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 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.

How I think bigots convince themselves that all underage/intergenerational sex is harmful.

This is a pattern you’ll see when arguing with them once in a while: all sex under whatever they believe to be the holy age is non-consensual because there is a power imbalance in the relationship, non-consensual sex is rape, rape is very harmful, so all such sex is harmful.

They think that coerced/involuntary sex is harmful, rape by its original definition is harmful, which is indeed true, and then they convince themselves that all sex under their particular magical holy age is coerced/involuntary, so they start to believe that all such sex is harmful.

The idiotic argumentation they use to convince themselves of this is that all sex under the holy age is non-consensual/involuntary because there is a power imbalance between an adult and a minor, and as such the minor is fundamentally incapable of consenting to the sex.

Obviously, this has two consequences logically:

1 – Children/minors cannot consent to anything else either that is not sex.

2 – Adults also can’t consent to sex or anything else either that is not sex, as long as there is a power imbalance involved.

The 8 year old girl cannot consent to ride on the pedophile’s leg for pleasure just like she does to her pillow, because of power imbalance, it is fundamentally a non-consensual/involuntary interaction.

This would mean that the 8 year old girl also cannot consent to be hugged by her big brother or father, because power imbalance. This would also mean that adult females cannot consent to sex with adult males, because they’re weaker, so there’s a power imbalance.

It also means you can’t consent to have sex with me or eat raisin bread with me if I’m a gun owner and you’re not a gun owner, I have a power you don’t have, so you can’t consent to sex or raisin bread, we must pretend that I forced you at gunpoint – even if we have zero evidence I did and you voluntarily put the slice of raisin bread in your mouth.

Giving a minor the opportunity to work in your garden for some extra pocket money, and them facing no punishment for not working in your garden whatsoever would have to be labelled slavery, because the employer is an adult and thus has more power than the minor, therefore the work is by default non-consensual/involuntary, and non-consensual/involuntary work is slavery, just like they reason the sex between them to be rape based on power imbalance supposedly negating any agreement the minor gave to the sex, so we must arrest them for slavery!

In fact, all work is pretty much slavery unless you’re your own employer, because bosses have authority over employees, so employees cannot consent to work for employers.

Obviously a halfway sane person would just acknowledge that whether or not the sex was consensual/voluntary doesn’t just depend on how small the power imbalance is, but whether or not the weaker party actually felt intimidated by the stronger party. It doesn’t matter if I’m carrying a machine gun around, if you trust me not to use my machine gun on you and you simply enjoy eating raising bread in my company, then the ingestion of raisin bread was perfectly consensual/voluntary.

So once they have convinced themselves of this utterly idiotic worldview, it is easy to see why they think sex with children/minors is supposedly always harmful.

Scientists would agree after all that involuntary sex, rape, is indeed harmful. Yes, I’m sure you can find studies that say being held down at knifepoint and raped in the ass is very harmful in many cases.

And since all sex under the magical holy age is non-consensual/involuntary in their delusional minds because power imbalance, all sex under that age is rape, and rape is harmful and traumatizing, so all sex under the magical holy age is harmful and traumatizing.

It would be like I make a study that says ”children who are non-consensually/forcibly hugged often feel harmed/traumatized by it” and then some imbecile comes to the conclusion that children who voluntarily get hugged must also be harmed/traumatized by it, because voluntary hugging is of course involuntary hugging in reality, because between a child and an adult, there is always a power imbalance, so a consensual/voluntary hug between a child and an adult is not even physically possible.

So it is totally fair for me to point to that study that says ”forced-hugging is harmful” to justify why hugging that isn’t forced is also harmful, because hugging that isn’t forced is actually forced in my delusional mind, because power imbalance makes true consent impossible!

”We have to draw a line somewhere.”

A common argument in the debate about sex between minors and adults is that we just have to draw a line somewhere. Even if we’re being intellectually honest enough to admit that youngsters sometimes want to have sex with someone over the age of consent, it’s still wrong, because it opens the door to the chance of abuse, so we just have to draw a line somewhere, like 16, 17, 18 and treat everyone who had sex with a person under that age as a rapist, even if they’re not, to deter real rapists who would rape people under those ages.

The first problem that should be easy to see with this type of argument is that it can literally be applied to tons of other things that society is not making a big deal out of, so why exactly should we apply this disproportionate amount of worry to sex?

Example 1: Children are allowed to ride bicycles. This carries a certain risk of danger, because it opens the door to parents forcing children to ride their bicycles to school because they’re too lazy to drive, although these children are not yet competent and smart enough to navigate traffic.

Some of these children will get into car accidents and be crippled for life. So what is the solution here, kill everyone who gives a child a bicycle? Does that sound sensible?

Example 2: Young girls are allowed to use make up, the use of beauty products amongst young girls is socially acceptable. This carries a risk of danger, because it opens the door to narcissistic parents manipulating and forcing young girls to partake in beauty contests that they don’t want to partake in, damaging to their self-esteem, causing them eating disorders.

So what is the solution, what should I do whenever I see a young girl wearing make up? Assume that everyone who lets a little girl wear make up is an abuser, beat the shit out of her father?

Example 3: Children are allowed to hear about religion and spirituality. This carries a certain risk of danger, because it opens the door to terrorist organizations trying to lure children into joining a terrorist group like ISIS.

So what is the solution, shoot every more or less harmless religious person taking a willing child to church to sing in a choir, because some ISIS terrorist uses the freedom to talk about religion to try to indoctrinate children?

The problem is the same in all these situations.

Yes, sometimes, a freedom is abused to do something bad, but this doesn’t mean it always happens, so it’s not a clear harm in all cases, so it’s unfair to subject the ones who are innocent to consequences that are supposed to protect against harm causers.

Some children also willingly ride a bicycle, some little girls also willingly wear make up, some children also willingly go to a church, and although I think religion is garbage and generally does more harm than good, I still don’t think a peaceful religious person taking a willing child to church should be treated the same way as an ISIS terrorist to uphold some kind of principle of absolute caution, it’s simply not the same.

