I think the thing really does boil down to why we have the age of consent laws to begin with, and the fact that we "can't question it" makes it so that it becomes harder to answer when it becomes questioned by someone who actually wants to question it (we saw this happen alot with religion and much, much older issues like polygamy). What happens is, once that becomes hard to answer, it ends up on the table again. Notice loli is bad, even with the whole demon offspring thing? Remember, in skyrim there's a woman with a prepubescent child body who is over 100 years old per the storyline. Like all children, she's unkillable. I see Bethesda's dealing with this issue, too, even from a non-sexual perspective.

Basically, we want to have a reasonable buffer for people to acclimate themselves to puberty, as well as have enough time for public schools to teach them basic consequences of life decisions, even non-sexual ones. That's basically all it comes down to, hence why it's the "age of consent" not the "age of able to bang." So when someone (like Milo) makes the argument, "but gay men don't have to worry about as much, like pregnancy," you can say "yes, we know, but that doesn't mean they're acclimated and have enough information to go on to properly consider the consequences that even gay sex brings."

Daily reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z14TM9wMH-c

What worries me is using some kind of agenda to push censorship.
I understand the need to protect children wich im also for, but mixing rality and fantsy and using the excuse that we need to ban lolicon art because it can potentially hurt children is where i cross the line especially when the work of art isnt meant to represent reality at all. Banning something because it can be dangerous, offensive, hurting somone etc have been done before and it didnt end particulary well, both communism and religion is examples of this where the ruling class/leaders tried to put art in and freedom of thougth in a box.

I think the "censorship movement" (for lack of better terms) in general is the issue. We can't have the honest conversation about loli and such, because of it. I have some evidence that Loli will most likely lead to an increase of pedophiles (and hebepphiles and ephebophiles) while simultaneously making them less likely to actually engage in real life behavior (how much less, i'm unsure). However, what's the point in having the conversation honestly when the people trying to forefront this fight are the same types of people who defend real life pedophiles just because they happen to be on the same team? It's like alot of issues of our time: we're trying to solve important issues of our time, but there's a much, much bigger issue glaring in our face that people don't want to touch 'cause they could loose their job or worse, so instead it's easier to try to dance around it to talk about the issues we'd rather solve, which just won't happen properly when we can't have it 100% honestly and with honest research.

Case in point: i'm a protestant who's defending anime porn, and i'd even say i'm more traditional than most churches. I think there's something wrong going on, right now.

Im not so sure that Loli art in itself will lead to more Child sexual abuse.
Take for instance Japan where loli art has been more widespread and drawn for many years, at least much more than the west.
The crime rate statestics in Japan generally has been pretty low despite alot of art decepting various activities. Maybe some Japenese people or people in japan can give a bit more realible info because this is only what i personally have come across on various websites regarding the matter.

Its kinda like the gun debate
it isnt the gun itself that goes around killing people
it is people who misuse it carrying the gun shooting people.
Yes, one needs regulations to controll access and use of guns but that doesnt mean one shoud ban guns alltogether
because thats not really a solution to anything.

I woudnt hand a gun to a mental unstable person to make an example
and i also woudnt allow firearms where you coud kill alot of people at once
There is likewise regulations you can make when it comes to art.

Japan is incredibly non-confrontational, and people tend to let things go, and when they do go to the police, little gets done. That said, they rarely need the police in the first place. I've been told by people visiting there that there is a huge problem with underage women offering "services" if "you leave the train station at the wrong side," but i've seen very little evidence of that claim reliably, myself. However, there's no shortage of signs about groping, but one could argue that's just hyper-correction of the natural tendancy of aging populations. However, there's nothing to say about rape in there, so I don't know. Porn is very different. Psychologists know (and this goes into one of my theories of why homosexuality is much, much more prevalent among women than men) that "play" normalizes behavior. Children playing "house," for instance, will emulate their parents (now remember women tend to not be allowed to play with men at certain ages), and they will often manifest the same behaviors as an adult (don't get hung up on the thought, please). Same with practice in any sport: what you do in "practice" (play) you will often manifest verbatim when shit hits the fan (which is why you're suppoed to not half-ass it when you practice, especially martial arts, unless practice is too dangerous).

The big thing, though is whether or not an adult pedophile must go after the child or not, and how legalized loli would end up affecting that. That answer, we just really don't know. I'd like to say that Japan shows it's cool and then we could just legalize it and be rid of child rape, but all things considered, the Japanese people are a bit special in their own right and less likely to commit crime as a whole. We can't really say that here in the west when we're having rising crime even in rural areas.

