Holla Forums on pedophilia

I often find when i'm dealing with people of a liberal persuasion that they are often hypocritical that's why they are called hippies amirite?

But one of the biggest hypocrisies i find in their thinking seems to be as follows: -

so i'm interested to know what Holla Forumss stance is on pedophilia?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws
youtube.com/watch?v=4P41XfW3yAM
cnet.com/news/teen-arrested-for-having-nude-photos-of-himself-on-his-phone/
youtube.com/channel/UCqpGPc4NSxMIJRPP9fmXm1Q
youtu.be/Ruf_phAz1hQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

i just want to throw in another hypocrasy

Once we get vr advanced enough, pedos can fug all the lolis they like and no one has to be harmed.

Against pedophilia, half because children can't really consent and will most likely be traumatized, half because there's only so far you can ignore what you instinctively consider wrong and we're already letting homosexuality slide.
Ephebophilia tho. Ideally, legislation is something like: Underage can have relations with anyone within two/three years of their age, age of consent stays 18. So a 17 year old can date anyone from 15/14 to 19/20.

Also, not a hive mind, not everyone is for drugs or against a police/soldiers; I know I'm not.

>>>/gulag/

Nobody chooses to be a pedophile, and they shouldn't be demonized for what is essentially God's mistake. If they understand that it's not OK to have sex with children and actively resist their urges, that is. Children are especially vulnerable and their sexual exploitation is not something that should be tolerated.

Perhaps with advanced VR, sex bots or extreme body modification we can have a solution where they get off and nobody is harmed. Maybe some day past that, we can even become little girls ourselves.

wait, Holla Forums is anti gay?

the green text was supposed to represent an average hippy type i might meet on the street and not the views of leftypol or an average liberal online poster

also im not by any means a leftypol regular, i just came to ask you guys opinion on something

Did I not just say "not a hive mind"?
Also,
Basically, memes.

No.

?

Only anarkiddies believe that

Any society that believes soldiers are bad will quickly be conquered by one that thinks they're quite swell.

obvioustroll.jpg

...

If your criteria for determining whether something is wrong or not is how it makes you instinctively feel, then you're probably retarded.

spooked


this


this

Like communism pedophilia is only an interest of autistic losers who are obsessed with justifying their own fun stuff through the fake intellectualism of justification. If you are in any way sympathetic towards pedophiles you are one and need to be made an example of. There is no middle ground of sympathy and understanding here you fucking degenerates, we're talking about people raping children. The fact you are even having this conversation says a lot, faggots.

...

yeah same

You choose to be a pedophile and being attracted to underaged vaginas. You also choose to go molest said vaginas. Why should I tolerate you?

paedophilia =/= hebephilia

...

Some lefties are pro-pedophilia. It's just that there's is a number of lefties who are still very much about their personal FEELS, and have bought into too much of the anti-pedo propaganda to think straight. Just as they can't imagine the alien corporate leaders to be good people, they can't imagine the alien pedophiles to be good people either. They're a superstitious lot.

Just wait for vr. Best solution is what the tripfag said, we should be yo keep an age of consent, but not give it a gap of a few years for people in it. A 19 year old and a 16 year old is no big deal. But a 24 year old banging a 12 year old is not acceptable and is predatory.

Now before all you pedos say I'm spooked by puritan propaganda I know children aren't pure angels and sex isn't a satanic corruption.

hippies, like most liberals, are hypocrites

Really hard for me to justify it. Of course kids aren't retards, but they're in development too. What I'd like to ask to pedos is: if you really like the person for who they are and not just because they're young and you want to fuck them, why not just wait until they're at the age consent?

I do have a problem with just how demonized pedophiles are. There's no discourse on their condition to be had nowadays – pedophilia's considered a bigger sin than murder. Everyone deserves a second chance, especially pedos who can learn to curb their urges.

On the contrary, morality is inherently emotional. There is no other meaningful guide to right and wrong than our own conscience. Why is it wrong for people to starve, or be exploited, or be oppressed, or to torture animals, or to have orgies in the streets? Because as humans we innately have an emotional reaction to these things, and that is what guides our reasoning on them.

I'm against death penalty in general.

But what if I'm 25 and I really like this 15 yo girl? How is that wrong? Nigga clearly knows if she wants the D or not, plus, I'm a great math tutor, a positive influence, you might say.

In scholarly terms, it's called a "shit taste"

MILF master race.

Wasn't Hitler lolicon though?

robogril pls be my un-spooked transhumanist gf

tfw there are more communist transhumanists than freemarket transhumanist

ITT: degenerates

u hvn a fukkin ggigle m80?


woooOOOOOooooooOOoo

The age of consent in Nazi Germany was 14.

Depends on where they are. The age of consent in France is 15, so it would be ok there.

Read Hakim Bay.
Pedo's do have the most shit taste tho, being attracted to braindead turbo cocain midgets is more shit tier then Dolphins who are mutch more smart, smooth and have a good dick.
Dolphinphilia>pedophilia

*than

If there's grass on the field, play ball. Nothing more to be said.


That's false. There are already things that don't harm anyone but still are illegal. Lolis in Canada and many other countries are illegal, and all pornography depicting with women with A cup breasts is illegal as well and qualified as CP.


If CP is illegal, why do you think VR lolis would be legal?


If you were to sleep with a legal aged girl in Nazi Germany in the USA, you would have committed a felony and be sent to prison.


It doesn't matter what the real definition is when most people on the planet believe pedophilia to be anyone under 18.


That's like telling people to never have sex until they're married, nobody ever does that. Nobody in the USA wants to wait until around 27~30 to get laid.


And 14 in Germany. It's silly for it to be a specific age in one country, but the country next door sends you to prison for a decade for doing the same.

it still is

what did he mean by this

I know. That was kinda the point I was making. I think a lot of people assume that the age of consent is 18 everywhere and always has been. By pointing out how wrong this is I think it will make people look at the age of consent in a different way.

That if you followed the same law in Germany while being located in the USA, you would spend a long time in prison for having sex with someone "too young"

It's not blanket age of consent tho. The parents can report you to the police and then a court case starts. When the psychological examinator learns that the minor isn't "mentally mature" enough or you have taken advantage of the minor through some kind dependency relationship(employment, step parent, teacher etc) you get sentenced and V&.
Seems pretty sensible to me.

aha. thanks

I agree I think the problem with the age of consent is often that it's too absolute. Some 14 year olds might be able to consent to sex but some of them definitely can't. A more nuanced German system seems like a good solution.

i'm strongly against it.
i don't think its right to sexualize people who cant see you the same way.
beside, you're taking advantage because kids don't know the implications of their actions

At what age does a person know the implications of their actions? Is it the same age for every person?

This tbh.

That makes zero sense. The age of consent is at the highest 18 in most places in the world. If you can't wait until then to ask someone for a lay or a relationship, you have bigger issues than just wanting to fuck kids.

It's 21 in a few places. Also it's completely normal and common to have sex before 18.

That's not pedophilia by any definition. That's why Rome and Juliet laws are preferable. >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws
An age of consent will always be arbitrary as people mature
differently, but having an arbitrary law protecting those that need protection is preferable to not having any law at all,. Since absence of law would protect the abusers.
Other solutions are imaginable, but they rely on society as a whole coming together to satisfy the sexual desires of a small minority, making them unpractical and unrealistic.Putting age of consent around 16 seems reasonable.

As for pedophilia
2D - fine, no one gets hurt
3D - Someone got hurt, go to jail, forced therapy
Tricking kiddies to tuch your wiener - Same as 3D
Actually raping a kid, or paying people to rape kids (it's a thing) - straight to the gallows.

I agree with you mostly but 16 seems unreasonably high.

Let me clarify.16 with romeo and juliet laws, so those younger would be free to explore their sexuality with people of similar age with out fear of prosecution.

That helps but at the same time 14, with the same caveats as Germany, seems more reasonable.

I did say most. In some, it is in fact lower.

The point isn't that sex pre-18 is wrong; the point is that a very mature individual having sex with a younger person is usually not a good idea because younger people at large lack the maturity to make proper decisions around that themselves. There's a reason progressive (also socialist and labour movements) have fought for free education until an adult age; because young people need guidance and a proper understanding of the world to make good choices.

Look at all the teen pregnancy rates; they usually involve disenfranchised youth that are also very likely to take dubious or criminal career choices and become a poor influence on their communities and close collective peers.

Children are not mentally mature enough to consent.

Simply being a pedo shouldn't be a crime though, it's not like you can change it.

I agree in part but consensual sex even with a significant age difference is not in and of itself damaging. We lts young people more serious decisions regrinding tier education and do more dangerous things than chose to have sex already.


This is true but the Soviet Union for example set the age of consent at puberty. The current UK communist party (CPGB-PCC) advocates for a complete abolition of the age of consent. Left wing movements have generally favored giving young people more sexual rights.


