It doesn’t seem to me that the question of consent is at the root of most people’s opposition to and revulsion from pedophilia. In my opinion there is something deeper.
Children don’t consent to many things, and yet we impose them on them.
What would you say to a pedophile who managed to produce good scientific evidence (psychological studies, etc.) that in certain cases the child would not be harmed, and might even “benefit,” from sexual contact? Whether the child agrees or not.
My question isn’t entirely theoretical. There are already social movements, admittedly tiny at this stage, that speak openly about the legitimacy of such a social move. It seems to me that in certain countries these movements are even legal (I mean the discourse, not the practice).
In short, I’m looking for a better explanation.

Clearly the issue is consent. And precisely your claim about studies that would prove there is no harm is what proves the point. In principle, if there is no harm there is no problem. And even so, consent is required, just as adults need consent for sexual relations even though in that case there is certainly no harm. You can’t invade a person’s domain without permission, even if you cause him no harm.

I don’t see how your answer takes into account the main issue I was talking about—consent with children is not an exclusive principle, and sometimes not even a central one. We force children to go to school, bathe, wear clothes…. We impose things on them all the time because we believe it is for their good (even if we’re sometimes wrong). On the contrary, it is certainly conceivable that in some cases children will say they want it, of course without any real understanding of the matter (but that is true of adults too..). Therefore pedophilia (and several other sensitive phenomena) doesn’t seem to me to fall under the same limitation of lack of consent. At the very least, lack of consent is not the central issue.

It may be that in some theoretical edge case there would be no moral problem with it at all, but that doesn’t mean one can speak about general policy. All you’re really exposing is the well-known fact that every rule has an exception (except this rule :))

There may be theoretical edge cases in which it would be hard to find moral reasons to disqualify such conduct, but that’s just another example of how very hard it is to define things hermetically, and that every rule has an exception (that a child is not competent to make such decisions)—except for that rule. It’s exactly like trying to define music, or art, or science.

When some action is required for a child, society gives his guardian the authority to decide for him. The alternative is that he will suffer harm, receive no education, and not get the tools for his life ahead.
In our case we are talking about an action that is not necessary for him and apparently is also harmful to him. In addition, the one deciding it is not his parent. I don’t see on what sophistries we need to waste time here.

Michi,
Let’s start from the end: there is definitely concern that our society is moving in increasingly tolerant directions toward pedophilia. Look at what is happening in North America with programs for “sex education” / gender / sexual preference and the like already for kindergarten children. Among other things, there are places trying to institutionalize education for changing the sexual identity of kindergarten children.
People are already getting up and saying that “the other” is entitled to autonomy just like us, and therefore the definition of “the other” should be expanded and applied to children. And since children are sexual beings just like all of us—you don’t have to be Freud to think that—the discourse about sex with them may come to be seen as legitimate. From there the road to practice is short. The line of argument will go something like this: we liberated Blacks, we liberated women, LGBT people, etc. etc., now it’s time to liberate the children. I am in no way saying we are already there or that we will definitely get there, but there are certainly hints of it.
What you said about a child’s guardian serving his good is obvious, but it doesn’t fit with what you said earlier (you changed the axis of the discussion: at first you said the main thing was consent or its absence, and now you’re talking about the child’s good in light of the alternatives).
M,
It’s not clear to me why you bring in the idea of edge cases. We’re talking about a principled moral view of what is appropriate or inappropriate with children, and there is concern that this view will change and cease to be “edge cases.” Therefore it’s not clear to me what you base your opposition to pedophilia on “in general.”

The fact that there are crazies is not an argument and proves nothing.
I changed nothing. My claim is that even if there is no harm, intervention in another person’s life and rights requires consent,
and children do not have consent. If it is for the child’s good, the consent of his guardian can suffice, and if it is not for his good and not done by the guardian, then there is no room for discussion at all.

I suggest you read again what you wrote at the beginning, then afterward, and now.

Children have no judgment, certainly when they are facing an adult. The power relations in every respect do not allow the minor autonomy. The fact that there could be some edge case engineered for the sake of the philosophical discussion (a mature child where it is 100% clear that it benefits him, etc. etc.) should not affect the general run of cases, which are very simple. A child facing an adult is simply not an even match.

M,
I see there is some issue here that makes it hard for readers to focus on the subject of the discussion… Michi already argued that the heart of the matter is consent (what you call autonomy), and I already addressed that and argued that it’s not correct, because in most cases we choose to revoke the child’s autonomy because the important consideration is his good. And I also gave simple examples. Therefore it is clear that a sexual act with a child is wrong first of all because of this reason (harm to his good), not because of harm to his autonomy. That’s it. If now you want to provide an explanation for why we see pedophilia as such a terrible thing, you have to begin with this issue, not with the question of autonomy.
Hope now it’s clearer to you what the discussion is about (or at least what my claim is).

Doron, what you clarified here is precisely the fact that the subject of the discussion is not clear to you. The question focused us on the (hypothetical) situation in which there are studies showing that there is no harm to the child. The aim was precisely to neutralize what you are now presenting as the heart of the discussion. So I suggest you adopt your own suggestion from above. Good luck.

Michi, I recommend that you read my remarks again. After you do so, this time with more attention, come back here and read the points I will lay out again below, as a kind of summary. I’m sure that then you’ll understand what you and I are talking about.
From the outset I argued that there are deep reasons for our revulsion, at least as modern people, from pedophilia. I also said that I have an explanation but did not yet present it… When you raised autonomy as the explanation, I showed you with simple everyday examples that this is not the main consideration, and that if anything the child’s good takes precedence. I did not claim that this explanation (the child’s good) is the main one, only that in my opinion it comes before the value of autonomy. Therefore the fact that we neutralized the issue of the child’s good for very exceptional cases did not bring us back to choosing the second option (autonomy). There is no dilemma here, but rather a broader reality in which there are other possible explanations, and they do not suffer from the flaw in your explanation.

Well, the time has come to part ways (as friends, of course). I’m done.

Doron,
In my humble opinion, the difference between the cases you cited above (in which the child’s autonomy is denied) and pedophilia is that in the other cases we deny the child’s autonomy for something that is for his good, but in pedophilia, once you have denied the autonomy, it is no longer for his good. In other words, we will force the child to go to school so that afterward things will be better for him, but in sexual acts autonomy itself is what makes the act good for him (otherwise he does not enjoy it, and he certainly cannot bring children into the world), so once you have denied the autonomy, the child’s good has also been taken away, and therefore the cases cannot be compared.
And yes, this is the same Yishai that you got tired of discussing other topics with.

Yishai my friend,
I already addressed this point…
It seems that you too, like Michi and his faction, are captive to the either-or idea: either the child’s good or his autonomy. In any case, you yourself also admit that autonomy is subordinate to the child’s good, and if one must choose only between the two (and I claim one need not), then the child’s good comes first.

Society today has decided that pedophilia is unacceptable.
Society can change its mind and decide that it is a proper thing.
And why are you asking about pedophilia, which is a relatively rare matter in society? Why don’t you ask about the fact that society has decided it is acceptable to harm children and raise them into the jaws of stupidity?