Ultimately, I see sex between children/minors and adults as similar of a topic to drug use, prostitution, gun use, etc. It’s something that needs to be regulated in certain ways, but it shouldn’t be banned.

It’s not a red-light, absolutely harmful activity. Sometimes it has a higher chance of resulting in harm, but it’s unfair to say that it always results in harm, like torturing and/or raping someone.

Manipulating, blackmailing and forcing others, including children obviously should be illegal, unless someone can name a good reason why they had to do it to prevent a greater harm, like self defense for instance, or giving a child or intellectually incompetent adult a vaccination that they need to not contract a painful disease.

Forcing a minor to have sex can still be perfectly illegal regardless of strictly adhering to a certain age of consent, and similarly this should be more taken into consideration when it comes to those over the age of consent as well, e.g. in reality it’s worse to drug and then fuck an 18 year old than to have consensual sex with a 14 year old, but there are some sexists who would want to kill everyone for fucking their 14 year old sister and then being perfectly fine with manipulating/pressuring a hot 18 year old girl into having sex in some way.

That is why close-in-age exceptions are also still an unfair deal, you’re still persecuting an adult for having sex with a willing minor, and you might be less likely to detect abuse between two children because they’re both under 18 or 16 or 14, so it must be fine.

Which isn’t true, forcing someone to have sex is the problem, not sex at any particular given age, there’s nothing that says an 11 year old can’t voluntarily have sex with a 19 year old, but on the other get abused by a 12 year old in their family.

This reasoning can also be applied to everything else, you shouldn’t be allowed to force the child to ride a bicycle when they’re too incompetent to ride it, or a little girl to wear make up, or a child to (non-sexually) hug you just because you feel entitled to it either – all I’m saying is that same standard should be applied to sexuality ultimately.

Then, there are some other risks in practice that might arise, same as with other somewhat risky, but not intrinsically harmful activities like drug use or prostitution, or even just riding a bicycle.

STDs and pregnancy could potentially happen, so children need to receive sex education. If it’s possible that a child can learn traffic rules, how to navigate the road, then I really don’t see why it should be so complicated to teach a child or a mentally retarded person how to use contraception, it is not much more difficult – and again, manipulation, blackmail, force from abusers who want to pressure someone into not having safe sex can be illegal regardless of age of consent, that would still fall under rape/molestation nonetheless.

Some adults might be able to pressure a child into riding the bicycle without a helmet. So what? Does that mean you now think everyone who gives a child a bicycle must be publically castrated and shot for their crimes against children? I don’t think so.

More subtle forms of rape like manipulation or blackmail still fall under rape, so they’re no reason to have an age of consent, rape is already banned.

Pedophobes seem to be scared that even though rape is already illegal, children would still be manipulated and blackmailed into sex…but if someone manipulates a child or an adult into having sex by giving the child false information about something, lying to the child/minor to get them to have sex with you, that still falls under rape, so that doesn’t explain why we need an age of consent for that, rape is already perfectly illegal.

In conclusion, I think sex at a young age can sometimes result in harm, but doesn’t have to. Banning it is also guaranteed to cause a lot of harm, so the best thing we can do is to make it safer by social acceptance and regulate it, similar to topics like drug use and prostitution, where harm can be involved, but it’s not inherent to the act, so just banning it for everyone would be unfair, it’s better to make it safer by social acceptance.

Teach children about contraception and safe sex early on, and hammer the idea into people’s heads that they ought to respect a child’s autonomy, unless they can actually legitimately demonstrate that a child is harming themselves by doing a given thing. You can still have the right to give them a vaccination if it’s truly necessary to prevent a greater harm, sure, but you’re not entitled to hug an unwilling child, you’re not entitled to force a child to play the guitar instead of the violin just because it suits your personal preferences more.

If you question it a little, you’ll see that it is frequently the pedophobes who are abusive, and that is what is stopping them from being reasonable about the topic of sex in childhood. It’s exactly the most anti-pedophilia conservatives, puritan bigots who think they have the right to force a child to hug grandma, the child has no right to refuse what the slave owners want, the child only can’t be abused sexually, that’s the only way you can’t abuse a child. Fuck it, even if the child actually wants to hump a pedophile’s leg, it doesn’t matter, it’s still wrong, but forcing the child to do other things that are not even necessary to prevent a greater harm to the child in question is perfectly acceptable, don’t respect children’s autonomy to any degree.

Another ulterior motive that some men have might also be that they don’t actually want rape to be illegal, perhaps they use lies and manipulation to get laid with girls over the age of consent, but if it were actually more about rape rather than age, then you couldn’t do that, you wouldn’t be allowed to tell an 18 year old girl lies in order to get into her pants either, so then they just want an age of consent to protect their younger sisters for a while until they’re hopefully old enough to not fall for any tricks rather than to truly insist that non-consensual sex be illegal.

If you promise a 14 year old girl a relationship in return for anal sex, it’s wrong, if some 18 year old girl is dumb enough to fall for it, you did a good job, her fault she fell for it. All sex must be rape, defiling a girl’s ”innocence” and all we can do is protect our younger sisters from that as long as possible because sex has to be about manipulation…I’m sure if it were up to some men, they would simply only make it illegal to have sex with their female family members and that’s it.

I think ”we have to draw a line somewhere” is also just an excuse violent bigots are using to hide their bigotry.

If people really just thought we had to draw a line somewhere, so it’s really unfortunate that a 30 year old is being arrested for fucking a willing 15 year old as a safety measure to ensure that no one manipulates 15 year olds into sex when they don’t want to, they wouldn’t be nearly as outraged about it as they are right now.

Why are they always foaming at the mouth then, regardless of whether or not the child/minor wanted to have sex? Either way, you always see comments from them like:

”ALL PEDOS MUST BE KILLED!!! NO CURE FOR THIS PERVERSION!!!”
”CUT THEIR DICKS OFF NOW!!!!!!!!!!! SUPPORT PEDO GENOCIDE!!!!!”
”I HOPE YOU GO TO JAIL AND GET ASSRAPED BY A NIGGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
”THERE’S NO EXCUSE! A 15 YEAR OLD CAN NEVER CONSENT!!!!!’

