Someone posted a thread here a while back where he listed a bunch of cultures where children have sex with adults, and none of the descriptions make it seem like anyone, including the children, have any objection to it. It's usually just viewed as a fun, harmless activity. I read the complete list that he posted, and most of the societies that prohibit children from participating in sexual acts have to explicitly castigate children when they express their sexuality (which is the type of society we live in).

https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17743362

So if children want to engage in these acts of their own volition, like they clearly do in all these cultures listed, and it doesn't harm them, then how is it morally wrong? I understand that there might be prudential reasons to prevent it, but how is it actually morally wrong? Most of the arguments I see normies give are retarded and circular.

>inb4 you're a pedo
I'm not, I'm just asking a question.

kill yourself

>>17840038
So I'm not even allowed to ask the question? I thought this was 4chan. I thought we were allowed to discuss politically incorrect topics here.

>>17840044
1. You will not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to anything that violates local or United States law.

>>17840052
Discussing this doesn't violate United States law, retard.

>>17840052
You're stretching the meaning of "discuss" there. What about loli threads on /b/? They can't talk about the porn they're posting? What a stupid argument.

I think children's reaction to sexual interaction is affected by their historical cultural context. In a preindustrial environment where people are more intellectually stunted, more conditioned to suffering and more immersed in a supernatural perspective, perhaps it's less traumatic for the child.

Even in modern times, the damage to the child is sometimes more in the form of distorting the reward system than simply pain and suffering and this may have had less damaging effects under different lifestyle conditions. I don't know. What the fuck do you think?

>>17840052
It's illegal to kill niggers yet that's half of the board topics on this site.

>>17840029 (OP)
Children are not physically or mentally mature enough for sexual activity.

t. molested

needing justifications is what makes you a cucked slave moralist.

>>17840029 (OP)
Why are /pol/trannies like this

>>17840029 (OP)
if the kid hasnt reached puberty, its wrong and you deserve to be hanged.
if theyre post puberty (13+) it's completely natural and legal in most of the world that isnt rotted by american "culture".
simple as

It isn't. The prophet (PBUH) married a girl when she was 6 years old, and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Since prophets are morally infallible, we know that adult-child relationships are moral

>>17840029 (OP)
First, early birth is dangerous and poses risks for both the baby and the mother.
Second, early exposure to sex in children and abuse increase the rate of OCD and other horrific mental disorders.
Three, there's a long list of things that, as you point out, can cause problems. So, if an adult is aware that such an action can lead to trauma and problems for a child, don't you think it's a bad action in and of itself? "But it's fun for the kids." I saw a famous case of a child who enjoyed smoking a lot of cigarettes. Is it good for a child to smoke because it's fun for him?

It's not morally wrong, it's physically wrong, morality is a made up cope for things that cannot be justified scientifically, e.g. murder. It's always okay to kill people you don't like, such as pedophiles who try to argue about morals when they don't even understand that shoving a 2x4 into a garden hose isn't gonna work.

>>17840101
Maturity has nothing to do with this, unless you're a nepobaby, you cannot support a family of 5 + stay at home mother just off one male salary.

>>17840029 (OP)
You fags already had your teeth verbally kicked in last thread, why do you feel the need to do this again? You will mention heavily discredited studies, put on display to everyone your absolute ignorance as to why these studies were discredited, and then moan that everyone else lives in a fantasy world.

In other threads you have even admitted that you want to do away with familial support and education as young as 12, because this would create an underclass of financially desperate and easy to manipulate children trying to support themselves. You know that is inherently evil, you know your own behavior to be inherently evil, yet you still try and posture like you are posing a ethical quandary innocently. The only thing people take away from your threads is that people with your propensity for children should be wiped off the face of the planet. You unintentionally argue for the genocide of people with the misfortune or childhood abuse requisite to turn them into pedophiles.

>>17840099
I rarely see threads advocating for TND, even on /pol/. I see about a 5-10 threads every month advocating for child rape on /his/ and /his/ alone. Evidently some chomo group has decided to camp out here and maul our board with this shit.

>>17840029 (OP)
Why did you post one of the threads you got BTFO'd in the hardest? Reading through that the shota spammer in particular got out maneuvered at every turn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWAzMpshNe8

probably one of the more iconic pedophiles in aussie, slowly aging out, shota spammer kneels to another aussie pedophile who will met a similar lonely fate

>>17840684
Around the 6 minute mark he is shown his famous interview, he is hauntingly despondent. He has very little or no memory of his activism and hate, all he knows is the foul smelling and decayed house he lives in, entirely alone. No family comes to visit him, just an internet troll to humiliate him in his final moments, he barely even seems aware of this. Despite his diagnosed Parkinson's and evident Dementia it seems he regrets deeply his actions. At the end of life stage we all deeply regret even the most insignificant infractions and they feel to us as impermeable barriers for our soul. Imagine the weight he feels? For so many years he nonchalantly shrugged off the horror he inflicted others, at the end of his life he has come to pay for that. His cavalier revelry in the suffering those boys experienced has finally run out of youthful exuberance. Now that he has no more wick left to burn the consequences of his deliberate action are brought to bear, though he evidently did not believe in a great beyond the permanence of what he did remains and the great beyond comes ever closer. This is the future of all child molesters, should they be gifted to live into advanced age. They will be alone in a rotting house, their companions will be like biting flies and their escape will be naught.

>>17840705
Nice fanfiction.

>>17840705
It's so bizarre because in even in his final moments he thanks the troll for coming to visit him. He briefly mutters (?) he wished to avoid it, but in his Dementia riddled mind it seems he knows that he can no longer willingly avoid visitation on account of his agency quickly evaporating. It would appear God has a sense of humor, in his final moments he longs for connection, what a truly miserable state of affairs.

>>17840716
It is your fate, should you refuse all else. It is what awaits you. :-)

>>17840684
>>17840705
>>17840723
He got fucked by the older boy (who was 16) and jerked off the younger one. Is that really "abuse" if he's the one getting fucked and jerking them off?

>>17840716
Nice meaningless deflection.

>>17840740
I don't know anon, but should we assume there is a universal principle of justice, would his evident isolation and despondence not indicate the misery of his soul?

>>17840740
This is the shit that ruined his life or whatever? Thats not even illegal where I live lmao.
although apparently in anglo nations you can get put on sex offender registry when kissing a 17yo while 18, fucking insane

it is peak degeneracy, complete brownoid subhuman turd world behavior

>>17840746
In most areas where the sexual abuse of minors is permitted, the homosexual abuse is not. He homosexually abused two little boys. You lie either about your area or their laws.

>>17840745
>but should we assume there is a universal principle of justice
There isn't.

>>17840749
im in europe and youre a retard
16 isnt a fucking "minor", you can legally have sex with whoever you want as long as its consensual, nothing to do with homosexuality. You ameritards allow teens to buy guns and cut off their dicks but refuse to admit they might have sexual needs as well lol.
And if he only jerked off the second one then it doesnt even count as penetretation or rape and he'd get a year in prison, if even that, at absolute worst

>>17840755
How fanciful!

>>17840757
I rarely run into a Jew in the wild.

>>17840765
jealous i can fuck 14yos huh? Many, many such cases from the repressed american mind.

>>17840775
I wouldn't say jealous

>>17840573
There's a near continuous TND gore thread on gif

>>17840789
hmmm

Just a reminder women can do this too. Dr. Beth Kelly (woman) wrote extensively about woman on girl love. They want to predate girls too, in fact they thrive on that, their chief desire is the desolation of innocence and the gender matters little, as these homosexual freaks should have showed you.

>>17840862
She also wrote extensively in favor of NAMBLA and generally viewed favorably the sexual abuse of young boys especially in the context of justifying the abuse of young girls. These people are all the same, they are all of the most vile character and belong to Satan.

>>17840029 (OP)
We as a society have decided that children aren't capable of consenting to sex with adults. Some children take it to another level when they play house and try to emulate adult behavior, or they do the classic "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" but most non-puritanical people view this as harmless if it's going on between kids of a similar age because they're just curious and exploring with their peers. Doing it with an adult however brings a predatory power imbalance to the situation and we have decided that those (employer-employee, teacher-student, boss-subordinate, adult-child etc) relationships are immoral because of the potential that the less powerful in the dynamic might feel pressured into things they don't genuinely don't want to do.

>>17840933
>We as a society have decided that children aren't capable of consenting to sex with adults.
slippery argument when society has decided pretty weird stuff to be ok, both today and in the past.

>>17840958
We as a society have also decided that you're not allowed to take other people's property without their consent, the underlying reason there is that we don't want out property to be stolen so we reciprocally agree not to steal other people's property. Similar to that there is logic behind not letting pedophiles fucking children because we know that it often causes deep psychological trauma that scar those individuals for life.

>>17841043
>we don't want to be killed so we won't put killers to death

>>17841104
We don't want to be killed so we make rules against killing or assaulting other people, and those who break those rules are punished. This punishment can be death or just isolation from the rest of society.

>>17841107
Majority of countries don't punish by death, isolation is hardly a punishment for someone who hates enough to kill.

>>17841043
>We as a society have also decided that you're not allowed to take other people's property without their consent
civilization.
Good thing that it does, because otherwise people like you would be all for it
>Similar to that there is logic behind not letting pedophiles fucking children because we know that it often causes deep psychological trauma that scar those individuals for life.
Yes, the logic being that rape is bad, do you need society to tell you that?

>>17841116
>isolation is hardly a punishment for someone who hates enough to kill.
That's your opinion.

>>17841117
>Good thing that it does, because otherwise people like you would be all for it
What makes you think that?
>Yes, the logic being that rape is bad, do you need society to tell you that?
No. Why do you assume that I do?

>>17841120
I could kill you by tortoring you slowly to death, take a shit in front of a judge, kill my inmate, get forever 24/7 isolation and I'd be fucking happy.

>>17841127
Jeez Louise I wouldn't want to cross you're path, anon. You sound like you mean business.

>>17840765 nta but the age of consent for pretty much everything in my country is 17, don't know why we have a year lower than the yanks but we do.

>>17841125
Enjoy Hell

>>17841116
Murder must be punished by death.

>>17841405
Why?

>>17840029 (OP)
>Someone
You mean you did

>>17841146
The age of consent in a majority of US states is 17.

0 - 18 is an adequate amount of time for a young person to develop and experience life in their adolescence, experimenting with peers around their age group with their first social groups/boyfriends until they become full-fledged adults at 18. That is an acceptable societal benchmark to make.

They need that remedial downtime outside of the predation of grown people and incellic faggot loser cretins who want to predate on them merely for sex and groom them.

Pedo faggot cretins need and MUST get the rope. We are trying to develop people here to become functional adults, not to cater to your incellic wants.

>>17840221
>First, early birth is dangerous and poses risks for both the baby and the mother.
This is irrelevant.
>Second, early exposure to sex in children and abuse increase the rate of OCD and other horrific mental disorders.
You had to sneak abuse in at the last second to say this. What about non-abusive adult-child sex?
>Three, there's a long list of things that, as you point out, can cause problems
This line of reasoning followed consistently would prohibit any child from any human contact but keep them locked in a plastic bubble their entire lives. Existence in the real world always carries some degree of risk. It would obviously be unwise under the current cultural climate where the very idea of adult-child relations makes people insane, but that's not an intrinsic property of the relationship. Especially when you consider holy marriage is the only place sex should happen anyway which resolves most of those problems.

>>17841464
>What about non-abusive adult-child sex?
impossible, same goes with child on child sex

Better safe than sorry. 99% should ruin the reputation of 1%.

>>17840038
/thread
>>17840029 (OP)
Kill pedos, behead pedos, roundhouse kick a pedo into the concrete. Crucify filthy child molesters. Liquefy kid diddlers into vats of acid. Shit on a MAP's food, toss child-attracted people into active volcanoes, castrate peds and feed them their own balls. Push kid lovers into spaceships set inexorably for the closest black hole, skin pedos and hang their corpses around towns. Feed molesters' sick minds to brain-eating amoeba colonies, scalp pedos and strangle the ones that get away with said scalps. Make Diddy impersonators swim in local lakes with cement shoes. Fry pedos in chinese woks and feed their flesh to dogs.

>>17841470
>impossible, same goes with child on child sex
?

>>17841549
If the truth is on your side, you wouldn't have to be so violent.

>>17840101
Thanks for saying that. Actual victims get talked over a lot of the time in conversations about pedophilia

I hope you're doing ok and have gotten/are getting help for whatever damage was done

>>17842171
This is such a wholesome heckin' chungus moment. Believe. All. Victims. Don't forgot about self love, y'all!

>>17842119
It is precisely because truth is with them that violence is called for. Any performance a pedophile gives as to his morality is just that, a performance, these people will rape children or consume content of children being raped if they are not sufficiently broken. Unironically I'm in favor of bringing back lobotomy for pedophiles, it would be a better way for them to live.

>>17841043
>Similar to that there is logic behind not letting pedophiles fucking children because we know that it often causes deep psychological trauma that scar those individuals for life.
Do you have a source for this claim?

>>17841463
So your argument is that adult-child sex is wrong because any adult person who desires such a relationship is disposed to mistreating the younger participant in the relationship? Can you substantiate this claim with empirical evidence?

>>17842241
Nigga the relationship is inherently harmful and the entire field of psychological medicine supports this claim.

>don't rub shit and honey on a cut, you will get an infection
>ummmmm do YOU have a source for this?

>>17842257
>Nigga the relationship is inherently harmful and the entire field of psychological medicine supports this claim.
So you should be able to easily substantiate the claim then?

>>17842258

https://victimsofcrime.org/effects-of-csa-on-the-victim/

>>17840029 (OP)
Because Jesus taught not to do that https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KEM6Y1L4Wk0

>>17842263
Can you actually make the argument yourself instead of linking to a webpage?

Make sure you >>17842258 read that page carefully. >>17842263 Remember that this is what you want do with children.

>>17842270
>provide evidence for your claim
>*provides evidence*
>umm can you make an argument instead?

>>17840101
What kind of molested are we talking here? Was it a hot 17 year old girl babysitter or was it your 45 year old Uncle Biff? Because the two aren't quite the same thing.

>>17842263
>Sexual abuse
NTA but that anon was arguing that these relationships, as taboo as they might be, don't have to be abusive. Your article goes straight for the rape angle

>>17842323
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/research/impacts-csa/research-findings/2-impacts-csa-families-victims-and-survivors.html

I mean there are thousands of studies conducted on both cases where the child accurately identifies the contact as abuse and studies where they do not, they all conclude that the contact is harmful. Pretty much every study includes an even larger group of children that do not accurately identify the abuse because most children break down into tears or clam up upon being reminded of the abuse. Hell that is the response for most adults who have never begun to process the traumatic abuse inflicted upon them, it routinely breaks people and pedophiles care little for this fact. If I get burned in a relationship with another adult or peer it will hurt, sure, but it won't require medical intervention nor will I be engendered with a high comorbidity for a range of other health consequences.

>>17842276
What am I supposed to respond to? You didn't provide evidence, you linked to a random webpage which forms an argument, using its own evidence. Actually make an argument yourself, present your evidence, or don't bother responding to the thread. Stop being lazy.

>>17842362
Can you actually substantiate any of that?

>>17842364
The webpage is the evidence you asked for, you asked for evidence, when evidence was given you then asked for an argument.

>>17842366
It depends, are you going to read the evidence I post? We have an actual victim in this thread who concisely told you why it is not ok, and you are ignoring them as well.

>>17842368
>The webpage is the evidence you asked for
It isn't. The webpage presents an assortment of assertions based on a number sources which aren't even directly cited, so I have no way of properly responding to any of these assertions. Make the argument yourself, and present the evidence yourself, in this thread.

>>17842370
>We have an actual victim in this thread
We have a poster on an anonymous imageboard making an unsubstantiated, anecdotal claim.

>>17842382
Again here is another webpage with an exhaustive list of the consequences of CSA

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/research/impacts-csa/research-findings/1-impacts-csa-victims-and-survivors.html

I can literally do this all day, all I have to do is go one by one down the search page, they all have rigorous data backing them up as well.

>>17842388
>Again here is another webpage with an exhaustive list of the consequences of CSA
Make the argument yourself, in this thread. Present the sources yourself, in this thread. Stop being lazy. I'm not responding to a random static webpage which I can not interrogate the claims of.

>>17842382
Here is another study

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2910944/

Here is another one

https://cptsdfoundation.org/2021/04/19/the-long-term-harmful-effects-of-childhood-sexual-abuse/

>>17842318
Apparently it's not supposed to matter. Baffling how people believe this, since we used not to, probably evolved as an argument for "women do it too!" in feminism discussions and the purity spiral kept it around. I really don't get the argument there kek, if a high school boy fucks another high schooler at a party it's just another life experience, if the same scenario happens but the woman is older it's now evil? Irregardless of how he's treated or really any other possibly relevant factor?

>>17842398
I am presenting you with the sources, they all have references or are studies themselves, you refuse to read them or their salient and expert understanding of CSA. My argument is that CSA is inherently harmful, that is the extent of my argument, the sources I provide are my evidence for this claim.

btw only whites actually have a moral issue with pedophilia lmao blacks and browns dgaf and all their women were molested almost without exception

>>17842409
It is not a good thing for an adult women to seek out little boys, if they do this they likely have a very disturbing psychological profile. It is wildly common and wildly underreported. Did you ever notice that the volume of young female teachers fell off the side of a cliff the moment you went to secondary school? This is because, in part, most secondary schools actively hire older teachers and men who would see less success in trying to abuse hormonal 14 year old boys.

>>17842432
A deleted an anecdotal reddit comment from someone who can barely keep their words straight is truly the pinnacle of evidence. Ignore all the peer reviewed research that shows this behavior to be harmful, they are just Jewish tricks or something I'm sure.

>>17842362
Forgive me for being stubborn, but those responses from your examples imply that all of those cases were traumatic in nature. However, I do see that with this we also enter in a problematic situation in any sexual relationship, which is consent. Many adults have engaged in sexual acts when not wanting to (even when there wasn't any violence involved), so obviously child-adult encounters run into these problems.

>>17842426
If there are enough stats on the matter to discuss the behavior of those women, there might be something to be said about laws and cultural values working against it. But we don't need to pretend the aforementioned scenario is like medieval torture. Plenty of stories of teenage boys raping other teenagers, if they did that to an adult, which I'm sure has happened somewhere at some point, would both get traumatized?

>>17842432
This guy was black, wasn't he?

>>17842444
A child for many reasons cannot meaningfully offer consent to sexual contact, putting that aside however if they identify the contact as "consensual" they still exhibit these issues. Depending on the age at which they experienced the abuse, the victim's psychological profile, and the severity of the abuse the Child will have ranging periods during which the symptoms begin to emerge. The most important thing is that these outcomes are observed in a vast majority of cases regardless of "consent" being established in the Child's recounting of events.

>>17842405
>Here is another study
This is the first study you have posted, and it is a study on physical health outcomes only. The study points out a flaw in its own methodology:
>Clinical samples (e.g., GI clinic patients, psychiatric outpatients) may inflate the relationship between CSA and health and are not generalizable to the population (e.g., Rind et al., 1998). Community samples may provide a more accurate estimate of the increased health risk associated with CSA history.

Around half of the samples used in the meta-analysis linked are clinical samples. The studies also use a vague definition of "CSA" which does not differentiate between volitional and non-volitional sexual acts, respondents in these type of studies are generally asked if they experienced sexual abuse during childhood. This study conflates volitional and non-volitional sexual acts, uses unrepresentative samples, and as such can not be used to make any claims on the outcomes of voluntary adult-child sexual relations in the general population. The study also does not control for home environment/social class/hereditary. Personally, I would assume that people with an earlier sexual debut are more likely to be overweight, as lower class, dysgenic individuals are more sexually active at an earlier age.

>>17842455
>A child for many reasons cannot meaningfully offer consent to sexual contact
Why?

>putting that aside however if they identify the contact as "consensual" they still exhibit these issues
Source?

