Tag: sex

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

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

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

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

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

Some examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I think people really hate incels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

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

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

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

And then second of all, the just world fallacy. 

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

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

We believe in Karma – assuming that the downtrodden of the world must deserve their fate

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

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/10/12/what-are-we-like-10-psychology-findings-that-reveal-the-worst-of-human-nature/

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

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

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

Good video on this subject: 

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

Richard ‘the Night Stalker’ Ramirez was a thief, rapist and serial killer who got a kick out of breaking into strangers’ homes and murdering them in the mid-1980s. He also worshipped Satan, so not the kind of guy you want to bring home to meet your parents.

Well, to most people he isn’t; Cindy Haden – a juror at his trial – somehow fell head over heels for him and bought him clothes and a Valentine’s present. I didn’t think Satanists celebrate Valentine’s Day but what the hell do I know?

Naturally Richard was convicted, but once in prison women from all over lined up to visit him. Guess they liked the whole bad boy thing – and they don’t come much badder than being a Satan worshipping mass murderer! Richard loved the attention and played them off against each other to make them jealous. He eventually married one of these super fans in a prison ceremony before dying of natural causes in 2013. 

To many women, Ted Bundy’s chiselled features and charm overshadowed the fact that he brutally killed at least thirty women and was a known rapist and necrophile.

These confused fans worshipped the notorious serial killer and flocked to his trial. One of the women, Carol Anne Boone – or, as she prefers to be known, Head Crazy – even married Bundy during the trial and went on to have his kid.

It didn’t end with his trial. While Bundy was incarcerated, he received two hundred letters a day from his loco fan club – many of whom thought he was innocent. Even today, years after his execution, a new generation of followers is obsessed with him, perpetuating the Bundy legend.

http://www.planetdolan.com/10-serial-killers-with-obsessive-groupies/2/

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

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

Alternative ideas to current age of consent systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 1:

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 2:

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

Josephine successfully challenged the order and the court ruled that as she is over 14 her own wishes have to be taken into account, Bild reported.

The Higher Regional Court Brandenburg ruled that Josephine risked “serious damage in her social-emotional and mental development” if she was prevented from further contact with the uncle, who lives in Berlin.

It was stated that the teenager expressed her desire to continue her loving relationship in a “purposeful and strong” way, which the judges felt was a very deliberate decision which had to be observed.

The 15-year-old was considered “mature enough.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2108399/german-court-rules-parents-of-15-year-old-girl-cannot-stop-her-having-sexual-relationship-with-her-47-year-old-uncle/

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

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

Option 3:

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

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

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

Do you know what bribing is?

Do you know what blackmail is?

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

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

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

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

http://youthrightsradical.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-rmsc.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4: Social mimicry, as with anything else.

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

On each of five trials, each child was asked to watch carefully as a demonstrator showed how to retrieve a toy from a box or build a simple object. Importantly, each demonstration included two necessary actions (e.g. unclipping and removing the box lid) and one unnecessary action (e.g. tapping the top of the box twice).

The box was then reset behind a screen and handed to the child, who was instructed to “get or make the toy as fast as you can.” They were not specifically told to copy the behavior they’d just seen.

Investigators discovered almost all of the children successfully reached the goal of getting or making the toy, but typically developing children were much more likely to include the unnecessary step as they did so, a behavior known as overimitation.

Those children copied 43 to 57 percent of the unnecessary actions, compared to 22 percent in the children with autism. That’s despite the fact that the children correctly identified the tapping action as “silly,” not “sensible.”

https://psychcentral.com/news/2013/04/09/autistic-kids-tend-to-imitate-efficiently-not-socially#2

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

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

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

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

Lower hanging fruit arguments against intergenerational/pedophilic relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No?

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

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

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

Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Necrophilic sex/sex with corpses.

I don’t think you can really argue that necrophilic sex is inherently wrong/bad.

First off, obviously I don’t believe that it is possible for a corpse to get raped, the concept of raping an inanimate object is idiotic, which is what a corpse is.

Corpses are inanimate objects, they cannot want or not want to have sex, so while it is true that it is sex without consent, it is sex without consent in the same way that sex with a sex doll or banana peel is sex without consent – how do you violate something that is not sentient?

You can say that when there was a person, they wouldn’t have liked it, so this would violate their preferences/interests…if they still existed, but they don’t exist anymore, so they are not being violated, their preferences/interests no longer exist, this is complicated and too abstract for many people to grasp I believe.

