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.

The sadistic breeder.

Why do humans reproduce? In general I think they are just naive/delusional and not seeing how reproduction is a harmful activity.

When you don’t exist, you don’t need constant relief from suffering, there is no addiction. Creating sentient life means you make it so that relief must constantly be obtained, because otherwise they’ll suffer, now we have an addiction problem.

You must eat or you get hungry.

You must drink or you get thirsty.

You must breathe or you suffocate.

You must fulfill your needs/wants/desires or you are unfulfilled, face suffering. You fulfill a need/want/desire, and then either a new one pops up, like appetite after hunger, or the old one, hunger, simply comes back in time – this way you’re stuck your entire life.

It is fair to say that before procreating, the procreator has no guarantee that relief can be obtained, it is possible in life to face needs/wants/desires that cannot be met, you can have the need to move yourself by engaging in sports, but suddenly you get hit by a bus and become a cripple, no longer able to find relief, now you are tormented.

So breeding in anything short of a utopia, creating need (that may not be fulfilled) where there was no need beforehand (because they didn’t exist) I see as an irresponsible act.

In general, I would say that most people don’t think about it to that degree, they are simply deluded optimists and think everything will turn out alright, but I would argue that there is a subtype of breeder who does act out of enjoyment of the child’s suffering.

The sadistic/narcissistic breeder.

What I mean by this is that a child presents a perfect opportunity for someone with the urge to dominate and degrade others to live out their fantasy under the guise of doing good in a socially acceptable manner.

Young children due to their lack of intelligence and maturity may sometimes want to do things that are harmful to them, like eating crayon or refusing to get vaccinated.

The sadistic breeders use this as a great pretense to make the child feel like shit.

”Ha, see, here I videotaped that little faggot when I told him he can’t eat any more crayon! He had a nervous mental breakdown! Haha, what an idiot!”

Eating crayon might give the child a stomach ache, so of course, they feel completely justified in how they acted, they must protect the child, even if it causes the child extreme distress…but if they were honest with themselves, they’d admit that the main reason why they do it is simply because they get enjoyment out of causing someone pain.

And that suffering is bad, I can acknowledge that regardless of whether or not it was necessary in that moment to stop the child from doing something or forcing them to do something.

The child may need you to protect them from certain dangers, and in protecting them from these dangers, you may cause them extreme emotional distress because they don’t understand why that danger is a danger, but the child wouldn’t have needed any of this if you simply never brought them into existence in the first place, so you deliberately created someone who you know won’t understand why you’re acting this way towards them, because you get enjoyment from causing them distress and you can mask it as just doing the right thing.

It would be somewhat like I give you a pill that makes you retarded, and then no longer understand why you need to stop eating crayon or why you need to get vaccinated, and I do this so that I can get enjoyment out of playing the mature adult hero who stops you from eating crayon and forcing you to get vaccinated, causing you great distress.

Look what a hero I am, but in reality I of course only give you that pill to fuel my sadism and domination fantasies, so I can have someone to control and exert power over.

Your state of retardation that you need rescuing from would not have existed if I didn’t give you the pill, and the state of the child’s retardation that they need rescuing from would have not existed either if the breeder didn’t create them in the first place.

While definitely not all breeders act based on this urge, I’m sure some do because the child simply presents the perfect opportunity to live out that need to dominate and subjugate others in the name of doing good ”I’m just toughening them up for later in life!” (but why do they need to be toughened up for later in life – they only need that because you forced them to be alive in the first place).

This type of breeder likely also enjoys guilt-tripping the child, the typical ”I took care of you so you have to be grateful and do whatever I want!” – which is idiotic of course, because they are at fault for having created every need/want/desire that the child has.

You gave the child food and shelter – after creating the child’s need for food and shelter by creating the child instead of simply aborting it, and now you expect the child to be obligated to you for having caused them harm and having tried to fix it (most likely incompletely at best).

This is like I pay back my debt and then expect the bank to pay me back because I paid off the debt I created, or expecting a girl to have sex with me because I rescued her from her burning house that I deliberately set on fire so I can come to the rescue and play the hero.

Not all breeders are this malicious, but some use the child as a tool to live out their fantasies of control and domination with the pretense of it being necessary and for the child’s benefit.

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.

Lack of consent and procreation.

You could argue that by procreating, you’re always harming someone, it’s impossible to procreate without breaking the do-no-harm principle/idea, you put someone into a state of need/want/desire.

Once you are here, as a conscious organism, you’ll be constantly motivated by suffering. You must eat or you get hungry. You must drink or you get thirsty. You must shit or you constipate. You must breathe or you suffocate. You must socialize or you get lonely.

Whatever example you want to use, you must chase pleasure/relief, or you will continue to suffer. If you don’t get the pleasure/relief, then you will suffer more, similar to how if it’s not brighter, then it is darker, or if it is not drier, then it is wetter. Less pleasure/relief, more suffering.

So procreating equals irresponsibly creating an addiction with no guarantee of fulfillment.

There is also a secondary argument against procreation, which is that you cannot get consent from an unborn child to create it.

When is it important to ask for consent?

I think the best answer is whenever you are exposing someone to some kind of risk of future harm, unless of course you are by doing so preventing a greater harm, easy example: shooting Hitler although he didn’t explicitly consent to it.

It is important for me to ask for consent, whenever I have doubts about what I’m going to do for someone else. So for example, if I want to steal your money and go to a gambling house, the only condition under which this could be made acceptable again is if I can 100% guarantee that I’m going to win the gamble or somehow I’m preventing more harm by stealing your money and taking it to the gambling house.

If I already knew you liked money, I can win the billion dollars, you’re not going to object to the end result, then I may proceed without asking you first, I already know the end result is going to be a win.

If I want to give someone surprise anal sex, the condition under which this could be made acceptable is if I can 100% guarantee they’re going to be into it later on. If I definitely knew they would appreciate it, they’re not going to object to the end result – then I may proceed without asking them first, but if there is any shadow of a doubt, I need to ask if it is being consented to first, I must not assume implicit consent without great evidence.

