How is “sex with children” sugarcoating it? That seems to be a literal interpretation of what’s going on?
The other two I can understand as reductive language but this is just calling a spade a spade no? Is “sex with a child” not just as bad as “child abuse” or are there people who see that as a better way of phrasing it?
The nuance is that “sex” requires consent, because sex without consent is rape. So sex with a non-consenting person (including all children) can’t exist, because it’s actually raping children.
It’s more of a nitpicky difference than the others because I’d bet your average adult doesn’t bother thinking about that nuance, but it does carry a different subconscious weight. One is considered fun, happy, and almost everyone does it; the other is a monstrous act that has no justification.
How is “sex with children” sugarcoating it? That seems to be a literal interpretation of what’s going on?
The other two I can understand as reductive language but this is just calling a spade a spade no? Is “sex with a child” not just as bad as “child abuse” or are there people who see that as a better way of phrasing it?
The nuance is that “sex” requires consent, because sex without consent is rape. So sex with a non-consenting person (including all children) can’t exist, because it’s actually raping children.
It’s more of a nitpicky difference than the others because I’d bet your average adult doesn’t bother thinking about that nuance, but it does carry a different subconscious weight. One is considered fun, happy, and almost everyone does it; the other is a monstrous act that has no justification.
Okay that makes more sense, I think my autism just got me too bogged down in the semantics of it all, thank you
I don’t think that your definition of the term “sex” is universal.