/hebe/ - Girls

I agree and support child/adult sexual relationships

>but muh children can't consent it will change their lives forever

Say that to transgender kids and for some reason children are able to consent if the person is 2-3 years around their age. Doesn't make sense you can consent but only in a very minute age range

>>59519

>Doesn't make sense you can consent but only in a very minute age range

Categorizing has always been accepted where fairness is a consideration.

>>59522

Up until around the age of 11 or 12 most people cannot remember much about their childhood. You'll remember fragments at best. Childhood amnesia is likely behind the reason sexual trauma is not as severe in younger children - they simply cannot put together the memories well enough to cause long-term issues. However, there will always be a certain percentage of people that will remember it and feel it was a violation of their trust.

Plus, saying that it's not as bad does not meant that there is no bad at all.

>>59533

Children under 13 cannot consent in any state or province that I am aware of, so your first statement is false. They cannot consent, regardless of age difference. The only reason there is lenience in these cases is because they are mimicking behavior or just simple curiosity.

Power balance in relationships is well established and is covered in ethics rules and laws. Teachers cannot sleep with students, therapists cannot sleep with clients, and so on.

As for the 18 to 50 situation, the line must be drawn somewhere and that is usually 16+ or 13+ if they can prove to a court they are compentant enough.

>>59565

>Children under 13 cannot consent in any state or province that I am aware of, so your first statement is false. They cannot consent, regardless of age difference.

Looks like you missed the point entirely.

The age of consent in the US is 16-18, in Europe it averages 15-16. And yet, it's no secret that children are very sexually active with their peers long before they reach these arbitrarily defined ages.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-was-fast-yesterday-it-was-gay-marriage-now-look-who-wants-equal-rights/

>>59565

>Power balance in relationships is well established and is covered in ethics rules and laws. Teachers cannot sleep with students, therapists cannot sleep with clients, and so on.

The trouble with the "power imbalance" argument when it is applied to an intergenerational relationship is that antis drop it like a hot potato once the minor reaches the AOC.

For example, one might argue that a 14-year-old having consensual sex with a 24-year-old is rape due to a phantom power imbalance that exists solely because the teenager is below an arbitrarily set age, an in the next breath tell you that no similar power imbalance exists once the person is of age.

That's the point of the 18-50 argument; such a relationship would also be a form of rape if you follow this feminist logic.

Whether it's a wealth difference, superior/subordinate dynamic, or age difference in the relationship, that doesn't make it a forced sex act.

Rape used to mean something. Today its meaning has been corrupted as a means of imposing feminist regulations on normal sexuality.

>>59570

>The trouble with the "power imbalance" argument when it is applied to an intergenerational relationship is that antis drop it like a hot potato once the minor reaches the AOC.

Yeah, your argument kinda falls apart when you can threaten that Santa won't bring them a present if they don't have sex with you. When someone has trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy, there's a power imbalance. When someone relies on you for their life, there’s a power imbalance. When someone’s brain isn’t even halfway finished developing yet, there’s a power imbalance. When your girlfriend want to watch her favorite intellectual show and it’s Sesame Street, there’s a power imbalance.

>That's the point of the 18-50 argument; such a relationship would also be a form of rape if you follow this feminist logic.

Once you have to use a fanatic to prove your logic, you’ve already lost.

>>59565

>However, there will always be a certain percentage of people that will remember it and feel it was a violation of their trust.

Plenty of people grow up feeling like their parents betrayed their trust in the course of normal parenting.

Why does their sentiment not matter? Why is parenting legal if it is the #1 source of dysfunction in 99% of peoples lives? Parenting should be totally abolished and raising children should be entirely at the hand of state mandated guardians and programs to prevent further potential abuse.

>>59583

>Plenty of people grow up feeling like their parents betrayed their trust in the course of normal parenting.

That's the logic you're going with? Someone else did something bad so I can too, argument? That has the same validity as saying, "...the problem isn't as bad as people think... so that makes it OK."

>>59580

>Santa

>Sesame Street

Pretty sure we were talking about hebes, not toddlers. The original point was minors who have reached an age in which they desire and are engaging in voluntary sexual activity.

>>59585

Actually it's the logic you're going with, giving that you're the one that literally just said it and tried to shove down my throat.

You're clearly a fool so I'll forgive you for missing the obvious point, but the butt of the joke was that parenting clearly isn't inherently harmful, and I'm using your hamfisted logic to its conclusion that it should be banned anyways because it is shown to potentially cause harm.

>>59587

The original article is, "University Academics Say Pedophilia Is ‘Natural, And Normal For Males To Be Aroused By Children’" So, yeah, pedophilia. Santa and Sesame Street fall right into pedophilia. And I see you ignored the other imbalances.

>>59587

>You're clearly a fool so I'll forgive you for missing the obvious point, but the butt of the joke was that parenting clearly isn't inherently harmful, and I'm using your hamfisted logic to its conclusion that it should be banned anyways because it is shown to potentially cause harm.

I'm waiting for an "intelligent" rebuttal instead of your prattling.

>>59599

It's commonly accepted to refer to most underage attraction as pedophilia, and a child is anyone under the age of majority.

>I'm waiting for an "intelligent" rebuttal instead of your prattling.

That's cute, I'm still waiting ony any rebuttal at all instead of your indignant whining,

You ran like a coward easily enough last time. Go on, shoo.

>>59599

Follow the comment chain. Our exchange began with you questioning the cartoon here >>59533 by mentioning the obvious fact that the age of consent forbids underage sex between minors, without rebutting the point that it's not enforced.

>>59609

There are many unenforced laws. For example many states do not enforce drug laws against possession of certain drugs under certain amounts.

This is nothing but more fuel to empower the hatred towards men

>only men want to rape children

>>59603

I see why you like little girls now; your logic might actually work on them. You can twist and turn all you like, but I'm sill waiting for you to prove your case. So far all you're doing is yapping. Lets see that intellectual prowess in action where you explain your logic.

>>59609

It was address perfectly. It is based on an assumption, which is untrue btw. People care A LOT about preteens having sex. If two five year olds are caught, the public gets pretty angry. So the first pedo response is false. People care a lot. PLUS children cannot consent legally to sex, so two kids cannot legally do so anyway.

Pedo's second response between an 18 and 50 year old was also addressed. An 18yo can have a job, a car, can travel, has accomplished most of their early developmental hurdles, their brain is nearly completely mature, and they can make the choice to leave the at any time and provide for themselves.... All things a 11yo cannot do. So yeah, power imbalance.

The argument is laughable, if it wasn't so delusional.

>>59615

So you're choosing the route of empty butthurt again I see. How anticlimactic.

>>59616

Man, you even act like a child. Maybe that's why you like them so much. You have the same undeveloped mentality. All you have to do to put me in my place is prove your point. You're basing your life, literally if people found out, on your views. If you cannot do the simple thing as explain in a cogent manner the belief system you follow and prove why it is the right one.... that says a lot about you.