So I wouldn’t say that asking for consent is in itself always important as some kind of sacred rule, ultimately it is still the harm/suffering that matters,but here we have the problem procreation.

When procreators are about to procreate, it is fair to say that they cannot 100% guarantee a win.

The child could get a disease.
The child could be lonely.
The child could become addicted to drugs.
The child could randomly get struck by lightning or hit by a bus, be crippled for life.
The child could die in some unpleasant way one day.
The child could at all be dissatisfied, like I already pointed out at the beginning.

So to procreation, there is risk, that is undeniable, and on top of that, you also couldn’t argue that we’d be worse off if we stopped procreation, I don’t see how greater harm would befall anyone unless you could somehow argue that there’s some kind of unborn purgatory where people are suffering from not existing.

So we need to ask the unborn child for consent first. How do we do that? The answer is, we cannot do that, so what do we do when there is risk of colossal failure and no ability to get consent? We do not proceed, I cannot break into a random girl’s house while she’s asleep and stick my dick in her ass in hopes that she’ll appreciate the surprise anal sex afterwards.

Here reckless procreators frequently have a different idea all of the sudden:

”I can’t ask for consent, so I don’t need to! How am I supposed to get consent from an unborn child you fucking idiot???”.

So that means they don’t get it, the point isn’t that there is an unborn antechamber where you could have contacted the child and asked for consent, the point is that explicitly stated consent becomes an important priority whenever we are exposing someone to a colossal risk of harm to prevent no greater harm, this applies in the case of procreation, so procreation cannot be justified unless you could ask for consent.

When you procreate, you:

Create harm/suffering, i.e someone will now have basic needs that constantly have to be fulfilled, it makes them suffer whereas if we didn’t create someones anymore, there would be no harm/suffering.
Risk that they won’t be able to fulfill their needs, thus suffer even more intensely.
Don’t have a guarantee that they will be alright with the ticket they pull (consent).

Consent isn’t the only factor here, but I could argue that you not even knowing whether or not the person is going to like their circumstances is even worse, factor 3 here just makes it even worse in a sense.

Again, we can also find scenarios where it is possible to ask for consent, but I would think you wouldn’t need to, if you know you can double my life savings in a gamble, you no longer need to ask me for consent because you’re sure about the end result being a win so I’m going to be alright with it, if I know you always want a dick up your ass, I don’t need to ask anymore, I know you’ll be alright with it.

Similarly, we can give examples of everything that will have a negative effect on a child once it’s born, where we cannot adequately obtain consent beforehand either, because the child hasn’t been born yet.

For example, if I’m about to bring a child that’ll be severely disabled and suffer chronic pain every single day into existence, I also cannot ask the child for consent to be born before it is born, so does that make it alright to not abort that child just because I could have not gotten the consent to put it into a condition of chronic excruciating pain?

What if I want to give a fetus cancer?

Let’s say that’s just my fetish, I inject cancer into fetuses and that child will grow up to deal with cancer, I jerk off to that kid dying of cancer. I cannot ask the unborn child for consent to do so, so does that make it alright to proceed and give the child cancer, even though I don’t know whether or not the child will be fine with that later on?

If we go with the standard of reckless procreators in this scenario, i.e ”I don’t need consent if I’m unable to get it” – then it would be perfectly acceptable to birth a child that’ll do nothing but be severely disabled and in chronic pain every day, by this standard, it would be perfectly acceptable to fulfill my fetish of injecting cancer into fetuses, creating cancer cripple kids.

By this standard, we could justify giving a fetus any sort of disease that we want.

Chronic pain, AIDS, cancer, deformities, etc, doesn’t matter. If I could deliberately make a deformed, chronically pained child with cancer, would that be justifiable simply because I was unable to ask the fetus for consent beforehand?

I couldn’t have possibly asked them whether or not they will be fine with this later on, so I did it anyway, because I don’t need to ask for consent if I am unable to do so, that is the standard natalists are putting on the table.

But if they don’t like it, they can just kill themselves! So they have a choice, take it or leave it!

Often the last retort when you point out that creating a child carries a risk of the child being dissatisfied with life. And it’s true, if the child doesn’t like life, they can still kill themselves later on, just like in any other given scenario where I failed to ask for consent though.

If you really don’t like that I lost all your money in a gamble, you can still commit suicide. If you really don’t like that I broke into your home at night to give you surprise anal sex in your sleep, you can still commit suicide. Don’t like that I drunk drove over your legs? Kill yourself faggot, I’ll never stop selfishly taking risks at someone else’s expense.

When someone wants to kill themselves, it’s already too late, you already harmed them, so excusing the imposition based on the fact that the victim can still commit suicide later on isn’t an argument.

Not to mention, many procreating life supporters do not truly support the right to die for everyone including children, although it would, unlike their selfish behavior, not carry risk of future harm to the child, if you’re put to sleep you’re never going to regret it later on after all, you’re dead.

But they don’t like that, they want to force any child that doesn’t agree with life being a gift to pretend that life is a gift, otherwise they will deny the reproduced victims their freedom required to exit from life, it’s a circularly justified conclusion – the person is assumed to be mentally ill because they want to end their life, and it is assumed that they want to end their life because they are mentally ill, it’s circular logic.

So it’s not like these imposers even give their victim the freedom to exit, this is more like I break into this girl’s home and give her surprise anal sex, and if she doesn’t like it, she technically has the right to commit suicide.

Intelligence, maturity, consent.

Consent at its core implies agreement and wanting, for your desire to be in accordance with something or not, I offer to give you a cake, you consent, agree, want it, or you don’t consent, you disagree, you don’t want the cake. A simple enough concept.

You cannot consent to get raped or be a slave, that would be what we call an oxymoron, because it innately implies unwanted sex, what might be meant by ”wanting to get raped” is that you want someone to have sex with you who doesn’t care whether or not you want to have sex with them, but ultimately you still wanted the sex, so it wasn’t truly non-consensual.

A common argument against having sex with children/minors, or also mentally handicapped humans of similar intelligence or non-human animals (beastiality) is that they cannot consent, because they are unintelligent and immature.

