Re: Researching the mind of a pedophile

"And you ... go by a common sentimental, moralistic belief of female fragility, only transposed onto particularly younger females in this case. And your suggested solution is total prohibition ... which reeks of a draconian solution to a largely moral issue."

"The next issue I'd like to address here is moralism. I don't believe my opinions on this matter are a matter of moralism, I think they are opinions about objective human nature. Do you have any reason to think my objections are moralistic rather than scientific? "

Letsee.......

That when discussing sex the "victim" is ALWAYS Female and the "victimiser" is ALWAYS male. The claim that Females are predisposed to suffer more from emotional "betrayal" despite studies constantly establishing that men are the more fragile sex emotionally.

When studies demonstrate one thing and moralism claims otherwise you go with the "fragile flower" theory of gender.

Since it colors you assumptions about adult females ( where ample evidence exists to disprove it ) I believe it also colors your assumptions about girls.

You are prone to dismiss any studies of harm which don't conform to this Victorian moral construct.

( Note: Medieval societies opinions of women were shaped less by elites and more by the villages; so they perceived accurately that women are more robust. )

Evolutionary biology argues this too. Women are built for long-term survival and fare better to exposure, famine &tc. Men are built to contribute sperm and for defense; even if unto the death. As men are more disposable; their long-term robustness is sacrificed for short-term acts of strength associated with defense against unanticipated assault. So testosterone creates toxic stress-levels and muscles replace fat reservoirs required for long-term weathering the elements.

Why then shouldn't what studies demonstrate not be a mere artifact of "boys don't cry" cultures which disallow catharsis and prevent emotional healing? Why too might this emotional fragility not be an inherent aspect of redirecting resources towards defense and sacrifice?

Either way, "fragile flower" is both sexist and just plain contrary to every bit of evidence we have thus far. If you must portray the "victim" of consensual sex as one gender only ( a rather irrational restriction ) then portray them as a boy.

Heck, to indulge a spurious anti-ish observation: the culture will conspire more to make the loved boy feel awful rather than the loved girl. She is very likely to continue being heterosexual. He will almost certainly not turn out to have a homosexual orientation; and therefore will unnecessarily have homophobic assumptions and slurs foist upon him later. Such slurs ( whether internalized or not ) might make him more suicidal.

The present victimhood narrative "empowers" women. It still, in aiming at them, tends to exclude men. The victimhood narrative was created to overcompensate for the tendency in bygone eras to ALWAYS presume agency even when evidence of coercion and force are present; and to subsequently slut-shame the raped girl for being sexually active.

It has done its job ( and a lot more too. ) And these days it is only the boy who will be slut-shamed through homophobic assumptions: the demonstrably more fragile boy.

Far from defending girls; the presumption of vulnerability and an exclusive focus on this both belittle them and damage boys. Its time to jettison the old moralizing and empower them by defending their agency from attack.

Dante