>>59615

>PLUS children cannot consent legally to sex, so two kids cannot legally do so anyway.

>legally

You're shifting the goalpost. The crux of the debate is that underage minors do have sex voluntarily, which is indisputable. The hypocrisy is calling it "rape" when they choose an adult partner and "kids being kids" when they are within a few years of each other.

You don't have to support legalizing adult-minor relationships to recognize that they can be consensual. You are conflating what goes on in the world of reality with the current legal dogma.

I'm glad at least that you acknowledge you''re solely here to shitpost and provide no actual discussion.

It really helps your cause, let me tell you.

>>59618

We beautifully trashed you the last time you're here. You can cry as pathetically as you please, you are unable to touch us. I made my point clear, and it stands. You are the laughable fool out of his depth that has failed to rebuke it.

>>59619

>“If that were the case, how do you explain underage sexual activity between minors. Nobody cares because it’s understood to be consentual.”

This was the actual quote and it was addressed. Children cannot legally consent and if two minors do have sex one or both of them can be prosecuted. Juvenile court proceedings are all closed to the public so you never hear about them unless they are under very odd circumstances. So clearly, this is a fallacious statement because it provides no real proof and only relies on ‘feelings’.

>You don't have to support legalizing adult-minor relationships to recognize that they can be consensual. You are conflating what goes on in the world of reality with the current legal dogma.

And no one has provided any valid proof that a preteen CAN consent. Can an 11yo drive? Survive on their own? Get a job? Go to college? Relate to adults on an equal footing? They still want to be ballerinas with PhD’s in veterinary medicine. It is so comically ridiculous that the vast majority of civilization knows better.

The main reason child-child relationships are tolerated to a certain point is because they are LEARNING what interpersonal relationships are about. They are literally evolving into adolescents and then into young adults. You on the other hand are supposed to be ‘developed’ enough to know that preteens are extremely easy to intimidate, extort, and manipulat.

>>59623

>People care A LOT about preteens having sex. If two five year olds are caught, the public gets pretty angry.

>Juvenile court proceedings are all closed to the public so you never hear about them

>>59621

It's funny that you think you actually won something by throwing a tantrum while being unable to provide one valid point how babies through 12yo's need to have sex with you. That’s one really low bar you have there, but then you think parents will let you try to seduce their 11yo before bedtime. Or are you the one that likes babies – I forget.

>>59626

By 11 years old they might have already tasted their first dick. They might not be as innocent as you think.

>still refuses to directly address post

In 3 posts you've abandoned all pretenses of not being a shithead with nothing to say. That's record time.

That's 3 posts where I've waited for your side of the argument, because I've presented my side.

>>59627

>might have

Ever notice when people throw out "might have" what they really mean is we need to do things "my way" because they have nothing to prove their point.

>>59628

I've already stated my side. Now I'm waiting for someone to prove a preteen is somehow be in a 'balanced' relationship with an adult. So far the only 'proof' anyone seems to be able to bring is "other stuff is bad, so I should be able to do bad stuff too..." and "kids can have fun with kids, why can't I?" That's pretty lame.

Come on. How can an 11yo or 12yo be in any way in a balanced relationship with a 50yo? They cannot work, they cannot drive, they have a very limited life skill set, and they don't have fully full cognition...

>>59630

>I've already stated my side.

Your side about my posts? No, you haven't. Your "side" was to deflect it with a non-sequitur strawman.

There difference between you and me is you invent things nobody said to criticize and imaginary pedos to insult, where I am able to directly quote you being retarded, verbatim.

You did this last thread too, it's pathetic really.

Someone makes a point

you: "well what about babies?"

them: "we aren't talking about babies and never were"

you: "SEE NO ONE CAN ADDRESS MY POINT ABOUT BABIES"

Unlike your stillborn strawmen flights of fantasy, this is a strand of discussion that actually occurred.

>>59632

You need to catch up. We're already up to 11-12yo's now. I told you guys already that we were not going to leave anyone out. Get with the program.

It isn't looking good for you at this age range either. Are 11-12y and adult sexual relations balanced? If so, how, considering the points aleady given.

Yeah, it's natural and would have made sense in caveman times.

http://www.reddit.com/r/evopsych/comments/33co5z/adaptive_value_of_some_paedophilic_attraction/

>>59623

>Sex

>Somewhere nearly as complicated as aby of those

Also

http://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/a-less-impaired-vision-of-sexuality/

>>59644

>deflects the point yet again

im curious, is there anyone even in your immediate life that doesnt think youre a pathetic failure?

>>59652

So nothing to support your belief that children 0-12 would be able to have a balanced sexual relationship with an adult or that it would in any way benefit the child. I guess that means we can move on to the next age category of 13-15?

Age Range 0 - 12 Years

Pro vs Cons

Pedo View

- It has happened in the past so it should today. e.g. It's natural.

- Some people make poor parents, therefore pedos should be able to have sex with children.

- Children are sometimes forced to do things they do not wish to do or to perform in activities that may harm them (against their will).

- Conspiracy theories of hate and propaganda against pedophiles.

Con View

- Adult/Child (under 12) relationships are inherently unbalanced: Children under 12 cannot work, drive, own/rent a home, sign contracts, and their brains are still not fully developed. Without these basic abilities their lives are under complete control of adults.

- Girls do not reach sexual maturity until 15+. There is no biological need for sexual behavior.

- Children who engage in sexual activity at younger ages typically see a higher rate of social, mental and health problems. Sexual behavior has risk factors in all three categories for adults which are compounded in children. In addition, since children under 12 are not biologically sexually mature there is further increase of risk.

- Since many pedos would like to have sex with children under 13, children would necessarily require immunizations which they would usually get after 13. The CDC reports than some vaccines (ex. HPV) have physical side effects such as added pain for preteens.

- Pregnancy at preteen ages is highly dangerous and would require hospitalization in most cases with higher risk factors for death, permanent uterus damage, organ damage, etc... Most risk factors would at the very least be doubled.

- Pregnancy under 19 for girls is a higher risk factor for poverty, children born with autism, and other socioeconomic problems. The list is too long to place here.

- Children have a complex social structure, educational requirements, and developmental milestones which adult sexual relationships would almost certainly complicate.

- In culture’s where individuals feel they are being unduly burdened, enslaved, or robed of their rights typically have to fight for said rights. Blacks, women, and other minorities have had to fight for their freedoms. Therefore, the only real way children will ever have the same access to their rights as adults would be to gain them for themselves. No one can 'empower' another person - they must take it for themselves. Children lack the ability to understand the concepts of freedom until somewhere near 13 when they actually begin to drift from their home environment into their own self created world. Children under that age don't have a concept of freedom because they are not fully mature or developed.

