Why adult/child sexual relations aren't immoral - Kaila Breece is wrongSo, Kaila_Breece recently wrote an article called
"Chances are, they'll grow up to hate you. Why I oppose adult/child sexual relations in practice."
In his article, Kaila argues that most children who engaged in sexual relations with adults are later harmed by the society that surrounds them because of it. Therefore, he asserts, adults should refrain from having sex with children. When I asked Kaila if adults who engaged in sexual acts with children should be blamed for the pain that is later inflicted on the children by society if the society finds out about it, he answered with yes.
This is a widely held belief among pedophiles. The argument goes that, while adult-child sex isn't intrinsically bad or harmful, the consequences inflicted on the children by society are. And therefore, according to this belief, pedophiles should not only refrain from having sex with children, but they are also to blame for all the sociogenic harm that sexual relations with children might cause to the children later on. Because the adults knew how society would view it, and therefore shouldn't even have engaged in that behavior in the first place to protect the children.
Ultimately, this belief is rooted in the assumption that if a person's actions lead other people to commit immoral actions, then the person is to blame for the immoral actions of those other people - even if the action of the person wasn't immoral at all.
An example of this principle would be the actions of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. On July 20, 1944, he tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler. The plot was discovered, and as a result, he was killed and left his children without a father. His wife, who was pregnant at the time, got sent to a concentration camp, in which she gave birth to their child. The other children were separated from their mother and sent to a nazi indoctrination camp.
According to Kaila_Breece's principle of being responsible of other people's immoral actions, Graf von Stauffenberg was to blame for all of this. After all, he knew that all of this would happen to his wife and his children if the plot was uncovered. Graf von Stauffenberg was to blame for all of this pain that the Nazis brought upon his family, according to this principle.
If we think this principle even further, then the Jews who fled from Nazi concentration camps were also to blame for all the inmates who were then executed as a punishment because a prisoner managed to flee. After all, the escapees knew that as a consequence of their actions, people would be executed. So, Kaila, would you also blame the Jews who fled from the Nazi concentration camps for the jews which were executed as a consequence of their actions?
And to give a more recent example. North Korea imprisons all relatives, even distant ones, of people who managed to flee the country.
That is what happened to Yeonmi Park, who managed to escape from North Korea:
So, would you blame her for trying to escape the country and leave her relatives to their fate?
Many North Korean relatives of refugees follow your logic and blame the refugees for the harm that was inflicted upon them.
Would you blame a war reporter for the pain that their children may suffer as a result of their death?
To use your own words:
Is the war reporter justified to risk that their children suffer a lifetime of mental distress for a headline in the newspaper?
What about a gay person who initiates sexual intercourse on another gay person in a country where you can get stoned to death for it? Are they to blame if their partner gets stoned to death by other people as a result of their actions?
If you're consequential, you have to.
This brings us to a fundamental problem. According to Kaila_Breece, the morality of an action depends on what other people may do as a result of it. Stealing can be good, or bad, depending on what other people may do as a consequence of it. Murder can be good or bad, depending on the actions of other people as a result of it. Anything can be immoral or moral, and there is no objective good or bad, because an action's morality is not based on the act itself, but on what other people do as a result of it.
If people approve of an action, then you consider the action can be moral. But if they don't approve of it and cause harm as a result of it, then it's immoral. So other people's subjective opinions dictate what you consider moral or immoral.
Your idea of morality is bound on majority opinion. But wasn't slavery always immoral, no matter how many people approved of it, and no matter how many enslaved parents died when they revolted against it, and left their children without parents? Isn't everyone responsible for their own actions, no matter what other people may think of it?
I say: The people who hurt the children with their indoctrination are the only ones to blame for the trauma they cause, not the adults who engaged in sexual relations with the child. And the adults aren't to blame, even IF they know that other people may cause harm to the children as a result of their actions. Because everyone is responsible for their own actions, and not the actions of others.
I commented on Kaila's article that Graf Stauffenberg's children also had to endure massive harm as a result of his assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. And I asked Kaila if Graf Stauffenberg is to blame for that. His answer was contradictory:
"I mean, yes? You must take responsibility for your actions morally. They did have noble goals and thus one could easily argue their decision is justifiable, risking their individual children being parentless to take a mass murderer out of power.. Is the pedophile justified risking a lifetime of mental distress for ten minutes of pleasure? Come now, that was a silly comparison."
So, first he is saying that Graf Stauffenberg is to blame for all the pain that the Nazis later inflicted on his children. But then he turns around and says that Stauffenberg's actions can be justified. So, an immoral action can be justified?
And an immoral action is justifed if you personally decide that it is "noble"?
That seems very contradictory and subjective.
Then he calls my comparison silly. "Is the pedophile justified risking a lifetime of mental distress for ten minutes of pleasure? Come now, that was a silly comparison."
First of all, I never talked about ten minutes of pleasure. So he's trying to exaggerate the situation. Usually people have sex more often and longer than once for ten minutes. And then again, whether it's just one minute once or hours each day shouldn't have any influence on the morality of the action. If a person does something moral with another person, and then later gets told that the other person is very very bad and then hates the other person for it, then the act itself is still moral. The morality of the act doesn't change just because a person is told that it was bad. Because the morality of an action should be a constant, independent of people's opinion.
If all people would stop to do illegal actions because doing them anyway could lead to harm to their children, friends and family, then we would never see any progress. Gay rights wouldn't have happened. Women's rights wouldn't have happened. Slavery would still be around. And we would still live in a monarchy.
If adults would all together stop to have sex with children from now on, then there would never be any proof that consensual sexual relations can have a positive influence on children. You wouldn't have any way to disprove the popular narrative anymore.
Anyway. I don't think that adults who had sex with children should be blamed if people later make the childen hate them. The people who indoctrinate the children to hate the persons that they liked before should be blamed instead.
Published on 17 August 2021.
Last modified on 28 December 2021.
Published on 17 August 2021.
Last modified on 28 December 2021.
sex, sexuality, children, kids, adult-child, relations, morality, morals, kaila breece, immoral
Standard FreeSpeechTube license
Possibly related content, auto-generated:
Chances are, they'll grow up to hate you. Why I oppose adult/child sexual relations in practice.
The Real Reason Adult-Child Sexual Relations are Frowned Upon and Why MAP Activisim is Bound to Fail