>>17842445
Believe it or not most teenage boys do not try and rape adult women or each other for that matter. It is a common feminist line that "all men" are responsible and there are figures like 1 in 5 thrown around, but in reality it is a very small volume of men that will actually exhibit these tendencies and follow through with a desire to have them fulfilled. The issue is the people who display these behaviors and get away with it essentially have a blue print for victimizing others moving forward. Until they run into someone with uncharacteristic protection or awareness, they will continue to rape and make the issue seemingly endemic.

>>17842464
do you not understand the concept of a child? Do you not see the natural difference? Do you imagine a child is small for fun? And are as afraid of a baby lion as an adult?
Questions like this are just trolling. You are challenging the natural concept of children. Of which humanity had zero hand in creating.

>>17842472
This is not an argument.

>>17842461
Yes the Rind study has been exhaustively rejected. We did this exact same song and dance last thread, I thought you would know better than to try and offer it again.

>>17842464
A child's brain is mostly liquid, with their decision making centers being pretty much entirely absent until well into adult hood.

Here is the source for the other claim.
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/research/impacts-csa/research-findings/1-impacts-csa-victims-and-survivors.html

>>17842478
>Yes the Rind study has been exhaustively rejected.
No it hasn't, the study linked literally cites the study.

>>17842478
>A child's brain is mostly liquid, with their decision making centers being pretty much entirely absent until well into adult hood.
This is not an argument for why a child can not consent to sexual activities with an adult.

>Here is the source for the other claim.
That is a webpage which makes an assortment of assertions, not a source for any claim.

>>17842461
>Before considering the research findings from this REA, it is important to note that, in practice, it is very challenging to determine clearly whether an outcome has actually been caused by CSA, either directly or indirectly, or whether instead it is linked to it in some other way. There are also limitations concerning the way in which some of the current evidence was generated, which means that some study findings cannot be confidently generalised to the wider victim and survivor population. As a result, much of the evidence reviewed in this REA can only indicate a possible link or association between CSA and a specific life outcome or medical condition; it cannot indicate that CSA caused the outcome under consideration.

By the way these are the limitations of the studies data base, the fact they acknowledge this demonstrates the rigor and unbiased nature of their results.

>>17842468
I'm well aware of all of that. Just addressing a scenario that questions whether the mere act is harmful in a vacuum.

Deboonked: sex between adults and children has high probability of medical injuries
https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html

retards like >>17841549 are the same mutts that type christ is king unironically
/his/ is for brown pedros from christcuck discord servers

>>17842486
They cite the Rind study as an acknowledgement that there may be limitations. This is key to the structure of any empirical study yet you present it as grand evidence that Rind's findings were un unequivocally true and all their conclusions are false. You will find acknowledgements of the weakness of data in almost every study on any subject, their conclusions are made with this being taken to into account mind you.

Also a Child's brain and their decision making centers being liquid is a pretty concise reason to not fuck them. I linked to an independent review, it is probably the best form of evidence you can get on the topic and you are just being intentionally obtuse.

>>17842495
I wonder why she had to give birth by C-Section. I wonder why the medical community was appalled.

>>17840355
Let's not LARP like you're into fridrich nitzschy you literal nigger. You're too dumb for philosophy

>>17842455
>A child for many reasons cannot meaningfully offer consent to sexual contact
Well, leaving moral qualms aside, some prepubescent kids start flirting with those desires pretty early on.
>The most important thing is that these outcomes are observed in a vast majority of cases regardless of "consent" being established in the Child's recounting of events.
I do have a question: Were all of these children showing symptoms of being raped? Children can be easily misleaded, especially by close family members, so in those case it is rape even if the poor child 'consented'. Later on, they obviously realise that they were assaulted, so they start experiencing the negativity of suffering such act on their being.

Maybe the gnostics are right, and sex is inherently evil.

>>17842497
>They cite the Rind study as an acknowledgement that there may be limitations. This is key to the structure of any empirical study yet you present it as grand evidence that Rind's findings were un unequivocally true and all their conclusions are false.
They wouldn't cite the study if it had been "exhaustively rejected", as you claimed. Papers on astrophysics do not cite studies claiming that the Earth is flat.

>Also a Child's brain and their decision making centers being liquid is a pretty concise reason to not fuck them
This is still not an argument. Why does this fact not prohibit adults from engaging in any other activity with children? Why only sexual activities?

>I linked to an independent review, it is probably the best form of evidence you can get on the topic and you are just being intentionally obtuse
Pic rel. is an "independent review" which is much more credible than the biased webpage you linked.

>>17842507
Yes and they do it with other children mainly. That is not necessarily desirable but requires strict regimenting to prevent and as this thread has shown not all adults can be trusted with that level of control over a child. You also perfectly described the ideal "consent" that pedophiles argue is present, the children are coerced, because of their under developed brain, into sex with an adult and suffer the consequences of this sexual violation for the rest of their lives even if they do not remember the act or incorrectly assume their own agency in the events.

Sex is not inherently evil as it creates more life, but most species of it have quite devastating consequences should something go wrong and a few species of it are always bad.

>>17842532
>Yes and they do it with other children mainly. That is not necessarily desirable but requires strict regimenting to prevent and as this thread has shown not all adults can be trusted with that level of control over a child. You also perfectly described the ideal "consent" that pedophiles argue is present, the children are coerced, because of their under developed brain, into sex with an adult and suffer the consequences of this sexual violation for the rest of their lives even if they do not remember the act or incorrectly assume their own agency in the events.
Do you have any evidence or argumentation to support all of these assertions?

>>17842527
They would, even studies with conclusions that were flawed are still important to acknowledge if you are attempting to prove a thesis, this actually has a name, it is called the null-hypothesis. You would know this if you had any familiarity with the basic tenets of empirical observation. The fact that they come to the conclusions they do in spite of the Rind study makes their work stronger not weaker.

Yes a child's decision making centers not being fully developed until their mid 20s is a great reason not to fuck 11 year old boys and girls. In fact it is probably the best refutation of you available if we are going by strictly utilitarian terms. Sex is a powerful act, it has a wide range of consequences even when it takes place between two consenting adults. If we set their bed time we also can say that they aren't allowed to fuck, and we do.

You linked to a polemical pro-pedophilia website as an example of an unbiased counter source, I shouldn't need to tell you why this is bad.

>>17842536

Yes right here

>>17842405
>>17842388
>>17842263

>>17842532
>Yes and they do it with other children mainly
Nominally, they do get attracted to adults. But yes, it's not something desireable.
>You also perfectly described the ideal "consent" that pedophiles argue is present
Indeed, which is why consent is a pretty touchy subject in modern days
>Sex is not inherently evil as it creates more life
The fact that we are forced to do something that can have huge consequences, even when it seems that everything is alright, is quite evil in itself. But let's not get into that. Thank you for being respectful and patient towards me, anon.

>>17842552
>They would, even studies with conclusions that were flawed are still important to acknowledge if you are attempting to prove a thesis, this actually has a name, it is called the null-hypothesis. You would know this if you had any familiarity with the basic tenets of empirical observation.
So studies on astrophysics cite exhaustively rejected studies claiming that the Earth is flat? They obviously don't. Stop trying to weasel your way out of your previous claim. The study linked acknowledges issues with reliance on clinical samples as highlighted by the Rind study, because the results of this study are acknowledged as valid by the authors. This has nothing to do with a null-hypothesis, and you have been resorted to bringing up irrelevant scientific terminology to obfuscate your lack of a proper argument.

>The fact that they come to the conclusions they do in spite of the Rind study makes their work stronger not weaker.
They commit the same methodological errors which the Rind study highlights, ergo their outcomes are worthless.

>Yes a child's decision making centers not being fully developed until their mid 20s is a great reason not to fuck 11 year old boys and girls.
This is not a valid argument. Why does the child's brain being underdeveloped prohibit them from engaging in sexual activities with adults, yet not other activities?

>Sex is a powerful act, it has a wide range of consequences even when it takes place between two consenting adults
Other activities which children engage in have a wide range of consequences as well, such as belonging to a certain religious denomination, their education, the relationships they have with other people, etc. This is not a valid argument and you have not established a reason for why children are incapable of consenting to sexual activities with adults.

>You linked to a polemical pro-pedophilia website
You linked to a polemical anti-pedophile website?

>>17842575
Flat earth and pedophilia advocacy are not even in the same universe. That is a total false equivalency, astrophysics is also not particularly concerned with the shape of the earth, once again demonstrating your lack of familiarity with applied sciences. Citing any study does not equal an endorsement or condemnation, it is merely data that you added to your data set for the purposes of generating robust conclusions. I am not bringing up "irrelevant scientific terminology" because the null hypothesis is central to any scientific study. I know you generally tend to have a poor understanding of what you read but arguing from ignorance is not a good look.

>They commit the same methodological errors which the Rind study highlights, ergo their outcomes are worthless.

The Rind study had its advocacy and relative importance of his claims of methodological errors refuted heavily, the most debunked point of his entire study is what you use to prove that everyone else's research is worthless, thus this is an unsubstantiated claim.

>This is not a valid argument. Why does the child's brain being underdeveloped prohibit them from engaging in sexual activities with adults, yet not other activities?

All studies linked have demonstrated why sex with adults is not good for children. We also prohibit them from making their own purchases, or eating ice cream all day, or going to bed at 3 am, or from laboring. These are common sense to 95% of the population.

>Other activities which children engage in have a wide range of consequences as well, such as belonging to a certain religious denomination, their education, the relationships they have with other people, etc. This is not a valid argument and you have not established a reason for why children are incapable of consenting to sexual activities with adults.

Attempting to strictly regiment the raising of children is simply an impossibility, what we can do is prevent the overtly harmful acts from ever occurring.

>>17842575
It was an independent review, it was not polemical.

>>17842596
>That is a total false equivalency
I am not equivocating flat Earth and pedophilia. I am pointing out that papers on astrophysics would not cite an exhaustively rejected study claiming that the Earth was flat, as though it presented a valid viewpoint, unless if the paper was written to refute the study.

>astrophysics is also not particularly concerned with the shape of the earth
The shape of the Earth is within the purview of astrophysics. The Earth being flat would have dramatic implications for astrophysics. Good job on continually deflecting my arguments and just trying to get a one-up on me (and failing).

>Citing any study does not equal an endorsement or condemnation
It is, when the outcome of the study is explicitly endorsed by the author:
>Clinical samples (e.g., GI clinic patients, psychiatric outpatients) may inflate the relationship between CSA and health and are not generalizable to the population (e.g., Rind et al., 1998).
>and are not generalizable to the population

>I am not bringing up "irrelevant scientific terminology" because the null hypothesis is central to any scientific study
It is irrelevant to the argument which you are making.

>importance of his claims of methodological errors refuted heavily
Source? Why did one of the studies you linked acknowledge the validity of the Rind team's criticism of methodology in studies on adult-child sexual contact?

>All studies linked have demonstrated why sex with adults is not good for children
Studies which have been thoroughly refuted in this thread >>17842461

>what we can do is prevent the overtly harmful acts from ever occurring
You have not established that sexual activities are likely to cause harm to children.

>>17842598
>It was an independent review, it was not polemical.
It is polemical and biased by definition as it does not take into consideration any alternative views. The independent review I posted does take into consideration alternative views, and sets out to refute them.

why do faggots think that boy-woman sex is somehow ok and not harmful?

>>17842432
>55.png
How many of these do you have?

>>17842630
>Clinical samples (e.g., GI clinic patients, psychiatric outpatients) may inflate the relationship between CSA and health and are not generalizable to the population (e.g., Rind et al., 1998).


The fact that they acknowledge this and still come to the conclusions they do means that they are not not biased and polemical as you claim. It also means that while the Rind studies induce possible uncertainty, they were not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis or merit an acceptance of the null hypothesis. Moreover they use the word may, its right there, "may inflate", once again a citation does not mean they are either condemning or accepting the Rind study. There have been plenty of condemnations of the Rind study of which I am sure you are intimately familiar, but his work has been rejected and not because there is some conspiracy against pedophiles, he simply lacked the evidence and intelligence to meaningfully argue for his limited advocacy. Every study I linked has demonstrated why sexual relations with adults are harmful to children, you reject them all on the basis of your poor understanding of a highly controversial paper from 1998. If you refuse to engage with evidence and instead use an amateur's razor to selectively hear only studies that support your position, you have proven yourself to be incompetent objectively.

>>17842696
Technically nothing would merit an acceptance of the null hypothesis, you can only simply not reject it. The review using Rind in this context means that Rind quite literally is impossible to prove thanks to the epistemology of empirical observation, which makes it objectively hilarious that pedoanon thinks of it as evidence for his claims.

When I was 10 I lost my virginity to an 11 yo neighbor girl. I thought it was awesome but later when I bragged to the other guys at school they didn't believe me. I eventually heard rumors that that girl was severely molested by relatives and was acting out what had happened with me.

>>17840029 (OP)
Hags had it outlawed because they know they wouldn't be able to compete. Most countries didn't have a legal age of consent until AFTER women's suffrage. And, even then, they mostly started ~10 years old

>>17842736
Many men were vociferously opposed to pedophilia. Blaming it on women is hilarious because it is such a overtly polemical stance that associates changing AOC laws with the temperance and suffragette movement, this is provably false given that the laws started to shift in the 70s and 80s, not the 00s and 10s. Pushes to prevent early marriage and protect the chastity of children that manifested to the laws we have today have their roots in the early modern period, they are not recent developments.

>>17842772
The difference is that men think "I don't like pedophilia so I won't do it" while women think "I don't like pedophilia so nobody else is allowed to do it"

>>17842799
No I think plenty of men don't want anyone else to rape children. I would know that because I am a man and also don't want people to rape children.

lmao you should go to India. child prostitution is rampant there just so long as Westerners aren't looking.

>>17842807
Rape is already illegal. We're discussing consenting couples

>>17842834
As has been established, these do not exist if one partner is a child. All sex with children is rape.

>>17840029 (OP)
>Why is sex between adults and children morally wrong?

This sort of shit is why it happened 109 times and nobody cried when they got put into ovens.

>>17842882
At what age do people unlock the ability to consent?

>>17840029 (OP)
Prepubescent children don't express sexuality unless they've been raped.
One reason I dislike the equivocation of fully sexually mature individuals (i.e. 14 years old and up) with "children" is because it obfuscates the very real fact that prepubescent children are nothing like people who've gone through puberty.

>>17842899
>Prepubescent children don't express sexuality unless they've been raped.
If they've been exposed to porn.

>>17842894
I'm not entirely sure, it's a complex topic. I think a number like 18, even if its somewhat arbitrary, is a good place to draw the line. They are finished with their education, assuming they don't pursue post-secondary, and beginning to become independent, of course someone who is 17 years old and 18 years old will be functionally the same person, but it certainly makes pedophiles mad to draw the line and in my eyes higher is better. Really people as young as 16 can probably consent meaningfully, it's around when we let them start driving, but I don't think a 16 year old should be with anyone over the age of 20. I think a 16 and 19 pairing would be prohibitively uncomfortable for most people that aren't pedophiles simply because you are dealing with someone that still likely lives with their parents and has relatively little agency.

>>17842910
Consuming pornography at a young age is basically a lesser species of sexual abuse, maybe closer to neglect actually. Don't let your children watch porn, don't even consume porn yourself, it is poison.

>>17842916
>I'm not entirely sure
>it's arbitrary
>but it makes the pedos MAD!
>a 4 year age gap is bad!
At least you accept you aren't trying to be rational. You're just espousing everything every hag has ever said, which was to be expected

>>17842925
When most people feel an innate revulsion to pedophilia, you have to excuse them for not being to provide a completely rational explanation off the cuff.
If they have a revulsion to sex with animals, do you require a rational explanation? Does the innate horror of such an act not immediately innervate your neurons?

of course it's not uncommon or even weird for kids to play doctor and experiment with each other, if there's not more than a 1 year age difference as outside that it becomes imbalanced and exploitative.

>>17842928
>off the cuff.
Doesn't have to be off the cuff, he doesn't have to reply within 5 minutes or whatever
>do you require a rational explanation?
This is a thread for discussing the topic. It's not like I'm stopping him on the street. Yeah, if you enter a discussion thread and take a side, I expect a reason for it.
>Does the innate horror of such an act not immediately innervate your neurons?
That's plenty reason for me myself not to do something. But I think "it disgusts me" is poor reason for me to stop you from doing something you want

>>17842925
A cool rationality in regards to the age of consent is stupid. It is a human issue with so many edge cases and exceptions that attempting to draw a line anywhere will always result in it appearing unfair in certain cases and too lenient in others. We tried the "just don't rape little kids but we won't enforce a particular age because it is too difficult" thing for a long time, but predators care little for the damage they do and it is evident. The age being moved up to 18 along with other positive protections for children such a child labor laws have significantly increased the QoL for our children in such obvious ways that arguing against it almost guarantees you have an ulterior and base motive. You aren't some arbiter of rationality, you use the fact that hard and fast rules break down when exposed human variance because of your own desire for children.

>>17842727
i lost mine to an 11 year old when i was 12. i'm positive she was molested because she seemed to really know what she was doing, a lot more than someone her age should have.

>>17842935
Do you think the known repercussions of sex with prepubescent children (e.g. infertility, mental illness) is a positive or negative for society?

>>17842930
I don't think they should be playing doctor or fooling around with each other, I'm not gonna classify them as predatory because the abuser in this situation was likely abused by someone else and is also just a child, but that doesn't mean I encourage it. Protect and love your kids people, if you don't then predators will do unspeakable things to them.

>>17842943
He thinks those repercussions do not exist. He got pretty thoroughly BTFO'd in this thread with this post >>17842696 but just know he lives entirely outside of reality.

>>17842936
>rationality in regards to [something] is stupid
Why even enter a discussion thread if you're just going to declare yourself right because working out the gray areas is too hard?
>>17842943
The problems with your question is that you pose the choice as binary and also imply that societal good is the metric by which something is moral. Frankly, I don't really care if it's good or bad for society. What matters is how the people involved in the relationship feel. I have no problem saying that the majority of sex cases between children and adults is bad for the child, but that's because those cases are rape. Rape is immoral regardless of the age of the participants. However, if both parties are consenting, I don't think "society doesn't like it" is a good basis for arresting them or whatever

>>17842970
Working out the gray areas isn't too hard, it's just impossible to assign a static value to. The static value of 18 is good and comes packaged with a lot of other inherent protections for the education and raising of children, just because there are some cases where it appears unfair or too lenient doesn't mean that we should scrap it entirely. You often have to bargain with reality, but again we know that you aren't trying to be some arbiter of rational thought when you propose sideways philosophical questions about consent, you are just trying to inject uncertainty so the age is significantly lowered or non-existent. This is because you believe yourself to have some sort of crystal ball that can determine when your relationship with a child will be harmful or not. That is assuming you care at all, I would imagine this is just a performance for you and you will do whatever you want with children if given the opportunity.

>>17842970
>However, if both parties are consenting
Define "consent" and whether or not foreknowledge of the outcome is relevant to consent.

>>17842991
>it's just impossible to assign a static value to
Then don't, rape is already illegal
>>17842993
>Define "consent"
I'll instead answer the meta question and say that consent is ultimately only knowable to the people giving it. It's impossible for society to know at a glance who did and did not consent.
>and whether or not foreknowledge of the outcome is relevant to consent.
I don't really see the relevance. But, if I have to give an answer, I'd say no. Just because humans rarely have full knowledge over the outcome of their actions, so it seems a needlessly high barrier

>>17843002
Assigning a static value prevents people like you from sleeping with 11 year old boys. Setting at 18 especially cucks you because by then most have aged out of their "attractive" years for you and you are given pretty much zero in the ways of desirable sexual partners. Believe it or not this is actually a favor, you are learning the benefits of chasteness and being prevented from your base desires.

Sex with children almost always causes harm and always is rape because children cannot meaningfully offer consent. The sooner you accept this reality the better.

