What do you think about normalization of pedophilia?

The age of consent in the soviet union was puberty.

When will this meme die? Pedophilia was acceptable 100+ years ago and now it less acceptable than it ever has been in any point in human history and is becoming even less acceptable.

Pedos get psychological help, and if they act on their impulses afterwards then gulag or execute

It's a favourite porky past time activity. If you want to fuck children, you just need to reach a certain income threshold.

I don't like Sargon, but he did a nice vid about it on how the Thatcher government had it's paedophiles back covered.

Yeah, if you get raped. As for your "authority" problem, the obvious solution is to eliminate authority first. There's no inherent reason why an older person has authority over a younger one.

Yeah, about that

...

I know he was controversial, it was too late by then. The age of consent in Delaware was still 7 in the 1890s though. If you look at the history of the age of consent its clear that in the past people were more ok with children having sex than they are today.

/thread

As it should be

And the age of consent in Florida and California is 18, but I highly doubt any significant number of teens from either state (that aren't extremely religious) waits until 18 to fuck because it's DA LAW

The fact that it caused such an outrage that the law was revised kinda indicates that maybe the community's views on age of consent =/= the actual age of consent as enshrined in the law

That's true but regardless it clearly wasn't as big of a deal if it could be legal for hundreds of years before anyone bothered to change it. It's not that everyone was pedophile. It's just that having sex at a young age was not viewed as serious as it is today in America at least. In some countries even today teenagers having sex is seen as normal.

I fail to see where you've put the argument.

Social relations in almost every human society accords respect and authority to older individuals based on experience they have presumably accumulated over their lifespan, and only a teenager whose politics boil down to FUCK YOU DAD, YOU DON'T OWN ME or a person suffering from autism that can't understand social relationships would actually need this point being made to them.

So by your own logic, a 40 year old man having sex with a 20 year old woman is probably rape too?

Most pre-modern societies don't even record exact age or celebrate birthdays. Most also have initiation rituals where you become an adult after reaching a certain goal rather than a certain age. Also pretty much no society before about 1950 had a concept of teenager as a distinct life stage.

Most societies accord respect and authority to individuals based on experience but not automatically as they get older, only those that actually were experienced were treated as such. Think of it this way, you presumably don't think all 33 year olds are more wise than all 31 year olds.

Historically there have been many archaic laws left on the books long before anyone actually got around to reversing them. Again, you actually have to look at what the prevailing culture, norms, etc at the time were, and I'm sure they weren't quite as laissez-faire as whatever Deep Web sites you browse.

Charlie Johns married Eunice Johns, user and there was still an outrage over it. If it was a controversial topic in a period where marriages were generally viewed as sacred and divorce was a major legal hassle (and social suicide), I doubt they were quite as laissez-faire towards sex with minors as you seem to be.

anyone ever watch those Pedo Bust videos on YouTube with the cockney vigilante baiting people into meeting kids? I never felt any sympathy for pedos until I watched them. The guy's just blatantly power-tripping, he illegally restrains the people he catches and humiliates them in public. And never shows any evidence that they were the ones who initiated inappropriate contact. Plus all the decoys he uses are like 14 years old.

I think that's what most pedo alarmists are like. They're just impotent Daily Mail readers who are just swept up in a moral panic.

I think is an interesting concept because legally at the time you were considered a minor until you were 21 but people regularly got married before that. Life stages were viewed differently then.

What you're not getting is that it was not always archaic. People created that law. The age of consent in Yemen is 9 today. Attitudes towards sex and age vary around the world and throughout time. That's my only point.

Legal in Germany, Italy, Austria etc. today.

If people stopped judging pedophilic attraction child rape would be less common because those attracted to children will no longer be driven inn a corner and can openly go o therapy to help impulse control without fear of being arrested just for doing so. Although I should point out that in prison studies most child rapists arent attracted to their victim and just had sociopathy or something rather than pedophilia.

...

And you're clearly happy to oversimplify those attitudes to support whatever conclusion you have already arrived at.

