Men’s rights groups that support pedo/underage sex hysteria are feminist brainwashed imbeciles.

Delusional feminists believe that if that a relationship between a minor and an adult cannot be consensual, is by default abusive, because there is a power imbalance between minors and adults, adults are more powerful, blah blah blah, so on and so forth, therefore the minors cannot consent.

Bold claim frankly, I don’t believe all adults are more powerful than minors, age does not ultimately determine your intelligence, social skills or physical strength which are all important factors that will be determining your power level/advantage.

But whatever, the point is the argument is retarded even just in theory.

By that standard that power imbalances make consent impossible, minors also cannot consent to do anything else with adults that is not sex, and adults cannot consent to do anything with other adults, be it sexual or non-sexual, as long as there is a power imbalance. Period.

Some examples:

1: A little girl consents to hug her father. No, doesn’t work, he’s stronger than her, unfortunately consent was impossible. This is the same reason she can’t consent to a sexual act of any kind, that’s what feminists say.

2: A minor consents to work in an adult’s garden for some extra pocket money, they do not have a gun held to their head, they can leave any time. This is slavery, because there’s a power imbalance, which means the minor cannot consent, non-consensual work is slavery.

3: Same for adults unless you’re your own boss. Employers have higher power levels than employees, therefore if employees consent to work for employers, they did not actually consent because there’s a power imbalance making the consent impossible. So slavery again.

4: Women can’t consent to sex with men on average, unless they hit the gym hard and become just as strong as their male partner.

5: If we go on a picnic and I carry a gun in my pocket but you do not carry a gun in your pocket, and I offer you a slice of cake, well, too bad, if you consent to eat a slice of cake because you simply enjoy eating cake, you did not really consent to eat cake because I have a higher power level than you. Too bad, better dishonestly frame this as if I violently force fed you at gunpoint! We need feminism!

Here’s my take on this: obviously power imbalance does not inherently make something abusive, it obviously depends on whether or not the power is used to intimidate the weaker party or not.

If you only agree to take a slice of cake from me because I have a gun in my pocket and you’re scared I’m going to shoot you, then yes, it is an abusive situation. However, if you simply enjoy eating cake and you don’t give a fuck that I have a gun because you know I’m not going to use it on you anyway, then there’s no problem.

Same for the pedophile and/or intergenerational sex scenario. Why is the 14 year old boy fucking his 40 year old female teacher – because she threatened him with a worse math grade? Then it is abusive…or because he simply wants to get off in something other than his hand, as would be perfectly common for a physically healthy 14 year old boy? Then there’s no problem, power imbalance is only a problem if it’s used to intimidate.

I think men’s rights are brainwashed if they still believe in this dumb shit power imbalance nonsense by feminists in the first place.

Instead of just telling them to go fuck themselves, they take it to an even more absurd level where they want to pretend that if a 16 year old boy voluntarily fucks his female teacher, we should also pretend that he’s a rape victim who will be horribly traumatized for the rest of his life, whereas there was some point in history before where people only pretended that a 16 year old girl that voluntarily fucks her male teacher is going to be horribly traumatized for the rest of her life.

Completely mind controlled by the nazis they supposedly want to fight. Though of course, some of them are also just puritan assholes.

Why I think people really hate incels.

Why I think most really hate incels, IN-voluntary CEL-ibates, that was the original definition that feminists have now perverted into ”rapist”, ”mass shooter”, etc, it became just another buzzword like pedo that they throw at anyone they don’t like, so I’m using original definition of ”someone who simply has a hard time getting laid”.

They will of course say they hate them because there have been some mass shooters amongst incels, coming from communities that discuss topics surrounding involuntary celibacy.

Ok, but that does not explain why they hate any and all incels, why they are foaming at the mouth and want to burn someone at the stake who is simply complaining about being lonely and sexually frustrated, perhaps pointing out some unsavory truths like looks mattering much more than everyone is willing to admit – they may still feel disgusted by these guys and strawman them by accusing them of feeling entitled to rape women immediately.

”You’re lonely? Fuck off rapist! You have no right to rape me! You’re delusional, you’re not lonely, the patriarchy rape culture just brainwashed you into believing you have a sex drive!”

So what explains this attitude then? If they generalize so much and throw all incels into one category, that suggests to me that there is probably more truth to what many incels are saying, how looks/attractiveness determine how you are treated in society than they would like to admit, halo effect is a real thing.

The halo effect (sometimes called the halo error) is the tendency for positive impressions of a person, company, brand or product in one area to positively influence one’s opinion or feelings in other areas.^[1][2] Halo effect is “the name given to the phenomenon whereby evaluators tend to be influenced by their previous judgments of performance or personality.”^[3] The halo effect which is a cognitive bias can possibly prevent someone from accepting a person, a product or a brand based on the idea of an unfounded belief on what is good or bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

Because such generalizations (this one guy from your group is a rapist, therefore you’re all rapists!) generally happen when people are already disgusted with something and therefore cannot think clearly enough to distinguish anymore.

As in, one incel did x, we already hate incels because they are unattractive and disgusting, therefore we’re going to label all of them as rapists and mass shooters.

Even if an incel is hateful, how do they feel so sure to know what came first? It could be that he’s a hateful person by nature, it could also be though that he was actually a good guy first but bullied by society and then started insulting them as filthy cunts and sluts – they never entertain that possibility, I suspect because they already made a judgement – these people are unattractive, pathetic, gross, so fuck them.

And then second of all, the just world fallacy.

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that “people get what they deserve” – that actions will have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. For example, the assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil actions will eventually be punished fall under this hypothesis. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of— either a universal force that restores moral balance or a universal connection between the nature of actions and their results. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, and/or order. It is often associated with a variety of fundamental fallacies, especially in regard to rationalizing suffering on the grounds that the sufferers “deserve” it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

One disgusting fact about humanity is that they hate those that suffer and thus show them how unfair life is, can also be extended to other areas, like a homeless person, or anyone in misery.

