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

[Piscivore]

Then we need to define each term before the discussion can proceed.

Have I been other than completely explicit about my terms?

It's not that there are differing definitions of pornography, the problem is the most common one, the one formulated in Victorian England, uses "primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal" as the element to distinguish it from otherwise identical material that gets tagged as "Art".

Sometimes, as dann observed, this element is evident. Oftentimes it isn't. Many times the creator is dead, unknown or otherwise unavailable, and the creator can lie about his purpose- leaving the determination of his "purpose" as a subjective judgement. "I know it when I see it" too often translates to "this falls too far outside the sphere of my experience and upbringing"- hardly an objective, consistant basis for decision-making. It is an idea that is little more than "it's a sin" dressed up for dinner. Thought control- shaping what is allowed to sexually stimulate someone other than yourself- is wholly endemic to the fundamental concept of "pornography".

Further, The idea of what causes sexual arousal varies widely sometimes between individuals and certainly between cultures, and even between time periods. That was not much of a problem a century and a half ago, but with the increasing and inevitable globilisation of human culture these divergent subjective categorisations are bumping up against each other, and inherently arbitrary concepts such as "pornography" are going to fall by the wayside eventually. How much damage must we let it do on the way down?

Lastly, this concept of "pornography" really does not address the issue we need it to address- is anyone harmed by this material? By it's very definition, "pornography" is concerned with what is going on inside someone's head. And using that as a basis of law, my friend, is where the real obscenity lies.

It isn't the definition that needs to be spelled out, IMO, but the implications.

Sorry, that was a bit much all at once.

 

[Piscivore]

I'll ignore your first ten questions, being irrelevant. The eleventh asks, "What evidence".

I have explained to you ad nauseum where your evidence is lacking.

Um, no, you've just said it was lacking. "The first ten questions" you've chosen to ignore are asking you specifically and in some detail which bits of evidence you lack.

You said you need evidence, I'm offering evidence. how much of it do you need? What flavour?

It appears to me, reading your last post, that you're one of the types who so badly hate to lose an argument that you've gone right back to the first step of it, knowing that I cannot be bothered saying the same thing over and over and over and over.

Not hardly, I've lost plenty, and have admitted it when I do.

The reason I keep asking is you keep giving the same non-answer. Over and over and over and over. What part of the evidence its lacking? What part do you dispute?

.. In the end, you're a bore. I had hoped for better.

I prefer to see it as "tenacity".

(p.s. even the link you gave was a case of shifting the goalposts, so I'll ignore that, too.

From what "goalpost" did I shift? I'm asking you a question, how do I even have a "goalpost" to shift?

Ever wonder why nobody hears your message?

Not really. You've heard it. So has dann. You don't like it, but I didn't ask you to.

 

[Dave1001]

I don't think so. Which ones?


Not exactly. The issue about "pseudo child porn" vs. "real child porn" is comparing oranges to apples. What you are talking about is making an exception for a certain tiny variety of apples.


Well, first of all, forget "pornography", the term is subjective and meaningless. It shouldn't make any difference whether the intention of the seller is to sexually exite the customer or not. A picture of a masturbating teen is a picture of a masturbating teen, regardless of if it is being sold for spankage or esthetics.

Second, an explict image of an adult posing as a child is an explicit image of an adult. An explicit image of a child is an explicit image of a child.
An entirely artificial (painting, drawing, CG, etc.) explicit image of a child is not an explicit image of an actual child (with the understanding that when it is an artificially created image of a real child, it is no different than photography or video. Determining the difference is reasonable in principle.

An explicit image of a child sold by the subject as a consenting adult is an explicit image of a child.
An explicit image of a child sold by the some other adult is an explicit image of a child. Determining the difference would be nigh-on impossible.

The concerns about explict images of an adult posing as a child are all thusfar based on subjective and irrational criteria- mostly only that the very idea makes people uncomfortable.

The concerns about explicit images of actual children are not subjective. Quite often these children are harmed, deliberately and egregiously, to create this material. It would be hard to verify which images- especially the "amatuer" kind you are proposing- are actually the result of the unlikely scenario of which you speak or the result of the more common type that harms children and only pretends to fit your exception.

Hope that clears things up.