If someone wishes right now that I throw their ashes in the sea, am I violating them by throwing it in the trash? I would say technically no – the violation would technically lie in showing that I’m disrespectful of their wishes whilst they are still alive, making them believe that it might not be respected, thus causing them distress, but the person itself once they are reduced to ashes is not literally being violated by having the ashes dumped in the trash can, because that person no longer exists.

So sure, I believe you can argue that there’s a practical reason why we give people the right to choose what may happen to their corpse – because if we took that right away from them, it’d make them feel bad while they’re still here, but the idea of harm to the corpse itself is idiotic, the corpse itself cannot be hurt any more than a table or a chair.

Am I committing sexual harassment against my chair by putting my ass on it? No.

The conditions under which I would think necrophilic sex would be justified is if 1. you either obtained consent prior to death or 2. you do it so secretly so no one’s negatively impacted by it either way anyway.

If the person consents before they die, I see it no different from allowing them to make any other choice over their dead body. You can choose to be cremated or buried, you can choose to donate organs, I think you should also allow someone with an interest in eyeballs to collect your eyeballs or donate your corpse to a taxidermist, or to a necrophile who wants to use it for sex…why not?

In that case, the counterargument might be it’s offensive, fine, but many things offend people and we also see it as the lesser of two evils to urge them to not judge and castigate others based on those feelings – of course a homophobe can just as easily argue that they are horrified and devastated by imagining their son having gay sex…or that you’re offended by a nudist area where they have sex in public, so I don’t think this is a good point in and of itself to allow their feelings of offense to dictate what you can and cannot do.

Some might then say but being a necrophile would be a mental illness. This is of course often circular – you’re mentally ill for wanting to do x, and you want to do x because you’re mentally ill, which is also the same reasoning a homophobe would use to explain why being gay is an illness. You’re ill because you want to suck cock, and you want to suck cock because you’re ill.

But let’s go with assuming that rather than just being attracted to corpses for whatever reason (maybe they just find corpses pretty, who knows?), there is some kind of distress involved, the people attracted to corpses are all attracted for some kind of power-related reason, like wanting to control something and have a mindless partner, so we might say supporting that behavior is unhealthy…well, would it not be more unhealthy to let an egomaniac like that practice on sentient beings that can actually be hurt?

Would it be wrong to let someone buy a sex doll, because if they buy a sex doll, their wish to have a mindless partner they can control is not eliminated either? They still have that same unhealthy fetish if they are fucking a sex doll then, so does the government need to step in and force those that buy sex dolls for such a reason (like wanting to control and dominate something) to undergo therapy?

You might say it’s just unhealthy in general. Fine, I’m sure there are some ways to protect against that, I’m not an expert on corpsefucking, but also, alcohol and cigarettes are unhealthy too, so by that standard all the unhealthy things we have the right to do should be illegal.

Another way to do it would just be to do it secretly, so then that problem wouldn’t exist either way.

You can argue it is tasteless in a sense, sure, you could say if someone really cares about the American flag, I’m an asshole to jizz on their flag…or if someone really cares about their sex doll and pretends to be in a relationship with it, you’d be an asshole to jizz on it.

I’m just saying I still wouldn’t see it as that big of an offense if it’s done secretly and no one ever found out about it. If I never find out someone jizzed on my flag or fucked my sex doll because I wasn’t around and they cleaned it perfectly – can we really say I’m harmed/hurt? It’s a bit of a stretch, it’s a property violation that was never noticed.

So in conclusion, although a corpse itself cannot be hurt, I think you can argue there’s some utility to letting people choose what to do with their corpses, but if selling it to a necrophile is ultimately their choice, then so be it…and if it happens secretly it’s not really that big of a deal either because it’s not like you’re secretly harming someone else and no one finds out – it’s more like only them finding out would be the harm, but since the corpse itself is not harmed it stays harmless, it wouldn’t be like secretly keeping a sentient being in your basement and raping them, which would still be harmful even if no one found out about it at any point.

My disagreements with feminists.

In and of itself, I see no problem with feminism if it is just meant to be anti-sexism, a subset of sentiocentrism, similar to anti-racism or anti-speciesism.

Rights should be granted based on suffering-capacity. I think the problem is whenever someone identifies anything except sentience/consciousness as the characteristic worthy of ethical consideration, whether that is race, nationality, sex, species, family membership, etc.

