First it's necessary to clearly define what you mean by "consent". These conversations always go nowhere, even if everybody is arguing in good faith, because consent (among other things) is a nebulous and constantly-shifting goalpost that nobody can agree on.

>>7267 -__-. Really? Fine, let's set what "consent" is: * They fully agree to have sex (duh) * They are aware what sex is and know what it entails. * The child in question must be fully conscious. * The other party cannot abuse or exploit any "trust, power or authority" or use coercion or threats. You have to prove that children CAN meet all criteria listed above. We all know that adults can meet this criteria. It must be noted that even if you can prove it, the child can still say no and any sexual contact would therefore be nonconsensual. Is that good enough?

>>7264 Is there any evidence they can't?

>>7268 >Really? Yes really. Have you had a lot of these debates before? Even with good intentions it frequently devolves into nonsense, and the meaning of consent moves around so much (sometimes even to the point that it's arguable whether adults can consent) that it becomes impossible to have a debate because nobody is even on the same page. To point out the difficulties here, let's look at your criteria: >They are aware what sex is and know what it entails. This is the most common "gotcha". What does it entail, and how much do they need to know? Just understanding the act on a physical level and the possible physical consequences such as pregnancy and STDs? That would be reasonable to me, but most people won't accept just that. And if that's all it is, then it's blatantly obvious that children can understand it unless they're very young. Understanding the social implications and what other people will think of it if they find out? This is the point where it falls apart; it's really nebulous, normal adults often don't have a great grasp of it, highly educated and experienced adults still debate the details, and it depends more on culture rather than the capabilities of children. Fully understanding the possible emotional impact? This is also a common standard people use, and it's also an impossible standard that it's unlikely an adult can meet. >The child in question must be fully conscious. By "fully conscious" do you just mean that they're awake and aware, as in not sleeping or drugged or whatever? If so, that's fine. Or do you mean that they possess consciousness, that they're sentient in other words (although you might make a distinction between sentience and consciousness)? That may sound like I'm just being silly and contrarian, but people do frequently say things like "children aren't conscious until <x> age" or "children are barely even sentient". If this is what you intend then it's essentially meaningless, because "conscious" is something with even less of a definition and there's no way to prove that anyone is conscious, except potentially yourself. >The other party cannot abuse or exploit any "trust, power or authority" or use coercion or threats. Do you mean that, in the particular circumstance, the other party does not do that? Or do you mean the other party is not capable of it? The latter is normally impossible for adults. Depending on the precise meaning of your criteria, it could be blatantly obvious that children can consent and you would need to start by bringing up a reason they couldn't, or it could instead be difficult to argue that adults can consent. Ultimately, the exact meaning of "consent" is 90% of the entire debate.

Kids can consent to having their genitals cut off and getting an untested vaccine, but sex is a bridge too far

>>7269 I've already heard the opposing side's version. The burden of proof is on you as you all are making the claim that children cannot consent. The whole point of me creating this thread was to hear you pedos explain to me why children can consent. >>7270 >Have you had a lot of these debates before? Clearly not >Just understanding the act on a physical level and the possible physical consequences such as pregnancy and STDs? That's fine. >By "fully conscious" do you just mean that they're awake and aware, as in not sleeping or drugged or whatever? Yes >Do you mean that, in the particular circumstance, the other party does not do that? Yes. Incest is however not permitted. This also applies to adults-only pairing though so this isn't an issue for this debate.

Consent isn't binary. Something can always be "more consensual" because nobody is omniscient and capable of knowing the exact consequences of every action. I don't see the point of debating something like this at the current time because legalizing sex with children isn't the logical first step towards solving humanity's current problems.

>>7274 Apart from the fact that I don't agree with either one, this is a clear red herring. https://www.logicalfallacies.org/red-herring.html

>>7278 In that case, your definition of consent is so trivially easy for children to meet that I can't even think of anything to cite besides common sense. Kind of need to know what I'm arguing against at that point to really make a meaningful argument. >They fully agree to have sex (duh) Children can obviously agree to things. >Just understanding the act on a physical level and the possible physical consequences such as pregnancy and STDs Not hard at all, children routinely understand the mechanics of sex and how pregnancy works, that's basic education for children in some places. I'm not sure how much children are taught about STDs, but that's even easier to understand (they obviously understand diseases and "sharing germs" in general). >The child in question must be fully conscious. I hope I don't have to prove that children are capable of this. >The other party cannot abuse or exploit any "trust, power or authority" or use coercion or threats. This is unrelated to the child's capability and is about what the other party does. So it seems there's nothing to "prove" children regularly meet these criteria naturally without any particular effort, even if nobody plans on having sex with them.

>>7281 Can you also prove that sexual contact with children doesn't cause harmful effects?

>>7283 Fundamentally impossible to prove, for children or adults.

>>7283 >>7284 But I will add that there have been multiple studies showing that children who have had non-violent, non-forced sex with adults generally suffer no trauma or long-term negative effects. I don't have those readily available, so I'll need to track them down.

>>7283 Here are some quick citations for now. I might come back to this tomorrow if I remember. There's Susan Clancy's book The Trauma Myth, where she describes how she interviewed a lot of adults who were sexually abused as children, and found that they were rarely harmed by it and any negative feelings only come later as adults. Those negative feelings mostly being shame caused by inaccurate depictions (in the media and by doctors and psychologists) of what child sexual abuse is like; they feel they should have fought back and resisted, because that's how everything says it goes, when the reality is that it simply wasn't a big deal to them at the time. She maintains that children can't consent though and it's still bad, without actually giving any support to that claim. "Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK." So even someone who is strongly against adult-child sex acknowledges that it's not usually harmful. "Most children who get abused don't understand it at the time. Thus, it is not a significant experience when it happens — it's weird, perhaps — and so they forget it, like we forget so many aspects of childhood." Note that when she says "don't understand it" she basically means "don't understand that it's bad", not that they don't know what they're doing. You can read the book for free (though in an inconvenient format) at https://openlibrary.org/works/OL15499679W/The_trauma_myth Then there's the (in)famous meta-analysis by Bruce Rind (see PDF) which concludes that harm tended to be small if there was any harm at all. "Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA [Child Sexual Abuse] indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported." There's been a lot of criticism of it, but the conclusion has been supported (not always the specific numbers, but the overall point) by multiple later reviews. It's difficult to study though for a lot of reasons. First because humans are very complicated, not predictable, and have billions of things influencing them. Then you're not allowed to come to certain conclusions or your career could be destroyed, just for publishing facts and numbers that disagree with the "correct" narrative. Also it's an extremely emotionally-charged issue and basically nobody is completely unbiased about it, and many people are incredibly biased. Still, it seems pretty well supported that while having sex with an adult as a child can be harmful, the effect is very small on average even if you include violent rape (obviously that's very harmful, but it's not common enough to bump the average up very much). When it's non-violent and the child is willing, there's basically zero harm except some societal harm, not anything inherent to the sex itself.

>>7264 >Is there any evidence that children can reasonably consent to sexual activity? If you mean teens, they have sex with each other. So unless you're gonna tell me they rape each other, they can consent. If you are talking about pre-pubescent kids, probably not.

>>7288 Hebephiles swing and miss again >>7264 There is no need for evidence, the problem is a misunderstanding of consent. If that problem is solved, it becomes a matter of common sense that they can. The definition of consent that is used in this discussion is typically poisoned by feminist thinking which most of us more widely rejected years ago. The concept of "informed consent" is the basis they use to call you a rapist for having sex with a drunk woman among other things. So why do we hold onto the concept when it comes to children? We know what consent means, it means agreement. The information necessary to give consent is only enough to have a basic understanding of what one is agreeing to. Obviously children can say yes, they can mean it, and there is nothing so mystical about sex that they can't fathom the concept.

>>7268 >* The child in question must be fully conscious. >* The other party cannot abuse or exploit any "trust, power or authority" or use coercion or threats. These two criteria are entirely about the behavior of the pedophile and have nothing to do with the child's ability. I'd say that our word is sufficient proof for that, and that it's even a question says more about society's prejudices against pedophiles than about adult-child sex.

I'd like to give my opinion as a psychology graduate student , and as a regular guy that comes from a place where historically, having sex with children was normal until a few decades ago. Never finished my Doctorate degree so I am not a doctor. This is not medical advise, just a philosophical discussion. I am not attracted to the idea myself but I respect people and cultures that do. Fact: children have sex with each other all the time. When you were a kid maybe you had a sibling or cousin, schoolmate etc. who you experimented with. Maybe you showed each other's genitals, touched each other, played Doctor, discovered pornography and masturbation together, etc. That sexual interaction is possible regardless of age and is completely normal to discover sex acts and pleasure at a young age. Even toddlers masturbate (although I don't think toddlers can consent as they are still developing motor, moral, and logic skills, as well as having poorly developed brains. More on that further on). And these days children have sex with each other at earlier and earlier ages because they are exposed to sexual stimuli and media from a much younger age (youtube, social media, films, ads, pornsites, etc). The fact is children can and do consent to sex all the time, just that in general this happens between other children and while parents might be quick to punish their child for experimenting sexually (where said punishment might cause more harm than good), it's a normal part of healthy human development. Between a child and adult this generally doesn't happen for legal and moral reasons.. The reason age of consent exists is to protect them from predators that might take advantage of their naivete and use trust, power, authority, coercion, threats, and physical strength to take advantage of them. It's certainly NOT because it's inherently wrong because historically children have married and consented to sex with adults. A great example could be my or your great grandfather who probably married a 12 year old child and it was perfectly normal. In fact, marrying and losing your virginity much later was considered disgraceful. Children were socialized to expect marriage and sex from a very young age. My Great Grandfather lived to be almost 100 and he was a kind man who loved his family and raised many children and grandchildren well. There were probably 0 repercussions to him marrying a young girl and it was socially acceptable and expected. It might have been stranger even for him to marry an older girl who might be considered an "old hag" by age 15. Many classic novels, folklore, and historical texts talk about how children were prepared and socialized since a very young age to be ready for marriage and to please their husband by the time they were prepubescent or pubescent. If you've read The Bible, which is a historical book as well as folklore, there's plenty of evidence suggesting it was normal to marry young women and children. We may judge this based on our modern standards but we must accept and respect any other standards exist. Many cultures still believe that as soon as a woman menstruates, she is no longer a girl but a woman and is ready for marriage. This makes sense biologically speaking. In the modern context we live in it might make sense that the age of consent remain high because we relate in more complicated ways as time goes on. As we develop more complicated relationships with sex and gender, for example, it becomes increasingly difficult to socialize children to accept all of it. Specially when caregivers and teachers they are exposed to all might have extremely opposite views and may be giving the child mixed messages and teachings that confuse them. This means that as a parent it takes a lot of time and effort to socialize children to see and understand the world like you do and function properly within the growing complexity in human interactions and relate to others in healthy ways. Closest thing to evidence that children can consent to sexual activity has to rely on historical, cultural perspective and testimony. If my great great grandma was alive I could ask her at what age she married and whether she had sex or not. She will probably answer about 12-14 years old and say that she was perfectly fine having sex with her husband whom she grew to love and have children with. Is this evidence enough? No, because this is limited to her specific culture, historical context, and her social-economic status. In another country at another point in history, marriage and sex could have occurred at different ages. None of these cultures are wrong or right, they are just different. Now, if we set aside ANY context and focus solely on the child, there are psychological development theories that can suggest (never prove) that there are specific ages when children might be able to consent and enjoy certain acts and stimuli including sex with anyone, given social constructs don't get in the way. A good example is Piaget's developmental theory which is encompasses many things one of these is the acquisition of logical reasoning under all circumstances, including abstract reasoning which is on average at age 11. According to Piaget, this is the age where children are fully able to hypothesize about things that they may not fully understand but have had experiences with/ So a 6 year old may have played Doctor with a girl and touched each other's genitals and felt pleasure but not fully understand this until age 11+ where they can now have a conversation with an adult who can teach them what that interaction meant, the positives/negativesof said interaction, the consquences, etc. So if Piaget were to answer this question truthfully, he might say that at the very least a child needs to be 11+ to even consider consenting to sex because this is the age where they are developed enough to BEGIN to understand the consequences of their actions and the actions of others and form some kind of moral compass. Now my final points, from both a biological and psychological perspective. Biologically, women are ready to have sex and give birth shortly after puberty. This is the way nature intended it and who are we to argue with millions of years of evolution. That's ages 12 to 14 with peak development around age 16. This peak marks the end of physical development for penetration and conception. At 16 women don't grow any longer: Their hips, breasts, height, etc are fully grown. While boys start developing around 12 they keep growing until early twenties but this doesn't mean they can't masturbate or enjoy stimuli. From a Psychological development theory standpoint there are different points of views but in general our logic isn't fully developed until about 11-12 years old, after which I would say children can fully consent to sex given enough education and exposure to it in healthy, non-abusive, non-intrusive ways. An adult can then help the child express themselves and understand the positive and negative points of each point of view Concrete evidence beyond this does not and will not exist until societies accept the fact that it's normal for children to experiment and have sex with other children, at the very least, and that this does not harm the child as long as it's free from coercion or physical abuse (which can also happen between children). Given this acceptance formal research can be made to prove or disprove and give credence to these theories. I believe a society where children can have sex is an utopia where we assume every adult's actions are honest and acting in the benefit of the child and sadly, that's not the world we live in. We live in a world where given the chance adults abuse children and other adults if not held accountable. But putting that aside, children can quite possibly, reasonably consent. As you are reading this some child somewhere in the world is having healthy sexual interactions with other children and growing from it.

>>7278 >I've already heard arguments I'm not repeating >The burden of convincing me of the obvious is on you I never agreed to teach retards and I'm not being paid for it.

>>7296 > As you are reading this some child somewhere in the world is having healthy sexual interactions with other children and growing from it. And that child isn't and never was me. Thanks for reminding me, dick.

>>7298 >dick Thanks for reminding me of what I spent my childhood longing for but never got, you asshole.

>>7309 I did answer the question, I guess not explicitly enough. TL;DR from >>7296 : From a developmental psychology standpoint, children should be able to consent around age 11 on average to just about anything, including sex. Given enough previous exposure, education, a safe space, no coercion, etc. With some psychologists arguing it's more accurate to say it can range from 10 to 14 since some children develop slightly faster or slower and might not have enough exposure or education until later in life. That being said, no psychologist will straight up tell you this. There is no such thing as evidence and there probably never will. I draw this conclusion from studying enough developmental theories and any of you can draw their own conclusion by learning about how our brains and minds develop, mature, and reach full development. One ceveat to this is the fact that more recent evidence suggests even adult brains aren't fully developed until your 20s which is why young adults are more prone to risk-taking and endangering behaviors. So using my same argument you could say that no one can safely and fully consent to anything until their 20s...