Intelligence and maturity of course have nothing inherently to do with consent, you can consent to, agree to, want to do things even if you are stupid and immature. A child can disagree to eat broccoli, a child can agree to eat ice cream instead. A dog can disagree to go for a walk outside, a dog can agree to take a shit in the garden instead. Every conscious organism can agree to, want things, or disagree to, and not want certain things.

The argument to my understanding is really about whether or not we should allow children, the mentally handicapped and other animals to consent to certain things, because they may lack the intellect and maturity to make decisions in their best interest and appreciate future ramifications and consequences of their actions, they may be vulnerable to certain harms and risks.

The problem here is the idea that sex is innately dangerous, risky, harmful, so parents don’t want to allow children to agree to sex, whereas in reality, it is not inherently dangerous, risky, harmful, so there would be no reason to not let children agree to it. I would argue:

P1: Intelligence and maturity are required when the act has a clear risk of future harm.
P2: Sex does not inherently contain a clear risk of future harm.
C: Not all sex inherently requires intelligence and maturity.

Whether or not you need the ability to understand future consequences is entirely dependent on the future consequences of the act.

Here we can use differing examples to make this point in both sexual and non-sexual contexts. Let’s say a child isn’t able to understand traffic rules yet, but this child wants to ride a bicycle. Can this child consent to ride a bicycle?

Depends on the environment and consequences would be the answer. On the freeway, no, the child shouldn’t be riding the bicycle, but in a safe and harmless environment with no traffic going on inside it, it’d be perfectly fine.

We can allow the child to ride the bicycle in a safe environment, but we shouldn’t allow it on the freeway. Now let’s use a sexual example, let’s say a child is sexually curious, found out about the existence of sexual pleasure and wants to experiment with it, but is too immature to understand sex education and take it seriously. Can we allow this child to consent?

Again, depends entirely on environment and consequences.

Would it be a good idea to let such a child go to have unprotected anal sex with 100 strangers in a row despite not even knowing what an STD is?

No, of course not, we can entirely agree with the anti-pedo folks here that that would be a bad idea. But would it be bad to let such a child hump the leg of a pedophile they know and trust? No, because that would be a harmless scenario, there’s no risk to that that the child may fail to appreciate due to their childishness, so it’d be perfectly fine to allow that.

Similarly, we can use such examples in the context of disabled people.

Can a severely intellectually handicapped person that wants to play with blue marbles but has a tendency to swallow them (and fail to comprehend that this is unhealthy) consent to play with blue marbles?

Depends on the environment and consequences. Alone in their room with no one at home? Probably a bad idea, probably shouldn’t be happening. But under the supervision of someone who makes sure once in a while that they don’t swallow the blue marbles? Fine, no problem, they can consent.

Now let’s use a sexual example again.

Let’s say there’s an adult woman on the mental level of a 5 year old child that doesn’t understand sex education, but it is clear that she wants to someone to stick his dick in her pussy. Should we allow her to have sex? Again, depends on the environment and consequences.

Should we sell her out on the streets to have an unprotected threesome right away? No, bad idea. But let’s say she finds a partner, and he’s willing to stick it in her, and he takes care of the contraception process. Then why not? No problem, she is consenting to receiving the sexual experience, and the risks she doesn’t comprehend are no longer present, there’s no need to comprehend them.

You only need intelligence and maturity to understand potential negative future consequences of your actions, if those potential negative future consequences actually even exist.

We don’t forbid children to eat broccoli, and that is because there is no great foreseeable future consequence to eating broccoli that this child may feel bad about later on, so anyone who would screech that children can never consent to eat broccoli and you should be put in prison for giving a child broccoli would sound insane, but there is an age restriction for alcohol, and the idea there is that while a child may agree to drink a bottle of whiskey, they may not appreciate the risk of harm that it later on imposes on them, so they didn’t really agree to all aspects of it.

Some also call it a difference between simplistic and informed consent.

So simplistic consent would just be the ”I want something” statement/indication which a child, mentally handicapped person or even non-human animal can do, informed consent refers more to also understanding the consequences and ramifications of wanting and agreeing to things.

Then the argument would be as follows:

P1: Clear risk of harm requires informed consent.
P2: Sex does not necessarily have a clear risk of harm.
C: Therefore, sex does not necessarily require informed, but only simplistic consent.

So what I’m arguing is mostly to take away from this is that if you are interacting with someone who is less intelligent, less mature, has impaired foresight – there’s extra responsibility on you to make sure that the individual is not harmed by anything you do, because they may not be able to take care of that by themselves, but that doesn’t mean they are fundamentally incapable of consent. In that sense you could even argue that it’s sometimes even better if a young girl who is still somewhat irresponsible would have sex with an older man rather than someone her age, on her maturity level, who would equally be too irresponsible to use a condom, since that is often a concern parents have.

The adult has to make sure the child that doesn’t understand traffic rules isn’t riding the bicycle on the freeway, the caretaker has to make sure the retarded person doesn’t swallow the blue marbles, and similarly a pedophile would have to make sure they are not subjecting the child to some undesirable consequence of a given sex act. Adults already do this with children in other aspects of life, so I don’t see why the same reasoning shouldn’t consistently be applied to sexuality.

This idea that children can never consent to sex is based on the assumption that sex is automatically, inherently and always dangerous/harmful, so no one feels comfortable with allowing less intellectually equipped individuals, like young children, the severely disabled or non-human animals have sex – this becomes apparent when they then like to bring up dangerous scenarios where children supposedly consented to do certain things but have to be stopped by adults because they were endangering themselves, they use these examples to invalidate the idea that we should let children consent to anything, or take their consent seriously.

”So what if a child consented to run across the streets without looking left and right???”

If this is happening in a dangerous environment where the implication is that the child would definitely get hit by a car, then obviously, the child did not actually consent to run across the street at all, because the act of running across the street encompasses getting hit by a car, so obviously if the act ”crossing the street” encompasses ”getting run over by a car”, and the child in question does not want to get hit by a car, then the child did not consent to run across the street.

The question to these pedophobes here should really be – what is the harm in sex that the child always fails to see (due to their childishness)?