We believe in Karma – assuming that the downtrodden of the world must deserve their fate
On a related note, so strong is our inherent need to believe in a just world, we seem to have an inbuilt tendency to perceive the vulnerable and suffering as to some extent deserving their fate (an unfortunate flip-side to the Karmic idea, propagated by most religions, that the cosmos rewards those who do good – a belief that emerges in children aged just four). The unfortunate consequences of our just-world beliefs were first demonstrated in now classic research by Melvin Lerner and Carolyn Simmons. In a version of the Milgram set-up, in which a female learner was punished with electric shocks for wrong answers, women participants subsequently rated her as less likeable and admirable when they heard that they would be seeing her suffer again, and especially if they felt powerless to minimise this suffering. Presumably derogating the woman made them feel less bad about her dismal fate. Since then, research has shown our willingness to blame the poor, rape victims, AIDS patients and others for their fate, so as to preserve our belief in a just world. By extension, the same or similar processes are likely responsible for our subconscious rose-tinted view of rich people.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/10/12/what-are-we-like-10-psychology-findings-that-reveal-the-worst-of-human-nature/

You see a homeless person and think ”what a piece of shit, he must be a child abuser!” because if he’s not, that would mean that bad things happen to good people, and you don’t want to live in a world where bad things happen to good people, so you pretend the good person is a bad person instead like the pathetic weasel you are, so you can sleep better at night, and spit on that homeless person.

Especially when they see that there is no easy fix to your problem they’ll hate you even more, because they want to feel like they can fix a problem, if they can’t, they instead opt for pretending that your problem is not a problem, if you keep saying it is, they will despise you for it, that’s how disingenuous homo sapiens are.

Another thing that I believe is related to this is also how human females often like to think of themselves as rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior, the delusion that they just want a male that treats them well, but in reality they may have much more unsavory preferences of being roughed up by some violent criminal, perhaps even hybristophilia in some cases – sometimes if an incel actually goes on a shooting spree he then finally gets fangirls that want his corpse cock once it’s too late.

Good video on this subject:

I mean, let’s be real, it’s not like you need to be nice and caring to get laid, actual serial rapists and killers frequently get tons of pussy thrown at them, this is a well known fact.

Richard ‘the Night Stalker’ Ramirez was a thief, rapist and serial killer who got a kick out of breaking into strangers’ homes and murdering them in the mid-1980s. He also worshipped Satan, so not the kind of guy you want to bring home to meet your parents.
Well, to most people he isn’t; Cindy Haden – a juror at his trial – somehow fell head over heels for him and bought him clothes and a Valentine’s present. I didn’t think Satanists celebrate Valentine’s Day but what the hell do I know?
Naturally Richard was convicted, but once in prison women from all over lined up to visit him. Guess they liked the whole bad boy thing – and they don’t come much badder than being a Satan worshipping mass murderer! Richard loved the attention and played them off against each other to make them jealous. He eventually married one of these super fans in a prison ceremony before dying of natural causes in 2013.
To many women, Ted Bundy’s chiselled features and charm overshadowed the fact that he brutally killed at least thirty women and was a known rapist and necrophile.
These confused fans worshipped the notorious serial killer and flocked to his trial. One of the women, Carol Anne Boone – or, as she prefers to be known, Head Crazy – even married Bundy during the trial and went on to have his kid.
It didn’t end with his trial. While Bundy was incarcerated, he received two hundred letters a day from his loco fan club – many of whom thought he was innocent. Even today, years after his execution, a new generation of followers is obsessed with him, perpetuating the Bundy legend.
http://www.planetdolan.com/10-serial-killers-with-obsessive-groupies/2/

They don’t like to believe this about themselves, so they go into full rationalization mode and start turning everything upside down. That guy that bought me a flower? Well, he is some entitled incel piece of shit who just wants to rape me, I know it! The unempathetic cocky arrogant bully I get fucked in every hole by=well he’s just confident, women really like confidence, blah blah blah.

Whatever they have to tell themselves to maintain the delusion that their perception of their sexual preferences is true and are not set out to reward those that have these character traits they claim to dislike.

Natalist/pro-lifer ad hominem attacks.

Something that is particularly idiotic is when natalists, pro-lifers, life apologists try to defeat antinatalists in an argument by presupposing that the only reason why one becomes an antinatalist in the first place is because their own life sucks.

You point out that by creating sentient life, you are creating need/want/desire, life is fundamentally so that one must obtain relief or one will be subjected to suffering. Eat or hunger, drink or thirst, breathe or suffocate, sleep or fatigue/other health consequences.

In short, fulfill need/want/desire or be subjected to harm. Prior to procreating, there is no guarantee that relief from suffering will be obtained, you can create needs/wants/desires that go unfulfilled and torment the victim continuously – which means the act of procreating is an act of recklessness and irresponsibility similar to gambling with another person’s money, drunk driving, surprise anal sex, putting drugs in someone’s drink and risking them having a bad trip.

But even if the victim of procreation somehow managed to fulfill all needs/wants/desires just in time, they always manage to stave off increasing bouts of suffering just in time (and I think this is a minority of lucky outliers), they still wouldn’t miss that fulfillment if they were never born in the first place, and this is also an additional important point.

Person A has great life, person B has horrible shit life (by procreating we risk either), person A would not miss great life if they never existed in the first place, so I don’t think person B is justified, because there is no problem/emergency in pleasure just not existing, poor person A not getting their pleasure fix by never being born is as big of a problem as a tree or a rock not experiencing an orgasm. A tree or a rock don’t miss an orgasm, there is no need/want/desire for it, so who cares.

So once in a while the natalist then responds with some imbecilic character attack like:

”But you only think that way because you have a shitty life yourself, your life sucks and that’s why you’re an antinatalist, so your opinion is not to be taken seriously.”