This one is interesting because countries with lower ages of consent generally have lower rates of teen pregnancy than countries with high ages of consents. Even within the US states with an AOC of 18 generally have a higher rate of teen pregnancy than states with an AOC of 16.

Depends on what you mean by child. Under 21? Under 18? Under 16? Under 14? Pre puberty etc.

Under 16, I'd wager.

Why?

Of course, young people need guidance and proper education so they don't fall prey to dangerous ideologies like marxism :) We wouldn't want them thinking for themselves :^🍀🍀🍀

For clarification, is this a law in Canada?

Australia I think.

Sex is about pleasure and feeling good, really that's just it.
It doesn't matter if kids can consent or not, following this logic they can't consent to anything really so forcing them to go to school for example, would be abusive and "traumatic". See the bullshit right here? All the hysteria surrounding pedophilia only exists because people are spooked about sex and give it way more importance than it has. Now let me tell something to you spooked fellas, there is absolutely nothing special about it, shit is literally just stimulating your sexual organs to feel pleasure and that's it, really, just it. So as long as you don't force it (rape) or hurt the kid, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Seriously, this has to be the biggest spook in people's minds that currently exists.
Now to finish, I'll gonna ask you to imagine the following situation, if you are a man imagine that when you were a kid a smoking hot woman sucked your dick someday; if you are a woman imagine that fucking Leonardo DiCaprio licked your pussy, just it, imagine that he just licked your pussy and it felt good.
Now try to imagine this and tell me honestly, would it really be something all that bad? would you feel bad and traumatized about it? really, try to imagine the scene and give an honest answer.

op here


let me clear up what i was alluding to with the line


with the op i wanted to illustrate how liberal minded people have come across in my personal experience with regards to pedophilia. i understand the evidence is anecdotal, but i thought it would be an interesting premise for discussion none the less.

to me, their attitude has come across completely intolerant, borderline irrational.

there appears to be no mitigating circumstances with their attitude eg. assuming an age of consent of 16, a 16yo boy having sex with a 15yo girlfriend as part of a loving relationship that may have both been fully committed to for a number of years would still to their mind warrant the complete damnation of the boy.

also there seems to be no attempt to empathize with the individual, they seem content to ignore the fact that pedophilia is a mental health problem and proceed to dehumanize the individual suggesting that they be denied certain human rights.

on reflection this behaviour is typical of the "normie", politically centered individual and even shared by the right, including the alt right but is in stark contrast to the otherwise tolerant and compassionate views of the typical liberal.

so i guess the question is, are hippies just hypocrites, or is there a bit more going on here, or are my observations not representative?

To be fair to the hippies a big part of the sexual revolution was giving children more sexual rights. To bad it failed.

I don't agree, the german law seems messy. A person over the age of 21 can have sex with a 14 or 15 year old, but if the younger person later complains it becomes a crime? 16 with romeo an juliet is perfect. It lets kids fuck as much as they want, but at the same time protects them from predators.
But of course it has to do with culture more than anything. A grown man who fucks a 14 year old boy or girl will have some serious problems around my parts, no matter what laws where in place.

maybe one day I'll cyber with you

Your strawman isnt even pedophilia.

Even then:

yourage/2+7 or above is good to go in my books.

I agree it is a cultural thing. The idea of sending someone to jail, actual jail, for having consensual sex with a 14/15 year old seems absurd to me.

Seems very arbitrary tbh. What's the basis/logic behind this?

Its just as arbatrary as any other age of consent.

The logic is that it allows for a more flexible age of consent instead of edge cases like a 19 year old and a 17 year old.

And kids under 14 shouldnt be allowed to fuck.

Why? The age of consent in Argentina is 13 and they have a much lower rate of teen pregnancy than the US for example.

how can you have a strawman if i haven't even made an argument?

please


Its a strawman of liberals. You present them in a simplified manner that makes it easier for you to make your argument. Thus its a strawman. A strawman doesn't require itslf to represent the person you talk to, it can also be someone else, like Holla Forums does with their "this is communism" posters which has that transsexual mautist.

I don't get what point you are making?

The USA is a special snowflake among first world countrys in that its position in human development, rights and all that is usually that of a second or even third world country. Its not very honest to compare that to anything as a standard of "normalcy in the west".

Fair enough. Argentina still has a very low teen pregnancy rate by global standards. The point I was making was that most of things people claim would happen if the age of consent was lowered again don't actually happen in countries where the age of consent is already lower.

please get a real argument and stop spewing this tired rhetoric.

Isn't using real world examples a good thing? If lots of countries in Europe can function with an age of consent of 14 clearly it isn't as bad as some people make it out to be.

CP involves the sexual abuse of a minor in its production. Nobody needs to be harmed in the production of VR. A deed that results in no harm to anyone should not be prohibited.


Maybe your retard morality. Letting your feels guide you is one step removed from going on Holla Forums and crying about degenerates. All of those things (save the orgies, which aren't wrong unless they block the thoroughfares or something) are considered wrong because they involve suffering. Because most of us find it in our interest to avoid suffering, we support a society with laws that minimize it.

You are wasting your time fam.
Deep inside they know it is all a bunch of bullshit but the spooks in their heads are just too strong to allow them to admit it.

Complete straw man, that is not the kind of 'pedophila' people care about, it's more the niece raping, daughter raping, kidnapping kind. Which is obviously abusive. And you know it. Stop trying to justify your pornography habit you dumb fucking loser

Oh no I just dont think they are emotionally ready for it.

Every time 17 year old sexts someone or a 16 year olds jerks off on omegle that is cp. Where is the abuse in that? And tbh considering how many webcams and smartphones there are I imagine most cp is just teen sending each other nude pics of themselves.

Do you think everyone becomes emotionally ready at the same time?

Completely different to most child porn, the kind that gets passed around in dingy little circles of jerk offs jerking off, AND you know it. The kind people actually get arrested for

okay you dont know what a strawman is or are a troll

Sorry, I'm not talking about that stuff - obviously it's ridiculous to call self-made stuff CP. I'm talking about the kind where somebody records the abuse of a dependent child. What said basically.

No, but I think it's ridiculous to base the law around when someone is 'ready.' The bigger concern is avoiding exploitation, and keeping adults from using their massive advantage in power to coerce sex from minors. With teenagers it's different because they interact with the world like adults for the most part, but it's difficult to pin down a hard and fast age limit. 16 seems like a good hard limit, with a close in age exemption and a grey area going down to 14, where it might be allowed if it's a case of a precocious 14 year old but the authorities would still be obliged to investigate.

And no prosecutions for making or distributing CP of yourself, that is retarded.

LEL!
youtube.com/watch?v=4P41XfW3yAM

I'm not disputing that people don't get arrested for ridiculous shit, just that it isn't the kind people give a fuck about.

Obviously there is a huge differences between a 16 year old choosing to jerk off on camera and a 12 year old getting gangbanged by a bunch of 60 year old men while she is tied up.

If you can't see that you are beyond all hope

First of all, please don't conflate pedophilia with actual sexual contact with a child. The actual definition of pedophilia is the attraction - not the act itself.

Personally I think pretty much all of the harm suffered by victims is caused by the way society treats them and how they are told they should feel given what has happened to them. I think mental health care, both for children and pedophiles, is woefully lacking and extremely poorly understood. Mental health practitioners are mostly just groping in the dark and practicing the various arcane rituals they have been taught in the hope that they get lucky. Humanity is a very young species and we are still barely figuring out the basics of science and rationality. Mental health care today is no better than surgery was 500 years ago.

That said, every human has a responsibility to avoid causing harm, whether directly or indirectly. The fact is that having consensual sex with a child still has a significant risk of starting a chain of events which lead to significant psychological damage. The damage might not ultimately be your fault, but you still have a responsibility to try to prevent it any way you can.

I get that the world is a fucking horrible place filled with horrible people. I wouldn't blame you for acting on your desires any more than I would blame the doctors for acting on their ignorance or the angry mob acting on their emotions. Our civilization is still incredibly primitive and nobody can really be blamed for their mistakes. Still, the only way we're going to move forward is for someone to take the moral high ground, and it certainly isn't going to be the pitchfork-wielding masses. The children don't deserve to be born into such a horrible world, so the more we can do to make it tolerable for them, the better.

You have my sincerest sympathy, and I hope you find some happiness in your life.

You sound like you're pretty deep into the cognitive dissonance, bruh. I'll all for treating people with the misfortune of being born pedophiles like actual human beings, but it sounds like you're condoning child abuse here.

meant for

I'm doing the exact opposite, while taking a hefty swipe at idiots such as yourself.

In particular, read this bit again:

As someone who would much rather commit suicide than do anything with a real child, my post was first and foremost an attempt to extend an olive branch and make an intellectually honest argument as to why it's wrong to fuck kids even if you assume that the harm is not caused by sex itself.

