Dear jeep,

In the current discourse, having sex with a child is called abuse. There is not really something I can do about that. That's why I put the "" around it. As many here have pointed out, it might be very worthwhile to try to conduct research on children that have not experienced sex with an adult as abuse (A book recently came out, called "Positive Memories" by T. Rivas, about.. well positive memories about adult-child sex. Here is the link if you are interested: https://www.ipce.info/host/rivas/positive_memories.htm#Intro).

However, in my research, I did not find any scientific paper that mentioned this book (it is also not peer reviewed), nor did I find much other papers/etc that were positive about sex with children (two papers from the Netherlands in the 1980s, of which one is an analysis of content of books, not a scientific study). The main answers I got from the questionnaire were also indicating that pornography including children was abuse, that children would get hurt in the making of it, and that therefore virtual child pornography could maybe offer a good alternative.

So, where does that leave me? While I do agree that research definitely should be conducted, I would say, in the current times it is just simple not there, or maybe it is being conducted at this very moment and therefore I can't read it yet.

I can't make up answers that support another notion than what I got from the responses. I reported the responses I got. If more people would have said in the answers "Pornography with children is not wrong or abuse, so it should be legal" I would have reported that. I reported it as a subset of the answers, but it was not the main answer.

If I would change the language of the discourse, or would questions the assumptions of the discourse, that would bring me to an entire other level. Changing those would mean I would have to have substantial research available that would show that sex with children is indeed no abuse, or that morally/philosophically seen it would not be wrong. That was not the aim of this study: therefore I did not do that.

I did however try to make clear that this study followed the underlying assumptions of the discourse, while trying to take as much as a neutral stance as possible. I have obviously not succeeded in that, as per your response, and I am sorry for that.