(August 28, 2012 at 10:31 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Since you're so progressive and open-minded about sex (unlike those religious prudes,) wanna hear the pedophile's argument?
...look, they are enjoying it. (Same argument applies to beastiality)
...we pay them money
...opposing underage sex is a bigoted, prudish, old-fashioned attitude.
...nobody is physically harmed (Victimless crime)
...we have their parents permission
...when they grow up they will wonder what all the fuss was about. They will be more open minded about sex - unlike all those Christians who hate sex.
An abuser might get the "consent" of abusive or neglectful parents to allow sexual relations between their children and an adult, but they don't have the consent of the child. By legal definition a child is not able to give consent until said child has reached the age of consent which differs amongst the various jurisdictions. To suggest that the victim enjoys the sexual contact is akin to saying rape victims who achieve orgasm during a rape must have truly wanted to be raped in the first place. In actuality, the physiological process involved in orgasm can be triggered even when the abuse victim does not want the sexual contact. Indeed, this often leads to sense of betrayal by one's own body for the victim and much psychological trauma.
Most abusers do not pay or in any other way compensate their victims of child sexual abuse. Ask a 5 year old rape victim if they were not physically harmed by forced penetration. Indeed, there have been reported cases of infants as young as 3 months of age that were suffering from various STDs from sexual abuse. An infant is incapable of giving any form of consent. Not to mention that the worst scars of child sexual abuse are often not physical ones. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, a low sense of self-esteem or self worth. To suggest that the scars of abuse are only physical is to discount basic psychology.
So that's the pedophile's argument debunked, am I right?