If there were fewer pitchfork-waving morons like yourself in this world pedophilia and child abuse would be far less of a problem. The lack of any kind of attempt to see things from the other perspective or even offer basic mental health support is the reason why so many pedophiles end up with severe depression, alienation and other psychological issues, and hence go on to abuse kids. Your attitude is far more to blame for child abuse than any casual pedo fapping to CP.

So you're saying you're absolutely fine with anything which doesn't involve a child suffering?

Sounds like you need to spend a few decades being beaten for your thought crimes…

Lads lets be frank

Is it ethical for an adult to have a long term relationship with a 7-16 years old girl Even if the girl say that she understand the relationship and she chose this lifestyle on her own ?

Only if they're in a society in which that relationship won't result in the child's life being destroyed.

Jump forward in time a few thousand years and I'm sure it would be fine.

As long as they don't get pregnant why would a 16 year old sating an older guy ruin their life?

dat freudian slip

i did some research before posting the op and i am also drawing on professional experience, so i am aware of the issues.

i don't know that i made it clear in op but i wanted to imply that your average liberal's intolerance to pedophilia is such that it renders them completely ignorant to the issues at hand, and so would be oblivious to the difference that you have mentioned.


these issues do not affect me other than in a professional capacity, my main interest in the issue is the hypocrisy of liberals and the more general ignorance of the issues.


pretty profound statement

Trust me when I say I'm the furthest there is from a pitchfork-waving witch hunter. As it happens, you laid the entire responsibility for the harm on the wider societal reaction while simultaneously absolving the pedophile entirely. I think that people ought to be able to come out as pedophiles in our society with the expectation of being treated with care, support and compassion and not having to be spat on and ostracized.

The obverse of this is that sex with children ought to be recognized as completely unjustifiable under any circumstances. You, on the other hand, have already justified it in your own words. I don't hate you, but I think you ought to get the notion out of your head that it's OK and not inherently harmful to have sex with children. It can only land you in hot water.


Children are not independent to any degree and are hugely dependent on adults for the majority of their needs. For all practical purposes, a child does not have the freedom to choose until she has the freedom to live independently apart from any adults. They also say stupid shit all the time.

Are you a shrink or a pimp?

If society finds out and subjects her to a media shitstorm and compulsory "therapy" where she's not released until she explains in great detail how much she suffered, then I can see how that could cause some harm.


Get some basic reading comprehension. I explicitly stated it wasn't any more acceptable than any of the other awful things our society does. As far as condemnations go, that's pretty fucking strong. It's like saying "yeah, it's no worse than ritual human sacrifices to the harvest gods".

It would be great if you could cite some scientifically sound studies to back up your assertion that it's 100% caused by the sex acts themselves, independent of any societal conditions, but those studies don't exist.

If this is your threshold for the ability to consent, then you should be aware that literally no human has ever nor likely will ever be able to consent. The only entities capable of consent will be artificial intelligences built hundreds of years from now by other artificial intelligences.

You still have my sincerest sympathy for being born in such a shitty world at such a shitty time in history, and I still hope you find happiness.

jesus guy


the present is the best time to be alive

Let me break down your own words for you.

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius - you are saying that "consensual" sex with a child causes harm by causing a reaction. The implicit meaning contained in this statement is that the sex itself causes no harm.

The damage is not your fault. It is the fault of the people who don't understand how it's OK for you to have sex with children. And don't try to weasel out here on the meaning of the word 'might', the word 'might' in this might-but construction has a specific meaning, as in "he might not be very bright, but he sure does pound out those arguments." Might-but is an expanded way of saying despite.

Moving the goalposts. I never made this argument, I called you out on making the baseless assertion that there's no harm in having sex with children.


If you didn't notice, my threshold was in the first part of the statement. The part you quoted was an aside.

I understand how painful it must be to be a pedo, but you are making apologies for rape here. And then you have the gall to call others out for their lack of empathy. This is cognitive dissonance down to a T.

the present is objectively the best time to be alive

if you weren't alive now you would be dead or not been born

If this is the best time I really should just kill myself right now. The only reason I bother waking up in the mornings is the forlorn hope that things will be better for people born in the future.

It might be relatively good compared to the past, but only because the past was even more awful. It's like getting a finger cut off by your barber and saying "hey, this barber is great! he only cut off one finger when the last one cut off two!" It is utter shit compared to what our species should be capable of if we just stopped being fucking sociopathic imbeciles for a moment.


Let me repeat, it is not ethically acceptable to take an action which can be predicted to have a significant probability of causing suffering to another sapient mind. Precise definitions of blame are completely irrelevant. It all comes down to causality.

If you aren't happy with that, go on and have an argument with a fictional version of me which you have invented. I'll leave a big blank space below for you to fill in the words you want to put in my mouth.


Frankly the longer I spend here the more appealing that prospect becomes. Non-existence sounds quite appealing right now.

Anyway, that aside, you're an idiot who can't even comprehend that if I was alive at a different time then that time would, by definition, be the present for me. It isn't clever to answer "now" when asked what time it is.

Not so. Under your scheme as you described it, it would become morally acceptable to fuck kids the very moment you are insulated from the social reaction.

This cycle of self-pity and fantasy gets you nowhere. Forget about fucking kids, jerk it to 2D when you have to, get on T blockers if it's a really persistent problem and do something else with your life. The magical world that doesn't frown on you fucking kids will never come about, and the only way you'll reach any modicum of happiness while you live is by accepting that. The mindset that this is as good as it's gonna get is the best mindset to have. Dedicate your existence to something else, like liberation of the proletariat. I think about sex about four hours out of the week. The rest I spend productively, playing vidya or shitposting. Sexual thoughts do not even enter my mind then.

spooky

No,their mental development means that they are not able to make dicisions for themselves yet. The line you draw is debatable, but if you know a 7 year old or have a 14 year old sister (or look back at 14 year old you) you know that they are fucking retarded and not emotionally ready for a relationship.

ew

I can't really overstate how completely you're misunderstanding everything. I'm not quite sure how you've accomplished it to be honest. It's a real talent.

No, that's when science needs to be done to determine the cause. I hypothesize that there's no harm, but you don't just test random shit on a kid without knowing whether it's safe or not. Any civilization should tread very carefully when exploring these kind of options.

Everyone dies in the end anyway. It's not like I'm going to space in my lifetime or seeing a world where humanity is anything other than a steaming heap of shit.
It isn't problem at all. I'm completely happy with loli porn. This whole discussion started because I believed OP was one of the many pedophiles who are already convinced that there is no inherent harm and really want to have sex. My whole post was an attempt to provide a sympathetic and reasonable argument why he shouldn't fuck kids.
Believe it or not my fetishes have nothing to do with vanilla sex. I'm already well aware that my only (remote) hope is the development of immersive VR and AI.
No, that's the point when I just commit suicide. If I ever think humanity has genuinely peaked, I won't have any regrets about ending my own life. What's even the point of putting up with more horrible shit if it's all just going to end up in heat death regardless?
It's on my to-do list. The left is all but dead though.


Nice one, user.

You went from saying that having sex with children is in itself harmless and it's society's fault for the harm to saying that you don't think it's harmful but you're not sure. Good enough for me. Maybe in a bit you'll finally strain yourself and figure out where the problem with your scheme lies.

And the ironing is pretty thick if you're accusing me of lacking reading comprehension when you managed to torture that reading out of OP's post about liberal hypocrisy re ephebophilia.

Whatever you may say your true meaning is, the words speak for themselves. Society isn't going to explore any options because this isn't an option. Saying shit like is the height of delusion. Only when children emerge from the womb as functioning individuals with complete agency and control over their lives will this ever change. As individuals who are dependent on others they lack the capacity to consent in a fundamental way. Passive aggressive whining will not change this. All it does is make pedos look even worse.

Anyway, for as long as people live there's a chance that the models we use to understand the world may be proven wrong. It's happened many times before, and entropy is no exception.

Australians got shit taste, just like the brits who want to ban facesitting

Once again, you lack reading comprehension. The post that was a response to was talking about 7-16 year olds - not newborns.

Honestly though, this whole discussion is pointless. As I've said before, it's like a couple of peasants from the 16th century arguing about the true nature of disease. In fact it's even worse than that because, at least in theory, those peasants had the capacity to discover the truth. I think humans are biologically incapable of understanding something as sophisticated as the human brain for the same reason that a monkey is fundamentally incapable of understanding a microprocessor. The complexity of the interactions is simply too great. We might be able to make guesses about cause and effect, but we won't be able to explain using cold hard equations why those guesses are correct.

Anyway, as you might be able to tell, I'm suicidally depressed and generally pretty psychologically injured. You're just an idiot. Between us we aren't likely to achieve anything productive in discussion.

You haven't changed my mind in the slightest, aside from making me considerably more depresed. If you think you have, it was either a failure on my part to express my ideas or a failure on your part to understand them. It's probably a bit of both.

"A chance"? There's a chance the Sun might rise tomorrow. We know with absolute certainty that our models aren't perfect and will need to be replaced with something better.
Entropy won't be going away, but minds greater than our own will probably find a work-around just as we have found a work-around to the problem of staying warm in winter (and likely with the same ease).

