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!

On the incest taboo.

I see absolutely no reason why anyone in their right mind could be opposed to all incest outright, it is justified by the same reasoning as conventional heterosexual or homosexual relations.

Even if you’re against sexual relationships between minors and adults, or non-human and human animals, you think sex is only for consenting adults, if you’re not an adult but you consent it doesn’t matter – well, the same reasoning still justifies incest.

Incest can perfectly happen between two consenting adults.

One main argument has obviously always been about birth defects, which I think is one of the stupidest points to bring up.

The incestophobe argument roughly goes like this:

P1 – If contraception does not exist, incest results in disabled children, thus is harmful.

P2 – Contraception does not exist.

C – Incest results in disabled children, thus is harmful.

The problem obviously lies in premise 2 here, incestophobes are simply denying the existence of pharmacies that sell condoms and other means of contraception. Of course, if you cum in your mother without a condom, it might result in crippled children.

So what do you do? You buy a condom, you put that condom on your dick, and then you fuck your mother. Maybe she can take the pill too, and if all fails, there’s still abortion. So fact is, there are lots of ways to prevent birth.

If you want to say incest is wrong based on your false premise that contraception does not exist, all other sex acts that would result in harm (were they practiced without contraception) would have to be illegal as well.

Two disabled people who have genetic defects in general are having sex with contraception. This is wrong I could just as easily argue, because if they were to have sex without a condom, it could result in impregnation, and thus ultimately children with genetic defects.

So if we just cleverly presuppose the non-existence of any and all contraception methods that exist, then obviously any person who has genetic defects in general must never be allowed to have sex under any circumstances. What if condoms didn’t exist? Then they would make a bunch of crippled kids, so therefore, they should not be allowed to have sex with condoms either, because of what would happen if condoms did not exist.

The point here is obvious – condoms, pills, abortion exist. They don’t really believe there is no way to prevent birth, they’re just making this argument when it comes to incest because they feel personally disgusted by it.

Or do you see any of these people protesting against the legality of people with genetic defects having sex in general, just because it would similarly result in children with genetic defects if condoms, pills, abortion did not exist? No.

It’s just like a homophobe bringing up STDs from anal sex to be against homosexuals. Why exactly don’t they bring it up when it comes to heterosexuals? Yes, if contraception did not exist, heterosexual anal sex might also result in STDs, but so what? Contraception does exist, are they saying that homosexuals are for some reason fundamentally too incompetent to use contraception?

Do children/minors not want sex or is it to dangerous to allow?

We generally allow people (especially children where society tends to be more careful) to do something as long as 1. they want to do it and 2. it poses no risk of danger to them that they might fail to see, which could then obviously result in them later on not wanting it anymore.

These two things are important to check for in order to see if something is harmful or not. If you don’t want something, you’re harmed merely by the fact that it is still done to you – you were forced to do something, it was unpleasant. Sometimes we don’t allow someone to do something they want though, because it might have the chance of later on resulting in harm, something that they don’t want but might fail to see for some reason like decreased intelligence and maturity, like it can happen with a child or severely mentally retarded person.

The only exception to that is usually that it’s allowed to do something to someone, even if they are averse to it, if it will later on eliminate much more pain/harm/suffering for them than it will create.

Some examples of this general rule:

A child wants to eat broccoli, and broccoli is not going to harm the child in the future, resulting in the child no longer wanting the broccoli? Society allows it.

A child wants to drink a bottle of whiskey, but it might result in them later on getting sick from it and going to the hospital? Society doesn’t allow it.

A child doesn’t want to get an injection that is vital to preventing a dangerous, painful disease? Society still forces the child to get the somewhat painful vaccination, because it will prevent even more harm long term.

A child doesn’t want to have anal sex with their abusive uncle? Society doesn’t force the child to still do it, because they recognize it’s not going to save the child from a worse harm, like the potentially painful but necessary vaccination, so that can’t be compared.

I think that society is inconsistent about how they treat the topic of children/minors and sexuality, by rules that they already accept.

Most people are strongly opposed to the idea of a child/minor having sex, especially with an older person, despite generally allowing children to do things that they want to do, as long as those things are not going to be harmful to them in the future. I would argue some children/minors want to have sex, and sex is not something inherently dangerous.

So let’s analyze this somewhat more in detail:

Do children/minors want to have sex?

Yes, sexual impulses exist even in prepubescents and definitely adolescents under the age of 18, there’s nothing that says a child can’t be sexual.

Adults might generally imagine sex in a way that a child wouldn’t, i.e penetration, but sexuality itself is just a sensation, you-know-it-when-you-feel-it type of thing.

A child at a certain age might not think about something like being anally penetrated or pleasuring someone else yet, but they still have sexual urges and compulsions that come on their own, without having to be prompted by someone abusing the child first.

