Debate Guide: Evolutionary logic

The application of Darwin's Theory of Evolution has become popular in both the pursuits of genuine analysts and politically motivated ideologues. Here we attempt a genuine argument that its logic casts doubt upon many of the sacred "truths" of the child abuse movement.

As Jack McClellan puts it:

"I definitely don't accept the view of the dominant culture that loving, noncoercive, consensual sexual touching with potty-trained prepubescent children is abusive and ruins them for life. What ruins them is the subsequent brainwashing by the "sex offender" industry that they've been damaged. The key test that this is nonsense folkways is that children have to be indoctrinated that pleasurable genital/anal touching is "bad touch" -- yet they instinctively and experientially know that touching a flame is bad touch, sticking a syringe in their arm is bad touch, being bit by a dog is bad touch, etc".

Throughout our childhood and adolescence, various windows for development open and are accompanied by urges and explorations that are relevant to learning in the areas concerned. It is natural to explore these urges, as they are biological traits geared towards the purpose of personal growth and experience. Maybe in light of this and children's untamed sexual curiosity, we should reject today's prevalent questioning of 'the effects of sex on youth', instead choosing to investigate 'the effects of no sex on youth'. This revised focus has far more relevance to the physical and mental health of human beings before social conditioning and in pre-western cultures. "Thinking outside of the box" applies.