Basically, your argument of distinction seems to boil down to "it's hard to verify that a sexual image of a 15 year old was made independently by that 15 year old and then distributed by them when they were 18". I think people have made the same argument for pseudo child pornography, such as "It's hard to verify that a sexual image is reall of an 18 year old that looks 15 rather than of an actual 15 year old". In both cases it seems possible to me to construct strong evidentiary records that the imagery has the actual background it is purported to have. And why should the state be so unwilling to take the word of the 18+ year old distributor of imagery of themselves when the were younger? Finally, you've asserted difficulty of determination the background of the sexual imagery in the scenario I described, but you don't seem to have provided any evidence of prohibitive difficulty of determination, nor of actual harm as a result. It seems to me you're not holding yourself to the same standard of refraining from affirmatively regulating a form of expression if the government can't show empirical harm that you've asserted should be followed by opponents of pseudochild pornography.

Sorry if this statement doesn't read as clearl as it should, but I'm in a bit of a rush. I'll try to clarify later it if it's too dense.

 

[The Atheist]

Not really. You've heard it. So has dann. You don't like it, but I didn't ask you to.

Now you're just talking crap. Like/dislike, I never offered that kind of opinion. Your "evidence" has either been about something unrelated to the conversation, or lacking in credibility.

Suggesting that I'm no longer debating because I don't like the evidence is just pathetic. The debate's gone as far as it can. You think one way, with little or no evidence to back it up.

Even the last link you've given tells you what I've been telling you for pages - public opinion isn't on your side. You're backing a loser and for some reason you think that A) You're right, B)It's really, really unfair and C)That anyone else would care.

In terms of C, you may have had success, but you blew it & this is all you've ended up with...

 

[Piscivore]

Basically, your argument of distinction seems to boil down to "it's hard to verify that a sexual image of a 15 year old was made independently by that 15 year old and then distributed by them when they were 18". I think people have made the same argument for pseudo child pornography, such as "It's hard to verify that a sexual image is reall of an 18 year old that looks 15 rather than of an actual 15 year old". In both cases it seems possible to me to construct strong evidentiary records that the imagery has the actual background it is purported to have.

What kind of "strong evidentiary record" is a fifteen year old masturbator going to create just in case they want to sell it later?
You keep stretching your scenario further and further into areas so extremely unlikely that the utility of your exception shrinks commensurately.

And why should the state be so unwilling to take the word of the 18+ year old distributor of imagery of themselves when the were younger?

Because other people can and will lie to take advantage of the exception. Simply having a similar looking person show up with the tape isn't adequate- for all we will know, the person standing in front of us is the older sister or the mother and the girl on the tape they are claiming is them is chained in the basement.

Why don't insurance companies take the word of a claimant when they say they had a Picasso in the trunk of their stolen car?

Finally, you've asserted difficulty of determination the background of the sexual imagery in the scenario I described, but you don't seem to have provided any evidence of prohibitive difficulty of determination, nor of actual harm as a result.

I did not say that your specific scenario itself would cause harm.

From here, end of the article under "Theoretical Implications":
"Different images of the same unfamiliar face can be extremely difficult to verify, and large numbers of errors are made when foils bear some resemblence to the targets."

A caveat is made for "familiar faces"- so I suppose if a Mary Kate or Ashey wanted to do this it would be easier. But even beyond the technical details you have to include the costs in time, effort, manpower, and resources needed to do the verification in the first place. This is not a good bargain for the taxpayers, to spend thousands of dollars to allow one teenager to ake $29.99 per to sell an amatuer video. If we put the burden on the seller to provide the verification, the cast becomes prohibitively high for the seller and the need for the exception evaporates.

It seems to me you're not holding yourself to the same standard of refraining from affirmatively regulating a form of expression if the government can't show empirical harm that you've asserted should be followed by opponents of pseudochild pornography.

We can show harm that actual children are harmed when actual children are used in non-simulated explicit materials. Making this exception is NOT THE SAME as adults pretending to be children. Adults pretending to be children DO have age verifications on file, photo id's and such on camera because they are setting out to create something to sell from the outset- something your casual masturbator is not planning on at the time of the act.

Sorry if this statement doesn't read as clearl as it should, but I'm in a bit of a rush. I'll try to clarify later it if it's too dense.

It was okay for me.

