Can anyone explain why pedophilia is always dismissed as something unethical? Obviously the whole situation is impractical, (ie. adults are more knowledgeable and can manipulate or abuse children to get what they want) but from an ethics standpoint, what's "wrong" when both parties consent?
>>702450746 There isn't much argument that it fucks with a kid's head when they're exposed to sex at a young age. PTSD, suicide, and other mental disorders are directly linked with children and young teens having sexual experiences that they're not ready for.
>>702451019 raised a good point about why it's unethical, but in terms of how it "scars" child, do you think society is partially to blame? In any pedo-related stuff, even if it isn't abusive, people treat the kid as if something really bad has happened. Most people will just dismiss it and say, "well, it IS bad though; I'm just curious as to what really damages the child more: the sex, or the reaction to the sex.
Nothing is necessarily "wrong" with having a relationship with a 10 year old. There could be arguments presented claiming that the child doesn't truly understand "the consequences of consent", etc. At the same time, everyone is different; there are 10 year olds that are perhaps more mature and rational than 18 year olds in other countries. Laws and ethics sometimes overlap, but are not interchangeable. The arbitrary numbers chosen by your state or country doesn't really reflect ethics, but rather practicality. The possible complications of such a relationship is too high; no reasonable government would want to sort out pedo-relationships on a case by case basis. So instead, they choose a number typically between 16 - 19 and label that as the age of consent. Then you have people who can't differentiate law from "right" and "wrong" and quickly dismiss the idea of pedophilia if it breaks the arbitrary law put in place by fellow citizens X number of years ago.
In terms of whether it is ultimately the act that traumatizes the child, or society, it obviously depends on the situation. If you have some person who violently rapes a girl without consent, yeah, the act was traumatizing. If you have a 30 year old and a 10 year old who have a healthy relationship, and the child is immediately told what happened to him/her was a fate worse than death, then it is mainly society that traumatized the child.
>>702452335 You seem to imply there is a definitive answer though. I have chronic autism you see, so you can take my theory with a grain of salt. I believe that ethics isn't absolute; there is no true "right" or "wrong". These ideas are fabrications of the human mind. "Right" doesn't exist, "wrong" doesn't exist, "purpose" doesn't exist (although that is a different topic for another day). Everyone has their own code of ethics, and while you can use logic to point out the flaws of other codes (eg. pedophilia is unpractical to due to difference in experience), you aren't really "right".
You could say that love is simply a way to make our sexual desires come true in a way that fits into our society. I mean, shouldn't we as animals be fighting for the smartest and strongest mates and breeding with them to further the development of our species? Homosexuality and all that other shit doesn't fit in with nature though. I guess it's a construct of society to help keep the natural urges of humans in check.
>>702455694 >I just want to hug and cuddle with her nonsexually officer, I swear. This is OK >I only wanted to give her candy laced with sedatives to make the cuddling better, I swear officer. This is NOT
>>702455956 If you think the only way you can contribute to society is through who you fuck, then you're a really simple human being and aren't contributing in your own way by being recidivist.
Anyway, the whole 'love is love' notion strikes me as reductive. Love is love, sure, but not all love is the same. I think two cultivated people have more capability to love each other in a more meaningful way. An intellectual gay couple probably has 'deeper' love than a stupid straight couple, but the same is true the other direction, a smart straight couple can have more 'thought-out' love than a dumb gay couple.
As always, this should be looked at on an individual by individual basis, but no one wants to do that.
>>702455956 >Homosexuality and all that other shit doesn't fit in with nature though It's nature's reaction to overpopulation, which is what our planet is experiencing, and you're a dumb piece of shit human who doesn't deserve to pass on their genes, because you couldn't see homosexuality for what it's worth. You're a subhuman, who doesn't deserve to be loved, because your brain is dysfunctional.
Either that, or maybe we should all just go ahead and leave "what's natural" to nature, and quit telling the other guy if he deserves love or not.
Your choice, anon. But you don't get to be the smart one here. You're not Mr. Biological Poindexter.