>>59750

Amazing comment however these pedos will whine, name call and attempt to discredit you with pseudoscience.

>>59750

What do you think of this: >>59664 ?

>>59750

Lost me at sexual maturity

it is actually in their 30s do women reach that. so yeah fuck that

>>59772

It is generally believed that boys and men will seek out women in their mid-20's. Medically and psychologically that is the perfect time to reproduce. It has the least percentage change for almost every kind of mutation, disorder, etc. In many Western cultures it is seen as posh or cool for young girls to emulate women in this age range. Most of it is tolerated by women because they are either projecting or simply cannot understand the effect it has on men and boys. So, it makes sense for men to be attracted to girls which display the 'peak' attributes of their natural age range preference. That is probably why girls 13-14 are found to be the most desirable by men who like underage girls. Society can make sense of this attraction and it's typically called jailbait. Under 13 and they turn into pedophiles which the vast majority of societies dislike. The only real places left that allow children under 13 to have sexual relationships with adults also have very little women's rights. So basically, to be a pedo you'd have to be against women's rights for it to work. Over 13 and the ballgame changes.

>>59798

>implying womens rights isnt the reason society as a whole collapses

>>59798

>It is generally believed that boys and men will seek out women in their mid-20's.

Oh LOL. Is this what the psychological establishment believes? Have none of them seen the popularity of adolescent girls in the sex industries?

>Medically and psychologically that is the perfect time to reproduce.

Maybe so but the issue is what's the best age (or would have been the best age in prehistoric societies when our sexual behaviours evolved) for a man to acquire a female in order to maximise HIS reproductive success.

>>59769

>Amazing comment

it's literally, and I fucking mean literally, nothing but strawmen, vague language, and non-sequitur truthisms

That is a lot of projecting and denial. You honestly think that everyone thinks like you, that (all?) 10yo's want to have sex (with 30-50yo men?) and that girls and boys think alike. You're wrong. Not everyone thinks like you. I've worked with hundreds of children and girls do not think about sex the same as boys. There are fundamental differences between the sexes. That is why there are two sexes, so they can do different jobs. Most girls confess to me that they generally didn't even want to have sex until their mid teens (like 14 or 15) and that all their male relationships before then were mainly for social/cultural rewards. They like the idea of having a boyfriend, not sex. When they thought of sex is was as a way to strengthen their psychological bond with their mate, not to 'get off'. You just watch too much porn and fantasize about what you think other people are thinking. The reality is a good bit different than the images on sites like this. 99% of the images here were never meant as tools for sexual gratification of men by the girls in the pictures. You're living a lie.

>>59806

Really. Then it will be easy to disprove them. Start with the first one and prove to everyone how they can be shot down. Remember to cite your sources if you actually find one.

>>59802

>Maybe so but the issue is what's the best age (or would have been the best age in prehistoric societies when our sexual behaviours evolved) for a man to acquire a female in order to maximise HIS reproductive success.

Well, since man has evolved past that period it no longer has any real relevance to modern humans. If you cannot get past prehistoric thinking then maybe you're a throwback from Homo erectus or earlier hominin.

>>59813

>disprove truisms and statements deliberately written to be as vague and unfalsifiable as possible

It's honestly sad you think there's even one poster here who's having any of your shit.

>>59814

>Well, since man has evolved past that period it no longer has any real relevance to modern humans. If you cannot get past prehistoric thinking then maybe you're a throwback from Homo erectus or earlier hominin.

No, I'm not suggesting we use prehistoric societies as a model for modern life. I'm pointing out that our (largely innate) sexual preferences are adapted to the kind of societies we lived in during our evolution. Some of them may be maladaptive in modern societies but that doesn't mean they are abnormal or perversions. It's just that they're not adapted to modern societies.

For example, it would have been adaptive for men in prehistoric societies to raid other tribes and kidnap 12yr old virgins since they're ovaries are full of eggs for the men to fertilise so we should expect men to have evolved some kind of instinct or liking for doing this. Modern societies have created strict laws to deter men from acting on these urges since to do so is immoral and disruptive to functioning of modern societies but we have to acknowledge that these behaviours are a natural part of the male psyche.

>>59818

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

>>59818

As interesting as that might be, it is just one of several evolutionary theories.

>we have to acknowledge that these behaviours are a natural part of the male psyche.

No, that really isn't how it works nor should it be. We cannot pick and choose which hypothesis or theories should apply to modern man from the vast history of life going back 65 million years. Hominin and hominids also practiced infanticide, incest, and cannibalism too. We strive to be better and that begins with treating our youngest, weakest and most vulnerable with the utmost respect and dignity.

There is another theory on cognitive development which states that some people simple cannot move past a certain developmental stage. They are perpetually stuck in a state which limits their ability to understand certain concepts. >>59817 may be an example of that limitation. He cannot move past the fact that preteens and adults are so unbalanced as to be ridiculously obvious.

>>59834

I don't think you understand how evolution works.

>>59834

>being so butthurt over your inability to respond to a single post that you intellectually bankrupt yourself out of spite at the poster

And that pathetic impotency of yours extends to the real world as well. You're ultimately powerless to stop any of us from doing what we want. Sexual activity is 99.9% unpoliceable, with the effect of only discouraging a few moral pedos from benefiting children while the socialpaths have are now and always will do whatever they please and nearly always get away with it.

For some people, it seems everything rests on consent. I find this odd as we don't question consent with any other activity we engage in with children.

For example, can I give my daughter a nude massage? Is that okay? What if I rub her butt. Still okay? What if I rub her pussy?

At what point can she no longer consent? Do her own wishes or her own desires matter?

What about things that are actually dangerous, such as riding in a car. If they can't consent, why is it okay to put them in a situation that can literally kill them?

What about chores? They can't consent to labor, so is making them do chores the same as slavery?

Only when sexual desire is present do people think consent matters. I think they are rationalizing. What they oppose is desire for children, which they find disgusting, and come up with (false) reasoning why this is a bad thing. I can't even take their arguments seriously anymore. It's the same shit they used to say about homosexuals.

>>59843

You're seeing this from a layperson's perspective.

>can I give my daughter a nude massage? Is that okay? What if I rub her butt. Still okay? What if I rub her pussy?

The law is clear. Once it becomes sexual in nature it is against the law. Massages are seen as therapeutic, but once you want something sexual from her it becomes molestation. The reality of this scenario can be complex because people lie to protect themselves and children are unreliable witnesses (they can be manipulated, they cannot remember, they have no reference for what happened, they can be made to feel guilty, they don't want to see their parent hurt, etc).

>At what point can she no longer consent? Do her own wishes or her own desires matter?

