Howdy Pete. Please understand that although I feel strongly about my argument, I am not on the verge of hysterics over the discussion. I mention that only because you referenced objectivity in the argument, and since my argument is based on the emotional damage of this type of relationship, it might appear as if I am emotional as well. But I'm not.
Now then, I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic" sense of harm, but I'm choosing to take "congential sense of harm" as meaning inherent, or as Merriam's defines "constituting an essential characteristic. And that's how I've understood your position in this thread. As I understand it, you are taking the position that there are no inherent problems and damage is not necessarily caused by e.g., an adult having anal sex with a 10 year boy a 6 year old girl performing oral sex on a man. You feel that the act itself is not inherently damaging and if society as a whole thought this act was great, then so would the child. Is that fair to say?
If this is so, then I don't think you appreciate the depth of my position. Now please, take all emotion out of this discussion for a moment. What I'm going to say could be interpreted as an appeal to the subjective, but I don't mean it that way. My position is simply that there is more to the act of pedophilia than simple insertion of a penis, just as there is more to the act of sex between a man and a woman. In the latter, you cannot deny there is a strong emotional feeling, even a bond that occurs. Are those feelings simply a result of 21st century societal norms? Do women feel such a strong and deep feeling during sex just because of our expectations for her?
My first rapist was my mother. And although what she did to me felt good, it was very confusing to me. She did not force me, as in holding me down, but it was an act that I did not want to participate in. My second rapist was my grandfather. He did hold me down, it did hurt a great deal and I really did not want to participate in it. But that didn't matter. Later my father did the same. I hated it. I wanted it to stop. However, I knew nothing of society's approval or disapproval of what was being done to me. All of my abuse occurred before I was 5. The only people I came in regular contact with told me, by word and by deed, that what they were doing was a good thing and they were going to keep on doing because they enjoyed it. My mother praised me once because of something she made me do. At that time in my life, I was showered with toys and clothes, we had a house on the lake and I could go swimming and boating. As a family we lived better than at any time later in my life. Materially speaking, I had anything I wanted.
But in my gut, deep inside, I knew it was wrong. Not because the church said it was wrong (we didn't go) and not because I knew that as a Judeo-Christian society, America disapproved strongly of incest. I knew it because the act itself carries such a tremendous emotional, spiritual and symbolic meaning, I felt it down to my cells. I was not an extraordinary child. 99.99999% of children feel the same way. You see, this is a discussion that I have lived. I know deep in my gut what those boys 2,000 years ago felt. I know how dirty they felt afterward, and I know how traumatized they felt in adulthood.
You say that it was considered an honor to enter a relationship in ancient Greece and Rome. I've read accounts from that period and I agree, that is what the texts say. But hear me when I say again, history is invariably written by the winners. In a relationship with an adult man and a 10 year old boy, who is the dominant? And if the movers and shakers of that society were also so inclinded to also have a relationship with a child, how do you think such a relationship will be documented? It won't be by the boy with the sore ass I can tell you that. My point in this area, is to take what those ancient texts say with a grain of salt. As with the Bible, just because a 2,000 year old document says the little girl was asking for it, got it and enjoyed it, doesn't make the actual event 100% accurate.
Which is why I made reference to today. There has been serious and productive research into just such a relationship. In the past 20 years we have learned more of the dynamics of this type of union than at any time in human history. And everything that has been learned points to the fact that such contact causes tremendous harm to the child, not because of societal norms but because human beings are not wired this way, especially in childhood. Children and sex are like gasoline and water; when they mix it causes an explosion damaging anything it touches.
The greatest harm to me was not the physical, those pains healed relatively quickly, no it was the pyschological scars that I carry to this day. 37 years after the fact, it still haunts me. You see it is this, indefinable, unquantifiable aspect of this relationship that is the crux of my argument. I believe that people behave, feel and respond the same way today to the same stimuli and conditions as they did 2,000 years ago. By that I mean that if a woman is raped, the act will engender in her the same feelings and responses in 23 AD as it does in 2003. The only difference will be in how others respond to her and then how she responds to their response and so on. The same with children and adults raping them. The difference this time is that at different points in history, others looked at the children and told them what an honor it was to have this man sodomize them. But that doesn't change how the child feels about the act. As I said before, there is no indication in any historical document that I am aware of, showing the long term effects of such a relationship on the child in puberty, adolescence and adulthood. There is documentation today, and the preponderance of evidence is such that any sexual contact with a child is harmful. Societal norms are irrelevent in this case. Simply making the statement doesn't make it so.
Now then, perhaps you can make an argument about older boys, in their late teens entering into a relationship with a grown man. There you might have something, depending on the individual boy of course. A gay teen would no doubt be far more eager, than a straight one. But here is where societal norms could indeed play a role. There are many instances in history in which homosexual acts was considered perfectly okay. It was common among Roman legions, especially in the field. Ordinarily straight men would turn to each other and it did not carry the stigma it does today. I have no problem with that argument. But children, now that's another kettle of fish and I'm not the only one who thinks so. To my knowledge there is no credible study or legitimate authority in the field of psychology who feels that sex with children causes no harm.
I hear what you are saying regarding inherent damage in the act of sex between adult and child. My point, stated simply, is that there is no documentation, no credible evidence that this is so. Simply making the statement and holding on to the belief does not make it a fact. Now then Pete, perhaps your argument should be that the ancient Greeks and Romans considered such a relationship to be an honor and they did so, despite the damage to the child. Perhaps the question should then be in that scenario, is such a relationship moral or not?
Now then, to try to tie this back to the title of this thread, since we know for a psychological fact that a coupling between adult and child causes the child tremendous harm, is that always immoral? Is there ever a reason or an excuse for such conduct? If not, then that means that there ARE moral absolutes.