And other such pleasantries. If it’s so crystal clear that this idea of an age of consent just exists to deter a few bad people from doing bad things, why are people so outraged when they are perfectly rational enough to admit that sometimes sex between minors and adults is voluntary, even when you talk about it to them in private sometimes?

I think the answer is clear, they are living in a delusional disney fantasy world where children are supposed to be asexual, and they want to force anyone under the holy age to fit this role of being completely asexual. The idea of your child being sexual is icky, similar to how children also find the idea of their parents being sexual icky, but they don’t have the same amount of power to destroy their parents sexual lives on a whim.

This is clearly revealed in certain arguments the pedophobes make, like the argument about power imbalance. An adult has authority and power over a minor, so if they have sex, it’s abuse of power.

You only need to put this in any other context to see what a failure this argument is: a child voluntarily does garden work for extra pocket money for a parent who has power over them, they could force the child by grounding them if they don’t do the garden work, that is true.

But so what? The child clearly did it voluntarily, so power has not been abused. Same is possible for sex too, a minor could be pressured to have sex by a teacher if they threaten the minor with a worse math grade, but the minor could also just voluntarily have sex with the teacher in spite of the teacher’s power over them. Just because I own a gun and thus have power over you, that doesn’t mean I raped you if you had sex with me…as long as I didn’t use the gun to pressure you and you wanted to have sex with me regardless of my gun.

Power difference does not equal power abuse, pedophobes only assume this in the sexual context, because they likely already made another false assumption – which is that children are fundamentally asexual, so the only reason why a minor would have sex with their teacher is because they have been manipulated into being sexual by some evil pedominati propagandist, because obviously what everyone under 18 really wants is sit in a sandbox and play with barbie dolls, and then this evil pedo whipped out his dick and my daughter thought it was candy and accidentally put it in her mouth!!!!! – in delusional pedophobe disney fantasy land.

So I don’t believe this line drawing argument for a second, religious idiots and sex negative feminists legitimately act as though they believe even a person one second under their holy age is too stupid to tell the difference between cock and candy, they are living in a delusional fantasy world.

Does a society have the right to make a harmless act into a harmful one?

A common disagreement in the discussion about sex in childhood/youth is intrinsic vs. extrinsic harm. Some things are intrinsically harmful, in and of itself harmful, e.g. someone sticking a knife in your eye when you clearly don’t want that, we could argue that is always harmful.

But some things are only extrinsically harmful, e.g. a girl wears a skimpy dress and gets raped, this doesn’t prove that wearing a skimpy dress is in and of itself results in harm. Someone instigated harm in response to it, but it doesn’t in and of itself always result in harm.

Those with philosophical positions accepting of sexual relationships between children/minors and adults generally make the point that sex in childhood/youth is not intrinsically harmful, what can be harmful is when someone is manipulated, blackmailed, forced into sex regardless of age, in which case the coercion is the real harm, not the child sex itself obviously.

Or when society has an overtly harmful, negative reaction to a completely voluntary sex act that was intrinsically harmless, but then society made it extrinsically harmful by reacting in this hysterical fashion, harm caused by social stigma, the child/minor enjoyed the sexual encounter but was shocked to find out how society feels about it.

Those opposed to all such relationships often have an intuition that all such relations are harmful because children and minors are fundamentally asexual (or ”innocent”, whatever that means, sex supposedly makes you guilty) and would never have sex unless someone forced them to, or they believe that for some reason even if some want it, ”we just have to draw a line somewhere” and not even try to distinguish between the harmful and harmless cases in a more detailed manner in court.

Even when you point out to these people that in case a minor simply wanted to have sex with an older person, they weren’t manipulated, it didn’t result in any harm to them, except the negative reaction from society, some of them would still say ”but there are still social consequences to this that the child cannot comprehend yet!” although there is no evidence that these consequences are anything but self-caused, society’s fault and nothing else.

Basically blaming the victim, appealing to a self-created consequence, just like a rapist ironically. Even if dressing like a whore isn’t harmful, who cares? Once I rape you, you’re still harmed, so that proves dressing like a whore is harmful.

Even if having sex with a child/minor isn’t intrinsically harmful, who cares? Once we send you to jail and socially ostracize you for it, you and the minor (by extension) are still harmed by our hysteria, so that proves that sex at a young age is harmful, because we harm you for it.

Which raises the question: does a society have the right to make a perfectly harmless act into a harmful one by having an overtly negative, violent reaction to it?

It doesn’t have to be sex, we could pick any other subject for demonization and public hysteria and we would have the same argument, anything can be made extrinsically harmful.

Let’s just say as an example to test for consistency, we had a society that didn’t demonize children receiving orgasms, but children eating broccoli, both can be perfectly healthy if someone is not overtly averse to receiving either.

This society does believes that giving a child broccoli is always child abuse, automatically it is assumed that when a child eats broccoli, it can never be anything but harmful, it must have involved force and coercion – innocent children should not be eating broccoli. Period, end of discussion, if you question this, you’re one of these disgusting assholes who forces children to eat broccoli at knifepoint as well.

If a child finds out that they might like green vegetables by having eaten another one first (similar to how some children find out they would like to have sex by discovering masturbation and porn), and then they voluntarily receive broccoli from an adult, society has an overtly negative reaction to it:

The adult is socially ostracized, sent to jail.

Everyone is hysterically screeching at the child, asking them about their abuse.

People make jokes in front of the child how this evil abuser is now hopefully going to get repeatedly assraped in prison. Don’t drop the soap you piece of shit, HAHA, if you give kids broccoli you get raped in jail, so therefore, broccoli is unhealthy, it’s basic logic!

The child repeatedly hears that they now ”lost their innocence”, there’s something indescribably magical about never having eaten broccoli under a certain age, and if you did it before, you ruined your ”innocence” for life, now you are guilty! Oh no! What a travesty!

If the child doesn’t admit how horribly abused they were, everyone will assume they are completely mentally defective and just don’t understand how horribly abused they were, so the therapists won’t stop harassing the child, they become a social outcast, the weird victim of broccoli who doesn’t even admit they were victimized, how outragous! The evil broccoli pervert certainly manipulated this child!

