One of our staff members is contributing considerably to a News Archiving service at Mu. Any well educated (Masters, PhD or above) users who wish to make comments on news sites, please contact Jim Burton directly rather than using this list, and we can work on maximising view count.
Intrinsic harm: Difference between revisions
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jim Burton (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
'''[[Michael Bailey]]''': | '''[[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. | <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]]''': | '''[[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> | <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> | ||
'''[[Clarence Tripp]] on Kinsey:<ref>[https://youtu.be/wRXgHcsYwmY?si=0mDsgz7vHezxzrGC&t=92 From 1.35]</ref>''' | |||
<blockquote>''The thing that he hated most about it ''["pedophilia"]'' is that people use words like "child molestation"; what <u>is that</u>? Nobody knows. Abuse of children? Are they talking about hitting them with a stove pipe, or are they talking about tickling them a little? Are you talking about <u>fondling</u>? Are you going to put fondling and death attacks in the same group? As Kinsey said, by this type of paranoia, you do the child more damage for life than all the pedophiles in the world would do!''</blockquote> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Latest revision as of 03:19, 23 October 2025
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]
Clarence Tripp on Kinsey:[4]
The thing that he hated most about it ["pedophilia"] is that people use words like "child molestation"; what is that? Nobody knows. Abuse of children? Are they talking about hitting them with a stove pipe, or are they talking about tickling them a little? Are you talking about fondling? Are you going to put fondling and death attacks in the same group? As Kinsey said, by this type of paranoia, you do the child more damage for life than all the pedophiles in the world would do!
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