According to you that is never, ever going to change, so who cares right?

I don't think I've ever met anyone with this mentality. Sounds like projection famalam.

Christ, you're stupid. My point was that children up to a certain age lack those characteristics. Try and tell me that an 8 year old is an independent individual with agency and control over his or her life. Again, older teenagers? Sure. Prepubescent children? No fucking way.

Society is never going to be fine with people fucking children, but what can happen is for people to understand that pedophiles are not responsible for the way they were born and are entitled to fair treatment and outlets for their desires that don't involve fucking actual children. This will only happen if pedos start coming out as pedos and commit themselves to the idea that actually acting out on their desires is wrong in and of itself.

You seem to be under the impression that support for pedophiles is one and the same as support for child abuse. It is not. You are being whiny and stupid. I was the first person in this thread to defend pedos, but apparently all you can do is heap abuse, attack my person, and refuse to even engage with my position (incidentally, I have yet to see a single argument from you - all you've done so far is call me names), all because I don't support your delusional fantasy of guilt-free sex with children.

You are the only one responsible for your own unhappiness in this case. I am still going to be defending pedos in the future, but goddamn are you making it look fucking pointless.

I don't think it should but it definitely can be and is in multiple places today. See Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, UAE etc.

I don't think it's so much a matter of them being OK with it so much as power structures and material incentives overcoming good sense. I get the impression that in most of these cases where they get a 9-year-old grill to marry an old-ass man it's a case of the family being poor as dirt and getting a whole lot of compensation for letting a daughter go, in terms of connections and influence if not necessarily cash (but I'd wager cash is a factor too, I remember an article where a lady from somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa was talking about how her father sold her for three cows). They're also making the decision on behalf of the daughter entirely without her input. I can't imagine how that could ever be the case when you don't have that level of inequality, coercion and patriarchy in place to reinforce the practice.

VR involves no exploitation or abuse of real children, unlike CP.

lrn 2 japanese drawing cp or computer generated cp or cp writings u newfag>>920234

The fact that so many get riled up upon this very simple topic (children can't consent - no reason not to ban this) and write wall of texts on this just shows that a lot of you guys are probably borderline pedos.

CP can be self made. Theres stories pf governments V& ing 13 or 14 year olds for CO

yes, what kind of people do you think accepts a job where they have to ruin online boards for a living through shitposting?
remember the anti net neutrality shill on Holla Forums. or the Holla Forums board owner. or the new /cyber/ board owner.
alternatively it could just be NAMBLA.

see

There's only one self-described pedo here, my nazbol shitposter friend. If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know that the issue most of us have isn't with sex with children being illegal, but with pedos being unfairly demonized for experiencing attraction they can't control even if they never actually harm anyone.

You seem a bit too stuck in the worldview of the current era and society you live in. CP was legal until the 1980s in some European countries for example, and some psychologists said retarded people of an IQ of 60 have rights to secual release/access.

If people of IQ of 60, why not lolis? Similar IQ range AFAIK or something similar to that.

According to the Irish Garda and the guy who wrote "my life in child porn" most CP isnt violent hardcore shit.

ah, that's a guy I trust. good to know these things.

Dont forget it also includes fully aware teens that know exactly what they are doing and no abuse, it's not just little kids although I gues it depends on the laws where you live. In the US they charge it all the same which makes no sense since you cant even tell the age of some teens but prepubecent kids is pretty obvious since they lack secondary sexual features.

There even was a 16 year old that got arrested for having nudes of himself even and he is probably listed as a sexual predator now having his entire life ruined.
cnet.com/news/teen-arrested-for-having-nude-photos-of-himself-on-his-phone/

Primary Sources nigga, primary sources……


Legalize CP for the good of the children…..seriously, famalam.

I feel compassion when someone happens to have pedophilic tendencies but I'd still not allow lolicons and shit like this because it perpetuates, indulges and activates said behavior that is rightfully frowned upon.

When someone get sexually stimulated by cutting his own limbs off, you wouldn't encourage him to watch mutilation porn all day either.

The difference between retards and children is that the retarded in this case are
A) of sexual maturity, and horny as shit
B) capable of limited independence

Even with the differently abled, it's still illegal to fuck a person in your care in most cases, because establishing consent gets very dicey when one person is wholly dependent on another. In most cases, the developmentally disabled are perfectly able to live normal lives with only a minimum of assistance. Children, on the other hand, instinctively look to adults for most of their needs and only gradually become more independent as they age.


Only if it's self-made and self-published. Even then, the only obvious course of action is to not punish the individuals who made and distributed it, not to allow it to be spread in the open.


I would absolutely encourage someone like that to jerk off to mutilation porn if it provided a safe outlet for their desires and kept them from cutting off their arms in real life. Repression, like abstinence-only sex ed, generally does more harm than good. Plus, plenty of people who are into loli aren't even real-life pedos.

Interesting, but some kids can also be horny as shit or desirous of such contact


Thats the same for older children though. Remember, the argument is "kids are too stupid to fuck and their brains arent developed". Note the brain doesnt finish developing until you're like 25 or so and it has remarkable plasticity through life…yrt age of consent isnt 25.

I know IQ isnt intelligence, but its close enough for the purpose of this discussion.


Instinctively? Isnt that a product of modernity more like?

(You)
Only if it's self-made and self-published. Even then, the only obvious course of action is to not punish the individuals who made and distributed it, not to allow it to be spread in the open.

Suppressing post release date just makes things worse. You still get raids with people spamming and mailing CP to get sites shut down, SJWs and "moralfags" calling everything CP, etc etc. The laws are LESS shit but theyre still shit and open to being used as troll weapons or whatnot.

Funny as legalized CP actually cuts down on such "desires" that you complaim about. Theres a study in the Czech republic on that.


Also. For those wondering I can provide links and sources if you wish. Im on a phone and dont have the articles/studies/etc on it.

Yes, instinctively. Do you not remember being a child? The concern is exploitation and coercion. Saying that an individual is capable of consent before they are capable of living apart from adult guardians for an extended period of time is opening up all sorts of unpleasant doors. If this were legalized, how would you prevent unsavoury perverts from raping children through intimidation and coercion? Bearing in mind that for this to happen, the parents - individuals on whom the child is utterly dependent - would have to be in on it too. And the child at this point is unlikely to understand fully what is going on.

For the record, I remember being a child very clearly. I remember the first stirrings of sexual desire in my life as I guiltily spied upon a copy of Playboy my father left upon the tank of the toilet. I remember becoming attracted to girls - though I did not understand what sex is I would fantasize about kissing and caressing them. When I learned to lucid dream at the age of 8 I immediately began using the ability to undress various girls in my class and lick their bodies. As I did not have much experience with vaginas at the time, in my dreams there was only a starry void beyond the labia majora, but I still felt compelled to it by instinct, even not knowing what it was or how it looked like. I was undoubtedly a sexual being, but not desiring of sex like I am now.

Perhaps that might be different for others - perhaps it's even the case that a child could at some point genuinely desire sex with an adult. Even then, there's absolutely no reason to allow it. Adults an exert a disproportionate amount of psychological and physical force over children - if a sex act takes place, how would you determine whether or not it was consensual? Ask the child? What if she was told that mommy and daddy would be taken away and everyone would hate her if she told anyone that she was raped? Hell, what if she says yes? Are we going to put her up for cross-examination, question her character? Children are extremely vulnerable, and ought to be protected. Saying that they're capable of consent would just make it that much easier for rapists to rape them, because in that case consent is assumed and deviations from that assumption only exist when they're reported. It's also never going to happen and should never happen.

I don't give a shit about any of this. Just close your eyes, nigga, like just walk away from the screen. How does it make things worse for children?

I didn't ever think I'd have to be repeatedly explaining why sex with children is wrong but I guess that's Holla Forums for you.

pedophilia is a product of hyper-masculinity, predatory behavior directed towards children. It's in no way comparable to homosexuality lol.

yeah! this is why we need to ban violent videogames whatever I don't like!

It's a spook. I wonder what pol says about it.

are you implying all homosexuals are feminine

Pedophilia is the attraction itself. Saying that's wrong or disallowing it is like doing the same with schizophrenia. I don't want to let people fuck kids though. Once somebody's mature enough to seek out sex, giving it to them shouldn't be a crime. Fucking a 16 year old doesn't make you a rapist. In the current context it's only "taking advantage of" them because sex ed is worthless.

plenty of relatively advanced societies throughout histories had cultural institutions that enabled and normalized sex with what today would be considered minors. in general it seems like as long as certain social rules were followed regarding how the relationship progresses (for example the age at which such a relationship can begin), the nature of the relationship (it's not just an adult exploiting a minor for personal gratification), and the family is involved (some figure with responsibility for the child conditionally assents) then things work out okay

so i mean as long as everyone's happy and no one is getting hurt then who cares who is having sex with who and at what age?