This is extremely absurd, because the whole point is that it’s reckless and irresponsible and harmful to procreate because it may result in someone having a very shitty life, so this is like saying:

”But you only think that gambling with someone else’s money is wrong because when I took your money and gambled with it, I lost it all, the people for which I won are all happy, so your opinion on gambling with someone else’s money is not to be taken seriously, you’re just a loser.”

”But you only think that drunk driving is wrong because you got hit by a drunk driver, so I don’t care about your opinion on drunk driving, I only want to hear from people that never got hit by a drunk driver.”

”But you only think that rape is a problem at all because you’re a dumb rape victim yourself, I only listen to views on rape by people who weren’t raped.”

You were victimized by the irresponsible gamble that creating a conscious lifeform involves, so therefore your views are to be immediately dismissed by the life apologist cult, no right to object.

Another one that pops up sometimes is this whole incel accusation.

Incel=involuntary celibate, so someone that can’t get laid is what it meant originally essentially, at this point it’s just kind of become a buzzword that dumb bitches use whenever they want to slander and censor someone, paint someone as a sexist.

And again, my response is similar, why would someone being an incel (by original definition) be an automatic disqualification for being taken seriously? This is insane, an incel is obviously a tormented victim of reckless reproduction, they were injected with romantic and sexual desires and suffer as a result of not being able to meet them.

Evolution is an asshole and made it so that male animals have to shoot their jizz or they may experience excruciating suffering/despondency, because evolution favors what results in survival, and that results in survival, coupled with intelligence low enough to not understand what contraception is.

Now the incel supposedly says ”hey life apologist cunt, stop injecting everyone with desire poison, I’m suffering because of you” and is dismissed by the life apologist cult with ”but you’re only mad about life because our people gave you a shit life”. Well no shit you retarded idiot, that’s the whole point.

I throw my TV out of the window, you get hit by it, you’re mad, but you’re only mad about people throwing TVs out of windows because you got hit by one, so fuck off.

That’s the whole point – procreation carries the risk of creating a chronic harm/suffering.

My thoughts on obligation to avoid harm vs. obligation to create pleasure in antinatalism context.

Some argue that antinatalism can simply follow from the idea that we have no obligation to create pleasure, but we have an obligation to avoid harming others, so therefore having children is wrong by definition because creating their pleasurable future experiences is unnecessary, but it is our obligation to prevent them from being harmed.

My problem with that as an argument for AN is that I think pleasure and suffering as inherently connected.

Hunger is a form of suffering, satiation is a form of pleasure/relief from that suffering called hunger.

So if you experience a little bit more suffering, you experience a little bit less pleasure.

And likewise if you experience a little bit more pleasure, you experience a little bit less suffering.

More hunger – less satiation. More satiation – less hunger.

More sexual frustration – less sexual satisfaction. More sexual satisfaction – less sexual frustration.

It’s inherently connected, you can’t cause pleasure without preventing suffering or cause suffering without preventing pleasure.

So what I like much more at this point to argue for AN is simply pointing to inanimate objects like chairs and their incapacity to experience pleasures, and how I don’t think it’s a problem that my chair is not experiencing the taste of chocolate cake, because my chair is incapable of experiencing appetite, how I don’t think it’s a problem that my chair is not experiencing an orgasm, because my chair is incapable of experiencing any kind of negative mental state that would make not getting an orgasm problematic.

And then just point out that we can look at the non-existent the same way. A procreator wants to open the door to the chance of being harmed…but the non-existent child doesn’t miss life’s great pleasures, so why take that risk of traumatizing them with a potentially bad life?

Pleasure not existing isn’t a big deal if no capacity to suffer exists, preventing suffering on the other hand is always important – back to the chair example, if someone actually invented a serum that if they injected it into the chair would generate the experience of a torture victim being raped to death, I would totally be against injecting it into the chair, that should be a crime, even though the chair didn’t experience anything prior to that experience.

Let’s say it’s more of a gamble, the same as procreation. If a mad scientist invented a serum that if injected into inanimate objects would cause them to become sentient and then either 1. cause intense pleasure or 2. cause intense torture, would it be our obligation to inject all the objects around us in order to give them a chance of experiencing pleasure? I would say no, they have no need for pleasure, all that matters is that we prevent the harm.

Do we have to find a pleasure program to install on a computer to make sure the computer is happy? No. But if someone invented a torture program that would result in the computer becoming sentient and being tortured, would it be problematic? Yes.

If you agree with that, you essentially agree with Benatar’s asymmetry – you hold the prevention of the suffering is important, even though it did not destroy any previously existing happiness (because no one exised to feel anything), but you don’t think that the creation of happiness is important, unless it solved the problem of previously existing suffering.

A possible natalist response to the addict metaphor.

Sometimes I use the analogy of making someone addicted to drugs to describe why I think procreation is unethical, i.e by procreating, you create desire, sentient organisms are desire machines, they have to chase relief/fulfillment of desire, or else will be subjected to continued suffering/unfulfillment. Eat or hunger, drink or thirst, breathe or suffocate, shit or constipate, etc.

Fulfill needs/wants/desires or suffer – and before procreating, there is no guarantee that the needs will be fulfilled.You can have needs/wants/desires that may not be fulfilled in life, or you could have needs/wants/desires that would require harming someone else in order to fulfill, it’s a risk taking behavior on someone else’s behalf, like gambling with stolen money.

So I sometimes I also said it’s like creating an addict, maybe like making someone addicted to heroin and then having them search for more heroin in your basement labyrinth – no guarantee they’ll get their fix, thus possibly exposed to intense suffering as a result of your influence.

One response to that I could see/think I have heard before would be that life is distinct from the concept of addiction, because drugs also make you sick on the other hand, so that’s something negative, but with life and needs/wants/desires, this is not the case, continually chasing the fulfillment of needs/wants/desires has no negative health consequences, continuing to take drugs on the other hand is very likely to make you sick.

