When you cease advocating for reparative therapies that have been found empirically to have no valid effects to help, but whose harm is demonstrable, then maybe I might believe you.

I challenge you to find a place where I ever said that. I have never believed it.

When you stop believing that B4UACT was wrong to remain "undeclared" on the scientific issue of contact being harmful just because there is no consensus among the experts, then I might believe you.

You don't have our position right. We believed there was a need for an organization of people who believed contact was wrong. Here's an excerpt from the FAQ: "We understand that not all scientists agree on what proportions of different ages of children in different circumstances are harmed and to what extent. This is a complicated matter, and it is one that will ultimately be resolved based on facts, not opinions. We are not scientists." We thought it made their political relevance less, but we never said they were wrong to not change positions.

And since there are no Anarcho-Syndicalist systems in place, it is an opinion survey based on a hypothetical.

I meant a survey conducted within an Anarcho-Syndicalist society once it exists. The context of my comments makes that very clear. The rest of your comments based on your willfully incorrect interpretation are irrelevant.

Susan Clancy and others demonstrate that the harm isn't created in consensual contact or even for years later. We must then understand that it originates in something later which gives rise to it. Something which reframes consensual contact as a source of harm, and which ( as Rind points out ) does not happen to all.

The other explanation is that it is a fuller understanding of the man's intentions and knowledge that causes some of that harm. Clancy's subjects also hardly ever described the contact as one they happily consented to, but as something they didn't object to -- confusion was the primary reaction. Tom O'Carroll made a post emphasizing that failure to object is not the same thing as consent. Things can be wrong even if they do not end up ruining a person's life.


The default position should be to maintain the freedom to act unless there is a clear necessary causal relationship between action and harm.

In general I agree with that. I'm pretty strong on civil liberties. I don't mind restricting them somewhat for children, which of course we disagree about.

My concern is primarily with the risk of increased unwanted sexual contact with children that cannot be proved to be nonconsensual -- in practical terms it's mostly rapes of 13- and 14-year-olds. It's an argument against changing the status quo for fear of that substantial risk. I still think a carefully worded survey of such young people on the pros and cons would be instructive.

despite the importance of her work to abuse victims, Clancy's writing is ignored specifically because it points away from the false "Trauma narrative" which makes the claim of harm uncomplicated.

Yes, there is abuse hysteria and an industry that does not serve victims well. I recognize that.