And 9/11 footage involved deaths of thousands in its production. Why isn't footage of 9/11 illegal?

Probably opposed to it since:
A- Children can't give consent.
B- Trauma.
C- Traditions and Slippery Slope.

It should probably be regulated on a commune-by-commune basis, same as premarital sex and any other degener4cy.


good post.


I'd rather just put you down tbh, wasted resources.

Yes I do. I also remember there were things I would not do when youngerand were very….focused on not doing things.


Really? Premodern societies didnt have ab epidemic of rape and trauma even though they had ritual kiddiefucking as well as other things. Malinoski (polish anthropologist) interviewing pacific islanders said that thenchiefs flat out told them "if you dont give them first hand experience of this how wont they get manipulated". They had the same argument and used it to argue the opposite position.


Rape is still illegal fam. Im sure therefore raping children would still be illegal. Furthermore the same thing can and does exist in the status quo, so im not sure how that is a legitimate argument.


Pretty sure the effects of rape would still be noticeable and coerced. Especially if abolishing age of consent laws will make it easy to rape people (i suspect most families in contemporary US wont suddenly be pro pedo just because an law is abolished)


Nothing about inherent rights of human beings? Or anti coercion? Or anti "adultism" which is a bit of the argument you are making here? Or even what the Polynesians/Micronesian chiefs mentioned earlier as to an argument?

I do wonder if the wizardchan people adults would be as….obsessed about a getting laid if you know they had some experience when younger lol


Innocent until proven guilty? Assume that oh, I dunno the people in the situation ate ok until *there is evidence actual 'abuse' is happening*? Why are you making the SJWish argument that something is rape unless proven otherwise?

Literally, The Trauma Myth flat out says sexual molestation does not cause trauma or whatnot. The social reaction to it does. The Rind Study also flat out said similar thungs, i.e. pedophilic relationshops dont fuck up kids.


Clearly the current laws arent doing that well. Given the "V& someone for making CP of thensrlves and friends" bullshit you see promoted.


"If you dont promote affirmative consent laws, its easier to rape people". Its the same argument. Again, the various people Malinoski interviewed flat out said there was no such trauma. Why does the logic suddenly go out the window with loli/shota? Remember….the brain does not fully "develop" until 25 or so.

Lol


The last argument was legalizing CP so that you know, sites like Holla Forums wont be easily taken down because "someone spams CP on here take it down!". Or other skiddie raid shit.

Funny how we see that logic is bullshit when its not child porn….

No… but how the laws are should be changed quite a bit.

Frankly, there's enough problems with both Rind et al. and Clancy's work that I'm hesitant to accept either as gospel. To put it simply, we need more research before we can have a conclusive answer on this. For the time being, we don't know if there's harm. The thing is though, we live in the society we're in, and trying to create ideal laboratory conditions to study this sort of thing wouldn't get past any ethics board in this universe, and we don't really have access to virgin Pacific Islander societies where we can study this thing in the wild any more.

More than that, any sort of scheme for legalizing pedophilia would take place in the society we currently live in, with its peculiar set of values.

Because children are incredibly vulnerable to nonviolent coercion. Legalizing pedophilia would make non-violent coercion, manipulation, intimidation, blackmail etc. several orders of magnitude easier, as none of these things leave behind any physical evidence and it'd no longer enough to establish that a sexual act took place. It'd be your word against that of a child. Not having a reverse onus is giving a free pass for coercion.

And don't compare this to adult and teenage women. They're not nearly so easily cowed or manipulated as dependent children, nor would the circumstances be such that every person on which they depend on for nearly everything would be in on the coercion when it happens.

We don't allow for sex between prison guards and inmates, either. Ever wonder why?

Going back to Micronesia premodern societies don't have quite so much crime as we do in general. And even so, something that applies to them doesn't apply to ours. We live in a society where this sort of thing is right next to murder, possibly worse than murder. You're firstly not going to see any public support for such a thing, but also you're not going to see households ritually fucking their children so they know first-hand what sex is and don't get coerced into it. This thing would be kept far and away from the public eye, creating ideal circumstances for coercion and abuse. (Something that wasn't the case at all in Micronesian society as they quite frequently had sex in the open view of everyone else, probably something that helped keep the peace in regard to all sorts of sexual crimes.)

In any case you're not going to see any support for legalizing this any time soon. On the other hand, it would be feasible to get rights for pedos at some point in the near future, so I would urge you to say that it's wrong even if you don't believe it (though you should, coerced sex, like coerced labour, is never OK) while arguing that pedophiles who refuse to act out deserve our love, support, acceptance and even admiration.

All you're going to do by insisting that sex with children is OK is alienate normies and make things harder for non-offending pedophiles.

The ideology of the chan pedophile is both fascinating and sad


Thats really not the same thing as a 30 man/woman who wants to fuck a 13 year old.

In sexual and romantic relationships there is usually some degree of difference between the two parties that one could describe as "power" that one partner might hold over the other. You don't have to look at pedophilia to see this an example. The law recognizes that woman might suffer from economic dependence to their abusive partner. One partner might be more domineering to the other and cause them to not reveal abuse. One party might not be as good at communication. And so forth. Ive worked for family law firms and psych clinics, its really not hard to see that dysfunctional relationship begin at this lack of balance and autonomy for one of the partners.

But where it gets sticky with pedophilia (and sex with invalids and the mentally handicapped) is that there is clearly, in 99% of the cases there is one stronger partner than the other. An adult is more able to affect, control, initiate and hide the relationship than a teenager could if they were having sex another teenager. They have the economic and social means to coerce them, and you can see that in any example where a teacher fucks a student or a pedophile lures his victims in using gifts. A 13 year old fucking another 13 year old might be a disaster due to lack of maturity for both sides, pregnancy, maybe suicide if things go wrong etc. But only one person is really benefiting from the relationship here and thats the older person that can't date people their own age, so they target these immature and hormonal creatures for their own ends.

The ideology of the pedophiles rests on two very poorly shitty axioms:

Thats its ok because the other party also has sexual desires
Thats it ok because even adults don't know what they are doing all the time

Really, if thats the only thing that you consider when you engage in a sexual relationship then you are either an alien or clinically autistic, and I sure as hell don't want you making decisions with a 12 year old.

" He who is the victim of his passions and the slave of pleasure will of course desire to make his beloved as agreeable to himself as possible. Now to him who has a mind discased anything is agreeable which is not opposed to him, but that which is equal or superior is hateful to him, and therefore the lover Will not brook any superiority or equality on the part of his beloved; he is always employed in reducing him to inferiority. And the ignorant is the inferior of the wise, the coward of the brave, the slow of speech of the speaker, the dull of the clever. These, and not these only, are the mental defects of the beloved;-defects which, when implanted by nature, are necessarily a delight to the lover, and when not implanted, he must contrive to implant them in him, if he would not be deprived of his fleeting joy. And therefore he cannot help being jealous, and will debar his beloved from the advantages of society which would make a man of him, and especially from that society which would have given him wisdom, and thereby he cannot fail to do him great harm. That is to say, in his excessive fear lest he should come to be despised in his eyes he will be compelled to banish from him divine philosophy; and there is no greater injury which he can inflict upon him than this. He will contrive that his beloved shall be wholly ignorant, and in everything shall look to him; he is to be the delight of the lover's heart, and a curse to himself. Verily, a lover is a profitable guardian and associate for him in all that relates to his mind.

Let us next see how his master, whose law of life is pleasure and not good, will keep and train the body of his servant. Will he not choose a beloved who is delicate rather than sturdy and strong? One brought up in shady bowers and not in the bright sun, a stranger to manly exercises and the sweat of toil, accustomed only to a soft and luxurious diet, instead of the hues of health having the colours of paint and ornament, and the rest of a piece?-such a life as any one can imagine and which I need not detail at length. But I may sum up all that I have to say in a word, and pass on. Such a person in war, or in any of the great crises of life, will be the anxiety of his friends and also of his lover, and certainly not the terror of his enemies; which nobody can deny.

And not only while his love continues is he mischievous and unpleasant, but when his love ceases he becomes a perfidious enemy of him on whom he showered his oaths and prayers and promises, and yet could hardly prevail upon him to tolerate the tedium of his company even from motives of interest. The hour of payment arrives, and now he is the servant of another master; instead of love and infatuation, wisdom and temperance are his bosom's lords; but the beloved has not discovered the change which has taken place in him, when he asks for a return and recalls to his recollection former sayings and doings; he believes himself to be speaking to the same person, and the other, not having the courage to confess the truth, and not knowing how to fulfil the oaths and promises which he made when under the dominion of folly, and having now grown wise and temperate, does not want to do as he did or to be as he was before. And so he runs away and is constrained to be a defaulter; the oyster-shell has fallen with the other side uppermost-he changes pursuit into flight, while the other is compelled to follow him with passion and imprecation not knowing that he ought never from the first to have accepted a demented lover instead of a sensible non-lover; and that in making such a choice he was giving himself up to a faithless, morose, envious, disagreeable being, hurtful to his estate, hurtful to his bodily health, and still more hurtful to the cultivation of his mind, than which there neither is nor ever will be anything more honoured in the eyes both of gods and men. Consider this, fair youth, and know that in the friendship of the lover there is no real kindness; he has an appetite and wants to feed upon you:

As wolves love lambs so lovers love their loves. "

Plato - Phaedrus

Even Socrates knew that shit was dangerous, so whats your excuse pedophile posters

OMG guys, why are you looking at the broader context to understand how social factors might create a series of circumstances which makes it difficult for a child to express personal and sexual autonomy, and for a court to discover an instance of sexual abuse?