In Western culture, never before 13. The law treats them as unable to consent. After 13+ it depends on a lot of factors. There are hundreds of laws which parents must follow in regards to their responsibility to their children. Failure to adhere to them has a range of penalties, some which include jail others which are a simple warning. In the West we do not own people. Parents keep their children's rights in trust until such time as the State deems them able to understand the consequences of their actions. At about 13 children can be tried as adults, be given rights to choose what parent to live with, and so on, but it is the judgment of the court set by precedent, to determine if the child is able to understand consequences.

>What about chores? They can't consent to labor, so is making them do chores the same as slavery?

Child labor laws are very clear about what children can and cannot be forced to do. These laws originate from the early 1900's. States have more child labor laws on top of Federal. Failure to abide by these laws could have your children taken away from you. Again, in the West we do not own people. Work is considered a normal part of everyone's life and it is seen as character building. Parents are allowed some leeway, but not complete freedom to work their children to death. Quakers even have to follow child labor laws.

>Only when sexual desire is present do people think consent matters.

No. That is a distortion of the law. Children under 13 have certain rights and cannot consent to any legally binding situation. Their guardians hold their rights in trust until such time that they are old enough to decide for themselves. At about 13 they can petition the court for more rights if they so wish. In some States/Provinces they can even petition the court for abortions and even marriage as long as all the laws are followed, it can be allowed. It is extremely rare because almost no 13 can demonstrate the ability to survive on their own (rent an apartment, work, drive, etc).

>I think they are rationalizing.

No. There are simple tests which show that until their teen years abstract though is very hard for them to rationalize. They make very poor decisions and even deductive reasoning is lacking. That was one of the reasons Facebook isn't allowed to market to children under 13. They tend to make really bad choices.

>What they oppose is desire for children, which they find disgusting, and come up with (false) reasoning why this is a bad thing.

Not really. Childhood 'puppy love' is a well established and commonly accepted emotion. There are thousands of movies about it and people really like them. What people dislike is preteens having sex with adults because it is inherently abusive (because it is unbalanced). Preteens lack the ability to think abstractly, have minds which are not developed, are easy to manipulate, and almost every situation the adult is the one with all the power in the relationship. The vast majority of people have a problem with it because it is 'naturally' repugnant. There was a time when people thought children were simply miniature adults, but we know better now. They are literally still forming. It isn't a conspiracy. fMRI scans show the differences between an adult and a preteens brain.

>I can't even take their arguments seriously anymore. It's the same shit they used to say about homosexuals.

No again. Pedophilia is seen as a predatory act where an adult prey's on a child's weaknesses'.

So far no one has been able to mount an argument that preteens would be in a balanced relationship with an adult. It just doesn't happen in 99.99% cases. Look around your city. Look really hard and try to find an adult and a preteen that have an equal relationship. You won't find it.

>>59859

>the law said it, i believe it, that settles it

>>59859

>The vast majority of people have a problem with it because it is 'naturally' repugnant.

>There was a time when people thought children were simply miniature adults

Man I tell you what you have a gift for immediately invalidating your own statements.

>>59859

Most relationships aren't equal. See old men with young girls. Their relationships are based on the woman leeching off their money for the exchange of sex.

This is not how life works, we are not all the same. That's the magic of relationships: To understand eachother and work together for a better future. If everything were to be about "equality" then there will be no couples.

Perharps that's what feminazis want: To destroy relationships. Let the state raise the kids, do not let outside influences interefere with the adoctrination.

>>59859

>The reality of this scenario can be complex because people lie to protect themselves and children are unreliable witnesses (they can be manipulated, they cannot remember, they have no reference for what happened, they can be made to feel guilty, they don't want to see their parent hurt, etc).

None of that answers the question he asked. You do you perpetually refuse to directly address anything that is ever said?

What if the girl initiates sex, as in >>59767 ?

How would that be so wrong or damaging?

>>59812

>believing girls

Yeah like they're actually going to tell you they wanted to have sex. And even if you're right that only disproves one point I made (which is the least important one anyway).

The rest of your post are either outright distortions of what I said or baseless assumptions. You know nothing about me m8, don't pretend otherwise.

It's funny when people make the "power balance" argument, do two people need to have an equal power balance to enjoy a mutually consensual sexual experience? Hell no, just like when someone takes a child to a theme park, can they enjoy being together despite having a "power imbalance"? Hell yes. A relationship between an adult and a child isn't a normal relationship, so normal rules don't apply, that's my opinion at least

>>59880

wat?

>>59518

This is old fucking news. Just look at the telegraph article. It's from a year ago about something that happened two years ago. Some idiot just reposted it to "truthuncensored"

>>59863

>>59864

>>59865

Someone sounds really bitter that they cannot come up with an intelligent and well thought out retort.

>>59867

>one of that answers the question he asked.

Yes, it did. Perhaps you require a simpler answer? Look up "Indecency with a child" for legal terminology if you like.

>>59870

>What if the girl initiates sex, as in >>59767 ?

>

>How would that be so wrong or damaging?

The law is clear.

>>59879

>Yeah like they're actually going to tell you they wanted to have sex. And even if you're right that only disproves one point I made (which is the least important one anyway).

>

>The rest of your post are either outright distortions of what I said or baseless assumptions. You know nothing about me m8, don't pretend otherwise.

Well, I can deduce that you're into preteens sexually, which means there is a high probability for various behaviors. Plus, it is obvious you have a distorted outlook on the opposite sex and what constitutes consent. You probably think all preteen girls want to have sex with you too.

>>59880

Children, especially female children, have little to no rights and are treated like assets or property by men.

>>59884

>It's funny when people make the "power balance" argument, do two people need to have an equal power balance to enjoy a mutually consensual sexual experience?

There was no mention of "equal", simply that the balance of power is so uneven that the vast majority of people would say the child is at a major disadvantage.

>>59962

>Someone sounds really bitter that they cannot come up with an intelligent and well thought out retort.

Is that person you? Because it describes you perfectly.

>Yes, it did.

No it did not you disgustingly braindead non human. He did not ask if it was legal, he asked if it was "okay."

>>59962

>The law is clear.

No, it isn't clear. Answer the question: how is it wrong or damaging?

>>59966

Mum and Dad says it's wrong so it is.

Waaaaaaaaaaa...

>>59962

>There was no mention of "equal", simply that the balance of power is so uneven that the vast majority of people would say the child is at a major disadvantage.

A child is also at a major disadvantage playing catch with his old man. Miraculously they are still capable of having a fun, wholesome time. This alone is utterly indisputable proof that a power imbalance does not intrinsically creates a negative outcome, and thus some other factor is the only possible explanation.

A employee-employer relationship doesn't cause harm because of the power imbalance, it caused harm because something happened. Someone made a threat, or an insinuation, stepped over a boundary, or things got awkward, or the simple social factor involved got to them.