They never want to allow a child/minor to agree to sex, even if we eliminate all potential harmful factors. It’s true that we don’t always just allow children to do whatever they think they want, but that is because there’s usually some kind of danger to it that the child/minor may fail to see.

Why should I think that sex is so inherently dangerous that a child should never be allowed to have it? Why should one believe that?

Let’s say the child found out about sexual pleasure on their own by humping their pillow, they were not manipulated, blackmailed or forced to hump the pedophile’s leg. The pedophile didn’t do anything to the child that the child did not want, like penetration, the child cannot get an STD or get pregnant, no such risky sex act was performed.

Now where’s the risk of harm that requires the child to be a rocket scientist first in order to be able to circumvent it?

In these examples that they give to discredit the idea of a child consenting, they always smuggle in some kind of later on harmful consequence that will befall the child, like the child running across the street and then getting hit by a car, or the child refusing to get vaccinated and then dying of small pox – so I would agree with them that if there is such a harm to an activity that the child wants to do or not do, the child shouldn’t be allowed to do it.

But what is the harm to sex, why should I assume sex is per se harmful? Why would a child agreeing to sexual pleasure necessarily result in harm to the child? There is nothing inherently about sex that makes it so that whenever you have it under 16, 17, 18 (or whatever is considered to be the particular holy age), it would automatically result in pain and trauma, there are acts I’ve listed like voluntary leg humping that don’t carry any significant risk of harm, so it’d be non-sensical to suggest that one needs to have high intelligence or maturity first before they consent to it.

Possible pedophobe answers might be:

”The child could regret having sex later on!”

That is true of every activity a child, minor or even adult could possibly engage in, including riding a bicycle or eating ice cream, so we cannot allow the child to do anything by that standard, they could always regret it later on. I see no reason to think sex what be particularly regrettable unless society started to make a big deal out of it.

”There are still social consequences that the child might not be equipped to deal with yet!”

True, there are certain social consequences to sex between the child and the pedophile that the child might not be equipped to deal with, like being hysterically screeched at by everyone around them how they got raped, forced to have sex, when they really were not forced at all, which confuses the child, plus they witness their partner being ostracized and arrested – a lot of unnecessary drama.

Those consequences definitely exist, but society is responsible for creating them in the first place, they are not innate to the sexual encounter, so if they appeal to those self-created consequences, they are just committing an argumetum ad baculum fallacy – it’d be like saying children can never consent to buy ice cream, it’s harmful, because we live in a society where we burn people alive in front of children for selling ice cream to them, and children aren’t mature enough to deal with that possible traumatic consequence yet. Don’t wear a red hat, it’s harmful, because if you wear one, I’ll cut your head off and set you on fire.

So again, in that case the social environment can be expected to be safer for the less intellectually equipped/less mature individual, why not? Why should they insist on inflicting harmful social consequences after such an act, if the act itself wasn’t harmful?

”I don’t care, the child is still emotionally undeveloped and immature, so the child can NEVER consent, period!”

That is just blind dogmatism at that point. If it’s just per se wrong to have sex with a child just because that child is unintelligent and immature, it’s also wrong to do anything else, e.g. hug children non-sexually or give them ice cream, because the child has the exact same level of IQ and maturity while they’re eating the ice cream as when they’re having sex.

P1: It’s wrong to have sex with children/minors because they don’t have fully developed brains and/or cannot consent.
P2: Children/minors don’t have fully developed brains and/or cannot consent.
C: All social interaction with children/minors is always wrong, not just sex.

If it’s just per se wrong to have sex with a child because they are unintelligent, undeveloped, immature, then it is just as wrong to give a child ice cream because they are just unintelligent, undeveloped and immature when they eat ice cream. If a child can never consent to sex because they are unintelligent, undeveloped, immature, then a child can likewise never consent to eat ice cream because they are just as unintelligent, undeveloped, immature when they are offered ice cream. It’s logical consistency, if you like apples because they have a round shape, you must like oranges because they have a round shape.

You actually need to specify why intelligence and maturity are prerequisites for all sex acts, not just say ”they are unintellligent and immature”, because their level of intelligence and maturity is exactly the same in all other areas of life, so if that makes sex with them wrong/unethical, then it makes all other interactions with them wrong/unethical, logical consistency 101.

In conclusion, I would say you only need to be intelligent, developed and mature when you want to engage in acts that carry a significant risk of future harm, sex is not necessarily an act that carries a significant risk of future harm, so sex does not require you to be intelligent, developed and mature by default, a child/non-human animal/mentally handicapped person on the IQ level of a dolphin can perfectly consent to sex under many circumstances.

No one would forbid a child to consent to eating broccoli (or go as far as to say they are somehow intrinsically unable to consent), because they recognize there is no harmful consequence to eating broccoli that this child fails to understand due to their childishness.

The reason why pedophobes won’t allow children to consent to sex is because they already falsely believe sex is intrinsically harmful, based on irrational feelings of disgust and repulsion towards pedophiles, leading them to conflate harmful cases of child sex (where coercion and violence were involved) with harmless cases of child sex (where no coercion nor violence were involved), so they reach the false conclusion that it is innately impossible for a child to consent to sex.

Why I reject the child/underage sex taboo.

NO EVIDENCE FOR INTRINSIC HARM AND TRAUMA, INTRINSIC VS. EXTRINSIC, SOCIETALLY MANUFACTURED HARM.

There has always been absolutely zero evidence that sex in childhood/youth in and of itself causes trauma, intrinsic (an important keyword here) harm, there are arguably certain cliché factors that could make it harmful that pedophobes automatically think of when they even hear the word pedophilia, such as:

Manipulation.
Blackmail.
Force of any kind.
Early penetration.
Early impregnation.
STD exchange.
Violent abduction, rape and murder.

But nothing says that any of these factors inherently apply to all cases of sex between minors and adults, society is simply disgusted by these relations and therefore fails to adequately distinguish between the harmful and the harmless ones.

There is in fact evidence that suggests children are harmed by these other factors when they feel traumatized after a sexual encounter rather than by sex itself, e.g. Rind et al. as an obvious example, or feel traumatized long after such encounters when they come into contact with society’s negative views on the sexual encounter they had, e.g. The Trauma Myth by Susan Clancy, it can be hard for scientists to talk about these topics in public because it puts them at risk to be publically ostracized by psychotic pedophobes.

