are having underage sex. The children are the ones being harmed!

Come on, Dann, can't we separate our own puritan cultural bias from this? In many non-Western cultures even non-sexually mature children have regular sexual contact with adults, and Kevin_Lowe was only referring to post-pubescent children.

I don't think sexual contact with adults is intrinsically harmful for even pre-pubescent children (although I haven't yet seen the studies Kevin_Lowe mentions and that I've heard about) I think the psychological harm to them comes from the post-sexual contact socialization they'll have into American (and probably other Western) society --I imagine it's a hard stigma to shake.

Apparently in some asian cultures it's considered normal for parents to give their kids oral pleasure for the first few years of life. Although I'm well-socialized against giving that to a kid (mine or anyone else's), I could think of worse things that could have been done to me as a kid than being given oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation --I've found that sort of offer (oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation) doesn't come around too often in the adult dating world.

 

[Dave1001]

Examples of normal sexual contact with children in non-Western societies. I'm posting these not to advocate legalization of it, or of pornography using real children in the West, but rather to point out that it's reasonable to doubt that sexual contact between children and adults is ipso facto harmful to children, including pre-pubescent children --it seems to me to be more of a current Western social norm:

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_4_4.htm


ABSTRACT: Child rearing practices in the the Telugu-speaking people of India include behaviors of touching and kissing the penis. The meaning of these customs is not erotic or sexual, but if engaged in in America would most likely be misconstrued and the parents suspected of child sexual abuse. This example illustrates the importance of transcultural issues in assessing the meaning of genital gestures and practices.


http://www.lectlaw.com/tsex.htm


PORTLAND, Me. (AP) - Maine's highest court reversed a previous conviction of a man accused of sexual abuse. Mohammad Kargar, an Afghan immigrant, claimed he kissed his 18-month-old son's penis as part of a cultural tradition. Kissing a son's penis is a very common tradition in Afghanistan, associated with showing love for the child. I feel much better now. I'm happy. My family is happy, said Kargar.


http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/GUSVOLIICH9.HTM


Thus, a detailed cultural analysis of the practice is rare. Among the exceptions exists a recent article by Rydstrøm (<2002: p4-5>)<17> noting for local Vietnamese:

"The fact that a son is bound up with significant symbolic meaning, is inseparable from a local recognition of a boy's body in biological terms, that is to say, his genitals (i.e. the Phallus). In Thinh Tri, the body of a little boy is generally a matter of common interest and concern. For example, a little boy is usually fondly called a thang cu, which means 'penis boy' (lit. male penis). The genitals of small Thinh Tri boys receive a great deal of attention by being commented on, joked about, or even grasped. The local ways in which boys' genitals are paid attention to are in sharp contrast to the fact that girls' genitals do not receive any special attention<18>. The widespread concern in Thinh Tri with respect to boys' genitals is related to the symbolism of blood, which does not mean the same with regard to females and males. Despite blood being acknowledged as a 'vital life force' (khi huyet) of both the female and male body, it is basically perceived of as a female energy. Its complementary male vital life force is 'semen' (khi), which is said to be the substance of male energy. This energy is thought to guarantee the continuation of the blood of a male's patrilineage. <…> Due to such assumptions about blood, a boy's genitals—and by extension, his body—are always already inscribed with the collected morality (dao duc), honor (danh du), and 'obligations' (nghia) of his past generations. Boys' bodies have accumulated body capital while girls' bodies have not <…>. Because a Thinh Tri boy's body holds inborn morality, honor, and reputation due to his relation to his patrilineage, his body i.e. the Phallus) condenses the preconditions for practicing good male morality. His body symbolizes the future good morality, honor, and reputation of his patrilineage and the performance of certain patrilineal rituals".

Hence,

"<…> a child's body is construed as a powerful socio-symbolic and material sign that reflects local life in terms of hierarchies, positions, and power. Local understandings of female and male bodies crystallize the fact that a child's body simultaneously is wrought socially (i.e. in terms of 'gender') and biologically (i.e. in terms of 'sex'). In this way, both the notions of sex and gender have a history, which is constructed discursively. In other words, both notions address the same question, which is namely, how female and male bodies are rendered meaningful in time and space".