>>59884

>It's funny when people make the "power balance" argument, do two people need to have an equal power balance to enjoy a mutually consensual sexual experience? Hell no, just like when someone takes a child to a theme park, can they enjoy being together despite having a "power imbalance"? Hell yes. A relationship between an adult and a child isn't a normal relationship, so normal rules don't apply, that's my opinion at least

Most people do not use fallacies on purpose, so I'll just to the problems with your statements.

- I never mentioned "equal". A sexual relationship between a preteen and an adult that the vast majority of people will not allow it.

- "Mutually consensual" has not been established by anyone on this board yet. Just because you "think" something can be done does not make it so. We need legal, biological, sociological and/or cultural proof that preteens have the reasonable ability to make decisions as good as a common adult. So far, science says that doesn't happen.

- You're comparing swimming with sexual relationships? One you have a less than .0001% probability of a serious negative outcome, while the other you have 36%-60%.

- "Normal" is a loaded term that has become meaningless for the layperson. Let us use "healthy" instead. Sexual relationships can become very complex for adults. They involve very strong emotions and bonding. Asking a preteen, a person that is still developing mentally, socially, and biologically to try to deal with those complexities is ridiculous.

We have not spoken much about the pedophile in these scenarios. Do you think it would be "healthy" for an adult to be in a relationship with someone so undeveloped mentally? Do you think a 0-12yo could possibly enrich an adult on a deeper intellectual level? The adult would have to be very undeveloped socially and mentally to get anything from the relationship.

>>59969

>Do you think a 0-12yo could possibly enrich an adult on a deeper intellectual level?

Nearly everyone look to children to find meaning in their own lives.

>The adult would have to be very undeveloped socially and mentally to get anything from the relationship.

Explain in detail. The vast majority of people enjoy the company of children and find them engaging socially emotionally and mentally, not just the people you have an overriding bias against.

Yes, it is perfectly healthy for the adult, and you have nothing to say but obnoxious butthurt.

>>59966

>No, it isn't clear. Answer the question: how is it wrong or damaging?

Dozens of links and studies and postings have already stated the answer to that question.

>>59967

>Mum and Dad says it's wrong so it is.

Generally, yes, that is how it goes. Mum and dad have the experience and education of years far beyond a child's. This is the basis of the learning process.

>>59971

>Dozens of links and studies and postings have already stated the answer to that question.

Would they happen to be studies that don't distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sex?

>>59968

>A child is also at a major disadvantage playing catch with his old man.

Fallacy - comparing to unlike activities with far different consequences, situations, and effects.

>This alone is utterly indisputable proof that a power imbalance does not intrinsically creates a negative outcome

This was never said. Please read more carefully.

>A employee-employer relationship doesn't cause harm because of the power imbalance

Fallacy - comparing to unlike activities with far different consequences, situations, and effects.

>>59972

>Would they happen to be studies that don't distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sex?

Yes. Adults reporting sexual encounters with other children their own age and with adults had higher risk factors for several negative outcomes.

>>59970

>Nearly everyone look to children to find meaning in their own lives.

No, some just want to have sex with them.

>>59970

>The vast majority of people enjoy the company of children and find them engaging socially emotionally and mentally, not just the people you have an overriding bias against.

Yes, they are generally called parents, caregivers, and health professionals and they generally care enough about the children not to have sex with them.

>>59974

It's not a fallacy, and they are both absolutely comparable for the purpose they were used.

You are wrong, and now you resort to desperate lying.

>>59975

>Yes. Adults reporting sexual encounters with other children their own age and with adults had higher risk factors for several negative outcomes.

What does that have to do with distinguishing between consensual and non consensual. Where in their reports do they mention it.?

>>59975

>No, some just want to have sex with them.

Nearly every single human on this planet including you yourself have turned to children to find meaning in their own lives.

>Yes, they are generally called parents, caregivers, and health professionals and they generally care enough about the children not to have sex with them.

Thank you for proving my point that people enjoy relationships with children. God it's beautiful when your opponent destroys themselves for you.

>>59976

>It's not a fallacy, and they are both absolutely comparable for the purpose they were used.

I'm sorry that you do not know what "faulty comparisons" are.

>>59976

>You are wrong, and now you resort to desperate lying.

Again, I'm sorry you do not understand basic comparisons.

>>59979

>Nearly every single human on this planet including you yourself have turned to children to find meaning in their own lives.

It's odd that you associate the meaning of life with sex with children. Most people usually do not want to screw the Dalai Lama. You are exhibiting some very telling behavior.

>>59979

>Thank you for proving my point that people enjoy relationships with children. God it's beautiful when your opponent destroys themselves for you.

Again, that odd wording.

>>59980

>I'm sorry that you do not know what "faulty comparisons" are.

It's not a faulty comparison. They both scenarios involving a power distortion and are thus absolutely viable to be compared in the context of a power imbalance.

>It's odd that you associate the meaning of life with sex with children. Most people usually do not want to screw the Dalai Lama. You are exhibiting some very telling behavior.

It's not odd at all to read you once again being an imbecile. Does wanting to screw the dalai lama disqualify you from finding him inspirational? if you fuck your wife, do you no longer find her emotionally or mentally engaging?

Your question was this, verbatim:

>Do you think a 0-12yo could possibly enrich an adult on a deeper intellectual level?

And both my answer and your own admission is a resounding yes. Parents have fulfilling relationships with their children, and so can pedos, because sex obviously does not invalidate the psychological component to a relationship.

>>59977

The links have been posted various times in different threads. You can also Google, "Long term effects of preteen sex" if you like.

>>59982

>incapable of directly answering incredibly simple question

its sublime

>>59981

>It's not a faulty comparison. They both scenarios involving a power distortion and are thus absolutely viable to be compared in the context of a power imbalance.

A valid comparison would be adult/adult vs child/adult vs teen/adult power imbalances.

Here's an example of your distortion:

We've flown a man to the moon, so why haven't we flown a man to Pluto yet? They both involve man and spacecraft, but there are very good reasons we have not reached Pluto with a manned mission. Children love water, it's actually very natural to. Sex on the other hand has many consequences and involves mental and physical requirements that children haven't even developed yet. Your comparison is very child-like though, so I'm seeing where you might be attracted to children mentally.

>>59983

>its sublime

I know right. Pedo's cannot come up with one valid piece of evidence that preteens and adults can have a balanced healthy sexual relationship. And they have to resort to name calling and twisted wording to validate their lust for undeveloped children who don't have the mental capacity to understand they are broken inside.

>>59985

>Pedo's cannot come up with one valid piece of evidence that preteens and adults can have a balanced healthy sexual relationship.

>probability of a serious negative outcome, while the other you have 36%-60%.

>God it's beautiful when your opponent destroys themselves for you.

>>59984

>Children love water, it's actually very natural to.

They also love and find it natural to explore their own bodies and each others bodies.

Yes or no question:

Is adult-child sex is bad BECAUSE of the power imbalance? Specifically the power imbalance itself, and not various factors that it might give rise to?