>>7310 I think defining a child by age is retarded. A child can be 10, or 20. An adult can be 10, or 20. It's all in the mind. I've seen kids who are way more responsible than me (an "adult"). I've also seen older "adults" who are way, way more irresponsible than I am. It's the mind of the individual not solar rotations, which is the most retarded fucking standard of measurement to determine what rights someone has. Like we're talking cave-man jungle savage level retarded.

>>7309 No, I did not grind my tires. >>7269 >>7297 I made these based posts instead.

its another jew trick to stop whites breeding at their most fertile age. a woman should bear her first child at 13 within wedlock arranged by her father.

>>7309 I've been grinding my cock in your mom

>>7296 >The reason age of consent exists is to protect them from predators that might take advantage of their naivete and use trust, power, authority, coercion, threats, and physical strength to take advantage of them. Age of consent does not have that effect. All of that is performed equally as well by typical sexual assault laws. The sole distinctive quality of age of consent law is to prohibit consensual sexual contact with persons below an arbitrary age limit, it has no other unique features.

>>7317 You're right. Which is why I mentioned that those are average numbers. On my larger text I advised that we can't separate the person from their context: society and culture will often dictate how fast this child matures and in what ways. How fast the MIND matures depends on parenting and socialization but part of human development has to do with our biology too: our brains take decades to develop fully and this applies to children. Which is also why a 20 year old can mentally be a "child" if they suffer some kind of disability. So a mentally impaired 20 year old might be able to consent to sex by age 30 because it took them THAT long to develop cognitively, versus a 10 year old that may have developed much faster due to external reasons and maybe thinks more like an adult. It can happen but it's not the norm. A legal definition of consent "is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another". If I add to this definition the fact on AVERAGE a child needs to be about 10 years old to have mentally developed enough cognitive structures for abstract thinking and develop their own hypothesis about the world around them, then consent simply CAN'T be given by a younger child unless they have been groomed to do so. And it's controversial whether or not grooming a child to perform specific acts is ethical or considered consent. Does a 10 year old Thailand child prostitute consent to sex? Some of them MAYBE because their culture teaches them that helping your family make do is a good thing. So anything you can do to bring in money is good, but they are frequently in positions where they might be FORCED to do it at the same time. They might learn about sex from a young age, they might see their siblings and peers having sex and learn from them, they might learn about pregnancy and STDs, etc. but did they really have a CHOICE in the matter? Probably not. And certainly not ALL 10 year old thai prostitutes can consent because most are slaves, exploited, abused, trafficked, uninformed, and uneducated. The ones that do consent might be able to do so thanks to someone coercing them first. But your average 10 year old can't do this. And a 10 year old child being put in a position where an adult seeks to engage with them sexually puts them at risk.

>>7323 "A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision" And let me add to this that it does take this long for a child to develop cognitively because a child needs schooling and play to develop enough mentally to get to abstract thinking by age 11 or so. So I agree that a 10yo can be as mature as an adult, but they needed healthy schooling and relationships from ages 3 to 10 to get there and even then they are at a disadvantage when interacting with most adults which is why they are at risk of being taken advantage of.

>>7320 Depopulation agenda at it's finest

>>7322 Well it might further deter putting children in positions where sexual assault is even possible. So it's an additional barrier for entry in place to protect the well-being of a high-risk group. Is it unnecesary? Maybe. Has it helped avoid a number of child molestation cases? Maybe.

>>7327 I've seen it argued such views (that children can't consent) actually leads to MORE children being harmed, because they are "groomed" by everyone around them to believe they do not have the ability to consent and must defer to an adult at all times. Example; Adult: Have sex with me Child: No Adult: You are too young to decide, I am the adult and I know what's best, you have no right to say no to me because I know what's best In this way taking away childrens agency can lead to even more abuse by malicious, sneaky, manipulative, evil, narcissists.

>>7327 Yes and no.

>>7326 The depopulation agenda already began by increasing the age of consent to 16 and eventually 18-21 due to the rise of radical feminism in the Western World. There's no evidence that teens and hebes were harmed by relationships with adults. The Age of Consent was created to eliminate competition to 30+yo women who know they're running out of time. If given the chance, radical feminists would petition Western governments to increase the age of consent and majority to 21 and eventually 25 years of age. This is the future that awaits us. Feminism was never really about equality, it was created with the intent of women ruling over men. Reducing age of consent from 18/21 to 14 would force millennial girls/older women to embrace their femininity to be able to compete against younger girls. This would dismantle the system of feminism completely and would move us away from the degeneracy we are witnessing in society as a result of massive consumerism, social media and feminism.

>>7327 We need to prevent men from raping women. Make it a crime to have sex with a woman under any circumstances. This is your logic

>>7334 >>7333 >>7328 I agree with a lot of this. But what about protecting children from their own parents? One (alleged) reasons consent increased was due to the effect it had on prostitution. Which is kind of silly because there's so many other things you can do about prostitution with legalization being the best one (SPECIALLY from a public health and economic standpoints)… But there's a point here I want to bring back: child prostitution and exploitation. It's easy for parents and parent-figures to exploit children when it comes to trafficking and prostitution. For aoc laws to be more reasonable where the child's capacity is concerned, more controls need to be in place in order to prevent said exploitation. Producing and selling cheese pizza, child prostitution rings, etc. is already profitable. Isn't there an argument about aoc laws making this even easier and widespread? Most child molesters are close to the child like parents and teachers. Lowering aoc might make exploitation even harder to hide.

>>7335 Prostitution will never go away, first of all. No matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be prostitutes. More in the scope of the conversation, there will always be CP and child prostitutes. Making it illegal, rather than getting rid of it, makes it impossible to regulate or control effectively. Just like banning alcohol, guns, or some other 3rd thing, the only thing you accomplish is putting a monopoly on that thing into the hands of the very people you were trying to stop. If there will always be CP and prostitution, would you rather it be entirely within the hands of career criminals who are often abusive and dangerous gangsters? Or would you rather it be in the hands of professional studios that follow laws on how they can treat their talent and what they are allowed to produce? Even if you think it's bad no matter what, which of those two things is better? Now also consider that: >Studies consistently show pornography reduces the rate of sex crime in all categories by a significant margin >People being unable to act competently at anything at all until well into their mid twenties (in some cases) is an entirely modern phenomenon and has very little (if anything at all) to do with age. >Banning things, historically, has never worked and destroying everything you want to get rid of is impossible

>>7334 That's antis for you. They'd sooner kill all children on Earth than admit children can enjoy sex.

>>7337 Lmao wut not even antis go that far.

>>7333 Did feminists also cause housing prices to go up and wages to decrease, or do you just consider those things to be completely irrelevant to the birth rate?

>>7341 No, their Jewish masters did

>>7264 Also Nonpedo here, here are my own positions, definitions and questions: Child/Toddler/Baby: Child means prepubescent. Cut-off ages are 5-9. Pedophilia means a firm (not exclusive) sexual attraction to under-9 year olds, but I'm generally assuming toddlers (ages 1-4) and babies (ages 0-1) are not usually included when I talk about pedophilia. Consent: Consent is a sense that develops based on a person's self-awareness. Self-Awareness is a continuum starting from a few months after birth, which I believe reaches meaningful relevance for communication at age 5 (self-expression, language) but lacks sexual comprehension until pubescence at age 9/10 when sexual desire becomes a familiar experience. This is my personal standing cutoff for minimum possible age where consent is valid.I think arguments can be made for sexual awareness along a spectrum from age 10 to age 25, but none seem as clear as marking 10 for pubescence, 25 for mental maturity. Consent is a plus but doesn't make the argument on its own for me. I think consent is easier to establish for males engaging in penetrative sex, so I could see sex where a shota is topping to be given greater leniency. Harm Harm is physical or mental damage, in the form of injury or trauma. Harm can be a risk of consensual sexual interaction, such as from large insertion or friction. Prepubescent girls and boys lack secretion of sexual fluid for natural lubrication. I don't believe sex should require lubrication beyond what the average participant could be expected to naturally provide. States of arousal in pubescents increase pleasure from stimulation, and this is lacking in prepubescents. Harm aversion is probably a greater concern for me than consent, though consent helps. There seems to be less risk of harm to a shota initiating penetration too. At 8 years of age is also when a child's immune system has matured to handle flu viruses. Pedophilia legitimacy: Sexual orientation, not illness. Mutable, like any other orientation. No need to change. 2d is not 3dpd. Thought is not action, etc so non-live action media is harmless. Nepiophilia legitimacy: Same as pedophilia, except I personally have great difficulty seeing arguments for justification of acting on Nepiophilia. Babyfuck even less so. You can be sexually oriented for anything, so in itself does not give validity for actions undertaken for it. Risk of harm seems far greater toward toddlers than prepubescents. My personal standing conclusion: We either agree as a society on age 10 or 25 for a cutoff for adulthood, for better or worse. I am comfortable with either, I just want consistency and I can only see pubescence and full mental maturity as reasonable lines to choose from. You are welcome to tell me why this is a shit take, or what (short) argument you would give for choosing 10 over 25. I could also see a gendered double standard in effect where the male age of consent is 10 for penetrated sex that is initiated by them, while penetrative sex of males and females is set at a higher age. My arguments against pedophilia: 1.There is a disproportionately greater risk of physical harm to someone prepubescent for penetrative sex compared to someone who is post-pubescent. Why shouldn't children be considered an at-risk group for sex? 2. If we accept that 100% harm prevention can't be guaranteed, what should be the punishment/rehabilitation solution for, assuming these are proven: a) causing mental trauma to a child, b) causing bodily injury to a child, c) Permanent mental trauma or bodily injury to a child. 3. If the harm can be proven to be intentional, does that change the punishment? How? Also if you are into hurtcore for 2 and 3, please provide your reasons in favor of hurtcore here. 4. Should there be a gendered double standard where the age of consent is lowered more for topping males? (Say 10 for topping males, 12 for females and receptive males?) 5. Should you require a parent's consent to approach their child for sex? 6. Should a child require its parent's consent to approach an adult for sex? 7. If sexual/mental maturity is disconnected from age, how would you keep, say, a sexually/mentally immature 21 year old from having sex while allowing a sexually/mentally mature 12 year old to do so? If there's such a thing as sexual immaturity and it's possible to have that at age 21, then how do you screen for that? Or rather, how would you screen prepubescents to know they're sexually/mentally mature? 8. What praxis do you think should be employed to improve the popularity of your position? 9. For pedophiles: What does your ideal society look like, where pedophilia is acceptable and normalized? How are acts of pedophilia practiced in this world? For nepiophiles: Same question but for nepiophilia. 10. Finally, what is it that you find most sexually attractive about prepubescents/toddlers/babies, and why do you think so? Does the taboo make them more appealing? Is it sadism? Do you just find cuteness especially arousing?

[Expand Post]

Alright, I think that's where I'm at for my current ideas and questions on the subject. Replies and criticisms of my views welcome.

>>7341 >>7345 Their jewish masters did it through several avenues, including feminists. Feminists are to blame, even if not wholly.

>>7406 Boy, that sure was a lot of words to express opinions based on gross ignorance. I'll try to be more succinct in my opinion: eat a dick, nerd Now with regard to the arguments, I will summarize by quoting you; "I just want consistency" >There is a disproportionately greater risk of physical harm to someone prepubescent for penetrative sex compared to someone who is post-pubescent. Why shouldn't children be considered an at-risk group for sex? There is a far greater risk of physical harm in sex between homosexual adults than an adult and a child, yet I do not see you calling for their complete prohibition. A much better question is why this risk of harm is a cause for absolute prohibition, when there are so many different ways to avoid it entirely? Furthermore, could these laws not be a cause of such harm by making education on safely having sex with a child almost completely inaccessible? >If we accept that 100% harm prevention can't be guaranteed, what should be the punishment Considering that 100% harm prevention in adult intercourse cannot be guaranteed, what should be the punishment for reproduction? >a) causing mental trauma to a child, b) causing bodily injury to a child, c) Permanent mental trauma or bodily injury to a child. None, there should be absolutely no punishment of any kind unless the harm was the result of malicious intent or actual wrongdoing occurred (though restitution for the child's family is another matter). Such conditions should be the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. >Also if you are into hurtcore for 2 and 3, please provide your reasons in favor of hurtcore here. Psycopaths are not philosophers >Should there be a gendered double standard Absolutely not and faggotry should be prohibited >Should you require a parent's consent to approach their child for sex? I believe so, yes. One of the most under-condemned aspects of age of consent is the great harm it does to parents' rights. >Should a child require its parent's consent to approach an adult for sex? The adult should require the parents' permission, if their child is disobedient that's their problem. >how would you keep, say, a sexually/mentally immature 21 year old from having sex Why would I? Are you a communist? >What praxis do you think should be employed to improve the popularity of your position? Society should change, and the law should change with it >What does your ideal society look like, where pedophilia is acceptable and normalized? Much like the one we live in >Is it sadism? This question speaks volumes about how you see us

>>7408 Thanks for answering! >There is a far greater risk of physical harm in sex between homosexual adults than an adult and a child How? If I take two homosexual adults who are in all respects equal and they have sex, how are they engaged in a greater risk than one of those adults being paired with a third person who is the same as them in every way except being a prepubescent child? In isolating all other factors but the sexual partner being swapped out for a child, I can only think the child will be more at risk of having their physically less developed body more prone to injury. And I'm able to move from my present stance where I'd accept prohibition of pedophilic sexual acts -Iike maybe a prepubescent male child could top an older male/female. >A much better question is why this risk of harm is a cause for absolute prohibition Harm-aversion is a more satisfying reason for me than "lol informed consent" which I think is a test failed by plenty of 20+ year olds. >Furthermore, could these laws not be a cause of such harm by making education on safely having sex with a child almost completely inaccessible? This is an interesting argument, but I'd be willing to allow for guides to be printed despite the act being illegal. A guide isn't hurt anyone on its own and the education it provides can still help outlier cases. I'd say you could have sex ed taught to prepubescents, sure. >Considering that 100% harm prevention in adult intercourse cannot be guaranteed, what should be the punishment for reproduction? I asked how you'd punish/rehab only the individual culprits of the harm. I said nothing about implementing a broad ban. >there should be absolutely no punishment of any kind unless the harm was the result of malicious intent or actual wrongdoing occurred >Such conditions should be the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I did say "assuming these are proven" so chill out please. So assuming they are proven, what kind of punishment/rehabilitation solution would you want to see? >One of the most under-condemned aspects of age of consent is the great harm it does to parents' rights. At what point would you see a child become legally independent from its parents, and thus allowed to be approached by adults for sex? >Why would I? Are you a communist? Do you like having sex with mentally underdeveloped women? Do you believe there is no lower age limit where a child could be mentally immature? >Society should change, and the law should change with it What do you think would best stimulate that change in society? >This question speaks volumes about how you see us Taboo, Sadism, and exceptional Cuteness arousal are just what I've noticed to be expressed appeals based on what I've seen discussed by pedo anons over the years. I myself lack the attraction to relate so I can only make assumptions based of posts I read. If you have better rationales, do share.