 

[Piscivore]

Now you're just talking crap. Like/dislike, I never offered that kind of opinion.

Sorry, I gathered you didn't like my "message" by the fact you were arguing against it.

Your "evidence" has either been about something unrelated to the conversation, or lacking in credibility.

Given that I haven't shown you the much of the actual evidence yet I find this a curious statement. The evidence I have thusfar shown has been related to the particular point I was supporting with it, not to the entire conversation in general. Please show me how it is otherwise.

Suggesting that I'm no longer debating because I don't like the evidence is just pathetic.

Good thing I didn't do that. I said you didn't like my "message". I asked what kind of evidence you needed, to what extent I needed to prove the scenario I outlined. Forgive me for wanting to save a little time and effort by essentialy asking to what you would stipulate.

The debate's gone as far as it can. You think one way, with little or no evidence to back it up.

I have plenty, I've shown you only some of it. More, may I say, than you have offered for yours.

Even the last link you've given tells you what I've been telling you for pages - public opinion isn't on your side.

How does this matter? What is popular isn't always right, so why should that even be a consideration? Most of the people I respect and admire are people that stood against what was "popular". Dalton Trumbo. Jeannette Rankin. The Marquis de Sade. Soctrates.

Given what you've expressed to me about your opinion of the average parent, I'd think you'd feel being opposed to public opinion was the right choice.

You're backing a loser

Maybe. I disagree. Anyway, didn't you ever see "Rocky"?

and for some reason you think that A) You're right,

I am. Prove I'm not.

B)It's really, really unfair

I've never said anything remotely like.

and C)That anyone else would care.

Well, some people have cared for at least 19 pages. As this new Dakota Fanning movie heats up I think you'll find a lot of people caring.

In terms of C, you may have had success, but you blew it & this is all you've ended up with...

Enjoy your nap. If you think that your disinterest is "all [I've] ended up with", you are making a mistake in thinking my participation in this discussion was about you. Or dann, or Gurder, or even Toad.

 

[Dave1001]

A caveat is made for "familiar faces"- so I suppose if a Mary Kate or Ashey wanted to do this it would be easier. But even beyond the technical details you have to include the costs in time, effort, manpower, and resources needed to do the verification in the first place. This is not a good bargain for the taxpayers, to spend thousands of dollars to allow one teenager to ake $29.99 per to sell an amatuer video. If we put the burden on the seller to provide the verification, the cast becomes prohibitively high for the seller and the need for the exception evaporates.

Rather than ban something because the government (or a speculating individual) determines it's economically unfeasible, why not just allow it to be legal provided the distributor/star accepts the burden to provide verification? Would you support this scenario or be against it?

We can show harm that actual children are harmed when actual children are used in non-simulated explicit materials. Making this exception is NOT THE SAME as adults pretending to be children. Adults pretending to be children DO have age verifications on file, photo id's and such on camera because they are setting out to create something to sell from the outset- something your casual masturbator is not planning on at the time of the act.


It was okay for me.

I think you've articulated a good distinction here in pointing out that adults pretending to be children can have age verifications on file and on camera at the time of filming the pseudo child pornography. But I don't understand why you're opposed to real child pornography of the type I described if the distributor/star shoulders the burden of sufficient verification. Or do you support the legality of that type of real child pornography?

 

[Piscivore]

Rather than ban something because the government (or a speculating individual) determines it's economically unfeasible,

We are not talking about banning this material specifically. We are talking about a general ban on explicit photos of a minor child participating in an unsimulated sexual act. Regardless of who made it or when, that is what is regulated (ideally). And it is not regulated- your scenario inclusive- for any consideration of economic feasibilty. Econonmic feasibility has only to do with part of why it is difficult if not impossible to make such a hair-splitting exception to the general ban.

why not just allow it to be legal provided the distributor/star accepts the burden to provide verification?

Because, as I've said, this is not the only consideration. The more signifgant concern is that this exception will weaken the prohibition by creating an exploitable loophole for just the sort of activity the ban is intened to sanction.
What is to prevent someone from taping a fifteen year old masturbating and then compelling her to sign the consent forms when she is of age?
What will prevent the "older sister" scenario?
There is far too much potential harm in this exception than there is potential benefit. How many sweet young wankers do you think this exception would benefit? Five? A dozen? As many as a hundred? How much possible material could these few have generated?

