/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15640387
All you did was quote Wikipedia.
>Numerous studies and professional clinical experience in the field of psychology, both before and after Rind et al.'s publications, have long borne out that children cannot consent to sexual activity
This is an irrelevant moral statement.
>and that child and adolescent sexual abuse cause harm.
Studies such the one conducted by the Rind team conclusively show that consensual adult-child relationships do not cause any harm whatsoever, only non-consensual relationships.
>Psychologist Anna Salter comments that Rind et al.'s results are "truly an outlier" compared to other meta-analyses.
For the reasons identified by the Rind team which invalidate the entirety of the literature on "child sexual abuse".

Curious people can review the literature themselves and easily identify the methodological flaws which invalidate the research on "child sexual abuse", since the issues are very obvious.

(1) Reliance on clinical and criminal samples
(2) No proper controlling for confounding factors (such as home environment, which was found to be over 6 times more predictive of negative outcomes than even non-consensual sexual experiences in the Rind study)
(3) Improper definitions of "sexual abuse" (i.e. comparing outcomes of consensual sexual experiences with rape)

The same methodology applied to heterosexual sexual relationships would conclude that "heterosexual sexual abuse" is a real phenomenon.

Here is the only study to date conducted on active pedophile relationships, which found the relationships to be beneficial to the boys involved:
https://www.ipce.info/host/sandfort_87/index.htm
>>15640390
Cancer is natural and harmful, primates don't purposefully try to get cancer. Pedophilia is natural and harmless.
>>15640395
Not what survivorship bias means.