Let's have a legitimate discussion as to the pros and cons of legalizing pedosexuality.
Why don't some of you like it? What is it about another's sexuality that makes you so angry? Is there anything you'd like to ask a pedosexual?
---Discuss---
OP, Are you a faggot?
Most prohibitions against result from the demonstrated inability of young children to execute effective decision making. The only reason we stop caring at some arbitrary age (age of consent) is because we expect them to wise up by then.
It would be easier if we had some sort of actual coming of age ceremony, but there you go.
go eat a pee pee big dumb
>>768155736
what exactly would the pros be?
>>768155736
I'd ask a pedo, were you abused as a child? If yes then I can feel sympathy. If not and the pedo had a happy normal childhood, I'd ask, don't you feel bad depriving another child from that same happiness and normal childhood that you had?
>>768155736
I'm a strong advocate for pedophile rights. The problem, like everything else in human history, is a lack of understanding. All humans are essentially good at heart - but when we don't understand someone's actions we attribute them to evil. This happens with:
>Nazis
>Jews
>Communists
>Capitalists
>Niggers
>Crackers
>Liberals
>Conservatives
>etc
We assign a name to a group of people so that we can dehumanize them, dissociate ourselves from them, and then justify extreme action against them (it's not like they're human, after all -- look, they're EVIL!)
This is what pedophilia has become. And no, I won't say "pedosexual". Because that sounds like more of the bullshit "demi-sexual pan-gender tri-spirit" nonsense pseudo-science bunk that has people claiming they're "triggered" every other day and going to war over using the wrong pronouns. It's not fucking pedo"sexual". It's pedo"phile" -- and that's not a bad thing.
Most of the reason people hate pedophiles stems from two things:
>Conflating the word (pedophile = large man who rapes 5 year old girls)
>Social signalling (look, I hate who you hate! Love me!)
The first is a broad and complex issue. When you assume that all pedophiles are rapists you ignore people who are attracted but un-involved. When you assume it's a male raping a female you ignore female pedophiles. When you assume the victim is 5 you ignore hebephiles and ephebophiles.
The second is simpler. EVERYONE has hebephilic urges (it's natural) but people repress these and pretend they don't happen, then act as if such urges are unnatural. It's like how no one admits they pick their nose even though 93% of people do it.
>>768155736
>What is it about another's sexuality that makes you so angry
It's the fact you guys want to fuck children you fucking idiot
Nothing against what you like, if anything you guys should get help
Your urges are not with scarring someone for life
age of consent vs age of majority
36yo can date and fuck a 16yo all and fine, but no pictures etc because of weird laws
Grass on the field? Play ball!
>>768156277
>>768156430
This is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say conflating. They assume that being a pedophile implies "depriving another child from [...] happiness and normal childhood". Why does being a pedophile instantly imply that you're depriving a child of happiness? That's absolutely absurd. Here's a grossly exaggerated but still effective counterexample:
>Suppose a child was beaten and had his limbs broken by his biological father
>The father was thrown in jail and the child was put into an orphanage
>You adopt the child, provide them medical care, feed them good food, give them an education, buy them nice clothes, move them into a large house in a nice neighborhood where they have tons of friends, buy them cool toys and a motorbike so they can show off to their new friends,...
>The child now has an incredible life because of you
>But you placed a hidden camera in their shower and you secretly masturbate while they're showering in the morning
>They never know, they're never harmed, and they grow up happy and blissfully unaware - having a great life all thanks to the pedophile
Sounds like a complex and far-fetched example that wouldn't happen in reality, but the mere existence of a counterexample serves as proof that a statement doesn't hold for ALL cases. So I've proven that not ALL pedophiles ruin children's lives. Now you need to find a better way to delineate which pedophiles are "evil" and which aren't.
>>768155736
this pic is so fucking hot
>>768156430
I didn't expect such civil discussion, you are a godsend my friend. Thank you for putting all that into words.
>>768156884
One of my favorites ~
Well, my cousin is about to do 10-25 because he couldn't just love his niece without getting creepy with her. I loved this guy and now he's out of my life and has thrown away his own for this. If he would have asked me, I would have paid for a hooker.
>>768156829
Would you consider a purely consensual relationship between an older individual and a younger individual still "harmless", like the example you gave? Or would you still consider it emotionally altering (not necessarily scarring)?
>>768157152
my too. pretending that i'm that femboi ^__^
>>768157326
Why pretend when you can be one? I'm always looking for new Angels ~
Messing with a child traumatizes them. This is fact.
The world at large doesn't think its fair to traumatize a child because its inherently wrong to harm children in any way. Anybody who thinks its ok to fuck a child is deluding themselves. Leave kids alone.
>>768156829
You're talking about a very farfetched case. If there's Pedro's out there who do this then they must meditate like crazy in order to refrain from taking it to the next step. Most people I think won't be able to contain themselves, then they seek a child out and boom! There's one more child in the world who will have nightmares for the rest of their life.
>>768157474
Now, I understand that rape and abuse can be traumatizing and I fully support the punishment of such crimes regardless of the victim's age, but what about consensual relationships?
>>768156969
Glad I could add some civility. I know it's difficult when discussing controversial topics.
>>768157306
Every relationship, consensual or not, between any two individuals, regardless of age or power difference, is emotionally altering. Whether or not that emotional difference is scarring all depends on how it's framed and one's ability to learn from their past -- with the majority of the scarring out of the victim's control as it's strongly influenced by societal reactions. (A person who is raped is more likely to be scarred if their friends tell them "I told you that you shouldn't have been walking alone at night" than if they're told "sorry that happened, let's all go buy hand guns so if something happens again we can defend ourselves")
You also say "older" and "younger" with no definition. I often find when people are being vague it's because they have an image in their head that they deem reprehensible but they're trying to trick the other person into agreeing that the image is acceptable under the guise that they could be agreeing to something unrelated. Like if I said "do you eat green foods?" then accused you of eating swamp algae. If you think the age DIFFERENCE is the key metric, then why is a relationship between an 18 year old and a 14 year old any different than a relationship between a 64 year old and a 60 year old? What if that same 64 year old were dating an 18 year old? Is THAT a problem for you?
