I had the intent of writing an article on how the MAP community sabotaged itself by actively supporting pedophilia, joining the same groups who detest them, and failing to protect those they mean to protect.
I will go into more detail on that next month.
Why? Because I found something even better. But I won’t be doing the talking this time.
Instead I will link to an interesting and valuable document on the matter which might be useful in any discussion about age gap relationships provided they are not with prepubescents.
I will leave a fragment here to illustrate the topic. Bear in mind that this won’t benefit actual pedophiles, since, from the start, the article mentions bodily harm as a reason to prevent adults from engaging in sex with children.
However, for anything else that is taboo but is not pedophilia, namely, for example, a 15 year old female and a 30 year old male, this article has a few intelligent, politically free counter arguments. It might even have some logical arguments to cease the persecution of actual pedophiles. Which is logical too.
“The reason why the consent argument depends on the harm argument, therefore, is that only if the harm argument is sound do we have a good explanation of why children cannot rightfully consent to sex. Had adult-child sex posed no risk of harm at all, it is unclear why children could not consent to it. Perhaps it could be suggested that children cannot consent to sex because they are not sufficiently physically and psychologically developed to know what they are consenting to. True as this might be, in the absence of any risk of harm, this does not seem to be problematic either. If my son ventured to read Hegel, it is evident that he would not know what he was doing. Still, since this would presumably not expose him to any significant risk of harm, there would be nothing wrong in letting him do so.”
Follow the link below for the rest of the document.
The Monthly Truth Seeker. 