This paper is a review of previous works and thus offers no new concepts; the apparent absence of harm in sexually expressed child/older person relationships has been attested to as far back as 1937 (Bender and Blau 1937) and 1942 (Menninger 1942).

C.A. Tripp asked “What is the mechanism {for transmuting a benign childhood sexual experience into harm}?”, noting that “victimologists have never provided one that is scientifically credible;” (as reported by Bruce Rind in personal communication 2002) and Kilpatrick (1987) also posed the question: “What has been harmed – the child or the moral code?” (p. 179).

Bailey (2011) observes what is to him “a surprising… lack of scientific evidence” (p. 3) for these claims. Clancy (2009) proposed that at least initial trauma is a “myth,” and noted that she “cannot offer a clear theoretical model as to exactly how and why sexual abuse damages victims” (p. 142).

Constantine (1981) described the effects of intervention based on this assumed/assigned harmfulness as “psychonoxious” (p. 241).

However, as Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998) point out, since the late 1970s a large number of mental health professionals have claimed that all sexual interactions between children and older persons “… cause harm, {that} this harm is pervasive,… {is} likely to be intense,… {and} is an equivalent experience for boys and girls…” (p. 22). However, no path or mechanism is offered as to how these sexual interactions actually cause harm.
https://www.brongersma.info/The_missing_mechanism_of_harm_in_consensual_sexually_expressed_boyhood_relationships_with_older_males

It’s just like some spiders are venomous and therefore dangerous, and some spiders are not, but because you find spiders disgusting anyway, you put both spiders into the ”dangerous” category.

Pedophobes feel disgusted by the idea of a child having sex anyway, so they throw the 6 year old girl voluntarily humping a pedophile’s leg into the same category as the 6 year old girl getting abducted and brutally raped, disgust can scare you away from a non-dangerous spider or pedophile.

In and of itself, there is no reason why a child would be traumatized by sex if they found out about sexual pleasure on their own by humping a pillow and now want to receive it by rubbing themselves against an adult’s leg – no manipulation, blackmail, violence required, nothing later on done to the child that the child is harmed by (like anal penetration or impregnation), unless society reacts negatively to it. Why would that be harmful? There’s no explanation of that mechanism, because it does not exist.

If you want to claim that sex in childhood is intrinsically harmful, point out to me in detail why such an encounter of a 6 year old girl voluntarily humping a pedophile’s leg would be harmful if she has not been in any way manipulated, blackmailed, forced into it and the pedophile did not brutally rape her later on, point out how magically trauma will poof into existence out of the great nowhere for no tangible, scientifically explicable reason whatsoever, even if society simply didn’t react negatively to such an encounter.

It is vital to be able to show a mechanism of some sort. Example, with alcohol, we can directly show how it alters your liver, no doubt about it, alcohol can cause liver diseases, independent of which society you live in at what point in time. Now what about sex in childhood, can you show me that a child will feel harmed by voluntarily having an orgasm even in a society that is perfectly accepting of children receiving orgasms?

Pedophobes are engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here – B happened after A, therefore, B was caused by A. A child had a harmless sexual encounter, the child is traumatized at some point long afterwards because of secondary harmful factors, which can include society’s negative reaction to the sexual encounter, therefore, harmless sexual encounters cause trauma.

”The child left the house while it was raining, the child was wetted by the rain, therefore, leaving the house causes the child to be wetted.” – is this proper logical reasoning? No.

A child has a harmless sexual encounter with a pedophile, the pedophobes then inflict negative consequences onto the child and the pedophile as they fail to distinguish between harmless and harmful cases due to irrational feelings of disgust/repulsion, such as:

Separating the child and the pedophile.
Screeching hysterically at the child how they supposedly got molested.
Sending the child to a similarly delusional therapist.
Socially pressuring the child to ”accept their rape” or be labelled as delusional.
Telling the child they now ”lost their innocence”, implying they are guilty.
Tormenting/beating the pedophile in front of the child.
Making the child feel responsible for sending the pedophile to prison.
Telling the child how their partner is now going to get assraped in prison.

Then, the pedophobe confuses the harm they cause for harm caused by the harmless sexual encounter between the child and the pedophile, concluding that orgasms under 18 (or whatever holy age they were socially indoctrinated into believing is the only correct one) causes lifelong trauma and depression – a faulty conclusion.

As neurologically typical humans are predisposed to act as social copying machines who largely care about how they perceived by others, it is no wonder that children who engaged in such initially harmless encounters then frequently grow up to parrot the ”I got raped” – narrative when they grow up in order to be accepted by their primitive tribe.

When nothing helps, they also like to appeal to the consequences they themselves are at fault for creating.

When all this is pointed out to them, they then frequently like to commit the argumentum ad baculum fallacy and say that even if the harm/trauma is caused by the social consequences (that we inflict on children and pedophiles), it is still a consequence nonetheless, so there’s still no excuse for having sex with a child/minor, as they will be harmed either way. It doesn’t matter if the harm is just caused by society reacting negatively to the encounter, because society does react that way after all!

This is a catastrophically idiotic argument, considering that the harm is caused by them and could be easily eliminated by them no longer reacting in this fashion to such encounters between children/minors and pedophiles/adults.

It would be like saying if you sell a child ice cream, although selling ice cream to children might not be inherently harmful, if you do so, I’m going to castrate and shoot you in front of the child because I’m an anti-ice cream bigot who thinks everyone who sells ice cream to anyone under the age of 18 should be violently murdered, so therefore, you harmed this child by selling it ice cream, because in response to it, I cut your nuts off and set you on fire in front of the child, thereby traumatizing the child. See, it’s all your fault.

Why should a society have the right to make a harmless activity into a harmful one?

