Why Pedophilia Isn't Bad

By Punkerslut, 2001

Author's Note:

Everything I had written was not as offensive as this, and nothing more sincere.

Something believed by society becomes tossed, turned, and burned. It becomes imbedded on our hearts and our minds: truth doesn't really matter to a large group of people when they all believe the same thing. The dogmas go unquestioned and blasphemy becomes punishable by death. The man who holds his hand in defiance of the norm is beaten down, slandered, hated. Honesty is not promoted. Arguments are fixed by threats.

In this short essay, I argue for why I believe Pedophilia is not necessarily an automatic evil, or moral wrong. I posted it at a relatively small Bulletin Board, and to my surprise, almost everyone welcomed it as intelligent material, devoid of stereotypical perversions.

There was somewhat a bit of hesitation before I posted it. Even my close friends may be offended by it. This was something incredibly dangerous someone so antisocial as myself. I thought that perhaps my close friends might all take five steps away from me. But alas, I take the position of the undying Rationalist Humanitarian, rather than have my name whispered into the wind and unheard.

Enjoy, my friends. It was written November 5th, 2001 and posted at the Other/Side Bulletin Board. When Blind Willie said it was wrong, a RAF HFFJ asked why. Blind Willie responded, "Do you honestly need to be told why?" RAF responded very well: "Motherf**, when I kid you will have fair warning. Answer the motherf** question or be relegated to the f** shit heap of useless oppinions that you currently occupy, child molesting cock grabber."

But, here's the article.  Enjoy.

Now, I understand to a high degree why someone would immediately jump on my case here, and I could say "Just hear me out!" about a billion times and it wouldn't make a shit of a difference. And, of course, I'm just playing around with ideas to the highest extent. But, alas, here I go...

By what age is an individual considered acceptable to sexual activity? I'm sure that a rather liberal number would be 15 or 16, whereas the conservative would linger around a phrase, "Only when married!"

It is my opinion that sexual activity holds no necessary value in ethics. That is to say, it can be good, and it can be bad, but it is definitively neither. It is for this reason that I say that polyamory (or non-monogamy) is in no sense unethical. If an individual wishes to live a safe and happy lifestyle where they are not committed sexually to one individual, I do not see how this subtracts from happiness or causes dangers. Yes, there are "practical arguments" stemming from whatever means: some may say that promiscuous sex is unsafe or that monogamy produces more happiness. To this, I believe wholeheartedly, to each his own.

However, in defense of polyamory, I am sure that if an individual has a collection of friends whom share sexual activity, it is a much warmer and loving environment with unlimited closeness. Ethically, it is not wrong to play chess with many individuals. So, then, how can it be ethically wrong to have sex with many individuals? I understand the arguments of those who say "your primary partner will be hurt," but the idea is that there is no primary partner and all involved sexual partners understand that you are a... "slut."

Now, onto pedophilia.

To share a game of chess with a child is not harmful, but share sex with a child is socially considered an evil. I hold the following opinion: that conscious beings - be they male or female, white or black, human or non-human, YOUNG or OLD - may interact with each other in any way they desire so long as they do not cause suffering to each other or to others.

In this sense, I can find it highly suspicious to claim that a child is harmed by sexual activity. The image of a prowler luring a child into excruciating pain through sexual abuse is not the image that is produced in my mind: I am talking about sexual affairs where none are harmed. That is to say, both individuals enjoy such activity.

There are various "practical arguments."

Some will claim that it is damaging to the psychology of a child to have sexual activity - however, not only do I find these claims to be rather thrown when nothing else is better available, I find it highly doubtful that a child's psychology will be damaged from sexual activity. I do know, though, however, that many children at the ages of 10 and 12 engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex (since different sex friends at such an early age are rare to come upon). I still doubt the many claims psychology, no matter how modern it is.

It was only less than half a century ago that homosexuality in psychology was considered socially disobedient and mentally adnormal. However, today it is much more widely accepted. In ending, I will say that the primary ethic I hold is that as long as none are harmed in such a course of action, it cannot be unethical at all.

[let the bashing begin!]

P.S. Also note that this idea is just something I'm toiling with.

For Life, Punkerslut