You didn't even define "relationship". Is this a sexual relationship, or simply mentor/mentee one? If it is sexual, then to what extent? Just shoulder rubs, or kissing, or fondling of privates? There are multiple levels to sex - it's not just "penetration or bust". Many people assume having sex with someone implies sticking a dick in them (which also implies the aggressor is male and the victim is female). There are more ways to have sex. You probably dry humped when you were 15, right?
>>768157667
Are you seriously telling me that just because a 6 year old begs you to marry them that its consensual? Take that age up to 16 and its still ridiculous to think its anything more than emotional immaturity.
Not worth it. Although in your mind you have this fantasy that you could finally fuck a kid (you probably fantasize with teens if the age of consent was lowered and thinking you would have a chance with a highschool girl) You most likely will never. Or in your eyes you just want pizza legalized so you can jerk off freely. In the end more kids will just be abused and you couldn't do anything to the pedo
>>768157611
This is a good opportunity to say that not every pedosexual is as "child crazy" as that, to be helpless to their desires. If that were the case, I guarantee there would be many, many more people locked up for it.
I've personally known several people who have pedosexual desires and whatnot, but are happily going about their lives (some even with children) without even thinking about said desires until it's "alone" time. They know it's "wrong" and very illegal, so they refrain from acting on their desires. They're very compassionate and don't want to harm anyone, which is why they don't act on their desires. They know that even viewing it carries some degree of abuse, as there isn't really a way to guarantee the child is consenting to the photos or videos.
>>768157611
>You're talking about a very farfetched case
This is exactly how I already said you'd respond. But it doesn't change the fact that a single counter-example is a mathematical proof that a statement doesn't hold for an entire population. If you said "any number divided by 2 is odd" then I only need to present you with the number 8 to prove that while your statement may be true for SOME numbers, it's not true for ALL numbers.
Similarly I have found at least ONE case that you agree a pedophile wasn't evil. Therefore SOME pedophiles aren't evil -- so now you need to figure out which pedophiles are okay and which aren't.
>If there's Pedro's out there who do this then they must meditate like crazy in order to refrain from taking it to the next step
This is a baseless assumption. You have zero proof of this claim. As you aren't a pedophile and likely don't hang out with pedophiles, then for all you know 99% of pedophiles do this and have no trouble refraining from taking it to the next step. How would you know any different? You don't know many pedophiles to prove otherwise. The only pedophiles you know anything about are ones in the news, and the news creates a strong negative bias for everything they cover. If 3 people were killed in a freak toaster accident the news would have you believe toasters are evil even though millions of toasters DON'T malfunction every day.
>Most people I think won't be able to contain themselves, then they seek a child out and boom
Slippery slope fallacy, and no proof
>who will have nightmares for the rest of their life.
Not only have you made gross assumptions about the behavior of pedophiles with no proof, you've made gross assumptions about the effects on children with no proof. While I don't have a survey or statistical sampling, I do have an anecdote. My wife was raped by her father -- and she doesn't have nightmares every day. In fact, she's fine.
>>768155736
i advise you use one of these
children are conditioned to obey adults so they cant consent to you they wouldn't know better
pedophiles need to be gassed
STOP
TRYING
TO
FUCK
KIDS
>>768157856
Not other anon,
but I agree that age is a poor metric, for reasons outlined.
However, what is often implied in the age metric is a less well defined, but more important quantity:
Experience. The difference in experience between 64 and 60 is minor, whereas the difference between 14 and 18 is considerable. Though still less so than 14 and 26 and so on.
Age is loosely tied to experience and (more importantly) wisdom. The difference in experience and, of course, power, is what makes most people wary of such relationships.
>>768158277
You've got opinions and you're extremely biased. I dont think anybody could disprove you because you refuse to see reality. Claiming that "maybe children dont even get traumatized!" Is an absolute joke. This was well and truly documented by investigative journalists going after the catholic church.
young people are not ready to make decisions like this adults have alot of power over them so we need laws to protect them
>>768157906
Careful, now. You're bordering on nanny-state reasoning.
You're ABSOLUTELY right that young and immature individuals don't know what they want, don't fully understand the consequences of what they ask for, and can't foresee the end results of their actions.
However in every other case, you would probably agree it's the parents' responsibility to teach them. A kid wants to eat candy for dinner - the parents explain that they'll get fat, lose their teeth, and die at a young age. A kid wants to stay up all night - the parents explain that they'll be tired in the morning, get bad grades, and be unable to play with friends.
But if a kid wants to have sex with an adult then instead of the parents explaining the repercussions of their actions and correcting the behavior, suddenly government needs to step in and send someone to jail? That's a scary proposition. Should parents go to jail if their kid eats candy for dinner or doesn't go to bed on time? Should late night television be banned, or junk food be illegal?
>>768158250
Rather than mention "pedosexuals this" or "pedoseuxals that", why not the more obvious explanation? Pedophiles (I hate the term "pedosexual" - it's a sad attempt to rebrand rather than legitimize something) are humans, just like everyone else.
When you see a hot girl on the street you aren't overcome and FORCED to rape her, are you? So why would a pedophile seeing a hot child be overcome and FORCED to rape her? They can hold off just like you can.
>>768155736
What's this on my ass? It's been years.
>>768157906
Well, if consent is given (like in the example you gave), then of course it's consensual. Age is no indication of sexual (or general) maturity, so why is there a blanket "age of consent"? The situation varies from case to case of course, but there are 16 year olds far more capable and mature than 18 year olds, yet the latter is given express consent simply because of their age and the former must wait, even though they're ready and willing.
>>768158558
While I see what you're getting at and somewhat agree with you, I think you missed a couple points of the pedophilia argument.