>>59988

>They also love and find it natural to explore their own bodies and each others bodies.

Yes, it is natural and healthy to self explore, but once they start exploring other people it becomes a problem.

>>59988

>Is adult-child sex is bad BECAUSE of the power imbalance? Specifically the power imbalance itself, and not various factors that it might give rise to?

This is not a yes or no question, but I'll answer as clearly as I can.

It isn't the only reason, but it is a big reason. There are other reason which have already been stated and so far no one has been able to contest them.

>>59990

Do you personally have a problem with 2 similarly aged children sharing in sexual exploration? Not lawfully, or socially, but your own personal opinion specifically.

>>59990

>but it is a big reason

Not wearing your seatbelt is a big reason you got killed in a car crash, but it's also objectively true that the seatbelt didn't kill you, flying through the windshield and breaking your neck killed you. The lack of seatbelt just allowed to happen.

>There are other reason which have already been stated and so far no one has been able to contest them.

If you haven't said that sex inherently and inescapably causes harm then there's nothing to contest.

Everything you've said boils down to "it's risky so we've decided it's not worth it."

Alright, good for you, some people disagree, and the law is honestly pretty powerless to stop them from doing what they want.

>>59991

Yes, i have a problem. I'ts a sin. Children shouldn't be exposed to that kind of things, it's disgusting to the eyes of God.

>>59962

>it is obvious you have a distorted outlook on the opposite sex and what constitutes consent. You probably think all preteen girls want to have sex with you too.

There he is. There he goes again. Look everyone! He posted it once again! Isn't he just the smartest guy around?! Oh my god.

>>59991

>Do you personally have a problem with 2 similarly aged children sharing in sexual exploration? Not lawfully, or socially, but your own personal opinion specifically.

There are three rules which collide at this point; preteens cannot consent therefore allowing them to "explore" would be breaking the law, psychology says they should be able to explore to a point (first kiss, holding hands, slow dancing etc) because it builds awareness, and cultural norms. There has to be a balance between these three things else you open the door for abuse.

>>59992

>Not wearing your seatbelt is a big reason you got killed in a car crash

Instead of playing all these word acrobatics, just use real situations. You're burring this in the minutia of semantics. There's no shortage of real world examples of what you are trying to explain.

>If you haven't said that sex inherently and inescapably causes harm then there's nothing to contest.

No psychologist will say 'sex' is inherently dangerous. What they will all say are that relationships based on one person having all the power are.

>Everything you've said boils down to "it's risky so we've decided it's not worth it."

No. The risk factors are well established.

>Alright, good for you, some people disagree, and the law is honestly pretty powerless to stop them from doing what they want.

Yes, that is true, but there are people just as dedicated on the other end of the spectrum as well.

>>59880 >>59965 >>59976

>>59966 >>59967 >>59970

>>59981 >>59988 >>59991

Serious question... How would a preteen/adult sexual relationship even start and work? It sounds incredibly dysfunctional. Would you hang out at the local park and pick up kids at the swings or sandbox? Stereotypes aside, there are social experiments on YouTube with adults convincing kids as old as 12 to go with them and walk right out of the park. Some even get kids to go into dog cages.

How would that work when you bring back a preteen and tell the parents a few hours after walking off with their kid that their kid 'consented' to the anal sex? Or not bring back the kid back at all and just keep them because the kid didn't like their parents and you showered them with gifts and candy all day?

>>60035

I like how you bring the typical stereotypical "old man sexually abusing a kid and tries to convince him/her with gifts"

Yet you don't make examples about a 20 man and a 12 year old girl. Or a 20 man and a 17 year old child (my gosh!)

You people don't have a clue about anything, all you do is to make up stuff up your ass and act like you're scientists.

>>59969

Nothing is unhealthy about adult-child sexual relationships to the man except the punishment that society inflicts.

You're definitely conflating "healthy" with "normal," and worshipping the latter.

lol that a man would want anything from a woman on a "deep intellectual level"

If I wanted that I'd go to a Buddhist temple. Someone clearly doesn't understand men.

>>60035

There are social experiments with adults convincing the elderly as old as 80 to liquidate their savings and invest in obvious scams. I guess we should ban investments involving the elderly in case someone tries to take advantage of them. (Pay no mind to the fact that these scams are already covered by another part of the criminal code.)

>>60035

I don't know what are you talking about.

A relationship between any man and any woman starts with seeing each other.

Then approaching, talking .

Spending time together.

If another are attracted to each other, then

they'll seek to feel the other, then sex . blah blah blah.

I don't get why is so difficult to understand

>>60035

Are you sick???

Why would you that thing to

somebody?

If getting inside dog cages is bad,

you shouldn't try it.

>>59985

Thousand of years of evolution.

I don't think what you are implying by "healthy".

If you're trying to imply 'money making'

relationship.

I don't think that your sickos "physcologist" and their invented distorted "evidence" of histories about devolpment of psicopatologies.

They all are twisted.

The biggest scam ever.

>>60040

>>60047

>>60058

None of you actually answered the question. How do you actually meet these kids? Children's lives revolve around other children, relatives, and instructors. That leaves playgrounds, pizza parties, and trying to hook up online (presumably while the parents don't know). It's really hard to not stereotype that kind of behavior.

Adults have similar interests, go to college/work together, can drive themselves alone, usually have their own money, etc.... Adult/preteen relationships are extremely limited.

>>60065

Maybe in your country is that way.

Seeing children isn't an rare or weird thing.

You're sick men. Living along children is good and it's healty.

>>60065

You're asking the wrong people, because a very small percentage here have any experience with relationships.

That is why adult-preteen relationships are irrelevant, the thread topic here is whether adult men find pubescent children attractive.

>>59800

Mn I am sure as hel I wooul have shoved my tiny 9 year old dick in almost any healthy vagina, I began masturbating nd watching porn when I became 9, and began having erections when I ewas 8, I must have like precocious testosterone because once I reached 14 I had a full grown curly beard. Adn certainly being virgin and never having a girlfriend damaged me more than all those masturbatory sesions, in fact I think my worst moment of self hate was because I rejected my sexual desire and projected said rejection against those who enjoyed it.

>>60072

What about teens? Normies also believe that adult men finding teens attractive is just as bad as finding attractive a 4 year old.

The problem is that the line that separates "pedophiles" from normal people has become blurry in the last 40 years.

>>60080

The word 'pedophile' isn't a legal term any more than pornography is. So the public generally lumps things together. It really doesn't mean anything.

Kids 13-15 in most Western countries can petition the court for more rights. They have to show they can survive on their own, are mature enough, and can make the right decisions. They are checked on regularly by court appointed officers and usually have some kind of advocate that helps them. Jurisdictions vary, but after a period of time they are pretty much considered adults. So, anyone wanting to have a relationship with a teen can do so legally. The problem is the vast majority of teens are not mature enough, don't really want all the responsibilities, don't want to sacrifice their personal time, or just don't care enough about older men to do all that work.