But this kind of misses the point, it’s just about the fact that you make it so that someone will experience suffering if they don’t obtain their fix, that’s bad enough. And if the hallmark of addiction is feeling bad if you don’t get your fix, then yes, sentient life is fair to describe as addiction, fundamentally it seems we must obtain pleasure or suffer instead.

So let’s say we have a drug that does not cause any negative health consequences except for the fact that you’ll feel like shit if you don’t keep taking it, let’s call it…happiness.

So we have little happiness rocks, I powder one of these things and put it in your food, from now on you need to keep snorting this stuff, or else negative emotional experiences will be generated inside of you, like the feeling of ”my dog just died” pops up or ”I feel disrespected” pops up, whatever it may be.

It is not guaranteed you’ll find one of these rocks all the time, it’s up to luck, so to speak, maybe

you’ll find one here and there.

Wouldn’t I still be an asshole for doing this? And how is this not identical to the mechanics of sentient life itself? When you do not obtain relief/pleasure, you fail to fulfill a need/want/desire, you experience increasing bouts of suffering, and the reason this is happening is because your procreators manufactured this suffering engine that is you, that’s sentient life: fulfill a need (e.g. hunger) and then it either becomes unfulfilled again and you’ll have to chase more satisfaction to avoid the dissatisfaction, or a new need pops up (e.g. appetite) and now you have to chase a new type of satisfaction to avoid the dissatisfaction of not having it, again and again.

How the antinatalist view influences other views of mine.

My view on procreation:

I think procreation is a harmful act, it forces an individual into a position of having to chase relief in order to avoid harm 24/7. You must eat to avoid the suffering of hunger, you must drink to avoid the suffering of thirst, you must shit to avoid the suffering of constipation, so on and so forth.

Put simply – you must chase relief or you are subjected to harm/suffering, you work to fulfill your desires or you end up unfulfilled.

Prior to procreating, the procreators have no guarantee that the sentient organism they create will be capable of obtaining relief, which desires it will have and if those will be fulfilled, so it is irresponsible, similar to making someone addicted to drugs, you must the pleasure/relief addict may not find pleasure/relief and ends up suffering horribly as a result of it.

Addicted to the pleasure/relief of movement/athletic performance, accidentally hit by a bus, crippled and suffering as a result of no longer achieving the same pleasure/relief. Addicted to pleasure/relief, not geting whatever they desire, ending up smoking to fill the void, getting lung cancer and failing to satisfy your addiction to air. Just some examples.

Picture this hypothetical scenario: I have a fountain spewing a liquid that contains any possible, imaginable desire. From simplistic desires like eating a certain meal to things that are hard to achieve (e.g. I want to have a completely different/modified body or turn into a different species of animal) to harmful things (e.g. wanting to torture/rape others).

I put that liquid in a syringe and inject people with it in their sleep, tomorrow the cripple wakes up and strongly desires to be a runner/athlete. If this is unethical, why is it not unethical to procreate in general? Similarly it is the creation of desire without guarantee of fulfillment, your child could very well be the cripple that wants to be the runner.

Even if one of the desire monsters created actually perfectly always fulfilled all its desires just in time – they still would not miss their fulfillment in life if they never came into life in the first place, which in my view makes potentially creating unhappiness not worthwhile.

As in – child A and child B both desire celebrating christmas and seeing santa and receiving lots of gifts. Child A manages to do so, child B dies of cancer. Considering that if we never gambled with the opportunity of creating either of them, child A would not be trapped in an unborn purgatory and miss their happy christmas adventure to any degree whatsoever, therefore I do not child B’s suffering can be justified, it is creating torture for someone to obtain pleasure that they would never be able to miss anyway.

How this also affects other views of mine as compared to the mainstream views:

The idea of gratitude towards parents for taking care of children:

Society generally takes the misguided view that somehow children are supposed to be grateful towards their parents for taking care of them, but obviously the parents are responsible for the existence of every need/want/desire the child is ever going to experience.

”But I fed you!”

Yes, after creating the child’s hunger. Had you aborted the child instead, the child would have never experienced hunger.

”But I put a roof over your head!”

After creating the child’s need to avoid freezing to death on the streets. Had you aborted the child instead, the child would have never experienced said need.

Let’s say I set your house on fire and extinguish (some of) it again, do you owe me gratitude?

And I’m not talking about accidentally setting it on fire, I’m talking about intentionally setting it on fire because I get off on coming to the rescue and playing fireman for everyone to see, I’m such a hero.

Is that a noble action? Incompletely fixing a problem you intentionally created? It’s better than not doing so for sure, but it seems like a reasonable expectation if you agree that you want to partake in creating a problem for someone.

That is what breeders are guilty of, they create needs in a non-sentient flesh pile when they could have aborted it, and then expect that the kid is grateful they incompletely managed to fulfill some of their needs. They pay off the debt they made, and now expect to be paid in return.

Suicide:

Mainstream society essentially uses circular reasoning to label anyone who wants to make use of the right to die as delusional and irrational.

You’re irrational because you want to end life, and you want to end life because you are irrational, this is about as idiotic as saying your tastebuds are deficient because you don’t enjoy x food, and the reason why you don’t enjoy x food is because your tastebuds are deficient, so you need to be fed that food to become healthy again – it’s just circular.

Even before knowing about antinatalism/promortalism, the common points made against suicide never made much sense to me, such as: ”but then you’re going to miss out on potential future happiness! What if something good happens???”

Who cares? You’re not going to be around to miss it.

If you think that the lack of future pleasure is problematic, even despite there being no one to miss or lament the absence of said pleasure because they’re dead, do you also think that inanimate objects like chairs not experiencing pleasure is a big problem? Do we need to come up with a solution to this, invent some kind of serum we can inject into inanimate objects to make them become conscious and experience pleasure?

The ”state” a dead person is in is the same ”state” a chair is in – it is utterly benign.

Do we need to create as many humans or animals as possible, as the planet allows, because otherwise there will be a lack of pleasure? Isn’t it enough to just prevent the suffering?