After a while, this takes a toll on the child, the child feels confused and bad about it.

Society reaches the inescapable conclusion:

Broccoli is bad and unhealthy for children, it’s obvious!

Most humans are socially imitative creatures who don’t have it in them to tell all of society to go fuck itself, so what does the child do? The child grows up to parrot the lies that have been imposed on them by the anti-broccoli cult, the child grows up to associate the negative feelings that were really caused by society with the person who gave them broccoli, and grow to resent that person, when really it would be more reasonable to direct that hatred at society.

Therapists and psychologists who aren’t really deep thinkers but just social status quo enforcers who have similarly just been socially indoctrinated into thinking broccoli is the devil now conduct a study in which people like this, who have eaten broccoli as children partake, even people who did not voluntarily eat it, but have been forced to at knifepoint (which is the same in society’s eyes anyway, since children can NEVER consent to broccoli! NEVER!).

They reach the conclusion that people who have eaten broccoli as children indeed often times grow up to feel very bad. See, this settles the debate, broccoli is bad. A perfect post hoc fallacy, is it not?

Child eats broccoli, child is traumatized at some point after, this proves broccoli traumatizes children.

A happened, then B happened, therefore, A directly caused B. The child left the house, the child was wetted by the rain, therefore, leaving your house causes you to get wet, even when it does not rain outside. Ironclad reasoning right there.

Should this society really have the right to insist on their stupid taboo and claim that they have demonstrated that eating broccoli causes harm to children? Or would anyone who has not been indoctrinated into their insanity think of them as primitive barbarians in desperate need of being educated (perhaps even forcibly) in order to change their ways?

I think the answer is obvious, you wouldn’t accept this type of picking a subject and making it into a taboo in any other context unless it were actually legitimately proven to be harmful, so it’s logically inconsistent and hypocritical when you do so when it comes to child sexuality.

I’m sure if they observed this behavior in a cult where something else would be demonized that isn’t sex, like broccoli, they would be perfectly able to observe the fact that these imbeciles have never come up with a reason as to why they think broccoli is inherently harmful to children and point out to them how society isn’t exactly making it easy for the child to enjoy eating broccoli.

”You fucking retard, YOU YOURSELF are creating this negative consequence, children don’t have to be harmed by broccoli, YOU HARM THEM by having this negative bigoted reaction to it! This is no better than saying homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to raise children, it’s harmful, just because you raise your children to bully children of homosexual couples, you’re clearly the asshole here!”.

But when it comes to seeing that they are the ones that create the harm in response to sexual relations between children/minors and adults, they completely fail to recognize that they are the monster and somehow manage to rationalize the harm that they inflict as harm done by the perfectly harmless orgasm.

”My 14 year old daughter voluntarily had sex with a 30 year old man, she got an orgasm and was overall satisfied, so I beat him to a bloody pulp in front of her! She started to scream in panic, see, this proves that orgasms are traumatizing unless you’re exactly the holy age, like 16, 17 or 18 that our religious cult has deemed to be the only correct one!”.

It’s idiotic, come up with a reason for why you think x is harmful, don’t just appeal the to the fact that people who engaged in x as children often grow up to feel traumatized and depressed in the confines of a society that does everything in their power to make children feel bad about x, whatever x may be.

If you don’t accept the ”evidence” of the anti-broccoli cult, then it’d be inconsistent for you to accept the ”evidence” pedophobic bigots lay out for how sex in childhood and youth is harmful, because they’re using the same method: lumping voluntary and in-voluntary sex together and ignoring social pressures and biases.

If an act is only harmful because society reacts badly to it, then the act isn’t really harmful, it’s society that is being harmful. So why not ban the harm caused by society rather than the act that it demonizes based on irrational grounds? Because they’re just irrational, so they just fail to see that they’re being irrational, that’s the most plausible answer here.

Are children sexual beings?

Somewhat important question I guess, some people who are against sexual relations between children/minors and adults, or even just between children/minors and other children/minors will kind of rely on that outdated notion.

Basically they’ll try to pretend that children/minors are completely asexual, so of course they have a reason to be upset when they find out their kid had sex, because that means that they must have been manipulated into said sex, because a child would never engage in sex voluntarily just on their own!

They never want to admit the sexuality came from the child itself, so they will blame anything else for ”sexualizing the child” which is not necessary, because the child is already sexual, so that wording is just dumb.

”Disney sexualized my child, there’s subliminal messaging in their movies, and it’s also the bad music kids are listening to nowadays making them want to fuck!”

Because parents probably feel disgusted by the thought of offspring being sexual, it feels like incest to think of your offspring as sexual beings.

Well, it’s simply wrong I would say though, it’s delusional, as if they have completely forgotten about their childhood/adolescence.

Yeah of course kids can be sexual, I humped balloons as a child and I started using my hand to jerk off by the time I was 12 or something. There you go, many more people with such anecdotes exist, I’m not the only one.

Also, I’d say some adults probably project their version of what their sexuality is onto kids and that’s why the thought of pedophilic/underage sex makes them so angry, so some traditionally dominant man might think of sex as penetrating a woman as hard as possible whilst beating her, so they are offended because they think that’s what pedophiles will do with little girls.

Sex can obviously be more than just penetration, I’m also putting touching or cuddling into the sex category, clearly those can be sexualized acts.

The power imbalance argument.

Something that pedophobes bring up is often times that a relationship between a child/minor and an pedophile/adult must be harmful, because the adult has authority over the underaged individual in some way, therefore it’s by default abusive if any kind of sexual act takes place between them.

The problem with this argument is rather simple to expose, it presupposes right away that having power is the same as abusing that power, which falls apart when you examine it in any other context. Power imbalances exist in all different areas of life, that doesn’t mean that every time there is a power imbalance, abuse is taking place.

Let’s say a minor is doing garden work for an adult for a little extra pocket money, now some person comes around the corner and accuses the adult of abusing his authority to blackmail children into doing slave labor in their garden. Likely, you would ask for evidence for such an assertion, that this is the case and not just a baseless accusation.

Did they use their supposed authority to threaten the minor in some way?

