Intrinsic harm: Difference between revisions
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
BLueRibbon (talk | contribs) m Fixed link |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The dilemma of '''intrinsic harm''' concerns whether or not (or to what extent) harm is an unavoidable consequence of voluntary sexual contact between | __NOTOC__{{template:Ac}}The dilemma of '''intrinsic harm''' concerns whether or not (or to what extent) harm is an unavoidable consequence of voluntary sexual contact between legally adult, and much younger people, usually classified as [[Child Sexual Abuse]]. Said question is frequently broached online when the topic of controversial research such as [[Rind et al]] is invoked. | ||
Intrinsic harm is also one of the major debating points among [[Minor Attracted People|MAPs]] and Academics concerned with [[minor-adult sex]]. Views on intrinsic harm are a primary factor in determining whether a | Intrinsic harm is also one of the major debating points among [[Minor Attracted People|MAPs]] and Academics concerned with [[minor-adult sex]]. Views on intrinsic harm are a primary factor in determining whether such a person is [[anti-contact]], [[contact-neutral]], or alternatively, [[pro-c]]. | ||
===Experts on intrinsic harm=== | |||
'''[[James Cantor]]''': | |||
<blockquote>''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.''<ref>[https://www.boychat.org/messages/1336087.htm James Cantor on BoyChat], see also [https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2024/03/behold-james-cantor-leading-witch.html further comments]</ref></blockquote> | |||
'''[[Michael Bailey]]''': | |||
<blockquote>''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.''<ref>[https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/articles/MJOCarrollReview.pdf Bailey, J. M. Bailey (2011). Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1329–1332. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9842-1 ]</ref></blockquote> | |||
'''[[Alfred Kinsey]]''': | |||
<blockquote>''It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.''<ref>[https://annas-archive.org/md5/b26821e259bda85169823a9e6a3e2f5b '''Sexual Behavior in the Human Female''', p.121]</ref></blockquote> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 27: | ||
*[[Research: Double-Taboo CSA]] | *[[Research: Double-Taboo CSA]] | ||
*[[Research: The effects of pornography]] - With respect to so-called "online harms". | *[[Research: The effects of pornography]] - With respect to so-called "online harms". | ||
*[[Scarred for life]] | |||
===Encyclopedia and debate articles=== | |||
*[[Sexceptionalism]] | |||
*[[Debate Guide: Social constructionism]] | |||
*[[Debate Guide: Profound and lifelong scarring]] | |||
===Essays=== | |||
*[[Text of Human Rights and the denial of sexual freedom]] | |||
==References== | |||
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Facts of life]][[Category:Cyber Activism]][[Category:Youth]][[Category:Terminology]][[Category:Terminology: Academic]][[Category:Terminology: MAP]][[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]][[Category:Research]][[Category:Research into effects on Children]] | [[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Facts of life]][[Category:Cyber Activism]][[Category:Youth]][[Category:Terminology]][[Category:Terminology: Academic]][[Category:Terminology: MAP]][[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]][[Category:Research]][[Category:Research into effects on Children]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:58, 2 September 2024
The dilemma of intrinsic harm concerns whether or not (or to what extent) harm is an unavoidable consequence of voluntary sexual contact between legally adult, and much younger people, usually classified as Child Sexual Abuse. Said question is frequently broached online when the topic of controversial research such as Rind et al is invoked.
Intrinsic harm is also one of the major debating points among MAPs and Academics concerned with minor-adult sex. Views on intrinsic harm are a primary factor in determining whether such a person is anti-contact, contact-neutral, or alternatively, pro-c.
Experts on intrinsic harm
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.[1]
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.[2]
It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.[3]
See also
We touch on this subject frequently throughout our detailed research sections. Some anthologies of particular relevance:
- Research: Secondary Harm
- Research: Family Environment
- Research: Association or Causation
- Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes
- Research: Double-Taboo CSA
- Research: The effects of pornography - With respect to so-called "online harms".
- Scarred for life