>>17843002
Imagine if someone had no idea what a "gun" was.
If they gave consent to you aiming at their head and pulling the trigger on that funny little device, would it be right or wrong?

>>17843013
>people like you
Your post is dripping with seethe. You expect me to take it seriously? It's just conversation
>>17843014
I think assisted suicide should be legal.
But I get your point that it's making someone ignorant do something that might fuck them up without them knowing. And it's moved me. I'm willing to accept that all parties involved need to be knowledgeable about sex before it's moral

>>17842696
>The fact that they acknowledge this and still come to the conclusions they do means that they are not not biased and polemical as you claim
I never claimed that this study was polemical. The study uses clinical samples, and does not control for home environment (which is generally a proxy for hereditary), nor is any consideration made for whether or not the participants in the studies analyzed were involved in volitional or non-volitional sexual contacts. They acknowledge that their paper is insufficient to prove a causal link between adult-child sexual contact and negative outcomes, which you mention here: >>17842487
Also, good job moving goalposts.

>Moreover they use the word may
After which they state "and are not generalizable", which is an explicit endorsement of the fact that clinical samples can not be generalized to the general population.

>a citation does not mean they are either condemning or accepting the Rind study
It does when they explicitly endorse the results of the study.

>but his work has been rejected
You have not provided any quantitative evidence that psychologists at large reject the outcomes of his study. I can post various quotations from psychologists who accept the results of his study, and his study is still cited as a valid source in papers published to this very day, including a study you posted yourself. You have posted a selection of critiques against his study, which is not evidence of your claim that his work has been rejected by the scientific community. Regardless, this is an appeal to authority.

>Every study I linked has demonstrated why sexual relations with adults are harmful to children
Not a single one has provided evidence for your claim that sexual relations between adults and children are harmful. Try again.

>>17842899
Classic anti retardation. Being exposed to sexuality is so traumatizing to children that they want to continually re-harm themselves by further engaging in it after being exposed to it. On what grounds do they base this claim off of? Nothing, really.

>>17843058
>Doing meth is so harmful to people that they continually want to re-harm themselves by further engaging in it after being exposed to it
>On what grounds do they base this claim off of?
>Nothing, really
The reason the normal reaction is to want to kill you is because you are a sadistic hedonist that only harms society.

>>17843063
So you admit that children enjoy partaking in sexual activities?

>>17843069
No. You're just a sadist, and anything other than mocking you is unimportant.
You cannot be reasoned with. I imagine you are quite physically impotent, and were it not for industrial society, I could kill you outright.

>>17843081
>No.
So children are so traumatized by sex, that after being exposed to it, they continue engage in it further, despite finding no pleasure in it? How does that work? Why would that happen?

>>17843063
What a retarded example. Meth is demonstrably bad for you because it rots your body and it makes you dangerous to others. Both things you've failed to prove about sex

>>17843043

>I never claimed that this study was polemical.

Yes you did >>17842630

>The study uses clinical samples, and does not control for home environment (which is generally a proxy for hereditary), nor is any consideration made for whether or not the participants in the studies analyzed were involved in volitional or non-volitional sexual contacts.

Every statistical method for analyzing data has ways to account for skew in samples, they do not need to control for home environment or exclude samples that have clinical or legal outcomes because this is 1) not producing skewed datasets on the basis of population proportion 2) a large enough sample size paired with massive size of the population (n < N*.05) that is abused as children will allow you to estimate a parameter even from a skewed data set.

>They acknowledge that their paper is insufficient to prove a causal link between adult-child sexual contact and negative outcomes

It is an observational study on the negative health outcomes in victims of CSA. Because it is observational it does not attempt to determine causality. It is pretty good evidence for the fact CSA does have some link, certainly better than your hot end of the crack pipe theories. If you want another meta-study that also accounts for Rind study but still determines a link here is this.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2910944/

>You have not provided any quantitative evidence that psychologists at large reject the outcomes of his study.

I guess I'm imagining the hundreds of counter studies and broad rejection of his ideas by the field. I wonder why it's still called CSA if Rind really was accepted? Hint: Just because studies account for his insane ideas do not mean they endorse him, he is used almost categorically as a null hypothesis.

>Not a single one has provided evidence for your claim that sexual relations between adults and children are harmful. Try again.

Anon, all of them have, you are delusional.

>>17843085
This sex is bad because of who does it to who. An adult fucking a child is an inherently traumatic experience, but a 14 or 15 year old sleeping with another 14 or 15 year old is usually fine because neither really knows what they are doing nor do they have to engage in heavy coercion in order to get it.

>>17843084
Have you ever heard of a self-destructive habit?

>>17843038
I don't think I'm the one dripping with seethe here, you are the one cucked out of ever getting your fantasy bud.

>>17843120
>An adult fucking a child is an inherently traumatic experience
>inb4 argument over whether boy+hot babysitter is traumatic or not

>>17843130
For what it's worth, I was uncomfortable when my hot teacher in high school flirted with me. I thought she was hot, but I was instinctually uncomfortable with her.

>>17843130
Generally speaking people which go for children have extremely disturbing psychological profiles. Even if a smoking hot 20 year old woman decides to fuck a greasy 13 year old boy, why exactly is she doing that? I wonder what ideas she has about men and specifically boys that she will imprint or foil on to the subject of her abuse. Food for thought.

>>17843154
nice ChatGPT post

>>17843157
I assure you I am real anon.

>>17843110
>Yes you did
That is in reference to the webpage you posted. I did not claim that this study was polemical.

>they do not need to control for home environment
No, good studies control for confounding variables as much as possible to establish a valid association. Your post just displays your lack of understanding of statistical concepts which you pretend to understand.

>a large enough sample size paired with massive size of the population (n < N*.05) that is abused as children will allow you to estimate a parameter even from a skewed data set
Having a large sample size does not eliminate the need to control for confounding variables. Early studies, with large sample sizes, showed an association between drinking coffee and developing lung cancer, but this was an invalid association as drinking coffee was consistently confounded with smoking cigarettes, which was not accounted for. It did not matter how large the sample size was, as smoking cigarettes was consistently confounded with coffee drinking.

>Because it is observational it does not attempt to determine causality.
So don't use it as evidence that adult-child sex is harmful.

>If you want another meta-study that also accounts for Rind study but still determines a link here is this.
You posted the exact same study.

>I wonder why it's still called CSA if Rind really was accepted
The Rind study uses the terminology of "CSA" as well. The study which you linked to uses the terminology of "CSA", and endorses Rind's conclusions.

>I guess I'm imagining the hundreds of counter studies and broad rejection of his ideas by the field
There are plenty of studies which endorse his conclusions, including the one you posted. You have provided no evidence that there has been a broad rejection of his ideas by his field, in fact, the studies you post endorse his study.

>>17843120
>An adult fucking a child is an inherently traumatic experience
This has not been established.

>>17843170
>No, good studies control for confounding variables as much as possible to establish a valid association. Your post just displays your lack of understanding of statistical concepts which you pretend to understand.

Your theory, based off of Rind's study, that there are lurking or confounding variables affecting scientific understanding of CSA is not substantiated. You have provided zero evidence that this a meaningful concern either statistically or clinically. Even if we were to assume a degree of confounding as Rind does, it evidently does not merit being adjusted for in determining the effects of CSA. This is for a variety of reasons. A vast majority of children abused end up in the legal/clinical system and most cases of abuse occur in poor homelife conditions because part of being loving parents is ensuring that your children don't get molested. Here is evidence that we have begun to establish causal links between CSA and later health issues heavily associated with CSA.

>Additional behavioral risk factors are more common in CSA victims, including substance use, smoking, risky sex behaviors, and lack of regular exercise (e.g., Chartier et al., 2009; Springs & Friedrich, 1992; Walker, Gelfand, et al., 1999). Psychopathology, such as depression or PTSD, is often reported by adult victims of CSA (see Neumann et al., 1996; Paolucci et al., 2001), and may impact physical health symptoms both directly and indirectly through health behaviors. In sum, a wide range of biological and behavioral mechanisms have been proposed to explain the association between CSA and later physical health.

>Having a large sample size does not eliminate the need to control for confounding variables.

You assume skew, not confounding, it accounts for skew in the data set. Any sample size (n > 30) does.

>>17843170
>You posted the exact same study.

This is a different study, the other one was an independent review of many meta-analytic studies.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2910944/#sec18

>The Rind study uses the terminology of "CSA" as well. The study which you linked to uses the terminology of "CSA", and endorses Rind's conclusions ...

No paper ever endorses Rind, they simply mention him and his findings in the context of a null hypothesis, you refuse to acknowledge this because you think it's "irrelevant scientific language". If they endorsed Rind's conclusion they would be using the term ACS, evidently they are not, moreover they are suggesting very explicitly that CSA is linked with explicit harm to the victim.

>>17843189
>Your theory, based off of Rind's study, that there are lurking or confounding variables affecting scientific understanding of CSA is not substantiated
It is substantiated by the fact that every study in which information on home environment is gathered alongside "CSA" status, the two are consistently confounded, including all the studies which you have been posting.

>A vast majority of children abused end up in the legal/clinical system
Bizarre, baseless claim. The majority of children who have sexual contacts with adults do not end up in the legal/clinical system.

>and most cases of abuse occur in poor homelife conditions because part of being loving parents is ensuring that your children don't get molested
So you yourself believe that "CSA" is confounded with poor home environment, directly contradicting your earlier statement. Maybe you should step away from the computer and get some fresh air?

>You assume skew, not confounding
Having a large sample size does not fix confounding, it will only give a more precise estimate of a biased association.

>>17843193
>they simply mention him and his findings in the context of a null hypothesis
No, they explicitly endorsed the finding of his study that clinical samples can not be generalized to the population in the study you posted. Learn to read.

>If they endorsed Rind's conclusion they would be using the term ACS
Rind proposed using adult-child sex as alternative terminology, to distinguish volitional adult-child sexual contacts from non-volitional ones. This was not the result of his study, this was a suggestion made in the discussion section of his study. You can endorse the findings of his study without endorsing this proposal. You can believe that volitional sexual contact between adults and children is abusive, without believing that it results in psychological harm.

>>17843120
>An adult fucking a child is an inherently traumatic experience
Because... IT JUST IS

>>17843227
>It is substantiated by the fact that every study in which information on home environment is gathered alongside "CSA" status, the two are consistently confounded, including all the studies which you have been posting.

So it is substantiated by your own rudimentary understanding of statistical analysis, which you were informed of even having existed because of a thoroughly discredited study? Alright, thought so.

>Bizarre, baseless claim. The majority of children who have sexual contacts with adults do not end up in the legal/clinical system.

No, the underreporting of CSA is only really common in the specific instance of boys being raped by women. As per usual science and society doesn't much care about men/boys when looking at issues like this.

>So you yourself believe that "CSA" is confounded with poor home environment, directly contradicting your earlier statement. Maybe you should step away from the computer and get some fresh air?

Evidently the confounding that exists is not meaningful because these two factors are directly linked, therefore it is not a separate variable you can control for. I assumed you were discussing skew, but as indicated in your next excerpt you do not seem to understand that skew and confounding are entirely different concepts.

>Having a large sample size does not fix confounding, it will only give a more precise estimate of a biased association.

Yes this explanation was for skew, not confounding

You also seem to have entirely ignored the excerpt describing the causal links between CSA and later health issues, as well as the fact that every study accounts for the potential confounding posed by Rind by addressing his study directly, yet not endorsing it. Here's another one by the way.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.771511/full

>>17843227
>As with other forms of abuse, CSA is characterized by the complex manipulation and coercion of the perpetrator and the unbalanced and power-based relationship that is established by leveraging and exploiting vulnerability.

Here they account for "consent"

>Childhood sexual abuse alters the normal developmental trajectories that are necessary for healthy socioemotional function (Langevin et al., 2016; Clayton et al., 2018), increasing the likelihood of a child experiencing sociorelational difficulties, cognitive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, internalization and externalization of problems, sexualized behaviors, and post-traumatic symptoms (Saywitz et al., 2000). These negative outcomes are exacerbated by the cumulative impact of several types of victimization, to which the child is commonly exposed in his or her family (Putnam et al., 2013; Ford and Delker, 2018; Goodman et al., 2020).

here they acknowledge and account for the "confounding"

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.771511/full

Do the pedophiles have a humiliation kink or something. This is the second time I've seen them get absolutely BTFO on this exact subject within the week.

>>17842241
>Do you have a source for this claim?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4116085/

>>17843242
I wonder if they realize that the efforts of their advocacy are nullified completely by the fact they make themselves and their view points look completely retarded.

>>17843235
>No, the underreporting of CSA is only really common in the specific instance of boys being raped by women
The vast majority of adult-child sex is not reported to police. You have not provided any evidence to substantiate your claim that the majority of adult-child sex comes to the attention of the police. This study shows that only 12% of childhood rapes were ever reported to police: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10391513/

Presumably, voluntary sexual contacts, and less severe sexual contacts, are less likely to be reported.

>therefore it is not a separate variable you can control for
It is a separate variable which can be controlled for and studies which account for it find it is far more predictive of harm than "CSA" status. See the studies in pic rel.

>I assumed you were discussing skew, but as indicated in your next excerpt you do not seem to understand that skew and confounding are entirely different concepts.
You are the one that does not understand the difference between skew and confounding. Controlling for skew in data does not address confounding. You brought up skew when reminded of the need to control for confounders.

>>17843238
>Here they account for "consent"
You only posted an excerpt of a study which I can not investigate.

>here they acknowledge and account for the "confounding"
This isn't even a study. You aren't even reading these. You're just spamming random links you find on Google. Do better.

>>17843242
He isn't even reading the links he's spamming.

>>17843263
>The majority of the sample was African American (56.6%)
>Nearly two-thirds of the sample (60.7%, n = 51) reported the perpetrator of the CSA was a relative
This is a study on groids that were the victims of incest that sought help from psychiatrists. Antis are just getting lazier and lazier.

>>17843279
>>The majority of the sample was African American (56.6%)
So?
>>Nearly two-thirds of the sample (60.7%, n = 51) reported the perpetrator of the CSA was a relative
I don't know why you think it's a surprise or an issue that most CSA happens by people who are close to and have access to the child.
>This is a study on groids that were the victims of incest that sought help from psychiatrists. Antis are just getting lazier and lazier.
In other words people who were victims of CSA and needed help due to trauma?

>>17843279
>The vast majority of adult-child sex is not reported to police.

It's not reported to police maybe, but it does usually end up becoming a clinical case, even if no legal proceedings are filed. The rates of reporting and treatment avenues have exploded in recent decades precisely because we became aware of how prevalent of an issue it was and because more abuse has been exposed.

>It is a separate variable which can be controlled for and studies which account for it find it is far more predictive of harm than "CSA" status. See the studies in pic rel.

It is a modifier which all studies account for, their conclusions exist independent of your understanding of a quite rudimentary statistical mistake you assume they are all making.

>You are the one that does not understand the difference between skew and confounding. Controlling for skew in data does not address confounding. You brought up skew when reminded of the need to control for confounders.

You suggested that data sets were skewed towards clinical and legal cases, Rind suggested that this was a confounding variable. You adjust for skew by sample size, and you adjust for confounding by demonstrating that the variables 1) not related and 2) meaningfully impacting data. The first qualifier is addressed by the fact that you will almost never see a child from a happy and loving home being molested and the second is addressed for by the fact that Rind's study and his conclusions were refuted.

>You only posted an excerpt of a study which I can not investigate.

I linked the study, it was a meta analysis, peer-reviewed and quite particular in the deleterious effects of CSA. You refusing to acknowledge that it as a study is another example of your selective hearing when it comes data that disagrees with you. You have the full text of almost every study I have posted and it is easily available written by reputable people with high levels of expertise, and your defense is posting a newgon wiki entry?

>>17843279
>He isn't even reading the links he's spamming.

I don't read them? That's strange, I seem to have posted quite a few excerpts from studies which I apparently didn't read that directly support my claims.

>literal pedo thread with no relation to history
>Up for days
Are the jannys retarded or do we just have none now?

>>17843310
Discussions about morality falls under the "&humanities" part

>>17843291
He will routinely reject reality or insinuate that your data is bad yet his entire argument relies on sources dedicated to pedophilia advocacy with clear bias and usually highly discredited authors. At this point I'm not sure if he has just decided to kamikaze himself into this issue on the basis of a genuine personal belief or if he's trolling, but he sure has a lot of screen shots and porn for someone doing a bit. Either way, check those hard drives, I can almost guarantee he has mountains of CP.

>>17843312
I haven't kept up with his other responses, just responded to a (you) I got last night after I went to be but him using the phrase "antis" (I assume that means people who are anti-pedophilia/CSA) immediately made me think he was a complete retard or worse, a genuine pedo.

>>17843291
>I don't know why you think it's a surprise or an issue that most CSA happens by people who are close to and have access to the child.
The majority of sexual contacts between adults and children do not occur between relatives. This is a biased sample.

>In other words people who were victims of CSA and needed help due to trauma?
These results can't be extrapolated to the general population.

>>17843301
>but it does usually end up becoming a clinical case
Source?

>It is a modifier which all studies account for
No they don't.

>You adjust for skew by sample size
You can't do this because there are qualitative differences between the outcomes of "CSA" in clinical cases, and the outcomes of "CSA" in the general population, much like you can expect qualitative differences in the outcomes of heterosexual relations of women who seek help from psychiatrists for rape, and heterosexual relations in the general population. It biases the studies, and you are ultimately using circular logic to justify the inclusion of clinical and legal samples in these studies.

>The first qualifier is addressed by the fact that you will almost never see a child from a happy and loving home being molested
This is anecdotal and does not validly address the confound.

>the second is addressed for by the fact that Rind's study and his conclusions were refuted
This is a circular argument, which is not scientifically valid, and does not address the confound.

>I linked the study, it was a meta analysis
It is not a meta-analysis. None of the studies presented were analyzed in a scientific or statistical manner. They are just presenting various studies. You didn't read it.

>>17843310
Threads about ethics and anthropology are allowed here.

>>17843312
>his entire argument relies on sources dedicated to pedophilia advocacy
Newgon collates sources relevant to pedophilia advocacy. This does not mean the sources themselves are dedicated to pedophilia advocacy. Regardless, even if these sources came from people who were motivated by pedophilia advocacy, it would not invalidate them.

>but he sure has a lot of screen shots and porn for someone doing a bit
I have never posted pornographic images on /his/.

>>17843324
>The majority of sexual contacts between adults and children do not occur between relatives. This is a biased sample.
Proof, and when you say 'sexual contact' do you have some personal definition that no one else in the thread would agree with?
>These results can't be extrapolated to the general population.
If 56% of participants were black then you understand that 44% were not black, right? Or is your argument that non-blacks are unusually resilient to trauma from CSA? Anyway here's another study about the negative effects of CSA that you can call biased
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8678607/

>>17843329
Studies using clinical and legal samples do not generalize to the general population. This is like using studies on the victims of woman victims of rape to prove that heterosexuality is harmful. Also, please keep the studies confined to studies on psychological outcomes.

>>17843324
You keep asking me for a source, and then when I give you one, you insist that they made a rudimentary statistical error despite the study almost always acknowledging and adjusting for the apparent "error" by directly addressing the study posed that this was an impactful error at all. Sometimes, as is the case with the psychobiological review, you insist that it's findings are useless for some other reason which you have not specified. I would assume it's an issue with granularity but given that you confuse yourself on skew and confounding, I'm certain you would not understand a paper on epigenetic methylation. So that means you assume the authors of this peer reviewed study are lying overtly and all the studies they reference actually support your claim, or you simply ignore it because it disagrees with you and explains the casual path ways of damage inflicted by CSA in a very technical and specific manner.

If I wanted to study blue flowers and found myself with a large number of violets and no roses, would violets be a confounding factor which explains why I don't have roses in my samples? That is essentially the point you try to argue. Rind's emphasis on confounding is always acknowledged in studies where it is relevant, but it is not considered to be of any importance. This is likely due to a variety of factors, but evidenced by his continued publication and continued tenure/study at Temple University, he did not stumble onto some grand conspiracy, his conclusions just merited little value to the field of CSA research.