In most cultures with such low age of consents, the age of consent applies to when you can have sex with your wife/s, with the expectation that it's part of the sacred union of man and female under Allah etc, not "eh, you should be able to troll elementary/primary schools for eight year olds to fuck, it's all good bruh"

Again my only point is that attitudes and laws vary. Yemen clearly has a different culture surrounding sex than America. Also you should look into the Islamic concept of temporary marriage (Nikah mut‘ah) and how that's used in Yemen.

I just wish people would stop acting like 21 or 18 or 16 was some magic number. The age of consent is just another spook. Different people can consent to sex at different ages.

meant to reply to>>1199739

for some reason i didnt expect Holla Forums to be rape apologists but yet here we are

The age of consent in the Soviet Union was puberty and the current uk communist party (CPGB-PCC) wants to completely abolish the age of consent. The left has long recognized this as a spook.

Five year olds can't fuck fifty year olds.

Your mother isn't a rape apologist.

yeah I know. I think most people would fuck a teenager if they started coming onto them. I know last year a girl who would have been maybe 14-15 at most would follow me home from college on certain days. She was always really flirty and I always brushed it off but tbh fampai if I'd ever been properly alone with her i don't know what I would've done. for sure it'd be weirder if I was like 35 or something but idk.

Liberalism really needs to be destroyed

You're right. It's [CURRENT_YEAR] after all. Doesn't matter that we don't have any real reason to make the age of consent 18.

Age of consent in Soviet Union was puberty?

It's already 16 in most states anyway.

I understand your frustration.

The consent model implies this, yes.

Commies and MRA's both agree on age of consent, kek

That's not the current uk communist party, that's a sect of about 3 people.

If the liberals try to normalize pedophilia and think its a hill to die on the republicans are going to be in power for the next 1000000000 years

>In 1998, Hanson and Bussière published a comprehensive meta-analysis of 61 scientific reports on the prediction of sexual offenses spanning more than 40,000 individual cases. They ascertained that of all the methods attempted and reported, penile phethysmographic responses to imagery depicting children was the single most accurate predictor of sexual re-offense across 7 studies reporting data from phallometric testing.[2]

>Another meta-analysis in 2005 of 13 studies and 2,180 individual cases repeated the finding that phallometric responses to children was a strong predictor of sexual re-offense.[15]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_plethysmograph#Reliability_and_validity

Liberals have been actively pushing for harsher laws like sex offenders registry for decades. Liberals pretty much created the meme that teenagers are made of glass and that if any man so much as looks at them in a sexual way they will shatter.

Then, the consent model is wrong.

I've seen studies that say the majority of all males in general respond to children via that method. So that isn't saying anything.

Reminder that there is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling sexual attraction for underages and that there is nothing wrong with engaging in sexual activities with underaged people as long as it isn't something forced or hurtful, basically the same rules as engaging in sexual activities with overaged people.
Reminder that people only overreact to this shit because they are extremely spooked about sex and they give it way more weight than it deserves.
Reminder that there are lots of way more fucked up things people fetishize about but nobody gives a fuck and people won't be called "mentally ill" because of it but when it comes to pedophilia in specific people have a knee jerk reaction and if you simply get an erection looking at a teenager you become a monster who is sick in the head.
Reminder that all the fuzz about this shit it's one of the many porky creations to distract people from the real issues just like idpol and the likes.
Reminder to check your spooks.

It's clear that the latest tactic of the pedo enablers is the invention of an imaginary devision between "people who are attracted to children", and "people who are attracted to and sexually abuse children", so as to arouse sympathy for the former (as in the poor fool
).

Really, if the wonders of modern psychiatry were ultimately unable to treat homosexuality, how do you think treating pedophilia would be more successful?

Ultimately the people behind it are being disingenuous, as there is a long history on the Left of attempts to abolish any age of consent

newrepublic.com/article/120379/german-green-party-pedophilia-scandal

If you actually got any of those pushing the "pedophiles are just like you and me, except they want to fuck your eight year old, and since they can't control it we should be more tolerant of them so they seek treatment" line in an empty bar with a few drinks in them, I'm sure most would admit that they actually didn't find anything wrong with pedophilia at all

The problem there is that pedophiles project their own sexual desires onto their victims, and assume that as they are enjoying it, therefore the victim "must also" be enjoying it, therefore no one was harmed

youtube.com/watch?v=sDN990UzM68

One of the pedophiles interviewed seriously claims a young boy rubbing his stomach is an invitation to sexual intercourse

Do you even post-structuralism?