Then in that case, we can indeed conclude that they abused their authority, they exploited a minor’s vulnerability to benefit from the situation, causing harm to the minor.

But this isn’t assumed to be obvious, you need evidence for that, did they really do that? Because the minor obviously could have wanted the extra pocket money as well, and in that case, it’d be hardly rational to have a problem with the minor doing the garden work.

An adult (non-sexually) hugs a volunteering child – is this equivalent to forced, non-consensual hugging because the child is incapable of consenting due to the adult’s higher level of power? I don’t think so, you’d need evidence the power was actually used to force the child into it.

In the case of sex though, pedophobes don’t care about evidence.

If the minor were to have sex with an adult, they would automatically assume that they must have abused their authority and power to coerce the minor to have sex in some way, they automatically imagine that there is no other variable, obviously they blackmailed the minor in some way.

And why do they assume that?

Because of another false assumption that they have likely already made, which is that children/minors are by default asexual and ”innocent” (as if sex then makes one guilty), so they would never on their own be interested in having sex, especially not with an older person, when in reality, obviously we can easily find a scenario where a 14 year old boy would fuck his hot female teacher, not because she threatened him with a worse math grade, but because he simply wants to get off in something other than his hand.

And that’s the issue here. Pedophobes are able to imagine that a minor wants money from an older person over the holy age, and would therefore voluntarily do garden work for that money, but pedophobes don’t like to imagine that a minor could possibly also want sex from an older person over the holy age, so they automatically assume that whenever sex between a child/minor and an adult happens, it must be the result of power abuse and manipulation, no way around it.

If they admitted that the issue is manipulating someone into sex, then they’d actually have to stop opposing sex between minors and adults in cases where the minor was not manipulated into sex but simply wanted to have sex, so instead they make a completely moronic argument that somehow just having power in and of itself is abuse, and only in this sexual context.

Adult has authority over 14 year old in school, 14 year old voluntarily does garden work for adult for extra pocket money – not abusive despite power imbalance.
Adult has authority over 14 year old in school, 14 year old voluntarily sticks dick in adult – somehow abusive because of power imbalance.

Father has physical strength advantage over 6 year old daughter, 6 year old daughter consents to be lifted up by him – not abusive despite power imbalance.
Pedophile has physical strength advantage over 6 year old girl as well, 6 year old girl consents to ride on his leg for sexual pleasure – somehow abusive because of power imbalance.

They (likely already) made a false assumption, which is that children are asexual and would never possibly want sex, so they are basing their assumption that if sex between a minor and an adult happens, it must be the result of power abuse on that first fundamentally false assumption that children would only have sex if they have been manipulated, blackmailed, forced into it by some evil pedophile propagandist abusing his power over children.

The power imbalance argument is then often used as an argument to justify sex between children as well, but then somehow put a ban on sex between children and adults.

As in, if a child willingly has sex with another child, that is fine because it is assumed they have the same level of power in that situation (which isn’t always true either, some children have more power than other children, there’s nothing that says children couldn’t be child molesters and rapists too), but if it’s happening between a child and a pedophile, they say the adult has power over the child, therefore, it must be abusive, no way around it.

This is extremely flawed and disordered thinking, because the adult’s power doesn’t suddenly negate the child’s willingness, just like the power of adult doesn’t necessarily mean the child didn’t do the garden work or hug them voluntarily. Of course the adult might be more able to manipulate and coerce the child if they wanted to do so, but if they don’t even have to do that, and the child still wants to have sex just like it wanted to have sex with the other child, then there’s no more evidence to assume abuse in that situation than in child on child sex. Why would there be?

The bigot in that case is already admitting that children sometimes do want to have sex with other children without it being the result of some sort of manipulation tactic, but then when the child has sex with an adult just as willingly for the exact same sexual pleasure, it’s suddenly abusive again just because the adult has more power that they could use to force and coerce the child, and the fact that the adult has power is seen as evidence that they did that.

Even if the adult never does that and the child just wanted to be sexually stimulated as they wanted to be sexually stimulated by the other child, because power automatically equals abuse somehow, no distinction, as if they just forgot again that children are not asexual and can want to have sex without being manipulated into it. They almost grasped that children can be sexual even if they are not manipulated into it, then they forgot it again, too bad.

Then, they again also only apply this reasoning to sex of course, whereas ultimately it would become questionable how any interaction between children and adults can be anything but abusive by this backward, moronic standard. How is it allowed for a father who has a physical strength advantage to lift up his consenting 8 year old daughter? He has power over her, so even if she consents to be lifted up by him, she was obviously abused because he has power over her! Power=abuse.

The child wants the ice cream, the adult gives the child the ice cream, this is abusive I could just as easily argue, because obviously the adult has more power than the child and could too easily coerce the child into accepting the ice cream, so therefore, the fact that that adult has power over the child is enough evidence for me, obviously the child was abused.

It’s never ok to give a child ice cream, no matter how much the child wants it. How do you ultimately know the child didn’t just take the ice cream because it was scared to death of the adult’s power over it? How do you know that? You don’t, pervert.

We could even apply this argument to adults ultimately, doesn’t matter, any kind of relation where power differences are involved.

So let’s say I have a gun, thus have a certain level of power over you as someone who does not own a gun and you suck my dick. Does that mean that I am a rapist? That is impossible to answer that simply, because that depends on different factors.

Did I hold the gun to your head and say:

”If you don’t suck my dick I’m gonna blow your fucking brains out, cunt!”?

That is the question, because if I did not, and you just wanted to suck my dick in spite of my gun, then obviously I didn’t force you to do it. Of course, it is possible that someone still feels forced because they fear someone would shoot them, but it’s also perfectly possible that you just wanted to suck my dick in spite, not because of my gun, and that is what is to find out, just like in the relationship between the child/minor and the pedophile/adult.

Did the child feel intimidated by the adult’s authority in some way (which is what arguably kind of makes it authority in the first place, if you don’t feel impressed by a serial killer holding a machete to your throat, he has no real power to make you do something) or did the child want to have sex with the adult? If not and the child just wanted to have sex, it’s absurd that anyone would call that a rape, involuntary sex, because it is factually speaking not.