It has become clear that you have kind of run out of steam, I'm giving you the chance to end it here and stop embarrassing yourself. You seem quite determined to kamikaze yourself into me no matter how stupid it makes you look so I don't expect this to be successful, but I would strongly advise you to stop posting for a little bit, you are clearly overmatched on this issue.

>>17843341
>Studies using clinical and legal samples do not generalize to the general population. This is like using studies on the victims of woman victims of rape to prove that heterosexuality is harmful.
Neither heterosexuality or pedophilia are harmful as they are merely sexual preferences. The actions of both heterosexuals and pedophiles can be harmful though, and the consensus seems to be that the actions of pedophiles are harmful.
>Also, please keep the studies confined to studies on psychological outcomes.
Why? Negative outcomes are negative outcomes.

>>17843326
>Newgon collates sources relevant to pedophilia advocacy

And you take screenshots of their wiki, likely because you know what linking them means, either way they are polemics and practice the same dishonest selection tactics as you do.

>I have never posted pornographic images on /his/

Aside from the shota you spammed in every thread on this issue before getting a ban for it?

>>17843351
>you insist that they made a rudimentary statistical error
They don't distinguish between voluntary and non-voluntary sexual contacts, this is a fundamental conceptual mistake which virtually all of these studies make. And yes, they do make other rudimentary statistical errors which have been addressed by Rind and various other studies which find a small effect size for "CSA" and harm, which are likely explained by confounding factors, and which find no association between voluntary adult-child sex and negative outcomes. This is what the best available scientific evidence tells us.

>as is the case with the psychobiological review, you insist that it's findings are useless
I never said that. I said it wasn't a study, next that it wasn't a meta-analysis, and you have admitted that it isn't, considering the fact that you are now referring to it as a review. I never claimed that the findings of the studies in this review were useless, or any other study posted. You are making this up. This is a lie.

>he did not stumble onto some grand conspiracy
I have never implied there was a grand conspiracy to suppress Rind's findings. This is a lie.

>his conclusions just merited little value to the field of CSA research
Apart from the fact that they have been widely accepted and assimilated by most psychologists. This again, is a claim which you have never substantiated, and have actually refuted with the studies you have posted yourself.

>>17843354
Those images weren't pornographic. There is nothing inherently pornographic of cartoon pictures of little boys. I was never banned for posting them. The mascot of this website is a cartoon little girl. Posting Japanese style cartoons is fine on 4chan, this is an anime website.

You must be a Jew considering how habitually you lie. Almost every single sentence you post is rife with lies. Or maybe you are just hearing voices in your deranged mind, and you genuinely believe that I have made all these claims that I haven't?

>>17843378
>They don't distinguish between voluntary and non-voluntary sexual contacts, this is a fundamental conceptual mistake which virtually all of these studies make.

So now you are saying the data sets are skewed? I think we already went over why that is not an issue.

>I never said that. I said it wasn't a study, next that it wasn't a meta-analysis, and you have admitted that it isn't, considering the fact that you are now referring to it as a review. I never claimed that the findings of the studies in this review were useless, or any other study posted. You are making this up. This is a lie.

So why are you ignoring it?

>I have never implied there was a grand conspiracy to suppress Rind's findings. This is a lie.

I see, so why don't we call it ACS then? Why is pedophilia still viewed both popularly and in the scientific community as a grave and heinous act? Is it maybe because Rind's claim were insufficiently supported and of poor quality?

>Apart from the fact that they have been widely accepted and assimilated by most psychologists.

He wished to change language surrounding CSA and argued that he had identified significant confounding in two variables which evidenced this. The language did not change and the only thing the confounding produced was that CSA and family dysfunction are almost always present together. You strategically ignored my point explaining the confounding dilemma to you so I'll accept your concession. His "assimilation" in the scientific fields relevant to his conclusions is as a null hypothesis or merely an acknowledgement that their conclusions exist independently of the confounding he believed he identified on the issue. The man and his work have not been respected or accepted in the psychological field for quite some time because of he and his coauthor's very shady associations with pedophilia advocacy groups, oh and his papers were quite shite and full of statistical errors too.

>>17843378
I see we have reached the part of your cope session where you start insisting that everyone else is a Jew.

>>17843405
>So why are you ignoring it?
Why are you ignoring >>17843279, >>17842527, and pic rel.?

>The man and his work have not been respected or accepted in the psychological field for quite some time
False. The study is still cited in papers being published today (endorsing its conclusions) and the study is generally taught to undergraduate students in psychology as an example of a study which has counterintuitive findings, but which is nonetheless true.

James Cantor, PhD:
>The research is much more consistent with the conclusion that harm is caused instead by coercion, manipulation, secrecy, and by courting kids who already have problems, not the sexual interactions per se.
Michael Bailey, PhD:
>Indeed, the best scientific evidence suggests that the most typical experiences considered childhood sexual abuse may not be as harmful as most people think. Specifically, sexual activity that children engage in voluntarily (albeit illegally) with adults is nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes
Jordan Peterson, PhD:
>Did you know that about 20 years ago the American Psychological Association published a paper showing that most people who were sexually abused as children recovered with very little psychological damage? This is an unsayable truth.
Richard Green, PhD:
>Ultimately, scientists, if no one else, must be objective in their approach to this emotional issue. Judgmental terminology regarding intergenerational sexuality is more dramatic than that in the earlier psychiatric literature on homosexuality. There, patients were labeled perverts and psychopaths. Here, the experience is always abuse, the children are invariably victims, the adults are perpetrators, and those who later report childhood sexual experiences are, without apology to victims of the Nazi Holocaust, survivors.

>>17841463
I think adult hood should be 21 but that's my opinion.

I somewhat respect the effort that this schizo has in trying to convince the 20 or so people that still use this shit board to become pedophiles, not the hill I would've chosen to die on personally but if that's the legacy you want to leave then I'm not going to stop you

>>17843419
Because newgon is not a reputable source, it is polemical and deeply biased in both its selection process and its presentation. The information presented there is of little value to an actual discussion on the matter and mostly chosen for its rhetorical benefit rather than any accordance with genuine observation. Every study/review/meta analysis I have posted has come directly from an accredited publication with qualified authors and is presented in full text as the authors desire it to be, not sliced up into wiki pages. We also went over in the last thread why Peterson and the various PhD holders do not represent a broad acceptance from a field which has entirely moved past Rind's advocacy. One even likens the case of pedophile "persecution" to the holocaust, if ever there was an omen ... yeesh. Your claims on undergraduate education are also unsubstantiated and given your evident unfamiliarity with even basic statistical phenomena and empirical thought, my assumption is you have a GED at best, likely a dropout.

Again you seem to be ignoring more and more of my posts while simultaneously reiterating provably false and disingenuous statements. I am once again giving you the opportunity to stop embarrassing yourself.

Really cool thread op. I'm sure you can make Gary Plauche smile happily at your mind blowing efforts

>>17843449

>>17843449
>mind blowing

kek, nice touch

>>17843448
>Because newgon is not a reputable source, it is polemical and deeply biased in both its selection process and its presentation
This is not a refutation of the studies presented.

>Every study/review/meta analysis I have posted has come directly from an accredited publication with qualified authors
So are all the studies collated on Newgon, which you would know if you had read them. You are refusing to engage with any countervailing evidence.

>We also went over in the last thread why Peterson and the various PhD holders do not represent a broad acceptance from a field which has entirely moved past Rind's advocacy
Can you provide evidence for this claim? The fact that the terminology of "adult-child sex" was not adopted is not proof that the conclusions of Rind's study have been rejected, as that is a proposal which was ancillary to the results of the study. You have presented no evidence that Rind's study has been rejected by his peers, whereas I have provided quotations from well regarded scholars endorsing his findings, and have explained that his study is still cited in well regarded journals to this very day.

>>17843449
>>17843455
The boy in this case spoke about this ordeal as an adult, and said that he actually enjoyed the sexual contact he had with the man, and that he was upset when his father killed him.

>>17843466
>The boy in this case spoke about this ordeal as an adult, and said that he actually enjoyed the sexual contact he had with the man, and that he was upset when his father killed him.
False, Yes Jody Plauche didn't want Daucet killed but he still wanted him behind bars and went on to become an advocate for sexual violence/abuse and to warn people about strangers getting to close to their kids. Doesn't sound like someone who enjoyed getting molested at all which you made it up that he enjoyed it. Eat shit.

>>17843466
>So are all the studies collated on Newgon, which you would know if you had read them. You are refusing to engage with any countervailing evidence.

Yeah because it is on newgon, you think I'm voluntarily going to that shit hole? A polemical pedophilia organization's wiki is the only source you have for your arguments, you are laughably overmatched.

>This is not a refutation of the studies presented.

Yeah it is, you are citing studies from an echo chamber, not actual current and accepted science.

>Can you provide evidence for this claim? The fact that the terminology of "adult-child sex" was not adopted is not proof that the conclusions of Rind's study have been rejected,

Yeah it does, because otherwise the confounding doesn't matter and there is no need to reclassify CSA.

>The boy in this case spoke about this ordeal as an adult, and said that he actually enjoyed the sexual contact he had with the man, and that he was upset when his father killed him.

Also you forgot the part where Jody Plauché become a sexual abuse awareness activist and started work as a sexual assault counselor in his adult life. He also described his dad as the "greatest dad of all time" in adulthood. As was the case with many cases of CSA, the victim initially is upset but comes to understand the grave nature of the abuse that was inflicted upon them and should their character be sufficient, they become the strongest advocates against the crimes.

>Haven't gone on /his/ in forever
>see threads like this
Well fuck me for being curious then

>>17843504
It's bad, Jannies do absolutely nothing to clean up anymore.

>>17843492
He said he liked it when the man performed oral sex on him and only didn't like it when he attempted to perform anal sex on him, and that he actually enjoyed being "abducted" because it was fun and they went to Disneyland. Even though the adult's actions in this situation were inappropriate, it was nowhere near as wrongful as people assume. He was also upset when his father shot him. I heard him say this in an interview.

He grew up in a deeply pedophobic society, where sexual acts between adults and children are viewed as the ultimate violation of social norms, which he assimilated as he reached maturity, and began to regard something he viewed previously as positive or benign as something negative. If you read the thread linked in the OP post, you can read about societies where sexual acts between adults and children are within the realm of acceptability, and in these societies, people who experience positive sexual experiences with adults as children do not undergo a transvaluation of these experiences when they mature. Society brings harm to individuals who had sexual experiences with adults as children by forcing them to view themselves as "victims". Anti-pedos harm children far more than pedophiles do.

>>17843499
>A polemical pedophilia organization's wiki is the only source you have for your arguments
Those studies are published in academic journals. The fact that they are collated on Newgon does not mean they are published by Newgon. Stop refusing to engage with any evidence which contradicts your claims.

>Yeah it does, because otherwise the confounding doesn't matter and there is no need to reclassify CSA.
Rind's study never compares voluntary adult-child sexual contacts with voluntary ones. I have never even claimed that it does. This has nothing to do with the results of his study, which you would know if you had read it. Thanks for continually confirming that you haven't even read these studies which you feel entitled to speak about.

>>17843504
>>17843510
>All images and discussion should pertain to the humanities: history, philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc.
This thread and topic have to do with philosophy (ethics), and anthropology. If you don't like this particular subject matter, you are free to click on any one of the Hitler and Jesus threads instead and read them.

>>17843504
This schizo basically popped up a couple of weeks ago and has made multiple threads like this already

>>17843517
>pedophilic apologism is somehow now philosophical and totally anthropological now
What a shit hole of a board then

>>17843522
Yes, it actually is, and always has been. This board has always allowed discussion of this topic, which you can ascertain yourself by searching through the archives. If this upsets you, there might be other websites more suitable for you to visit instead.

>>17843514
>Those studies are published in academic journals. The fact that they are collated on Newgon does not mean they are published by Newgon. Stop refusing to engage with any evidence which contradicts your claims.

Newgon only selects studies which align with its agenda, they are not going to have good sources because they are biased towards pedophilia.

>Rind's study never compares voluntary adult-child sexual contacts with voluntary ones. I have never even claimed that it does. This has nothing to do with the results of his study, which you would know if you had read it. Thanks for continually confirming that you haven't even read these studies which you feel entitled to speak about.

What? I was just saying his advocacy failed and the point of his study died with it. Are you now arguing that the confounding lies with voluntary vs non-voluntary contact? Because that's skew and most data sets contain both "consenting" and non-consenting children.

>>17843528
>Newgon only selects studies which align with its agenda
So you refuse to engage with any evidence which is contrary to your opinion?

>What? I was just saying his advocacy failed
This is irrelevant to the findings of his study.

>"Those sources were collated by a website which espouses a viewpoint I disagree with! I'm not going to engage with viewpoints I disagree with in this dispute!"

>>17843531
>So you refuse to engage with any evidence which is contrary to your opinion?

I'll engage with sources contrary to my opinion, just not if your source for them is newgon. I've engaged quite heavily with the Rind study and proven it to be bad science multiple times.

>This is irrelevant to the findings of his study.

No, if the confounding was sufficient or reflected a meaningful difference, language around CSA would have changed, it did not.

>>17843533
It's newgon anon, it would be the equivalent of me citing the flat earth wikipedia and insisting that you need to engage with my viewpoints. I realize you are delusional and way too invested in this, but you aren't exactly cracking heads here rhetorically.

>>17843514
>He said he liked it when the man performed oral sex on him and only didn't like it when he attempted to perform anal sex on him, and that he actually enjoyed being "abducted" because it was fun and they went to Disneyland
Yeah no shit this is literally classic case of grooming even worse because Jody was physically acted upon
>He was also upset when his father shot him. I heard him say this in an interview.
Yeah and then viewed him as a hero realizing his situation was fucked up. And went on to combat sexual abuse. Your point?
>and began to regard something he viewed previously as positive or benign as something negative
Damn having oral sex and attempted anal sex on a per-pubescent must be such a benign and positive experience very convenient especially when they are too immature to understand the implication and are easy to manipulate
> you can read about societies where sexual acts between adults and children are within the realm of acceptability
Those are usually underdeveloped almost agrarian societies that have whole different morality system that ass-backwards of cause they would fuck kids. You might as well go live with them
> people who experience positive sexual experiences with adults as children do not undergo a transvaluation of these experiences when they mature
How do you know?
>Society brings harm to individuals who had sexual experiences with adults as children by forcing them to view themselves as "victims".
I'm sure the trauma of being forced into fellatio and anal sex as a pre-pubescent is totally something you can walk away from clean and Anti-pedos are these demons that seek to harm children while pedophiles are these saints that will help these children

Blow your brains out with a double barrel

>>17843510
>>17843517
How would you actually combat this?

>>17843548
Pretty easily, locking/deleting these threads every time they are created will work as it seems to be mainly two guys from /cm/

>>17843552
Its just so fucking bizarre to have shit like this wrapped in a veil of "humanities" and "anthropology" I remember when people were talking about the life of early Mesopotamia and reading translations of Cuneiforms and it being benign to funny as shit

>>17843534
>I'll engage with sources contrary to my opinion, just not if your source for them is newgon
My source for them is not Newgon. Newgon is not a source, it collects a wide array of sources and collates them in one place. You are refusing to engage with any evidence that contradicts your opinion.

>No, if the confounding was sufficient or reflected a meaningful difference, language around CSA would have changed, it did not.
You can accept every single conclusion made in the Rind study, and still not support his proposal to differentiate between abusive and non-abusive adult-child sexual contacts in further research, as his study did not even compare voluntary and non-voluntary sexual contacts between adults and children. This was a suggestion made for further research made in the concluding remarks of his study, which was inflated by polemical accounts of the study, which you would know, had you actually read the study. Pic rel. is an internal memo from the APA regarding the study and how it had been distorted by the media.

>>17843543
Do you have any evidence for any of these assertions?

>>17843552
This thread doesn't violate board rules. Just because you are offended by the topic, doesn't mean it violates the rules.

>>17843560
This topic has always been discussed on /his/:
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/660949
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/1972583

>>17843560
Yeah those days are long gone, I am still not entirely sure this guy isn't just a shill given how he appears to be reading from a script with most of his replies, but that has been a big issue on 4chan since 2017 at the very least. I think something happened during the outage and they started coming for blue boards more aggressively, at least that was when he emerged from the /cm/ cave.

>>17843560
If only you could move your cursor to the [Catalog] button, and find another thread to post in... but alas, you are entirely unable to post in any of the other 150 threads for some reason, and instead have to complain about the thread you decided to click on...

>>17843569
>there exists a conspiracy of people employed to disagree with me on 4chan.org

>>17843570
>I DEMAND an echo chamber
Seething Pedo

>>17843564
>This thread doesn't violate board rules. Just because you are offended by the topic, doesn't mean it violates the rules.

It's an extremely low quality post

>You can accept every single conclusion made in the Rind study, and still not support his proposal to differentiate between abusive and non-abusive adult-child sexual contacts in further research, as his study did not even compare voluntary and non-voluntary sexual contacts between adults and children. This was a suggestion made for further research made in the concluding remarks of his study

No not really, I mean you can accept the conclusions but if the language didn't change then the confounding he identified was insufficient to warrant it and thus pretty much meaningless, especially for your argument which presupposes that CSA is not even abuse.

>My source for them is not Newgon. Newgon is not a source, it collects a wide array of sources and collates them in one place. You are refusing to engage with any evidence that contradicts your opinion.

Let me phrase it like this, get the actual published study, ideally full text but an abstract is ok, not a newgon screenshot, and try to ensure that the publishing date is modern (20010 or later) so it reflects the advances we have made in the field. It will automatically be disqualified if it was published in Paidika or other such pro-pedophile organizations for obvious reasons, recent Rind studies are not disqualified but will be torn down on a similar basis as the 98 one. Aim for a reputable publication and you'll get what you want.

>>17843588
2010*

>>17843560
The more thirdies that get access to the Internet the worse its going to get.

>>17843588
>No not really, I mean you can accept the conclusions
Yes, you can accept all the results of the study and not agree with his proposal to use alternative terminology in further research, as that was unrelated to the results of his study. Thanks for agreeing with me, but I suggest you actually read the study, as you seem confused. My argument also does not presuppose that CSA is not abuse. Your arguments in this thread, on the other hand, actually do presuppose that all sexual contact between adults and children is harmful.

>Let me phrase it like this, get the actual published study, ideally full text but an abstract is ok, not a newgon screenshot
You can find all of these studies in the screenshots provided >>17843419, >>17843279 and >>17842527.

>>17843601
Pedophile message boards were in the top 100 most popular websites in the 1990s when the internet was almost exclusively White Westerners and a handful of Japanese people.

>>17843611
None of those contain the full text, try again.

>Thanks for agreeing with me, but I suggest you actually read the study, as you seem confused. My argument also does not presuppose that CSA is not abuse.

Anon, you one million percent presuppose that CSA is not abuse, you wish to abolish AoC laws and have sex with any boy you'd like should he "consent" to it. It would not surprise me if you would rape them even by your own definitions, but as has been established, children have under developed decision make regions and lack the capacity to understand sex and its consequences. They are also explicitly harmed by it in pathological ways as discussed here.

>https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.771511/full

If the findings of Rind were sufficient or meaningful, the language surrounding CSA would have changed, it did not. This is because Rind could not produce evidence sufficient to prove that the contact could be classified as anything other than abuse, further and more current research has shown, meanwhile, the causal mechanisms by which children are harmed.

>>17843636
>None of those contain the full text
"ideally full text but an abstract is ok"

>If the findings of Rind were sufficient or meaningful, the language surrounding CSA would have changed, it did not
Not true, as his study did not even compare the outcomes of voluntary and non-voluntary sexual contacts between adults. Again, it was a minor suggestion for future research made in his concluding remarks. Stop arguing about it, you're wrong.