This is an entirely pointless argument because neither side is ever going to change the other's mind. You either agree with pedos or you don't. No amount of words will ever change that.

>>7408 >Absolutely not and faggotry should be prohibited We almost could have been friends

>>7410 >How? How many children are dead because of having sex with an adult? Yet gays are like walking disease vectors. >I'd be willing to allow for guides to be printed despite the act being illegal. A guide isn't hurt anyone on its own and the education it provides can still help outlier cases. I'd say you could have sex ed taught to prepubescents, sure. Am I to understand that these "outlier cases" you want to help are ones where in your eyes the pedophile is doing nothing wrong? If so tell me how you can tolerate the contradiction of such cases and a law that treats it as an absolute evil. Let me tell you of the fait of this innocent man should he be discovered, at least in America (not that other countries will be much different): he will be abandoned by everyone he knows and loves, never having been born in the eyes of people who watched him grow up, he will be hauled off to a maximum security prison to spend very likely the rest of his life caged with murderers, rapists and other scum, if he manages to serve his term (if it even is a term) without being viciously murdered by the feral man-beasts that dwell there he may then be dragged off to another prison erroneously called a hospital where he will definitely spend the rest of his life regardless of any plea deals or parole he received, and should he actually be released he has nothing to return to, save for a litany of restrictions and requirements placed on his life till the day he dies, including telling the world (especially his neighbors) exactly why he went to prison ensuring that he not only has nothing, he never will again. This is so far from being a rare occurrence, cases without multiple (let alone just one) of the many things I mentioned are unheard of. Tell me why. Is this what you call justice? >I said nothing about implementing a broad ban. But that is what we're talking about, isn't it? >At what point would you see a child become legally independent from its parents, and thus allowed to be approached by adults for sex? Somewhere in the area of 16-20 >Do you like having sex with mentally underdeveloped women? I do not like having sex with women at all >Do you believe there is no lower age limit where a child could be mentally immature? Age is the record of the amount of time a thing has existed. In the real world there's no such thing as an "age limit". >What do you think would best stimulate that change in society? I see no alternative to vigorous activism. There is nobody else to fight our battles for us. >If you have better rationales, do share. Sexuality doesn't have a rationale. Any explanation you could ever receive is at best a guess. The truth is there is no reason, it simply is.

>>7406 >Child/Toddler/Baby: >Child means prepubescent. Cut-off ages are 5-9. Pedophilia means a firm (not exclusive) sexual attraction to under-9 year olds Very poor definition, even just for the sake of argument. There are no strict ages for puberty. Puberty could start at 7 or it could start at 15 (not a strict range, it could be even higher or lower), and it could progress faster or slower than average. And a child who has just started puberty isn't really any different from a child who hasn't yet, puberty is a years-long process. Even ignoring puberty, children develop at different rates both physically and mentally. It is not possible to give a strict age limit, unless it's just an arbitrary line that you need for legal reasons (to make the law simpler and more objective). If you want to be more specific and methodical (and I don't see why it would be necessary), look at the Tanner scale. It's currently the best model we have for judging puberty and its progress (mostly for medical purposes). You'll notice that it's split into categories, for breasts, male genitals, and pubic hair; because those things don't start or progress at the same rate, you can't simplify it to a single scale. And even with that multifaceted categorization, it still has flaws and is only a very loose measure of development. For example, adults have different breast/penis sizes/shapes and different amounts of pubic hair, so it's impossible to really judge how far along someone is until you see where they end up once they're an adult. So we could use some combination of Tanner scales for the sake of argument to define a "limit" for pedophilia, but it would only be an estimate and it would be unrelated to age. Also unrelated to mental development. You can see why some people have issues with the entire idea of an age limit for something that is not strongly tied to age. >Consent: >Consent is a sense that develops based on a person's self-awareness. We're quickly heading towards subjective, ambiguous, poorly defined, unprovable territory here. >Self-Awareness is a continuum starting from a few months after birth, which I believe reaches meaningful relevance for communication at age 5 (self-expression, language) It sounds like you don't know much about children or childhood development. Even <1 year olds have a sense of self and awareness of their own existence. 2 year olds can have full discussions in complete and well-formed sentences about complex topics (that's definitely not average, but not rare either), so it would be absurd to claim they aren't self-aware or capable of self-expression and language. >but lacks sexual comprehension until pubescence at age 9/10 when sexual desire becomes a familiar experience. Citation needed. I don't know exactly what you mean by "sexual comprehension", but I can't think of any definition that wouldn't come far before puberty. Even 5 year olds can have some understanding of sex and sexuality, and it's normal to start experimenting sexually as a toddler. >at age 9/10 when sexual desire becomes a familiar experience. This is my personal standing cutoff for minimum possible age where consent is valid. As described above, age limits like that are not valid, physically or mentally. >I think arguments can be made for sexual awareness along a spectrum from age 10 to age 25 This seems like a massive leap from your previous statements, and I'm now even less clear on what you mean by "sexual awareness". >but none seem as clear as marking 10 for pubescence, 25 for mental maturity. Where do you get 25 for "mental maturity" from? The retarded and misunderstood meme that "the brain doesn't finish developing until 25" that people have started repeating a lot in recent years? Refer to above where I described the complications with measuring pubertal development. Then consider that the brain is far more complicated and with far more variation, far harder to measure or study, and hasn't been studied for nearly as long. Any age given for some stage of development is, at best, a very rough estimate, of an average (with a huge variance), of the tendency of a complex and poorly understood process to cross an arbitrary and incredibly fuzzy line that may or may not be meaningful. Giving an arbitrary age for some level of mental development is far more retarded even than saying "puberty = 10 years old". >I think consent is easier to establish for males engaging in penetrative sex, so I could see sex where a shota is topping to be given greater leniency. Why is it easier to establish? What makes it different than, say, a girl taking a dominant role? >Harm >Prepubescent girls and boys lack secretion of sexual fluid for natural lubrication. This is not the case. It's true that there's less of it, and some children might not produce any, but it's wrong to say that they lack it completely. >I don't believe sex should require lubrication beyond what the average participant could be expected to naturally provide. Does that mean you're against anal sex for adults too? Or that oral sex with children is fine since no additional lubrication is needed? Or are we only considering penis-in-vagina sex here? In that case, is it fine if it's a prepubescent boy with an adult woman, where the woman provides all the lubrication necessary? What about medical issues that prevent natural lubrication? Why is it a problem to provide additional lubrication? This point doesn't seem to be thought through very well, or you've summarized it poorly. >States of arousal in pubescents increase pleasure from stimulation, and this is lacking in prepubescents. Entirely false. Prepubescents experience sexual arousal normally. I'm not sure how this is related to the rest of your points though. Is it a problem if they experience pleasure, but less than someone else might? >At 8 years of age is also when a child's immune system has matured to handle flu viruses. You're doing that "hard age limits for something that's only loosely tied to age and has a lot of natural variation" thing again. >My personal standing conclusion: >We either agree as a society on age 10 or 25 for a cutoff for adulthood, for better or worse. I am comfortable with either, I just want consistency and I can only see pubescence and full mental maturity as reasonable lines to choose from. You are welcome to tell me why this is a shit take, or what (short) argument you would give for choosing 10 over 25. You yourself stated that it was a spectrum, what argument do you have for the only valid choices being the extremes? Why can't some point in the middle be good enough? I'm sure by now you can guess what I'm going to say about specific ages, too. >I could also see a gendered double standard in effect where the male age of consent is 10 for penetrated sex that is initiated by them, while penetrative sex of males and females is set at a higher age. I still don't understand your reasoning for boys being different, but you seem to be purely considering the physical aspect here, even though your definition of harm did include mental harm. Mentally, girls mature faster than boys, so in that regard it could be argued that girls should have a lower age of consent. You also haven't established why this would be the limit. You say that 10+ is a lower chance of harm, but it's still not zero (even sex between adults has a chance of harm), so why that cutoff point? Why not just make harm itself the determining factor rather than age, since you already agreed that younger children can have sex without harm? To be continued, too long for one post.

>>7406 Continued >My arguments against pedophilia: >1.There is a disproportionately greater risk of physical harm to someone prepubescent for penetrative sex compared to someone who is post-pubescent. Why shouldn't children be considered an at-risk group for sex? That's not an argument against pedophilia, but against recklessness. Also, you haven't addressed non-penetrative sex, do you think the age of consent should only apply to penetration? >2. If we accept that 100% harm prevention can't be guaranteed I accept that, but then 100% harm prevention can';t be guaranteed for adults either. >what should be the punishment/rehabilitation solution for, assuming these are proven: a) causing mental trauma to a child, b) causing bodily injury to a child, c) Permanent mental trauma or bodily injury to a child. We already have laws covering both intentional harm and harm due to accidents or negligence. Those seem okay to me, so we can just stick with those. Additionally, holding adult-child sex to a higher standard of caution would be perfectly reasonable to me. Anyone rushing things or not taking proper precautions can be held responsible for the results. >3. If the harm can be proven to be intentional, does that change the punishment? How? Already covered by existing laws. >4. Should there be a gendered double standard where the age of consent is lowered more for topping males? (Say 10 for topping males, 12 for females and receptive males?) I don't think so, but again, you haven't really made an argument for this yet so I can't really evaluate it. I might be convinced if you explain it better. But then, I'm not really in favor of an arbitrary line anyways, it should be an individual judgement. >5. Should you require a parent's consent to approach their child for sex? I think it would be a good idea to get the parent's consent as a general practice, but it should not be legally required. Parents do not always have their children's best interests in mind, and children should be treated as humans with agency and not the property of their parents. >6. Should a child require its parent's consent to approach an adult for sex? Again, it would be a good idea to do that in general, but shouldn't be required. >7. If sexual/mental maturity is disconnected from age, how would you keep, say, a sexually/mentally immature 21 year old from having sex while allowing a sexually/mentally mature 12 year old to do so? If there's such a thing as sexual immaturity and it's possible to have that at age 21, then how do you screen for that? Or rather, how would you screen prepubescents to know they're sexually/mentally mature? It's not something that can be measured and there are no hard lines. Therefore, the law should stay out of it. Leave it up to social standars and human judgement, as with most things. >8. What praxis do you think should be employed to improve the popularity of your position? I have no clue. Judging from history, a generally more liberal and progressive society (not the same as what some people call "liberal" today) will naturally become more accepting of pedophilia and adult-child sex. Until the last few years, society seemed headed in that direction. Everything is more chaotic now, but I'm still optimistic it will improve naturally over time. Maybe not soon enough to make a difference to me personally, though. >9. What does your ideal society look like, where pedophilia is acceptable and normalized? How are acts of pedophilia practiced in this world? Children are empowered (both socially and legally) and allowed to think freely for themselves, and purposefully raised into adults instead of their development being suppressed and hindered. In general, they would have equal rights to adults. No more treating them as property, no more treating them as retarded babies to be coddled and crippled until they're 18 or some other imaginary line. Sex would not be seen as inherently negative or harmful. Restrictions against pedophilia would be relatively unnecessary then, and any harm to children from it would be minimized far more effectively than any possible law could achieve today. At most, you just need to treat harm against children as something more serious than harm against adults. >10. Finally, what is it that you find most sexually attractive about prepubescents/toddlers/babies, and why do you think so? Does the taboo make them more appealing? Is it sadism? Do you just find cuteness especially arousing? Everything. Children are more appealing to me physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no physical feature of adulthood/maturity that is more attractive than its younger form. Adults can have some advantages mentally, for example it's easier to have deep and complex debates/discussions about all sorts of things. Children are fully capable of that too, but it's of course easier to find with adults, and adults tend to (again, not always) have more experience to draw on. The same discussions with children can give some more interesting perspectives though. As for why, that can't be answered. Any answer anyone attempts to give is just a rationalization that sounds good to them. Can you explain why your food preferences are the way they are? Maybe you could give specific aspects that make you like some food, say you like salty things and that's why you like pretzels or whatever, or you like borscht because it brings back fond memories of your russian grandmother's cooking. But that's just a shallow and incomplete explanation; why do you like salty things? Aren't there salty things you don't like, why are they different? You probably don't like pure salt either. Why do you like borscht more than the other things your grandmother cooked? Why that over other things that are associated with fond memories? What if your twin brother who grew up with you has entirely different preferences? Maybe you can answer those questions too, but no matter how much information you give and how deep you go, it can't really be answered because the real root cause is a complex and semi-random process based on genetics and environment and experiences and a bunch of other influences, and that entire process is invisible and (at least currently) impossible to quantify or measure. Then people simply build their own stories on top of that.

>>7406 That other guy was almost right, but he is a dumb homophobe who does what he complains you do, but for gay people. Here are my answers, but first some details I feel are important for understanding my position. I am a pedophile, I cannot control this about myself and it is impossible to change this in the same way that one can not change their sexuality fundamentally (see the horrible success rates of gay conversion therapy. You can fake it and lie to yourself but you cannot change who or what you are). Many of the words we use for sexuality, the relevant ones being homosexual and pedophile in this case, are not real latin words (first used in 1894 and 1912 respectively, what else started around that time??). I believe very strongly that sex is not bad, that when it is a question of nature vs. man nature is always right and that separation from nature is part of what hell is a metaphor for, that the traditional way of the family that has existed across every single culture in every single era except post-industrial society is the healthiest and best way of doing things for every individual and all of society, and that children are human beings who deserve rights and should never ever be treated as objects or burdens by their parents. Now to respond to your points: >On consent There are many different criteria which people use to judge what is and is not consent, and I believe that the lack of a consistent and well understood definition is the cause of a lot of problems (many of which are beyond the scope of this discussion). However, if we go by brain development nobody can have sex before 25 which is direct opposition to nature for a number of reasons. If we go by sexual maturity, a set number is irrelevant because (as any doctor will tell you) every person is different. If we go by some arbitrary minimum-development-stage 90% of brain development and growth occurs before age 5, which would mean that any requirement below 90% puts the age at 5 or less. A particular age, however, is silly. In terms of raw consent there is the obvious affirmative consent, and there can be some issues with confirmation bias in implicit consent in some cases, but I believe that simply understanding yes and no would be enough to give or deny consent. After all, what more do you need then "yes, I want this" or "no, I dont like that"? >Harm On the psychological front, inherent harm is a myth. The majority of this harm is dealt out by societal gaslighting. Surely, your position is not that until the mid-late 20th century most sexual relationships where inherently traumatic? On the physical front, you are right in that there are certainly anatomical limits to what can be done safely and comfortably, though penis in hole sex is not the only way to do things. I agree, harm aversion is more important than consent, but I cant think of a situation in which you would be averting harm but violating consent. >Legitmacy I don't really need to go over what I think as a pedophile, I hope. I am not into toddlers or babies (I still think they are very cute though), but I believe they are just as valid as me in the case where they are genuinely attracted and not just adrenaline junkies or other fake child lovers in it for the thrill. 2d is 3d in every way that matters, but its not really important. >Conclusion both 10 and 25 are arbitrary and this is honestly stupid, as is the entire idea of AoC. By your lines of reasoning, neither age would even be appropriate. 25 is far too old, and 10 year olds are far too scattered in their stages of development to call a set number consistent. Any double standard is bad automatically.

