We are not pedophiles. We have no interest in children or their indecent depictions.

We make extreme efforts to not run afoul of any law, not even by mistake or accident 1 2 3 .

We are interested in truth, free academic research, in protection and happiness for children 5.

We are against unnecessary witch hunts that demonize and imprison people with unnecessary rigor and that criminalize a huge percentage of the (male) population.

The biggest of all taboos: to research, study or discuss adult-child sexuality.

We have been warned. We will be called pedophiles. We may suffer vigilante action. We may suffer government prosecution. We should not mess with the topic adult-child sex.

Yes we are talking about real children under 12 years of age, not just 17 year old adolescent young adults, re-defined as "children" by feminist dogma and by the *United Nations.

The Rind Study serves as a warning: a prestigious, peer reviewed meta analysis, published in one of the most prestigious journals of the American Psychological Association: probably the only piece of peer reviewed academic research condemned by unanimous vote by both the United States Senate and Congress.

The authors’ stated goal was “…to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?” Some of the authors’ more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not. Wikipedia on Bruce Rind

The US Senate and Congress have decided, once and for all, by dogmatic fiat: "child sexual abuse" is is extremely traumatic under all circumstances. Academic research must not arrive at any different conclusions.

Such a shocking interference of religious and moral zealots with scientific truth has not happened since Galileo Galilei: a few centuries ago, the catholic church decreed the "scientific truth" that the sun revolves around the earth.

The Trauma Myth

Susan Clancy inadvertently stumbled over the unpopular truth, as published in

The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children–and Its Aftermath .

All hell broke loose. I was bombarded with accusations that I was hurting victims even more than they already had been and that I was a friend of pedophiles. I was also vilified by many in my own scientific community. Some colleagues and graduate students stopped talking to me. A well-meaning professor told me to pick another research topic because I was going to rule myself out of a job in academia. Some felt my research had a political agenda, one biased against victims. I was invited to give a talk about my research at Cambridge Hospital—home of the tremendously influential sexual abuse treatment program Victims of Violence. No one from the program showed up. Clancy (pp. 77-78).

Researchers refuse to discuss issues in a seminar?! The most convinced adversaries never counter with true research, with true arguments?

This is the sad state of affairs. A dogma does not need to be discussed scientifically. The Bible has the definite answer. The US senate made the scientific decision.

And Human-Stupidity has the insanity to question and analyze the dogma.

Human-Stupidity is open to science. Just prove me wrong, using science.

If unbiased free academic research can show that 17 year olds get traumatized for life for having sex with older people, we will support age-of-consent laws. If the Rind study, and Susan Clancy can be proven wrong, by free unbiased academic research, we will support draconian decade-long punishments for all childhood sexuality. We would stand corrected if the voodoo theory could be proven true, by free unbiased academic research: if it were proven that looking at photos of lightly clothed 15 year olds, downloaded for free from the internet does irreparable harm to the minors depicted. If that harm is so perverse that looking at the photos ruins the model’s life forever. And that downloading free photos truly stimulates the rape and abuse of innumerous children. Then we might agree that life in prison without parole is a proper punishment for possession of a few hundred photos, which are nothing else then 0’s and 1’s in files on a computer hard drive.

But against all odds, Milton Diamond, in peer reviewed research, proved the opposite: freely available child pornography reduces sex crimes against children, because many pedophiles can satisfy themselves merely by perusing pictures.

Certainly, scientific research should not be manipulated and repressed by religion, feminism, or personal feelings. It is relevant to understand Robert Kurzban‘s description of how people invent non-existing victims to justify their pre-conceived opinions.

You creep! Adult-child sex is disgusting and wrong! Period.

I don’t disagree. You have all right to protect your children. Or to promote laws that criminalize adult child sex. BUT

Don’t falsify academic research to further bolster your claim and to justify an absurd police state with extreme draconian punishment. Base your policy on free unbiased science.

And don’t break the law engaging in vigilante action.

And don’t prosecute and punish thought crimes like manga drawings of child sex, or possession of Homer Simpson cartoons. Nor persecute and harm law abiding pedophiles like Jack McClellan.

And join me in my fight against the dangerous child obesity epidemic that kills and sickens Millions of children and adults every year. Let us fight REAL child endangerment that truly hurts children, instead of protecting children from trumped up imaginary voodoo theories.

