Reddit reviews Harmful To Minors: The Perils Of Protecting Children From Sex

This is why we refuse to punish them with parity, the presumed innocence or lack of harmful intent, to which a man is presumed to have one, because he is "using someone for sex", which is the most base thing someone can do, even if it is in the legal zone of two 18+ year olds. This is qualified as emotional abuse, using someone for sex. Most people would say a guy lying to women and using them for sex and dumping them is a scumbag. So we go down the age numbers and say a guy using teen girls is an ultra scumbag that must be stopped.

We claim that teens are especially vulnerable due to brain changes (again, people invoking studies of physiology, like the SJWs talking about how girls that have sex get hardwired in their brains as described above), despite evidence showing that the brain doesn't really stop changing, many parts of it are still "immature" into 30's.

We can discuss whether or not we considered a brain "immature" or "highly adaptive" some other time.

When a so called adult has sex with someone underage, opponents say that innocence has been lost, both through the sex act and because the adult might have manipulated them. Innocence is thought to be maintained if two teens underage have sex, despite the act of sex being considered the loss of innocence.

People claim that two underage teens having sex is fine because they're of the same age. When couched like this, the claim is a genetic fallacy, assuming that no harm comes from sex because people are close in age, even though those links above prove that is not true. If the explanation goes further to say that there isn't harm because neither one has a power advantage over the other, to manipulate the other for sex, then talk to the football jocks of highschool about their sexual exploits. If the claim is substantiated by claiming that underage teens are "especially vulnerable" due to being "all mixed up", then the fact that they're both underage does not remove this vulnerability. A teen girl is still capable of being manipulated for sex.

That is what age of consent laws were originally about, that is why women continue to get slaps on the wrist for sex with underage males, and that is why underage teen males are often brought into court for it where no R&J laws exist.

The R&J laws themselves are an exception to the normal AoC laws which state that such a person is incapable of giving "informed consent". The idea of AoC laws suggests that a person must be well versed in sex before they can do it, and the idea presupposes that underage should not be versed in it, nor learn it, from others. You must be 16 or 18 to become versed. If you've had sex as an underage teen 100's of times because you're a giant slut, you're well versed and "understand sex and sexuality", but still can't legally consent because it wasn't supposed to happen, you weren't supposed to learn.

>Defiling a child.

>Contributing to delinquency of a minor.

>Imparting carnal knowledge on a child.

You're not supposed to have those experiences, such as being defiled by sexuality, being made delinquent, and learning carnal knowledge. Already having had them doesn't invalidate age of consent law with regard to the individual, somehow.

This is actually why http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

>In trials, juries were often unwilling to simply enforce the law. Rather than focusing strictly on age, they made judgments about whether the appearance and behavior of a girl fit their notions of a child and a victim.

Back then, juries decided what fit the victim or child notion and nullified, and yet we've decided to stop making these decisions and adhere strictly to the law when its someone over 18 with someone underage.

To sum up; the reason boys are punished is historical and contemporary. In both, males are seen as wanting sex at the expense of females, and particularly because females can get pregnant. Scientific data was used historically and contemporarily to provide argument that teen females are easily manipulated creatures and that being manipulated into sex is harmful. The law was designed to punish boys and men.

The law still punishes men but gives exceptions to boys in many areas now, despite the possibility of being manipulated into sex still being a possibility from boys to teen girls. Despite the evidence showing that sexual activity causes emotional stability problems when its two teens doing it, in spite of people's claims that these problems are the reason its illegal for teen+adult sex.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/a-womans-touch-when-pedophiles-arent-men

What this story tells us is that people call it pedophilia when age of consent laws are violated by apparent adults. What this really tells us is that people are seeking to stigmatize sexual desire for adolescents as pedophilia.

This is another way in which the agenda pushes for criminalizing and dehumanizing people over 18, while seeking to create a "safe space" of wanton sexuality ((especially of a woman) sexually immodest or promiscuous.) for teens.

If the outcomes of sexuality are the same for teen males and teen females, then I fully support equal punishment. Those outcomes are dependent on social messages, both internalized and consistently supported by the outside world, which says that girls are victims and passive in sex, and boys are aggressors and users in sex.

We can't deny the element that beliefs have. Fat people begin to lose weight when they're told they're actually exercising enough. Placebo effect is actually an intrinsic and omnipresent factor in our lives, from self-motivation and success to mental repercussions for social interactions, sex being one of those.

What I'm trying to say is that half of the equation necessarily involves the social messages we're raised with. If girls are more harmed through sex, at least some of the blame goes to the society which tells them to feel like victims, apart from any objective harm that may or may not exist when a sex act occurs.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12960/what_judith_levine_is_really_saying

https://www.amazon.com/Harmful-Minors-Perils-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068#reader_B004LB499M

>In the furor over the book, most commentators have missed Levine's main point: "Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors." In fact, "America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them."

>Despite what critics contend, "Harmful to Minors" is not about pedophilia.

Again, we're seeing this conflated with pedophilia. We still see people pushing an agenda of trying to get society to go along with calling it pedophilia when it isn't.

>As the joke goes, a conservative is a liberal with a teenage daughter.

>For example, studies commissioned by Congress show that between 50 and 150 children are kidnapped and murdered by strangers each year, yet in a Mayo Clinic survey three-quarters of parents said they are afraid their children will be abducted.