>>17840029 (OP)
In my opinion, it is wrong because children do not have the physical or material resources to refuse a suggestion to have sex. For such a suggestion to be even remotely tolerable, the child would have to be in a significantly more powerful position than the hypothetical adult who is sexually obsessed and decides to make that suggestion. Also, I do not live in a neighborhood with people like that, and this is not the kind of future society anyone should want.

>>17843655
They contain excerpts cut up into Wikipedia pages. Here is another study which supports my claim btw, it was a research review with a sample size of roughly 4 million, about as normal a distribution as you are going to get.

>https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30286-X/fulltext

>Stop arguing about it, you're wrong.

He suggested they should examine "consent" and its impacts, as it was maybe skewing sets. If the findings of the study were meaningful, then language and character of study around CSA would have changed in the near 3 decades since he published, it's strange that they haven't. Shouldn't future research have supported him if this was a generational study that unveiled a massive gap in researchers knowledge? The man is fraudulent and operates with a clear agenda given his association with pedophile advocacy groups, everyone accordingly decided that his findings did not lend any credibility to the idea that pedophilia should be reconsidered in academic though. I'm sorry this makes you so butt blasted, but really, you can only deny reality for so long.

>>17843659
No, that's not true. Children are entirely capable of rejecting sexual advances, just as they are capable of rejecting suggestions from adults to engage in a wide variety of other activities.

>>17843670
>If the findings of the study were meaningful
Uh-oh, looks like you've moved the goalposts again and started arguing a completely different position to your original one! You've gone from "the results of his study were rejected", to "...if the results of his study were accepted, they would change terminology", to "...if the results of his study were meaningful".

Thread recap:
>brings up scientific concepts which are irrelevant to the argument at hand to try to give his arguments verisimilitude: >>17842552
>doesn't actually read any of the links he spammed, evidenced by the fact that he doesn't even recognize that some of them aren't even studies, despite claiming they are: >>17843238
>claims that large data sets invalidate the need to control for confounding variables in studies: >>17843110
>lies about me claiming there was a conspiracy suppressing research on pedophilia: >>17843351
>claims that the majority of adult-child sex results in criminal prosecution, without providing evidence, even though this is patently false: >>17843235
>admits that his studies do not establish a causal relation between adult-child sex and harm, still uses them as evidence for some reason: >>17843110
>refuses to engage in any countervailing evidence to his position for the express reason the evidence is collated by people who disagree with his opinion: >>17843448
>complains that the jannies don't delete posts that upset his fee-fees
>claims there is a conspiracy of shills dedicated solely to disagreeing with him
>continually moves goalposts and changes arguments when defending them further becomes untenable

Every claim this schizo has made has been unequivocally, incontrovertibly refuted. This thread has been yet another epic win!

>>17843636
>They are also explicitly harmed by it in pathological ways as discussed here.
>https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.771511/full
>further and more current research has shown, meanwhile, the causal mechanisms by which children are harmed
"I mentioned the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in the middle of my fallacious argument, therefore the argument is true because it's more sciencey and shit!"

>>17843727
>>>17843659 (You) #
>No, that's not true. Children are entirely capable of rejecting sexual advances, just as they are capable of rejecting suggestions from adults to engage in a wide variety of other activities

I won't agree with you. Children are under influence like women's from Epstein list or police harassment victims.

>>17843378
>Posting anime drawings of little boys in a thread about pedophilia advocacy.

Sure man there's 0 implied sexual content in your choice of images.

>>17843827
Simply not true, and examining actual adult-child sexual relationships and the dynamics which underlie them refutes this notion. The following are excerpts from Theo Sandfort's "Boys on their contacts with men: A study of sexually expressed friendships":
>The author writes that even though non-pedagogic friendships between adult and children are socially unacceptable, the boys and men in this study were able to conduct them. Contrary to stereotype, which holds that adult-child sexual relationships can only occur with bribes, interviews with the boys revealed that reality was much more complex. The boys often took some initiative toward establishing these relationships. The boys met the men through other boys, through their parents, or through other pedophiles. Sometimes they met at public places. Sometimes it was the man who initiated further contact; sometimes it was the boy. In a few cases, the boy went through great lengths to find the man. Two boys met the men through their mothers’ involvement in the Dutch Society for Sexual Reform. According to the author, the friendship usually developed over time. One of the reasons the boys developed and maintained these relationships was because they enjoyed doing things with the men. The man and the boy had similar hobbies, or spent time together playing sports or games, eating meals or snacks, going to movies or amusement parks, or going on vacations. The boys took great pleasure in these activities, and said that giving attention was what most typified the man's behavior. The attention was often expressed physically, as in cuddling. Trust, loyalty, and friendship developed between the man and boy. The boys often described the man's home as friendly, relaxed, and fun. They felt at ease there, and felt they had more freedom than at home.

>>17843832
>Many boys said the men understood them and that they could talk with the man about everything—their worries and problems—and receive emotional support. One boy described his relationship as a "special bond." The boys also felt they could learn from the men—develop a skill or talent, learn about society and life, or learn about sex. A few boys said they felt neglected by their parents, but most described positive relationships with parents, saying they got along well with them and could talk with them about their problems. Thus, the author concluded that it is incorrect to assume that all children who enter into pedophile relationships do so due to neglect or other problems with parents. However, there were a few situations where parents were divorced, unwed, or unable or unwilling to provide for their children's material or emotional needs, and the man provided "a welcome supplement….In such relationships the dependence of the younger partner is greater. As a result a strong interpersonal bond can develop between the two." On the other hand, in the homes where the environment seemed more positive, there was more chance that the parents were aware of the sexual aspect of their son's relationship, which thus became more integrated into the boy's home life. In these cases, the relationship had “a kind of 'surplus' significance.”

>>17843833
>In about one-third of the relationships, sex occurred at the first meeting; in another third, it occurred shortly after the first meeting; and in the other third it occurred after a month or more, when meetings had become frequent. Thus, in some but not other relationships, sexual intimacy developed out of the relationship. The men and the boys did not always agree on who took the initiative toward the first sexual contact. In almost half of the cases, the boy said the man took the initiative. Five of the boys couldn't remember who initiated sex, four boys said they themselves initiated it, two said it was mutual, and three said the initiative came from a third party. The boys who did take the initiative appeared to have already had sexual experience with other pedophiles, knew of another boy in a pedophile relationship, or knew about the pedophile feelings of the man. A number of boys pointed to their own sexual inexperience when they said that "of course" the man took the initiative. After the first sexual encounter, both men and boys indicated the boys took a more active role in further sexual interaction. Initiative was usually mutual or alternated. When asked who initiated sexual activity, a 12 year old boy responded, "Well, sometimes one of us, sometimes the other. Yes, and sometimes he wants it and I don't, so then we don't do it. Mostly I'm the first one to begin."

>>17843834
>The author wrote,

>These findings do not support the common assumption of power abuse in pedophile relations...The idea that the boys were unable to recognize power abuse is quite untenable, for they were obviously able to spot it in other adults with whom they interacted...From what the boys said, it was apparent that crude abuse of power simply did not occur. However, there could be situations in which a kind of subtle misuse of power could arise. (pp. 93-94) According to the author, power and inequality play a role in every kind of human interaction—among adults and between adults and children in non-sexual relationships. However, it is true that the adult is bigger, stronger, more knowledgeable, and higher in status. Thus, if the child is emotionally and materially dependent on the adult, the power difference is very large. This is one reason why incest is quite different from pedophilia. The power differential is less in the case of pedophilia; if the child wishes to end contact with the pedophile, he can simply stay away. The author writes that power is rarely absolute. It is limited by the capacity of both people, and in many relationships, one person has more power with respect to some things and the other person more power with respect to other things. The division of power develops through negotiation. Other writers have claimed that what is important is how much each person profits from the relationship.

>>17843836
>The author makes the following policy recommendations:

>Except on the basis of violation of moral standards, there was nothing in what these boys said that would justify punishment. …[The law] should be so drawn up that the kind of sexual contacts which these 25 boys experienced would fall outside of their application. At the same time the law should make it possible, wherever there is clear abuse of power and if there is no other available option, for justice to intervene. The present laws form more of a threat to boys who enjoy friendships and sexual relations such as are described in this book than a protection, and some of these boys were quite aware of this. Any new or revised legislation must provide protection for young people against sexual abuse. At the same time it must not obstruct their right to sexual self-determination.

How can anyone be against this? The Greeks were right.

>>17843832
Do you think actresses or actors at castings perform sex scenes of their own free will.

Even though I am a communist, I grew up with catalytic moral standards, so the attitudes you mentioned are alien to me.

>>17843834
Oops, forgot the following excerpt:
>The men said many of the boys enjoyed the fact that sex gave them pleasure, excitement, adventure, and an opportunity to experiment and learn. Eight men, however, said that the boys were seeking pleasure through physical affection (caressing, cuddling, being held, and being treated tenderly) moreso than through sex. According to the men, eight of the boys were seeking security, warmth, and attention. Three said the boy experienced an affirmation of his sense of self. Three men said the boys enjoyed sex because of the friendship or love they experienced through it. The author commented that similar motives can be found in non-pedophile sexual contact. When the boys were asked what feelings they associated with sexual activity, they most commonly expressed pleasurable ones such as "nice," "happy," "free," "safe," and "satisfied." Less common were "proud" and "strong." They described sexual activity as "cozy," "really wonderful," “great,” and "expressing your love physically and emotionally."

>>17840029 (OP)
>why is sex between bees and flower buds wrong?
Are atheists really that fucking retarded?

>>17842496
I'd rather be the blackest gorilla nigger than a pedo. Hopefully someone can pinpoint who you are and kill you when you think you are at your safest.
You do not deserve safe spot and God willing will never have them.

>>17843840
Why can't you pedos keep your dicks in your pants and wait until the kid is 18?

>another day
>another pedo defense thread featuring a faggot boy fucker
You sicken me. All NAMBLA freaks should just be killed.

>>17840029 (OP)
>Someone posted a thread here a while back where he listed a bunch of cultures where children have sex with adults, and none of the descriptions make it seem like anyone, including the children, have any objection to it. It's usually just viewed as a fun, harmless activity.
none longer than a paragraph, none explicit in parameter of harm, none discussing it's source's expertise, none dated and none with any implication of the scale you'd need to contradict the mountains of evidence saying pedophilia is wrong in good faith
>So if children want to engage in these acts of their own volition, like they clearly do in all these cultures listed, and it doesn't harm them, then how is it morally wrong?
>duhhh why is the child with underdeveloped reasoning skills making bad choices
i would mention all the other terrible side effects e.g. early birth but it's not like any of that'll convince you not to make yet another thread in a week garbling about how jews are stopping you from sexually exploiting children

>>17844190
>i would mention all the other terrible side effects e.g. early birth
It's actually hard for young teens to get pregnant, fertility isn't that high yet and it gradually increases until peaking in the woman's early 20s.

>>17843873
>kill [the most persecuted criminals on Earth] brutally! let me describe how grotesque their deaths need to be so that they learn a lesson
you're not superman you sperg. log off

>>17844343
>kill [the most persecuted criminals on Earth] brutally!
>oh noes someone think of the poor child predators!!!!1!
people who prey upon the innocent and the helpless should become literal prey themselves

Problem is people think "pedophile" = "40 year old white guy who kidnaps cute little girl from park" and of course completely disregard women pedos or nonwhite pedos or anything else.

>>17844364
yes thank you for your service sir, kill all child predators from hyderabad india
respect

>>17840029 (OP)
its sexual gatekeeping.
Its unjust and silly.
Obviously sex with people who can not breed is wrong and people arent actually attracted to children.
They are attracted to sexual beings, which people become at 12-13 years old.
>but development!
well development is a tricky concept because we can say someone with three PHDs and an IQ of 155 is much more developed than someone with a minor learning disability who dropped out of 9th grade.
Should we forbid them from getting married or having sex?
No. That's stupid.
A woman with an IQ of 95 shouldnt be forbidden from marrying a man with an IQ of 138.
Agree?
Yet that is a serious cognitive difference a difference much greater than say a 15 year old girl and a 25 year old man who both have an IQ of 120.
>its about experience
this wouldnt go well with normies if we took this to its logical conclusion.
I do think it would be justifiable to say virgins and non-virgins shouldnt have sex, that only virgins should engage in sex with other virgins.
But normies would never have this because normies want to fuck everything and everyone. But if "experience" was a determining factor then we would have to forbid the sexually inexperienced from sexing the sexually experienced.
Sorry Chad but defloration carries a legal penalty now (unless youre also a virgin) - watch the degenerates come out of the woodwork.
>what if a woman is barren she cant breed can she still have sex?
special case and she has a sexually mature body.
an 8 year old does not.

>>17844379
Pretty sure everyone knows and hates the Moslem Paki rape crews in Yookay, anon, except for Moslems.

>>17844465
and every leftist, the same with fempedos, pretty much the only depiction of pedophiles in the media is a white male, despite white men having the lowest offending rates, despite the US considering semites and many hispanics to be white skewing the statistics

not even sure if black africans are genetically pedophiles like Indians, they seem to like those fat asses, but I guess they are so low IQ and rape so much it spills over

east asians are pedophiles of course but not quite as rapacious

south asians are by far the most inveterate pedophiles, gypsyjeets long had a reputation for kidnapping children

the very fact that pedophilia is seen as wrong is due to white people, pedophilia is a swarthy thing, a brown thing, one of many curses brought to evropa, beginning with der jude and continuing to this day along with epstein and the rest

>>17844507
Blacks and Mexicans don't recognize any age of consent, lol. Their girls are all molested starting at age 8 and fucked at age 11 usually by a cousin or uncle. Boys all lose their virginity at 10 to an older teenage girl, aunt, babysitter, cousin etc.

>the very fact that pedophilia is seen as wrong is due to white people
Exception to the rule is Slavs who also dgaf about sexualizing children.

>>17843727
>uh-oh, looks like you've moved the goalposts again and started arguing a completely different position to your original one!

It was exactly the position for I had been arguing for the entire thread, that the Rind study was meaningless for determining whether or not CSA should be reclassified and the fact that further research is non existent is pretty good evidence your thesis is dead in the water.

Anon you get BTFO'd pretty routinely, each summary in your "thread recap" was you having it very gently conveyed to you why raping children isn't okay. You have very intentionally misread posts, ignored data, and generally chimped the fuck out when ever your insane and baseless ideas were challenged.

>>17843766

>"I mentioned the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in the middle of my fallacious argument, therefore the argument is true because it's more sciencey and shit!"

Well actually it's the oxidative stress and methylation of certain candidate genes that are primarily the vectors by which certain Psychobiological outcomes are seen in victims of CSA, but you seem to think that a linear correlation coefficient is just a Jewish trick, so I figured this was a bit beyond your cognitive abilities.

>>17844507
>not even sure if black africans are genetically pedophiles like Indians, they seem to like those fat asses, but I guess they are so low IQ and rape so much it spills over
african blacks - just, generally every sub-saharan niggers - used to fuck little girls and boys because they thought that prepubescent people could not get AIDS
it was a huge - yet very hush-hush, if you didn,t know where to look - scandal back in the AIDS scare, and the practice continue to this day in certain country. Last I heard it was one of the worst issues in Kenya.

>>17844399
I would venture a guess that no man with an IQ of 138 would be meaningfully attracted to a woman with an IQ of 95, especially in the case of marriage. A 15 year old woman might have an IQ of 120 but her ability to make and understand decisions is significantly hampered by her young age and so functionally that 120 only really applies rote pattern recognition. This is where wisdom and intelligence sort of fork off from one another and really lack of wisdom is the concern of people who tell you not to rape children.

>>17843832
So the sample size of this group was people involved with sexual advocacy, all the boys appeared to be homosexual, and the boys were either put in contact with the men through 1) other abused boys 2) other pedophiles or 3) through their parents? I think we can pretty handily establish that these are not exactly positive situations for a boy to be in, I do not know any loving parent who would allow such conditions to emerge in their child and not only ignore it but even foster it in them in some cases.

>>17843836
The conclusions of this book (?) being put aside, is there any further research which supports his findings? Any at all? Is this just the musings of one man?

>be me
>be 8 years old
>my 13 yo brother told me "Hey, wanna play a little game? It's called 'gay'." (yes, that's what he called it. just "gay"). "I've played it with all my friends."
>shoves me to the floor, yanks my shorts down, and fucks me in the ass
>he did it to me at least once more that summer but my memories of it are hazy
>flash forward to today
>I'm gay and live with an awesome partner but I'm still afraid of my brother

>>17844379
they don't disregard women pedos they think somehow it's ok and just making a boy into a man."

>>17844190
Teen pregnancies are healthy, actually.

>>17845116
the main reason for this is that teenage girls have unstable hormones which can induce pregnancy complications. the hormonal levels begin to stabilize by 19.

>>17844663
Sexual relations between adults and minors are reported just as positively as sexual relations between adults, by the younger participant. Especially homosexual ones.
>"Rind and Welter (2014) examined first postpubertal coitus using the Kinsey sample, finding that reactions were just as positive, and no more negative, among minors with adults compared to minors with peers and adults with adults. In the present study, we examined first postpubertal male same-sex sexual experiences in the Kinsey same-sex sample (i.e., participants mostly with extensive postpubertal same-sex behavior), comparing reactions across the same age categories. These data were collected between 1938 and 1961 (M year: 1946). Minors under age 18 years with adults (M ages: 14.0 and 30.5, respectively) reacted positively (i.e., enjoyed the experience "much") often (70 %) and emotionally negatively (e.g., fear, disgust, shame, regret) infrequently (16 %). These rates were the same as adults with adults (M ages: 21.2 and 25.9, respectively): 68 and 16 %, respectively. Minors with peers (M ages: 13.3 and 13.8, respectively) reacted positively significantly more often (82 %) and negatively nominally less often (9 %). Minors with adults reacted positively to intercourse (oral, anal) just as often (69 %) as to outercourse (body contact, masturbation, femoral) (72 %) and reacted emotionally negatively significantly less often (9 vs. 25 %, respectively). For younger minors (≤14) with adults aged 5-19 years older, reactions were just as positive (83 %) as for minors with peers within 1 year of age (84 %) and no more emotionally negative (11 vs. 7 %, respectively). Results are discussed in relation to findings regarding first coitus in the Kinsey sample and to the cultural context particular to Kinsey's time."
Rind, B. (2016). "Reactions to First Postpubertal Male Same-Sex Sexual Experience in the Kinsey Sample: A Comparison of Minors With Peers, Minors With Adults, and Adults With Adults,"

>>17845147
>"Felson et al. (2019) used a large-scale nationally representative Finnish sample of sixth and ninth graders to estimate the population prevalence of negative subjective reactions to sexual experiences between minors under age 18 and persons at least 5 years older and between minors and peer-aged partners for comparison. They then accounted for these reactions in multivariate analysis based on contextual factors. The present study argued that focusing exclusively on negative reactions short-changed a fuller scientific understanding. It analyzed the full range of reactions in the same sample, focusing on positive reactions. For reactions in retrospect, boys frequently reacted positively to minor-older sex (68%, n=280 cases), on par with positive reactions to boy-peer sex (67%, n=1510). Girls reacted positively to minor-older sex less often (36%, n=1047) and to girl-peer sex half the time (48%, n=1931). In both minor-older and minor-peer sex, rates of positive reactions were higher for boys vs. girls, adolescents vs. children, when partners were friends vs. strangers or relatives, with intercourse vs. lesser forms of sexual intimacy, with more frequent sex, and when not coerced. Boys reacted positively more often with female than male partners. In minor-older sex, partner age difference mattered for girls but not boys, and the minor’s initiating the sex (14% for girls, 46% for boys) produced equally high rates of positive reactions. Most of these factors remained significant in multivariate analysis. The frequency of positive reactions, their responsiveness to context, the similarity in reaction patterns with minor-peer sex, and the generalizability of the sample were argued to contradict the trauma view often applied to minor-older sex, holding it to be intrinsically aversive irrespective of context."