Why do you obsess, or even care about adult child sexuality and child pornography?

We believe that neither the Bible nor the US senate or US congress are sources to scientific knowledge and truth

We at Human-Stupidity are fanatically interested in the truth.

We don’t accept dogma, even if the dogma supported and enforced by the US Congress and Senate . Even when threatened with prosecution for thought crimes, our curiosity and quest for truth does not stop.

We are driven by curiosity. We want to know the truth. At any price.

Admit it you pervert: you are a pedophile, you want to abuse our pre-pubescent children! Why else would you defend pedophilia and child pornography?

We have absolutely no interest in pre-pubescent children.

We are not even "law abiding pedophiles" like Jack McClellan. Jack McClellan is a self professed pedophile who admits sexual attraction to 8 year olds, but explains that he does not act on his attraction because he is a law abiding citizen. This was enough for him to get restraining orders, threats, humiliation and aggression at the Steve Wilkos talks show. His naïve honesty pretty much ruined his life.

We are normal healthy people that have no sexual interest whatsoever in pedophilia. No sexual interest whatsoever in pre-pubescent children.

Only those who don’t engage in illicit behavior can afford to publicly defend Child Porn or child sexuality

If we were engaging in any illegal child sexual pursuits, or even just interested in collecting child pornographic images, we would be wise enough to shut up.

Nambla (North American Man Boy Love Organization) members have suffered arrests and prosecution. Many of Nambla members actually engaged in actual pedophilia, or consumed child porn and thus were vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. Now they wisened up and keep a low profile. Even their web site nambla.org is not easily accessible (Google is your friend if you want to try). I will refrain from linking to it, though Nambla.org actually has some interesting articles.

We take extra precautions to stay away from all underage minors

To avoid any potential misunderstanding, trouble, or intentional CP entrapment, we ID check any friend, visitor, or client that looks under 35 years of age. Thus nobody under 18 years of age would ever get close to us. Except when accompanied by a responsible parent, with proper ID. Yes it is embarrassing when I have to kick out a friend’s underage brother or sister. Yes it is sad that we refuse to teach professional skills by tutoring a bright 16 year old boy, even with parental consent. Self preservation is important, especially when outing ourselves with such heretic writings.

Why would one "defend" pedophilia if one is not a pedophile?

Why would one oppose medieval witch hunts, if one is not does not believe in sorcery and is not interested in witchcraft?

Why would high ranking police and law enforcement be in favor of liberalizing drugs if they don’t consume drugs?

We oppose imprisonment of harmless people for victimless crime

We would like to keep prisons free for violent dangerous criminals. We don’t see the need to cruelly lock up for non-violent people who copy files in the privacy of their home. We oppose overcriminalization.

Free scientific research from emotional and religious barriers

We don’t need to falsify science to prohibit the sale of dog meat

Is it necessary to falsify and prevent scientific research to justify penalties for indecency with children? Are people afraid they can not justify the draconian laws if the truth be known? Why are people afraid that damage will be done if academic researchers are allowed to say the truth, without political interference (see Rind Study and Susan Clancy),

We prohibit the sale of dog and horse meat. We don’t need to invent false science about the terrible danger of eating dog meat. We can prohibit dog meat for sentimental reasons, without hiding behind junk science. But there are no decade-long prison sentences for illegally selling dog meat.

We believe if the lies get uncovered, the manipulative language removed, punishments should be much less severe.

Child porn laws prescribing punishment for possession of pictures or possession of drawings should be revised. Or rather unceremoniously scrapped. Let freedom of expression and freedom of press prevail.

We want science to inform us how to best protect the well being of children

We want to protect children: Legalizing child pornography reduces child sexual abuse, as Milton Diamond has proven conclusively. We are more concerned with child food porn, junk food promotion that really leads to chronic disease and premature death in hundreds of million people world wide.

Lots of child pornography is nothing more then adolescent erotica(copine scale, Knox vs. USA) with 17 year old "children". Children get victimized not so much by child porn itself, but by child pornography and sexting prosecution.

People get punished with years, decades 1, or life in prison for having copies of computer files that consists of 0’s and 1’s. While pictures of child mutilation, child murder, shaking babies to death are common staple on YouTube.

Related