I want to point out that of course there are some delusional people who are misinformed about their circumstances (maybe they have a schizophrenic delusion, maybe they aren’t aware of things they could do for their health, etc) and that is why they would go for death, however, I don’t accept the idea that just choosing death itself is irrationality, I think this is a coping mechanism people employ to feel better about life – they convince themselves that life is fundamentally fair and good, so if someone kills themselves, they must convince themselves that that person is deluded, otherwise they have to admit life’s imperfection.

Also interesting question just on the side: if you are against euthanizing someone who is delusional and only wants to die because they think staying alive will result in them getting raped by a demon, would you also be for euthanizing someone who only wants to stay alive because they are delusional and think that refusing to continue living will result in them being raped by a demon in afterlife hell?

Killing and death in general, is death even a harm?:

I think even arguing that death is a harm is technically wrong, even if you are killed without agreeing to it, it is not the actual ”state” of being dead that is the problem.

The ”state” you are in when you are dead is the same you ”experienced” before you were born, so unless not being born is something we should think of as horribly harmful, I don’t see why being dead would be harmful to someone.

You could say ”they wish to be alive, that’s the difference”, but they don’t wish for that when they are dead. Wishing if anything is a harm, it implies frustration with a circumstance, you’re experiencing urges, being dead means being free from that.

You could argue there are practical factors that may make killing unethical in practice, but ultimately I fail to see why it would be unethical in principle.

You may traumatize family members and friends.
By legalizing murder, people would be scared before it even happens.
Perhaps you stop a productive person (like a scientist working on the cure for some disease) from reducing harm in the world.
Pain caused in the dying process.

So consider the red button thought experiment: you hit the red button and everyone immediately dies painlessly somehow under one second.

No families and friends traumatized.
No fears because no one will exist.
No need for the cure for any disease because diseases no longer have the ability to cause suffering.

So why not push it? In that case, you just solved all problems. Pleasure won’t exist anymore either, but again, is this problematic? Then why isn’t never being born a problem? Why isn’t my chair or a potato not experiencing an orgasm also a problem?

Animal experiments:

Without commenting on how necessary or unnecessary certain experiments for medical research are (I’m not an expert on that), even if you were to argue that it is absolutely necessary to perform an animal experiment to save lots of humans, it is only necessary because these humans exist in the first place, had they not been born there would be no problem.

If a mad scientist produced a new alien species in his laboratory and it turned out that it is quite beneficial to test on humans to predict how the aliens will be effected by the medicine/vaccines they need, the immediate question everyone would probably jump to would be ”why do these aliens have to exist in the first place?”.

I would argue (just as with any other species though whether it is humans or hyenas or aliens) that if this species never comes into existence, it would not miss life’s great pleasures, so it’s irrelevant, they don’t have to exist. So especially if their existence will necessitate so much suffering, it would be wise for the mad scientist not to breed these aliens.

The incel/male sexlessness problem:

When it comes to any man ever complaining about lack of sexual success, perhaps pointing out socially inappropriate truths like ”I’m rejected by shallow sluts because I’m a balding 5’4 midget” they often get shut down by feminists/female supremacists who immediately accuse them of supporting rape.

”YOU’RE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX!” the immediate instinctive response females have to seeing someone experience sexual frustration and loneliness, experiencing lots of suffering, negative sensation.

My take on this problem is that while we can say that you’re not entitled to rape anyone, I think you are entitled to use other outlets like prostitution and porn (that these puritan feminists who act this way are usually opposed to) and you are entitled not to crave sex/companionship in the first place.

Romantic/sexual desire, like any desire, is also just another effect of creating a desire machine. It is one of those desires where you may get lucky and always stave off suffering just in time, or you experience long bouts of suffering, the only responsible thing to do, again, is to just abort everything before it starts desiring, creating desires is irresponsible if you know that they can go unfulfilled.

You may not be entitled to rape anyone, but you certainly are entitled not to be subjected to this piss poor tormenting state of desperately craving companionship/sexual expression but not being able to experience it.

And here I differ from the feminists/female supremacists – we agree that rape is bad, but they don’t agree that sexlessness and loneliness can be torturous, and that it would be the responsible thing to do to stop breeding to prevent the chance of unfulfilled need/want/desire, they mostly think male loneliness is a joke and women have the right to play a gambling game with someone else’s welfare (i.e pro-choice).

Look at it this way: it’s one thing to say ”you’re not entitled to me funding your heroin addiction”, but if you’re some asshole who deliberately straps people to a table and injects them with heroin periodically until they become addicted to it, you’re a piece of shit.

If you are a breeder or you are ok with breeding (like feminists/female supremacists are, they think gambling with someone else’s life is a personal choice, they are pro-choice) and tell people ”you’re not entitled to have your desires fulfilled”, you ARE that asshole that injects people with heroin and then tells them they aren’t entitled to heroin, breeding is what resulted in the creation of the various desires that may torment someone, whether that is sexual, romantic or whatever other desire.

Crime and violence:

I apply the same prior reasoning in the case of crimes. Are some crimes pretty bad? Yes, but what is also bad is if the criminal didn’t commit the crime, they would be experiencing suffering, some kind of pleasure deficiency.

Had the desire machine never been created in the first place, it would not need to commit any crimes to feel better, the breeders gambled with that opportunity.

Serial killings are bad, but it would also be bad to be in the skin of someone who needs to commit rape and murder people in order to be able to bust a nut, and I think the best way to avoid someone ending up in a spot where they have a desire that torments them (but fulfilling it would include severely harming others) is to not bring anyone into existence, so in a sense I’m still pointing the finger at the breeders even when it comes to extreme crimes.

Alternative ideas to current age of consent systems.

This post is more for the individuals that already agree that sex under the age of 18 is not intrinsically harmful, that it can be perfectly voluntary and harmless in fact, there’s no special mechanism that somehow makes orgasm under 18 intrinsically unhealthy and paining but over 18 suddenly healthy to receive.