>shouldn't we as animals be fighting for the smartest and strongest mates and breeding with them to further the development of our species? That's not even how most heterosexuals behave, though. Stupid, low-gene-pool people bang other deficient people with no regard for what it's doing to society, you have catholic spics pumping out entire litters of children they can't even afford or educate. The onus of banging for the betterment of society is not on gays, it's on straights. In a society where everyone was breeding with those who keep the pedigree of the human race, a dead end here or there wouldn't even matter.
>>702457540 >It's nature's reaction to overpopulation I'm gay and you're wrong. You're projecting human motivation onto nature. That's not how evolution works though. There is no intent, evolution just lets through any trait that doesn't wipe the species out. None of the species that exhibit homosexual tendencies have died out, so clearly it's not the evolutionary malfunction people make it out to be. It could be that it actually serves a beneficial purpose, but regardless that doesn't mean that it was employed with purpose or intent. It's not a 'reaction,' in fact the only 'reaction' evolution features is with those traits that are not conducive to survival, everything else is let to run its course on a trial basis.
>>702458820 If that were true than we'd see homosexuality to consistent ratio in any species verging on overpopulation, but notice how that doesn't happen.
And you're confusing yourself there. You're saying that more gays are showing up as natural counterbalance to 'function' somehow in overpopulation, but isn't the more simple explanation that more people = more gay people, to expected magnitudes?
I mean, me and my husband aren't going to be producing children, but your average latino catholic family has produced enough children to make up for that. Where's my part in assuaging overpopulation now?
>>702460358 >implying pedos don't realize that they are mentally deranged and scum of the earth. >implying pedos don't spend hours contemplating ending their lives on long, dark, lonely nights. Anyone who actually thinks that sex with kids is an OK thing is left-wing liberal trash that needs to be exterminated, and that's something coming from a closet pedo.
>>702460589 In one species, but that's not what I was talking about. Also, I made a point against that observation, anyway, but if your reading comprehension is a little rusty I'll repeat myself:
There are more gay people now because there are more people overall. More people overall has not willed gays into existence to somehow manage overpopulation (which we aren't, at all, it's still a problem), there are just more people in general due to overpopulation and so there are more gay people too.
>>702460805 sorry bud, I wouldn't hurt a kid just to fulfill a fantasy And blah blah, I understand one of you guy's arguments that not all love is the same, however here I do believe we are talking about sexual love. Damn they really need to come up with a separate term for that in English, didn't the Japs?
>>702444144 How come pink and blue are not valid races but orange and yellow are? This upsets and confuses me.
I mean let's delve deeper, you could say, and probably would say, that the blue indicates boys and the pink indicates girls but then, does that mean that the orange and yellow and neither, and if so what are they? Aliens?
Ohhh no, they're fucking foxkin or some shit, they've got pronouns out their asses, fuck, no, we have to stop this, spread the message /b/.
>>702461095 The burden of proof is on the positive claim. But your task is easy, because with very short googling you'll see that not all of the species exhibiting homosexuality are even overpopulated at all. There is zero consistency across species on this subject for you to make the claim that overpopulation strictly leads to homosexuality.
>>702461189 The Japs have words for all kind of bullshit. For me there are 2 kinds of love. The love your brain makes you have to reproduce like all the other animals. And the special kind of love that takes a very sophisticated brain to have that is unique to humans and maybe dolphins. Those fuckers play and make love all fucking day and night.
>>702461681 >Hahaha I am le smart fuck off, the English language has no two differentiating words for the separate types of love, that being Sexual and Kin-like. Sexual only hints at sex taking place, though it encompasses all attraction-based relations between two non-kin people (sometimes kin people too if you are kinky). Wew that was alot of speaking out of my ass, and it probably sounded like it, I need to go to bed, I am drunk.
>>702462034 For real. As a fag I'm sick to death of people adopting these pet arguments like this guy >>702461095 who just won't listen to reason. Homosexuality doesn't need an evolutionary function as mandate to 'excuse' it. Not everything in evolution even has an explicit purpose, but I guess pointlessness as a concept scares people. I really wish people could just stop caring about homosexuality at all. The opposite side is just as stupid, I'm sick of gay pride. You should have pride for something you achieve, that takes effort, and skill, and person-hood.