Yes, age correlates (roughly) to experience, wisdom, and power. But what about experience, wisdom, and power make someone "evil"? When a 16 year old girl who has already had two sexual partners starts dating a virgin and is teaching him the ins and outs of sex for the first time, she has a lot more experience, wisdom, and power. Yet this isn't viewed as an "evil" relationship -- it's a teaching one. One person is using their experience, wisdom, and power to make the activity both educational and enjoyable. When two people each lack experience it usually leads to awkward sex and feelings of inadequacy.
Furthermore, this is all under the assumption that sex is taking place. Pedophilia NEVER mentions anything about sex. It's about attraction. While attraction may indicate a desire for sex or suggest that, given an opportunity, it won't be turned down -- attraction only leads to sex in 0.0001% of cases. You're probably attracted to Selena Gomez, but that doesn't mean you're going to have sex with her.
>>768158573
I wasn't making a baseless claim - I was giving a real life anecdote of a child who I knew to get raped by an adult. I also wouldn't say I'm "extremely" biased. I'm attempting to stand back and use reason and logic in my argument. You're ignoring all reason and logic, insulting me, and making sweeping claims with no proof. You've now posted the closest thing to proof I've seen in stating that investigative journalists revealed children were traumatized by the catholic church -- but there are a few things you failed to account for:
>Kids say the darndest things (ie -- knowing they're being interviewed, a child will say what they expect the interviewer wants to hear. So we need to take any testimony with a grain of salt)
>The catholic church did FAR more to children than most pedophiles
>>768158791
The lack of personalized consent age seems like a bureaucratic thing. Tribal cultures tend to consider someone an adult when they pass some ancestral challenge or whatnot. If they fail, they aren't an adult and need to try again.
Maybe we just need something like that test, that society recognizes as indicating functional adulthood.
>>768158644
nanny-state reasoning is entirely applicable to this argument, children are our future and should be protected from predators.
its absolutely fine if you're attracted to children, you cant help that, i cant stop you from being attracted to them either. what i can do is ensure that any children in my family are aware of the risks of predators out there.
Pedophiles use absurd mental gymnastics to reassure themselves that there is nothing wrong with preying on children. it's really very simple, children are not to be fucked or molested in any way. this is because they are not sexually developed, they are not emotionally ready, and they do not understand what is happening. Your point about "if a child wants to have sex with an adult" is scary to me, because I know it happens, my ex told me that she fucked a 40 year old when she was 12. It makes me angry, for 2 minutes of pleasure a predator is willing to fuck up a child, not only can they physically hurt the undeveloped sex organs, but they will definitely cause serious mental harm. All i can say is that i hope if a child approaches an adult and asks for sex that the adult will be emotionally mature enough to say no.
I don't get one thing, life expectancy was so low as early as 100 years ago that nobody batted an eye about the sexuality of teenage girls
even less than 40 years ago porn magazines with underage girls were pretty common, suddenly teenage girls are retarded and having sexual thought over them is more taboo than beheading a person in the middle of the street, if biology taught me anything is that it should be pretty common to have sexual thought for the age range when girls are most fertile and attractive and have been for thousands of years, making it more than likely to be a genetic predisposition, now I understand we have become more civilized and sensitive over ethical things like this, but If an underage girl is spontaneously jerking off on cam and an over 18 masturbates over the vid nobody is hurt and nobody should go to jail, I'd put the bar at least at that, now with actual contact between the 2 age groups is another argument
>>768159229
Expanding on this, the catholic church:
>Prevented children from seeing friends and family
>Forced children to perform acts that were physically difficult for them
>Raped children MULTIPLE times
>Threatened to severely punish the children or their families if anyone found out
>Made quid pro quo agreements (granting special status to children who performed sexual favors)
>etc
A typical pedophile will admire children from afar, and on rare occasion try to feel one up. What the catholic church did was deny children any external socialization or education and teach them that the only way to succeed in life is through demeaning themselves with sexual favors. So any journalists covering the catholic church were finding the most extreme case to make pedophiles look bad. That's like anti-gun nuts showing off school shootings on the news and completely ignoring the 300,000+ lives saved by guns. You can't ignore the 1 million or more pedophiles who aren't harming children, focus on the two or three who are, and say "look -- all pedophiles are evil!"
>>768158791
the blanket age of consent exists to protect the under 18's in the vast majority that are NOT mature enough to be fucking adults. not mature as in will suffer trauma. just like drink driving is a blanket offense even if i could drink a quart of whiskey and drive just fine.
>>768159666
yes satan. she was extremely fucked up. she had the mentality of a 14 year old stuck in the body of a 19 year old. it's like she never grew up.
>>768159320
An idea I've had is to have a course with a "diploma" or certification that you've completed said course and are ready for sexual activity, kinda like a GED. The course would go through things like the anatomy and physiology of the organs, the dangers of unprotected sex, to always seek consent and to practice sex responsibly, the affects of sex on the body and brain specifically, the affects of rape and other forms of abuse/harassment, and many other things (I won't bore you with the details). The course would then conclude with a test of their sexual knowledge, with a high (maybe 90%?) requirement to receive the end certification.
Would this be an acceptable system in your eyes? Anything you'd like to ask or point out/add?
>>768159524
>nanny-state reasoning is entirely applicable to this argument
I disagree, but I digress...
>children are our future and should be protected from predators.
I agree 1 million percent... I also believe that we should be protecting ALL citizens, not JUST children,... but that's another argument
>its absolutely fine if you're attracted to children, you cant help that
Glad we agree so far
>what i can do is ensure that any children in my family are aware of the risks of predators out there.
We still agree entirely. It's a parent's responsibility to teach their kids and protect them from danger. I intend to do the same for my kids.
>Pedophiles use absurd mental gymnastics to reassure themselves that there is nothing wrong with preying on children
And now you've lost me. You aren't a pedophile and you likely don't ever talk to pedophiles on a daily basis, so it's understandable that you don't know how they think or how their minds work. But as a hint: they work pretty much the same as yours. Any "mental gymnastics" are the same gymnastics you do whenever you make a decision. It's simple logic and reasoning - the difference is you're starting that logic and reasoning with a faulty understanding of the initial conditions.