EDIT: Then again, it's a reasonable question whether or not it's ethical to enforce a practice or ban on a population based on it's ability to affect crime rates. If I could prove religion reduces crime (hypothetically), would it be ethical to mandate everyone pray to Jesus by law? Forcing a population to do something that would raise crime would be bad of course, but is it ethical to force a population to do something that makes them less likely to commit a crime?

I dont agree that Japan can shows its cool
Art is a subjective thing, some migth think its cool but the artist or contry can newer enforce whats popular, whats cool, silly, bad, unpopular or other terms.
Trends or whats popular come and go as time goes.

I also think its a bit far fetched to strech playing house
copying the parents to the realm of art.
I mean its art we are talking about here
We coud also
question alot more stuff and not just anime porn if we are talking Psychology
Theres Alcohol, violence etc wich a child can get exposed for and i see no one speaking about banning or doing anything to prevent either selling alchohol legally or violent news on the tv even if there are iresponsible parents that let their children get exposed for such.
Dont get me wrong, i can see where youre coming from...

The rest of your arguments i need to ponder over some more, since i havent really thougth about it that way before Thanks for having a civil discussion even if it wasnt really the rigth place to have it.

Wut? I never made the claim that Japan is cool with it. On the contrary... Well, a topic for another day. True, but that's not the argument being made. The argument is how the beholder perceives the art. And play: we're also talking about children playing. Turns out, these things are actually consequential. I'm not one for argument from authority, so I, in turn, ask what your counter argument is for the observed behavioral correlations. What children see, they play. We know that what is play becomes normalized, and not just in humans. Also, Martial Arts, Sports, etc, all the "play" becomes real in those, too ("you do what you practice"). It's not even remotely a stretch.

As we can see from sports and such, however, this goes beyond childhood. Children, in particular, are far, far more susceptible to this, but, unfortunately, that doesn't mean the same thing doesn't happen to adults as well. You're absolutely right, and we should. I agree. We don't have to think of the chldren, 'cause children aren't supposed to be exposed to sexual content to begin with, let alone stuff revolving around loli (I would imagine loli is used, however, to make a shallow argument to childre, though). However, this phenomena is not strictly that which happens to kids. Adults seem to be affected the same way, psychologically, though apparently to a lesser degree (probably due to the lack of "play," but masturbation is a form of play, so this lack-of-play goes out the door with loli and other sexual materials). In a way, it is the right place, in a way it isn't. Rather, it should be the right place. We're customers and potential customers, so we should have civilized discussions about the issues surrounding the products. From what i'm told, Huniepop actually has a presumed case of pedophilia in the game, although the case in qustion is a bit complicated. Some could argue that the woman in question is actually 15-18, on a really weird technicality, but i think she's supposedly 3, but with secondary sexual charictaristics in full development (she isn't fully human). She could also be lying about her youth, as the game never really does clarify as far as i know. Therefore, this conversation about loli is quite relevant.

But, the argument still remains: even if we could prove loli makes people pedophiles, is it really ethical to expect the law to come in and play psychologists and manipulate a society mentally, especially on the presumption of democratic or republic style government?

The following i have borrowed and modyfied from a norwegian siteisnt directly related to loli but its a way of expressing what i mean

A recognizable episode from Nikolaj Frobenius' novel Theory and Practice where the open, cultural radical father of the young protagonist has heard Sex Pistols for the first time and will discuss the political message with his son.

The father does not understand what vocalist and copywriter Johnny Rotten is trying to say. He thinks it looks like Rotten is opposed to everything, the queen. Communists, politicians, hobbyists, pacifists, jazz musicians and people with mental disorders. But what is this rat really for?

The son, who is also called Nicholas, does not know what to answer. Far inside the cave of the skull there is certainly an answer waiting for him, but he knows that he will not be able to find it, not yet.

So were there many who had it. The teenage parents of the 1970s were not at all unaffected by the spirit of the time. They could understand long hair, demonstration, and the liberating power of rock music, at least on a theoretical level.

But there is no punk. The dark nihilism, the totally dismissive attitude, the harsh, aggressive music. What to do when the son or daughter shut himself in the room and played "Now I wanna sniff some glue!" What was this uprising? What did they want? What were they really for, these furious and enclosed young people?

The consolation may be that they did not know it themselves, even though they felt that there was an answer far in there.