That's one of the problems with discussing age of consent laws, because there's always some disingenuous idiot attempting to muddy the waters by leaping like Evil Knievel from
* man-bites-dog cases where a 17 year old gets (unfairly) charged over intercourse with a 15 year old in an area where AoC is 16
to
*"Therefore, there's nothing wrong with a 25 year old molesting a seven year old"

Sometimes teenagers do enjoy sex. To argue otherwise is absurd.

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about - disingenuous enablers like this guy attempting to muddy the waters by equating teenagers unfairly charged under high AoC laws with actual children being abused.

Actually those who abuse children and those who ar attracted to children are two separate groups that have some overlap. Pedophilia by definition is only referring to the attraction. As I pointed out in that the stigma of pedophilia is what increases child abuse by those in that overlap, not reduce it as you may claim. Your lack of acknowledgement of this implies you don't actually care about children's well being as much as you claim you do.

Kids too. But it is a waste of time to try to argue with these retards.
For them to simply look at a kid is already molesting. The spooks are too heavy on their heads.

What do you think the age of consent should be then?

I think you're the one being disingenuous by assuming that people who want t abolish AOC laws only want to fuck pre-pubescent children. If a person can unambiguously consent to sex, then I don't see why you would need a law on top of that regarding their age.

The splitting of the two groups is entirely arbitrary, and used by pedophile enablers to disingenuously motivate the public's sympathies towards the "virtuous pedophiles" that don't harm children, so as to ultimately argue via the inevitable Leftist slippery slope that "Well, actually, maybe pedophiles aren't actually bad at all?"

Again, please remind me how pedophilia is a disorder that supposedly can be treated, but homosexuality isn't. Again, it's not about "treating" pedophiles, the real onus - as you admit - is on attempting to get the public to empathise with pedophiles who are "just victims of their own uncontrollable urges" in preparation for actual acceptance of pedophilia.

What other purpose would there be? You abolish age of consent, and then sexually abused kids fall into exactly the same trap that raped women fall into, where definitions of who consented to what become so muddied by legalistic maneuvering that "Welp, I guess the seven year old did consent to getting molested, he just didn't know it at the time"

FTFY

For some fun and additional reading:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy#Possible_bias

Gee, it's almost as if some of the loudest advocates for the dismantling of pedophilia as a crime might have other interests in doing so that aren't part of a coldly objective and utterly unbiased scientific understanding of human sexuality

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. There's a clear difference between people who are mainly attracted to adults but have sex with children for reason of desperation or sadism and someone who is exclusively attracted to children. This has obvious clinical relevance.

You should look at the groups arguing against this, and who funds campaigns for raising the age of consent and the sex offenders registry.

No, it's not arbitrary. Have you never thought of killing someone? Like many have I assume you have thought of it. By your train of thought you are as bad as a murderer.

It can't be treated except for rare cases same as homosexuality. How you treat it is treating the anxiety it induces and helping them learn impulse control if they are afraid they would act on their desires.

Not criminalizing sexuality on a whim. Not putting people in prison for fucking people who clearly consented. I don't know, those, maybe.

You're right, I guess we should criminalize sex with women too, that way there is no way ambiguity will ever come of it.

Rind may be biased but it's been decades and all those who have attempted to debunk his research have only managed to confirm his findings. He was right.

This TBH. If the study was actually wrong then no effort would be spared in making sure that everyone saw the proof.

Humanity is still centuries too primitive to actually tackle the problem of child abuse in a level-headed rational way though. Pretty much nobody ever considers the problem without knowing exactly what conclusions they are required to reach in order to not be labeled a monster.

Uh, you know that MRAs are some of the harshest critics of AoC laws because "it's all part of a conspiracy by used-up roastie hags to deny us virginal teen brides", right?

