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.

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.

”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.

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.

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.

Pedophobes and the argumentum ad baculum fallacy.

There is absolutely zero evidence for the hypothesis that sexual experience in childhood or youth is inherently harmful, there is at best proof that there is a correlation between sex in childhood and trauma in societies that are unaccepting of sexual relations between children/minors and pedophiles/adults, no proof whatsoever that sex in childhood or youth in and of itself causes the trauma.

Because pedophobes irrationally feel disgusted and threatened by the topic, they immediately think of certain harmful factors when they try to process it, like manipulation, blackmail, force, anal penetration, STDs, pregnancy, etc, which are all things that are not inherently connected to the act of having sex with a child/minor though.

Children have genitals and can obviously find out about the existence of sexual pleasure by exploring them on their own, without somehow needing to be fooled or violently coerced into doing so, there’s no evidence and/or reason to think it’s the result of some kind of evil scheme by some underground pedophile cabal misleading children through propaganda.

So if a little girl wants to simply experience the same pleasurable sensation from rubbing herself against a pillow by rubbing herself against a pedophile’s leg, and the pedophile isn’t some kind of violent psychopath that does something to her that she doesn’t want later on, like anal rape, there’s no evidence that such an encounter would be harmful to children unless society reacted negatively to it.

There is zero conclusive scientific evidence that children that voluntarily received sexual relief even in societies where pedosexuality was acceptable felt traumatized by sex, and there are zero reliable or coherent explanations from pedophobe professionals as to how this magical process of trauma just poofing into existence out of the great nowhere is supposed to work, even if the child initially engaged in the sex act without having been manipulated or otherwise forced into it and society simply stopped reacting negatively to it.

Pedophobes just like any other group of bigots assume that because they could prove a correlation between sex in childhood and higher depression rates in adulthood, it proves that it’s caused by the pedophilic sex act itself.

It is similar to how a homophobic bigot would assume that if they see some questionable study that says children of gay parents are more likely to suffer from depression, they assume that it’s directly caused by the fact that the parents are gay and definitely nothing else, the child is depressed because their father sucked a dick, not because the bigots are raising their children to harass children of gay couples.

It’s just a post hoc fallacy, correlation equals causation – B happened after A, therefore, A caused B. The child had sex, the child is traumatized by society’s negative reaction to it, so therefore, sex causes trauma, that’s the faulty idea here. The child left the house while it was raining, the child was wetted by the rain, therefore, so leaving your house causes you to be wetted.

When it gets to that point in the discussion, the pedophobes sometimes simply like to commit another fallacy to prove their point by then simply appealing to the extrinsic harm caused by the harsh social reaction that they themselves are creating in response to such sex acts and say something along the lines of:

”Even if having sex with children is not inherently harmful, in our society, there are still consequences to this perverted behavior either way, so it’s still just as harmful to the poor child in the end, they’ll feel ashamed later on! Why does it matter by what exactly the trauma is caused? No excuses!”

It is ultimately an argumentum ad baculum fallacy – because it’s an entirely self-created consequence. Instead of proving something to be harmful, society, which you are forming part of, is causing harm to someone for engaging in an activity you don’t like, then pretend that the activity they engaged in is harmful because you harmed them in response to engaging in the harmless activity, frequently followed with standard moronic phrases like ”don’t drop the soap LOL”, i.e if you’re a pedo, you get raped in jail, so therefore, pedo=bad.

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for “argument to the cudgel” or “appeal to the stick”) is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.^[1][2] One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one points out the negative consequences of holding the contrary position (ex. believe what I say, or I will hit you). It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

Let’s say you like to wear red hats. I don’t like that, so in response to you wearing a red hat, I cut your head off and set you on fire. Does this prove that wearing a red hat is harmful? No, it does not, it just proves that I harmed you in response to wearing a red hat, but it does not actually prove the wearing of red hats to be intrinsically harmful.

The pedophobe at this point in the discussion is just appealing to a consequence that they themselves are creating.

They pretty much admit that child sex is not intrinsically harmful, they just appeal to the consequences bestowed by the bigoted society they form part of, such as for example:

The child and the pedophile being separated.
The child being screeched at by their hysterical parents.
The child being sent to a similarly delusional therapist.
The child receiving strong social pressure to ”accept their rape”.
The child hearing they now ”lost their innocence” and this is a great problem.
The child seeing the pedophile tormented/beaten in front of them.
The child feeling responsible for the pedophile going to prison.

This is no better than any other bigot althroughout human history just using force and threat to explain why the behavior they are bigoted against is somehow bad.

Don’t be a homo or else I’ll beat you up for it, therefore, gay sex is harmful/bad.
Don’t be a whore or else I’ll rape you for it, therefore, prostitution is harmful/bad.

Just that the pedophobe is essentially saying:

Don’t be a pedo or else I’ll beat you up for it in front of the child you gave an orgasm, thereby traumatize the child, then attribute that trauma to the orgasm rather than my uncivilized primitive conduct, therefore, child sex is harmful/bad.

It is akin to a homophobe in Saudi Arabia arguing that even if the homosexual activity itself does not cause harm, when you, as a bigot, set the homosexuals on fire for having homosexual sex, they are still harmed by it, therefore, somehow the sex (rather than the consequences you inflict on homosexuals for having sex) is still harmful, so homosexual sexual relations ought to be outlawed because otherwise you’ll burn these faggots!

It’s ironically the argument of a rapist while pedophobes pretend to be so anti-rape, like saying you can’t go outside dressing like a whore, it’s bad, because if you do that, he’s going to rape you, this proves how harmful it is for women to not wear a burqa, there is a consequence for not wearing one, a consequence which the rapist himself is creating, which is that he’ll rape them for it.