Its almost as if thats exactly what sociologists, philosophers and psychologists have been doing forever, and its exactly why abuse is so rampant in the Catholic church.

Seriously, what kind of retard are you and why should I let you engage in sexual relationship with children when you don't understand shit?

Socrates was a faggot.

And even he knew it was dangerous

The concept of an age of consent is spook nonsense. Each child is different from the next and there is no fixed age at which they can now understand something trivial like sex. There are children who are coddled their whole lives and don't understand the world around them until they hit puberty and there are children who at the age of 4 or 5 understand what is happening around them. To put them all under the same umbrella is retarded.

Sex is one of the easiest and most primitive acts that man can do. Children knowingly or unknowingly do sexual acts without any real thought to them because of how innate and simplistic they are. There are many guys who, in their youth, humped at least one object or masturbated. If children are incapable of understanding sex, why do they perform sexual acts?

Sex, like anything else, can be taught to a child. It's not some otherworldly concept that children can never understand.

I just thought of this but don't feel like refining it:
There are even theoretically some children who can be predisposed to sex. Think about the fact that there exists a common phenomenon among engineers that at a very young age they started to take things apart and put them back together.

This. The people obtaining cp are easier to get but they usually are doing the least harm. They should really only go after the people distributing it and making it. Not like pigs give a ghost of a shit about helping people though.

…all humans are predisposed to sex

Im willing to say studies should be made better. However when the US senate condemns studies because theydisagree with societial gospal thats flat out bullshit. They didnt even do that withbthe controversial "race realist" studies.


Were discussing things in a communist board, so we shouldn't be restrained by the values of the society we live in. After all theres postgenderist transhumanists on this board.

It wouldnt surprise me to see theres hidden "dissident" groups even in this modern society. Think, say some of the weird cults who marry 12 year olds. Its not the most perfect example but there is such a living history which exists say in the US. I dunno what other groups and whatnot in say, the US or the "western world" would appear with a different and nore friendly scholarship on their lives without the state intervening or just threatening to intervene (again, say flds cults. Or that small british dominion on christmas island or whatnot whichbwas founded by people who fought over some women. The locals know your society doesnt like their practices so things will be distorted)


Query. This seems like a "grey area" question. Wouldnt this be best left to the parents or family or village or whatnot? For example, parental rights in education (if you want to homeschoolx sure go ahead). What is your opinion on homeschooling or 'unschooling' exactly?

In that case I would adopt the "that decision should be up to the family to make"

Also, its not legalizing pedophilia (the attraction) its legalizing acting on such attractions.


Unequal relationships. In the nature of *the state makes a decision which put people in that position*. Which is a bit different here….


Because something is unpopular it shouldn't be argued for or, inversely questioned because it's considered a "common sense" thing? Social attitudes have done weird and strong changes before. In some ways I wonder how strongly the changes were due to elite propaganda and how much was due to popular will/actions of factions of the populations. Arguably just having this discussion on a chan shows 'dissenting arguments' which does an alternayive way of things…


The Overton Window argument. It is a…practical argument I will admit, but its a bit weird to see a socialist with a red flag adopting a resigned attitude with the position of societial attitudes when you had…interesting things Simone de Beauvoir and Wilhelm Reich and whatnot say…..


Oh, I expect SJWs and normies to basically fuck up sex offender laws the same way the past puritans made prohibition as a policy. And the drug war. As in "government fucks up and convicts enough people for sex offender laws for things like peeing in public and declaring everything CP that a backlash will happen. Thats probably a long term goal, similar to what you say.

But i would rather not be mentally stuck in what is acceptable or whatnot in the modern world.

That was addressed. I mentioned basically the existing society has the same proborms. Arguably worse. Im also sure were discussing the "superstructure" of society's norms.


Pretty sure the problem is catholicism and vows of celibacy as a factor. But were focusing on one subject


A neurodivergent one


Im not a pedophile so you dont have to worry about that.

Those """blobs""" are the true sign of fertility. Good luck fucking twig, loli fag.

FBI does quotas to justify their bullshit. Flat out. The same way local puggies gotta have quotas for their tickets lol. Theres cases of emailing spam to random ppl and V&ing the people who clicked cause CP lol (the email said its CP and the ppl who clicked well clear attempt to possess!)

GG FBI, youre really protecting people. AFAIK that shit was thrown out of court for being cancer.

So no, the entire laws should.be removed.

You know what I mean. I took brevity over clarity.

My concern is exactly that the family will be the ones facilitating the coercion. The cult-like groups you've mentioned in particular thrive on there being a cloak of secrecy and taboo over their activities. I know abuse of various sorts is fairly common in various fundamentalist communities, like Mennonites, Haredi Jews, Bountiful Mormons, etc. Leaving children subject to the unrestrained authority of their parents seems ridiculous to me, like letting the fox watch over the henhouse.

As for school, I'm of the opinion that it's bullshit but that might just be due to my own experience in the bourgeois school system. I think it's potentially even more harmful to give parents free reign to terrorize and mould children as they please. Though I never had to deal with that personally, I knew others who did, and parents can really fuck a kid up especially if they're not allowed to go outside or have their own friends. I say let them play in the street and go to school if they want.

This is exactly my point. Children and adults are fundamentally unequal in power and autonomy, as so eloquently described. However, unlike with the guard and prisoner, it was not the state behind this contrivance but rather nature herself.

I'm concerned with positive change and justice in the world of today. I'm not really inclined to ponder on matters of utopia. Any solution that doesn't take into account the world of right now isn't really a solution.


Do you seriously not understand how legalizing sex with children would make things, far, far worse? How it would make it essentially impossible to prove a case of rape by coercion in a court of law and open up the door to anything that doesn't leave a mark, no matter how coercive? Stop and think for a moment. Saying 'it's already a problem' does not justify exacerbating it.


The problem is not with there being laws against this stuff, but with how our political system encourages law enforcement agencies to play stat games. It's not only with CP, it's drugs, traffic tickets, quality of life offences, all sorts of bullshit. Just because it's applied arbitrarily and inconsistently doesn't mean there's a problem with the law itself (unless of course it puts kids onto sex offender registries for taking pictures of themselves.)

The state makes it worse though. The list of things that parents aren't allowed to do to their kids with impunity is pretty short, and doesn't even include the most important thing: creating them in the first place.

wew lad

this is literally how my mom got away with abusing me for years.

well duh

I thought that was Clapistan definition, not a universal thing.

Kiddos can't consent familam

wew lass

Exactly, so you understand the difficulty in interpreting what is and isn't consent right? Now apply that to the psychology of a child and the dynamic of a relationship they might have with an adult. See for why the argument "b-but adults do it!" doesn't make any sense.

But I assume people like you think the same way. I wouldn't want them near children either

The average transhumanist, everyone.

It's true, though. That's the only way we're going to get children-shaped things that you can fuck without worrying about whether they can consent. Except with the gene freaks, but if they had adult brains then they'd at least be capable of consent.

Proof that all pedos are virgins and/or autistic. There is much more to sex and a sexual relationship than that.

t. Virgin waiting for qt leftist waifu who will love him unconditionally

forgot to take off the shitpost flag

That is what Japan did till recently when the US and some other UN countries tried to shame it so they outlawed possession. Now child sexual assault rates are likely on the rise from the loss of an outlet for them and the people caught actually doing harm has gone down since they are too busy looking for people in possession. Of course the corrupt Tokyo police cover up crime statistics best they can to try to make it seem like everything is fine for all crimes.

I dont think full decriminalisation of possession makes sense though. A possible way around this is if it were legal to produce and own of yourself but distribution is only legal with their consent upon turning a legal age at which point it is legal for those you distribute it to to posses. This makes it within their full control and because it wont be distributed till someone is older there wont be so much a risk of predatory stalking since they wont be a kid any more. Also it could be made to be illegal to intentionally redistribute without permission. So say a girl that is 18 gives a guy a pic of herself when she was 9 he can only distribute it to anyone she approves of or she can have an open distribution where it can be passed on to anyone without her direct permission beyond the initial consent of her own doing. Possession could just be managed with automatic seizing and destruction instead of arrests. Also distribution for financial profit outlawed for risk of exploitation for a delayed profit. This would also work on any age too so revenge porn would be illegal.This also can be taken back at any time so a person can upload something of themselves then request for take downs later if they feel it was a mistake because it turned out bad. Say for example some kid was raped and it was filmed but the person who raped her accidentaly left behind the recording. She is too afraid to go to anyone so time passes but she eventually turns him in using the recording and he goes to jail. This girl wants to keep the recording though and once old enough decides to give it an open distribution because she wants people to see what it's actually like so they have no fantasy idea about it. It has an impact but she after some years doesnt want to be reminded of it more and has it taken down where it gets removed off the net. Basically it gives individuals more power and works sort of like copyright laws.