I have met friends from the time, who in earnest and without irony, moan about today's youth. What do they want? What are they for? We wanted to take the street back, have self-directed youth houses, homes and support for municipal rock workshops. While today's youth - what are they doing? Get inside their caves, well into the virtual universe of YouTube movies, avatars, memes and emoticons. And if they come out of the bubble for short periods of fuel and transport stages, it is with the nose deep down in the mobile.

Had they even heard of hardcore punk - we don't even know what they're listening to, because all music goes through earplugs and headphones.

In the 1950s and 60s, psychologists, educators, spiritualists and parents generally worried about the comics.

It is the child and the childish souls who follow the comics, wrote author Aksel Sandemose. The people we have the greatest responsibility for, the smallest of us, we give this crime-lesser homework and these grossly talented, petty drawings

American psychologist Frederic Wertham argued in his best-selling book Seduction of the Innocent that comics were the direct cause of juvenile delinquency.

The media has changed, but the argument is much the same. For a while, video violence or violent videos on video that children could see irrespective of age limits on cinema that led to vandalism and crime.

For a while it was satanically inspired Heavy Metal that got the blame.

The last twenty years have been computer games. It seems almost obvious that it has to be like this: Do you spend much of the day in an artificial world where violence and bloodshed are the normal form of conflict resolution, must it necessarily contaminate how you face obstacles in the real world too?

Admittedly, researchers believe that the mass spread of video games has coincided with a historic decline in crime. And there are some who argue that the games may seem like a lightning rod on aggressive impulses.

But there are plenty of horror stories in the media games, such as "Played computer games, went out to kill," which help keep anxiety alive. And in Norway it is difficult to bypass the fall of function "to the terrorist from 22 July in silence. He completed his career as a businessman and moved back to the boys' room to play World of Warcraft and Call of Duty for a couple of years before he changed direction and started planning one of Europe's biggest mass killings.

There are complicated and complex explanations for these things, that cant just be explained because the killer played a videogame, far more complex than a few lines of excuse to trying to shift the blame on one thing alone.

Like i said before, though, violence is a special case: more media doesn't make someone normalize something more, especially if it's omnipresent in their life. Violence, as a whole, is way, way too common in every society throughout history, and the current one is no exception. The normalization process would most likely even take place for most people long before the video games, comics, etc. Murder in every movie, comic, video game, and every argument between adults, and don't think for one minute that children are oblivious to the concept of war, soldiery, etc.

Loli is much, much different. As someone who was molested as a child, i'm quite aware that eliminating loli does not eliminate exposure. However, how many people were honestly exposed to unhealthy adult-and-child relationships compared to, say, violence? This distinction is really important. Sure, children are exposed to sex, but usually it's two consenting adults with one another, not adults with children, which is also quite important of a distinction. Naturally, as you age exposure chances increase, but this only increases with saturation of the market.

The reason why children gets exposed to loli or other potential harmful stuff isnt because of the thing in itself. Its because of unresponsible Adults.
In an ideal world were Adults had taken real responsebilty we woudnt had these modern issues.
Why shoud a underage kid have full unresticted acess to the internet? That is one example of alot adults that doesnt really give a damn about responsibilty.

Sexual abuse is also a complex matter, far too complex to blame it on some pixelateds images that doesnt have any base in the reality at all.
I do howerver make a distinction betwen art thats clearly based on real world people/mimicing real world events and pure fantasy where the art isnt intended to represent/mimic real people and events. I also think there shoud be age restrictions.

Here is some facts i digged up from the internet
Youth (ages 15–24) are the most connected age group. Worldwide, 71% are online compared with 48% of the total population.
29% of the world’s youth – 346 million – are not online.
Children are accessing the internet at increasingly younger ages. In some countries, children under 15 are as likely to use the internet as adults over 25.
Digital technologies are bringing opportunities for learning and education to children, especially in remote regions and during humanitarian crises.
African youth are the least connected, with around 3 out of 5 offline, compared to just 1 in 25 in Europe.
Approximately 56 per cent of all websites are in English and many children cannot find content they understand or that is culturally relevant.
There is a digital gender gap as well. In 2017, globally 12% more men than women used the internet. In India, less than one third of internet users are female.
More than 9 in 10 child sexual abuse URLs identified globally are hosted in five countries – Canada, France, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation and the United States.
Sexual abuse of children is far from new. Historians of the family have discovered that adults in elite households in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Europe sometimes treated young children as sexual playthings. A striking example involves the future King of France, Louis XIII. According to a diary kept by the royal physician, members of the French royal court fondled his genitals and ladies in waiting played sexual games with his tiny fists.