Everyone agrees, even pedophiles, that you shouldn't prey on children. The difference is either that you don't understand what pedophiles do, or that you and pedophiles have a different definition of preying. We can address each of those as their own argument, but in either case pedophiles don't reassure themselves that preying on children is acceptable. The same way you don't convince yourself that preying on attractive celebrities is acceptable. Just because you're attracted to someone doesn't mean you find ways to justify kidnapping and raping them.
>More soon, out of characters
>>768159842
how so? i mean i know people older than 19 that still act like children that never had a "traumatic" experience
>>768160080
i cant put a scale on her trauma, thats not how trauma works. she had borderline personality disorder caused by the "consensual sex" she had with the 40 year old.
>>768158722
poor hygiene, bathe more often and scratch your ass less and you'll be fine.
>>768160042 (cont)
>>768159524
>children are not to be fucked or molested in any way
99.9% of pedophiles agree with you. They understand, possibly more than most (given that they study the sexual development of children), that young kids aren't physically developed enough for sex.
That's why most pedophiles just want to look at kids, hold their hand, kiss them, rub their shoulders, etc. You'll be hard-pressed to find a male pedophile who wants to put their dick inside of a little girl. Pedophiles LOVE children (it's right in the name: pedo = child, phile = lover) -- so why would they want to hurt them?
You're also working on the assumption that the child in question is physically undeveloped (an assumption I ran with until now). Because many people hear "pedophile" and assume it's a 30 year old man having sex with a 5 year old girl. But the VAST majority of pedophiles who go to jail are having sex with 16 year old girls. These girls are PLENTY developed. Also the vast majority of pedophiles are women. Bet you never knew that.
>our point about "if a child wants to have sex with an adult" is scary to me
I think you've confused my posts with someone else's. Or intentionally misrepresented my argument because you have this belief that I'm not listening to reason and I'm evil and therefore you're doing the world a great justice by spending hours yelling at me and telling me I'm hurting children. Because I think if a child wants to have sex with an adult they're WRONG and need to be corrected. The same way if a child wants to eat candy for dinner they're WRONG and need to be corrected. It's the parent's job to tell their kids no.
>More to come, out of characters
I'm 13 years older than my sister. I've wanted to have sex with her since she was 3. I haven't acted or anything towards her or any other child. Now would I say I was molested as a kid. Yes, I was molested by an older guy and an older woman. But I've honestly never understood how it was wrong. I felt good and came, I also wish I would be attacked by sexual perverts almost on a daily basis since I still look like a teenager close to my 30s.
>>768159229
I find the prospect of a 13 year being technically the power player in a relationship with an 18 year old amusing. It sounds like the plot to a series of some sort.
Going over the assumption of sex taking place, you are correct. These discussions usually assume the logical extremes, but those are unrealistic.
More common are the non-actors; those looking at lolicon or fantasizing about things.
To attack these things is simply to engage in Orwellian thought policing.
Let's put aside the desire to control the thoughts of others for the moment.
Instead, let us consider the issue from the property and liability angle.
Children are not liable for damages, or generally able to pay for them. Responsibility lies with their guardians. If the guardians do not approve of the relationship, why would it be allowed?
This argument is what decides more relationships in the middle east, where child brides are still fairly common.
Without the assumption of responsibility (fiscal or otherwise) no relationship can exist. And no transfer of responsibility can take place without guardian consent.
I suppose this brings up the issue that said guardians are not legally able to consent in the West, which is the crux of the argument here.
But why should governments allow it?
In a society both spouses are expected to wield equal power under the law, the law desires to keep stability.
This is best obtained when both participants are recognized as capable. Which is readily assessed in non-majority children.
>>768158722
What do you keep in that pocket? Anything metallic could cause a contact dermatitis which would look similar.
>>768159524
It's interesting that you use the term "prey". Does simple attraction mean you are "preying on someone", or do you use that term to denote that the one "preying" desires to overtake the target of their attraction sexually?
>>768160508 (cont)
>>768159524
>my ex told me that she fucked a 40 year old when she was 12
Did your ex initiate the encounter, or did the 40 year old? Was she coerced? Were here parents involved or aware of the encounter? There's a lot you've left out here. When I was 12 I was attacked by a gang of neighborhood children with bats and hospitalized. It's entirely possible that fucked me up more than a sexual encounter. But that's only tangentially related (the point I'm making being that there's a LOT more stuff out there that will fuck kids up and you can't cherry-pick one thing to say it's the worst thing a human can do).
I don't know your ex or her situation, so I can't read into it much, but it sounds like you've done a lot of reading into it and you've assumed this older gentleman raped her with intent to harm her for his own sexual gratification. That's highly unlikely. Maybe she just gave him a handjob. Maybe he just fingered her. Maybe she initiated it. Maybe he was really gentle with her. You don't know all of the details (or I assume you don't) and you've made a lot of claims there. That said: your ex continuing to be scarred by it to this day (I don't know how old she is now, but I assume over 18) isn't necessarily a feature of pedophilia or a feature of rape. It's not like "bad things happen to kids, but when THIS ONE bad thing happens, THAT one scars them for life". What scars children is different from person to person. Some people go through a rape and come out more strong-willed and independent. Some people are told they can't swing on the swingset with the other kids and it fucks them up forever and they feel like an outcast who will never fit in. To say for sure that an adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor will definitely cause mental harm with no statistical proof, and then to pass laws and throw people in jail based on that untested hypothesis, is madness.
>More soon
youtube.com/watch?v=tsp7IOr7Q9A
Let's all remember she's 15
>>768158644
>But if a kid wants to have sex with an adult then instead of the parents explaining the repercussions of their actions and correcting the behavior, suddenly government needs to step in and send someone to jail? That's a scary proposition. Should parents go to jail if their kid eats candy for dinner or doesn't go to bed on time? Should late night television be banned, or junk food be illegal?
