@q @Eris @PROtoss987 @zero @ew There's nothing anywhere in the US legal code that stays being a pedophile is illegal. Most child rapists aren't even pedophiles, especially among the actual rapists as opposed to those that had consensual sex.
Estimates for the rate of pedophilia in detected child molesters generally range between 25% and 50%.[105] A 2006 study found that 35% of its sample of child molesters were pedophilic.[106] Pedophilia appears to be less common in incest offenders,[107] especially fathers and step-fathers.[108] According to a U.S. study on 2429 adult male sex offenders who were categorized as "pedophiles", only 7% identified themselves as exclusive; indicating that many or most child sexual abusers may fall into the non-exclusive category.[10]
But attraction to "CP" is a good measure of whether someone is a pedo, such as child models or lolicon, so it's fair to call them a pedo
Also, "porn is free speech" is literally a Jewish argument that they used to introduce and industrialize porn here.
@Returned_tryhard @q @Eris @PROtoss987 @zero @ew
They use phallometrics. But if it's so easy to hide, then it would be kinda hard to explain the rate of it in the general population
27.7% (Firestone et al. 2000)
14.3% (Marshall et al. 1986)
18.3% (Fedora et al. 1992)
19.4% (Freund et al. 1991)
25% (Seto et al. 2000)
I'm not arguing for porn, I'd accept porn being illegal. I'm talking about free-speech in explaining why we should return to tradition. Jewish "civil rights" morality is what made this taboo in the first place, then jewish sociology made up the inherent harm lie, and today pushed by people like the most prominent anti-consent campaigner (((Dr. David Finkelhor)))
"Ultimately, I do continue to believe that the prohibition on adult-child sexual contact is primarily a moral issue. While empirical findings have some relevance they are not the final arbiter...
Some types of social relationships violate deeply held values and principles in our culture about equality and self-determination. Sex between adults and children is one of them. Evidence that certain children have positive experiences does not challenge these values, which have deep roots in our worldview. This is the main reason that Sandfort's research has had relatively little attention, and has little relevance for policy."
@Returned_tryhard @q @Eris @PROtoss987 @zero @ew I'm not ignoring this, I know it's untrue. I've already posted about it. People were marrying 12yos are late as the 1950s, how the hell would they get traumatised without people knowing? Just the fact positive experiences exist at all proves this isn't true, but:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9670820/
Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.
Also what mechanism does it work on. I know with jewish sociology you just make stuff up and pretend it's obvious, but why would they have evolved a self destruct switch for something they do themselves without issue and for something that involves no force, stress, harm, and can even feel good and satisfying. It's a bonding activity for a reason.
@SneedsterSpeedster @q @Eris @Returned_tryhard @PROtoss987 @zero @ew Literally the argument is that it's "not good enough" and "you can't just differentiate rape and consent because they can't consent"
Specifically with the first thing:
They added that according to the commonly understood definition of the term, child sexual abuse is extremely and pervasively harmful, meaning that "in any population sampled - drug addicts, psychiatric patients, or college students - persons who have experienced CSA should show strong evidence of the assumed properties of CSA." The authors of the study say that because the college sample did not show pervasive harm, "the broad and unqualified claims about the properties of CSA are contradicted".[28] Rind et al. also said that using college samples was appropriate because their study found similar prevalence rates and experiences of severity and outcomes between college samples and national samples.
Second thing is just retarded. The last sentence is also nonsense, nobody argues that someone hasn't been harmed, especially when they're using the invalid concept of "CSA" which involves hard rape and Rind et al doesn't address
Thoose aren't the arguments though.
1) Sampling
The study relies on college student which is problematic becuase
A) Thoose that are the most affected by CSA are not as likely to go to college. (Which has been shown in the literature)
B) The study didn't include PSTD, which is one of the most common effects of CS (Which has been shown in the literature)
C) The study didn't include externalizing (maladaptive behavior) in it's analysis, which is a common effect of CSA. Examples include revictimization, drug abuse, treatment for emotional problems.
2) Conclusion
A) One of the conclusions in the study was that it could be generalizable to the entire population, becuase it matched three studies. The problem with this was 1) different CSA definitions 2) Data collection methods and 3) Outcome measures 4) There are different patterns of CSA in different countries. (pic 1)
3) Problems with the studies
A) The studies used different definitions of child. Some had teenagers, some had prepubesecent children.
B) Different definittions of CSA were used. So it was basically comparing apples to oranges.
C) It included studies that wasn't relevant to the subject, like Landis(1956) which examined sexual deviants. Schultz and Jones(1983) looked at sexual acts before 12. Three studies even included sexual acts after 17, like Landis (1956), Greenwald (1994), Sarbo (1984)
D) Exclusion of relevant studies which examined incest like. The authors claimed that they avoided theese studies becuase they didn't reflect CSA. The analysis then points out that the study included research into peer sex relations, in a meta analysis of CSA!
E) The study had alot of studies that specificaly looked at mild CSA or non CSA sexual activity.
There was a lot more, but I don't want to read psychological studies in order to argue with pedophiles on the internet.