If your girls are so desperate for money at eighteen they are combing though their three year old jpgs of when they were experimenting with being "naughty", why not just advise them put on their old Girl Scout uniform and make some new, legal pictures?

Would you support this scenario or be against it?

Have I been unclear? Absolutly not. The whole scenario is dubious to start with, the potential benefit is too weak and far to specific to just a few people, and the potential for weakening or even completely mitigating the restriction is too great.

ETA: This is just one of those areas where it is necessary to give up a little bit of one's own rights to protect the rights of others. I may think it is funny and harmless to lightly slap random strangers with a fish, but making an exception in assult laws to allow to this activity is going to needlessly complicate enforcement of the law and the court system to grant a very small segment of society an almost insignifigant "right".

I think you've articulated a good distinction here in pointing out that adults pretending to be children can have age verifications on file and on camera at the time of filming the pseudo child pornography. But I don't understand why you're opposed to real child pornography of the type I described if the distributor/star shoulders the burden of sufficient verification.

Verification of what? That the participants are underage?

Legally, minor children are not competent to consent to participate in this sort of activity unsimulated. Just like they are not legally competent to drive a car or drink alcohol. There are good reasons for this, but explicating them is a different discussion.

Or do you support the legality of that type of real child pornography?

I do not support the creation of works that require unsimulated sexual acts be performed with a child in their creation. I've already said why "pornography" is meaningless in this context.

 

[The Atheist]

I was going to re-open the evidence debate, but then I realised that I was covering old ground, asking the same questions and making the same points yet again, so I'm not bothering. You do raise a couple of points:

How does this matter? What is popular isn't always right, so why should that even be a consideration? Most of the people I respect and admire are people that stood against what was "popular". Dalton Trumbo. Jeannette Rankin. The Marquis de Sade. Soctrates.

Trumbo, I'll give you. Rankin - big deal, Kate Sheppard & Co. beat her by 20 years.
Marquis de Sade, I don't know enough about to say, and Soctrates, never heard of at all.

Given what you've expressed to me about your opinion of the average parent, I'd think you'd feel being opposed to public opinion was the right choice.

Good spot, it's rare that I am on the side of public opinion. This is one occasion I am content to swim with the tide. I always pick where I swim and which direction it's in.

Maybe. I disagree. Anyway, didn't you ever see "Rocky"?

Oh, please do enlighten me on how a story, acted and directed by an intellectually handicapped bloke with a speech impediment has ANYTHING to say about anything. Oh, and do you mean Rocky I, II, III, IV, V, or whatever number it's up to now. No, I haven't seen any of them, but I know the Ali/Wepner story it's reputedly based on.

 

[Piscivore]

I was going to re-open the evidence debate, but then I realised that I was covering old ground, asking the same questions and making the same points yet again, so I'm not bothering.

That's your right.

You do raise a couple of points:
Trumbo, I'll give you. Rankin - big deal, Kate Sheppard & Co. beat her by 20 years.
Marquis de Sade, I don't know enough about to say, and Soctrates, never heard of at all.

I didn't ask that you approve of people I admire. But how have you heard of Jeanette Ranking (and her feminisim, though noteworthy, is not why I mentioned her) and not Socrates?

Oops, I see I misspelled it. That probably hampered your Googling. My bad.

Good spot, it's rare that I am on the side of public opinion. This is one occasion I am content to swim with the tide.

All I really wanted to know was why.

Oh, please do enlighten me on how a story, acted and directed by an intellectually handicapped bloke with a speech impediment has ANYTHING to say about anything.

Your apt characterisation of Stallone notwithstanding, despite all his efforts Rocky loses. He is still happy he gave it his best effort. In other words, "winning isn't everything".

And I meant the first one (the only one I've seen). I'm not a sports fan, and even less so sports movies. I was force-fed the first movie in Jr. High- I voted for "Close Encounters".

 

[The Atheist]

But how have you heard of Jeanette Ranking (and her feminisim, though noteworthy, is not why I mentioned her) and not Socrates.

Oops, I see I misspelled it. That probably hampered your Googling. My bad.?

LOL, good comeback! I was just playing with ya. I know who So-crates was, I've seen Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. I did Google Jeanette Rankin, though. Had never heard of her. I hadn't realised that women got the vote so late over there.