>Should parents go to jail if their kid eats candy for dinner or doesn't go to bed on time?
You're clearly very intelligent, as well as OP, if you're not OP, but you're comparing sexually gratifying yourself with children with candy and staying up late. This is battle of logic chess now, not a discussion of wether or not it's ok to have a sexual relationship with a 6-12 year old.
I'm not sure it was you who said this, but about "my wife wasn't fucked up after being raped by her father", great good for her, but not ever child won't be fucked up. Same logic as not all pedo's are kiddie rapists, I'll agree with you there, but it's the kids who are coming out of that one worse off, therefore they must ALL be left alone.
And to think a child has the maturity to consent to sex with an adult is pathetic.
>>768159779
But if there's so much variation in maturity, why do we put so much faith in the broken system in place now? A comment was made elsewhere here about requiring a course and certification from said course before being allowed to practice sexual behavior. Wouldn't that be a much more sensible solution?
>>768160390
But is it 100% due to that experience? Is it impossible for a completely unrelated factor in her life to have caused such an issue with her?
>>768161016
logic would dictate that sexual attraction to children is as much about power over another person as it is the physical attributes of a child, as evidenced by priests fucking both boys and girls. it's much easier to have power over a child, mentally and physically you can dominate a child very easily. i call it preying on children because thats exactly what it is.
>>768159992
Such a diploma seems geared towards intellectual knowledge. This is not quite the same thing as understand the weight of decision making.
The test need to assess a person on multiple fronts, though the knowledge is important.
An actual character test would be good.
Something that has a high emotional impact (not traumatizing, just impactful) would be best.
Maybe leading a project of some kind. Something that let's people see the testee under different stresses.
>>768161039 (final)
>>768159524
I'm not saying that we should throw all laws to the wind. I'm not saying that it's always okay for a 40 year old to have sex with a 12 year old. What's I'm saying is:
>1. Pedophilia (per modern definitions) does NOT mean targeting underage / underdeveloped children. Nowadays people use the term pedophile to refer to an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old. This mean we've now included hebephilia (attraction to post-pubescent children) and ephebophilia (attraction to young adults) under the umbrella of "pedophilia". Attraction to a 14 year old is NOT the same as attraction to a 5 year old - and it accounts for 95% of "pedophiles"
>2. Attraction to a child does NOT mean touching a child. It's not a slippery slope. You're attracted to Selena Gomez but you don't touch her. You see hot girls on the street but don't touch them. Pedophiles are humans, too. They have restraint. It's not like they get overwhelmed and pin down every girl they see.
>3. Touching a child does NOT mean having sex. There are a lot of ways you can touch someone without sticking a dick in them.
>4. Having sex does NOT mean rape. Rape implies forced penetration. If this doesn't happen, then no physical harm is done.
>5. None of the above (even rape) is NECESSARILY going to cause mental trauma. Mental trauma is VERY complex and multi-faceted. You can't say for certain what will cause it - but the leading cause of mental trauma among children is death of a loved one, not sex
When you oversimplify the pedophilia argument to "pedophiles are people who want to rape children, and therefore permanently physically and mentally scar them" then of COURSE that sounds evil. But if you instead step back and try to really understand the full breadth of the subject you'd realize that you're suggesting incarcerating or even killing human beings with lives, jobs, loves, and often with children of their own -- all because you don't understand one small facet of their personality.
>>768160390
bpd? seriously, fucking everyone and their mother has bpd these days, i can walk into a clinic, talk to a doctor for a few minutes and walk out with a prescription for bpd.
>>768161333
But that's a blanket assumption. Men are biologically built to be stronger than women, hence their ability to build muscle easier (this is because of testosterone). Does that mean that all men who are sexually attracted to women are only interested in overpowering them because they're weaker?
>>768161333
The counterargument would be pedophiles who want to /be/ dominated.
Also, would you say all relationships are inherently about power and control?
>>768161385
Very good perspective and reasoning, thank you for the input.
>>768155736
>pros: Pedos will be free to rape children and not be murdered in general population... Good for the pedos, I suppose...
>cons: It's fucking pedophilia. It's fucking illegal for a good goddamned reason... Enjoy getting that shank to the gut, pedo... You fucking deserve it.
>>768160688
I'll be honest -- I'm getting tired, it's past midnight, and you used a lot of big words. I had trouble following some of what you said. But it sounds like you're a civil and logical person, so I can probably trust you won't make rash judgments to hate people out of shear principle. I'm just trying to spread the message of love: that everyone on earth is human, and we're all just doing our best. All hate in the world stems from a misunderstanding. We misinterpret someone's beliefs or actions, attribute them to evil, then dehumanize them and justify cruel action against them. This explains every war and genocide in history. "It's okay to kill them - they're nazis. They senselessly murder millions of people in gas chambers every day." By picking a few bad examples and attributing those examples to an entire group of people you can justify dropping nuclear bombs on people with no remorse.
I know a number of pedophiles, and not one of them has ever in their life wanted to harm or rape a child. It's nonsense to say that these perfectly good human beings should be tortured or killed or thrown in jail on the basis of thinking younger girls look attractive.
That's all. I'll do one last scan of this thread. But I think it's in good hands with you here.
>>768162056
Thanks for the discussion. Good night!
>>768156430
Most people hate pedophilia because it's a monstrous thing to force onto underdeveloped children. Give me a fucking break.
>>768161113
You're the first person I've seen put an age to the word "child" in this whole thread. I've seen a lot of "is it okay to have sex with a child", but you actually said "6-12 year old". I know a few pedophiles and most of them draw the line at 12 -- they're only attracted to 12 and up. Being attracted to children under 12 is very rare.
