Hello all. I posted this essay, titled "The Stigmas Against Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and Ephebophilia: An Ethical Call for their Elimination," about six years ago on WritersCafe.org. Personally, I think it's well-written and makes a compelling argument, but maybe I'm just biased. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it, including any constructive criticisms. If you prefer, you may view the essay in its original format at this link: https://www.writerscafe.org/writing/AnonymousCoward/1375885/


__________



The term ‘stigma’ is defined as “a set of negative and often unfair beliefs that a society or group of people have about something”. Though some stigmas, such as those against murder, theft, lying, and rape are warranted, non- cross-culturally observed ones are oppressive. Such stigmas result in a net loss in societal happiness, so it is imperative that they be eliminated. But their elimination does not come easily. It requires that the stigmatized few tackle the privileged majority, who are resistant to change, which poses a challenge and is indicative of an urgency to intervene. Pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia are strongly stigmatized in today’s society. Since none of these stigmas are cross-cultural, they result in deleterious effects on societal happiness. The popular argumentation regarding children's consent is untenable, and the notion that adult/child sexual interactions are generally traumatizing has been scientifically demonstrated to be a myth. As these stigmas are irrational and result in a considerable net reduction in societal happiness, it is ethically imperative that they be eliminated.

Some stigmas are observed cross-culturally. These usually pertain to behaviors that are necessarily harmful, both to individuals and society at large. However, most are oppressive, arbitrary denouncements of behaviors typically engaged in by minority groups; these denouncements are arbitrary because they pertain to disparaged behaviors that are incidentally observed in certain populations but not stigmatized in all. They are not objective, ethically-concerned denouncements. On the contrary, they are culturally-relative denouncements concerned with status quo maintenance. Depending on time and place, all behaviors are potentially subject to stigmatic denouncement. It is in this sense that such stigmas are oppressive.

Unwarranted stigmas result in a net reduction in societal happiness. This means the suffering undergone by the stigmatized offsets whatever happiness is gained by their stigmatizing counterparts. Because of this, such stigmas are ethically unjustifiable and must be eliminated.

Though it is imperative they be eliminated, doing so is a formidable task whose urgency must be appreciated. By their nature, stigmas are deeply entrenched in the psyches of the non-stigmatized majority; they are fervently defended and arouse strongly negative emotions. Further, as the stigmatized are fewer in number, they have less resources to aid them in combating their oppressors. Thus, we observe that the elimination of stigmas often takes place over prolonged periods, during which the stigmatized are both oppressed and dedicating much of their relatively limited energy to the actualization of their hard-fought justice. Much suffering occurs during the interval, and actions must be taken to eliminate these stigmas expediently so as to prevent as much damage as possible.

Pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia are among the most emotionally-charged stigmas today, but this has not always been the case. Pedophiles in particular are reviled, while hebephiles, although less so, are regarded as "perverts". Although ephebophilia is accepted to some degree in certain places, those with ephebophilic bents tend to face criticism, with its severity and one's age of attraction being negatively correlated. As witness the pederasty practiced in Ancient Greece, as well as other similar historical and modern examples, these stigmas are not cross-culturally observed, which brings to question their intensity, and even existence, in contemporary, mainstream culture.

Being oppressive stigmas, they result in much suffering. Since victims of these stigmas do not have any recourse for the satisfaction of their urges, they sometimes engage in acts, such as rape, they find unethical, which they would not otherwise engage in. Often, these acts involve children, who are psychologically vulnerable. This leads to intense psychological trauma, the effects of which can last indefinitely. In addition to the lack of sexual satisfaction experienced by these stigmatic victims who choose not to engage in unethical behavior, others satisfy their urges ethically and consequently face lengthy jail sentences, along with the permanent loss of certain rights upon release. Further, such stigmatized individuals face mass social exclusion, resulting in interpersonal maladjustment, which further results in suffering. Coupled together, these examples, which explain the effects these oppressive stigmas have on adults, amount to a vast reduction in societal happiness. And coupled with the suffering experienced by child victims of rape, they amount to a colossal net reduction.

The popular ideas concerning children's capacity to give consent are among the reasons for these stigmas' maintenance, and they are untenable. The notion that children cannot consent to sexual acts with adults is indefensible; the mechanism by which children can consent to anything, including sexual acts with other children, except for such acts with adults has never been demonstrated. Some hedging proponents of this idea maintain that, while children can literally give consent, their consent is not meaningful, because it is uninformed. No justification, however, is given for why the lack of a child’s informed consent, per se, does not necessarily pose an ethical dilemma for anything besides sexual acts with adults. That children’s executive functions, and consequently their ability to “plan ahead”, are underdeveloped is often summoned as scientific evidence in support of the “informed consent” argument. The apparent implication is that sexual acts are intrinsically risky. As it is common knowledge that they are not, and since the argument that children cannot consent meaningfully and should therefore be sexually off-limits for adults hinges on this false premise, that argument is baseless. Further, as acts associated with the lack of informed consent do not necessarily, or even generally, result in suffering, the relevance of such consent is questionable. The consent arguments surrounding the stigmas are problematic and do not constitute an ethical justification.

The most cited argument in favor of these stigmas is the notion, subscribed to by both professionals and laypeople alike, that sexual acts with children generally result in intense psychological damage. This is the fundamental belief, propounded as a truism, used to justify bigotry against the stigmatized. Yet, in a study carried out by the American Psychological Association, no support for it was found. The findings of this study, being a meta-analysis of 59 studies, are powerful. Given that such a meta-analysis could not find support for this belief, this means it was irrationally conceived.

Stigmas can be positive if exclusively reserved for damaging behaviors. Because of them, people are averse to murder, theft, and dishonesty. When applied to arbitrary behaviors, though, they lead to unfair treatment of minority groups, which can be devastating for them. These unwarranted stigmas are difficult to eliminate, but if society is to operate under ethical principles, their elimination is imperative, and groups and individuals alike must do their best to see that this imperative is satisfied in an expedient manner. Those who actively support the stigmas against pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia are doing a grand disservice to children and adults alike, and their support is unforgivably ethically unjustifiable. The notions that children cannot consent and that sexual acts with them necessarily result in psychological trauma are demonstrably false. Society must work toward discarding such irrational principles, because they result in a profound net reduction in societal happiness. Otherwise, it must accept, and more importantly, publicly acknowledge being profoundly morally corrupt.