>>7418 >>7419 Along with these arguments, it's also worth noting that I personally don't want to have sex with children. I'm not interested in sex with anyone really. But I have a very strong (not quite exclusive) romantic and aesthetic attraction to children, so I call that pedophilia for convenience even though it may technically not be.

gross

>>7420 Continued >>7406 Arguments against pedophilia lightning round: >Greater risk There are a lot of things that are more dangerous that are practiced every day. If children were only afforded the same protections as adults are, pedophilia was legalized, society stopped gaslighting children into hating themselves for being human, and safe sex education wasnt made inaccessible then what do you think would happen to the rate of both child rape and sexual trauma? It would plummet, because the majority of it is the direct result of how modern society approaches the issue. >100% harm prevention cant be guarenteed You can't even guarantee 100% harm prevention walking around your house. There is no such thing. >Double standard no >Parents consent Its not their body, it shouldnt be their choice, and children are human beings who deserve autonomy. The role of a parent is not a tyrant but a gentle leader, a protector, and an educator. Parents should be responsible for proper sex education and children should be allowed to explore their own bodies. This does not mean that if you harm the child, the parents don't have every right to harm you ten fold. All being said, human relationships are messy and regardless of arrangement it should be down to individual families how they do things. >If sexual/mental maturity is seperate from age It is, and I wouldn't keep anybody from having sex because it is their body and therefore their choice. (Note: Abortion is bad but the tagline they use is good). >Improve popularity of position Society and laws need to change to reflect what nature dictates, and engaging in discussions like these change minds. People need to see that we are human, and not monsters. Repairing the damage done to society will take a very long time, though I believe that we will eventually recover. >What does my ideal society look like In the most general of terms, a return to a more traditional organization in which the majority of rules and regulations (especially concerning individuals) is dictated by families or by small town communities. Families are large, live in the same large house or compound including multiple generations, and produce most of their needs on their own. There is a balance between the pursuit of mind, body, and spirit and the state is strong, centralized, and morally grounded. >What do I find most sexually attractive What don't I? I guess the cuteness is the most attractive, but it's how open and honest and fun little girls are that makes me want to have a relationship with them. It's not just about sex. Sadists are not real pedophiles and it makes me angry that you would put me in the same group as individuals who get pleasure from harming others. Same if taboo being the most appealing part, that is just an adrenaline junkie who gets off on doing things that can get him into a lot of trouble.

>>7421 I am an actual pedo, bless the lord for giving me a lower sex drive too though I'm guessing I'm still more interested in sex than you are. I won't ask you probing questions about what a total absence of sex drive is like, but I just wanna let you know that you are great and heckin valid. >>7424 Continued (again) >>7410 >risk of injury Based on the difference in physical development, it is very easy to hurt a child. This is a big part of why hitting children is bad, and why I believe that stripping children of legal autonomy and personhood is awful since it eliminates any real recourse for mistreatment by the central authority figures in their life. How can a child defend themselves against a neglectful parent if they need that parent to advocate for them on their behalf, for example? But in a sexual context this is why safe sex education is absolutely critical. There are whole guides floating around pedo communities on how to practice safe sex with children (which also include many other things about keeping yourself safe from the law as well). They are hard to come by though, for obvious reasons, and many are somewhat outdated. This is a situation born entirely out of society and its approach, the child loving community puts forth its best effort to mitigate the issue. >Harm aversion is grounds for prohibition Child traffiking exists to the degree it does because of the prohibition of sex with children. Banning things never works at all, and historical precedent says that doing so hands a monopoly on whatever you have banned to malicious gangsters or generally dangerous ruffians. Even if you think it is bad no matter what, wouldn't you rather that it be in the hands of a porn production company bound by the law rather than some hardened mafia groups who would sooner murder the kids then be caught? >Punishment for harm His point is that since you can't guarantee this for any sex at all, what the punishment should be for having sex at all, because you did phrase it in a way that sounded like you thought anybody doing it should be punished. Maybe we are too sensitive, on account of being persecuted so thoroughly. I see no reason to deviate from how rapists and murderers are punished based on the age of their victims. I don't need the state to bury whoever made my hypothetical child cry, though. >Chill out I don't think you realize how paranoid and jumpy we all are. Non-pedos who are genuinely trying to engage and not just paint us as monsters with the backhand or do other nefarious things are extremely rare in my experience, so I doubt there are many people who will interpret what you are trying to do as genuine learning. I'll admit the first thing I did was try to find the trick in your post, and its easy to get caught up in little ways you phrase things and inventing masterful plots to somehow trap me. It comes with the persecution thing, I think. It can be hard to believe people don't intend to bring harm sometimes. >Do you like having sex with mentally underdeveloped women? Can you define "mentally underdeveloped"? If the answer is anyone above maybe 14 that isnt married to me the answer is a resounding no.

>>7410 Sadists and people into it because it is taboo are not pedophiles. They congregate in pedo areas of the internet because thats where they are going to find what they are looking for, but you'll notice they get kicked out of these places often and are generally regarded as undesirables. They aren't pedophiles because they aren't attracted to children, they just get off to harming the defenseless. They would cream their pants just as much whether they were kicking a baby or a puppy. They are evil and jewish and they will never be welcome.

>>7420 >he is a dumb homophobe

>>7431 >I'll post another soijack, im sure this time that'll show em nuinternet retard

>>7420 >but he is a dumb homophobe faggots will be strung up

>>7417 >How many children are dead because of having sex with an adult? Yet gays are like walking disease vectors. Children under 8 years old have less developed immune systems so they're especially vulnerable to becoming ill from what would otherwise be low risk interaction for adults. If we normalized sex with children, we'd probably see an explosion of contagion just like we saw with the normalization of homosexuality. I think arguably that was the result of gay sex being pushed underground and repressed to begin with. I don't have a problem with gay sex, but I think your problems with gay sex actually help the argument against normalized sex with children. And normalizing sex with children will mean gay sex with children happening anyway. And straight people get STDs too. Here are a few questions I have on this front: Would you be alright if children being classified as an at-risk group meant engaging in sex with a child required medical clearance? What punishment/rehab should be given to, say, an adult female who has an STD and gives it to a male child? How does this change depending on whether the adult female is aware they have the STD VS unaware? What if the male child is aware and knowingly engages with the risk? >Am I to understand that these "outlier cases" you want to help are ones where in your eyes the pedophile is doing nothing wrong? I assume even if something is considered wrong and banned you will have outlier cases happening. I don't go by absolute condemnation. We made that mistake with gay sex where we tried to act like it didn't exist or was only done by the mentally ill and so we had poor sex ed for those who were determined to do it regardless. Btw personally I think inmates proven to murder other inmates should be executed the same day of conviction for that crime. I also think sexual assault of a child should not be held in any greater regard, I'm only arguing about how the risk factors that come with being a child may qualify an interaction as sexual assault more easily because I think they can be considered a risk group. It's easier for a child to be harmed sexually than an adult. Again, I'm not talking about a broad ban, just trying to figure out >I do not like having sex with women at all lolfag >Age is the record of the amount of time a thing has existed. In the real world there's no such thing as an "age limit". I'm asking about mental maturity - I can agree age is a social construct because people mature at different rates in reality but ages exist basically to help us agree on the average trend, and that's important. You know what I mean when I say a 4 year old isn't old enough to drive a car, with the implication they lack the mental maturity. Do you believe mental maturity shouldn't matter at all for sex? If not, then do you have any other marker? My own mental maturity marker is age 25 (avg full development) and if I am to disregard that I go by pubescence, age 9-10, and call that sexual maturity. I have difficulty appreciating why it should be lower than that. >At what point would you see a child become legally independent from its parents, and thus allowed to be approached by adults for sex? >Somewhere in the area of 16-20 So let's say 16. Almost nothing changes under your preference, except the significance of under-16's requiring parentally sanctioned sex? >Sexuality doesn't have a rationale. Any explanation you could ever receive is at best a guess. The truth is there is no reason, it simply is. Understanding rationale is something I look for because it's helpful to be able to justify something to another party. >There are no strict ages for puberty. Sure but because legality is the concern, we should appreciate that legality is determined by cultural attitudes influencing agreed logical estimations, accepting that outliers are fringe cases which do not make up the norm. It's also much more difficult for praxis to argue for outliers to be included, when you should just be seeking to lower the average convincingly. If age of consent was universally 13 tomorrow you'd like that more than the present situation, right? >Consent: >Self-Awareness is a continuum starting from a few months after birth >It sounds like you don't know much about children or childhood development. >2 year olds can have full discussions in complete and well-formed sentences about complex topics (that's definitely not average, but not rare either) Googling 'age child recognizes self in mirror' puts basic self-awareness at 18 months. https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/children-five-stages-self-awareness-mirror-tests/ Self-consciousness is said to occur at 4-5 years. That is what informs the basis of my pedophilia minimum cut-off age before it becomes nepiophilia/toddlercon. I prefer to go by averages, and even erring ahead of them to be conservatively safe. (E.g: I can agree pushing back to 10 for pubescence legally even though it begins at 9 to be more of a sure thing.) Object permanence awareness is pretty much guaranteed by age 5, which means concepts like pregnancy can be understood. But for me, sexual maturity should factor in somehow. > lacks sexual comprehension until pubescence at age 9/10 when sexual desire becomes a familiar experience. >Citation needed. I don't know exactly what you mean by "sexual comprehension" An informed, first-hand understanding of what enthusiastic sexual desire is. Masturbating to orgasm, intense spikes of arousal, physical changes associated with puberty. Distinct changes beginning around age 10 most people in society would agree represents a significant threshold in a person's development. >age limits like that are not valid, physically or mentally. They are to normies and most people who aren't ultimate skeptics, complete anarchists, nihilists or playing dumb. Same goes for gender. As you push down age for sexual consent, you open arguments for consent to puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy. I'm guessing you hate trans as much as you hate gay but the way you think about age is how those empathizing with trans people see gender. You'll have to reach a compromise with those people to get what you want. >Where do you get 25 for "mental maturity" from?

[Expand Post]

>The retarded and misunderstood meme It's been very helpful for showing ages 16, 18 and 21 are questionable. >I think consent is easier to establish for males engaging in penetrative sex >What makes it different than, say, a girl taking a dominant role? Strong cultural bias where males are presumed to top, erections as indicators of arousal. Easier to argue adult females should be able able let male children fuck them than the reverse. >Harm >Prepubescent girls and boys lack secretion of sexual fluid for natural lubrication. >wrong to say that they lack it completely. Didn't say that. More natural sex lube is just more reason to have 10 over anything goes. >I don't believe sex should require lubrication beyond what the average participant could be expected to naturally provide. >Does that mean you're against anal sex for adults too? They can naturally provide that with a foreskin. Foreskins lubricate significantly. Circumcised people are mutilated for whom lube compensates for what they would be able to do otherwise. >oral sex with children is fine since no additional lubrication is needed? We already allow rabbis to do it. But hypothetically I'd say oral is more acceptable assuming the recipient has enthusiastic sexual enjoyment out of it -but I'd still say there is a much lower bar for causing harm to a child than between adults, though not nearly as problematic as penetration. And I'm not sure I buy the child having sexual enjoyment if they're prepubescent. I see oral sex being allowed for 10 year olds legally long before penetrative for prepubescents. Could be that it's receptive penetration that is best reserved for some later age with oral + topping at

>>7441 >>7418 Cont. >Harm >>States of arousal in pubescents increase pleasure from stimulation, and this is lacking in prepubescents. >Entirely false. >Is it a problem if they experience pleasure, but less than someone else might? It's entirely false they are experience less pleasure? Because that's what I mean when I say preubescents lack those arousal states. I'm willing to say pubescence meets a significant threshold for enthusiastic consent that prepubescent does not. I think there is a much greater uncertainty when it comes to the idea of a child being aroused. I don't think a 10 year old is nearly as ambiguous as a 5 year old for whether they have sexual desire. >8 years of age is also when a child's immune system has matured >You're doing that "hard age limits for something that's only loosely tied to age and has a lot of natural variation" thing again. Yes, I have no idea how you'd expect to argue your case convincingly to anyone without engaging with the idea of expected traits related to average age. I'm looking to get a foot in the door for progress, not blow the door off its hinges for anarchy. >My personal standing conclusion: >We either agree as a society on age 10 or 25 for a cutoff for adulthood, for better or worse. >You yourself stated that it was a spectrum, what argument do you have for the only valid choices being the extremes? Why can't some point in the middle be good enough? Middle ground is what we have right now and it doesn't kill me but I can empathize with arguments to have it lower. I think most arguments for 18 also tend to just give more reason to spill over to 25. Because of that, 18 is to me as questionable as 25. I could see a universal lowering to 16 in the US to begin with, then mostly settling at 13 for a while. Eventually getting down to 10 I think is very possible, but I think it would be exceedingly difficult to convincingly argue to wider society that it should be lower than 10. >Why not just make harm itself the determining factor rather than age, since you already agreed that younger children can have sex without harm? The age is the indicator for risk of harm. It's dangerous to let a 4 year old take the wheel for you while you are driving. You have a person being put in a situation they are generally expected to not be suited for being able to handle. Alcohol is naturally occurring and homebrew moonshine is accessible but we have legal restrictions against selling it to children or knowingly allowing them to partake. If you regularly gave a child alcohol, you'd be considered to be doing harm to a child. >Mentally, girls mature faster than boys, so in that regard it could be argued that girls should have a lower age of consent. That only justifies them topping, they'd still have the increased physical risk as a receptive party. Both physical and mental risks of harm should be considered. It seems to me pubescence helps alleviate a lot of risks for mental harm because they can reliably experience sexual arousal to inform their understanding which significantly mitigates harm. >My arguments against pedophilia: >That's not an argument against pedophilia, but against recklessness. Sure -I mean acting on the desire. I accept that recklessness can be mitigated by law. >We already have laws covering both intentional harm and harm due to accidents or negligence. Those seem okay to me, so we can just stick with those. Additionally, holding adult-child sex to a higher standard of caution would be perfectly reasonable to me. Anyone rushing things or not taking proper precautions can be held responsible for the results. I think we agree on the spirit of this. I guess the question is over how that higher standard of caution is enforced, and I'm more concerned about the risk of harm. Maybe for me something in the realm of hate crime or discrimination laws would fit here. It's one thing to beat a person to death and another to lynch them for being X race. (For that matter I think pedophiles themselves should also be considered a protected group covered by discrimination laws if we are to have those -and I'm accepting that we probably will continue to have them.) But just like a black person getting shot in a liquor store for conducting an armed robbery, a pedophile causing harm to a child shouldn't get to play a get out of jail free discrimination card and shouldn't Pikachu-face getting shot by the cop at the scene lol. Still, at least for now I don't see advancing the position for pedophilia tolerance in society without making concessions like that. >gendered double standard where the age of consent is lowered more for topping males? >I don't think so, but again, you haven't really made an argument for this yet so I can't really evaluate it. I might be convinced if you explain it better. I think there's potential there for arguing say: -lowering general age of consent to 16 for oral+topping, remaining 18 for penetration reception -then lowering it to 13 for oral+topping, 16 penetration reception -then down to 10 and 13 Something like that. I don't know where the right place to settle on is but there's a possible strategy for progress there. You get to include bestiality with this too with all those white girls who let their dogs fuck them and say it's okay because it's an initiating male acting on much more obvious sexual desire. Guys wanting to fuck horses will point to mares winking but society is biased to accept literal 9 year old dog erections over 25 year old mare winking as evidence of consent. There are also similar questions about guardianship and whether a pet owner can decide consent for the animal the way a parent for a child might. Might seem kinda random to bring up bestiality here but I think just like trans for age you get overlaps with beast for consent arguments. You might think both camps are degenerate but you are literally a pedophile and considered at the very bottom of the degeneracy ladder. Going to jail for fucking a horse after coming out as trans will not get you killed in prison the way even an unproven allegation of sex with a child would. I have no idea how you'd make any progress while simultaneously rejecting trans and bestiality folks. I mean, what, are we betting everything on Trump winning again and somehow ushering in some theocracy where lgbt and zoo gets bogged, meanwhile sex with kids is suddenly cool with everyone?