Also the comparison may have been a poor one. I took two things that many people consider to have minimal consequences and compared it to something that many people consider to have major consequences (note I'm saying "many people consider" -- because truth be told, it's entirely possible that eating candy for dinner could be worse for your mental and physical health than giving an old guy a handjob). Perhaps a better example would be if a child wanted to own a pet alligator or if a child wanted to strap a blanket to their back and jump off a building "to parachute". Are these examples a little more physically and mentally harmful? The main point remains: children often don't understand the effects of their actions and so parents need to teach them. A good parent should teach a child why they shouldn't give handjobs to strangers.
As for the wife comment, that was me. My wife is just fine despite what happened to her. She's the only person I know who was raped when she was young, but I know a few people who were raped later in life. And most people aren't as fucked up by rape as SJWs would have you believe. It usually just builds solidarity in people.
Also, I think you're using a strange definition of "consent". Consent doesn't have anything to do with maturity. Now understanding what they're consenting to -- that DOES require maturity. But you can consent to something without understanding it. And I don't believe children do have the maturity to understand what they're consenting to when they consent to sex. This is why I think parents should teach children to wait to have sex.
>>768158644
12+ is hebephilia. It's also very illegal for a good reasons. If you want a child marriage, move to the Middle East or check out Kentucky.
>>768161907
Calm down, I have never and would never abuse a child, sexually or otherwise. Most are aware of the affects it CAN have (remember, just because something happens once does NOT mean it will happen every time), and are aware that it's illegal. This is the reason most refuse to indulge their desires, not even through pictures. Not only do they not want to go to prison, but they can't guarantee 100% that children in pictures or videos consent to the action. If it were legal and handled like any other porn studio, where consent and safety are top priority, then they would be more comfortable with it. But as to acting on a child sexually without their consent, they know that it's wrong, just like raping any other individual regardless of their age (or anything for that matter. Rape is wrong, period). Now, if one could legally have a relationship (emotionally and sexually, the same relationship between adults), then I feel more people would realize that pedophiles (most of them anyways) do NOT want to hurt children, and simply want to love them as a non-pedophile would love their significant other.
>>768158644
>hot child
pedos are sub human
pedophiles have had movements in the past and they failed
>>768162762
What magic occurs at midnight at the end of the 17th year that makes everything different? What reasons 'protecting' someone until then are suddenly null and void?
Would it have been different the day before? Before that one? How can you even tell?
>>768163501
a line has to be drawn some ware and 18 is not even fully mature anyway
>>768163501
Nothing happens like you describe it. Literally nothing.
But shit does happen between 12 and 17, namely brain development and emotional cognisance. Facts aren't meant to be debated no matter how articulate you are.
Children cannot execute proper decision making. Meaning “consent” doesn’t exist. So you would have to argue with that one. Then you have anatomy issues. Depending on the sex act and the age of the child and adult, you can abuse the child physically just by sexual acts. So good luck fighting that one because so far, rape is illigal (inability to give consent) and child abuse is illigal. Not only that but we have paychological trauma. Children are more neuroplastidic than adults. That shit will stain them and can have negative reprocussions for their entire life. And the pros? None. There aren’t any. It doesn’t inform them on sex. They only education on sex is reproduction and the dangers involved that’s it. Pedophiles have a fetish or sexual desire that their victims don’t understand. It’s agaisnt the law for many reasons that are backed up by science and other laws such as abuse and rape. So fuck off, you can’t do it, you should never do it, get help or die. You trying to perpetuate something that can be easily disputed should be banned. Not in the sense of 4chan, but in the world. It’s a waste of time and energy and people need to come to the realization that just because you like it, doesn’t mean it’s ok and that everyone should accept it. Especially this. Whatever pros you can find, it can’t outweigh rape, abuse and psychological trauma. I’m which case, any act on the child can cause all three. Psychological trauma varies and abuse as well, but rape is a given. So fuck off, you can’t win.
>>768163971
even then the brain is still changing and maturing till like 25
>>768155736
what does the pic have to do with that?
get rid of the twink and give me both the females, thanks.
>>768163971
>>768163911
'shit' continues to happen until about age 26.
So called 'adults' vote and go to war far before their neurons mold themselves fully.
Shall we forbid peoples of different age groups to comingle?
Is the 19 year old cut off from the 22 year old?
The 16 year old from the 18 year old?
Pedosexual? Are you fucking retarded? Pedophilia isn't a fucking orientation, if you are pedophile don't say it publicly and dont try to have sex with little kids or you will get fucked in prison.
>>768162887
You have a very warped view of psychology, intellect, and reasoning if you think children, especially young ones, can comprehend sex and the consenting of such...
Seek help if you have these desires... Seriously, you shouldn't just suppress them; you should see a professional, because you're not thinking clearly. You're not firing on all cylinders upstairs...
>>768155736
>Let's have a legitimate discussion as to the pros and cons of legalizing pedosexuality.
I'm calling the FBI, fam.
>>768164321
Backtrack your argument. You'd allow the average 12 year old to fight in a war?
You'd allow the average 18 year old to direct a war and give you orders?
I trust the average 18 year old in their independent decision making because they made it this far without being raped by you (which makes them sensible), but I wouldn't trust the average 18 year old to tell me what to do.
Something tells me that the average pedophilia/hebephilia victim isn't average in age or anything though -- they're just available.
>>768164321
yes neurons are not even fully developed at 18 thats why they cant drink
>>768164815
But they can have sex. And drive a car. And get married.
>>768163501
I got caught by police drinking at 16 and 17 (UK) many times and all the police did was confiscate the booze, just as, I'm sure, you won't get thrown straight in jail for being with a 17 yo, 6 months to her 18th birthday. But don't take the piss man. Can't have 13 and 14 year old drinking.
>>768164963
You will absolutely get thrown away for it in the states (locality notwithstanding).
Why? Because the law says so. The reasoning of the law is what we examine here.
>>768155736
14-17 is kinda the gray area. If contraceptives and abortions were cheaper and easier to get, I could see it being acceptable. If they can't get forced into child labor/rearing, I can see it being something a 14+ person could agree to.