>>702462240 The thing is children do not need lovers. They need parents that want to raise them and care for them. They do not need a boyfriend/girlfriend. There shouldn't be a debate if pedophilia is right or wrong. It just shouldnt happen because its in the best interest of the children. Now we shouldn't keep them in the dark about sex and whatnot, it's just they do not need some adult being intimate with them.
>>702462921 What child on the planet Earth naturally wants a foreign object big enough to cause them pain to be forcefully inserted into them? You're fucking ridiculous. Pedophilia is wrong and your semantic games are just distracting from the fact that it's basic common sense.
It's easy enough to prove. Without bullshit psychological fabrications. It isn't easy to prove that pedophilia is destructive, unless you include bullshit psychological fabrications (that, again.. are not repeatable)... or focus on singular cases where abuse (ie - no consent) was involved.
>>702462921 How the fuck would a 10 year old know what she/he "WANTS" in a lover. It's best for everyone just not to fuck with it at all. And I would want a little girl to cuddle with and shit, I'm a pedo, but I would never do that shit because i WANT what's best.
>>702462921 >Adults don't NEED lovers, either. By what metric? I'm sure there are scientific studies that show it's more healthy to have a romantic partner. In that case it's pretty much a need. Or are our only needs food and water and air?
>>702463263 I agree with this pedo, as a pedo. I would never touch a little girl knowing that I would harm her and cause sever damage to her physically and mentally just to fulfill a fantasy. I would literally rather kill myself then let my inner animal take over. That's the reason I stay the fuck away from little girls. Seriously, liberals fuck off, as much as you think you are helping society and us, you really aren't. But then again the people arguing now are just trolls and pedos like me and this guy that realize our place in the world.
>>702463444 And you didn't follow through with any of it. If you had it wouldn't have been for the best. We have to ensure the best path for the kids. They are the future, a good start is to not make romance a big part of their lives. Wouldn't you agree?
>>702463444 When i was 10, i remember i really like one my sisters friend, she was like 14 or w/e. and you have many examples of girls about that age having romantic feelings about an older guy. Seems pretty natural. You should probably still don't fuck said young girl in the Ass. But i guess you can't stop Love. :')
>>702463790 You said virtually, which means there are no exceptions. Also, I don't care about other gays. I don't believe it to be the case, but if it were a fact that most cases of homosexuality were destructive, that doesn't erase the fact that my relationship is stable and meaningful to me, and shouldn't be put under scrutiny because of how other people lead their lives.
I've been in the relationship for 2 years, but I two of two other gay couples who are in some of my freiends' families who have been together 10 years and 20 years, and there are plenty of cases of gay couples that lasted a long time and were meaningful for the people in them. I think I would have a much easier time finding examples than you would for your fabricated scenario, off the top of my head the artist Meredith Monk was in a relationship with a woman until the woman's death in her late age.
So why do you allow interracial relationships? Integration? Homosexuality? Sex changes? At 8? How about religion? Why the fuck is that madness ok? Doesn't it bother you that your children are taught sex education in the early years of fucking elementary school?
You're a hypocrite. You have a clear bias against pedos, and you're feigning compassion in the interests of achieving your silly goals. It's just stupid.
Your children have far more to worry about. Getting off on the weekends would probably help them forget about all the other fucked up stupid shit they have to deal with because you don't give two shits about it.
>>702463790 >And your relationship probably hasn't lasted for very long. If that's your way of proving them wrong, wouldn't every straight couple who breaks it off quickly somehow proof that hetero is bad?
>>702464434 I am a pedo? I dont have a bias, I just understand that I shouldn't try to date little girls. I'm trying to convey that as accurately as possible. What's wrong with 2 adults of different races being together? Or the same gender? And I know religion is total horseshit. Why do you insist that everything would turn out okay if men/women chased boys/girls?
>>702462799 >Someone smart needs to make a new term for that in the english language They did. We use the Greek words for the various loves. It's just that very few people actually know them or would use them if they did.
>>702461756 >The burden of proof is on the positive claim.
You're on 4chan right now, and you're telling me to come up with positive proof that faggots are en masse? I will not comply.