Here the average pedophobe will of course be inclined to retort again that:

”That’s different because the child can’t consent!”

But if the reason why they are saying that the child cannot consent to have sex with their teacher is partially or exactly because of the inherent power imbalance between them, that power imbalance is the reason why the child cannot consent, then neither can an adult consent to sex with another adult if there is a power imbalance involved, as power imbalance was stated to be trait that causes the impossibility of consent, it’s basic logical consistency.

P1 – Minor can’t consent to sex with teacher because teacher has power over minor.

P2 – Bodybuilder has power over petite girlfriend as well.

C – Petite girlfriend can’t consent to sex with bodybuilder.

A retort might be that the petite girlfriend could become just as strong as the bodybuilder though with the right training, and they’re at least adults, so that’s equal, see, no difference in power anymore.

But that obviously ignores the fact that then she would no longer be petite, just like if a child became an adult and that took away the power difference between child and adult, it would no longer be a child, just like if the petite girl became as strong, she’d no longer be petite. If you really think that power imbalance in and of itself is the problem, then I don’t see why this point wouldn’t apply.

Power can also be a factor that attracts someone to someone, rather than a threat.

Another thing to point out that is possible is also that a person that has less power than their partner with more power is sexually attracted by their partner’s power, wants to have sex with them because of their power, but is not particularly intimidated, but more positively intrigued by said power, obviously often times females seek out a stronger male, but don’t only have sex because they are scared and intimidated.

Perhaps the 12 year old girl having sex with her teacher is particularly aroused by the fact that the teacher is an authority figure, or by an idolized musician’s success in some way, aroused by males in some sort of position of power over her, not by boys her age that haven’t established such a position yet, thus may be considered unfit partners, but obviously I don’t think we can reliably say that 12 year old girls only want to suck Justin Bieber’s dick because they are scared of him.

So to go back to the gun scenario, you may even be aroused by me having a gun.

In that case, it’s still not abusive, obviously you weren’t intimidated by the gun, you were aroused by it, I didn’t have to use the gun to intimidate you. I could still do that, but you just being aroused by my gun doesn’t mean I used it to force you into having sex with me, it was just one characteristic that attracted you to me.

So you could just have had sex with someone in spite of, not because of their gun, or you were intrigued by, but not intimidated by it.

The pedophobe or other equal bigots (like those opposed to all sex with the mentally handicapped or non-human animals) fail to take that into account, they only see there is a gun, they see that sex happened, therefore they assume a violent crime happened with no real evidence, this is a not a good way to investigate.

Power imbalance is only a problem if the power is used to intimidate the other party into doing something they don’t want to do, the mere existence of power is not the same as the abuse of power, this doesn’t suddenly change in a sexual context because it’s icky.

Pedophobes assume this, because they likely already made another bigoted, implicit assumption, which is that children are obviously entirely asexual in every possible way, so of course in order for children to ever be sexual, some evil pedophile monster must have manipulated them into it, just like they also frequently assume that when a child acts sexually, it must be the result of the child having been sexually abused before, trying to relive the scenario, no other variable.

They take that to be evidence of prior abuse, because they assume the child can’t just have found out on their own that rubbing your private parts a certain way may cause sexual pleasure, that’s too icky to think about that, children are asexual, children cannot produce excrement, they must not be capable of performing basic biological functions like that, because it’s icky.

Children/minors can consent.

A frequent argument in all sorts of discussions about sexual ethics, whether that is about having sex with children/minors, or also non-human animals or the mentally handicapped is that they are too unintelligent and immature to give consent, thus it is unethical to have sex with them, it tends to be the main focus of the discussion leading to a lot of confusion.

Consenting to something for the most part ultimately just implies willingness, being fine with something or not. When we talk about whether or not you consented in a sexual context, what is meant is usually just whether you wanted it to happen or not.

You can’t consent to get raped or be a slave for instance, it’s an oxymoron, if you wanted it it wouldn’t be rape or slavery anymore, what may be meant by ”wanting/consenting to get raped” is that you want someone to fuck you who doesn’t care whether or not you want to get fucked, but you still wanted it either way.

Children/minors are capable of agreement, they agree or don’t agree to do things every single day. Agree to eat food or not, agree to ride a bicycle or not, agree to be hugged or not.

A child can be willing, consenting to sexual pleasure too, I think that if we were to really steelman (as in, opposite of strawman, lay their view out as robust and coherent as possible) the pedophobes, what they really mean most of the time when they’re talking about consent is the child’s intelligence and maturity, foresight, i.e ability to plan and think ahead, understand consequences and ramifications of actions, this is something children are less capable of until a certain age, sometimes their foresight will be impaired.

Unless the pedophobe is some religious fanatic who thinks children don’t have erogenous zones and are innately asexual, what they are really saying is probably that a child may be willing, consenting to receive sexual pleasure, but that there are certain, potentially harmful consequences to that sexual pleasure that the child would not understand yet, in their disgust they automatically equate all sex in childhood with certain harms like anal rape, STDs, early pregnancy, etc.

That’s why even when you point out to them that the minor wanted to engage in some sort of sexual act with the older person, they act outraged and say it’s no excuse, even when the child supposedly wanted it, as if there is something innately harmful about sex that this poor child would just never agree to if they only knew about it.

These harmful consequences they automatically think of are not inherently connected to all sexual acts between children/minors and pedophiles/adults, so it doesn’t logically follow that just because someone isn’t intelligent or mature, they can’t consent to the sex act.

Whether or not you need a great future concept/advanced foresight depends on the future consequences of that act.

A greater foresight, intelligence and maturity are only important factors if there are potential negative consequences to your actions that you may fail to appreciate, if the act is harmless anyway, you don’t need high intelligence or maturity to process it.

If the sexual pleasure is indeed the only consequence of the sex act and there is no secondary unwanted consequence that the child didn’t want, then yes, all that can be objectively stated is that said child indeed consented to be sexually stimulated.

Example:

Let’s say a young child that doesn’t understand traffic rules yet and/or is too immature to take them seriously, this child wants to ride a bicycle.