It’s blaming the victim just like any other bigoted nazi would do, no better than a rapist saying you can’t be a whore or else he’s going to rape you, or a homophobe saying don’t be a faggot or I’ll beat you, just that the pedophobe is saying don’t be a pedo or else I’m going to traumatize a child by beating you up in front of the child for giving the child an orgasm, don’t make me harm the child by harming you and by extension the child with my psychotic bigot meltdown in response to you giving a volunteering child a perfectly harmless orgasm.

HIGH INTELLIGENCE AND MATURITY ARE NOT PREREQUISITES FOR GIVING CONSENT.

It is untrue that children are fundamentally incapable of literal consent, agreement. Any conscious, sentient organism can be agreeable or disagreeable, children have preferences, almost everyone has seen a child spitting out food they didn’t like before or buy ice cream, I could argue even a dog can consent to go for a walk outside, the function of agreement and disagreement, attraction and repulsion exist in every conscious organism.

What is true though is that children are until a certain age indeed less intelligent and mature than adults, but there is no reason to think that this inherently disqualifies them from consenting to sex, which is what pedophobes would like to think.

A good word to use here is foresight and/or future concept, the ability to plan and think ahead, calculate future consequences and ramifications of actions. The point is that whether or not you need great foresight in order to consent to an act is entirely dependent on the future consequences of the act we are discussing.

If there is no innate, foreseeable harmful consequence to an act, a subject does not need great foresight, intelligence and maturity.

For example, let’s say we have a child subject that wishes to ride a bicycle, despite not understanding traffic rules yet due to their lack of intelligence and maturity. Would it be ethically responsible to allow this child consent to ride a bicycle? Can they consent? The answer is that it entirely depends on the environment and its consequences.

On the freeway? No, there is a potential negative consequence, i.e getting hit by a car that the child is unable to take into account yet, so they are disqualified from consenting.

In a completely safe, harmless, child-friendly environment? Yes, because there is about absolutely zero chance that they’ll get hit by a car anyway, so in a completely safe and harmless, child-friendly street, even a child with no ability to understand traffic rules is perfectly able to consent to ride a bicycle.

There is no age restriction for children eating broccoli, but there is an age restriction for children drinking alcohol, and the general idea there is that even if a child consents to drink a bottle of whiskey, they may not consent to the future consequences of that act but might not be able to appreciate that, whereas with broccoli, there is no such risk, so there would be no reason to prevent the child from consenting to eat broccoli.

Similarly, using the simple concept of logical consistency, we can apply the same reasoning to sexuality. If there is no innate, foreseeable harmful consequence to a sex act between a child and a pedophile that the child fails to see due to their childishness, then there is no reason to disqualify the child’s consent as ”somehow not real consent”.

So let’s use a similar example in a sexual context. We have a child subject that wants to receive sexual pleasure, but is too unintelligent and immature to grasp sexual education.

Would it be responsible to allow this child to have sex? Depends on the environment and consequences, just as with the bicycle example.

If the situation is sufficiently devoid of harm risk, i.e the child humps a pedophile’s leg, no risk of STDs or pregnancy involved, then there’s no logically detectable problem, if the child does something that exposes them to STDs despite not even properly understanding what STDs are yet, like having unprotected anal sex with strangers, that would be bad.

P1: Dangerous activities require foresight (ability to understand future consequences).
P2: Sex is not necessarily a dangerous activity.
C: Sex does not necessarily require foresight.

And of course again, pedophobes will sometimes appeal to the social consequences that they themselves are creating in response to such sexual encounters, i.e ”children can’t consent because there are just social risks amd consequences the child isn’t able to deal with yet!” – but obviously the answer to this is simply to abolish those social consequences, rather than to abolish a harmless sex act, again, it’d be like saying children can never consent to buy ice cream because I’m an anti-ice cream bigot who’ll burn you alive in front of a child for selling them ice cream.

”They could regret having sex later on!” might also be a concern, but that isn’t a fair risk to name, because that can literally be applied to every single interaction anyone ever has, so by that standard no social interactions should be allowed at all.

The reason why pedophobes think children need to be intelligent and mature to consent to sex is because they believe sex to be harmful (based on their irrational feelings of disgust) so in order for children to consent to it, they expect them to be rocket scientists first, even when the sex act in question is completely non-dangerous like leg humping.

It is equally ridiculous as not allowing a child to ride a bicycle in a safe and harmless environment just because the child isn’t competent to drive a car on the freeway yet, intelligence and maturity are not per se required for it to be possible for a child/minor to be agreeable.

We generally allow children to do what they want, as long as it has no secondary consequence that they may later on not want, resulting in harm to them, such as eating broccoli but not drinking alcohol. Pedophobes falsely believe that sex is one of those things that will later on always turn out to be harmful, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when they react negatively to it.

POWER DIFFERENCE DOES NOT EQUAL POWER ABUSE.

It is true that in certain areas, depending on what we are measuring, adults are more powerful than children, though it does not even apply to all areas of life.

It is irrelevant if adults are more powerful than children, because the existence of power in and of itself does not equal abuse. If a child voluntarily does garden work for an adult for a little extra pocket money and someone comes around the corner and accuses that adult of blackmailing a child into slave labor in his garden, they need evidence for that claim, the fact alone that this adult has authority does not mean that the child was forced to work.

When it comes to sex however, these critical evaluation skills shut down, and pedophobes see the fact that a given adult, be it a teacher or not has power over the minor as evidence that if sex happened between the adult and the minor, it must be the result of power abuse, no doubt about it.

Adult has authority over 15 year old, 15 year old however completely voluntarily does garden work for extra pocket money – not abusive.
Adult has authority over 15 year old, 15 year old however completely voluntarily sticks penis in them – somehow abusive.

Father has physical strength advantage over 6 year old daughter, 6 year old daughter consents to be lifted up by him – not abusive.
Pedophile has physical strength advantage over 6 year old girl as well, 6 year old girl consents to ride on his leg – somehow abusive.

This is a case of hypocrisy we are dealing with here, ”power imbalance simultaneously does and does not make an interaction abusive.”

The existence of power does not equate to abuse of that power, and in most other contexts, pedophobes are perfectly capable of recognizing that the possession of power is not the same thing as the abuse of power.