The ones that may still argue though that ”we just need to draw a line somewhere” although they admit that relations between minors and adults can be perfectly harmless, but there is a risk that some particular group of adults are manipulative towards minors, so we just need to arrest all adults that have sex with minors even if they are perfectly peaceful/not forcing themselves on anyone against their will, similar to the drug war where all harmless drug users are arrested because of the fear that some drug users will commit crimes on drugs, so they figure it’s better to just arrest all drug users no matter what.

I think there are primarily three alternative ways this could be handled (maybe a mixture of all of them is possible, who knows):

1 – No age of consent at all but a strong understanding of the concept of rape by deception.

2 – Make sex under a certain age legal to report for a checkup by a professional to see if the situation is safe, rather than outright ban it, but then having an age at which this is no longer possible.

3 – Having individuals under a certain age take a test prior to engaging in sex, then not requiring that test at a certain age anymore.

Option 1:

An argument often made pedophile and children’s sexual rights defenders is that even if there’s no age of consent, rape is still illegal anyway, that is true but we’ll have to kind of educate people on more subtle forms of rape.

Rape by deception is a thing, and that is really the problem with the stereotypical child rape/molestation situations, that should be the crime, rape by deception.

Rape by deception is a situation in which the perpetrator obtains the victim’s agreement to engage in sexual intercourse or other sex acts, but gains it by deception, such as false statements or actions, including leading the target into illusory perceptions in order to get sex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

Rape does not have to be overpowering someone physically, you can also rape someone by:

1 – Eschewing information that would make you no longer consent if you knew about it.

2 – Giving someone false information that are an attempt to make you consent.

If I tell someone I don’t have AIDS but I have AIDS and they agree to let me cum in them, I raped them by deception, that is a crime.

If someone is telling a child that just learned to crawl that their dick is candy and the child agrees to candy, well, then they consented to candy, they were fooled, that is the crime.

If someone is telling a naive 10 year old girl he’s in love with her but then dumps her once she agreed to some sexual act (afterwards), that is a form of rape by deception.

Focusing on rape by deception rather than age I think is a fantastic idea, because it would encourage honesty and teach it to adults too on some level, I think you could argue that lying in order to get laid is ultimately a slight form of rape, not excessive rape, but still slight rape, rape lite so to speak, rape is a big spectrum.

And if a 10 year old girl turns out to be more hurt by this than let’s say a 30 year old woman, then the penalty would clearly be higher for doing it to a 10 year old, same as with other crimes, look at theft for instance.

Theft is also a big spectrum from armed bank robbery to stealing candy at the supermarket, similarly we would judge these situations differently if it involved a child that might be more vulnerable to certain harms – stealing candy from the supermarket might be not that big of a deal, but if you stole candy from a 5 year old you’d be a total cunt.

Option 2:

This is already what many countries other than USA are doing, that there are two or three ages of consent with different rulings for each, so under the default legal age, you might be able to report the relationship and get it checked out by the court/by a psychologist, but if it is ruled to be consensual by sensible judgement, then it’s allowed to continue.

Josephine successfully challenged the order and the court ruled that as she is over 14 her own wishes have to be taken into account, Bild reported.
The Higher Regional Court Brandenburg ruled that Josephine risked “serious damage in her social-emotional and mental development” if she was prevented from further contact with the uncle, who lives in Berlin.
It was stated that the teenager expressed her desire to continue her loving relationship in a “purposeful and strong” way, which the judges felt was a very deliberate decision which had to be observed.
The 15-year-old was considered “mature enough.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2108399/german-court-rules-parents-of-15-year-old-girl-cannot-stop-her-having-sexual-relationship-with-her-47-year-old-uncle/

So I would say have a certain official legal age, and under that age allow it to be reported but also evaluated. In Uruguay for example it’s 12 and 15, under 15 it can be reported but if you prove consent, it is still allowed, which is idiotic in my opinion because if you prove consent you should walk free either way, so if you prove an 11 year old consented it suddenly doesn’t matter anymore? Why?

So that’s why I would say the rule should be more like it’s an official age at which sex cannot be reported anymore, under that should be open to scrutiny but never as in ”well now it’s under 12 so it’s illegal by default” or ”well now it’s under 9 so it’s illegal by default”, if consent/harmlessness is attested, you walk free, so basically official age of consent, under it is open to scrutiny but chance of being acquitted if consent is provable.

Option 3:

If you still think the other options are absolutely too unsafe no matter what, this would probably be the best one: have a test prior to engaging in sex in the first place.

So there is an official age, but under that age, you can still visit a psychologist and get a license to have sex prior to reaching the official age.

This test could include your knowledge about STDs and pregnancy, but it could definitely also include psychological assessment about your understanding of abusive situations, we’d have to come up with different questions that are important to ask someone.

Do you know what bribing is?

Do you know what blackmail is?

You’re shown stories such as person A is disabled and living with person B who is not disabled, person B says if you don’t have sex with me, I’ll throw you out on the streets. Is that abusive? Yes or no? For example.

Do you understand when abuse happens and who it must be reported to?