[Expand Post]

>If sexual/mental maturity is disconnected from age, how would you screen prepubescents to know they're sexually/mentally mature? >It's not something that can be measured and there are no hard lines. Therefore, the law should stay out of it. Leave it up to social standars and human judgement, as with most things. Going full libertarian on this is difficult even for far less controversial ideas. I get this is plausible as an endgame but it's pretty utopian at this stage. The social standards you need to even get this off the ground aren't there yet. >8. What praxis do you think should be employed to improve the popularity of your position? >I have no clue. Judging from history, a generally more liberal and progressive society I think that's probably the case. I'm optimistic things will improve too.

>>7446 Cont. >9. What does your ideal society look like, where pedophilia is acceptable and normalized? >At most, you just need to treat harm against children as something more serious than harm against adults. I think this is something good to focus on to win others over, because just saying it should be legal is scary to normies. The approach to easing that tension I think is important, and separate to the bigger picture you have in mind with: >Children are empowered (both socially and legally) and allowed to think freely for themselves, and purposefully raised into adults instead of their development being suppressed and hindered. In general, they would have equal rights to adults. I think there are a lot of people who would agree but easily get very divided depending on the idea of what "children" means - and because you can have strong reactions one way or the other, it's better to lean toward something more compromising. Age of consent being lowered to 16 overnight would probably be welcomed by most people, they just need the right argument politically to not look weird or feel uncomfortable for endorsing it. >10. Finally, what is it that you find most sexually attractive about prepubescents/toddlers/babies >There is no physical feature of adulthood/maturity that is more attractive than its younger form. Interesting. Talking fantasty, If you could have it your way, would all people be forever-lolis/shotas, in terms of form? Would you include yourself for that? >and why do you think so? >people simply build their own stories on top of that. From that point of view, it might help to look at it this way: What story can you sell people on? And I don't mean this deceptively, I mean figuring out what's more approachable for people as an interpretation to go off is important for gaining any ground for ideas in society. Marketplace of ideas and all.

I can't say what should change, but my mother did some weird stuff with me when I was younger that might be looked down upon, but I never felt like she was a bad mother for it and don't think she deserves any punishment. I'm a girl btw.

>>7450 Story time?

>>7441 >Children under 8 years old have less developed immune systems so they're especially vulnerable to becoming ill from what would otherwise be low risk interaction for adults But in the real world STDs are very rare among children, even accounting for gay sex being more common. It's obviously not a coincidence that people obsessed with each other's assholes have so much disease, this is an inherent problem with homosexuality but not for pedophilia. >If we normalized sex with children, we'd probably see an explosion of contagion You say that as if sex with children doesn't occur very often in the world today and in the recent past. >Would you be alright if children being classified as an at-risk group meant engaging in sex with a child required medical clearance? No. >I don't go by absolute condemnation The law does, and age of consent is an absolute condemnation, regardless of the circumstances of the case. >Btw personally I think inmates proven to murder other inmates should be executed the same day of conviction for that crime. Good for you, it looks like you still don't understand the gravity of what you're advocating, why don't you go back and read that section of my post again and realize this is what you are defending >the risk factors that come with being a child may qualify an interaction as sexual assault more easily Sexual assault only occurs when someone deliberately violates another person's rights and wishes, this is what makes it an assault. It is a travesty and a joke to apply the term to voluntary interaction. >I can agree age is a social construct Age is not a social construct, it objectively exists and can be objectively measured, but it is an abstraction. When we talk about a person's characteristics based on their age, we are merely using age as a shorthand for the period of human development which roughly corresponds to that age, and especially considering that these phases of development are nebulous that means age can never completely accurately represent the experience of most people. It is an inherently inflexible and inaccurate standard. >You know what I mean when I say a 4 year old isn't old enough to drive a car, with the implication they lack the mental maturity. The mental maturity of a 4 year old has nothing to do with their inability to drive, because they physically cannot touch the pedal or see over the wheel. However, before the car was invented children would learn to ride horses or drive carriages at a very young age, well before they learn to drive cars today. They are worse at driving because they have lower reaction speeds and worse fine motor control. These are definable, perceivable, factual qualities of children. What qualities of children make sex dangerous for them other than some vague concept of "she's too young"? >Do you believe mental maturity shouldn't matter at all for sex? If not, then do you have any other marker? I have to ask again, are you a communist? You seem very interested in controlling other people's lives. How about instead of finding excuses to outlaw sex we err on the side of liberty and allow people to live their lives as they wish? >Almost nothing changes under your preference, except the significance of under-16's requiring parentally sanctioned sex? A great deal more than that changes

>>7441 I'll note first that you seem to have mixed me up with the other anon, based on some of your comments. I'm >>7418, >>7419, and >>7421. >Sure but because legality is the concern, we should appreciate that legality is determined by cultural attitudes influencing agreed logical estimations I don't think any single age can be a logical estimation for something that's so multifacted and has such massive variation. >accepting that outliers are fringe cases which do not make up the norm. Sure, but I'm not talking about outliers, but rather a range of what's normal and common. That aside, the law should work best for most but that doesn't mean it should ignore the existence of outliers entirely. >It's also much more difficult for praxis to argue for outliers to be included, when you should just be seeking to lower the average convincingly. I'm not all that interested in lowering age of consent, though it may be beneficial as a temporary measure or a small victory on the way to something better. >If age of consent was universally 13 tomorrow you'd like that more than the present situation, right? I'm unsure. Even if people magically accepted it and it didn't stir up a lot of chaos, it would still be a mix of good and bad. One big thing is that it would remove a lot of impetus for actual reform, reform which could make the law more sensible and help far more people. And if nothing else changed along with it, then children and adolescents are still being mentally handicapped and prevented from being prepared for life, so there will be plenty of teenagers harmed by the change (though it may be less than the current harm, there's no way to be sure). >Googling 'age child recognizes self in mirror' puts basic self-awareness at 18 months. I'm aware of the mirror test, and it's very flawed. 18 months for 50% of children to pass was determined in the 70s. Since then, it's been shown that it's heavily influenced by culture, environment, and parenting, so a study of some subset of children doesn't hold for all children and a test from the 70s doesn't hold today. It's also been shown that the test's methodology was flawed, and that a lot of children did recognize themselves in the mirror but simply didn't care that there was something on their face, or it didn't occur to them to do anything about it. When children were introduced to the idea by having them clean makeup off the faces of dolls before the test, they were much more likely to pass, so the study from the 70s if done properly would have had the 50% point somewhere below 18 months. I'm unsure if any recent studies have been done taking these two things into account. Those are the biggest problems I'm aware of but there are a lot of other issues with the mirror test and a lot of ways it can give false negatives, many reasons someone or something might be self-aware but not address whatever is shown in the mirror. It may be the best measure we have, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good measure. Still, 18 months is well below the main points of argument so it's not that relevant to this discussion. >Self-consciousness is said to occur at 4-5 years. That's an oversimplification, and conflating different things. Rochat said, as an example, that children at 4-5 are able to do things like looking at a drawing and making judgements about what sort of person might have drawn it. He did not say that this represented his "level 5", which he later describes as starting at 3-4 years. But more importantly he said that it's mostly a mystery and needs more study. He also has a tendency to contradict himself a bit in saying when things "start", but that's excusable since it's not a technical paper and people shouldn't be treating it like it is. >I prefer to go by averages, and even erring ahead of them to be conservatively safe. (E.g: I can agree pushing back to 10 for pubescence legally even though it begins at 9 to be more of a sure thing.) That's understandable in the context of debating where an arbitrary age of consent line should be drawn, but I'm arguing that an arbitrary line is not the sensible choice. >An informed, first-hand understanding of what enthusiastic sexual desire is. That's experience, not development or capability. >Masturbating to orgasm That happens in very young children. Definitely in 3-5 year olds, possibly in infants. Deciding what is and isn't an orgasm is a bit subjective for infants, since they can't communicate well and it's not ethical or legal to study properly. Kinsey did some less than ethical experiments that could be argued as showing the capability for orgasm in infants, but not that they would naturally bring themselves to orgasm on their own (though they do masturbate without orgasm, even in the womb). >intense spikes of arousal, physical changes associated with puberty. Distinct changes beginning around age 10 most people in society would agree represents a significant threshold in a person's development. Interest in sex (even enthusiastic desire) usually starts before most physical signs of puberty, 8-9 is more likely than 10. And it could start long before puberty. This aspect of your argument probably has more age variance than any other. >They are to normies and most people who aren't ultimate skeptics, complete anarchists, nihilists or playing dumb. That's pretty disingenuous and insulting for what's been a reasonable discussion up to this point. Why the sudden hostility? You don't have to be any of those things to be interested in reforming age of consent laws. Even "normies" who wouldn't want a lower age of consent can accept that the current system is flawed. >I'm guessing you hate trans as much as you hate gay You're mixing me up with another poster, I don't hate either. >It's been very helpful for showing ages 16, 18 and 21 are questionable. Helpful is not the same as true or accurate. >Strong cultural bias where males are presumed to top, erections as indicators of arousal. Easier to argue adult females should be able able let male children fuck them than the reverse. I don't really agree. First because arousal is not consent, and second because it seems to me that a girl topping a man would be similarly easy to argue as consensual. >And I'm not sure I buy the child having sexual enjoyment if they're prepubescent. It's pretty hard to deny that when prepubescent children will masturbate and have sex with each other if they're allowed to. >Could be that it's receptive penetration that is best reserved for some later age with oral + topping at Seems that something was cut off or left out. >It's entirely false they are experience less pleasure? Because that's what I mean when I say preubescents lack those arousal states.

[Expand Post]

I meant that it's entirely false that prepubescents lack sexual arousal. >I'm willing to say pubescence meets a significant threshold for enthusiastic consent that prepubescent does not. >I think there is a much greater uncertainty when it comes to the idea of a child being aroused. I don't think a 10 year old is nearly as ambiguous as a 5 year old for whether they have sexual desire. I don't think it's ambiguous in prepubescents at all, it's very clear-cut that they experience arousal and sexual desire. Prepubescent children will masturbate and have sex with each other with no adult influence. Exploratorily at first, but often enthusiastically seeking it once they've discovered it. Puberty greatly increases sex drive, but the capacity for sexual arousal and pleasure is there well before puberty. To be continued

>>7441 >>7460 Continued >Yes, I have no idea how you'd expect to argue your case convincingly to anyone without engaging with the idea of expected traits related to average age. By focusing on the traits and problems themselves, instead of using age as a single very loose proxy for a hundred different things that happen at different ages. >I'm looking to get a foot in the door for progress, not blow the door off its hinges for anarchy. I've never advocated for anarchy, only for making the restrictions less arbitrary and more closely related to the thing they're restricting. >If you regularly gave a child alcohol, you'd be considered to be doing harm to a child. In the US. In other countries, such as France, it's perfectly normal to regularly give children alcohol. >Sure -I mean acting on the desire. That's still not the same as recklessness, you can act on the desire cautiously. >I guess the question is over how that higher standard of caution is enforced I'm unsure how exactly to go about it. >Maybe for me something in the realm of hate crime or discrimination laws would fit here. Maybe. Another analogy (not a great one) is how doctors are held to higher standards of caution than ordinary people when treating someone. A random passerby making a good faith effort at first aid is generally not going to be held responsible for making things worse with their recklessness or inexperience, unless it's especially egregious. A doctor or paramedic on the other hand is expected to know what they're doing and even minor negligence can be punished harshly. That's a very different situation for a lot of reasons, but hopefully the point behind it is coming across somewhat. >-lowering general age of consent to 16 for oral+topping, remaining 18 for penetration reception Personally, I still don't think there should be a distinction between boys and girls topping. The child being dominant matters, but not so much the gender. In principle, I agree with the idea of different limits depending on details like that. But in practice, unless everything is on camera, how do you determine it? In most cases you won't have anything to go on except the word of the participants. I think the only way to make that work is to assume oral/topping by default, and only apply the higher limit in the small number of cases where it can be definitively proven that the child was penetrated and not dominant. >I have no idea how you'd make any progress while simultaneously rejecting trans and bestiality folks. They're all cool with me. I guess I am a little iffy on bestiality that isn't initiated by the animal, but I think animal abuse laws can probably cover that well enough; as long as the animal isn't showing any signs of pain or distress, it's fine. >Going full libertarian on this is difficult even for far less controversial ideas. I get this is plausible as an endgame but it's pretty utopian at this stage. The social standards you need to even get this off the ground aren't there yet. You're right, I was thinking more of an ideal society there rather than something more concrete I guess. I still think the law should be less involved though. It's difficult to say for sure what I'd prefer, there are tradeoffs with everything. Testing and licensing would generally be effective, but I'm pretty strongly against that in principle, it's only appropriate for a very authoritarian system. Leaving it up to human judgement would allow the necessary flexibility, but it also leaves a lot of room for bias, rulings based on external agendas rather than the facts of the case, and poor judgement in general. Looking at obscenity laws and how horribly they're applied today, I'm not eager to have consent be judged by those same people. I can't think of any practical solution without huge flaws, so ultimately it would probably end up being whatever would be easiest to get passed. I'm skipping over some parts, that generally means I don't have any disagreement or further information to add for those. Moving away from your arguments now, the fact is that even today, sex between an adult and a willing prepubescent child is unlikely to cause long-term physical or mental harm (based on multiple studies and meta-analyses). The majority of harm that does occur does not come from the act itself, but comes many years later as an adult due to societal pressure, self-doubt due to widespread misconceptions, and unrelated people convincing them that they must be enraged or traumatized. All of that was discussed earlier in the thread, so you can scroll up to see those arguments. In light of that, all of the hypothetical details about what may be harmful and what may not be, and what level of harm is acceptable, seem less important when we can see how low the harm is already in practice for the people who ignore the limits. Additionally (and I'm guessing you'd agree, based on how you're focused on harm over consent), if the harm is minimal, then extremely high standards of "informed consent" no longer make sense. There's no need for a child to have a deep philosophical understanding of sexuality first, if the sex isn't hugely dangerous. Just like we don't worry too much about whether a child can really consent to playing sports or mountain climbing or other activities that have some chance of injury. There's also the need to consider the harm that age of consent laws cause themselves, but that's another large discussion and this post is pretty long and time-consuming already. >Interesting. Talking fantasty, If you could have it your way, would all people be forever-lolis/shotas, in terms of form? Not everyone. It could be nice, but variety is important, and there's no need for everyone to be attractive. Everyone especially doesn't need to be attractive to me in particular, and it would be boring if everyone had the same tastes. But everyone should have the option to remain a loli/shota forever. >Would you include yourself for that? I would of course love to be a loli.