All I really wanted to know was why.

Well, I think I've had my best shot at explaining that, so if you've missed it, I can't help you.

Your apt characterisation of Stallone notwithstanding, despite all his efforts Rocky loses. He is still happy he gave it his best effort. In other words, "winning isn't everything".

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Winning is the ONLY thing.

Jesus, hasn't evolution taught you anything? Next, you'll be telling me you're on the side of those people who don't like little kids games where the score is kept, in case one side feels a bit depressed losing 150-0. Telling yourself it's ok because you tried hard isn't the way I see it. I'm more of a "no ####ing way! I'm going to work twice as hard to be better next time"

And I meant the first one (the only one I've seen). I'm not a sports fan, and even less so sports movies. I was force-fed the first movie in Jr. High- I voted for "Close Encounters".

I'll give you that, you would've been 13/14.

Funnily enough, most of the really great sports movies (apart from Chariots of Fire) have been about real boxing stories - Raging Bull, Brutal Glory, When we were Kings...

 

[Piscivore]

LOL, good comeback! I was just playing with ya. I know who So-crates was, I've seen Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. I did Google Jeanette Rankin, though. Had never heard of her.

I wouldn't have expected you to have, her or Dalton. I only learned about her last year, from Googling another WWII topic in reference to another discussion I was having here.

Jesus, hasn't evolution taught you anything?

Still thinking in binary terms, there?

Next, you'll be telling me you're on the side of those people who don't like little kids games where the score is kept, in case one side feels a bit depressed losing 150-0.

When my father made me play Little League Baseball I was usually stuck in deep deep right field and I'd pretend I was exploring an alien planet or poking an anthill. I never knew or cared who won. It never made any difference, it seemed, because in a week or two we were out there playing guys in the same colour uniforms again.

Telling yourself it's ok because you tried hard isn't the way I see it. I'm more of a "no ####ing way! I'm going to work twice as hard to be better next time"

He wins in the second movie.

Funnily enough, most of the really great sports movies (apart from Chariots of Fire) have been about real boxing stories - Raging Bull, Brutal Glory, When we were Kings...

The only sports movies I like off the top of my head are "Bull Durham", "Caddyshack", "The Calamari Wrestler", "Bend it Like Beckham", and the "Herbie" movies.

I haven't seen any of the ones you mention.

 

[dann]

Another example of thinking inspired by the question: What should be legal, what shouldn't?:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73835

 

[varwoche]

Back on page 5, Kevin_Lowe cited an article published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) to support his contention that less severe adult+child sex is not harmful to children.

Based on these texts, it was clear to me that Kevin's cite not only failed to support his contention, but contradicted it (and he persistently evaded challenges from me and others).

Because there are a couple of sentences that could be cherry-picked out of context, I wrote to AIFS for clarification and yesterday I finally received a reply from an AIFS doctor/researcher. (I'm withholding her name as a courtesy.)

Bearing in mind that AIFS is Kevin_Lowe's citation, here is the correspondence:
__________________

My email to AIFS:

Greetings. I'm hoping you can answer a couple of questions for me.

On a "skeptical" online forum, someone is using an article you published [link to article provided] to try and make the case that less severe forms of adult+child sex are not harmful to the child, with "less severe" defined as consensual and non-penetrative.

While the article does imply that more severe adult+child sex causes more severe harm (hardly a surprise), I don't see how it can be interpreted that less severe adult+child sex causes no harm. And in my view, children are unable to provide informed consent in any case, hence the consensual aspect is bogus.

Here are my questions:

1) Does the article make the case that less severe adult+child sex is not harmful?

2) Is less severe adult+child sex apt to be harmful?

3) Does a child, say 13 years old for arguments sake, understand the implications of his/her actions sufficiently so that s/he is capable of providing informed consent to an adult wishing to have sex with that child?

If you can shed some light I would be most appreciative.
_________________

AIFS reply, underlines added:

It is distressing that the Australian Institute of Family Studies' article on the long term effects of child sexual abuse is being misused by someone accessing the online forum you refer to.

When the article was published, almost 10 years ago, the area of child sexual abuse was in its infancy, and the field could not benefit from the significant body of rigorous research that has been published since. The article itself states that the two perspectives that informed the field at that time, epidemiological research and clinical research have their limitations and are "likely to fall into error".