This here is a more detailed article about this concept by a blogger called youthrightsradical, he calls it the RMSC (relational maturity and sexual competency testing schema):

The testing requirements include:
1.) Factual knowledge about sex, sexuality, reproduction and STDs.
1.a.) Subject must understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse. Sexual anatomy, some common intercourse activities (at least the big three oral, anal and vaginal), masturbation, and outercourse activities (mutual masturbation in its various forms) should all be understood at a mechanical level.
1.b.) Subject must understand the mechanics of human reproduction. Ejaculation, sperm fertilizing egg cells, warning signs of pregnancy including missed periods, a basic understanding of the nine month gestation period, childbirth, and the intrinsic physical risks of pregnancy. (Including factors that can increase those risks, ie low body mass and lack of physical development.)
1.c.) Subject must understand his or her options in terms of preventing pregnancy. Subject must be aware of the existence and usage of barrier methods like condoms, hormone options like birth control pills, sterilization procedures like vasectomies, spermicide options, and demonstrate an understanding of the relative failure rates of these products. While it is not necessary to be able to prattle off statistical failure rates, an understanding of which are most and least effective must be demonstrated, as well as the understanding that they can be more effective when used together.
1.d.) Subject must be aware of abortion, what it is, the legal status of the procedure locally, and, if legal, the risks inherent in this procedure.
1.e.) Subject must know about STDs. Subject must be aware that exchanging bodily fluids, particularly sexual fluids runs the risk of transmitting diseases. Subject must be aware that some such diseases are incurable. HIV in particular should be understood in terms of its transmission methods, and its effects.
1.f.) Subject must know where to go for testing and medical advice regarding STDs.
1.g.) Subject must be aware of methods besides abstinence for preventing STDs, in particular the efficacy of barrier methods and the risks of multiple partners and anonymous sex.
2.) the capacity to use critical thought to judge situations (consequence acknowledgment, goal setting, etc)
2.a.) Subject must understand that actions have consequences.
2.b.) Subject must be able to use prior experience and provided factual information to select the course of action leading to the best outcome in a hypothetical situation.
2.c.) Subject must be able to recognize when there is not enough information provided in a question to provide a meaningful answer.
3.) Ability to identify the fact that people lie to and use each other, and be able to judge (to a certain extent) when that’s occurring in certain examples.
4.) Understanding of the concepts of rejection (both non-personal caused and personal caused rejection, as well as being able to reject people themselves).
4.a.) Subject must understand that not everyone wants to have sex with them.
4.b.) Subject must understand sexual orientation, and that some people just don’t want sex with certain categories of people.
4.c.) Subject must recognize that some people do not want to have sex with them personally.
4.d.) Subject must be able to reject others.
5.) Understanding sexual ethics (like how rape is considered wrong, using sex to hurt people is considered wrong, etc. All because these hurt people for no justifiable reason.)
5.a.) Subject must be able to differentiate between rape and consensual sex in examples.
5.b.) Subject must understand that rape is illegal.
5.c.) Subject must be able to recognize sexual abuse other than rape in examples.
5.d.) Subject must understand that sexual abuse is illegal.
5.e.) Subject must understand the consequences and implications of using sex as a commodity.
5.f.) Subject must be aware of how to report the crimes they were required to be able to identify.
5.g.) Subject must understand that they have the right to request any potential sexual partners be tested for STDs before consenting to sex.
5.h.) Subject must be aware that they can insist upon a partner using adequate means of prophylaxis (STDs, pregnancy)
http://youthrightsradical.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-rmsc.html

While it’s always difficult to know exactly how to handle things in practice and what exact questions will be the most important ones, I think that the of a test is still superior to the current shitty system where everyone just pretends there is no possibility that anyone under 18 consented to sex, just because they personally feel disgusted by it and want to desexualize as much as possible their offspring in their mind.

Why I think people are opposed to pedophilic/intergenerational relationships.

1: Parents do not like to view offspring as sexual, leading to a false notion in people’s heads that children are asexual.

Admitting that your offspring is sexual feels like incest, which we may also subconsciously link to inbreeding, which is unhealthy, so to prevent this discomforting feeling of incestuousness, parents live in a fantasy world where their offspring is supposedly asexual.

You see this even when kids masturbate or have sex with other kids – they will sometimes come up with all kinds of reasons as to why the kid did it from music to video games to television being a horrific influence, complaining about child sexualization and blah blah blah, rather than to just consider the fact that the child is simply a sexual being, in and of itself, no manipulation from the outside world is even required.

Of course, when you convince yourself that the child is asexual, then it seems like a lot more sensible assumption to make that if the child is engaging in some kind of sexual behavior, especially with an adult (with another child it might be dismissed as ”see, they are both misguided, haha”), this MUST just be the result of the adult having used some kind of manipulation tactic on the child!

Can’t be any other way, children are fundamentally asexual after all.

It’s completely delusional, even with teens with even stronger sex drives they’ll sometimes act as if a 16 year old is being misled into thinking cock is candy or something, they just assume they know they only had sex because of some barely/poorly defined manipulation/”grooming”.

2: Jealousy – from old bitter females and younger males.

This I would say is especially so the case with adolescents rather than prepubescents, when it’s a younger female + older male relationship.

The older females are pissed off they’re not the center of attention anymore, the younger males are jealous competitors, they might just tell someone to press charges because they’re pissed off they’re not fucking that 13-17 year old pussy.

Here some feminists often like to interject that no, they did not enjoy the attention of older men/were not attracted to older men when they were younger.

Fine, but there are still reasons beyond that why it can be beneficial to you to be attractive to men even if you don’t want sex with them, clearly often times men will pay for your shit and let you get away with all sorts of behaviors because they want to fuck you, that is a benefit regardless of whether or not you are attracted to them, maybe you simply want the beauty back, look youthful and fresh again.

3: General disgust, disgust makes it hard to think rationally.

Some of it might also just be general disgust, different sexual preferences are sometimes shocking//nauseating/scary.

And disgust makes it hard to think rationally, just like if I told an arachnophobic that there are two big spiders, one is venomous, the other one is not, well, they’re still going to be scared of both of them, doesn’t matter how one is not venomous.

Likewise people see one pedophile do something bad, and they already feel completely disgusted by pedophilia, so now they think that’s all pedophiles – happens.

4: Social mimicry, as with anything else.