I know I want rights to be granted to me based on the fact that I can suffer, if I couldn’t, it’d be irrelevant, I won’t have any use for rights once I’m permanently braindead and can’t feel anything.

So once I accept ”I have rights because I’m sentient” and people with different skin colors, genitals, from different countries or families, and of course also farm animals and all animals in the wild are also sentient – I have to put them into the same category of organisms that have rights – they’re also sentient, and sentience is the category based on which I grant myself rights.

If I say I have a right not to be tortured only because I have brown eyes, then if that’s the case, I ought to look out for everyone that has brown eyes, that is simply consistent. If I don’t, I’m a hypocrite. But I know it’s not my brown eyes, it’s the fact that I can suffer.

Human females can suffer, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to include them in the category of organisms that have rights. Why not?

But many of those who call themselves feminists would not accept this type of reasoning, most of them have some kind of problem with a purely consequentialist stance and tend more into the dogmatic direction of sex-negative feminism or plain misandry, female-supremacy. By the vast majority of these people, you wouldn’t be considered a feminist if you simply accepted the viewpoint that rights should be granted based on suffering-capacity.

This similarly happens in the vegan community, a purely consequentialist stance is sometimes rejected as insulting or objectifying of animals, and instead of only focusing on the real issue of animal suffering, some of them are against things that don’t even cause harm, like eating leftover animal remains from a dumpster. And I’d argue in the feminist community, this type of irrationality is even more widespread, the vast majority of them care about things that don’t matter and it simply becomes an anti-male club.

  • List of disagreements to follow.

1: I’m not against prostitution.

They frequently believe that it’s wrong to fuck a whore because if you didn’t pay her to fuck her, she wouldn’t do it anymore, which means that it is unwanted sex, i.e rape. By this ”logic” I could just as easily argue that if I didn’t give a baker money to bake bread for me, he likely wouldn’t do it in his freetime anymore out of pure willingness to bake bread for me, so therefore, if I go to a bakery, I support slavery.

See? A buzzword. ”Slavery”, immediately makes it sound much more dramatic than it is, painting the picture of me holding a gun to someone’s head and forcing them to bake bread for me, that is how sex-negative gynocentrists love to present all prostitution as. Ban all work, it’s slavery.

Ultimately, there’s a little kernel of truth to it, you could say it would indeed be better if we could just get whatever we want without having to endure any discomfort for it in a perfect utopian scenario obviously and the baker wouldn’t have to bake bread either, but I don’t see how you can judge prostitution as inherently worse than any other job just because it involves sex, it’s clearly a double standard.

Similarly, they think that it objectifies women, and means that you can buy women. It does not, you are buying a temporary sexual encounter, not the prostitute. It is similar how when you receive a professional massage, you are not ”buying someone’s hands”, yes, you are renting a massage, but it’s not as though you can now just chop their hands off, put them in your bag and take them home with you.

But again, that is the picture sex-negative gynocentrists want to paint of all prostitution. If you’re willing to have sex for a self-determined amount of money, you’re always a slave.

2: I’m not opposed to sexual relationships between minors and adults.

I am against rape and other than that truly reject all notions of a true sacred age as an irrational religion. If sex is wanted, regardless of age, I see no problem with it. It is bad to manipulate and force children/minors to have sex, that harms them, yes, but the problem in that case is the use of manipulation and force, the aspect of involuntariness, not the sex itself.

If the sex isn’t against their will (as in, no manipulation or false pretense used to make the minor do it), I see zero problem with it, the only problem here is that delusional feminists live in a fantasy world where even a 17 year old one day under the true holy age is seen as an ”innocent” (sex=guilt somehow?) infant that only puts the dick in her mouth because the evil pro-rape society has fooled her into believing it’s candy.

They often believe that sexual relations between children and adults are wrong, because there is an unequal power dynamic present in such relations in (I would say some), they would say all cases. A 30 year old man has authority and power over a 15 year old girl, so if they have sex, it’s rape, it’s abuse of his power. Power=abuse. Always! Inherently somehow!

What they completely neglect to take into account is that the fact that power exists does not mean that it has been abused to force the other party to do a certain thing. Power imbalances exist in all areas of life, that does not mean an encounter was non-consensual just because there were different levels of power between the two parties.

For example, if a minor does garden work for a little extra pocket money for an adult, and then some guy came around the corner and accused the adult of forcing a child to perform slave labor, you can’t just believe that, you’d ask for evidence for such an assertion.

