| |
There is among pedophiles a major division. The pro-contact pedophiles feel that adult-child sexual contact is fundamentally OK. The anti-contact pedophiles feel it is fundamentally not OK.I am anti-contact, and it would be tempting to argue against an extreme and caricatured version of the pro-contact position, but not ultimately very helpful if the goal is understanding. I will describe the common pro-contact view in the most sympathetic and neutral terms I can.
The pro-contact view is about transforming society. They feel society should repeal laws prohibiting adult-child sexual activity and change its attitudes so that it is accepted. They feel that people's revulsion would go away if they were educated on the subject.
Proponents are not in favor of sexual activity unless the child is willing. They recognize that lots of children don't want to engage in sexual activity and assume (feeling it goes without saying) that this choice must be honored. They believe some kids are willing, and this willingness is consent that should also be honored. Prepubescent kids may not understand sex in the same way as adults, but they understand it in their own terms and that is enough. Proponents oppose anything that would be physically damaging or painful for the child, and so they oppose penetrative sex involving prepubescents. Many think primarily of the case where there is a preexisting relationship of friendship and deep caring.
So, if you have set aside your gut-level revulsion at the very idea of adult-child sex, this is a more reasonable position that needs serious rebuttal.
The anti-contact position hardly needs an explanation. It is what just about everyone in society believes. Prepubescent children just aren't inherently interested in sex, they don't understand it, they are likely to regret it later, adult pedophiles have the power to manipulate or coerce them into it as a secret activity, etc. However, no position deserves acceptance just because it is widely believed. Some widely believed opinions on the subject are wrong, for instance that all children involved in such activity are profoundly damaged and traumatized. In upcoming posts I will show why some of the arguments associated with the anti-contact position are wrong, leaving the few that really stand up to scrutiny — they are enough.
Evaluating the merits of the pro-contact and anti-contact positions is complicated and will be the subject of many posts.
| |
