>>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.

>>17795279
>Aristotle calls it brutishness in Nicomachean ethics, and attributes its expression to abuse from childhood
This is in regards to sexual passivity, not pederasty, which is why he uses a pederastic relationship as an example to highlight a positive aspect of relationships in the same book. The Greeks did not view pederastic relations as compromising the masculinity of either participant, and they did not view sexual attraction to boys as aberrant or effeminate. Pedication was also not expected in these relationships.

>In respect to the views of the common man, these are unknown, so again, unrelated
They are known, authors frequently make reference to them and we can infer their views from wider societal trends. The view of a handful of idiosyncratic philosophers is irrelevant, it's like claiming the Victorians were wide believers in ontological idealism, end this retardation.

>We can assume they were against it as pederasty is very explicitly mentioned to be a habit of the debauched members of the upper classes
This view was common during the late Roman empire. In Greece it was framed to as a noble institution practiced by the societal elite.

>>17795287
This is an inaccurate translation, he is not referring to pederasty, but sexual passivity, which is made clear when he continues:
>Now no one would label men who are subject to this condition because of nature “unrestrained,” just as one would not apply this label to women because they do not mount but are instead mounted.

>The fact that this relationship continues into adulthood, pretty clearly suggests that it was non-sexual
The passage is clearly talking about a sexual relationship. He is stating that a lover and beloved who are in a relationship for pleasure, rather than profit, are more likely to have a continuing friendship.

>>17795292
He literally portrays man/boy relationships positively in the same book, he does not equate these relationships with abuse, insane cope.