>"Harmful to Minors" offers a plethora of findings, from studies showing that exposure to sexually explicit images does not harm children, to evidence that teens' sexual relationships with adults are not uniformly devastating, to research on the

>Romantic heartbreak -- and plain old bad sex -– are just as likely with same-age peers as with older partners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/books/renegade-view-on-child-sex-causes-a-storm.html?_r=1

>''Most people agree it's wrong for someone to be in a sexual relationship with their boss because of the unequal power balance,'' Dr. Spiegel said. ''If that's true with adults, it's certainly true between any adult and a child.''

>Ms. Levine counters that power imbalances are inevitable in sexual relationships. ''A balance needs to be struck between respecting kids as sexual beings and protecting them from exploitation,'' she said.


>But in the United States, views like those often lead to angry accusations. In 1998, The Psychological Bulletin, a highly respected journal, put out by the American Psychological Association, published a review of 59 prior studies of college students who said they had been sexually abused in childhood. The authors concluded that the effects of these encounters were ''neither pervasive nor typically intense,'' although they said gender and circumstance were important factors: a mature 15-year-old boy who has an affair with a young woman, for instance, is far less likely to feel damaged than a girl who has been raped by her father. The authors questioned the practice, common in many studies, of lumping all such cases together as ''sexual abuse,'' suggesting that in some cases they could more accurately be called ''adult-child sex'' or ''adult-adolescent sex.''

First of all, it's not cherry picking (though it seems you are), these are reviewed scientific papers. Second, there is no scientific consensus because of the taboo of studying the subject, but more and more researches are getting the balls to come out and call bullshit on on the mainstream view.

Further, if you had read the abstract, you'd see that the Westermarck effect is not 100% proven and more research is needed. How about you do some research before you talk about a subject you know nothing about?

Studies of child-hood sexuality:

http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/research.htm

http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/martinson/infant/InfantAndChildSexuality.html

http://newgon.com/wiki/Main_Page

http://sexuality.spaceandmotion.com/sexual-development-children-teen.htm

http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm

Studies done into the psychology industry:

http://www.amazon.com/First-Do-No-Harm-Industry/dp/0864700474/ref=sr_1_42?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347509168&sr=1-42&keywords=first+do+no+harm

http://newgon.com/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html

http://www.srmhp.org/0402/repression.html

http://www.ipce.info/library/web-article/trauma-myth-susan-clancy-book-review

http://transres.freeweb7.com/levine.html

http://www.ipce.info/library_2/files/rind_jen.htm

http://www.nambla.org/trauma_myth.html

http://tanadineen.com/writer/writings/sexualharass.htm

Manufacturing Victims: http://tanadineen.com/documents/MV3.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Harmful-To-Minors-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pdT1_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=76HTLA12QPTR&coliid=I2ZYLJADY7SNA0

http://www.amazon.com/Erotic-Innocence-Culture-Child-Molesting/dp/0822321777/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=76HTLA12QPTR&coliid=I2OBVH6P4AIKLB

Articles and books on the hysteria and others:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Culture-Fear-Americans-Minorities/dp/0465003362

http://bigthink.com/ideas/41459

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/29/six-year-old-wisconsin-boy-being-prosecuted-for-playing-doctor-with-a-five-year-old/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,460225,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_County_child_abuse_cases

http://newgon.com/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20050310183555/http://logicalreality.com/openbb/board.php?FID=61

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/faulty_science/us-congress-senate-condemn-scientific-researc

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn/

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/children-loved-child-porn-modeling-photo-sessions-were-the-highlight-of-my-life-children-traumatized-by-federal-government-prosecution

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/i_did_not_know.htm

http://www.b4uact.org/facts.htm

http://www.vice.com/read/the-a-to-z-of-sexual-history-incest

http://www.historyundressed.com/2009/08/incest-within-royal-families.html

http://www.srmhp.org/0402/repression.html

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/legal-child-pornography-reduces-child-sex-crimes-milton-diamond-hawaii

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/child-porn-laws-kill-destroy-lives-judge-jack-b-weinstein

http://transres.freeweb7.com/levine.html

http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/

No, considering most of the CP people get busted for are remnants of the pre-CP-scare era, some time around and before the 1970s when you could literally get child erotica in magazines delivered to your house.

No, considering two-thirds of CP manufacturers are teenage producers sending naughty pix to each other.

No, because an overwhelming majority of commercial CP pictures are nudes.

No, because a minority of commercial CP depict sadism.

No, because most CP images are "are the same stack of yellowing pages found at the back of those X-rated shops, only digitized." (Harmful to Minors)

No, because children do not need to be coerced since -- who would have guessed it -- sexual activity is fun. "It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."

No, because there is no statistical evidence suggesting CP is a $30 billion-dollar industry as the hysteria claims. Tracking down these "multi-billion-dollar" statistics reveals a chain of unreliable sources that end with nothing, or are misattributed to the FBI. The FBI states they are not responsible for those figures.


I see where you're coming from since this guy apparently bragged about his intent to keep a child sex slave, but don't assume the child appearing in CP is always being raped/molested/coerced. Such an argument lacks deep thought and research and would be akin to saying marijuana is the devil because some guy committed a crime while stoned -- a complete ignorance facts.

Read this book. My mom said that if she had read it when I was in high school it would have totally changed her approach to sex ed parenting conversations. It's excellent.