9.2.1 Verbal Indices

Matters become more directly apparent in accompanying verbal reinforcements, directed to the baby/toddler or to audience. Only a selection of descriptions provide such accompanying commentaries:

The Vietnamese case being mentioned; Ordos Mongols: "<…> commonly touch the child's genitals and caress them, saying at the same time: "Give me this" <…>"; Okinawans: "Old women like to tweak a little boy's penis and jokingly say. "What is that, what is that?"; Balinese: "With the slight titillation go the repeated words: "Handsome, handsome, handsome", an adjective applied only to males. The little girl's vulva is patted gently, with the accompanying feminine adjective "Pretty, pretty, pretty" "; Borneo: "Mothers often hold infant boys aloft in the course of singing magical growth songs, blowing softly on the penis, while noting aloud sexual powers to come at maturity"; Sarawak: "Not infrequently, when brother's or sister's young child visits Ego, the latter will "make glad over him" (begaga ka ia) with the words, Jaum aku, ulun aku ("My captive, my slave")" ; Aritama: "Adults make joking remarks about the future virility of the baby, about the size of his penis, and about his reactions to such caresses"; Martinique: "Men fondle the penises of little boys, remarking publicly on their size and potential, impressing on the children expectations of their masculinity"; Puerto Rico: "<…> adults and older brothers and sisters are likely to tease and play with his genitals, kissing them and remarking on their size, commenting that he is a machito (real little male) or a machote (real he-man)"; "<…> parents and friends may play with the boy's genitals until he is around seven years old"; "parents would pull a two-year-old's penis, and inquire for its function. The answer would be, "For the women!"; "A two-year-old boy will be asked, "What is it for?" while an adult pulls at his penis; and sometimes the child will answer, "For women". Such a child is called malo (bad) or even malcria'o (badly brought up), but actually the terms are used with some measure of approval"; "As soon as they started talking, they asked them questions about their penis, for whom it was and for what it was needed. They answered it was for the chacha or the girl friend, or to playa trick on the girl friend. <…> If they had an erection, they were praised and the parents would celebrate it by telling them they had joined the masculine race". Morocco: "<…> affectionate genital contact some women extend when they greet or communicate with an infant"; "Little sisters, aunts, maids, and mothers often attract the little boy's attention to his htewta and try to teach him to pronounce the word, which is quite a task given the gutteral initial letter h. One of the common games played by adult females with a male child is to get him to understand the connection between sidi (master) and the htwta. Hada sidhum ("This is their master"), say the women, pointing to the child's penis. The kissing of the child's penis is a normal gesture for a female relative who has not seen him since his birth. Tbarkallah 'ala-r-Rajal ("God protect the man"), she may whisper"; Turkey: "<…> grandparents and parents fondled their genitals and repeated: "You are male, you are male" ". Olson-Prather noted that a teenage neighbour girl of the elite class expressed verbal but not physical admiration; "In Egypt the mother may attempt to prepare her son gradually for the circumcision operation by "caressing his organ and playfully endeavoring to separate the foreskin from the glans. While doing this she would hum words to the effect that what she is doing will help to make him become a man amongst men"; Eskimo children would copy the practice "to caricature the physical raptures of their parents with cries of "It's wonderful!" ".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I snipped some writing that deserves no response.

Now, where did I find all that so promptly?

Here!

Crikey! That link looks familiar! Guess what, Kevvy? It's the ONE YOU GAVE ME ABOVE!

This seems to me to be a giveaway that you had no evidence at all, since you have not referred to anything but the links I gave you. Thank you for supporting that hypothesis.

Now you should read those links more thoroughly and take the time to understand them.

What you will discover with a little work is that if you fold all underage sexual contact into the heading "child sexual abuse" then the research shows that it does indeed have serious negative effects. No surprises for anyone there. However if researchers separate out the most serious cases, involving penetrative abuse, into their own category, then not only is the evidence of long-term harm more clear cut but the "everything else" category shows no statistically significant long-term harm once you control for obvious confounding factors.

The conclusion is fairly obvious. There is no magic button on our genitals that screws us up, even when we are kids, even if our early sexual experiences are horrible.

What we have here is evidence speaking to a scenario which is much worse than underage people having non-distressing, consensual sex. If you are going to make any argument at all that underage sex in and of itself is bad for children, then you are forced to argue the case that it is actually worse for an underage person to have non-distressing, consensual sex than it is for them to be abused by a sexual predator. That is the case you have to make if you want to argue that non-distressing, consensual sex causes minors harm.

Do you see now how stupid your position is? Especially given the humiliating lack of evidence you have on your side?

Face reality. There is no evidence that sexually mature minors are in any way harmed if they have safe sex, with partners of any age. There is strong evidence that there is neither short-term nor long-term psychological harm. Add to that the fact that some nations allow people as young as twelve or thirteen to have sex under some circumstances and there is no evidence that does any harm either.

So you have a couple of jobs to do now. You have to try to find evidence that consensual sex is more psychologically harmful than sexual abuse. Then you have to find evidence that fictional depictions of such actions are somehow harmful in and of themselves. Good luck with that. Post links to such evidence in your next post please. Personally I think you'd have more luck trying to find evidence that up is down, and that the paper in cookbooks is nutritious, but that's your cross to bear.