Legitimizing sexual interaction between adults and children is a symptom of Pragmatism. Notice that sexual abuse parallels the rise of Pragmatism.
In the absence of moral principles, you have just "what works."
Years ago, two child molesters were on the Sally Jesse Raphael show. She asked them why they did it. Their answer was that the child would respond sexually to them. Therefore, "it was OK."
What if you bashed these guys with a sled hammer on their bear feet? They would respond. They might even think twice about doing it next time. Must be OK. (At least in their case, it is.)
The idea that "if you touch a child's genitals and you get a response, therefore it is OK" to go further and further, is an invasion of the child's privacy, at the very least, as well as preying on the child's physiological functions which they have no control over. Their body betrays them and that is why there is so much guilt associated with being molested. That mind/body confusion rests on their inner voice saying "no," but their body not following suit. No one can predict the long-term or short-term psychological reaction of child to what is abuse—the abuse of your access and the abuse of their life, both physical and mental integrity.
What right do you have to "teach" them anything? Are you the saintly altruist that must go out of your way to teach children about their sex organs?
No child needs a lesson on what they can and should discover on their own. Adult help is not needed. Before you can love others, or have relations, you must learn to love yourself and your own identity. Your first long-term sexual experience must be your own self-discovery. SELF.
The only reason for sex ed is to avoid disease and pregnancy. The reason for sexual morality is to give young adults the tools to find a long-term relationship with a partner that enhances their life by giving them guidance to judge character and the knowledge of how sex relates to their widest values.
Do you seriously believe that you will provide a long-term relationship with a child, while you are rotting in prison? Or that your lessons will have any genuine benefit to the child's health and character? A girl that has sexual activity with others as a child is much more likely to be sexually active in her early teens, thus inviting the threats of death by AIDS.
You don't have a choice in being sexual stimulated, if you are stimulated by physical action, just as if someone put out the aroma of fresh bread. You would take a deeper breathe to sniff more. It is strictly a physiological phenomenon. Pouring a bucket of stinking vomit on the floor to the sounds of someone's vomiting throws would equally stimulate the regurgitative response. Does that mean we need more of it?
Even if adult-child sex was an immediate pleasure, so perhaps is a toy or a ice cream cone. There are plenty of ways to entertain children in their innocence, without destroying it.
Certainly, we could engineer a drug with no side effects that could give a great high. But that doesn't mean you are not evading some very basic moral thinking that a civilized person should have, in contrast, to the modern savage, who gets a few kicks while omitting moral principles from his life.
There are some disturbing statements in his threat that belie an honest interest in the topic. Under the guise of not wanting to corrupt a child's sexual outlook because of Christian Puritanism, one enters into a riff on engaging in sexual activity with children—and then proceeds to justify it in pragmatic and vulgar terms, such as "there was a society in which people porked their kids."
This I submit is not something of an honest inquiry, but comes from someone who is a real danger, a threat to the children around him, someone who is seeking to self-legitimize a fantasy by publicly appealing to others and preying on their ignorance/reluctance to mount a firm moral response. If he doesn't get that, what do you imagine he will do?
It is a fantasy to imagine a child who has no reluctance to have sexual activity, or a child who will later consent, or that such "consent" has any moral standing. There is no such child. Do not confuse "playfulness" or "curiosity," whatever that may mean to you, with consent.
Do not confuse physiology with consent, or anticipated consent, or that you are helping altruistically out of the goodness of your heart, something that children have the right to learn on their own, without God or you, looking over their shoulder. "Before I can say I love you, I first must know how to say the I." Leave a kid's I alone. Get your own "I" and fix it.
You should really blow your brains out if you want to do children a favor.