Pedophilia is never acceptable, prepubescent girls are very easily damaged physically and mentally if they experience sex before the age of 12
>>768164557
What exactly is warped about that logic? I can assure you that everything I said is true. I've known several people who are pedophilic and they're just like anyone else, even more compassionate and caring than most others.
Also, as a side note, it's interesting to look at the debate from the outside, as I'm neither a pedosexual or an anti-pedophile. Most, if not all, of the arguments against pedosexuals have been used against interracial relationships, and then were used against same sex relationships, and then were used against transgender individuals. Why do you think that is?
>>768164771
While the image of ten-thousand 12 year olds charging into battle atop cavalry is amusing, they are not generally strong enough to be lent consideration.
People six years their senior, though. They can, and have been in those cavalry charges. They are physically strong. But is physical strength the metric we should use to determine adulthood?
'slay the beast in the northern cave, and you shall be as a man.'
How should we grade maturity? What factors are needed, and how do we measure them?
FBI trolling for IP's?
>>768165702
talking ain't illegal friendo
>>768156829
Why are you trying to speak from a position of power like this? If you're trying to say you were kind to this child you clearly weren't because they now owe you something. Even if they never find out, do they owe you their bodies? What good person decides to lie to a child and say it was an act of kindness when it was just creating a debt they'd had no idea they'd have to pay?
>>768155736
If you dont have a substantial amount of research showing that children are not psychologically harmed when in sexual relationships with adults it will never happen.
Ne 4yo nudes yet? Consenting of course.
So, about 6 weeks ago some shitty person on here posted some cryptic information about some other image board. I didn't know it at the time but the link ended up going to some image board hub that showed underage girls. I felt like I had a heart attack because of what I saw. Naked little girls in provocative poses or dressed in inappropriate clothes. There was even a thread on there that had pics of what looked like girls who had been photographed after they were sexually abused. This totally freaked me out and I closed my browser, deleted my browser history, ran CC cleaner and prayed that somehow I didn't inadvertently break the law. I didn't download anything, but I saw shit that I really feel like I shouldn't have seen. I'm left now wondering 2 things:
1) How can this image board possibly be up and running on regular net space? This wasn't TOR or anything. It was just a friggin' regular old URL that anybody can go to.
2) What are the legal ramifications for me having visited such a website? I didn't download anything. I don't collect illegal pictures and I didn't distribute anything. Can I get in trouble for just having browsed this highly questionable content?
>>768158644
the repercussions of having sex with a significantly older adult as a teenager or kid are far worse than eating too much candy. Don't understand that reasoning. I agree with your point about parental involvement on educating their children properly though. Realistically, the government is just acting as a parental figure and a threat. There are always cases that slip by anyway, and every time the kid ends up fucked up in the head and/or pregnant.
>>768167753
I called FBI and gave them your ip
you gonna rot in hell, they will find temp files and get them back even after deleting
>>768167648
But where is the substantial research showing that children /are psychologically harmed by sexual relationships?
>>768167753
The FBI monitors DNS requests very closely, so yeah anon, you're fucked. It usually takes them about 8 weeks to request a warrant and get it served, so you can expect a 6AM no-knock raid in about 2 weeks.
They'll confiscate all your electronic equipment, and even though you deleted your cache there are simple ways to recover deleted data from hard disks.
Hope you have a good lawyer.
>>768168219
troll?
>>768167753
don't worry about it too much. You have to think about it realistically, law enforcement does not have the fucking time or resources to go after every person who randomly stumbles upon stuff like that. Pretty sure there's also weird rules about viewing by accident as well. They would however, go after the website itself and probably anyone who downloaded shit. The absolute worse situation you could be in is maybe getting put on a watchlist, but I wouldn't sweat it too much for your own sake
>>768168252
Absolutely not. Where is the definitive research backing all of these unsubstantiated claims? You can't just scream something is bad without backing it up.
>>768168219
How can you expect anyone to take you seriosly with a response like that.
>>768169039
Because there needs to be a reason to change something that is seen as so wrong in todays society. You can never expect to get change buy not showing that having sexual relationships with kids doesnt harm them.
>>768155736
Children are, as a whole, not mentally developed enough to handle the throes of puberty, school, friends, family life and you fucking sickos at the same time. Not to mention as soon as they turn 18 you lose interest and move on like the parasites you are. You know how fucked up that makes them? You don't. Pedophilia isn't a sexuality, it's a disease. Stick to cartoons and don't skip your therapy lessons.
>>768169466
u mad lul
>>768169341
if sex demonstrablydoesn't harm adults psychologically in most cases, then the null hypothesis should reasonably be that it doesn't harm kids in most cases, either.
>>768169341
That's backwards logic. What happened to having to prove something wrong before it was accepted as "wrong"? Someone just up and said "liking kids is bad" and we've stuck with it this entire time without ever questioning it.
>>768169087
I take it you have no proof?
>>768169637
Im not saying its good or bad im saying you want this to be legal? Nobody will think twice about saying no to you unless you come out with the big guns showing evidence to why they are its ok.
>>768155736
No.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/357060/timaru-man-arrested-for-importing-child-sex-doll
>>768169622
Fully grown adult, prepubesent child, clearly a big difference between the two.
>>768170034
I know that, but how does such research take place when people scream bloody murder over anyone even glancing at a child weird?
>>768170149
I dunno man, they take bullets the same, cock can't be that different
>>768170149
It's on you to demonstrate that difference -- in terms of the psychological consequences of sexual interaction.
Of course, you don't have any evidence, as you have implicitly admitted.
>>768170272
Wdym, no one bats an eye when doctors touch a kids junk to see it its ok. Conducting studies of people who had sexual relationships with adults as kids wont be seen bad at all. Obviosly nothing illegal would be taking place.
>>768170511
Is it really that difficult to understand im not arguing for or against anything. Im telling you what will need to be done if you want any chance in making this legal. I have not done any research on the topic, but average people will not budge unless you show them proof atleast.