For these aforementioned reasons people integrate the social norm/idea that pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles are evil into society, and as we know, neurologically normal humans, non-autistics simply have a tendency to automatically copy social behaviors without questioning them that much:

On each of five trials, each child was asked to watch carefully as a demonstrator showed how to retrieve a toy from a box or build a simple object. Importantly, each demonstration included two necessary actions (e.g. unclipping and removing the box lid) and one unnecessary action (e.g. tapping the top of the box twice).
The box was then reset behind a screen and handed to the child, who was instructed to “get or make the toy as fast as you can.” They were not specifically told to copy the behavior they’d just seen.
Investigators discovered almost all of the children successfully reached the goal of getting or making the toy, but typically developing children were much more likely to include the unnecessary step as they did so, a behavior known as overimitation.
Those children copied 43 to 57 percent of the unnecessary actions, compared to 22 percent in the children with autism. That’s despite the fact that the children correctly identified the tapping action as “silly,” not “sensible.”
https://psychcentral.com/news/2013/04/09/autistic-kids-tend-to-imitate-efficiently-not-socially#2

So what I’m saying is for some it is just a mindless process of adopting whatever social norms are present in their environment as well, for the aforementioned reasons the norms were likely established, and now new children born into society simply internalize these views without questioning it at all like most neurotypical homo sapiens.

Just like they are also more likely to soak up religious indoctrination, if it’s a christian country they will think there’s gotta be some legitimacy to christianity, if it’s a muslim country they will think there’s gotta be some legitimacy to islam. If everyone around them eats pigs they’ll eat pigs, if everyone around them eats dogs they eat dogs.

Age of consent is another one of these belief systems that people just kind of mindlessly adopt, ”this is the thing I have to believe to be part of this society, so I’ll believe it, the holy number is definitely number 17, because that’s the number where I live, I don’t recommend sex under 17 because then society will be against you, and that is bad.”

Obviously most neurotypicals don’t even think that, it is just an automatic process is what I’m saying, they gravitate towards the behavior that makes them fit in with the social group.

Lower hanging fruit arguments against intergenerational/pedophilic relationships.

I think the most commonly accepted (as reasonable) arguments against intergenerational/pedophilic relationships tend to be:

1 – Sex magically causes trauma in children/minors through some unknown mechanism.

2 – Children/minors are immature, so therefore they cannot protect themselves against certain risks/dangers of sex, therefore it’s irresponsible to have sex with them.

3 – If there is a power imbalance in a relationship, there can’t be meaningful consent.

4 – We just have to draw a line somewhere and fuck innocent people over for safety’s sake, even if sometimes such sex is harmless, similar to how people support arresting non-violent drug users because some of them are violent.

I have discussed these points in more detail in other posts on this blog, but there are also more simplistic and stupid talking points I thought I would like to address once in a while, just in case.

”Sex with children is bad because it leads to injury.”

Strawman, not all sex is penetrative, you’re pretending that sex can only ever be penetration.

I guess people have a tendency to project their version of sexuality onto everything else. As in, if you’re some kind of traditionally dominant man, you might think of sex as choke women and fuck them as hard as possible, so you get angry when you hear a pedophile wants to have sex with a little girl, because in your mind that means he wants to do unsafe/damaging things to their bodies.

Sexual is kind of more of a feeling than strictly an act, kissing or touching can be sexualized acts, it’s not just sticking something in a hole.

”Because I said so, bitch. I don’t allow my kids to have sex! Period! I’m the parent, I said so!”

That is just an appeal to authority ultimately, parental authority in this case.

Is a decision in the child’s life by default justified just because a parent made it?

Let’s say a parent allows a child to set a forest on fire, is that fine because it’s the parent’s decision? Let’s say a parent wanted to set the child on fire, is that fine because it’s the parent’s decision?

No?

Then just appealing to the fact that a parent demands something is not a fair point, clearly we also care about whether or not the decision is justified by a general cost benefit analysis.

Is sex harmful? Can it not be done safely? Why would you be against it?

Associating problems that have nothing to do with the sex itself with the sex itself.

Examples:

”I was brutally raped by a pedophile when I was a child, so therefore sex under 18 is clearly wrong!”

”But this guy abducted, raped and killed a child, so therefore having an orgasm at 12 is clearly harmful!”

”But I had sex with an older guy at 14 and my daddy beat the shit out of them, my life went downhill, my peers judged me, therefore sex under 18 should be avoided at all costs!”

None of these statements show a problem with sex under a certain age itself.

If a pedophile brutally raped you, the problem is that you did not want sex, that’s what made it rape.

If some guy abducted, raped and killed a child, the problem is abduction, rape and murder.

If your father and your environment had a weird reaction to you having sex at 14, the problem might just be your father’s and your environment’s attitude.

If you were harmed by your parents force feeding you broccoli with a gun to your head as a child, that still doesn’t mean we can conclude that therefore a child would be harmed by eating broccoli voluntarily.

This is according to my speculation just a problem of people being disgusted by something, and then confusing something harmful that was close to it with that disgusting thing, disgust can make you scared off things that are not harmful.

Take spiders for instance, I could tell an arachnophobic who has been attacked by a spider that one big disgusting spider A is venomous, but the other spider B is not, they might be able to work towards understanding this rationally, but emotionally their reaction is ”no both are harmful!!!” because they just look too similarly disgusting.

People are already disgusted by pedophilia instinctually in many cases (it’s just kind of gross to people, the thought that their offspring is sexual, same way the other way around, kids are also grossed out by their parents), so it’s hard for them to distinguish between a pedophile who raped a child and a pedophile who had sex with a child that was in fact interested in it and wanted it to take place.

”Life’s not fair.”

Then why is it justified to produce it? Shouldn’t we ban unfair deals that harm others? Aren’t you just saying you are a supporter of unfairness then, trying to shift the blame to life? Why are you all in support of it or don’t mind it? Life does not just happen, it is created by humans with deliberation.

Especially when procreators tell this to their children whenever the child is frustrated about something it is particularly absurd and irritating.

”Life’s not fair” – you produced said life, so all you’re telling the child in response to their pain is ”I’m unfair”.

”I’m suffering from x circumstance”

”I know, circumstance x is not fair…and I created circumstance x”

If life is so unfair, why make it?