They only fail to recognize it in the sexual context, and this is because they most likely live in a delusional disney fantasy world where they want to believe that their 15 year old daughter is an asexual, innocent princess whose sexual impulses are all triggered by some kind of malicious pedominati propagandist fooling her into thinking that orgasms are totally not harmful, when in reality they obviously cause PTSD for life when you receive them under 18, 17, 16 or whatever may be the holy age they have been indoctrinated into thinking is the only correct one.

They already made another false assumption, which is that children are asexual, innocent (sex=guilt) angels that would never possibly want sex (that’s too icky of a truth to accept, OMG children can perform basic biological functions like producing excrement just like adults, this is unacceptable!), and they base their assumption that if sex between a minor and an authority figure happens on that first fundamentally false assumption that manipulation must be used to get a minor to have sex.

Someone can have sex with you in spite of their power, e.g. although I have a gun and have power over you, you want to suck my dick completely regardless of the fact that I own a gun.

Or, someone can also feel aroused by the power, but not abused by it, this can apply in cases where young girls might look up to an idolized musician or someone like that, but this doesn’t mean that 12 year old girls only want to suck Justin Bieber’s dick because they’re scared he’s going to kill them, so you could also suck my dick because you are aroused by guns, not intimidated by them.

Both are possible, so the power itself does not equate to abuse. If it does, then any interaction where there’s a power imbalance involved, not only sexual ones, are by default abusive.

In conclusion:

I don’t think there is any rational reason for upkeeping this backward taboo against sex in childhood and/or youth, or sexual relations between children/minors and pedophiles/adults, it is in the end just like all other bigotries a result of disgust and fear of the unknown, not truly rational thought.

It is barbaric pro-suffering non-sense, no better than having some kind of other non-sensical taboo, pick any other object and make it into a taboo, like candy.

Anyone who gives anyone under 18 candy will be violently harassed by society for the child that received candy to see, the child will be sent to a therapist and socially pressured to say they were forced to eat candy at knifepoint by the evil candy distributing monster.

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.

Age, sex and maturity.

One of the favorite arguments that people make against sex between adults and children and minors is obviously that children/minors can’t give consent.

My basic response to this is that that’s an absurd claim, consent mostly just means agreement, willingness and any conscious, sentient organism can be agreeable or disagreeable, children agree to do things or disagree every single day.

Almost everyone has seen a child reject food they didn’t like before, even a dog can simplistically consent to eat food or go for a walk outside. If you are conscious, you can agree and disagree.

What they really should say is children lack intelligence and maturity, a greater foresight, i.e ability to plan and think ahead, understand consequences and ramifications of actions, this is true of children until a certain age at least.

But that wouldn’t necessarily be an argument against having sex with children/minors, because a greater future concept is only required dependent on the future consequences of the action we’re discussing, you don’t need to be able to think ahead when you’re partaking in an act that is pretty much harmless/negative consequence-free anyway, so all that’d need to happen would be for the risks of harm in the sex act between the child/minor and the pedophile/adult to be eliminated.

So an example I use is often even if a child doesn’t understand traffic rules yet, that doesn’t mean they can’t consent to ride a bicycle – it depends on the environment, in a safe and harmless environment it would be irrelevant how great their maturation and ability to think ahead is, on the freeway on the other hand, it would become a problem that the child is acting immaturely, the child could get hit by a car.

So it’d be rational to forbid said child to ride their bicycle on the freeway, but it’d be irrational to forbid it in a safe and harmless environment where it has about zero chance of being hit by a car anyway.

Similarly, there would be no reason to say that just because a child isn’t able to plan ahead or even understand much sex education yet, they couldn’t consent to sex.

So let’s say a child does find out about sexual pleasure through the exploration of their genitalia, then reach the conclusion that if it’s fun to rub themselves against a pillow, it would also be fun to rub themselves against someone’s leg, but this child is not too intelligent or mature yet, they don’t really understand much about sexual education and future risks of different sex acts yet.

Is this a problem? No, because in that situation, these risks that the child doesn’t understand don’t even exist, so there’s no need to understand them, you don’t get pregnant from leg-humping, the activity is low-risk to risk-free essentially.

So what’s to take away from this is that whether or not you need a great future concept is highly dependent on the consequences of your actions, lack of foresight is irrelevant if there’s no risk of harm, pedophobes misguidedly expect children to be able to give ”informed consent”, even when there is absolutely no particular negative risk in that situation to be informed about to begin with.

It’s just as ignorant as not allowing the child to ride the bicycle in a safe environment just because it couldn’t drive a car on the freeway yet, they’re overcomplicating the act, so they think you need to be a rocket scientist to participate in it.

Intelligence and maturity are required when there is a clear, foreseeable risk of harm to the activity you want to engage in, sex does not necessarily have such a risk of harm, so you don’t always need to be intelligent and mature in order to have safe sex.

This should be simple enough to grasp, but often times this is not enough, it seems as though the person has some kind of strict puritanical standard and starts to argue that consequences don’t even matter anymore, they keep insisting that it’s just PER SE, always wrong to have sex with the child/minor because the child/minor doesn’t have the ”right” degree of intelligence and maturity yet, so they can never consent by their twisted definition of consent.

”They can’t consent!”
”The brain develops until 25!”,
”Children are NOT fully developed!”

These are standard phrases they just regurgitate ad nauseam without putting any real critical thought into it, because it would lead to a pretty absurd conclusion, which is that ultimately all interactions between children and adults are bad.

If:

P1: It’s wrong to have sex with the child/minor because they are unintelligent, undeveloped, immature.
P2: The child/minor is arguably just as unintelligent, undeveloped, immature when they do anything other than sex.
C: All interaction between adults and children/minors is wrong.

Or:

P1: It’s wrong to have sex with children/minors because they can’t consent to it because they are unintelligent, undeveloped, immature.
P2: Children/minors can’t consent because they are unintelligent, undeveloped, immature.
C: All interaction between adults and children/minors is wrong.

If it’s just fundamentally wrong to have sex with the child as the child supposedly can never consent to anything due to its undeveloped brain and immaturity, then obviously there’s no reason why this can’t just as easily be applied to anything else a child could ever do.