Or you could just outlaw all porn if that is too complicated.

On one hand, your scheme sounds like it could work and makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, it kind of sounds like intellectual property.

… We should just ban all porn. It's bourgeois decadence anyway.

what's wrong with decadence

There are some ethnolinguistic groups which have such a nasty history of oppression by the state and mainstream society that it would probably be better to basically do nothing in regards to them. So that would basically solve a decent portion of the problem. I.e. if american state legalized polygamy and provided autonomy for some of those groups you could probably get them to reconcile with their mainstream cousins (esp say the Mormons). No excommunication and isolation.

The same would apply to pedophilic relationships. I.e. say some of the isolationist mormon sects might say, marry off 12 year olds to 20 year olds as ppposed to 35 year olds. And being more 'integrated' into mainstream society would make those relationships less abusive. However, stare agencies really shpildnt interfere with them and shpuld approach it from a very conciliatory POV.


Yes. I see that as a problem. My argument was more if parenrs can homeschool children they can help guide their ritual fucking or whatnot. As i mentioned theres still traditions which are likely underground and will come back up post legalization (minus social censure or whatnot)


Perhaps. What about as 12 year old and a 22 year old? 11 year old and a 24 year old? Those can technically be pedohilic relations. How much 'imbalance' can there be if say, (ill use older male/younger female for laziness purposes) if the younger partner actively sought out the relationship? Thats not exactly you know u heard of. I honestly will question how strongly a power imbalance will exist just because of age. Especially if say the other person you quoted is right and the person in question is autistic.

Are neurodivergent people still able to easily manipulate a 12 year old? Especially in the sorts of situations where this relationship is likely to develop where friends and family members are probably involved?

Ahh. I adopt a more science fiction influenced mentality of "power of imagination" and "making the impossible possible" and seeing alternative worlds as a possibility.

Holy shit this got split into 2 parts as length control


I honestly dislike the entire system, and dislike the sorts of bullshit which occurs within it and is legitimitized by it. I dislike the prison industrial complex so much that i consider these possible negative effects to be a lesser evil than the modern system of "law and order".


If the existing problems of coercion and whatnot are a risk, and will continue to be a risk. With the nasty side effects getting worse (sex offender registries for example) yes there can come a point where the entire worldview behind this can be questioned.

And so what if that makes certain crimes harder to prosecute? Thats not permissible for the state to restrict rights and liberties, nor to force a certain social role on other individuals who flat put disagree with the role of the state. Yes it may be excellent to enforce the law, but thats a lesser evil than the modern world IMO.


I dont like government telling me what to do. Especially when it comes to the internet. Id like to ideally repeal laws against "online bullying" and "online harassing" because I don't like the state enforcing/forcing its will on cyberspace.

The fact that those laws are ill enforced and incompetent (ie there's so many people in UK with CP that governments cant arrest them) shows those laws are a crock of shit.

Again note I am a social libertarian and strongly against the state makibg these sorts of restrictions. Non state actors/NGOs would be better at helping to decide what happens with society. Especially in a socialist society.

Look up "the myth of tbe teen brain". But regardless, unlike you i dont have the5bsame assumption that said children are easy to manipulate for your purposes, or even assuming such that such traits warrant the existing bans which many societies have.


Lel

You know there'll be butthurt when the first loli robowaifus come out. I can hear the butthurt right fucking now.

Also, the orions arm universe had genetic claides descended from humanity which basically were like pets. Look up the website, its a bit interesting. The core systems about 50 ly from Earth banned it but you could still make them or 'possess" them.

I could see a colony basically genetically engineering them to be loliesque anime charas>>924134

Oh god no . Jay Pee Gee

Theres former CP stars who already sue people because they were #triggered. That seems like something to be easily exploited. Also.


Again, problems lel. They may be dicks but not sure about laws to punish dickishness. Also, i gurss "SJWish" if you want to use that as an argument.

that's fine
that's bad
that is also bad, but using the state to prevent it will cause more harm.

Except for the part where we're TALKING ABOUT FUCKING PEDOPHILES HERE. They're going to be isolated regardless, and legalizing it will only make it easier for them to commit abuse. And are you seriously arguing that parents should have the right to treat their children like property if the parents happen to be religious fundamentalists?

No, not perhaps. Yes. Those are all situations with a massive imbalance of power. You are not on the level of a fucking 11-year-old. If a 11-year-old girl flirts with you it does not mean you can bully her into fucking you. If her family is involved it does not mean that there is no bullying/coercion. Being autistic changes none of this, it in fact probably only makes things worse since an autistic person would be less likely to detect another's discomfort and back off.

That is the ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION for all restrictions on personal freedom. You may be autistic, but just try and see this from the perspective of someone helpless who doesn't want to be abused. I'd say their rights take precedence over the rights of downloaders of child pornography.

By your logic, someone who disagrees with the role of the state ought to be allowed to murder freely because state interference is the greatest evil there is. This is like some ancap-level logic.

No it doesn't, it shows that the laws are ill enforced. For the laws to be a crock of shit they need to be not protecting anyone from anything.


Nigga have you been around any 16-year-olds lately? They are basically adults, and legal in a large amount of jurisdictions. Not to mention thirsty as fuck. I remember plenty of girls in my high school fawning after guys in their 20s in a decidedly non-platonic way and sometimes dating them.

That's why legal age in Australia is 16, but pornography laws are 18. Happy balance id say

I said child but whatever. Also still havnt seen an adequate against social concerns.

This I why pedos are autistic. Have you ever met a child?

Why not? We have already talked extensively about how genuine consent is difficult to determine, and that its hard to end relationships you enter, but its nearly impossible to determine coercive circumstances in the case of a child.

...

Yes. I recognized that earlier if you legalize such relationships, the quality of those relationships have nowhere else to go but up. It may be harder to prove rape but the other net benefits offset that.


Im leaning towards a "autonomy for various people" mentality so yes. It sucks for people who get fucked up by religion but im wary of using the state to interfere in those affairs. In a socialist society they would be able to escape relatively easily in the sense of economic means of support (social ostracisim and whatnot would be a massive problem)


Where did you get "bully an 11 year old girl into fucking you" from? Because someone is hitting in you youre assuming you bullied them into sex?


Youre reaching for worst case scenarios now lol


??????

I mentioned the argument of a 12 year old hitting on you. If you're autistic or non neurotypical in many ways than shes probably flat out sitting on your dick or whatnot. So wheres the 'lol coercion assumed' part coming in at? Furthermore different autistic people bave different symptoms.


And those restrictions have a bit more…detailed arguments than "well how do we protect people if this utter bullshit law wont exist"


Oh you mean like the examole of a 12 year old hitting on a 20somethung person and you literally jumped to the conclusion that it would end up being abuse and whatnot. Even though you admit we dont evan bave hard proof on that and the studies and science is controversial.


Does the person who got raped as an adult also have precedent over the right of random chan browsers or reddit users regarding videos of the rap posted online?

Does that right go up to shutting down websites (remember Holla Forums was at threat of this)? Arresting people for downloading pics?

I disagree. I am sympathetic to the "internet is a new world full of freedom" argument even if people will be dicks about it.


Im sure serial killers would make similar statements, but the CP stuff was focused on you know interner stuff. So i guess a similar analogy will be hacking a site to display photosensitive epilepsy.


CP laws dont protect anybody.

It's more like a type of privacy or defamation law than copyright because it is controlled by individuals involved not corporations.

So for example of similar concept, if you upload pictures of yourself to Facebook normally they own rights to do whatever they want with it for profit but I think the pictures of you should belong to you not them.

One of the busiest threads on your degenerate board is about rationalizing baby rape. What a fucking surprise.

Leftism, not even once.

What about autonomy of the children who get treated like property by their parents?

So if someone is coercing you into sex on a regular basis it will only get better once there is absolutely no chance of them getting into trouble for it? Why would they stop? How would that not literally make things worse? They're not going to do their intimidation out in the street once fucking you is legal.

When a child flirts it does not mean they want to be fucked. The fact that you're misinterpreting this common behaviour to such a degree indicates a certain level of fuckupedness to your way of thinking.

No, they don't. Look at murder. How will we protect people from murder if the law doesn't exist?

I am saying that from a legal/policing perspective, it is impossible to distinguish between a so-called "consensual" relationship and one where consent has been obtained by coercion as far as children are concerned.

