Sexually interfering with a child is a myth

Sexually interfering with children is a myth put forward by sexophobes and antisexuals to support their (false) claims that any sexual interaction between adults and children is (supposedly) "harmful" or "damaging" to the children involved, either physically or, especially, psychologically.

This argument is only one in a very long serious of fallacious arguments put forward to (supposedly) "justify" the harsh treatment of BoyLovers under the law, and the denial of young people's right to "sexual agency". It is an example of psychobabble.

First, of course, we should define our terms (unlike those in the child abuse industry, who often throw around words without ever defining what they mean!)

   Interfere:

   The Concise Oxford Dictionary:
   *1. (interfere with) prevent from continuing or being carried out properly.
   :get in the way of.
   :handle or adjust without permission.
   *2. intervene without invitation or necessity.
   *3. (interfere with) British euphemistic sexually molest.

   The American Heritage Dictionary:
   *1. To come between so as to be a hindrance or an obstacle.
   *3. To intervene or intrude in the affairs of others; meddle.

   The Merriam Webster Dictionary:
   *1. to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes ; come into collision or be in opposition
   *3. to enter into or take a part in the concerns of others

So to "sexually interfere" with a child means to:

• (in a way that is sexual) to interfere with/intervene/come between/interpose, etc. between the child's development and something else.
  

What is that "something else"? This is never mentioned by those (wrongly) arguing against adult/child sexual interactions.

The "something else" is the (implicit/unstated) assumption that children, as they develop their sexual interests and attitudes, are involved in a process, and that process is being somehow disrupted by "sexual interference" of others. We must now ask, what is that process?

The process that is (assumed, without being stated) is that there is a "normal" progression of experiences and events in a child's life that shape the child's sexuality. For one thing, this implies that children are all sexually oriented alike--that there is only one "correct model" of a young person/child, and of its development.

That model is of a heterosexually oriented young person, with no interest in sexual experimentation outside of the "heterosexual" model, and that the "child" progresses from:

• early sexual experimentation with peers (so-called "normal [[|Sex play|sex play",]] but a kind of sexuality that is somehow completely distinct from the "adult form" of sexuality)
• to the "adolescent" stage--first taking a sexual interest in the opposite sex
• to "dating,"
• to becoming "engaged,"
• to marrying
• and then finally to their "first real sexual experience" with their spouse.

Is there strong research evidence that suggests that this is, indeed, the actual (and therefore correct) developmental model of a young person's growing sexuality? Actually, no, there isn't. This "model" is the fictional and imaginary patriarchal description of the hoped-for/wished-for way that a child grows up, put forward by right-wing conservatives and third-wave (antisexual) feminists.

The evidence does not support this "wishful thinking". Young people do sexually experiment in many different ways as they grow up, and with "peers" of various ages as well as with those judged to be "adults" merely by the fact that they have achieved their eighteenth birthday.

When the sexophobes and antisexuals claim that any sexual activity between an adult and a young person somehow "interferes" with the young person's "sexual development" they are actually saying that young people should be kept sexually ignorant until marriage--something that is absurd, given the fact that learning is so important to the establishment of healthy (meaning fairly well functioning) emotional and physical relationships with others.

We could look at an analogy--for example, "educationally interfering" with children. Let us assume that--without any outside "interference"--a child's education will somehow "naturally" (meaning "magically") occur, as long as it is not "interfered with" by others. Adults should, then, not "interfere" with this "normal" development. Children should left, like flowers (or weeds) in an untended garden, to "grow" and "develop" according to whatever genetic predispositions they have or environmental conditions exist.

We would probably agree any experienced gardener would laugh out loud if someone suggested the above "method" as the best method of raising a "healthy" garden!

This exposes the real problem with those making claims about adults (supposedly) "sexual interfering" with children and with young people: the ones who make those claims are very obviously totally ignorant about the nature of children, the process of growing up, and the meaning and importance of education!

See also

• Child sexuality
• Childhood
• Peripubescence
• Adolescence
• Myths about pedophiles
• Harmful to Minors (book)
• The Trauma Myth (book)
• Paedophilia:The Radical Case (book)