>>17845153
>Note: Rind's analysis also identified that boys initiated 46% of their encounters with significantly older people (recalling 82% of such experiences positively), and likewise 14% for girls (79% positive recall). For girls, rates of positive reactions increased from noncontact sex to sexual touching to sexual intercourse in both minor-peer and minor-older sex, with similar rates at each level of intimacy. For intercourse, most girls reacted positively, whether with peers (57%) or older partners (63%). On the other hand, for non-contact sex, few reacted positively, whether with peers (14%) or older partners (8%). Era-related degradation in quality of experience was also indicated, suggesting moral values were to blame for some negative subjective recall. Girls with older partners reacted more negatively (46% vs. 31%) and less positively (26% vs. 47%) in the 2008–2013 surveys than in the 1988 survey. For boys, however, no signifcant diferences occurred.
Rind, B. (2022). "Reactions to Minor-Older and Minor-Peer Sex as a Function of Personal and Situational Variables in a Finnish Nationally Representative Student Sample",

>>17845146
That is true however they actually can't get pregnant as reliably as adult women as fertility in young teenagers isn't that high yet. It gradually increases until peaking in the early 20s.

>>17845048
Not all women are supermodel tier. Imagine being molested by a Lena Dunham lookalike; you'd be mentally broken for life.

>>17845147
>>17845153
>>17845159

Rind is discredited on the basis that he is Rind and not exactly a reliable resource given his ties with pedophilia advocacy and previous errors/bias in his research. His Finnish studies have been rejected on similar bases as his other ones and the Felson study is actual on victimization and not supportive of your claims in its conclusions.

Here is a full text study which offers interesting counterpoints

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213421004324

>>17845171
>Rind is discredited on the basis that he is Rind
No he hasn't, you just don't like him because he comes to conclusions you disagree with.

>Here is a full text study which offers interesting counterpoints
Completely tangential study which is unrelated to the topic being discussed in the posted studies.

>>17845171
At this point all this guy is doing is claiming "nooo the science disagrees with your post" without qualification, and then spams a link to a random study which he hasn't even read. The absolute state of antis.

>>17843522
>jerk eachother off over fantasies of killing brown people
>woah hold on man cunny is too far
This is what you get when you praise reprobates and mistake lack of morals for le free thinking.

>>17845177
Yes Rind is mostly viewed as a joke in the academic world, sort of like a Graham Hancock but he has less JRE time clocked. Also the study isn't tangential, it actually explores something you might find interesting. Previously you asserted there was confounding on the basis that adjusting for home life would create weak association with CSA and later harm, this study argues that a dysfunctional home life is practically a perquisite to CSA ever occurring.

None of the studies I have posted have been tangential actually, you still have refused to interface with anyone that concretely demonstrate the harm caused by CSA, I suspect because that undermines whether or not "consent" matters.

>>17845185
>Risk of sexual abuse is positively related to exposure to older people, susceptibility to deviant influence, and the target's value to the offender. A full understanding of risk factors requires a consideration of the victims' characteristics and their compliant behavior.

>Opportunity is as important in understanding sexual abuse of adolescents as it is in understanding other types of victimization. Contact with offenders in the absence of guardians creates opportunities for abuse. Adolescents are more likely to be sexually abused (and more likely to have sex with their peers) if they socialize with older people, if they go out at night, and if their parents do not monitor their social relationships.

>>17845189
>Yes Rind is mostly viewed as a joke in the academic world
Proof? You haven't posted any evidence of this assertion despite claiming it throughout the entire thread.

>Also the study isn't tangential
It does not assess the outcome which the studies you are responding to do, which were focused on subjective reactions.

>this study argues that a dysfunctional home life is practically a perquisite to CSA ever occurring
"Adolescents who had older friends and parents who did not monitor their social relationships were at greater risk of sexual abuse and peer encounters"
Yes, it has been long known that "CSA" status is confounded with poor home environment, especially in the modern West where these relationships are viewed as a violation of social norms. Regardless, this study presupposes that these relationships between adults and minors are "abuse", despite the majority of them being described in positive terms, by the younger participant themselves as mentioned here: >>17845153

>you still have refused to interface with anyone that concretely demonstrate the harm caused by CSA,
Actually, I have been refuting this notion the entire thread.

>>17845196
>teens that have less overbearing parents are more likely to have sex
Wow, truly a groundbreaking revelation.

>>17840029 (OP)
All these cultures are some papuan tier shitheles. It's fast life history strategycoded.

>>17845189
He has no credibility because his study approved of NAMLAshit.

>>17845211
Maybe you should give up your reservations, and actually read something published by NAMBLA? You might learn something.

>>17845201
Well the responses to his 98 study were quite scathing and he hasn't published anything of note since despite still publishing quite a bit. Most responses to him accusing others of confounding or other mistakes have been dismissed handily.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11726067/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17521995/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11726068/

I can list more if you'd like but these studies should give you plenty of time to read.


>Yes, it has been long known that "CSA" status is confounded with poor home environment, especially in the modern West where these relationships are viewed as a violation of social norms.

The study actually argues that a poor home life is essentially a prerequisite for childhood abuse; i.e you won't get abused if you have loving parents that protect you. This means that all points you have brought up about confounding are null and void, since research has shown these two are now intrinsically related.

>Actually, I have been refuting this notion the entire thread

Have you? Would you mind explaining the pathways by which oxidative stress and the methylation of particular candidate genes does not occur in cases of CSA?

>>17845213
which apparently is that it's ok for 45 year old men to fuck 11 year old boys asses

>>17845224
Ideally they do not want any lower ceiling on the age. I have seen him argue for groping and fondling of boys as young as 5, the pictures he posts often have boys of that age in them so we know what he masturbates to at the very least.

the organized pedo movement has always been mainly gay-driven going back to the 70s

>>17845232
What about all the looneytoonarians who want to legalize fully automatic weapons and abolish AOC laws so they can have a harem of loli brides?

>>17845220
>Well the responses to his 98 study were quite scathing
Those criticisms have been addressed, and found to be invalid, as the Rind study has been independently replicated taking them into account and finds the same outcomes:
>Research conducted during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s consistently reported widely accepted negative outcomes associated with child sexual abuse. In 1998 Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman conducted a meta-analysis challenging the four most often reported correlates of child sexual abuse. The present study attempted to reexamine the four main objectives of the Rind et al. (see record 1998-04232-002) study, correcting for methodological and statistical problems identified by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001). The current meta-analysis supported the findings by Rind et al. (1998) in that child sexual abuse was found to account for 1% of the variance in later psychological outcomes, whereas family environment accounted for 5.9% of the variance
Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (2005). Child sexual abuse: A replication of the meta-analytic examination of child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).

>>17845220
>The study actually argues that a poor home life is essentially a prerequisite for childhood abuse
No it doesn't, it claims it puts you at a "greater risk", not that it's a prerequisite. Learn to read.

>Would you mind explaining the pathways by which oxidative stress and the methylation of particular candidate genes
Reductionism does not validate poorly conducted studies which have methodological and conceptual flaws.

>>17845237
>The overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical, and support the claim made by Rind et al. that child sexual abuse is not typically associated with intense harm in a college population.

>>17845027
I was almost ass raped at 10 by my best friend a year older than me.

>we'd been friends since kindergarten
>he was a totally normal kid until he was about 11
>one day we're in the basement at his place
>he shoves me to the floor, pulls my shorts down, and starts trying to fuck my ass
>I was too terrified to say anything so I just kind of froze like a deer in the headlights
>this lasted about 3 minutes until I could hear my dad's voice calling to me
>he could get real sore if I wasn't home exactly on time so I got up and left
>I stopped hanging out with that kid after that
>he still lives and works on the other side of town from me

>>17845224
The majority of sexual relations between men and boys do not involve penetration:
>Prof. van der Kwast, a Dutch psychiatrist, said it was wrong to reproach a child-lover with confronting a child prematurely with adult sexuality, for it is the adult who comes down to the level of the child rather than vice versa. He believed psychiatrists should better be concerned about the infantilism of a man satisfying himself with such incomplete activities. (Kwast 1968,p.55)
>Wrote about boy-lovers: "The emphasis is upon giving pleasure to the boy, perhaps to the exclusion of the tutor's own sexual satisfaction." (Geiser 1979,p.83)
>Pieterse investigated 11 adult men who had sex with small boys, limited to kissing, fondling and masturbation. Seven of them experienced orgasm while doing this to the child. (Pieterse1982I-17)
>Even in contacts which have resulted in criminal prosecution, where one would expect a higher incidence, "advanced" techniques are still relatively rare. In statistics from the German Federal Republic, vaginal and anal intercourse occurred in only 4 % of all "indecent assaults" on children. (Brongersma,p.381)
>Reported that in 71 criminal cases involving boys, there was only one instance of anal intercourse. (Wegner 1963,p.23,53)
>Summarizing 169 criminal trials, reported that in only 3.6 % did the boy suck the man's penis, in 0.6 % was anal intercourse attempted on the boy and in 3 % performed. (Gerbener 1966,p.32)
>"handling the child's genitals plays the chief part, frequently because the offender can himself obtain sexual gratification only through inducing sexual excitement in the child and watching this excitement." (Albert Moll)

>>17845237
The Rind study's arguments of confounding being sufficient enough to reclassify contact as not abusive in certain cases were insufficient in the reproduction. More modern research has shown too that familial dysfunction and CSA appear to be directly linked and not exactly separate variables, which makes a lot of sense. Also Rind never responded to the Whittenburg study, and you haven't explained why either Dallam or Ondersma's conclusions were faulty, because Rind's response is quite pathetic.

>no it doesn't, it claims it puts you at a "greater risk", not that it's a prerequisite. Learn to read

Familial dysfunction is increasingly becoming an explanatory variable for the occurrence of CSA in more modern research and the event of CSA is regarded as a traumatic event for the family as shown in this study

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30206471/

>Reductionism does not validate poorly conducted studies which have methodological and conceptual flaws.

Reductionism? This is granularity, on what basis do you assume these studies were conducted with poor methodology?

>>17845249
Well yes an adult man sodomizing a little boy would almost immediately cause severe physical damage barring "edge" cases of maturity or lack there of from the adult rapist. I'm sure that's not a worry for you, given your absolutely microscopic penis.

>>17845253
>The Rind study's arguments of confounding being sufficient enough to reclassify contact as not abusive in certain cases were insufficient in the reproduction
This has nothing to do with the results of his study. His study has been replicated twice, and both replications supported his results.

>you haven't explained why either Dallam or Ondersma's conclusions were faulty
Because Rind's study was independently replicated, taking into account their criticisms, with the authors of the replication concluding:
>The overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical, and support the claim made by Rind et al. that child sexual abuse is not typically associated with intense harm in a college population.

>Familial dysfunction is increasingly becoming an explanatory variable for the occurrence of CSA in more modern research
Which does not preclude family dysfunction from being a confounder, despite you claiming this various times throughout the thread for some odd reason.

>as shown in this study
You haven't read this study, you're just spamming more links once again to pretend that these studies support your arguments.

>on what basis do you assume these studies were conducted with poor methodology?
Read >>17842527

>>17845257
>offered evidence to refute claim
>erm you have a micropenis!!!
The absolute state of antis.

>>17845295
>Which does not preclude family dysfunction from being a confounder

It does though, if they are related variables they cannot confound each other. You rely on a mythical case of a loving caring household where the parents offer up their children to pedophiles. This does not exist and also since the variables are now related to each other, this would produce skew not confounding, and we have already addressed why that is not a concern. Also you have no idea what the methodology was for any of the studies you have categorically rejected, precisely because you haven't read them. You still haven't explained why the Whittenburg or other refutations are wrong, because the replication is not friendly to your thesis.

>>17845295
It's funny to call you a small dicked pedophile faggot because it's just funny, but also in all likelihood it is 100% accurate, with the only assumption being that you have a small penis. I imagine you chose little boys precisely because they would not recognize how freakishly small your penis actually is.

>>17845304
>if they are related variables they cannot confound each other
Except home environment is not a direct cause of "CSA". Not a single one of the studies you have posted has supported your assertion that home environment is the direct cause of "CSA", they have only stated that it increases the likelihood. You have misconstrued statements made in these papers to support your insane, novel argument.

>this would produce skew not confounding
It's confounding.

>You rely on a mythical case of a loving caring household where the parents offer up their children to pedophiles
Adult-child sexual contacts occur among children who come from a vast array of home environments. Not all children who have sexual contacts with adults come from poor home environments, the two can be measured independently, and studies which do find that home environment is far more predictive of negative outcomes than "CSA" status.

>Also you have no idea what the methodology was for any of the studies you have categorically rejected
I have offered valid critiques of the methodology of these studies throughout the thread, and any interested reader can see an in-depth critique of these methodological flaws present in these studies in this review here: >>17842527

>>17845311
>you have a small penis
Nice argument.

Reminder that this schizo's claims that the results of Rind et al. have been rejected are completely baseless and rely on selectively posting critiques of the study, which have actually been rejected themselves. He also claims that the results of the study have been rejected because the field of psychology did not adopt alternative terminology suggested for further research in the concluding remarks of Rind's study, but this is irrelevant to the findings of the study, despite how much importance he wants to assign to it.
>Passed rigorous peer review process for publication by the APA in the first place.
>Study reviewed by expert in statistical analysis, finding that it meets standards, according to APA internal memo: >>17843564
>Study refused for review by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as they found no reason to doubt the peer review process which lead to it being published.
>Critiques of the study exhaustively refuted by Rind and his co-authors in various papers, which can be read on sci-hub.
>Study independently replicated taking into account these critiques, authors of replication concluding, "The overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical, and support the claim made by Rind et al. that child sexual abuse is not typically associated with intense harm in a college population." >>17845237
>Study replicated again recently by Daly, N. R. (2021), confirming results of study, "These results suggest that based on CSA status, a college sample does not exhibit significant deficits in psychological functioning"
>Outcomes of study generally accepted in the field of psychology as valid: >>17843419
>Study still cited to this very day in papers being published, accepting results of study as valid (see Google scholar).

He is likely hearing voices telling him "Rind et al. has been refuted!", considering how disconnected from reality his claims on this particular study are. He has probably missed his routine haloperidol injection.

>>17845353
>Except home environment is not a direct cause of "CSA".

>Adult-child sexual contacts occur among children who come from a vast array of home environments.

Yeah the 2021 Felson study pretty clearly drew a strong association between familial dysfunction and CSA. The confounding argued for by Rind has been shown by later research to actually be the conditions which allow for CSA to occur, we now know that there is no confounding and boys that are raped by people like you are pretty much exclusively from broken homes. This is because CSA isn't an act independent from abuse, it is a species of it, you continue to insist that it has some other ideal expression but this is never shown to be the case when we examine the psychobiological outcomes independently or survey absolutely massive portions of survivors. The rape of a child is the failing or absence of a parental figure/protection, it is an opportunity based crime.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30286-X/fulltext (Sample Size)
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.771511/full (Biological pathways)


>I have offered valid critiques of the methodology

You have no offered any critiques of methodology, you have posted screenshots of newgon which are not at all concerned with the studies listed and and "argued" that they all made the same methodological mistake as indirectly mentioned in a wiki entry from a polemical organization. This is not an argument nor is your evidence sufficient, the fact that I haven't been hard on you for this is because you are very evidently unwell and incapable of reasoning these things out by yourself. It was my mistake to forgive you for you stupidity, but if you do not meaningfully interact with the multiple studies I have posted demonstrating, the associations, causes, and impacts of CSA, then I see no further reason to try and debate with you.

>>17845485
>Yeah the 2021 Felson study pretty clearly drew a strong association between familial dysfunction and CSA
Association. This is not the same as claiming that it is the cause of. Stop conflating the two.

>The confounding argued for by Rind has been shown by later research to actually be the conditions which allow for CSA to occur
>The rape of a child is the failing or absence of a parental figure/protection, it is an opportunity based crime
You have not presented any evidence for this assertion. None of the studies you have posted have supported this claim. Regardless, these are yet more dishonest statements which refuses to accept the possibility that voluntary adult-child sexual relations exist, which does not assist a proper understanding of this phenomenon.

>You have no offered any critiques of methodology
I have. You have refused to engage with these critiques.

>but if you do not meaningfully interact with the multiple studies I have posted demonstrating
I have been engaging with and critiquing the studies you have been posting the entire thread. You have continually ignored every single study which I have posted in this thread, not engaging with a single one for petty reasons. For example:

You refused to engage with evidence here >>17845171, >>17842478, claiming "Rind is discredited", despite it evidently being the case that he is not, as I point out here: >>17845456.

You refuse to engage with studies which were published in accredited scientific journals, because they were collated by an organization which holds opinions that you disagree with, essentially you explicitly state that you refuse to engage with any evidence which comes from an opposing viewpoint, which is indicative of your total lack of intellectual honesty: >>17843528 >>17843499 >>17843448 >>17843312

Maybe you should actually read some of these studies instead of refusing to do so for petty reasons? You might learn something.

>>17845518
>You have not presented any evidence for this assertion.

Yes he did, in one of the posts you linked later in the post >>17845171

>reee why can't I ruin a child's innocence anymore
I am also upset about laws that refrain mobs from killing people like OP, but for the greater good it should be so.

>>17845545
The only real solution for these people is a bullet in the skull. They have no ability to change or understand why they are harmful, any performance they give to the contrary is just that, a performance.

>>17845555
holy kek, check'd with quads of truth

>>17845540
>Adolescents who had older friends and parents who did not monitor their social relationships were at greater risk of sexual abuse and peer encounters.
This does not support his claim that a poor family environment is the cause of sexual activities between adults and children, it only supports the claim that poor family environment is associated with it, not that it is causative. He is misrepresenting these studies to try to make a very particular claim, so that he can deny the need to control for an important confounding variable, likely because he knows that studies which do control for this confounding variable find that home environment is far more predictive of negative outcomes than "CSA" status.

The claim he is making is a highly novel one, which is not held by any of the authors of the papers he has posted, and he has been reduced to making this argument in this thread as a last resort, as all his other arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Note, I do not reject this claim on the basis of its novelty, he has just not provided any evidence or proper argumentation which supports his case.

>>17845555
You are free to present evidence that adult-child sex is harmful. I am perfectly willing to engage with it.

and then you scream and whine about pedo troons

>>17845571
>Our study focuses on sexual abuse (SA) by people outside the adolescent's family. These are the most frequent types of sexual offenses against adolescents (Felson et al., 2019). We omit offenses committed by family members because such incidents are relatively rare in the data, and because the opportunities that put youth at risk for incest are likely to be different from other forms of SA. We focus on factors that impact adolescent vulnerability by increasing their exposure to likely offenders, their susceptibility to deviant influence, and their value to the offender.

>Analyses were based on a nationally representative sample of 24,823 Finnish youth who responded to questions about their sexual encounters with peers and with someone outside their family who was at least five years older.

>A key strength of our study is its reliance on a large, representative sample of adolescents. Prior research on sexual abuse has typically been based on samples of college students and older adults. The incidents in our study occurred within two years of the survey which minimizes problems with recall. Adolescents are likely to remember recent routine activities better than older respondents who are asked to describe events years after they have occurred.

>Opportunity is as important in understanding sexual abuse of adolescents as it is in understanding other types of victimization. Contact with offenders in the absence of guardians creates opportunities for abuse.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213421004324

>>17845574
>Risk of sexual abuse is positively related to exposure to older people, susceptibility to deviant influence

>novel claim

>>17840029 (OP)
If a Child wanted to drive your car you would let them? I thought it was pretty evident to everyone that children are not always capable of making the correct decisions for themselves or others how sick do you have to be to even think this up XD

Believe me when I say I hate faggot boyfuckers and would happily cave their skulls in.

>>17845574
This does not support the claim that poor home environment is causative of sexual contact between minors and adults, only that it is associative.

>>17845576
This is not supportive of the claim he was making.