Were they raped specifically in order to make and distribute a video? Also, yes, I support the right of victims of rape to have videos of their violent rape removed from the internet by force. In any case, I've not heard of someone getting into shit for just scrolling past some images on a public forum. If that happens, it's a problem with the enforcement, not the law - in most jurisdictions, you need to establish that the offender knowingly sought out and accessed the materials in question. A law that is overzealously enforced is not invalidated by that fact!

Laws against having sex with children protect children from coercion and sexual exploitation. CP laws are an extension of that in that they're mostly in place to prevent the commercialization of the latter. Not that they couldn't do with reform, but you seem to have considerable difficulty in understanding why we prohibit sex with children.

t. person who hasn't read the thread

You're not the socialist guy but whatever. Look up the rind study in 1998. It flat out says thats not exactly likely to happen. The book The Trauma Myth also flat out debunks those claims. The other guy thinks there's problems with the studies but I dunno what you think about it.

Yes and I remember being one. I dont remember being highly controllable. Do you?


Something being hard to determine does not warrant a blanket ban.

You're no different than someone on Holla Forums whining about mixed race relationships.

Ok.

Certainly a problem. But its not state based oppression and i am waey of the state involvement.


If hiding everything where children are easy to.be coerced and suffer in silence is the current world (ie the random religious cults) then the fact that you can possibly get into an accusation of rape, and that there is a *case* of dispute possibly occuring as to whether rape occured will be a net improvement over now.

Now: cults rape children in basically impunity, helped by society and legal restrictions

Then: pedo relations are legal and socially accepted, or just legal. The pressure to hide everything is significantly lessened. Remember the Pitcairn islanders I mentioned?


Did i mention the "sitting on your dick" statement? Furthermore not everything is getting fucked. The details of that can be left to their culture or whatnot.


Welcome to Holla Forums. Enjoy your stay.


Id like to legalize honor duels, legalize killing someone if theres substsntial evidence that someone was a dick and pissed you off, etc. Its a bit like crimes of passion defenses and whatnot. Taking that logic further:

Removing some forms of killing from 'murder' would be a net improvement. As there are assholes, who you would personally say want to kill. Lets say they bullied you their entire life and you want to blow their brains out. I dont think that should be illegal, and certainly not murder. Perhaps "involuntary homicide" and give that person.


Oh that is possible. But thats the cost of freedom.


Oh, ok. I still dislike those laws but youre internally consistent


The "click on spyware the FBI mailed ypu" example earlier, and now the "deanonymize random people on Tor" option. And now it will be legal in like December or so for feds to.hack any random Tor browse. Good luck!


I dont like those laws anyway.


Thats not the original purpose. And regardless, they certainly dont do well given most CP is self made and not prpfit based


The main impetus came from christian moralists and reformiers, the same form of white women who caused the prohibition movement. It wast exactly motivated by protecting children but more because protestants wanted to create a certain society.

Even better if you want to use a manospheric argument that "they just did that because they're jealos/afraid of being priced out of the sexual marketplace" similar to what some say about sex negative feminism and those who dislike sexbots.

You are the worst kind of retard. Education definitely needs to be reformed or ideally revolutionized to give students more autonomy and ability to self-actualize instead of depending entirely on the pedagogy of the school systems (and under capitalism market forces), but this is pushing it to primitivist levels of autism. Everyone, but especially kids, need to have basic education so they can grow and function on their own.

You are assuming that they will move into the open just because it's legal. I'm saying that they will continue to keep it behind closed doors, but now, once someone does come out and complain, they'll just say 'it was consensual' and nothing will happen depending on how the legal process goes. At least now, they get punished as soon as it's established that there was sexual contact.

ok
Just because a child sits on your penis doesn't mean that they want to engage in sexual activities with you. Happy now?

There is no way that this will not be abused by those with the power to influence the system. Remember, this is not going through panels and multiple stages of verification with public accountability before you off someone, this is providing justification for a murder after it already takes place.

This is exactly like an ancap saying "well, it doesn't matter if oppressive businesses make starving people work for pennies an hour, that's just the cost of freedom." Freedom is empty talk and completely worthless if it leads to a worse experience for regular people. Freedom in this case becomes a spook that gets put ahead of the individual interest.

It is the current justification. Whatever the framers intended is irrelevant. What counts is the argument for why we continue enforcing it.

Nice dodges to the question.
I'll assume that you would like if Leo did "abused" of you.


LMAO.
People pay for sex just for pleasure and feeling good, people go out at night to score a pussy/cock that he/she will see only for one night just for pleasure and feeling good and so on and so on. A relationship can include sex but sex doesn't necessarily need a relationship (remember this, it might save your life, serious talk), sex only have "much more to it" when you are in a romantic relationship.
Funny that you wrote something that is exactly what a virgin who fantasizes about sex would wrote.


You know what the worst kind of retard is? the kind that suffers from reading comprehension.
I didn't say education is bad or need reform or whatever shit you said. What I said was simply that kids can't consent to go to school the same way they can't consent to sex, the same way they can't consent to anything really. So following this logic nobody would be able to raise a kid without falling in this "consent problem" because literally anything they do would be "abusive". To make it even more clear (because you are a slow moffo), forget about education. You told your kid to take a shower? ABUSE. You told your kid to eat something? ABUSE. And so on, and so on.

Forcing a kid to take a shower, eat his vegetables or go to school isn't the same as forcing a kid to suck your dick because sucking your dick is not necessary for them to be healthy, clean, fed or educated. It's not at all in their interest for them to suck your dick unlike all the other things kids are forced to do.

sasuga anarcho-nihilist

They don't, they just know that you are argueing in bad faith

These "breakthroughs" would literally create new class conflicts unless they are prevented. Complete freedom to enhance oneself by any means simply because you want an arm that can do shit that your regular arm can are absolutely disastrous. These technologies are only suitable for medical purposes.

Love this meme. Keep it coming.

but it may be in their interest to have mutual sex, to get and give
youtube.com/channel/UCqpGPc4NSxMIJRPP9fmXm1Q

Should we have banned the steam engine and the cotton mill too?

Holla Forums is pro:

body mutilation
genocide
oppress
slavery
pedophilia
homosexuality
transgenders
cuckoldry
misandry
etc.

Long list. All depraved.

That's the ancaps you're thinking of. Yesterday two of them literally came out in favour of slavery. Holla Forums is only opposed to those things where one individual non-consensually harms another, including wage labour.

kill pedos

Venezuela
USSR
China
North Korea

Wait, what?

I agree, what? What are you trying to say? Use your words.

These are Socialist and Communist states which employed/employ slavery, genocide, oppression etc. Quintessential Leftism.

That's very much not the case, in fact you're making the basic mistake of believing that those states were communist or socialist simply because they were run by a party named the socialists or the communists.

As the workers did not own the means of production, all of those states (except Venezuela) would have better been called state capitalist. Venezuela, on the other hand, was a regular capitalist state with some social democratic programs. In any case, none of them were socialist or represented the sort of state that socialists would promote.

In any case, very few of Holla Forums actually wholeheartedly supports those states. The Soviet Union in particular is rather disliked among the left for how Stalin single-handedly associated socialism with dictatorship. Western socialists like George Orwell and Albert Einstein would have never supported that kind of government.

Given that you seem to know jack shit about socialism, I would suggest you lurk moar and educate yourself before posting again.

Communism and Socialism in theory work!

Polygamy and then pedophilia are the next steps after legalizing same-sex marriage. The ads for the "love wins" campaigns sponsored by the Koch Brothers included messages such as how marriage has been redefined from a man and a woman to two people.

However, in the Soviet Union pedophilia was always seen as a bourgeois/fascist vice that could lead to a counterrevolution or blackmail.

Yeah, it MAY be, but as we have pointed out time and again it its hard enough to unpack sexual relationships without adding in the social factors that cover up coercion and freedom for the child.

But I mean your an ancap, the same person who thinks "its voluntary bro!" so im not surprised.


kys

Go away Sigmund.

This is a lot like saying that the war in Iraq was fought to protect freedom and democracy.

youtu.be/Ruf_phAz1hQ

itt: moralists whining about sexuality being only reasonable for procreation
while pretending to be leftists

Pedo talk keeps normies away. That's all its good for tbh

we're not all the same.
I don't support pedophilia, and I know the age of consent isn't a perfect system but we have to have some boundary. I'm sorry if you want to porkie a 16 year old, but if we let you do that we could also let someone porkie a 14 year old and then a 12 year old and so on. A line's gotta be drawn somewhere

Who chooses to be attracted to something? Who has ever been in the neutral zone of sexuality, and with total lucidity gone "You know what? I'm gonna let myself be turned on by dudes, even though society will hate me." or worse yet "Being loathed by my family sounds like a good choice… think I'll go with pedophile".

One can't help what one is attracted to, that's why it's called an attraction. One does, however, choose whether or not to molest vaginas.

1/10