It is proposing a general standard, as they’re saying that the reason why it’s wrong to have sex with the child is exactly because it isn’t fully developed yet:

P1: Interaction requires a fully matured brain.
P2: Children don’t have one.
C: It’s wrong to interact with children.

Saying it’s only wrong to have sex with children due to their undeveloped brains and emotional immaturity but it’s ok to go and eat ice cream with them in spite of their undeveloped brains and emotional immaturity just sounds like special pleading to me.

It’s like saying if you smoke marijuana, you should be arrested because it’s against the law, but when I drive a little too fast, I shouldn’t be arrested although it’s against the law too, if it being against the law is the characteristic stated to make the act wrong, then obviously both are wrong.

If it’s wrong to have sex with children because they are unintelligent, undeveloped, immature, then it’s wrong to do anything else, like go eat ice cream with children as well because they are just as unintelligent, undeveloped, immature when they ingest ice cream.

Whether or not sex and ice cream are the same thing is completely irrelevant, it’s called logical consistency, we’re just discussing the attribute you put on the table as a justification, which is lack of emotional maturity in this scenario, that supposedly matters, even if it’s a danger-free sex act like leg humping where you don’t need to be intelligent to protect yourself against some kind of risk.

This would lead to an actual violation of children’s consent and interests in the real world, because what are we to do if we can’t interact with the child if it’s fundamentally bad because it doesn’t have a fully developed brain yet, what option is left?

”The brain isn’t fully matured until 25!!!”

Ah, so what are we to do, lock the child into a basement until 25, keep it chained up there until its brain is fully developed to the point where it can perform consent, to prevent it from being horrifically violated by every single social interaction it ever partakes in?

Or in the context of beastiality or sex with the mentally handicapped (as they use that same argument in that context as well) exile all non-human animals and mentally handicapped humans on their IQ level into a forest somewhere to prevent them from being similarly horrifically violated by participating in social interactions with agents of a higher capacity to process information and sign contracts? They can’t sign a contract in human language so every interaction with them is therefore equivalent to rape!

By this sort of argumentation, if having sex with a child/minor is simply innately wrong because they don’t have the ”right” degree of maturity, we have essentially two choices:

Lock the child away until the child is fully matured. Absence of consent makes an interaction wrong, and the child cannot consent ever, because the child is immature.
Reject their notion that one needs to be fully matured to engage in an interaction.

This would be the outcome of their delusional belief system, which would ironically result in a massive violation of children’s consent (as in, their real interests, their will) in the real world that they don’t even have any logical consistency with anyway, they just likely don’t even think about it, there would effectively be no way to not violate them by everyday interaction, every interaction with a child is a violation by that standard.

If they reject the notion that full maturation is per se required for an interaction, then we’re just back to the first issue, why do they think that full maturation is required for sex in particular as opposed to other activities that are roughly equally risky, like riding a bicycle?

They might try to cop out of this again afterwards by saying that even if children can’t consent and aren’t mature yet, we still have to make decisions in their interest and it’s ok as long as it doesn’t harm them, this rule about maturity and consent doesn’t truly apply to everything.

But obviously, then they also simply forced themselves back into the position of having to explain why they think that having sex fundamentally goes against the child’s interest and harms them, so that doesn’t work out too well for them either.

So even if someone wants to argue that consent is completely impossible, the fact of the matter is that we still socially interact with children, so they think that it is acceptable to socially interact with children despite them being unable to give consent, as long as we act in their best interest, and then they have to explain why they think that every single sex act a child could ever partake in is harmful, i.e goes against their best interest.

If they say that it goes against their best interest and harms them because they can’t consent again, that obviously can’t be the case, since they already said that children can’t consent to other things either but it’s still acceptable to interact with them in non-sexual manners.

This has the potential to become circular, if they just want to insist that it is harmful because the child is not able to consent, and therefore it is harmful, and it is harmful, because the child is not able to give consent but cannot explain why, the pedophobe is simply guilty of employing circular reasoning at that point.

The child can’t consent to sex! Why? Because sex with children is harmful! And why is having sex with children harmful? Because the child can’t consent, so it’s harmful!

I think it’s obvious that their delusional point that you need to be a rocket scientist before you engage in any sort of sex act is deep down based on some kind of intuition that sex is simply in some way intrinsically dangerous and harmful (as almost none of them would really argue we should keep a child in the basement until it’s matured), which they utterly fail to demonstrate.

No one would argue that a child shouldn’t be allowed to eat broccoli because the child isn’t fully matured yet so that must mean they cannot consent to eat broccoli, that’s because they recognize that the ingestion of broccoli is likely not going to have some kind of harmful consequence in the future for the child, so there’d be no reason to prevent the child from consenting to eat broccoli. But they would prevent the child from agreeing to sex, because they falsely believe that sex in childhood is intrinsically harmful.

It goes back to the fundamental first issue, they are just disgusted by the topic of children having sex, so they think of all the bad things that could happen and that they subconsciously associate with sex in childhood – manipulation, blackmail, force, anal penetration, STD exchange, impregnation, and then project that prejudiced version (of what they think a sexual relation between a child/minor and an adult would look like) onto every case of sex in childhood they see, failing to draw a distinction between harmful and harmless cases of sexual experience in childhood.

Intelligence and maturity are only important factors if there’s some kind of risk of harm to the act that you may fail to understand, if it’s a harmless act, which sex can perfectly be, then it’s completely irrelevant that the child is not a rocket scientist.

But pedophobes falsely, intuitively believe that sex in childhood is a harmful act, so of course they think the child needs to be a rocket scientist to partake in such highly dangerous activity that is in reality probably even less dangerous than many other things we already allow children to do, like riding a bicycle or playing certain sports.

And if you want to claim that it is simply always wrong to have sex with a child/minor due to their lack of maturity regardless of the future consequences of the act we are discussing, just literally because they are unintelligent and immature, then this of course has to be applied to all other activities as well or it just becomes a special pleading fallacy, lock the child in a basement until the brain is matured, because the child is certainly just as undeveloped and immature when they are eating ice cream as when they are having sex, so you should be just as concerned.