The article is now outdated, and two other papers, published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, would be worthwhile reading. They can be accessed by going to the Australian Institute of Family Studies / Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA) website, and accessing publications. The articles are:

Adult victim/survivors of childhood sexual assault, and
Male survivors of sexual assault and rape *

The position of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, and the commonly held view of organisations in the child protection and sexual assault field, is that all forms of sexual assault are harmful to children, including non-penetrative forms of sexual assault. This view is informed and supported by current research.

A child of 13 years of age cannot make an informed decision about having sex with an adult. Childhood development literature advises that at that age children are only just beginning to develop more mature identity and self concept and do not have the emotional maturity to make an informed decision about sex with an adult. Children of 13 are entering adolescence and there is a significant psychological and emotional developmental growth period between 13 and the later teenage years. Childhood development literature confirms that sex with adults has harmful psychological consequences, and it is against the law.

I hope the above answers your questions.
____________

* I (varwoche) added the first link but can't locate the second.

 

[Dave1001]

The position of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, and the commonly held view of organisations in the child protection and sexual assault field, is that all forms of sexual assault are harmful to children, including non-penetrative forms of sexual assault. This view is informed and supported by current research.

A child of 13 years of age cannot make an informed decision about having sex with an adult. Childhood development literature advises that at that age children are only just beginning to develop more mature identity and self concept and do not have the emotional maturity to make an informed decision about sex with an adult. Children of 13 are entering adolescence and there is a significant psychological and emotional developmental growth period between 13 and the later teenage years. Childhood development literature confirms that sex with adults has harmful psychological consequences, and it is against the law.

I hope the above answers your questions.
____________

* I (varwoche) added the first link but can't locate the second.

Great contribution to the thread. Their response is interesting, in that much of what they write is framed in terms of what the law currently is, with words like "assault" and "is against the law", rather than without reference to the current law, whether certain types of adult-child sexual contact are non-harmful to children.

For example, I think it's dubious to me to assert that in no instances can 13 year old children give meaningful consent to sexual contact with adults. I think there are precocious 13 year olds that can, even if they can't give legal consent to sexual contact due to the current state of the law.

I lean towards a rebuttable presumption that a 13 year old can't give consent to sex with an adult. If a 13 year old can get affidavits/evaluations from two licensed child psychatrists that they are of sufficient mental maturity to engage in consensual sex with adults, then I lean toward them being legally able to engage in such activity. And the same with a broad swath of other adult activities 13 year olds are currently barred from participating in legally.

 

[Earthborn]

* I (varwoche) added the first link but can't locate the second.

Here it is.

I don't think the article Kevin linked to directly supports his case, the articles AIFS refers to in their response don't disprove it either as they make no distinction between what Kevin claims might be harmless and what Kevin claims is obviously harmful. All fall under the blanket definition of "childhood sexual assault".

I believe it is very important to define exactly which acts fall under "sexual activity" because there are a lot of intimate acts that would have a sexual meaning if two adults engage in it, but which are generally considered harmless when an adult and a child engage in them, such as hugging and kissing.

 

[The Atheist]

I hope the above answers your questions.
____________

Magnificent rebuttal. Well-researched, well written, well done. Two appropriate nominations so far. (Post of the year so far, in my book.)

 

[Luke T.]

varwoche, if you and I are ever in the same place at the same time, all of your drinks are on me. Hell, the steak dinner is on me, too.

 

[Dave1001]

I believe it is very important to define exactly which acts fall under "sexual activity" because there are a lot of intimate acts that would have a sexual meaning if two adults engage in it, but which are generally considered harmless when an adult and a child engage in them, such as hugging and kissing.

Good point. In the adult legal world I think sexual assault and battery generally is unwanted sexual contact. For example, a kiss received that wasn't consented for. I doubt the author of the piece Varwoche posted would consider a kiss on the cheek by an aunt to a child to be sexual assault. But how is a child able to consent to that, but not to a kiss or touch to the genitals from an adult stranger?

 

[Piscivore]

But how is a child able to consent to that, but not to a kiss or touch to the genitals from an adult stranger?

Dude, I'm 39 years old and I'm not going to consent to an adult stranger kissing me, let alone touching my genitals.