Harm as an Argument Against Sex With Children

That sex with children is harmful for the children is the most common argument against sex with children.

Like almost any other human behavior, volitional sex with children may sometimes lead to negative results, sometimes to positive. But there is no evidence what volitional sex is in general harmful for children.

For example, Finkelhor writes: "The evidence suggests that such sexual contact can be harmful, often extremely so. The evidence also suggests that such sexual contact is frequently felt to be negative and unpleasant even if it does not always leave permanent scars. On the other side, the evidence of positive or therapeutic effects is small - and controversial. In short, most people would agree that even if not inevitably harmful, sexual contact between adults and children carries high risk. These high risks justify the prohibitions society places on this activity."

Counter-Arguments

No difference between coercive and volitional sex

The main failure in this argumentation is that it does not distinguish rape and sexual coercion - crimes independent of age of consent laws - and volitional sex. To justify some laws it is not fair to refer to activities which are already forbidden by other laws.

Of course, like almost any other human behavior, volitional sex with children may sometimes lead to negative results, sometimes to positive. But there is no evidence what volitional sex with children is in general harmful or of high risk.

But even if there is no agreement about the possibility of harm caused by volitional sex, there is much agreement that the use of force makes the abuse more harmful. That means, the harm caused by coercive sex is much greater than the harm possibly caused by volitional sex.

Ignoring Risks of Persecution

Even if we consider sex with children as bad, we have to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the use of penal law to protect the children from this harm. That means:

The harm caused by the sex itself must be greater than the secondary harm caused by the persecution process and the other negative side-effects of penal laws.

Many researchers consider the secondary traumatisation caused by the persecution to be comparable with the traumatization caused by the sexual abuse itself. If we combine this with the previous argument, it seems reasonable to conclude that for cases of volitional sex the harm caused by the persecution will be greater than the possible harm caused by the sex itself. That means, the current state of research about harm does not give any justification for age-of-consent laws.

Moral Considerations

There are other, moral considerations, which are more essential than the consideration of the probability of harm.

Indeed, many of the main principles of the society we live in can cause a lot of harm for many people, even the majority of people.

• Freedom of speech even for every single person is harmful for the majority of other people who dislike this opinion.
• Freedom in general is correlated with responsibility for bad decisions and that's why harmful for people who make the wrong decisions.
• A main principle of the justice system is that if there is some even little doubt, the accused has to be considered as not guilty. This is obviously harmful for a lot of victims.

That means, harm is not the ultimate question. Of course, this consideration is true from the other side too - the existence of some positive experiences does not show that something is good.

In this sense, the discussion about sex becomes part of the discussion about the rights of children. The human right to decide about the own body is a powerful argument against aoc-laws even if sex with children causes harm.

On the other hand, if there is no or not much harm, the consent argument fails.