[Expand Post]

>What story can you sell people on? I'm not sure, I've never really bothered coming up with a story and just accept that it is what it is, just like I don't put much effort into explaining why I like one food and not another. If I had to answer, I'd go with the cop-out of "I was just born that way". I've been attracted to children for as long as I've experienced attraction. I've never known anything else, and I was only 11 when I realized I was a pedophile (though I'm not sure I was familiar with the word at the time). I'm not interested in sadism towards children and I wish it wasn't taboo. Children are incredibly cute and adorable, but I wouldn't say that cuteness is especially arousing. It's basically just the same thing as ordinary adult attraction in just about every way, except directed primarily towards children. And without the desire for sex.

>>7451 When I was 7 or 8, my mother was several months pregnant with my brother. I started asking questions about it, and she ended up dumping a ton of information about pregnancy and sex on me. For a few days, she kept pestering me to make sure my mind wasn't too scrambled with all the information she told me. Then she brought up masturbation and encouraged me to try touching myself and looking at the different parts of my vagina(she was present while I did both of these things). After this, she gave me a vibrator and told me a little about sex toys(how they are used to make you feel good, and that I was probably too young for a dildo). When she got the vibrator for me, she told me that she wanted me to experience an orgasm. We laid beside each other in bed, she pressed the vibrator against my clitoris, and she periodically asked if I was comfortable and okay, until I started breathing heavy, then she stayed quiet until achieved my first orgasm. We talked a bit after I calmed down, then she didn't do anything like that again until a few years later(but I did still masturbate on my own). When I was 12 years old, she gave me a dildo. She talked to me about how penetrative sex can be scary, and that sometimes your body won't "get ready" as quickly as you want it to. She asked if I wanted to try some stuff out now, and I kind of agreed to it. She undressed me, took me to my bed, and started touching me. It was in innocent ways at first as she told me that being relaxed was the most important thing, then she teased around my thighs and slipped off my panties, leaving me naked. She picked up the dildo and said that she was going to press lightly, so that it wouldn't go in more than I was ready for. She prodded and did circles around my vagina with the tip of the dildo, while she continued to caress my body with her other hand. After I relaxed a bit, her free hand made its way down to my clitoris and I started feeling recognizable sensations. She'd alternate between rubbing my clit, and caressing my legs while encouraging me to keep them spread. Throughout this process, the dildo made its way deeper and deeper inside of me, until my mother paused and told me that she was going to start moving it. She slowly slid the dildo in and out of me while she continued her previous routine. She asked me when it was okay to go faster, and she picked up the pace little by little when I said okay, until I zoned out and stopped responding. Then she focused on my clit while slightly speeding up, until I went over the edge. She just left the dildo all the way inside when letting me rest. There was a lot more talk between us during this whole thing than I've implied here, but it was getting too long.

>>7464 When did you stop fucking your mom?

>>7420 >one can not change their sexuality fundamentally I believe a person can but I just don't think it matters what people have desire to fuck on an individual level. It only becomes a problem with how that person acts on that desire, and how it affects other individuals. So nothing inherently wrong with any desire, just a matter of how that meets the environment. >On consent >If we go by sexual maturity, a set number is irrelevant because (as any doctor will tell you) every person is different. We still settle as a society for a compromise on an agreed age, and I don't think the number is arbitrary. Age 5 is not 25 and is not age 95. We can tell the difference between the overwhelming majority of people at these ages at a glance. Laws in society go by averages and compromises, corner cases get ruled over in court. If you have a case of precocious puberty, that can be treated as exceptional -and maybe it's something that needs much better screening, which I would support. If the age of consent were 10 and that were normalized, then uncommon cases of precocious puberty could be screened for and argued for as exceptions. We already get wiggle room around the age of consent being 18, after all -but that's the agreed societal marker. Setting the age of consent at 10 would naturally come with wiggle room for children who hit puberty early - it just wouldn't be the norm and there would need to be proof the 7 year old is somehow exceptional in their development. And of course if a couple of early bloomer 8 year olds are doin' it then who cares for the most part, but the official standard I'm pretty comfortable having at 10. >Harm >inherent harm is a myth. The majority of this harm is dealt out by societal gaslighting. Agreed. I think it'd help to clarify what scope of mental trauma/abuse can be recognized by the pedo/hebe camp because someone being terrible to a kid is so intensely disliked by many people that they're willing to overshoot on protecting the child and they get paranoid when they hear about laws being laxed around that. I guess I wonder about you convince a normie not to fear the worst? >I agree, harm aversion is more important than consent, but I cant think of a situation in which you would be averting harm but violating consent. That's interesting to think about. Vaccines? (long term) Denying candy in excess? Confiscating a dangerous object? That's off the top of my head, and I think these examples show there's already violation of children's consent that happens. If anyone else can think of other examples like these I'm curious. Problem there is then that you can be construed to be arguing that you are saying it's okay to violate a child's consent - but then if a child can't consent in the first place, what's being violated? It seems to me it has to be conceded that we have normalized the violation of children's consent and have agreed to get around that by supposing children are incapable of having consent to begin with. What is the burden of proof that needs to be cleared to make the case a child is capable of consent to a normie? But then the problem is you can ask "Why shouldn't a child be able to consent?" And suddenly those examples of when children have their consent violated get flipped as good reasons to invalidate a child's ability to consent. But we can flip that now to say "Well, what if the child's parent is an antivaxxer, but the child wants a vaccine? Shouldn't we allow the child to consent to receiving an injection?" It seems like it's common for the age at which a person can independently consent for a vaccine matches the age of consent for sex. So you could ask "What age should someone be able to get themselves vaccinated when their parents would object?" I think I'm comfortable with saying someone at 10 years old can both grasp the concept of someone getting sick as well as sexual desire and decide for themselves what they'd like out of that. >both 10 and 25 are arbitrary and this is honestly stupid, as is the entire idea of AoC. >10 year olds are far too scattered in their stages of development to call a set number consistent. Isn't it still an improvement to have age 10 (or 13) over 18? And I've to the other guy that I don't think something being socially constructed makes it totally arbitrary -you have to deal with the fact society values that social construction and so I think the better thing is to offer a better construction. That's why I'm appealing to pubescence as a marker. >>7464 I think early sex ed between parents and their children is good. Maybe there should be encouragement in the culture for parents to teach their children how to operate dildos or masturbate. I think people generally will be more accepting these days that someone who is pubescent should learn sex ed and how to masturbate, and then I think oral sex/petting is the next level, and after that penetration reception. Breaking it down in such a way makes it clear that it's more of a process than simply fucking. Personally by age 9 I was masturbating semi-regularly and wanting to have attractive girls aged 10+ with nice asses sit on my face and get off.

>>7467 >I think early sex ed between parents and their children is good I bet you're glad your dad didn't rape your asshole as a kid

>>7470 my school sucked, i never got raped during sex ed. i didn't even know sex ed = rape

>>7471 >then I think oral sex/petting is the next level, and after that penetration reception

>>7424 >>7467 Cont. And thanks for your responses :) >(If legalized, normalized and educated for) then what do you think would happen to the rate of both child rape and sexual trauma? It would plummet, because the majority of it is the direct result of how modern society approaches the issue. Maybe getting very early sex ed in is a good place to start on this front. Only problem is that's also used to brainwash kids into being paranoid about sexual engagement too. It seems like something else is needed to encourage allowance of younger autonomy more significantly. >Parents should be responsible for proper sex education and children should be allowed to explore their own bodies. What happens if there are anti-pedo parents everywhere? I mean, we kinda have that situation now, right? How would you change the minds of parents so that they do give proper sex ed to their children instead of puritan bullshit? On the other end, should parents be able to encourage their kids to enter into prostitution? What about camming? Pornography? >I wouldn't keep anybody from having sex because it is their body and therefore their choice. (Note: Abortion is bad but the tagline they use is good). I am super liberal for abortion, personally. Why does the "my body, my choice" tagline not hold true to you for abortion? It could be said you're being selective there but I'm also curious what your reason for being pro life is. Would you say it's some extension of your pedophilia? Is abortion wasteful to you? Do you think being pro life helps your position? >Society and laws need to change to reflect what nature dictates, and engaging in discussions like these change minds. People need to see that we are human, and not monsters. Repairing the damage done to society will take a very long time, though I believe that we will eventually recover. Well thanks for engaging in the discussion with me :) Could you explain what you mean by damage done to society? Are there particular causes for the damage you have in mind? Regardless it's good you're optimistic about things getting better, hang in there. >>What does my ideal society look like In the most general of terms, a return to a more traditional organization in which the majority of rules and regulations (especially concerning individuals) is dictated by families or by small town communities. >Families are large, live in the same large house or compound including multiple generations, and produce most of their needs on their own. There is a balance between the pursuit of mind, body, and spirit and the state is strong, centralized, and morally grounded. Do you happen to be into incest? What happens in the event of family breakdown? And, just wondering, does this approach feudalism with the large families probably running into competition? Considering whoever is in power can change around readily, and you could wake up to some puritan in charge some day, would you be relying on some kind of law of the land/constitution to secure rights for pedophilia? >I guess the cuteness is the most attractive, but it's how open and honest and fun little girls are that makes me want to have a relationship with them. Do you believe there is a problem with people developing a habit of lying in society? Is there some kind of pervasive deceitful quality about society that you believe needs to be remedied? If so, what are examples of negative societal facets, related to children or not, that you find distasteful? Also I like prepubescent girls but in a way that seems to bring out the nurturing in me, where I want them as a daughter. Even if I consider them physically attractive, I feel pride rather than desire. I've noticed that if they are aged up, I still have that same feeling. If I see a pubescent character I think is attractive, then art of them shown as prepubescent, the sex appeal is lost and I have that parental adoration for them again which then switches back when I see a pubescent depiction again, and I'll prefer to see her that way. >Sadists are not real pedophiles and it makes me angry that you would put me in the same group as individuals who get pleasure from harming others. Same if taboo being the most appealing part, that is just an adrenaline junkie who gets off on doing things that can get him into a lot of trouble. I meant no offense by it, but I've noticed sadists and taboo-chasers around in this and other controversial sexual interests. I'm not bothered by their existence but to normies they can give communities a bad look. >>7425 >Based on the difference in physical development, it is very easy to hurt a child. >in a sexual context this is why safe sex education is absolutely critical. >There are whole guides floating around pedo communities on how to practice safe sex with children (which also include many other things about keeping yourself safe from the law as well). They are hard to come by though, for obvious reasons, and many are somewhat outdated. I'd be very curious to see these for what standards pedophiles go by when it comes to harm aversion. >Even if you think it is bad no matter what, wouldn't you rather that it be in the hands of a porn production company bound by the law rather than some hardened mafia groups who would sooner murder the kids then be caught? Yes, and I've thought about the "black market is worse than legalizing" argument as a good one, but I still feel some hesitation about condoning sexual activity with someone who is prepubescent, and especially toddlers. Even if I'm to think of it as a lesser of two evils. >Maybe we are too sensitive, on account of being persecuted so thoroughly. That's understandable, and I'm aware that as I've indicated before that my standing personal cutoff can seem unfriendly, but in the arguments/views you share I get a better insight and some more things to think about.

[Expand Post]

>I don't think you realize how paranoid and jumpy we all are. That's pretty sad - I've found the hatred pedos get to be really fucked up and even quite unsettling sometimes - I get creeped out by how willingly people will share expressions of malice toward pedos and moreover how tolerated those expressions are in spaces that would crack down hard for hate against other groups. I don't think it's healthy whatsoever and having done my own research I think the threat pedophiles present is hideously overblown. I may disagree on the arguments for pedophilia and be stubborn on my own position (who isn't) but I have a great disdain for the haters of pedophiles. I don't mean the ones who have a bias out of personal experience of a child sexual assault, I mean the haters who are just riding the bandwagon of moral superiority and excuse to be malicious. I think it's a huge problem. >Do you like having sex with mentally underdeveloped women? >Can you define "mentally underdeveloped"? If the answer is anyone above maybe 14 that isnt married to me the answer is a resounding no. I meant as in disproportionate to what would be expected, like how you get 22 year olds who are clearly less mentally mature than a lot of 15 year olds. I've personally found myself turned off by the former just from sheer annoyance. I take your answer to mean you're considering the person has mental maturity proportionate to what would be reasonably expected of their age in the spectrum on the way to 25. Anyway, what is it about 14 that's a cutoff for you? Does mental maturity play into it? Do you feel there's perhaps a drop-off? If so, do you believe that's the result of societal influence? Could you like 14-25 more if that negative influence were absent? I'm supposing you'd say yes because you gave exception for being married to one. Wouldn't a woman's aging out of your ideal range bother you? Wouldn't you want to take up another wife? Are practices of polygamy suitable answers to this problem for you?

