Opinion: The source of child abuse is age based hierarchy

I’m not sure about the political alignments of other people on this forum but I identify as an anarchist. That means that I believe in the abolition of hierarchy. One of the primary issues that anarchists tend to be divided on is figuring out what forms of hierarchy are worth abolishing, some anarchists believe that some forms of hierarchy are natural and good while other anarchists believe that all forms of hierarchy can and should be abolished.

Unlike most anarchists, I believe that the concept of age-based hierarchy can and should be abolished as it is the source of child abuse or at least an immense contributing factor.

Allow me to explain:

A great deal of research papers in the fields of sexology and crime have repeatedly concluded that the vast majority of pedophiles are not child molesters and most child molesters do not fit the psychological criteria to be considered pedophiles. Children who are victims of sex abuse usually aren’t kidnapped by strangers offering free candy but are actually hurt by people they know.

It seems apparent to me that the power and effectiveness of child abusers whether they be pedophiles or not comes from the authority that adults are traditionally granted over children as it allows adults to manipulate or coerce children into doing things that they don’t want to do. To me, the solution to this issue is obvious.

We as a society need to abandon age hierarchy. If we do, all people of all age groups will be capable of self-defense, intellectual, physical and emotional self sufficiency which will defeat the hierarchal coercion frequented by child abusers.

I genuinely believe that if age hierarchy becomes extinct, both child abuse and pedophilia will gradually cease to exist.


Why do you think hierarchy to blame you have provided zero evidence of that and age hierarchy is natural, younger children will look up to older children for advice and the same with adults, its not something that will go away.

Younger people looking to older people for advice is not a form of hierarchy. Hierarchy is when older people demand the obedience and submission of the youth to them on the basis of their age.


I am a libertarian and believe in the least government possible. But I don’t think that NO government is reasonable or possible. Newborns and toddlers must be cared for. Older children that can fend for themselves are wild animals. To join society, they must learn discipline and self-control. Thus their parents or older family members have a hierarchy over them. As society became more complex, more guardians developed. A teenager is almost an adult and capable of most adult tasks, but they have to learn to work together in society and to channel the natural aggression boys have. Teachers, coaches, ministers, police and so forth become the new guardians. But these new, temporary, necessary guardians do have a power and some will misuse it.

A mob will not prevail against a unified, disciplined force except by sheer numbers. That is why hierarchies develop. I suggest reading a short story by Larry Niven, Cloak of Anarchy.


I don’t think this tells the full story, but I agree with the basics of what you’re saying.


No government is both completely reasonable and very possible as many anarchist societies have flourished in the past. In no case, has an anarchist society ever imploded on itself, rather all of them were destroyed through invasions by nations unwilling to allow the tolerate successful anarchism.

I am not arguing against caring for newborns and toddlers, I am arguing against hierarchy over them. You can care for someone without having hierarchy over them. It’s difficult to do but very possible.

Teens are not ‘‘wild animals’’, to refer to them as such is ageism. Furthermore, young men are not naturally aggressive, aggression is a product of one’s experiences and upbringing.

I’ve read Cloak of Anarchy and I think it stupid as it fails to portray an accurate anarchist society.


Please name some successful anarchist societies. I am open to reasoned discussion.

As for teen males natural aggression, why do you think most armies have sent huge numbers of teens against the enemy. They have testosterone coming out their ears and don’t yet comprehend their own mortality.

‘‘Please name some successful anarchist societies’’ is always a trick question that people like to lure anarchists into to disprove our stance. Every anarchist society that has ever existed was destroyed… it didn’t collapse, it was destroyed. If an anarchist society is allowed to succeed, it upheaves the entire status quo. Regardless, anarchist societies that did work for the time they functioned comprise of the Free Territory of Ukraine and Revolutionary Catalonia.

Armies regularly use teen males as soldiers because they are physically capable of fighting and can increase manpower. Teen soldiers are regularly traumatized by war to the same degrees that adult soldiers are.

The idea that teens are somehow uniquely incapable of processing their own mortality so they have to be scared into submission is so fucking stupid. Teens don’t think about their mortality often because most healthy people of all ages don’t. The human brain is literally incapable of processing its own nonexistence unless it is under extreme stress.