Should we allow this child to consent to riding a bicycle?

The answer is that that entirely depends on the environment and its consequences. On the freeway with many cars driving around rapidly? No. In a largely safe and harmless environment with no cars driving or definitely slow enough to notice the child? Yes.

Whether or not the child has a great concept of the future, can think ahead is completely irrelevant in this scenario, because it is a harmless environment with no cars driving anyway, so the child doesn’t need to be able to think ahead because there’s about zero chance that they’ll get hit by a car anyway, all that matters is that the child wants to ride the bicycle, wasn’t forced to do so at gunpoint.

And the same consistently applies to sex, if a child found out about sexual pleasure by rubbing their private parts against things, but doesn’t understand possible risks of sex like STDs or different sexual practices like anal sex yet, that doesn’t automatically mean they can’t consent to any sexual act.

That means that they should not be engaging in the type of sex that has these risks they are unable to understand, but that is simply not all sex.

If the child for instance just wants to rub themselves against a pedophile’s leg for the exact same pleasurable sensation they received from rubbing themselves against a pillow, where none of these potential complications (like STDs, pregnancy, penetrative sex, etc) could even possibly exist, then indeed, all that can be objectively stated is that by all evidence the child consented to be sexually stimulated. It was wanted, and there was no future consequence to it that was unwanted either.

If the child wanted to ride the bicycle, and there was no consequence to riding the bicycle that the child did not want – the child consented to ride the bicycle.

If the child wanted to have the sex, and there was no consequence to having the sex that the child did not want – the child consented to have the sex.

The fact that children may not understand the consequences of their actions as much as adults yet is only a problem if those consequences are actually present, if the negative consequences don’t exist in a given scenario, there’s no problem. And just like in other scenarios, the responsibility should be on the adults, including the pedophile of course to make sure there are no negative consequences for the child (like STDs or pregnancy), instead of just forbidding the child to have sex. You don’t forbid the child to ride the bicycle at all, you just make sure it’s as safe as possible.

There’s no age restriction for children eating broccoli for instance, and that is because if the child consents to eat broccoli, it’s unlikely that there is any long term consequence to eating broccoli that the child will later on not consent to, so there’s no reason to stop this child from consenting to eat broccoli.

There’s an age restriction for alcohol and cigarettes on the other hand, and the idea there is that although the child may agree to drink a bottle of whiskey, they may not consent to the future consequences that could have on their body, but is not aware of that to the same degree as someone with a more mature understanding of future consequences, then able to weigh the pros and cons.

This argument similarly applies to humans that are perhaps on the same intellectual level as children, some intellectually handicapped individuals perhaps go their entire lives engaging in all sorts of recreational activities without fully understanding them to the same degree as someone who isn’t severely intellectually disabled, does that mean they cannot express their preferences to any degree? No, it simply means we sometimes have to take extra cautionary measures to ensure their safety, we can use a similar example here.

Another example:

Let’s say there’s a mentally handicapped person that likes to collect blue marbles, but they have a tendency to swallow said marbles sometimes and are too handicapped to understand that that’s bad, they can only say ”blue marble me feel good good”.

Does that mean that they just per se can’t consent to play with blue marbles?

No. Under the supervision of someone who makes sure they don’t swallow them and choke on it, there would be no problem with it. Completely alone in the house, probably a bad idea.

Same exact standard can then again consistently be applied to sex, so let’s say there’s a mentally retarded female on the intelligence level of a 5 year old, interested in sex but unaware of what STDs are.

Whether or not it would be responsible to allow her to consent again depends entirely on the consequences. If her partner has no STDs and takes care of the contraception process and all that the sexual encounter thus consists of is the desired exchange of sexual pleasure, there’s no problem, no reason to say she couldn’t consent.

Now if her partner has AIDS and doesn’t use protection, she doesn’t consent to get the AIDS but isn’t aware of that, so at that point it’d be sensible to intervene for us to prevent her from receiving the AIDS from the other irresponsible party.

Sex is not such a complicated act that always results in harm no matter what, so there’s no reason to assume one necessarily has to have a great future concept/advanced foresight to engage in it.

So if a child actually wants to receive sexual pleasure from rubbing herself against a pedophile’s leg instead of a pillow, wasn’t manipulated in some way to do so and there is absolutely nothing in that scenario the pedophile does that the child would later on not want, like anal rape or whatever pedophobes imagine to always happen, the question really becomes:

What is the supposed future consequence in sex that this child fails to take into account due to their childishness, that they need to be protected against at all costs, that they simply can never understand until the child is no longer a child?

The child cannot give consent they would claim. Why not, where is the harmful future consequence in leg humping as opposed to pillow humping that the child subject simply fails to take into account due to their childishness? What is it?

What is this magical consequence that supposedly exists for everyone under the holy age of consent when they have sex with someone over the holy age of consent that the child would need to be informed about for consent to be possible, but simply can’t because the child is not an adult yet?

On the inefficient, dishonest usage of the word pedophilia.

In many cases, delusional idiots use the word pedophilia in a completely incoherent fashion which complicates any discussion on topics dealing with pedophilia, as they don’t even know how to use the word efficiently.

Pedophilia best describes sexual or romantic attraction to the stage of prepubescence, it isn’t useful to describe attraction to fertile teenage females under the age of what your local bigot committee deems acceptable (by that logic you could also change whether or not you’re a pedophile by what country you are currently in) because someone who is attracted to secondary sexual characteristics is not necessarily attracted to prepubescents, the average 14 year old is way too old for an exclusive pedophile, and neither does pedophilia, attraction to children, mean rape.

The media however constantly uses the word pedophile to describe rapists or ”rapists” of children or ”children”, which creates a conflation between pedophilia and rape in the minds of most as they already instinctively feel disgusted by the notion of children being sexual in any way anyway.

To call a child rapist a pedophile as a description of his crime is idiotic, it is like calling a mass murderer a gun owner.

It’s true that he may own a gun, but the possession of the gun itself is not what caused the damage, the damage was caused by the gun having been utilized to shoot his victims. Similarly, the erection in response to a child itself is not what caused the damage, if a child was raped at all and the media is not lying as they’ll automatically say anything under the particular holy age of their country is rape no matter if the ”victim” wanted to have sex, the fact that the child has been held down and had said erection forced inside their anus is what caused the damage.