>>7473 >Why does the "my body, my choice" tagline not hold true to you for abortion? It's not her body, it's her child's body whose life she is ending

>>7470 Uh, yeah? I got pretty early sex ed in family so was pretty comfortable with sexual concepts. I'm not sure about moms inserting dildos into their daughters but offering them vibrators and educating them on the usage can be done with respect for the child's privacy. Maybe a child is especially vulnerable psychologically on the basis of privacy. And if that's true, that would make a lot of nonsexual helicopter parenting problematic. Like when parents make kids open mail addressed to them to show their report card. There are small things like that which I think are more damaging to a child than a mom saying "Here's a vibrator now that you're 9 for, when you get those tingly feelings."

>>7474 I'm actually ok with the child being considered valid for abortion as the mother's property until the cord is cut. (In case it's born horribly disabled and she judges the child to be a burden.) And even then I can accept the child being the mother's property until the child is 4-5 years old and reliably gains self-consciousness. I could see from that point on maybe some argument that consent begins with self-consciousness but for sexual consent that again bumps it up from 5 to 10 for me. So that might be another thing that keeps me put off toddlercon - they are larval humans under the direct care of their parents. I think I'm comfortable with parents having total ownership of the child at that stage. >>7460 >I'll note first that you seem to have mixed me up with the other anon My bad - I hope at least my answers are consistent but that still doesn't help for trying to get your point of view. I think it'd be easier if people posted pics in the thread so the style of pic choice could help indicate who's who better, but from reading around other threads the mods can be tough on this board. That and I don't really have relevant images of cute little girls. >>7460 >I don't think any single age can be a logical estimation for something that's so multifacted and has such massive variation. I agree on principle but still doubt how helpful that is for making arguments for progress to an opposition. >That aside, the law should work best for most but that doesn't mean it should ignore the existence of outliers entirely. Again, agreed principally but people involved with law will claim they *try* to be considerate of exceptional cases. I take them at their word, and rather than assume they're lying just consider it's either easier said than done or they're just incompetent. That's something that can be improved independent of other changes though. We can pass 13 as legal, then work on improving clearance for 12, 11 and 10 until 10 becomes normalized. >I'm not all that interested in lowering age of consent, though it may be beneficial as a temporary measure or a small victory on the way to something better. Really I think that's the best shot, unless you manage to spark some kind of peaceful cultural revolution, or colonize some territory and lead by example exceptionally well to convince wider culture to follow your along. >>If age of consent was universally 13 tomorrow you'd like that more than the present situation, right? >I'm unsure. I understand the concern over stagnation, but still think that should be worth the risk from your point of view? And if it's normal to fuck 10 year olds then we probably do have much less infantilization of kids anyway because of the better educated transition period from 5-10. It's at least a more hopeful situation than what you have now. >something might be self-aware but not address whatever is shown in the mirror. It may be the best measure we have, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good measure. I'm willing to settle for "best we have" as more research in the future can be done to inform further change. >Self-consciousness is said to occur at 4-5 years. >That's an oversimplification, and conflating different things. I'm okay with that, with more/better research being done later to test the veracity. >I prefer to go by averages >That's understandable in the context of debating where an arbitrary age of consent line should be drawn, but I'm arguing that an arbitrary line is not the sensible choice. It might not be objectively, let's say, but to even get to the point of figuring that out more concretely, I think the weaker evidence we have to go than we'd ideally like is still evidence we may as well use. We can build a house of wood before a house of brick, to avoid putting put in houses of straw by those arguing in bad faith. There are several science fields where the research is unsatisfying for answering several fundamental questions but it's all work in progress. I think in the meantime we can have fun comparing wooden houses as we play with sticks. Better going overzealous for a brick house on a foundation that isn't strong enough. >An informed, first-hand understanding of what enthusiastic sexual desire is. >That's experience, not development or capability. Maybe experience is a good marker? You'd want someone flying a plane who has played simulations over someone who's never heard of a plane. >Masturbating to orgasm That happens in very young children. Definitely in 3-5 year olds, possibly in infants. Deciding what is and isn't an orgasm is a bit subjective for infants, since they can't communicate well and it's not ethical or legal to study properly. I could trust academia to have strict ethical checks for more tests like these. If parents consent to allowing their toddlers to participate, by all means. >Distinct changes beginning around age 10 most people in society would agree represents a significant threshold in a person's development.

[Expand Post]

>This aspect of your argument probably has more age variance than any other. I accept that weakness for the strength of committing to a communicable goal. 10 is already significantly lower than 18, is on the conservative side of 8/9, while being a safe marker for many significant indicators of sexual maturity. It's much more obvious to the average person in our modern society that a 10 year old has more sexual autonomy than a 5 year old. >to normies and most people who aren't ultimate skeptics, complete anarchists, nihilists or playing dumb. >That's pretty disingenuous and insulting for what's been a reasonable discussion up to this point. Why the sudden hostility? Forgive how that came off, I didn't mean to be insulting though I was conveying my exasperation. >>I'm guessing you hate trans as much as you hate gay >You're mixing me up with another poster, I don't hate either. And that exasperation was coming from reading what I thought was the continuation of the anti-gay(and presumably anti-trans) person's posts so with your criticisms not being treated separately I suppose it added up to feel more antagonistic? I'm not sure, oh well! I think that's probably the worst of my confusion there.

>>7474 >Helpful is not the same as true or accurate. If you have any good sources with evidence contradicting the claim of the brain averaging completion of maturation by 25 then I'd appreciate that. But whatever the truth I'm missing is, it seems to me people will often argue that the problem of someone under 18 having "informed consent" is that they lack the ability to make long term plans. The 25 year mark for brain maturation meme is helpful because a significant factor is that very planning center is what is said to complete maturity. I find this very helpful for undermining the argument that a person should be 18 to consent, because what makes informed consent impossible for someone considered a minor is that they can't understand consequences. But then that argument logically concludes to age 25 and most people are forced to recognize informed consent = planning/consequence ability is a poor argument. >I don't really agree. First because arousal is not consent, and second because it seems to me that a girl topping a man would be similarly easy to argue as consensual. Arousal not counting as consent can be said about a dick being hard when a woman is topping. But a woman just presenting herself for the topping male to mount and fuck her is showing agency through the initiating action over and above the arousal evident in erection. It's much clearer that the male is consenting in the latter case than the former. Tops tend to be considered to be having more agency - an unresponsive sub just laying there taking it can have their agency questioned more. >>And I'm not sure I buy the child having sexual enjoyment if they're prepubescent. >It's pretty hard to deny that when prepubescent children will masturbate and have sex with each other if they're allowed to. I think I'm more comfortable having the age of consent lowered to 10 and then if prepubescents are documented to engage in sexual practices more comfortably, and enthusiastically -then the argument can be made to lower it from 10. >Could be that it's receptive penetration that is best reserved for some later age with oral + topping at >Seems that something was cut off or left out. Oops, that should be oral + topping at 10 was just reiterating >I meant that it's entirely false that prepubescents lack sexual arousal. Can you find a source that shows prepubescents have as much sexual arousal as pubescents? That there is no lacking? My guess is this would be very difficult to prove. >Puberty greatly increases sex drive, but the capacity for sexual arousal and pleasure is there well before puberty. I'd really appreciate a source for this. Isn't a higher sex drive a good thing? They literally want it more? Is it that you prefer a partner with a lower sex drive? >Yes, I have no idea how you'd expect to argue your case convincingly to anyone without engaging with the idea of expected traits related to average age. >By focusing on the traits and problems themselves, instead of using age as a single very loose proxy for a hundred different things that happen at different ages. So how do you arrange all that in an approachable way for a normie? >I've never advocated for anarchy, only for making the restrictions less arbitrary and more closely related to the thing they're restricting. This seems so much easier said than done Well anyway, I'm really sleepy right now so I'll check in another time and read up on the rest

>>7473 >Brainwash children Yeah thats what is happening now because we live in an anti-sex culture. The solution is to create a world in which knowing these things is not a choice, but a requirement in order to function. The choice will not be to teach or not, the choice will be to teach in the home or let them learn out on the street from their peers or strangers. >What happens if there are anti-pedo parents everywhere I think you may be massively overestimating how much people just go with what they think is expected of them. If suddenly the people in power started blasting propaganda about how children were sexually active and that it is normal, and portray support for this as a position for the educated and forward thinking, a significant number of people will immediately accept it. All you need is one generation to grow up with it as normal, and then it just becomes the standard way. People will always do everything they can to fit in, its in our DNA. >Damage to society For the majority of human history, independently across every culture and civilization on the globe, there have been certain things that were universally practiced. Some of these things survive to this day, such as punishing thieves or organizing ourselves into structured societies/hierarchies. In the last 125 years or so, however, we have suddenly and rapidly shifted away from all the most important things that kept the world stable. These are, in no particular order, the cult of equality, the destruction of the family unit, the fall of all moral authority, globalized economics, and "fluid society". These thing need to be removed and we need to return to how people have successfully and happily for literally 1000s of years. Pick any metric, and we are worse off now than any point previously, and this will not change until somebody does something. >I am super liberal for abortion Its not her body, its her baby's body. Its also not only her child. Abortion is baby murder, and I don't like baby murder, and it makes me extremely upset that baby murder is even a political issue. Have you seen what they actually do to the baby in the womb? It makes me sick to my stomach that anybody informed on the matter can see that and think it is anything other than the most evil and despicable thing on planet earth. >Do you happen to be into incest These kind of jabs make it very difficult to not just start insulting you and make me think that engaging with you is a waste of time. >What happens if.... See all of human history prior to 1900 for all available information regarding how large families living on the same plot of land function and how this has been a cornerstone of all human civilization since its inception. >Do you believe there is a problem with people developing a habit of lying in society? Stop trying to psychoanalyze me. People obviously lie, we even have machines to detect it. I find many broad aspects of modern society distasteful. >normies you arent from here, are you? >what standards pedophiles go by Im not gonna copy paste the guides nor detail every bit of my personal criteria, but the fact that you have assumed that harm aversion is not a very big deal to a child lover is indicative of how you see us. There is a reason I adamantly insist that people who intentionally harm children are not pedophiles. In the most basic sense, the rule is just "if it causes physical harm, its off limits. if the child at any point expresses discomfort or denies consent, it doesnt happen or it stops immediately. if doing this will compromise the safety of the child or your safety in any way it does not happen." its very simple. >Im hesitant Im wondering what makes you hesitate on this, since there is no reason it is not preferable to black market stuff except for emotional reasons (such as hate, for example). >can seem unfriendly You would be surprised how many of the things you've said and way you've said them will be interpreted as hostile, dismissive, or signs of disingenuous behavior. >I've found the hatred pedos get to be really fucked up Imagine living in world where you cannot tell anybody something that is central to your being. Having to live a lie, in fear that your secret will be discovered. Having to desperately search and claw online for anything to help suppress yourself, because it is a crime to exist. Imagine having to try to figure out how to act on your sexuality in a healthy way with zero support and education on the matter thoroughly suppressed. Imagine having to laugh along as your closest friends and family exclaim that people like you are subhuman and should be killed. Imagine thinking about how many other people like you feel just as alone, and kill themselves without anybody knowing why or you being able to help them. It hurts. >Disproportionate to what is expected I think the mentally handicapped are their own separate category of issues, and one im not very well educated in. I wasnt sure what this meant initially, and I dont think ive ever actually met a mentally underdeveloped woman. 14 is the general cutoff for hebe age range, so its easy to use that as the cutoff for "little girl". My personal AoA is more in the 6-9 range, though. The cutoff itself is representative of both sexual maturity and shift in behavior that comes with it. Its difficult to put into specific terms, in the same way that its difficult to explain why your favorite food is your favorite. To a certain extent, thats just how it is. I don't like this idea people seem to have where a lover is discarded after she isn't in the ideal age range. That kind of thing isn't good no matter your preferences, it hurts people and hurting others is generally bad. In a situation where my lover/wife ages out of my ideal age range, my love does not suddenly diminish because its not just about sex. The intention is a partner for life, and the expectation is a long life. I would consider polygamy because I have a lot of love to give and my holy book doesnt explicitly forbid it (but there are warnings). Everybodies wife eventually stops being attractive though, its part of getting old I imagine.

>>7477 >It is in any way acceptable to consider a child property at any stage ever for any reason >Only the mother "owns" the child, the father has no part in it Stopped reading. You are a bad person. This stance is psychopathic, and I would not be surprised if you also hate men and children too. Anybody who thinks its okay to treat a child as property gets the fucking rope, you are not welcome here.

>>7267 The best definition of consent is: >she wants to fuck you as well, without any manipulation on your part You are welcome.

>>7477 >I'm actually ok with the child being considered valid for abortion as the mother's property until the cord is cut. (In case it's born horribly disabled and she judges the child to be a burden.) >And even then I can accept the child being the mother's property until the child is 4-5 years old and reliably gains self-consciousness. I could see from that point on maybe some argument that consent begins with self-consciousness but for sexual consent that again bumps it up from 5 to 10 for me. >So that might be another thing that keeps me put off toddlercon - they are larval humans under the direct care of their parents. I think I'm comfortable with parents having total ownership of the child at that stage. Ignoring the sheer subhumanity of this, why then do you have a problem with post-natal abortion?

Its also just occurred to me that any sane person would not be trusting a woman to make a judgement in that moment. Its not a discrimination thing. Right before they cut the cord, the woman has just gone through one of the most painful and stressful experiences of her entire life. Its not uncommon for it to have lasted hours or in the case of some poor few, over a day. On top of that, they also have painkillers in their system and are extremely hormonal. There is no way in hell any normal human being can make a sound judgement on anything at all immediately after that. Much less carefully consider the financial and social nuances of whether the child can be considered a burden. Consider also that they need to move fast to do all their tests and make sure the baby is as healthy as can be, and that the entire room is likely filled with strangers and generally far too loud to think.

>>7424 >it's up the each family to decide things >the state should be strong and centralized HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>7464 Both questioning your mother's actions, and respecting her for giving you a clitoral orgasm first, seeing how that is the way young girls are meant to orgasm anyway.

