Also, why do anti-contact people always assume sexual intercourse that is wild and unrestrained? I'm curious? Why when someone mentions parents fears of paedosexuals, you go right to "intercourse that hurts the girl's insides"?

Because that is the sex that they practice?

This is by far the most explanatory powerful hypothesis, imho.

That is the sex they practice, so they project it to us. Simple as that.








Are you implying this is instinctual? It isn't. It is a social taboo that plays on the parent's instinct to protect. It's "society says/I was raised to beleive sex is bad, society says/I was raised to believe sex is especially bad for kids, so we don't want sex near them."

Re-checking this thread, I notice that this is an important point in your debate with Markaba; and I further thought of something I hadn't thought about before; and which, to me fatally, undermines the instinctual argument.

There are too many exceptions.

Far too many parents do not prevent sex with their children. If this was instinctual, you would probably still find exceptions (after all, there are exceptions to everything: ie, suicide contradicts the instinct to self-preserve) but they would be extremely few. As it is, you find too many exceptions, even in cultures which propagate an anti-child-sex culture for it to be instinctual.

It is almost like the vegetarians and vegans who argue that vegetarianism is instinctual. There are just too many exceptions for it to be true. They just argue that because it makes them feel better. Not unlike the anti-contact.