It's entirely arbitrary, as arbitrary as declaring that there's "homosexuality, i.e. a sexual attraction to men" versus "homosexual disorder, i.e. the act of attraction and engaging in sex with other men"

There's multiple ways of reforming AoC laws without outright abolishing them. Seriously, that's "There are innocent men unfairly convicted in prison, so why have criminal laws in the first place?" tardery

>It, however, acknowledged the limitations of the findings (college student sample, self-report data), and did not endorse Rind's recommendation to abandon the use of the term child sexual abuse in cases of apparent consent in favor of the term adult-child sex

The over-sampling of American college students may be skewing our understanding of human behavior, finds an analysis by researchers from the University of British Columbia. In a forthcoming issue of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, anthropologist Joe Henrich, PhD, and psychologists Steven Heine, PhD, and Ara Norenzayan, PhD, review the available database of comparative social and behavioral science studies. They found that people from Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic (WEIRD) societies — who represent as much as 80 percent of study participants, but only 12 percent of the world’s population — are not only unrepresentative of humans as a species, but on many measures they’re outliers.

apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird.aspx

There's a growing controversy in the sciences over the over-use of WEIRD individuals, and particularly self-sampled college-students, as being representative of entire populations

Except I didn't say there should be no restrictions, only that the restriction based on age is arbitrary. Ideally laws should be designed to catch the least amount of innocent people possible. If you agree that people under the age of consent can understand what sex is and arguably consent to it, then it doesn't make any sense to base the law on that. Instead, the reasonable person standard should be applied to consent. Would a reasonable person interpret a certain interaction as consent? If so, then it isn't rape, no matter the age. Obviously, this will still mean you can't have sex with 8 year old children, because nothing they do could be interpreted as consent.

Look at the followups to Rind. Numerous people have done similar studies with broader samples in the hopes of debunking Rind. So far they have all just confirmed his findings.

You might as well be trying to convince the Pope that Zeus is better than God. The position you're advocating for is quite literally unthinkable to the person you're arguing with. They are starting from an axiom that you are wrong, so all discussion is pretty much futile.

The criteria for mental illness isn't arbitrary but the categorization of labels for mental illnesses is arbitrary.

It is very arbitrary, given that homosexuality was considered a mental illness up until very recently.

I've yet to find any sort of consensus that "Rind et all was actually right about everything". But hey, if you say it enough times I'm sure you can walk away satisfied that you BTFO me right.

No one has yet managed to refute his findings. Although all he really demonstrated was that sometimes people aged less than 18 are not traumatized by sex. It shouldn't be controversial but it is.

You should post a picture of an ugly guy with a beard and a hat. That will surely prove you right.

See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy#Subsequent_research_and_legacy

blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/the-weird-evolution-of-human-psychology/

He based his sampling - as almost every psychological journal does - on self-reported college students. And as most people are aware, college students aren't exactly representative of the sum of human experience.

Except this thread is brimming with examples of individuals that would classify themselves as "reasonable persons" that would argue that the child in question could consent. The problem with the "reasonable person" assumption is that it presumes there are shared norms of conduct and behaviour - heaven help any child under your system that gets a judge that is a former NAMBLA member

I'm not the person implying that those who disagree with me are just irrational idiots defending a preordained belief, but those that agree with me only came to the conclusions they did out of a cold, utterly unbiased assessment of the facts as available.

take your meds and remove your clickb8

Like I said his study/meta-analysis has been repeated with wider sample. Same results.

It's not arbitrary in regard to the four Ds

Although the arbitrary part is at what point these do count as a mental illness and what point it is considered normal which is in part why the DSM has started to shift to spectrums.

Of course, in theory, an 8 year old could consent. I'm just saying that it's so highly unlikely that it won't ever happen, and if it did, it wouldn't matter because that child would be some kind of freak.

Why assume that? I played around when I was that age. I had no idea what I was doing of course, but it was still an interesting thing at the time.

There's a difference with play and actually knowing what it is. A kid that age wouldn't be able to consent, but if he did, it means he has the mind of an older child. I'm not saying it won't ever happen. I'm saying it's unlikely, but in that case, the child is an exception and there still should be no prosecution.