I thought the psychological harm was inherent in all cases of child sexuality, and inherent in all cases of teenage sexuality with someone 18+. And of course, the physical harm is usually inherent in any sex involving someone 13-.

Or, does this say that a little girl won't have to see a psychologist if I hurt her in the process?

Words do tend to mean things. It is a shame when words are so carelessly chosen, yet the writing is still considered credible in its intent.


The order of events goes like this:

1. A video camera is bought.
2. A video is produced containing a child performing sexual acts.
3. The adult responsible for the video's production is arrested.
4. The child is subjected to the indoctrination of psychologists.
5. The child suffers psychological harm through the manipulation of the psychologist.

The clear answer to this problem is to outlaw video cameras, not child pornography. Though I suppose most nons and antis would disagree with this order of events. It doesn't fit what they've been told.