But if the sexual abuse of minors is anything but a recent phenomenon, only intermittently has this country focused on the problem. Three conclusions grow out of the historical study of the sexual abuse of minors. The first is how slowly and unevenly American society has come to recognize the simple fact that the sexual abuse of minors is wrong and inflicts lasting trauma. The second is that in attempting to understand the sexual abuse of minors, expert opinion has often shown more understanding for the perpetrators than the victims, overemphasizing victims’ resilience and minimizing the abusers’ responsibility and the corporate cultures and institutional arrangements that facilitate abuse. The third key finding is that bureaucratic institutions that operate outside public scrutiny have dealt consistently with the sexual abuse by denying its reality, ignoring its existence, claiming that it is an anomaly and aberration, castigating accusers, and failing to hold perpetrators to account.

That the young were sexually abused was well known to nineteenth-century Americans. In New York City, between 1790 and 1876, between a third and a half of rape victims were under the age of 19; during the 1820s, the figure was 76 percent. The historian Lynn Sacco found more than 500 published newspaper reports of father-daughter incest between 1817 and 1899. An 1894 textbook, A System of Legal Medicine, reported that the “rape of children is the most frequent form of sexual crime.”

In his landmark study of female sexual behavior, published in 1953, Alfred Kinsey reported that fully a quarter of all girls under the age of 14 reported that they had experienced some form of sexual abuse, including exhibitionism, fondling, or incest (at rates roughly similar to those reported today). Yet when these findings were reported, they evoked virtually no public interest, although Kinsey’s statistics about pre-marital sexual activity and adultery provoked a huge public outcry.

Public attention to the sexual abuse of minors has waxed and waned repeatedly over time. Concern was greatest following the Civil War, during the Progressive era, during and immediately after World War II, and in our own time (see Elizabeth Pleck and Linda Gordon). Public concern does not appear to reflect increases in the incidence of abuse, but rather broader social anxieties, especially over the entry of women into the workforce, and the influence of groups willing to bring a pressing problem to public light. Following the Civil War, the rapid growth of cities, a massive influx of immigrants, and a sharp rise in the divorce rate provoked fears for the future of the family and alarm over the supposed impact of the breakdown of the family upon children. During the Progressive era of the early twentieth century, anxieties over mass immigration, divorce, child labor, and juvenile delinquency helped stimulate public concern over the abuse of children. During World War II, concerns about working mothers, latchkey children, and absent fathers sparked public anxiety. During the 1970s, a sharp increase in divorce, single parenthood, and working mothers contributed to a heightened sensitivity to childhood sexual abuse.

At first, public concern focused on the very young, those ten or younger. But beginning in the late nineteenth century, philanthropists and reformers brought attention to a somewhat older group of those aged eleven to seventeen. Reformers fought to raise the age of consent to sixteen and to enact laws to prevent those younger than sixteen from entering any place that sold intoxicants, pool halls, and dance halls. It comes as a surprise to contemporaries to discover that raising the age of consent required concerted political battles.

In courthouses, the treatment of sexual abuse was colored by a young person’s age, gender, and willingness to conform to cultural stereotypes. For a long time, jurors treated young girls very differently from boys and older girls. Sexual activity with young girls was clearly regarded as pathological by the late nineteenth century, but proving cases of abuse proved very difficult. Jurors expected a young girl to reveal her innocence by using vague, simple, euphemistic language, while expecting older girls to put up resistance or demonstrate immaturity and a lack of sexual understanding. Interestingly, men charged with sodomizing pubescent boys were convicted in the same proportions as those whose victims were young boys, but this was not the case with girls.

At first, the focus was on physical harm to the young person or the ruin to their reputation; nothing was said about the psychological scars caused by abuse until the 1930s. 30 percent of statutory rape cases from 1896 to 1926 sought to resolve the case by marriage or financial payment.

For much of the twentieth century, sexual abuse of children was treated as an anomaly and aberration perpetrated by moral monsters who were increasingly understood in psychological terms: as dirty old men, sexual fiends, perverts, predators, pedophiles, or sexual psychopaths. Evidence—such as venereal infections in children—indicating that sexual abuse of children was not confined to a small number of sex predators was dismissed and blamed on such non-sexual causes as unhygienic toilet seats.