It is definitely possible that a young girl finds out about sexual pleasure by rubbing herself against a pillow or riding on a horse, and then simply does this on a pedophile’s leg one day without expecting the later on quite harsh reaction and negative backlash from society.

Tons of anecdotal experience are enough to refute the idea that universally, a child must be asexual. I masturbated since I was 6 or 7 years old by using objects rather than my hand, I was just not that informed on sex yet, by the time I was 12 or 14 years old I definitely sometimes wanted to fuck much older female teachers in my school. Why not?

So it’s simply unscientific non-sense to say a child can under no circumstance be sexual. If it were true, then of course it’d make sense to conclude whenever a child has sex, it’s abuse, simply because the child doesn’t want it. Children never want to eat chocolate? Well, I guess then whenever a child eats chocolate, it must be the result of abuse.

But this isn’t the case, so what’s the issue?

Is sex just too dangerous, even if children want it?

People act apalled about the idea of respecting a child’s/minor’s wants and desires, even the idea that a child could possibly consent to anything, because there are certain situations where they say they have to stop children from doing something they want in order to save them from danger. What they don’t realize is that they only do this though exactly because they have the child’s will in mind.

”What if a child wants to run across the street without looking left and right and there’s a car driving towards the child??? Can’t stop the child???”

Then if the implication is that they’ll get hit by a car, it would be incorrect to say they wanted to cross the street, because it directly entailed getting hit by a car, which they didn’t want. So you actually did what the child wanted, you stopped a car from hitting them.

”What if a child doesn’t want to get a vaccination against a serious illness??? Let the child die of the painful disease???”

Then the child still wants to be immune to illness though and simply fails to see that getting said vaccination is required to become immune, so you’re still giving them something that they will later on want, which is immunity to illness.

Now tell me, if you are anti-intergenerational sex, how exactly is sex like this?

Sometimes children want to engage in sex, and sex is not something that necessarily has to result in harm to the child/minor later on. So why doesn’t it fall into the category of things that are acceptable to let a child/minor do? What’s the harm in sex that the child just doesn’t see yet beyond the whole drama imposed by a bigoted society?

Some sex clearly falls into the completely harmless/almost 100% danger free category like eating broccoli, which everyone would allow a child to do. Why is humping someone’s leg or cuddling with someone looked at as dangerous?

Some sex kind of falls into an in between category where it can be but also cannot be harmful, and many times we allow kids to engage in such activities as well, example: bicycle riding, just like penetrative sex with older minors can result in bad consequences. If you’re not careful, you might get hit by a car and are a cripple or you get hit by an STD.

So obviously at least sometimes, pedophilic or just older minor + adult relationships can be perfectly harmless, thus I would say permissible, that’s the point.

An 8 year old girl found out about sexual pleasure by rubbing herself against a pillow, now does it to a pedophile’s leg. She wanted it – there is no risk of future harm by STD or pregnancy.

Why is this wrong?

A 12 year old boy jacked off to his hot female teacher multiple times, she’s on pills, sterilized, has no STDs and let’s him cum in her. He wanted it – there is no risk of future harm. Why would anyone still be against that?

Why is this wrong?

It was wanted…and it was not dangerous either, there’s no reason to think it would result in harm in the future, so why don’t we allow this like we would allow a child to choose to do something else that is healthy and won’t harm them, like eating broccoli? Why aren’t you glad the child is doing something entirely healthy for them?

The only great risk of future harm left here is again the harsh reaction from the pedophobic society they live in, resulting in intense regret, that’s all, a self-created problem.

And that’s all the most hardline pedophobes will be able to argue when getting to that point in the discussion. Sex under the holy age is still harmful, because society is going to react to this harshly and create a lot of drama that the child is not equipped to deal with, but if that’s the only thing making it harmful, this is a useless argument.

It’s bad. Why? Because we react negatively to it, it makes us very angry!!!

And why do we react negatively to it? Because it’s bad you evil pervert!!!

Society generally already allows the child to do something they want, as long as it doesn’t result in future harm, like allowing a willing child to eat broccoli, because it’s not going to harm them in the future anyway, but putting a limit on alcohol for instance.

Sex can be perfectly healthy, so as long as a child wants to have sex, and you checked that their partner is safe, doesn’t have some kind of weird disease – what’s the problem? I would allow it for the same reason I’d allow a willing child to eat vegetables. They want it, so there’s no harm resulting from them being forced, and secondly there’s nothing dangerous about it in the future either, like allowing them to drink a bottle of whiskey.

The child wants something that is healthy for them, like eating broccoli or getting an orgasm. Why not? Why aren’t parents glad that the child wants to do something that is perfectly healthy? The child wasn’t forced, it’s not something that has a high risk of future harm if the parents of society simply stop making a big deal out of it. Where’s the problem?

”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.