>>60080

When it is said that 13 year olds are attractive, that doesn't mean "as young as", it means it's the best age. Thus about half the most attractive girls are under 13, and half are over. Though the girls are usually the best when they are 13. Thus whether they are under or over 13, or even are the rare attractive adults, it still must be treated as one and the same.

What separates a pedophile is the lack of socialization. Someone who is not a pedophile kowtows to the values of society even from within. That is clear from the way the antis worship "normal". Though providing clearly bad solutions, The Unabomber Manifesto describes this process very accurately and should be required reading for any man.

>>60034

I asked you an extremely simply question and you still failed, just like every other question that has ever been asked of you in your entire life.

Do YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE that children shouldn't ever play sexually with each other?

>Instead of playing all these word acrobatics, just use real situations. You're burring this in the minutia of semantics. There's no shortage of real world examples of what you are trying to explain.

1. you've yet to not be pathetic with any single non answer so far

2. you know exactly what ive completely successfully explained you willfully obtuse failure of an abortion

>What they will all say are that relationships based on one person having all the power are.

They won't tell you that either. They'll say it's risky.

>No. The risk factors are well established.

No they aren't. You've yet to establish a single one.

>Yes, that is true, but there are people just as dedicated on the other end of the spectrum as well.

And I'm telling you those people are powerless.

>Or not bring back the kid back at all and just keep them because the kid didn't like their parents and you showered them with gifts and candy all day?

If 'candy and presents' are all that it takes for your child to willfully walk away from you forever or even just a decent length of time, you have utterly failed as a parent and you deserve to have your children taken away from you. If not by pedos then by the state.

>How do you actually meet these kids?

She's my daughter, it would be pretty hard to miss her.

>>60086

>Kids 13-15 in most Western countries can petition the court for more rights. They have to show they can survive on their own, are mature enough, and can make the right decisions

No, they literally legally can't.

They can petition for a legally appointed guardian. That is all. That is the entire extent of it.

>>60122

And yet, all you can do is make insults. I've provided over twenty links on this forum - it isn't my fault you either missed them or ignored them. There are thousands of studies and you can Google them if you like - they aren't hard to find since they comprise the majority of all studies. If you find even one supporting adult/preteen sexual relationships go ahead and post that link for us to look over.

>And I'm telling you those people are powerless.

How sad for you that you think you're actually winning something. It's a sad little thing you are that you have to beat off to images of children who's photos were either stollen by other pedos or by people who cater to pedos for money.

>She's my daughter, it would be pretty hard to miss her.

Yep, that's how it usually goes. Abusers are typically related or trusted friends of the child being abused. Just one more reason pedos are so hated.

If you actually have a daughter I'd be surprised though. You don't sound very functional and you surly don't know much about children.

>>60123

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emancipation_of_minors

>>60161

>And yet, all you can do is make insults.

>lalalala can't hear you

pathetic

>>60161

Honestly how hilariously pathetic this post was just reveals how butthurt you are that I've utterly ruined you.

And no, a lot of folks here don't just jerk it to children, they have sex with them. And they're going to keep on going to, and keep on getting away with it, forever.

You were never worth life.

>>60262

>>60261

>>60259

Here's a thought: why can children consent to sports when the risk of harm from athletic activities is demonstrably higher than from sexual activity? Why do we need child sports?

>>60263

This.

My parents got me into little league when I was a boy. At age 7 or 8, I got hit by the pitcher (hardball) not once, but twice. Once on my torso, the second time on my thigh near my nuts. I believe the kid did it on purpose because he didn't like me for some reason. He was a pompous little bastard. After that, I noped the fuck out from baseball.

Something told me being a cool baseball kid wasn't worth the risk to my health. Only later did I learn about TBI, concussions, and even deaths that result from kids playing baseball. A child who participates in sports does so without informed consent.

>>60261

Why is it fair to say "more than half of all sorts injuries in children are in fact preventable" but it's not fair to suggest that much harm from adult-child sexual activity is preventable, without having to ban the act?

There's a lot of research about the harm caused by preteen sex, but is there any research on the children that aren't harmed by it? Even the anti himself showed the evidence that the risk of harm for sex is less than 100%, is there any investigation being done into why those children weren't hurt?

>>60249

Pathetic? I'd say it's the other way around. He does good. I'm not gonna lie, I'd like to have sex with little girls but I know very well it's wrong. So should all of you.

>>60263

Even if consent to sports were wrong it wouldn't make sexual consent right.

>>60286

>He

No, you really didn't. Read the thread, literally every single post from the anti has been a deflectory non-answer. Many of his posts can actually be used to show how preteen sex can be ok.

So no no no no, not good at all.

You've also missed the point that poster was making. Consent to sports ISN'T wrong, and neither is sex.

>>60263

>why can children consent to sports when the risk of harm from athletic activities is demonstrably higher than from sexual activity?

>>60281

It's a fallacy to compare two unlike activities.

Explanation: Preteens cannot legally consent to any activity, therefore, any activity which may lead to harm gives the arguer a reason to say their activity, which also causes harm, is the lesser of two evils. This tactic is used on news stations, by politicians, and extremists trying to push an agenda (feminists use this logic a lot).

Examples:

Children cannot consent to be driven around, but thousands of children are killed and injured in car accidents every year... Therefore, I can have sex with preteens.

Children cannot consent to swimming classes and many drown every year.... Therefore, I can have sex with preteens.

It’s ridiculous ‘logic’.

>>60291

>Many of his posts can actually be used to show how preteen sex can be ok.

Well, let's see that then. We've all be waiting for the pedos to show how it is healthy for them to have sex with babies all the way up to twelve-year-olds. The only defense are ludicrous comparisons to sports while there are literally hundreds of thousands of reports, studies, surveys, metastudies, self-reports, and medical documentation to say that it really isn't. Then the pedos say, well we want consensual sex, but how do you get consent form a baby, a six year old that still believes in magic, or a twelve year old who are well known for making rash and poor decisions (which there are also thousands of studies supporting).

>>60302

>ludicrous comparisons to sports

It's actually a fair comparison. You say children "can't" consent because they can't grasp the consequences, and that sex is harmful to them on a psychological level. Well, millions of children are physically harmed each year from participating in sports, which is an unnecessary activity unlike riding in cars.

>babies

I find your grouping us with nepiophiles to be much more disingenuous than the sports vs. childsex comparison. You know damned well pedos attracted to babies are a tiny minority and most pedos view that to be repugnant.

>>60297

It's about the risk, like you said before. By playing baseball, a child is risking serious injury that they most likely don't even know can happen. So why should they be able to consent to baseball with a risk of injury? Shouldn't we be preventing kids from situations that might led them to danger or harm?