Did the adult threaten the minor? And if not…why exactly is a minor doing garden work for some extra pocket money an issue? If someone told me ”he’s forcing children to hug him” I wouldn’t understand it as ”the child agrees to hug him, it’s just that he is stronger, so therefore it is NEVER consensual, period!”…I would imagine someone forcing a child to hug him.

Now when it comes to sex, sex-negative pedophobe gynocentrist imbeciles do not ask for evidence, they simply assume that obviously, if a young girl were to have sex with her teacher, it must be the result of the teacher having said ”suck my dick or you get a worse math grade”, can’t be any other way.

3: I don’t support banning the free usage of any type of pornography, including pornography depicting real rape.

Some believe we shouldn’t legalize watching freely available child/underage pornography, because ”children have to be abused to make it”, ”children cannot consent”, ”it depicts sexual violence”, etc. I would say this is not true in all cases across the board of course, but even if it were true in all cases, this is still a completely hypocritical argument.

If porn depicting sexual violence is banned on the basis that children (or anyone) cannot consent and have to be abused for it, then so should holocaust pictures, 9/11 footage, gore videos, like ISIS decapitation, infant genital mutilation or shaking videos also be banned and penalized the same way as the viewership of such pornography is.

I compare this to the freeganism debate in the vegan community, more dogmatic people are opposed to the idea of picking leftover animal products from a dumpster and eating them, although you did not pay anyone to harm a cow for you, so you didn’t really harm anyone, it’s just gross.

Sex fascists think even if someone did not financially support the production of rape porn, they should still go to jail for viewing it, although we never see anyone protesting against the continued legality of gore videos or holocaust pictures, and I think this is sometimes again simply because they hate male sexuality.

I believe they often simply have a subconscious bias against men who are attracted to young girls, they hate heterosexual male desire to fuck young girls in particular, meanwhile they barely spend any time thinking about a necrophile jacking off to a picture of a non-consensually decapitated cadaver, it’s not even on their radar that such people exist.

4: I don’t think female circumcision is inherently worse than male circumcision, I think both can be pretty bad.

It depends on how and what you’re cutting. Some cultures cut off the foreskin, some cultures cut the entire vagina open. Some cultures cut off some skin around the clitoris, some cultures cut the entire penis open and then stick their penises in that cut open penis.

If we’re talking about cutting off a foreskin in the western world vs. some kind of female circumcision ritual in Africa, it’s true, male circumcision is less bad than your entire vagina being destroyed – it depends on what is done.

However, we don’t want to fall victim to the fallacy of relative privation, to ”not as bad as” argumentation. Fact is, it’s still painful, and has the chance of desensitizing the glans, making it harder for the male to find sexual relief – something feminists of course think is a joke, any suffering that is of a sexual nature is to be ignored and downplayed.

But let’s put it like this: most feminists are against both vaginal and anal rape.

I would argue if you randomly raped a girl anally, it would be worse than doing it vaginally, because anus is probably tighter so it’s more painful.

Does this mean vaginal rape is now perfectly fine? It’s less bad than anal rape, so it’s fine. Getting your foreskin cut off with unnecessarily with some anesthesia involved is less painful than getting your entire vagina hacked off with no anesthesia involved, so there, getting foreskin cut off is perfectly fine.

Or take rape vs. sexual harassment as an example, rape is worse than sexual harassment, but this doesn’t make sexual harassment good.

5: I’m not pro-choice, I think abortion is ultimately an ethical obligation (antinatalism).

I think it is fundamentally bad/irresponsible to create desire. I think it would bad to force someone to become addicted to heroin by injecting them with it in their sleep, now think of a hypothetical scenario in which it were possible to inject other random desires into organisms, desire serum.

I have a fountain spraying desire serum, any possible desire I cannot see beforehand, from the desire to stare at a red painted wall to the desire to brutally rape hamsters. I take the serum and non-consensually inject it into people’s veins in their sleep. Is this action ethically permissible? I would argue no, and from there on you should be able to understand why I oppose procreation, you are creating a crazed pleasure addict with no guarantee that they will be able to get their fix, a desire machine.

Eat or hunger, drink or thirst, shit or constipate, breathe or suffocate, etc. The basic mechanism of sentient existence is pleasure/relief must be obtained or you will be subjected to continued suffering, and when you create the addict, you have no guarantee they will be able to always find relief, this is irresponsible, creating need with no guarantee of fulfillment.

