>>821264>>821263It’s funny how the so-called “marxists” here act like theists in all but name, and radlib theists to boot. I guess one can only truly be an atheist by being a Marxist.
And of course, the irrationality of the users here is in clear display when it comes to intergenerational intimacy involving an arbitrary age gap the users here subjectively deem as being wrong. Same goes for their deep-rooted ageism where race is a social construct but not age despite the fact that racial differences are more biologically contingent than chronological age is.
I genuinely find it hilarious how the same people that thump their chests over rationality and science in the most superficial way imaginable, only to be give in to irrationality when it comes to something as tame as minor attraction.
Pretty much the arguments against minor attraction and adult-youth intimacy are as fallacious as they can get to downright false. A big talking point is lack of experience by minors. Ok, so let's give them the experience, because how else will they learn if not from experts?
Another one is about “power imbalance“, which when used in this context amounts to an is-ought fallacy that I’ve yet to see anyone resolve, especially as the same dofooses refuse to explain how a stranger adult supposedly has more power over a teen or a child. if physical force is all it takes, then why shouldn’t heterosexual relationships in general be banned or for that matter relationships between normal people and non-abled ones? A lot of essentialism goes on when theists argue with that point.
Another fallacious talking point still is the informed consent argument, which is dumb as ya'll think kids can get abortions but somehow sex is this super uber dangerous thing, like it's clear you're even more puritanical than either the average Bible-thumper or talibanist. But let’s face it: There’s nothing in the concept of “informed consent” that is inherently exclusionary to young people unless you’re into double standards, although to date there’s no evidence that informed consent alone is predictive for harm from a sexual act.
Another one is quite hilarious, and it’s about minor attraction (i.e., hebephilia, pedophilia, nepiophilia, ephebophilia) being a “mental disorder”. Apart from the fact that not even the DSM-V classifies it as such, y’all wouldn’t be so hysterical about it if it was indeed a mental disorder and would treats MAPs the same way as paraplegics. Moving on…
”Herr derp muh brain development“: Every mammalian species is capable of engaging in sex, and the average 9 yo human is smarter than most mammalians, so “muh brainzz“ doesn’t hold water, especially given that sex in itself isn’t particularly difficult and most of the issues like pregnancy are either entirely avoidable with proper sex ed or overhyped with the advances of modern healthcare minimising many of the risk. As for teen pregnanc, here’s a useful resource:
https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Teen_pregnancySpeaking of animals as well, I should note that bonobos and chimpanzees (the non-human animals closest to humans) have been observed having sex with their young with little to no apparent trauma from the latter, indicating that there’s no evolutionary basis for intergenerational intimacy being inherently harmful but instead with said notion being entirely a modern social construct. Indeed, it’s strange how for all the supposed harms of age gap love touted by puritans today that no source on the alleged harms exists before the 70s in-spite of various historical materials lamenting war and famine since antiquity. Funny that, eh?
Read these:
https://www.leonvoss.com/p/a-look-at-roman-marriage-ageshttps://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Intergenerational_Relationships_in_History"Her body her choice" but not until she reached the magic age line is not a tenable position, much less because such magic age of adulthood/maturity can pretty much change to fit societal norms, as it already happened before and today’s age. Legality ≠ Morality, after all, as morality is a spook. Considering how arbitrary the age of consent is in every jurisdiction and given how in many countries marital rape is technically legal and gay anal is illegal (thus marriage = consent to sex, but two men can’t consent to sex with each other) only goes to show the lack of objective standards behind the age of consent, although the same goes for puberty as the baseline for sexual maturity as there’s hardly a difference between a 9 yo and 12 yo as far as sexual performance is concerned.
And before you throw ”le heckin science” at me, I'll let you know that Rind 1998 and Ulrich 2022 already debunked much of what passes as orthodoxy in CSA, where correlation = causation is such a common standard people actually made a list out of it:
https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Methodological_flaws_and_syndrome_constructionTo give a sample of actual science:
>Lahtinen, H., et al., (2018). "Children's disclosures of sexual abuse in a population-based sample," Child abuse and Neglect, Feb 2018; 76: 84-94.>Note: 2.4% of the sample (12 and 15 year olds) reported CSA experiences, of which the majority found them to be positive. For the boys, the experience was often positive (71%) vs (9% negative), whereas for the girls it was less often so evaluated (26%) vs (46%) negative. The most popular reason for not disclosing the contact to an adult was considering the experience not serious enough (41%). Despite a CSA sample of 256, the authors bizarrely refused to test for statistical significance of trends.So where does most of the harm come from in the cases where the sex in question wasn’t coercive or forced? The answer comes in the form of secondary harm, be it iatrogenic harm, or family background:
>Nelson, Joan A. (1986). "Incest: Self-Report Findings From a Nonclinical Sample," Journal of Sex Research, 22(4), 473-474.>"No force of any kind was found in 49% (68) of the reports. Yet 30% (14) of these no-force experiences were described as negative. The individuals described their otherwise consensual experiences as affected negatively by guilt or fear of social or parental disapproval, an issue which emerged repeatedly in the interviews and written responses, both positive and negative. Approximately half of the female respondents and 4% of the male respondents stated that they continued to experience conflict in regard to their incest experiences, usually associated with, if not a direct result of, guilt, even though many of the relationships had terminated many years before the report. One respondent commented, "I went crazy trying to understand how anything so good could be so bad.""
>Susan A.Clancy (2010) The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children–and Its Aftermath>"Victims reconceptualized the formerly “confusing and weird experiences” and understood them for what they were—sexual in nature and clearly wrong. Only at this point—when the sexual abuse is fully apprehended— does it begin to damage victims."
>Nash, M.R., Hulsey, T.L., Sexton, M.C., et al. (1993). "Long-term sequelae of childhood sexual abuse: Perceived family environment, psychopathology, and dissociation," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, >61:1–8. "Our first hypothesis, that sexual abuse itself is associated with broad-spectrum, general psychological impairment, independent of the effects of perceived family environment, was not supported by the findings. Perceived family environment appears to be an important mediating variable in determining general level of adult psychological distress, so important that we found no significant residual effect for abuse per se on the extent of general psychological impairment. For some victims, sexual abuse may be a signal variable that the home environment is profoundly and broadly pathogenic. Subsequent adult impairment may be an effect not only of abuse but of the context in which it was embedded."Inb4 ”You’re misquoting Susan”: Her conclusion is objectively wrong, since she already admits that much of the trauma is in itself based on self-perception, so her solution is to literally traumatise them for moralistic reasons. Y’know, like how conversion therapists tell gay people that what they experienced was wrong to induce trauma in their “patients” as part of the conversion therapy.
So yh, I can't sympathise with the con side since the arguments they make are just so fallacious, some of them are plain metaphysical (e.g., "childhood innocence" being taken away or whatever). I mean, innocence to a child is like virginity to a woman: the only thing you can do with it is lose it.
So, anyone cares to give me a logical argument for adult-youth intimacy being wrong at all times that isn't either an appeal to authority or some other fallacy, let alone metaphysical mumbling?