The twentieth century witnessed a number of attempts to understand the sexual abuse of minors. The emergence of theories of young peoples’ psychosexual development and especially the embrace of the Freudian notion of the sexual child had ambiguous consequences for understanding of sexual abuse. Among some experts, there was a tendency to deny that sexual abuse had lasting consequences. But among others, there was a growing sense that abuse, even abuse short of genital penetration, caused long-term psychological damage. It is important to stress the contestation that surrounded the impact of abuse. Race and class colored expert opinion on the sexual abuse of minors. By mid-century, expert opinion tended to regard working-class, and especially black, children as more prematurely sexualized and more endowed with sexual instincts and desire than their middle-class white counterparts. Meanwhile, offenders were regarded mentally ill and treatable through psychotherapy. Their problem, purportedly, was that they lacked emotional and sexual maturity. Within the courts, there was a tendency to substitute prosecution of sexual molestation for prosecution for rape. On the one hand, this meant that adults could be prosecuted for crimes of touching. On the other hand, punishments tended to be less severe than the law suggested. During the 1990s, there was a backlash against the trend toward vigorous prosecution of sexual abuse cases. A panic over allegations of sexual abuse in day care centers, in which over a hundred day care workers were convicted of abuse only to have the prosecution claims overturned in virtually every instance, raised questions about repressed memories, the suggestibility of young witnesses, and issues of consent.

The problem with the “psychologizing” of the sexual abuse of minors was the failure to understand the cultures of sexual abuse—including the clerical culture of the Church—which allow abuse to take place. Sexual abuse flourishes in environments with unequal power relationships. Factors that allow sexual abuse to flourish include isolation and social disconnection, both of the abused and the abuser; emotionally needy and disempowered young people; a self-validating ideology that rationalizes abuse; institutional settings that shield individuals from public scrutiny; and institutions intent on protecting their reputation and safeguarding themselves from liability—and that do so in part by decentralizing decision-making about crucial issues.

Defenders of the church’s handling of the sexual abuse scandals often insist that the church’s problems were no greater than those found in other institutions; that only a tiny proportion of priests were ever accused of abuse; and that the church hierarchy dealt with abuse in line with the received wisdom of the time. These defenders also maintain that the abuse was a historical problem linked to a specific era, which has now past, and that the church was especially vulnerable because it maintained detailed records. There is some truth to each of these claims. Yet none of them in any way mitigate the abuse that took place. The church is held to a higher standard precisely because it has a moral obligation to meet the highest moral standards. Because the Catholic Church recognizes that all human beings are sinful, it should have recognized that even its clerics can sin and that only strict supervision and accountability can minimize it.

Absolutely. That said, as far as we can tell, adults shouldn't be exposed to loli either. There's no evidence to support that we respond differently depending on age, really. In fact, from what evidence we have thanks to sexual behavior changes in prisons, it turns out that there's evidence that your age doesn't really matter when it comes to normalization. It's easy to say that something is complex if you ignore information. Flight mechancis are complex. Rain is complex. Computers are complex. Boomers say that using the internet is complex, as well as a smart phone or computer. If you ignore information, of course it becomes complex. It's actually quite simple: someone has sexual desires, that someone sees someone who would fulfill such desires (this is the factor that loli influences), they come to the conclusion that the risk (if even present) is worth it, thus they commit to the desire. The key to this is the "normalization" process. We have to scrub the idea of seeing children as a viable outlet for sexual frustration, and certainly not encourage things that would suggest children to be ideal outlets. And how is this relevant to the discussion? If you'd like to branch into a new topic, here, sure, but i'm not concerned about this. These numbers can be explained by sexism in middle-eastern countries, as well as the general lack of interest females seem to have when given a choice (kind of like how most women will prefer jobs involving people instead of things, and vice versa, which is why traditional gender roles always seem to get stronger the more freedom women get, hence sexism is assumed to be dominant in most countries where women have the most rights). Absolutely. Turns out, the more you think your shit doesn't stink, the more you think it's OK to ignore the philosophy you advocate for. There's actually little reason, biologically, why we would reject pedophilia and the like. It's entirely based on arguemnt of both physical and mental safety of the victim. Naturally, some people would argue that a poor person should feel honored to be fondled by a high ranking official. Defintion of resilience here is questionable. The natural respones of someone sexually abused is to become fearful of sexual scenarios, which is resilience, even if it's not ideal. I stick my hand on a hot stove and become afraid to stick my hand on another stove to see if it's hit, so does that mean i have no resilience? Au contraire, it means i have more, right? The focus on perpetrators is for good reason: the victims largely have no control over the situation, so focus should be on what we can do about the perpetrators since they're the ones who are in control. As for the mitigation of responsibility and ignorance, i think it's a matter of cognitive dissonance. We, especially men, naturally desire younger females from a biological standpoint: they have more eggs and are more easily trainable to our preference (both of which are crucial for making and raising children). I believe there's a level of cognitive dissonance regarding the acceptance that some people might feel attracted to a post-pubescent minor, and another issue, of course, is the number of false rape claims like we're seeing in politics right now. That's not to say that's the only issue for the culture, as we could go on for hours of why someone would have cognitive dissonance regarding exploitation of children. One of the most damning bits of this, of course, is the new virginia bill that allows a woman to kill her child after it is already born, if it poses a risk to her mental health (supposedly, this only applies to a baby with downs or something, but in reality the proposed law is not written to take that into consideration), and this shows that we just really don't care about children as much as we like to pretend we do. Right, because children make much better victims than adults do. Right: as i said above, turns out we really don't care about children. Which is interesting. It basically says we're most likely to care about children, for once, when our populations are noticeably declining. However, we otherwise don't really give a damn about children.