I would have to physically come to your house, and shove your face into the screen you're looking at it, to help you notice that overpopulation is a reaction to overpopulation any harder, and I just don't have the energy for that.
>>702464667 Ah you're right. Can you demonstrate how they're mostly destructive then? >>702464833 Me here, because I'm a gay person outside of the relationship, and being gay hasn't destroyed my life, and I've been alive long enough to know. It hasn't improved my life either, it just is.
The Greeks feared that kind of love the most because it was dangerous and could get them into the most trouble. Eros is defined as divine beauty or lust. Eros is mainly based on sexual attraction and it is where the term “erotica” came from. 2. Philia: Love of the mind
Also know as brotherly love, Philia represents the sincere and platonic love. The kind of love you have for your brother or a really good friend. It was more valuable and more cherished than Eros.
3. Ludus: Playful love
Ludus is the flirtatious and teasing kind of love, the love mostly accompanied by dancing or laughter. It’s the child-like and fun kind of love.
4. Pragma: Longstanding love
The everlasting love between a married couple which develops over a long period of time. Pragma was the highest form of love; the true commitment that comes from understanding, compromise and tolerance. It is pragmatic this is why it is referred to as “standing in love” rather than “falling in love” because it grows over time and requires profound understanding between lovers who have been together for many years. 5. Agape: Love of the soul
It is the selfless kind of love, the love for humanity. It is the closest to unconditional love. The love you give without expecting anything in return reflected in all charitable acts. It is the compassionate love that makes us sympathize with, help and connect to people we don’t know.
6. Philautia: Love of the self The ancient Greeks divided Philautia into two kinds: There is one that is pure selfish and seeks pleasure, fame, and wealth often leading to narcissism and there is another healthy kind of love we give ourselves.
7. Storge: Love of the child This is the love parents naturally feel for their children.
I copied this from some hippy dippy site so take it with a pinch of salt.
So you really believe your life wouldn't have been better as a heterosexual man?
The AIDS? The lower life expectancy? The higher rate of child molestation, and developmental troubles? Higher domestic violence and abuse rates? Higher drug use and dysfunctional/criminal sexual behaviors?
Hell, they've found there is no underlying genetic propensity for homosexuality. It's not natural, you were turned gay by life events.. most likely a society that brainwashed you.
All those LGBT's suddenly coming out of the wood-work when it was the "in/cool" thing. Sigh.
How is being a pedophile a bad thing if you simply are just attracted to kids and have never had any intentions of sexually exploiting a minor?
Also while I agree pedophilia is definitely a no mans land and that any sexual relations with a child in that range is most likely exploitation, what about Hebephilia? Hebephilia is in a range where you can't say without certainty that a minor is incapable of understanding sex on a basic level. I mean look back about 100 years ago and kids in the 11-14 year old range were holding literal jobs. How can you say they can hold a job buy can't understand one of the most basic biological functions of our species?
>>702466064 >So you really believe your life wouldn't have been better as a heterosexual man? No. I can be whatever I want to be as long as I work hard at it, me being straight doesn't instantly guarantee me anything my hard work doesn't.
>The AIDS? I'm strictly monogamous.
>The lower life expectancy? I think that's factoring in fags with aids. I eat healthy and exercise.
>The higher rate of child molestation, and developmental troubles? Neither of those apply for me.
>Higher domestic violence and abuse rates? My relationship is violence-free.
>Higher drug use and dysfunctional/criminal sexual behaviors? I've never done a recreational drug in my life, and I've only had sex with one person, and am currently in a relationship with them.
>Hell, they've found there is no underlying genetic propensity for homosexuality. It's not natural, you were turned gay by life events.. most likely a society that brainwashed you. I grew up on literature; is that what brainwashed me? Nothing in my development I can think of could have turned me gay. If it had, why does that even matter?
>All those LGBT's suddenly coming out of the wood-work when it was the "in/cool" thing. Sigh. I don't care about the LGBT culture. There have been gays forever, some of them great philosophers, writers, musicians, etc. If your problem is with sexual deviants who are homosexual, cool, I don't like them either, just like I don't like sexual deviant heterosexuals. I'm not saying gay is good, I'm saying it doesn't matter either way.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.