In fact, even to the raped child, if really raped, it is kind of extremely insulting, it’s like you’re saying that the only issue with the rape of that child is that the rapist had an erection (because he is a pedophile, sexually aroused by the child) whilst raping it, if he just raped it with a flaccid dick instead, less pedophilically so, it would have been much better.

A gun owner or anyone can kill a person, but gun ownership itself does not equate to the shooting of a person.
A pedophile or anyone can rape a child, but pedophilia itself does not equate to the raping of a child.

Not to mention, a child rapist doesn’t even necessarily have to be motivated by pedophilic desires, he could just get off on a different aspect of raping the child than the child’s childishness, e.g. an extreme sadist could get off on destroying a newborn infant’s anus instead of the fact that the infant is prepubescent, but he would find it equally arousing to destroy an adult’s anus with a sharp object like a jackhammer or screwdriver.

”Convicted of gun ownership.”

How idiotic does that sound when it is supposed to mean someone was convicted of shooting 10 people? Exactly how idiotic it sounds to any rational mind to say ”convicted of pedophilia” when someone raped a child.

”Convicted pedophile.”

Convicted of what, arson, driving over the speed limit, tax evasion? Am I just supposed to assume that a pedophile can only be convicted of one crime? Pedophilia just tells that they are attracted to children, how am I to know that this means this person has been convicted of child rape?

If a man is a ”convicted homosexual” am I automatically to assume that this person has been convicted of raping other men? It’s just one of many characteristics this person possesses, he could also just be convicted of driving over the local speed limit.

”OMG you can’t seriously compare homosexuals to pedophiles, how insulting! This is bigotry and slander, homosexuals are NOT pedophiles!”

Depends entirely on which aspect we are comparing, the attribute roundness in apple is the same as roundness in orange, just like the attribute ”not being a rapist for simply having a slightly less normal sexual fantasy” is the same in homosexual as in pedophile, even if you believe that a pedophile could only have sex with the someone they are attracted to by causing harm to them, which there isn’t any great evidence for, but whatever.

Also, why would it be shameful to be a pedophile in particular? It just implies that you are attracted by children, this means you probably fantasize about them in a sexual context sometimes, the implication here is often times that the pedophile in question already somehow harmed children by thinking about them, particularly if they looked at pictures of children, although no one would go to jail even for jerking off to pictures of children being stabbed or run over by cars.

Do you by sexually fantasizing about children (even if you imagine something that would actually harm them, like anally raping infants) somehow telepathically injure an infant whenever you ejaculate? You’re the bigot for thinking that pedophile is an insult in the first place.

Some homosexuals are also pedophiles, it just means that you are of one sex, and you are attracted to prepubescents of that same sex, a male attracted to prepubescent males is a homosexual pedophile/pedophilic homosexual, a female attracted to prepubescent females is a homosexual pedophile/pedophilic homosexual.

Assuming that pedophiles are automatically rapists is an absurd conflation, a considerable amount of idiots are ignorant to the point that they essentially subconsciously believe:

being attracted to fertile adolescents=being attracted to prepubescents
being attracted to prepubescents=being a rapist

The most intellectually impaired pedophobes of all believe if you are attracted to a 14 year old girl for the same reason you are attracted to an 18 year one, i.e because she has secondary sexual characteristics in the form of tits and ass, you must be a pedophile who is attracted to 4 year old girls as well, and if you are attracted to 4 year old girls, well, then that must obviously mean that you rape infants, so we should publically castrate and shoot you right away! Attracted to adolescents=attracted to prepubescents=rapist of prepubescents, it’s obvious!

Now we’re in the mood for ruining someone’s life, this disgusting fuck is attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, what an infant raper! Don’t let this guy that is attracted to 14 year old girls for the same reason he is attracted to 18 year old girls around your newborn, he’ll rape it in the ass when you’re not looking!

Kill all pedophiles, because they rape children!
Kill all gun owners, because they shoot people!
Kill all knife owners, because they stab people!
Kill all straight men, because they rape women!

Even though these moronic bigots would of course never admit it that boldly, those are the subconscious assumptions that are instinctively made by them, and they hate being educated about how ignorant they are. If you try to educate them, many of them essentially respond as any other religious bigot would, they assume you must just be a sinner against their religion.

They’ll say they don’t care, it’s all pedophile scum, you’re justifying pedophilia you pedo/nonce, which is their little buzzword to immediately spiral themselves into hysteria over, similar to how islamists have infidel, christians have sinner, the nazis had untermensch and the slave owners had nigger. If someone’s a ”pedo”, every uncivilized, inefficient, backward behavior is justifiable.

Just like some religious retard will accuse anyone who doesn’t pander to their retardation as just wanting to sin against god and ”make excuses” for it, just like some extreme racist might demonstrate themself to be completely unwilling to acknowledge the difference between a black thief, an impoverished black person and a Mexican, when you could just conveniently like the ignorant simpleton you are throw them all into category ”nigger scum”.

This harmless black person shares one characteristic with a black bank robber, and because I find the attribute ”black” disgusting, I will simply put them into the same category, they’re both nigger scum, period. Why not?

It’s simply an inefficient usage of the word resulting out of your bigoted assumptions about all individuals of one big group, (real, not make-believe) child rape is bad, not pedophilia, just like stabbing someone to death is bad, not the possession of a knife, or like strangling someone is bad, not the possession of a skipping rope, or shooting someone is bad, not the possession of a gun.

It is instrumental to strangle someone to be in possession of the skipping rope, but it’d be non-sensical to try to ruin the life of everyone who owns a skipping rope just because some stranglers use their skipping ropes to strangle children, because it simply doesn’t prove all skipping rope possessors to be child stranglers.

Similarly, it is instrumental to rape a child to get an erection in response to it, but it’d be non-sensical to try to ruin the life of everyone who gets an erection in response to children just because some child rapists use their erections to rape children, because it simply doesn’t prove all pedophiles to be child rapists either.