There is no reasoned discussion to be had with someone who considers teenagers to be animals. The fact that you even think that should disqualify you from having any say over child safety. Teens are humans beings, not dogs.

Child abuse is fueled by age-based hierarchy, its success is almost entirely dependent on age-based hierarchy. Its destruction is the only permanent path to child safety.

If a form of authority can be easily corrupted, that form of authority should be abolished.


No, it is not a “trick” question. I genuinely wish to know. Also, citing your source is needed to establish that you are not just making baseless claims.

1 Like

It’s not asked in good faith, it’s used to say “look, there aren’t any so anarchist societies don’t work” which is a flawed argument. That there might not be examples of successful and lasting anarchist societies doesn’t mean they cannot work.

1 Like

As someone who worked through the collectivist era in LGBT organizations, I think I’ve seen every reasonable attempt to implement anarchic accomplishment, and I can tell you that anything that involves more than 30 people and lasts more than a year will have a distinct hierarchy. It may be masked in many ways, most commonly by the claim that the key leaders only represent the will of the people, but it will be there.

As for small kids, people who will run into traffic and spend all day every day on the phone playing games are in great need of an authority figure to keep them alive and move them on to the next developmental level.

The syllogism about a sexual orientation somehow disappearing in the Animal Farm framework completely escapes me. I suppose it’s based on a fantasy that the rawest and greenest would become so level on the social playing field that they’d be able to tell any wily, persuasive, highly experienced manipulators who wanted to make unwanted contact to get lost. Not realistic. It’s hard enough to keep adults from being conned, as any Nigerian prince can tell you.


No, that would be the null argument. If you say some society was anarchistic, you need to show one.
That something is theoretically possible is suspect argument. Anything is theoretically possible. If you say there are no anarchist societies and someone says, “Hey, here’s one”, then you have disproved the argument. I didn’t say either, I just asked for an example. I don’t know of any, but if one can be produced, I would like to know about it.

It might comfort you to know that you are not alone among anarchists here. i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4

It is not a topic which researchers would be very willing to study specifically, as academia is an establishment which is still heavily pressured to maintain the status quo. I am sure that, however, we here are all aware enough that CSA is primarily perpetrated by older people with authority over the victim. An anarchist MAP ally explains the idea further here.

You seem to be subscribing to the popular notion that “anarchy = chaos.” Anarchists are perfectly capable of organizing, though in a decentralized and horizontal manner. Rojava, a near-anarchist region, has remained standing after around ten years.

Lol, gender and age essentialism in one. Testosterone is not poison. Funnily enough, that’s a common argument used by TERFs to deny transmascs autonomy.

Teenagers, like all other humans, are products of our environment. If you seriously cannot think of a teen male who thinks and acts any differently from that, you have an extremely limited view of what human beings are like and are most likely projecting.


You sure about that?

Right to self-harm and right to autonomy is more important than harm reduction. Nor is hierarchical coercion a particularly effective way of preventing that harm in the first place. Informing them something is harmful =/= telling them they are not allowed to do it or forcing them to not do it. Where is it that you live where children (who have been taught running in traffic is dangerous and harmful to them) are dying to do so and are only don’t because of adult authority figures, anyway?

Do you believe you yourself and the people close to you are equally likely to be conned as this average adult you are describing? Do you believe giving external people coercive power over them is the optimal way to prevent conning? Why would those people in particular be uniquely less likely to be conned than anyone else, and what qualifies them to have those other people submit to their authority?

1 Like

I can’t deal with the level of unreality in those ideological ravings, sorry.

If saying “child abuse is bad” is “unreality” and “ideological ravings” nowadays, so be it. Perhaps consider contributing something actually useful to the conversation instead of merely being rude next time.

I believe in limited application of rudeness as an indication of when someone has crossed a phantasmagoria line that would be vexatious and fruitless to answer. It’s a re-socializing measure.

Trying to spin my answer as a support of child abuse only illustrates the level of addled disintegrity that I would need to be dealing with. The bottom line is that I’m merely supporting the right of parents to take conventional parental measures, with no abuse involved, to regulate situations like crossing the street safely in tots and excessive gaming in middle school students.

…I think it’s an accountability thing; Adults are expected to be accountable for both themselves and their children. Law enforcement usually doesn’t pry unless they’re given a noticeable, discernable reason to. And then, they can only do so much…