>>7491 And being aroused by the story

>>7478 Me again, this post was meant to be replying to >>7460 and>>7461 Anyway continuing: Cont. >>7461 >If you regularly gave a child alcohol, you'd be considered to be doing harm to a child. >In the US. In other countries, such as France, it's perfectly normal to regularly give children alcohol. Alcohol is a toxin. Adults shouldn't be having it but they're free to poison themselves. Should a child be allowed to poison themselves? If one attempts to do so, should a mother be allowed to beat that child, if we're ok with French moms giving their children a poison? I think I'm pretty comfortable with trusting mothers to own their children until age 4. There will be some bad mothers out there but those can be condemned culturally. >That's still not the same as recklessness, you can act on the desire cautiously. That's true, it's also possible for pedophilia to be destigmatized to begin with, even if it remains illegal to act on it. I'm arguing as though it's not a given that sex with a child would be made legal, though I'm not ruling it out. My position is that pedophilia should be de-stigmatized but not acted upon. I consider the action to be the reckless part to begin with, so saying "cautious pedophilia" seems to assume it's being allowed to begin with by default. I can appreciate the position of putting the onus on a court to prove harm - but I seem to be ok with some regulation for harm prevention. And I'd mark that with pubescence as the threshold for enthusiastic consent. I want to agree with you on the principle of proving harm being a matter for a prosecutor, but I consider that ineffective for harm prevention because for example someone can smoke beside me on my property, and then leave and I'd have to prove they were smoking. Principally it is ideal but I'm not totally convinced by this approach, and normies sure tend to not be. >I guess the question is over how that higher standard of caution is enforced >I'm unsure how exactly to go about it. I think this stuff being figured out would be of tremendous benefit. >A doctor or paramedic on the other hand is expected to know what they're doing and even minor negligence can be punished harshly. Should pedophiles who want to act on their desires be required to complete a kid fucking license, where they also swear some pedo oath to not harm kids, with major penalties for breaching this? >I think the only way to make that work is to assume oral/topping by default, and only apply the higher limit in the small number of cases where it can be definitively proven that the child was penetrated and not dominant. Yeah I was thinking something like that. So what do you think of: >General age of consent = Age 10 >Under 10 deemed at risk group, requiring pedo license for penetrative sex. Oral/topping by Under 10 permitted. >Pedo license requires theory test and some kind of semi-regular renewal. >You can be stopped by a cop on suspicion of pedophilic risk action the way someone might be pulled over for a vehicle registration + license check on the road. >If you don't have a license to show/aren't in the system, you receive a fine and the officer may remove the child from you if they deem you suspicious. Best I can think of so far for trying to have something that works for pedos. I am willing for the licensing restriction to scale up for ages 10/13 before wider society is comfortable with settling on allowing options for pedos. >I have no idea how you'd make any progress while simultaneously rejecting trans and bestiality folks. >They're all cool with me. I guess I am a little iffy on bestiality that isn't initiated by the animal Well, how about we throw in an animal penetrating license too? >I can't think of any practical solution without huge flaws, so ultimately it would probably end up being whatever would be easiest to get passed > I'm skipping over some parts, that generally means I don't have any disagreement or further information to add for those.

[Expand Post]

Cool cool, thanks for the reply =) >The majority of harm that does occur does not come from the act itself Agree, on principle. I think the licensing thing might be a good solution for the harm risk issue. >Additionally (and I'm guessing you'd agree, based on how you're focused on harm over consent), if the harm is minimal, then extremely high standards of "informed consent" no longer make sense. I'm still personally partial to puberty being the cutoff, but even though I disagree with allowing lower personally I think my offer of licensing arrangement is where I'd compromise. I'm willing to say that I may dislike pedosex but still concede to government voting in pedo licensing. I may question how other individuals drive a car or practice medicine for potential risks but if they have a license that checks out to a cop stopping them for a check by some government standard of assessing force/threat then that's much better in my view. A child, being prepubescent, still puts them in a risk group for me. >we don't worry too much about whether a child can really consent to playing sports or mountain climbing or other activities that have some chance of injury. Supervising teachers are accountable for student harm, they can have their teaching certification suspended for gross misconduct/endangerment so I think that's pretty consistent with the license idea. >I would of course love to be a loli. Cute :3 >Children are incredibly cute and adorable, but I wouldn't say that cuteness is especially arousing. It's basically just the same thing as ordinary adult attraction in just about every way, except directed primarily towards children. And without the desire for sex. Without the desire? So you're pedo-romantic?

>>7480 >All you need is one generation to grow up with it as normal Sure, that's fine > Pick any metric, and we are worse off now than any point previously, and this will not change until somebody does something. I'm more optimistic and think things are pretty good, set to get better >Have you seen what they actually do to the baby in the womb? Yep, don't mind. Personally "my body, my choice" strongly argues both for pedophilia and abortion in my view in a way I think is probably impossible to separate for me. Stay mad etc. But I don't think we need to agree on pro life/pro choice arguments though to make progress on how pedophilia is handled in society. >>7481 Just like this guy I upset, as pedophiles you're not exactly spoiled for choice on options for allies. So you may as well accept the hand extended by a hebephile who makes no moral condemnation on either pedophilia or abortion. >Do you happen to be into incest >These kind of jabs make it very difficult to not just start insulting you It was a serious and I think fair question, I was getting that vibe from the huge, self-sustaining families. >See all of human history prior to 1900 So I take it incest is not off the table >People obviously lie, we even have machines to detect it. If you mean lie detectors, I write those off as pseudoscience. Just seems like you have a particular view of how lying in modern society is problematic, so I was curious. >normies >you arent from here, are you? Yeah. Should I be saying anti's, or what? >the fact that you have assumed that harm aversion is not a very big deal to a child lover is indicative of how you see us. Yeah, you'll have to forgive me - I don't normally spend a lot of time around pedophiles, and you see a few loud edgy hurtcore types around. And try see this from my point of view: I don't really care if you individually are sincere about not wanting to harm children, because I have no way of guaranteeing it one way or another. And nevermind me, it's impossible for the average person to tell a sincere child lover apart from a child predator. That's why I'm partial to licensing pedo sex. What say you on that? >Im hesitant >Im wondering what makes you hesitate on this, since there is no reason it is not preferable to black market stuff except for emotional reasons (such as hate, for example). Because if the position of society is that it's condemned, the intention is to avoid harm even if there are violators of the law on the black market. I can acknowledge the problem of the black market as a response to total banning while also acknowledging the problem of total freedom allowing abuses to go unchecked. Normally I'd be okay with leaving it up to the free market but the very problem here is the issue of force being used against the children which I think is fair for a government to conservatively step in for. I don't need to hate you to hesitate in adopting your position if I'm finding it unsatisfying for averting harm. If anything my feeling was concern for kids making me want a better solution for managing harm. So after thinking about it more I feel validated in my hesitation, because I'd rather have pedo licensing than throwing up my hands and allowing child harmers to evade justice. The latter feels complacent to me. >I've found the hatred pedos get to be really fucked up >It hurts. I believe that. >I dont think ive ever actually met a mentally underdeveloped woman. I'm speaking anecdotally here but I think there are a lot of both men and women who have subtle impairments that are easy to overlook until you're confronted by it. I just think way too much credit is given for someone at age 21 or even 31 or 61 to be assumed to have more self-aware than a lot of 14 year olds. >My personal AoA is more in the 6-9 range >I don't like this idea people seem to have where a lover is discarded after she isn't in the ideal age range. I see nothing wrong with moving on if both parties are clear on the nature of the relationship. >I would consider polygamy

[Expand Post]

based >Everybodies wife eventually stops being attractive though, its part of getting old I imagine. Feelsbadman but then you can have a main wife for the partnership and loli mistresses in your harem for the casual sex.

>>7494 >Just like this guy I upset, as pedophiles you're not exactly spoiled for choice on options for allies. Better to stand alone than with scum

>>7494 >think things are pretty good So you're retarded

>>7279 >legalizing sex with children isn't the logical first step towards solving humanity's current problems Don't be so sure.

Good thread. I'm glad this community has anons like you guys in it

>>7494 >I think things are pretty good So you are retarded? >my body, my choice is a strong argument for abortion I'll bet money you have said the phrase "fetuses are parasites" at some point in your life >large families imply incest >people from the past imply incest yeah, so a retard who also doesnt know anything about history >lie detectors are pseudoscience astrology and healing crystals and aura reading are pseudo science. lie detectors are actual machines that literally measure indicators that you are lying, usually in combination with someone trained to spot signs that are not measured by the machine. You can train yourself to fool a lie detector, because it mostly measures your heart rate, but there are still very few people who are capable of fooling someone trained to spot a lie. Its not pseudoscience, and you are a moron for thinking it is. >what should I be saying instead of normies you should lurk for 1000 years before you post, and you shouldnt ask to be spoonfed like a mental invalid, you absolute normalnigger >I have no way of guarenteeing it one way or the other You have no guarantee that any person you walk past in the street wont put a knife in your back. You have no guarantee you wont die horribly in a car accident next time you drive. You have no guarantee of anything, at all. This is a retarded statement. Here is a similar one: "I have no guarantee that the cashier knows how to open the cash register". >Allowing abuses to go unchecked It doesnt do this though, because operating within the law means you have to follow regulations set by society. Did abuses go unchecked when prohibition ended? Did abuses go unchecked during any other time anything else was legalized? What about when weed was legalized? How about when porn became a massive billion dollar industry? There is no precedent for what you are saying AT ALL. You are hiding behind a facade of reasonableness. >I see nothing wrong with moving on Pickup culture is bad and this is not just about sex. People get older and as they do they stop being as attractive. This is not cause to divorce your spouse for a newer model and people who do this are despicable. Casual sex is part of what is destroying current society. Sex is not bad, its a beautiful and wonderful thing that shouldn't be shunned based on the words of a desert dweller 4000 years ago, but it also shouldnt be a flippant, entirely material affair. "Pleasures of the flesh" means doing it only because it feels good, and not because you love the other person. I hope you find God, because it really sounds like you are one hell of a lost sheep. Most people are these days though, its a shame that even churches are full of liars, false preachers, etc.

>>7583 >but it also shouldnt be a flippant, entirely material affair. That's subjective. The degree to which somebody engages with others through sex is a spectrum. There is no objective point when it becomes "flippant".

>>7585 You can play that semantic game with many other things too, but it doesnt change the fact that porn and not porn are different things. The fact that the english language is too limited to express the exact point at which it becomes bad, or even that there is no singular point, does not change the fact that the difference exists and is relevant.

>>7588 In my view something only becomes "bad" when it violates the consent of others. A slut whore consenting to fuck 200 men is not bad, an anxious virginal girl being taken advantage of by just one man, who she didn't really want to have sex with, is very bad. It's consent that matters. Don't like sluts? Then don't talk with sluts. You can not legislate whores out of existence.

>>7591 Consent is a spectrum. Something can always be more consensual.

>>7592 Autism is a spectrum too

>>7593 haha, you're so fucking funny. I bet you impress all the 13 year olds with your sick humor.

>>7597 butthurt

>>7597 Thanks bro

If our society agrees that children are able to make decisions regarding their health then sexual activity should also be included. Especially with the advent of sure, safe abortion the long term effects of sex are much much smaller than the effects of gender reassignment surgery. Yet one is okay and one is not

>>7676 >Implying those children are choosing genital mutilation and inevitable suicide and not being pushed into it by their psychotic virtue signalling parents Abortion is fucked too, contraceptives exist and are mostly effective and if they don't work and the baby won't be born with dozens of defects and live only a year - just have the fucking baby and let someone adopt if that's what it takes. I agree children can consent and the logical inconsistencies across the board here are so staggeringly retarded and divorced from a universal value system that it only makes antis look even more retarded than usual when they advocate against children being able to consent, but child sexuality is not a fucked up product of amorality like these other two and is wholly benign if the child consents.

>>7676 It's very simple: Don't cut children. This includes: >Baby dicks >Abortions >Unnecessary surgery Thats all you have to do. If you are wondering whether what you are doing is okay or not, think to yourself "am I cutting a child?" and if the answer to that question is yes you are doing a bad thing

>>7679 If at any point you have the desire to mutilate children, just kill yourself instead. If everyone followed that simple rule it'd be a better world. It would also finally put a stop to anti-jew white supremacist rhetoric.

>>7583 >you have said the phrase "fetuses are parasites" You'd have to pay me first for clocking you on your incest fetish though Even if you want to say it's a human, I don't mind. Humans have been property throughout history, with slavery being recognized by God in the Bible. If you want to appeal to what humans have done throughout history to justify incest, I can do the same to justify children as property. >lie detectors are actual machines that literally measure indicators that you are lying If lie detectors were actually reliable, they'd be much more popular because it would save so much time in so many criminal investigations. It's pseudo science because your heart rate (as well as sweat) does go up when lying but the same symptoms are triggered by traumatic recollection. If a mother saw her child murdered and was accused of it, she could very well have the same physical reaction whether she was lying or distressed by recollection of what she witnessed. 'Lie' detectors are detecting a correlation, not the causation. Having an 80% success rate just isn't good enough to count as evidence, especially since results one day can be different on another day. Someone can easily be falsely accused by admitting a lie detector as evidence, and practically it's only used as a trap for a consenting suspect to risk incriminating themselves. No lawyer would advise a client to undergo a lie detector test unless the client insisted under the false belief the machine was reliable. You are totally gullible and probably sheltered if you believe lie detectors are some gold standard of evidence. Machines exist for detecting ghosts by correlating "electromagnetic disturbances" to spirits. But there's no reliable connection and the evidence relies on testimony -again, correlation is not causation. >You have no guarantee of anything, at all. >You are hiding behind a facade of reasonableness. The only way you win "haha prove the harm!" is by simultaneously allowing a shitload of stuff that triggers you like abortion, open relationships and prostitution. I'm more okay with that world than you are. I'm looking for a better argument because the utopian babyfuck theocracy you want to rely on for punishing things you don't like is not exactly an easy sell. >you should lurk for 1000 years before you post or maybe you could, idk save time and be helpful for the discussion >People get older and as they do they stop being as attractive. This is not cause to divorce your spouse for a newer model and people who do this are despicable. If there's no value besides the attraction, then it's the right thing to do. Nothing wrong with remaining married and having mistresses or fuckbois either. >its a shame that even churches are full of liars, false preachers, etc. Well, good luck with convincing all those religious leaders before me why it's cool to fuck a 4 year old. I'm still not able to get past the hebephilia/pubescence acceptance/tolerance position over to full-blown pedophilia. >>7676 I think arguing on the basis of hormone therapy is the better way to go. Along with vaccine consent. But even then you'll get hebe long before pedo.

>>9703 You are arguing with a months old post. Who is this for?

No, everyone on here is literally just scum of this earth and don't need to be breeding.

>>9721 Sorry to tell you buddy. That's basically impossible to prevent.

Congratulations on being more open minded than most people, but you still fall into common double standards and irrational thinking.

No. It's disgusting. Fantasizing to art is fine though, as long as you keep it to yourself.

>>10618 Putting your dick inside a man's shit and worm-filled anus is disgusting. Doesn't stop you from doing it though.

>>10635 No Anon, you've got it all wrong. He's the bitch

K

>>10635 >Putting your dick inside a man's shit and worm-filled anus is disgusting Are you implying you would like it if it was clean? Sounds pretty gay

>>7280 Nah he has a point. Just ne you don't like.