Also, it's pertinent to point out that the majority of these adolescents that this study refers to as sexual abuse victims report their "sexual abuse" as being positive and consensual, >>17845153 >>17845159

>>17845581
>we don't let a child do A, therefore we shouldn't let them do B!
This is not a valid argument.

>>17845589
The Torah supports this sentiment.

>>17845595
>Contact with offenders in the absence of guardians creates opportunities for abuse.

>>17840029 (OP)
what a truly loathsome specimen you are

>>17845617
Nothing in that study supports the claim that family environment is causative of "CSA", only that it is associative. The authors of the study themselves do not state that poor family environment is causative of of sexual contacts between adults and minors, and you are misinterpreting their statements.

>>17845759
>ad hominem
I accept your concession.

>>17845770
>This umbrella review found that childhood sexual abuse is associated with elevated risks of long-term psychosocial, psychiatric, and physical health outcomes. In particular, there is high-quality evidence for associations between childhood sexual abuse and two psychiatric disorders (schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder) and one psychosocial outcome (substance misuse). Because both relative risks and absolute rates for certain outcomes following childhood sexual abuse have been shown to be increased, this review suggests prioritising interventions that reduce the development of those outcomes that have a high-quality evidence base.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30286-X/fulltext

>>17845770
>Strengths of this umbrella review include testing quantitative measures of research and outcome quality, allowing for the comparison of findings across outcomes, and the discrimination between higher and lower quality research findings. Another strength is the inclusion of a wide range of psychosocial, psychiatric, and physical health outcomes, given that many previous meta-analyses and umbrella reviews have focused on either a single or narrow subset of outcomes.12–15 Moreover, temporal ordering between the predictor and outcome of interest (ie, childhood sexual abuse occurring before 18 years of age and outcome measurement occurring after 18 years of age) was part of inclusion criteria, reducing the risk of conflating short-term effects of childhood abuse with adult consequences.

from the same article

>>17845770
>Moreover, temporal ordering between the predictor and outcome of interest (ie, childhood sexual abuse occurring before 18 years of age and outcome measurement occurring after 18 years of age) was part of inclusion criteria, reducing the risk of conflating short-term effects of childhood abuse with adult consequences.

>>17845770
>between the predictor and outcome of interest (ie, childhood sexual abuse occurring before 18 years of age and outcome measurement occurring after 18 years of age) was part of inclusion criteria

>reducing the risk of conflating short-term effects of childhood abuse with adult consequences.

>reducing the risk of conflating short-term effects ... with adult consequences

>>17845777
>>17845779
>>17845782
>>17845783
You're now spamming excerpts which have nothing to do with the claim under consideration (that the cause of "CSA" is poor family environment, and the two can not be measured independent of each other). This claim was made by an anon as a last resort attempt to deny the need to control for family environment as a confounding variable, after all his other arguments were refuted.

These studies are deeply flawed and suffer from significant conceptual and methodological flaws which have been addressed throughout this thread, I suggest you read the reviews posted here >>17843419 >>17843279 >>17842527

And the following highly regarded study which accounts for some of the flaws common in research on this topic: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-04232-002

>>17845803
>Everybody but myself Bruce Rind and the editors of the newgon wiki are all statistical amateurs and make simple mistakes like confusing confounding and skew ... oh wait

It's hilarious because this study shows how research has evolved in the 30 some ought years since the Rind study, unequivocally demonstrating that they have in fact accounted for the "confounding" this anon believes he has discovered among other statistical issues, yet when the truth is laid out in front of him, he will still deny it.

>>17845820
I love how his response is just to post Rind again, what a retard lmfao.

>>17845820
>Everybody but myself Bruce Rind and the editors of the newgon wiki are all statistical amateurs and make simple mistakes like confusing confounding and skew ... oh wait
The study is highly regarded and is still cited to this day, you can stop pretending that the study was rejected: >>17845456

>unequivocally demonstrating that they have in fact accounted for the "confounding" this anon believes he has discovered among other statistical issues, yet when the truth is laid out in front of him, he will still deny it.
You haven't posted a shred of evidence to support this claim. You have posted irrelevant studies which do not support this claim, and have refused to accept this when I have pointed this out.

>>17845824
There are many other studies by different authors in those reviews posted. You would know if you actually bothered to read them, but you didn't, as you lack intellectual honesty. And the Rind study is still highly regarded and relevant and is cited to this very day.

I always find it intriguing how obstinate antis are in defending a position for which they have absolutely no evidence in favour of, yet they'll accuse you of what they are themselves guilty of. Really goes to show how few people are capable of maintaining intellectual positions which are contrary to widely held belief. Most antis would just as easily be arguing that masturbation causes insanity, that having sex with virgins cures diseases, or that sex causes puberty, had they been born in an earlier time period or culture.

Heterosexual men's ratings of sexual attractiveness of pubescent girls: Effects of labeling the target as under or over the age of sexual consent
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24132774/

Recent studies accounting for other forms of victimization which find them more predictive of negative outcomes than sexual abuse, contrary to claims that sexual events are uniquely traumatizing:

Lätsch, D. C., Nett, J. C., & Hümbelin, O. (2017). Poly-victimization and its relationship with emotional and social adjustment in adolescence: Evidence from a national survey in Switzerland. Psychology of Violence, 7(1), 1–11.
>"When poly-victimization was controlled for, individual victimization types showed largely diminished association with emotional and social functioning measures. Particularly weak associations were found for physical and sexual victimizations. By contrast, emotional assaults (including emotional bullying by peers and emotional abuse by parents) and maltreatment by parents retained the strongest links with levels of functioning. This general pattern of results held even when chronic individual victimization types were considered. Conclusions: Many previous studies may have underestimated adolescents’ capacities to cope with physical and sexual victimizations where these experiences happen in an otherwise functional environment..."

Cohen JR, McNeil SL, Shorey RC, Temple JR. (2019). Maltreatment subtypes, depressed mood, and anhedonia: A longitudinal study with adolescents. Psychol Trauma. 11(7):704-712.
>"Overall, both emotional abuse (p < .001) and neglect (p = .002) predicted levels of depressed mood over time, while only emotional neglect predicted levels (p < .001) and trajectories (p=.001) of anhedonia. Physical and sexual abuse did not predict depressive symptoms once accounting for emotional abuse and neglect (p = ns). These findings were largely invariant across sex and race."

>>17845846
>It's highly regarded guise
>it's even cited to this day

They cite phrenology papers to this day anon, the value of empirical thought is defined by getting things continually wrong and building of previous knowledge, a citation does not equal and endorsement. Also

>>Strengths of this umbrella review include testing quantitative measures of research and outcome quality, allowing for the comparison of findings across outcomes, and the discrimination between higher and lower quality research findings. Another strength is the inclusion of a wide range of psychosocial, psychiatric, and physical health outcomes, given that many previous meta-analyses and umbrella reviews have focused on either a single or narrow subset of outcomes.12–15 Moreover, temporal ordering between the predictor and outcome of interest (ie, childhood sexual abuse occurring before 18 years of age and outcome measurement occurring after 18 years of age) was part of inclusion criteria, reducing the risk of conflating short-term effects of childhood abuse with adult consequences.


Just too flashbang you with the truth again

>>17845862
>They cite phrenology papers to this day anon
They don't endorse the findings of these studies, like they do with Rind's paper.

One in four men are pedophiles according to plethysmographic studies of normal men:

Hall, G.C.N., Hirschman, R., & Oliver, L.L. (1995). "Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men," Behavior Therapy, 26, 681-694.
>"Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20% of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25% exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli. [...]
>Eighty subjects completed the study. [...] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.
>[...] a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990)."

Sexual contacts between adults and juveniles is common amongst non-human primates:

De Waal, F. (1990). "Sociosexual behavior used for tension regulation in all age and sex combinations among Bonobos."
>"Observations concern a near relative of Man, the bonobo, where these “pigmy chimps” are allowed free access to any other bonobo for sexual contact at the San Diego Zoo. Nonfertile combinations (same-sex or juvenile–adult combinations) were as frequent as potentially fertile, adult male–female combinations. Further, one third of sociosexual contacts by an adult with an infant were initiated by the infant (De Waal, 1990)."

>"Ford and Beach (1951), in their seminal review of cross-cultural and cross-species data, observed that "[a]s long as the adult members of a society permit them to do so, immature males and females engage in practically every type of sexual behavior found in grown men and women" (p, 197) They also observed that juvenile sexual activity in monkeys and apes is "no less natural for the young primate than are the chasing, wrestling, and mock fighting that consume so much of his waking life" (p. 255). Psychologists have all but ignored these perspectives in favor of fitting their descriptions and explanations of juvenile sexuality to current Western values."

>In Sex Offenders Paul H. Gebhard et al. claimed that "sexual activity between adult and immature animals is common and appears to be biologically normal." Indeed, it "is precisely what we see in various animals, particularly monkeys."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzz3au6PZhM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmVA_GMe5Gs

>>17845872
Pederasty is common in a variety of non-human animals.

Rind, Bruce (2024). "Same‑Sex Sexual Behavior, Age‑Class, and Coalitions in Male Rhesus Macaques". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1-20. 10.1007/s10508-024-02983-6.
>"In the present study, relations between same-sex sexual behavior (SSB), age-class, and coalitional behavior in male rhesus macaques were examined in a re-analysis of data first analyzed and reported by Clive et al. (2023). [...] Most dyads contained at least one non-adult (76%). Young and prime adult mounters most often selected non-adults to mount. Mounters were often sexually motivated: most for adolescents (72%); equally for juveniles (57%) and adults (56%). Finally, the highest rate of SSB with coalitional context appeared in adolescent–adult dyads involved in multiple repeated mounts. SSB, age-class, special friendships, bonding, and coalitions were linked, as reported in some other primate species and human societies cross-culturally. Employing age-class in male SSB analysis improved description and explanation."

this pedo is still at it holy shit

Don't Sleep, There are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle, by Daniel L. Everett
>Relations between men and women and boys and girls, whether married or not, are always cordial and often marked by light to heavy flirting. Sexually it is the same. So long as children are not forced or hurt, there is no prohibition against their participating in sex with adults. I remember once talking to Xisaoxoi, a Piraha man in his late thirties, when a nine or ten year old girl was standing beside him. As we talked, she rubbed her hands sensually over his chest and back and rubbed his crotch area through his thin, worn nylon shorts. Both were enjoying themselves. "What's she doing?" I asked superfluously. "Oh, she's just playing. We play together. When she's big she will be my wife" was his nonchalant reply - and, indeed, after the girl went though puberty, they were married

Diemberger, H. (1993). Blood, sperm, soul and the mountain. In T. del Valle (Ed.), Gendered Anthropology (pp. 88). Routledge.
>"Caili, an energetic and sensual woman, is playing with her youngest son, Migmar. I enter the house. Caili offers me a cup of barley beer and then continues to play with Migmar who does not really want to be disturbed. He drinks some milk from the breast and plays with his erect little penis. He offers it to his mother who sucks it tenderly and then continues to chat with me. Migmar is five years old."

>>17845870

Experiencing sexual stimulation and actually acting on it or even having a desire to act on it are wildly different things, have you ever experience unwanted arousal? This is the typical feminist argument but human beings have massive parts of brain dedicated to moderating impulse and making decision, wanna know what type of people lack that entirely? Children.

>>17845867

>They don't endorse the findings of these studies, like they do with Rind's paper.

They sometimes do, depending what the findings are, a study doesn't usually have one codified finding, rather it is a series of conclusions which are either merit-worthy or not. Phrenology actually helped us greatly to understand the phenotypic differences in skull structure between people of different sub groups and thus its conclusions there are accepted. Do they accept the other stuff that goes along with it? No. Drawing a parallel here to Rind's paper is somewhat obtuse given racial science had an actual academic tradition and wasn't activism masquerading as legitimate study, for what it was worth it at least tried to make sense with it self and maintain integrity. Pedophilia activism has no such qualms about silly things like integrity and academic honesty. There is a parallel in that Rind pointed out certain things which are still cited in science today, such as exclusively clinical and legal samples not being generalizable to a broader population. His activism and the arguments of pedo-anon, however, are entirely false because no study could be drawn up which will demonstrate to any degree that sexual contact between children and adults can be classified as anything other than abuse. The only thing he can produce are weak correlates and ancillary discussions, a lax standard while the studies I have offered produce much higher quality data and conclusions. His real weakness was the lancet meta analysis, he knows he has no answer to this so will just spam papers about literal bonobos >>17845872

>>17845888
Holy shit what an insane delusional faggot

>>17845877
>the animals do it guise!!!!11!!!!

is this what you are reduced to after getting BTFO'd?

>>17845893
>Do they accept the other stuff that goes along with it?
Except the results of Rind's studies are endorsed by the majority of papers which cite it. Try again.
>inb4 they don't use his alternative terminology
Has nothing to do with the results of his study.

>>17845895
I thought this was a bait thread I didn't think that op was an actual pedo

>>17845910
He showed up a couple of weeks ago, a little bit after the outage

>>17845906
kek, seems you lost

Can we all just agree to ignore this guy next time he makes this shit? Like we do with Simon?

>>17845893
That study which disagrees with your nonsensical claim that family environment is a confounder that must be accounted for?
>Our review has highlighted research gaps. Primary work should capitalise on prospectively collected measures of childhood sexual abuse to minimise misclassification and recall bias. Future research should also adopt more comprehensive models to account for confounds (eg, other forms of abuse), use stronger designs and analysis (eg, prospective studies) to examine causal inference, and explore source of heterogeneity to identify protective and risk factors. Meta-analyses should ensure more accurate and systematic presentation of data and follow consensus guidelines to facilitate replicability. In addition, we found no meta-analyses on bipolar disorder, which has shown worse clinical outcomes when it occurs in combination with childhood maltreatment,70 obsessive compulsive disorder, or homelessness.

>>17845917
>Several limitations should be noted. First, only a small number of the included systematic reviews explored sources of heterogeneity among primary studies by age,46,48,51 and study design.7,9 Other factors, including familial features (protective factors such as stable family environment and supportive relationships), characteristics of abuse, or overlap with other types of child abuse, are likely to moderate or mediate the association between sexual abuse and later outcomes, so not accounting for them might lead to overestimation of effect sizes.83,84 Future studies addressing these confounding factors are necessary for a more precise estimate of the link between child sexual abuse and later outcomes, including using family-based designs. In addition, collection of more detailed information about the nature of the abuse could help to disentangle the effects of different types of abuse. Second, the primary studies included in the meta-analyses were often based on retrospective recall of childhood sexual abuse by adults, and retrospective reports are suboptimal proxies for prospectively collected measures of childhood sexual abuse.11 Thus, future research with prospective designs is necessary. Apart from repeated measures of individuals at different timepoints with questionnaires,85 one other possibility could be using linked register-based datasets in which sexual abuse victimisation and physical and mental health outcomes are longitudinally recorded.

>>17845917
Yes their review section will always offer advice for future research, this is how empirical papers are structured, their conclusions still exist and quite current at that. Evidently if they have accounted for this in their paper then wouldn't their conclusions be more robust than if they didn't mention that?

>>17845918
>Official register data would reduce report bias of sexual abuse and allow prospective studies of its links to later outcomes. Third, there is a high co-occurrence of childhood sexual abuse with other forms of child abuse, which is associated with poorer psychosocial and health outcomes.88–90 However, as a result of insufficient data, we were not able to take into account effects of other forms of child abuse in this umbrella review. Finally, our analyses showed that current evidence of the association between sexual abuse and health outcomes is inconsistent and studies with significant results were more likely to be published than those with non-significant findings. Future research is necessary to identify contributing factors and to decrease publication bias against studies with non-significant findings.

>>17845921
Congratulations on continually posting studies that you haven't even read which refute your own claims and actually bolster my argument.

>>17845918
If you are so concerned about Heterogeneity could you explain to me what a "Heterogeneity among primary studies by age and study design" means? I think you'll find it doesn't mean what you think it does.

On the note on Pedophilia and other paraphilias, I wonder what causes them? Are there any findings when it comes to psychiatric conditions and/or other mental pathology that contribute to it? Maybe physiological? Wonder if there are any studies that try to find why people like OP want to have sexual relations with children.

>>17845929
>On the note on Pedophilia and other paraphilias, I wonder what causes them?
Being normal. One in four men is equally sexually aroused by children as they are by adults >>17845870

>>17845925
You live in an upside down world if you think reading the limitations section of a study you disagree with means that the findings of the study are wrong lol. I don't know what to tell you, if you are really so familiar with studies you should know that a robust limitations discussion actually strengthens the validity of the paper and does not refute its conclusions.

>>17845922
Huh register data, so in other words, clinical/legal samples. Huh ..

>>17845933

>Experiencing sexual stimulation and actually acting on it or even having a desire to act on it are wildly different things, have you ever experience unwanted arousal? This is the typical feminist argument but human beings have massive parts of brain dedicated to moderating impulse and making decision, wanna know what type of people lack that entirely? Children.

>>17845933
>One in four men is equally sexually aroused by children as they are by adults
Sounds like a cartoonishly gross over amplification that doesn't seem based in reality

>>17845933
>t. pedophile fantasy headcannon

>>17845946
He's delusional, there is no helping him

>>17845933
>One in four men is equally sexually aroused by children as they are by adult
Oh shit my bad now you can go fuck kids since we all think about it and people will just let it slide as you slide that dick into a 10 year old. Kill yourself

>>17845934
>You live in an upside down world if you think reading the limitations section of a study you disagree with means that the findings of the study are wrong lol
I never claimed that the findings of the study were wrong. I pointed out that even the authors of this study contradict your nonsensical claim about family environment not being a confounding variable: >>17845304

>>17845938
Experiencing sexual arousal to children means you are sexually aroused by children, i.e. you are a pedophile. Being a pedophile means you are sexually attracted to children, regardless of whether you act on it, or even acknowledge it. The men in these studies do not find adult men, grandmothers, or horses sexually arousing.

>>17845941
It's a consistent finding in plethysmographic studies on normal men. Plethysmographic studies are far more valuable than self-report because participants can not lie about their sexual arousal patterns. Sexual attraction to children is very common, with roughly one in four men meeting the "psychiatric" definition of pedophilia.

>>17845960
When did I ever claim that adult-child sex is acceptable because sexual attraction to children is common?

>>17845969
Well if they are related factors then the confounding isn't going to cause conflation to a degree that allows for or requires meaningful independent consideration. It also is the limitations sections, the fact that they accounted for this in their reasoning demonstrates that their conclusions aren't going to be as suspect as papers which do not. That was part of Rind's 98 study, few if any papers did, in the 30 years since papers have started doing that and it is evidenced in almost every paper I have posted that either mentions Rind or takes into consideration the potential for meaningful confounding, as this study did. I really think you need to accept this sentence right here. It's sample size is an inherent strength in accounting for the issues you suggest it has

>This umbrella review found that childhood sexual abuse is associated with elevated risks of long-term psychosocial, psychiatric, and physical health outcomes. In particular, there is high-quality evidence for associations between childhood sexual abuse and two psychiatric disorders (schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder) and one psychosocial outcome (substance misuse). Because both relative risks and absolute rates for certain outcomes following childhood sexual abuse have been shown to be increased, this review suggests prioritising interventions that reduce the development of those outcomes that have a high-quality evidence base.

>>17845969
You posted phallometric data, which gauges for more accurate responses but also subconscious ones. A conscious attraction to children and the desire to act on it is what defines a pedophile, whether or not they do makes them a criminal and sociopath, but that is another matter. A girl who is 14 but still has the characteristic features of an adult might cause slight arousal in 25% of men, even if it is announced to them, but are they pedophiles? I would say only 1) if the child is apparently that, a child and 2) they feel any desire to act on that, but just 1) also works.