Procreation is just the creation of a desire machine, it’s not too different from injecting this hypothetical serum into people.

No guarantee how tormenting the desires will be, no guarantee how long lasting the fulfillment will be, no guarantee that the desires can be adequately fulfilled, no guarantee that they can be fulfilled without harming someone else in the process.

And even if a given victim of procreation succeeded at always fulfill all their desires, the fulfillment of their desires still would not have been missed by them if you never created/reproduced them in the first place, there is no evidence for the existence of an unborn purgatory where all these non-existent people are bothered by their non-existence, so I fail to see why their happiness should justify the suffering of others.

The deliriously happy child receiving their christmas gifts wouldn’t have missed those gifts if their parents didn’t create them, so their happiness doesn’t justify the other unlucky child dying of leukemia before christmas, I don’t think you have a right to create torture victims for happiness that is impossible to miss.

  • This is also a rather great disagreement about the problem of involuntary celibacy/loneliness between feminists and me.

Feminists generally think sexless men who dare to speak up about their frustrations are in all cases evil rape supporters and are quick to tell them something along the lines of:

”You’re not entitled to sex!!! Even if the girl says she would have sex with you for money because then she doesn’t want the sex, just the money, UNWANTED sex is rape, so if you go to a bakery and buy bread you support slavery because the baker wouldn’t bake the bread for free!!! So prostitution should be illegal too because I simply hate sexually unsuccesful men and want them to suffer as much as possible!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Whereas I’m saying that yes, it shouldn’t be allowed to rape, in that sense you’re not entitled to sex, but you’re still an asshole for supporting the creation of the desire to have sex with no guarantee of fulfillment, which is what you’re doing when you don’t identify as antinatalist, but pro-choice instead, you think injecting the tormenting need for connection and sex into someone with no guarantee of fulfillment is justifiable, so you’re pro-harm, somewhat similar to how some puritan conservative might think non-sentient fetuses must not be killed, but they have no right to not live in poverty afterwards, you’re only entitled to desire not to be poor.

The rest is on you, we inject you with the desire liquid and then you can go fuck yourself.

If you know that when you create a desire machine, there’s a chance they will not be able to fulfill their desires and that there would be no harm if grievances on their part if you just didn’t create them, then you’re an irresponsible cruel asshole for still creating it, it’s better not create that desire, or you are basically admitting to being pro-torture, ”I impose burdens on others, I don’t care, it’s on them to solve those burdens I impose on them”.

Let’s say someone desperately wanted ten arms, that wouldn’t justify them cutting everyone’s arms off and attaching them to him, but if I had a liquid that made it so that if I inject it into you, you will crave having ten arms, then I would be an asshole for injecting it into you.

In conclusion, if feminism just meant anti-sexism, I’m on board with that, but the vast majority of people who call themselves feminists would not accept that, they think I’d have be a bigoted nazi who discriminates against prostitutes, children, minors, pedophiles, viewers of whatever porn it may be (I don’t care as long as it’s for free in case it is abusive porn, so you don’t create demand for new abusive porn, if it’s not abusive you can pay for it too), think genital mutilation isn’t a big deal and support pro-natalist, pro-suffering policies like women’s supposed right to create suffering by creating conscious lifeforms in order to be a feminist, so for the most part I simply just say I’m a sentiocentrist and negative utilitarian at this point.

On the incest taboo.

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

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

Incest can perfectly happen between two consenting adults.

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

The incestophobe argument roughly goes like this:

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

P2 – Contraception does not exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Some examples of this general rule:
  • A child wants to eat broccoli, and broccoli is not going to harm the child in the future, resulting in the child no longer wanting the broccoli? Society allows it.
  • A child wants to drink a bottle of whiskey, but it might result in them later on getting sick from it and going to the hospital? Society doesn’t allow it.
  • A child doesn’t want to get an injection that is vital to preventing a dangerous, painful disease? Society still forces the child to get the somewhat painful vaccination, because it will prevent even more harm long term.
  • A child doesn’t want to have anal sex with their abusive uncle? Society doesn’t force the child to still do it, because they recognize it’s not going to save the child from a worse harm, like the potentially painful but necessary vaccination, so that can’t be compared.

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

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

So let’s analyze this somewhat more in detail:

  • Do children/minors want to have sex?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this wrong?

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

Why is this wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

”We have to draw a line somewhere.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The problem is the same in all these situations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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