Color war thread go
>>768171231
>>768171522
thx obama
>>768155736
why do i prefer the one at the left?
>>768155736
why did you choose that pic? bisexuals like adults only
>>768172146
Cuz we're hotter, duh ~
>>768172235
I wouldn't be too sure of that, sweetie ~
>>768172371
what is generally expected of bisexuals, I mean, as is what is generally expected of straights or gays
just like in the pic, all 3 are adults
>>768161651
Hey, I doubt you're still browsing but thanks for the clean, concise, civil discussion. It opened my mind to a lot of perspectives I didn't have before. Have a good one, man
>>768172446
I coulda sworn I got that from a loli/shota bread
>>768172545
unsure why, as it has no relevance
also, kill yourself, sick fuck
for browsing that filth
>>768172446
Bis do whatever tf they want, honestly, just that some of us are better at holding their urges than others. When it comes to this, anyways ~
reported the thread so that mods can monitor it
>also sage
>>768172648
But like
Why when I can browse shota and loli
>>768172670
>Bis do whatever tf they want
so do straights and gays as "whatever the fuck you want" has nothing to do with finding women and/or men attractive, idiot
>>768172688
It's just discussion. Being a pedophile isn't illegal, diddling a kid is what's illegal
>>768172714
it's wrong and you should feel bad
seek therapy
>>768172734
Dude
Oh my actual God
Are you that stupid?
>>768172774
the faps are great, I regret nothing
>>768172774
But like
Why? It's not bad. Loli and shota are 100% legal. I was just curious as to what 4Chan thought about diddling kids, I'm surprised it didn't devolve into madness and 404 immediately
>>768172859
you should, sick fuck
you're a psycho if you feel nothing
kys or become a better person
those are your options
>>768172859
Don't let the snowflake make you feel bad, hun, he's just salty about not having his hot teacher touch him when he was younger ~
>>768172897
>100% legal
because legality = morality
moron
>sage
>>768172930
I think I'll keep fapping to loli actually, tyvm :^)
>>768172930
Whoa man, chill tf out, we're all people here
>>768172980
hope your mom finds you doing it and disowns you, neckbeard fuck
>>768173015
my parents are dead and I inhereted a multimillion dollar trust, so that's not really an issues :^)
>>768172989
you aren't a person if you are depraved enough to do that
how can you never reproduce, sick fucks
I'd report you to police if you came near my family
>>768173094
sure you did, proof or gtfo
>>768173094
>>768173124
and if it is true hope someone catches you and exposes you to everyone you know, sick fuck
>>768173094
>my parents are dead
good.
>>768172959
Idfk what sage means
But
Morality is flexible. Morals now are a lot different than morals fifty years ago. "Morals" used to mean not having anything sexual until marriage, not even so much as talk to someone of the opposite sex, but I you don't think anything of that now, right?
>>768173244
>Idfk what sage means
kys newfag
>>768173244
all I know is that it is unhealthy and wrong to fap to anything that the culture you live in would keep you from being hired for any job in the case that you were exposed
seek help for your illness
>>768173095
This has to be a troll
There's no way this is genuine lol
>>768173329
>There's no way this is genuine lol
There's no way a person on 4chan isn't sick in the head? You're retarded.
>>768173323
I'm not ill tho
I'm perfectly fine, if a bit lazy. I contribute to society, I work, clean my house, pay taxes, recycle, etc. What's different between you and I besides our sexual attraction?
>>768173411
No dude I'm talking about your outrage
>>768173462
>I'm not ill tho
Yes you are. At the very least you should feel bad attempting to function in a society that doesn't want you in it.
>>768173181
wow, mean. Evil, even.
>>768173528
I'm just happy they'll never know how much of a failure their son is.
>>768173497
You didn't answer my question. I'm not trying to piss you off, just listen. What's different between us? Do you not live through the bullshit to make it to the good days like I do? Do you not try to help people and be a good member of society like I do? Do you not want all this bullshit strife that's going on to end so we can start living a decent life like I do? What's different between you and I outside of what we're sexually attracted to?
>>768173259
Plz explain sage
>>768173589
They already knew, since I'd never had a job (and never, ever will) :^)
I don't feel bad about it in the slightest though. How can you feel bad about something you can't control? :^)
>>768173696
>good member
Good members of society don't fantasize about abusing their most innocent, weak, and defenseless members. It only increases the likelihood of you materializing those thoughts.
Kill yourself, you failure of "human" flesh.
>>768173763
You should feel bad that you aren't seeking to better yourself by cognitively exposing yourself to better options when it's the obviously more moral decision.
>>768173869
I'd much rather stay up late at night, wake up whenever the hell I feel like it, masturbate to loli and watch anime though :^)
my life is fucking awesome; every day is a new, fantastic pleasure :^)
>>768173809
So there's nothing different. I understand it's wrong. I understand it can hurt and change children for the rest of their lives and that's why I've sworn to never indulge in that. I've accepted that it can harm, but you also have to understand that it doesn't always harm. I've accepted that I'll most likely never be able to do that, legally and otherwise, so I've moved on. I have a wonderful boyfriend (who's only a month my younger, tyvm) which I've had for four years as of last month. We live together and live life like a vastly unprepared young couple, and I'm having a damn good time. Why would I ruin that? Shota and loli is my out, and it's very seldom that I ever wanna jerk to that anyways. I'm human just as much as you are.
>>768174128
but that makes you a bad person, you dumb fuck
and if you don't care about being a bad person, then you're shit, and should kill yourself, logic demands it
>>768174268
as long as it's in your head and behind your thoughts you will never know true happiness
fix yourself, you're broken
>>768156829
That analogy is horseshit. You're full of horseshit. This thread is horseshit.
>>768174722
dubs confirms
>>768174654
Ok, I'm a bad person. I'm still going to live a good, long life, fap to loli every day, and do whatever the hell I want for the rest of my very long life :^)
>>768174918
you don't deserve life
hope you get raped and tortured to death