> IQ, handedness, and pedophilia in adult male patients stratified by referral source
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17634757/

>Abstract: This study investigated whether the previously observed association of pedophilia with lower IQs is an artifact of heterogeneity in referral source. The subjects were 832 adult male patients referred to a specialty clinic for evaluation of their sexual behavior. The patients' erotic preferences for prepubescent, pubescent, or adult partners were assessed with phallometric testing. Full scale IQ was estimated using six subtests from the WAIS-R. The results showed that the relations between pedophilia and lower IQ, lesser education, and increased rates of non-right-handedness were the same in homogeneous groups referred by lawyers or parole and probation officers as they were in a heterogeneous group referred by a miscellany of other sources. Those results, along with secondary analyses in the study, supported the conclusion that the relation between pedophilia and cognitive function is genuine and not artifactual. The findings were interpreted as evidence for the hypothesis that neurodevelopmental perturbations increase the risk of pedophilia in males.

>>17846056
>Intelligence, memory, and handedness in pedophilia
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14744183/

>Abstract:A sample of 473 male patients with pedophilia (assessed by the patients' sexual history and penile response in the laboratory to standardized, erotic stimuli) or other problematic sexual interests or behaviors received brief neuropsychological assessments. Neuropsychological measures included a short form of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Revised (D. Wechsler, 1981), the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test--Revised (R. H. B. Benedict, D. Schretlen. L. Groninger. & J. Brandt, 1998), the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test--Revised (R. H. B. Benedict, 1997), and the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (S. M. Williams, 1986). Pedophilia showed significant negative correlations with IQ and immediate and delayed recall memory. Pedophilia was also related to non-right-handedness even after covarying age and IQ. These results suggest that pedophilia is linked to early neurodevelopmental perturbations.

>>17846058
>Neuropsychological profile of pedophilic child sexual offenders compared with an IQ-matched non-offender sample – Results of a pilot study
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016025271830205X
>Abstract
Child sexual offenders have been found to have a lower average IQ than the general population. Several studies indicate that they also exhibit executive dysfunction, but the specificity of this dysfunction is unclear; the inconclusive results have been attributed to methodological problems and the heterogeneity of the population. Our study aimed to describe the neuropsychological profiles of convicted child sexual offenders with pedophilia (n=15). To control for IQ-related effects on neuropsychological performance, we compared the sample with an IQ-matched control group (n=15). Test scores in both groups were significantly lower than the norms, but we did not find significant differences between the two study groups. The findings of our pilot study indicate that the neuropsychological deficits of pedophilic sexual offenders are unspecific rather than the result of a pedophilia-specific brain dysfunction.

>>17846061
>cont.

Pedophilia is considered to be a relevant factor on the pathway to child sexual offending. The point prevalence of pedophilia is estimated to range from 0.3% to 3.8% (Ahlers et al., 2011; Alanko, Salo, Mokros, & Santtila, 2013). According to ICD-10 (WHO, 1992), pedophilia is characterized by a sexual preference for children (boys or girls or both), usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age. The DSM-5 (APA, 2013), however, no longer classifies pedophilia as a mental disorder but instead defines pedophilic disorder, in which either the sexual urges must cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty in the individual or the individual must have acted on these sexual urges. Depending on the sample characteristics and diagnostic criteria, between 30% and 70% of all convicted child sexual offenders are diagnosed with pedophilia (Kingston, Firestone, Moulden, & Bradford, 2007; Maletzky & Steinhauser, 2002; Seto & Lalumière, 2001; Wilson, Abracen, Looman, Picheca, & Ferguson, 2011).

>>17845980
>Well if they are related factors then the confounding isn't going to cause conflation to a degree that allows for or requires meaningful independent consideration
This is not true.

This study shows that there is a significant association between "CSA" status and negative outcomes. Causality is not established. Whether these results would be consistent in a culture where sexual contacts between adults and children are socially condoned is not established. A lot of the studies included in this review use clinical samples which can not be generalized to the population. The authors admit the limitations of the study, which preclude it from being used to support various claims you have made.

The concept of CSA itself is flawed, and studies rarely account for whether these contacts were forced, coerced, or willing, subjects are likely to subjectively withhold information if they had positive experiences, and there is significant recall bias. These studies often include voluntary sexual relations between a 15 year old and a 25 year old under the same umbrella as the violent rape of an infant. The entire concept of CSA was invented by Jewish feminists.

This review also includes the 1998 study by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman despite your insistence throughout the thread that he is the Graham Hancock of psychology, and all his studies have been rejected.

Look, the simple fact is that PTSD is made up bullshit and events that occur in a person's life don't actually effect their psychological profile. Especially not something as benign as sex. It's Jewish pseudoscience. Children in other cultures go to war and cannibalize people and they turn out fine, if anything it makes them more resilient and psychologically healthier. Having an enjoyable sexual experience isn't traumatic.

>>17846056
>>17846058
>>17846061
Stein, Clara C., Julian Packheiser, and Marietta Papadatou-Pastou (2023). Meta-analysis on the association between handedness and pedophilia Preprint.
>"Pedophilia is a sexual preference disorder that has been linked to neurodevelopmental alterations in diagnosed individuals. One common biomarker for atypical neurodevelopment are elevated levels of atypical handedness as individuals with several neurodevelopmental disorders show increased levels of left or mixed hand preference. Few primary studies have indicated that atypical handedness could also be more prevalent in pedophilia. However, individual studies are prone to sampling biases and a comprehensive synthesis of the literature on this topic is still missing. In this pre-registered study, we performed a meta-analysis on k = 13 studies that were searched in PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar (until January 2023). These 13 studies measured hand preference in n = 1194 individuals with pedophilia and n = 5648 controls. Contrasting previous evidence from individual research reports, we found evidence against higher rates of atypical handedness irrespective of handedness classification using frequentist and robust Bayesian meta-analyses. There was no evidence of publication bias across analyses. These results suggest that atypical handedness is not suited to serve as a biomarker for pedophilia."

Schiffer B., Vonlaufen C. (2011). Executive dysfunctions in pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters, Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8: 1975–1984.
>"Results indicate that pedophilic child molesters exhibited less performance deficits in cognitive functioning than nonpedophilic child molesters. Compared to healthy controls and nonsexual offenders, the pedophilic child molesters only showed executive dysfunction concerning response inhibition, whereas the nonpedophilic child molesters revealed more severe dysfunction, especially on tasks associated with cognitive flexibility and verbal memory. Conclusions: These results enhance our knowledge about executive dysfunction associated with criminality and/or pedophilia, as they suggest different profiles of impairment between groups. In summary, data suggest that nonpedophilic child molesters showed more severe cognitive deficits than pedophilic child molesters. However, as response inhibition is associated with prefrontal (i.e., orbitofrontal) functioning, the deficits observed in both child molester groups indicate dysfunction in the orbitofrontal cortex. This has to be further examined with functional imaging approaches in larger samples and a full-factorial approach which allows for a clear distinction between criminality and pedophilia in a factorial manner."

>>17846070
He is the Graham Hancock of pedophilia, not psychology, his findings and activism are almost categorically rejected. He has brief snippets of his papers which could muddy the waters about the conclusion CSA is harmful and the idea that all cases of sexual contact between adult and children are harmful, yet current research takes this into account and still publishes conclusions which would theoretically be null and void were either of the above statements sufficiently muddied.

Evidently, if there was a genuine belief in the psychological field that there should be any motive to reconsider more broadly the research's understanding of CSA, then there would be clear and current evidence that science is moving towards this. There is none, every recent study I have posted has pretty clearly taken into account the conclusions of Rind and still find CSA to be harmful, nor do they find room for your ideal un-traumatic sexual relationships between children and adults. This isn't just the absence of evidence which supports your understanding of pedophilia, it is evidence against your ideas about pedophilia, and Rind is the only person in the space introducing more uncertainty, which is why he has earned the Graham Hancock reputation that he has.

>Multimodal neuroimaging measures and intelligence influence pedophile child sexual offense behavior
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924977X18301172abs/10.1080/00223980009600863
>The most consistent finding in pedophilia research to date is lower intelligence in pedophiles that have committed CSO (P+CSO) (Blanchard et al., 2007, Cantor et al., 2004, Tenbergen et al., 2015). The association between P+CSO and lower IQ has been suggested to be independent of sample heterogeneity (such as referral status by lawyer or parole officers), and it is unlikely due to faking of teleiophilia (i.e. the sexual preference for adults) by more intelligent pedophiles (Blanchard et al., 2007, Schiffer and Vonlaufen, 2011, Seto et al., 2011). Lower IQ may be due to the neurodevelopmental perturbations that contribute to pedophilia (Blanchard et al., 2003, Cantor et al., 2004, Kruger and Schiffer, 2011, Mohnke et al., 2014, Schiffer and Vonlaufen, 2011). However, it is unclear if these neurodevelopmental finding are specific to pedophilia or CSO (or the combination of the two) since most studies were conducted in pedophiles with a history of CSO (Mohnke et al., 2014, Tenbergen et al., 2015).

>>17846081
>his findings and activism are almost categorically rejected
But his studies happen to be cited and endorsed in most of the studies you have posted for some odd reason. That's really, really odd, considering you believe his studies have been rejected.

>Evidently, if there was a genuine belief in the psychological field that there should be any motive to reconsider more broadly the research's understanding of CSA
There is, which the Lancet review you posted makes note of:
>In addition, collection of more detailed information about the nature of the abuse could help to disentangle the effects of different types of abuse

>every recent study I have posted has pretty clearly taken into account the conclusions of Rind and still find CSA to be harmful
Rind's study found that CSA was associated with negative outcomes as well. I have never denied that it did. Nobody ever has.

>nor do they find room for your ideal un-traumatic sexual relationships between children and adults
But none of the authors of the studies you have posted have ever stated that sexual contacts between adults and children categorically cause harm. Even anti-pedo researchers like David Finkelhor admit this. I don't know any researcher who has claimed that sexual contact between adults and children categorically causes harm.

>Rind is the only person in the space introducing more uncertainty
But the authors of the Lancet review you posted make the same statements re. uncertainty and limitations that Rind does.

>>17846088
These are studies on pedophiles who have come to the attention of the legal or clinical system and can't be generalized to the population.

>>17846094
There's no different between a pedophile in the legal system and one in the generalized public anon

>>17846106
Except for the fact that the pedophile in the legal system has been caught committing some sort of act which has brought him into conflict with the law.

>>17846093
>But his studies happen to be cited and endorsed in most of the studies you have posted for some odd reason.

A citation is not an endorsement, I have explained this ten million times to you. If they were endorsing Rind studies then they wouldn't be using the acronym CSA nor would their conclusions be archetyping all the negative outcomes of CSA, nor would the commonly accepted medical convention (both in research and clinical practice) that CSA is inherently and intrinsically harmful

>There is, which the Lancet review you posted makes note of ...

Making their conclusions more robust

>Rind's study found that CSA was associated with negative outcomes as well. I have never denied that it did. Nobody ever has.

Yes but he argued that there was enough potential for conflation that the motives and language of research surrounding CSA should change dramatically, evidently in the thirty years since he has published the entire field seems to have decided that this is in fact not a concern, despite all being cognizant of his studies and aware of his findings. Why is this the case?

>But none of the authors of the studies you have posted have ever stated that sexual contacts between adults and children categorically cause harm.

Harm is likely normally distributed, with the mean being where the associations lie. I'm sure there are margin error cases, this does not mean pedophilia is ever ok to practice, doubly so if we assume that the causal pathways are understood (they aren't; see study below) but doubly so if it truly all is association and there as absolutely no reason to fear because of confounding.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.771511/full


>But the authors of the Lancet review you posted make the same statements re. uncertainty and limitations that Rind does.

In the limitations sections of their paper, Rind is the only one who considers his thesis as meriting further research.

>>17846112
It's a pretty safe assumption that most pedophiles have illegal material on their hard drives, so all of them are CSOs, some just haven't been caught because they are better at hiding it. This means more intelligent ones tend to stay out of jail and less intelligent ones end up right in it, this of course varies by region. The more convincing research into pedophilic pathologies comes from their insanely high rates of cluster B personality disorders. It is hard to study pedophiles for obvious reasons, however, and the syndrome or causes for it are very likely similar to serial killers -- which will always produce fuzzy results given the criminality and unethical nature of their behavior. What we can examine is the psychology of the two here. They are virtuous only in lying and rely on subversive rhetoric to get their point across, resorting to dishonesty and misdirection should they get caught on the back foot. This one is quite a bit dumber than his counterpart, but he lies so effortlessly that it almost doesn't matter, almost.

>>17846114
>A citation is not an endorsement
As I have explained to you, the studies you post explicitly endorse Rind's study by accepting the results as valid. The Lancet review includes his study in the review.

>If they were endorsing Rind studies then they wouldn't be using the acronym CSA nor would their conclusions be archetyping all the negative outcomes of CSA
As I have already explained, Rind's suggestion to adopt alternate terminology in the discussion section of his study is irrelevant to the findings of his study.

>that CSA is inherently and intrinsically harmful
This isn't true. This is a minority view, the vast majority of researchers do not claim that CSA is intrinsically harmful.

>Making their conclusions more robust
Tangential comment.

>evidently in the thirty years since he has published the entire field seems to have decided that this is in fact not a concern
The authors of the review you posted noted that this is a concern, which I have already pointed out to you, which you ignored:
>In addition, collection of more detailed information about the nature of the abuse could help to disentangle the effects of different types of abuse

>Harm is likely normally distributed
Which researcher claims this? What evidence have you posted to prove this?

>>17846124
>It's a pretty safe assumption that most pedophiles have illegal material on their hard drives
Do you have any evidence for this claim?

>This means more intelligent ones tend to stay out of jail and less intelligent ones end up right in it
Right, so by your admission, legal samples do not generalize to the population.

>comes from their insanely high rates of cluster B personality disorders
Source?

>>17846126
>Right, so by your admission, legal samples do not generalize to the population.

In this case legal and clinical samples do not generalize to the population for entirely different reasons than in the cases of CSA. The argument over whether clinical or legal cases do in that case is also muddy; i.e as the lancet study pointed out seeking data from the registry would remove some noise from the data

>Official register data would reduce report bias of sexual abuse and allow prospective studies of its links to later outcomes

You can find plenty of studies yourself on pedophile misconduct and disorders, I care little for the field, I don't believe in a pedophiles humanity and think they should only be studied insofar as Unit 731 style experiments.

>>17846126
>As I have explained to you, the studies you post explicitly endorse Rind's study by accepting the results as valid. The Lancet review includes his study in the review.

If you insist that anytime someone mentions the Rind study they are endorsing it or its conclusions or the man's advocacy, well then I'm sorry to say but you are just retarded. Rind is a compromised clinical researcher.

>This isn't true. This is a minority view, the vast majority of researchers do not claim that CSA is intrinsically harmful.

Then why do they call it childhood sexual abuse? For an epistemology that prizes definitions they sure seem to be lax with this one lol.

>Tangential comment.

cope

>The authors of the review you posted noted that this is a concern

"see guise in the limitations sections of their paper they make acknowledgment to my fringe concerns about CSA confounding"

>Which researcher claims this? What evidence have you posted to prove this?

Everything is normally distributed you fucking moron

>>17846131
>I don't believe in a pedophiles humanity and think they should only be studied insofar as Unit 731 style experiments.
The irony in posting this while claiming that pedophiles are antisocial. Reminder that pedophiles are actually significantly less psychopathic than the general population according to studies!

Goudreault, M. (2017). Study of the psychological and physiological characteristics of a community sample of pedophiles. Thesis for Doctorate in clinical psychology.
>"Differences between pedophiles and controls reached statistical significance for psychopathic traits, with pedophiles displaying fewer psychopathic traits compared to controls. These results contradict the findings of the large majority of studies using forensic and clinical samples of pedophiles."

Suchy, Yana; Whittaker, Wilson J.; Strassberg, Donald S.; Eastvold, Angela (2009). "Facial and Prosodic Affect Recognition Among Pedophilic and Nonpedophilic Criminal Child Molesters," Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(1), 93-110.
>Pedophilic child molesters scored significantly lower (350.72) on a Psychopathic Symptom Inventory than both non-pedophilic child molesters (382.91) and community controls (372.33).

>>17846138
>They are significantly less psychopathic
>except for all those times they want to molest children and consume content of children being raped

truly ... bulletproof

>>17846137
>If you insist that anytime someone mentions the Rind study they are endorsing it
I didn't claim this. It's just a fact that the authors of the studies you are posted are, in fact, endorsing the results of his study!

>Then why do they call it childhood sexual abuse?
In the words of anti-pedo researcher David Finkelhor:
>"Ultimately, I do continue to believe that the prohibition on adult-child sexual contact is primarily a moral issue. While empirical findings have some relevance they are not the final arbiter. [...] Some types of social relationships violate deeply held values and principles in our culture about equality and self-determination. Sex between adults and children is one of them. Evidence that certain children have positive experiences does not challenge these values, which have deep roots in our worldview."

>Everything is normally distributed you fucking moron
No it isn't.

>>17846137
>Everything is normally distributed you fucking moron

Well technically almost everything is, and not necessarily normal, but close to normal. Most tendencies of human behavior and variance especially are bell shaped, intergalactic space isn't if you look at star density per say, but that's a mess.

>>17845571
The evidence is that you were probably fiddled with as a kid and that's why you are a fucked up creep

>>17846147
>No it isn't.

>>17846150

>In the words of anti-pedo researcher David Finkelhor

I have literally zero idea what this quote has to do with you point.

>I didn't claim this. It's just a fact that the authors of the studies you are posted are, in fact, endorsing the results of his study!

You are hoping that someone who isn't familiar with empirical observation will see that they cited Rind and mentioned his findings and they will be stupid enough to believe that this is somehow an endorsement. It is pretty blatant man.

>>17846153
He was, a woman raped him at some point in his childhood, he gets real sensitive about it and will call you an AI poster for mentioning it. He doesn't exactly practice good enough security for being a genuine pedophile advocate, I'm not quite sure why his family hasn't cut off internet access, I certainly wouldn't let my adult child post shit like this all day.

>we have two samples comprised of consenting participants of heterosexual relations, and victims of heterosexual rape
>of course the type of harm these two samples of heterosexual sexual contact experience is normally distributed! everything is!
The absolute state of anti-pedos.

>>17846158
>I have literally zero idea what this quote has to do with you point.
You do not have to believe that an act causes long-term harm to believe that it is abusive, or that it should be considered socially acceptable.

>mentioned his findings
His findings are explicitly endorsed in several of the studies you have posted and his study was included in the Lancet review you posted that you thought somehow supported your arguments. Do better.

>>17846161
Did the voices tell you this?

>>17846162
You have admitted to being both a NEET and raped by a woman in several threads. These are your own words.

>>17840029 (OP)
>>17840044
>>17840057
>>17840080
I hope your wish come true and your underage daughters get violently raped by muslims/niggers

>>17845116
>a study on using prenatal care in a situation recognised to be otherwise extremely harmful to mitigate said harm
retard
>societies with strong social bonds mitigate tragedies better and we should look to emulate them
retard
>teenage mothers could mean anything from 13 to 19
retard
>adolescent mortality rate is higher than ages past 24 and before their 30s
retard

please don't vomit out studies you haven't read to justify being a pedophile faggot

>>17846559
No, those studies actually show than young adolescents do not have a meaningfully higher incidence of complications during pregnancy. Learn to read.

>>17846559
How can someone be this retarded?

>>17846179
If you are low T due to eating shit food, if you don't have the balls to breed girls who are already breedable, someone else will have. And it is not rape in case of Muslims, they can legally repeat the deeds of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) who took 6 yo Aisha as his completely legal wife.

>>17846578
>>17846581

Does your mother know you talk like this? Does your father? They are very close by, maybe you should show them this thread.

>>17847140
why are you trying to make an emotional argument?

>>17847160
Well judging by satellite images you live in a bungalow, they are probably just a few rooms away, you might want to go show them this thread.

>>17847202
Well hold on! It's not exactly clear, street view indicates there could be a basement! Give his take what odds do you guys put on the basement haha.

>>17847217
Anyone got the zestimate? I'm a prospective real estate investor.

>>17847220
Got an HGTV special lined up do ya?