Right, because prior to that it was considered normal (this bit's really important) to have sex with someone as soon as they started developing their secondary sex charactaristics. The idea that mental maturity was necessary for consent was very, very novel. The arguments were largely lost, which is why we're having the discussion again when people are justifying hebephilia, especially those like Milo Yiannopolus who have been abused themselves (and thus would normalize the behavior since puberty seems to be when we don't question what we are normalizing). Right, because ability to understand sex was assumed to be mental maturation. Whereas we can find today prepubescent children who are capable of explaining sex. Simultaneously, the world's youngest mother viewed her own daughter as her sister, 'cause she didn't have the mental maturity that we assume correlates with physical maturity. I, personally, would argue there's 3 components: physical maturity, sexual understanding, and mental maturity (the capability of understanding he overall picture of how things will affect you long term). No surprise there. Right. Even in my own case of abuse, my memory of who my abuser was was highly flawed, because i largely understood pretty much nothing other than "yo, this guy is touching me in ways that even my mother wasn't touching me, and they're requesting i touch them similarly, when i never touched my mother like that." The only way i can piece together the identity is by knowing what was going on in my life at the time and concluding from what i've been told later as to who the most likely perpetrator was. At the time it happened, though, everyone knew who it was that did it. Absolutely, which is where the loli bit comes into this. Loli aides the rationalization of the abuse, significantly, because it allows people to develop a cognitive dissonance regarding the impact of psychological damage on their victim, especially if their victim is underage and agrees to the sexual conduct. If the claims were true, why is sexual abuse perpetrated by the church still ongoing?

So the question is, "what do we do with this information?" We know primarily that it boils down to sexual desire, potentiality (viable outlet), opportunity (unequal power relationships). We know (or assume) that we can lower sexual desire by offering more outlets, such as sex dolls, etc (which seem to be opposed by femminist organizations). We know that sometimes the measures to sate sexual desires either don't work or quit working (which is why people rape when they have viable sex toys at home) so we know that porn doesn't fix the problem long term (potentially worsens it). We know that we normalize what we consider a viable source of sating the desire (potential victim) is largely determined by what we normalize (which is largely, but not exclusively, determined by what society deems acceptable or not). And, lastly, we know that the unequal power between an adult and a child is not only untenable to manage, but absolutely necessary for the child's wellbeing (in non-exploitive scenarios, like parenting, education, etc). The logical conclusion, i would say, is that if you want to reduce the amount of child sexual abuse, you would want to encourage the legalization of prostitution, buidling a wall (since sex slavery in the US seems to be largely provided for via illegal immigration in exchange for sex slavery), and outlawing certain forms of pornography that normalize the sexualization of children.

You are missing my entitre point
Again, im not defending phedofilia and i havent said the Sexual abuse in church have stopped
I already told you, what worries me is using some agenda to supress freedom of thougth wich have newr historicly ended well.

I also said i digged these facts up from the internet so its not like im inventing it up.
And it clearly can be read from the above informmation that long before the age of internet sexual abuse was a thing. Most of The information that i quoted can ve found on the following link :
https://tif.ssrc.org/2012/07/13/placing-childhood-sexual-abuse-in-historical-perspective/

I also woud like to see support for claims from research from several scientists were they say exposure from porn leads to more sexual abuse, otherwise its just a claim.

This thread turned into a novel!