It might even become circular reasoning, i.e it’s harmful to have sex with the child, because if you have sex with the child, we’ll harm you (and by extension through this whole drama the child too) by imprisoning you for it, and why do we harm you for it? Because having sex with the child is harmful, you sick pervert! – That would be circular.

As an example to illustrate just how absurd appealing to self-created, extrinsic harm to demonstrate that an act is harmful is, let’s say society acted about harmless sexual encounters between children and pedophiles about any other pleasure-seeking activity, like eating ice cream.

They all believe that because children don’t have fully developed brains yet, a child can never possibly consent to buy ice cream you sick monster, it’s a crime even if it really seemed like the child consented to taste the ice cream, that’s not real consent because they haven’t reached the age of consent yet where society has decided the child is allowed to consent to eating ice cream.

Whenever there’s an ice cream salesman and the child agrees to buy it, some psychotic lunatic father has a meltdown in front of the child.

”OMG this is my daughter you sick fuck, one step closer and I shoot! I don’t care that there’s no actual evidence whatsoever that eating ice cream in childhood in and of itself causes lifelong trauma, once I’ve beaten you pervert to a bloody pulp right in front of my little girl, she’s still traumatized, so that proves that ice cream is indeed very traumatizing, I’m doing this protect your precious wellbeing, little Suzie! You can’t consent!”

The child is then pressured by society to accept that they have been horribly wronged by having been sold exactly the ice cream flavor that they wanted, if they don’t, they’re just the poor dumb child that can’t understand how horribly violated it was by having been sold ice cream and the therapists won’t stop harassing her.

She also hears others joke how the guy that sold the ice cream is now going to prison and has Big Bubba shove his chocolate ice cream in his asshole, teehee, violent anal rape for a completely victimless crime harming absolutely no one, it doesn’t get any funnier than that!

At some point now, little Suzie is kinda sad.

Society concludes – ah see, ice cream is very harmful to children indeed! Doesn’t matter if selling ice cream isn’t ”intrinsically harmful” or any of this weird science and philosophy shit jargon, I’m a simple man, fact is, little Suzie is harmed, so no ice cream! NO ICE CREAM!

Has this society legitimately proven how bad the selling of ice cream is by harming the ice man in response to selling a child ice cream, have they made a great consequentialist argument as to why selling ice cream to children is always bad?

No, it hasn’t, they just demonstrated themselves to be primitive barbarians in need of psychiatric institutionalization that for some irrational narrative harm others in response to selling ice cream to children, anyone who has not been indoctrinated into their cult can fully see through their non-sensical notions of right and wrong behavior.

That they are in fact just suffering from a delusion that the selling of ice cream is harmful, and then attribute the harm that they cause in response to ice cream being sold to the selling of the ice cream rather than their uncivilized, backward, moronic behavior.

The vast majority of humans on this planet, neurotypicals, the neurologically typical are socially imitative animals that have a strong tendency to conform to many rules that are taught to them without questioning, this had certain benefits of social security at some point in our evolutionary history, but is also why humans can be indoctrinated into believing things that are completely disconnected from reality or fail to understand science like the earth being round, when their society keeps insisting that it is flat, it produces discomfort to go against their tribe.

Just like someone can be indoctrinated into believing that god is real but allah isn’t rather than to acknowledge that god is just as real as the easter bunny – someone can also be indoctrinated into believing that one particular age of consent, like 18 instead of 14 is the only correct one, and feel uneasy and repulsed whenever this delusional perception of their’s is challenged to any degree at all, although they most likely exactly see the delusion for what it is if they witnessed someone who believed in a special number that were even higher than their’s and thought that sex under 21 is never possible without resulting in harm later on.

Of course the lower we go, the more likely someone might be to be manipulated into having sex, the point is that it is being treated like a religion. Just because someone is more likely to be manipulated into sex, that doesn’t prove that when they have sex, it must be the result of manipulation, it could be, but doesn’t have to be, rape is the problem which can still be illegal regardless of the age of consent, but many pedophobes have a religious mindset in that they would pretend that all sex under the holy age is rape no matter what.

So does this problem apply to the ”victims” of ”rape” (wanting to get raped is an oxymoron, if it’s wanted it ceases to be rape) that they initially wanted to engage in when they were children, obviously, if a social animal is being put under excessive social pressure to pretend they got raped, then they will more often than not simply start to go along with the narrative to avoid being labelled as the poor, dumb rape victim that doesn’t even understand how raped it truly is.

Pedophobes would see their behavior for what it is if were to be manifested in someone else, like the hypothetical society that demonizes particularly selling ice cream to children, they would just as clearly detect that it’s not the selling of the ice cream itself that causes the harm, but the complete overreaction to it of sending someone to prison for it and pressuring the child to accept how it has been wronged.

Yet when a pedophile gives a willing child that discovered sexual pleasure and now wants to receive a pleasurable sensation in the form of an orgasm rather than ice cream (which is probably even healthier in the long run), they torment the pedophile in front of the child, then attribute the resulting trauma to the harmless pleasurable sensation of relief from sexual frustration rather than their fundamentally irrational, psychotic behavior.

Of course, you could even argue that because in response to ice cream being sold, the cult reacts in this violent manner, it might be somewhat negligent of the iceman to sell ice cream when he knows that the reaction has the chance of in some way emotionally harming the child from seeing the iceman being harmed in front of them, but the harm still lies in the reaction.

The social reaction doesn’t need to exist in the first place, so it would still be better to simply get rid of the reaction, just like in the cases of pedophiles and children exchanging sexual pleasure, obviously the real problem at hand is that you’re castrating and shooting people in front of children for selling them ice cream, not the selling of the ice cream itself.