>>60297

They are two very much alike activities for the purpose of deciding how to deal with risk.

risk in sports: assess them and deal with them accordingly

risk in preteen sex: SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING

>>60297

You're being such a disgustingly stupid fuck head on purpose and you know it. No one is saying your pathetic strawman bullshit. They're saying if you can deal with the harm of sex just like you can deal with the harm of any other fucking activity on the face of the earth. Seriously, kill yourself, you do not deserve to live a single moment longer.

>>60302

> We've all be waiting for the pedos to show how it is healthy for them to have sex with babies all the way up to twelve-year-olds.

You yourself have directly stated that not all adult-child sex results in measurable, definable harm. You, and also the literally hundreds of thousands of reports, studies, surveys, metastudies, self-reports, and medical documentation. They all directly admit to it.

>>60304

>I find your grouping us with nepiophiles to be much more disingenuous than the sports vs. childsex comparison. You know damned well pedos attracted to babies are a tiny minority and most pedos view that to be repugnant.

He's a lying disingenuous faggot subhuman.

Ok lets look at Pee Wee Football (8-12yo) then...

Only a fraction of a percent of children play football, which translates to a tiny portion of children over all.

Sexual Molestation of children under 13yo...

Rates for PTSD, sexual dysfunction, less brain development, alcoholism, transmission of STD's, increased medical needs, etc range from 36%+ . The population of children under 13yo is 100% vs a fraction of a percent of children which play football. Therefore, the rate of trauma, even at 1% of the total population, would be in excess of 500,000 children. The most conservative estimate however of 36% rate would mean about 17.5 million preteens with a reasonably high potential to be traumatized.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if it is wrong to let kids play any sports, ride bikes, or take a bath (all of which are dangerous), instead of having one potentially damaging activity, we should have two? Comparing football to molestation really isn't fair.

http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/dube_(2005)_childhood_sexual_abuse_by_gender_of_victim.pdf

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/19/10/1137.abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8640429

http://www.ptsdassociation.com/ptsd-research.php?Longitudinal%20Study%20on%20Childhood%20Sexual%20Abuse-20

http://www.johnbriere.com/suicide%20b%26r.pdf

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/113/1/164/

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ort/55/4/530/

Can preteen decide to have sex, understand the consequences and risk factors, and make informed decisions? The experts say no. Therefore, adding to the fact that children cannot make the right choices and early (preteen) sex has such high risk factors, there really is no reason to consider lowering the age of majority to toddlers, mid-preteens or tweens.

>>60315

>The most conservative estimate however of 36% rate would mean about 17.5 million preteens with a reasonably high potential to be traumatized.

>potential

Absolutely indisputable objective fact: pedos will have sex with children regardless of any attempts to stop them.

Sane course of action: study why there are many children who aren't traumatized and find why sexual activity was benign for them.

Your course of action: just fuck my shit up.

These pedos are going to have sex with children. They're going to do it. You can't stop them, you can't even slow them down.

They are extremely unlikely to not have sex because you told them not to, they are much much MUCH more likely to practice less risky sexual activity if they were educated.

Proof: studies on abstinence only versus safe sex education and their effects on teen pregnancy.

""You are making the problem worse.""

>>60322

Bad comparison with the abstinence only versus "safe sex" with regard to teen pregnancy, because the former may result in more pregnancy, but that doesn't mean it results in more sex. The latter results in more sex.

>>60322

>Absolutely indisputable objective fact: pedos will have sex with children regardless of any attempts to stop them.

Yes, there are damaged people out there that will try to have their way with defenseless children. Luckily, those rates are falling.

>Sane course of action: study why there are many children who aren't traumatized and find why sexual activity was benign for them.

Sadly, there are still a lot of victims which scientists and researchers can study. There are already working theories on who is most vulnerable to the effects of molestation. The problem is that they require brain scans (fMRI/PET) to determine. It is impractical to scan everyone and worse, we do not know if the differences were caused by the events or if they pre existed. It is considered unethical to subject children to traumatic events to determine the facts so it is difficult to say. We will know better in time. We also know that sex during the preteen years is a major contributor for other risky behavior. When combined, the risk factors exceed those for soldiers in war, police in major cities like Chicago, and exposure to gang violence.

>These pedos are going to have sex with children. They're going to do it. You can't stop them, you can't even slow them down.

And pedophiles wonder why they are hated? It's because of molesters who cannot control their urges.

>>60330

>Yes, there are damaged people out there that will try to have their way with defenseless children.

A judgement of others pathetic subhuman such as yourself is worth about as much as a fart in the wind.

>Luckily, those rates are falling.

eheheheahahahaha

> We also know

No, you don't know. You have to resort to pathetic lies and misdirection precisely because you do not know.

>And pedophiles wonder why they are hated? It's because of molesters who cannot control their urges.

They're hated because people are irrational possessive cunts that violently hate anything abnormal.

>>60331

>They're hated because people are irrational possessive cunts that violently hate anything abnormal.

So, you think it is irrational for parents to want to keep their preteen children out of the hands of people that would wish to have sex with them? Does that make sense to you?

>>60333

If it's because god told them not to, then yes absolutely is irrational. If it's because they've determined for themselves sex is not appropriate for their children, then no it is not irrational. That said, an answer does not necessarily need to be correct to be rational.

See, that was a completely 100% certified direct answer to a question, unlike a single response from the anti in this thread thus far.

>>60334

Well, yes that is an answer to the question and it is direct, but it really doesn't say much. I always find it fascinating the word gymnastics some people will go through not to directly answer questions. The best people at this are politicians and lawyers and both are immensely hated by the general public. I studied political psychology and that’s when I learned that politicians (and presumably lawyers) were morally flexible because they didn't have a belief system. So, they could literally become a voice for certain causes without feeling the dirtiness that comes with sacrificing morals because they either lost or had no morals in the first place. That's an over simplification, but it would take ten pages to explain and characterize, then model.

You're doing that right now. You're arguing just to argue, not because you necessarily have a position in this discussion. You find a way around the topic of the conversation and push it into another direction without answering questions. I'm really impressed. You're like a human Mobius strip of circular logic. It is good practice for me as well. Clients in denial will do the same thing, but in person they really cannot stand up against CBT because they don't have time to formulate a defense by Googleing retorts. Mr Angry pants for example doesn't have the mental ability to attack with logic or fineness and he's really easy to push into anger. His stress levels must be through the roof on a daily basis. Not so with you I think. I think you're a bit cold and distant in real life. You probably challenge everyone around you too. You're very logic bound, so you probably put people off a lot because you analyze too much. You like to argue too and are good at it. And you reveal nothing about yourself, which hints to a few other things. In another situation we might actually make frenemies.

In any case, your answers are deflective and though they are direct and intelligent, they really don't say anything meaningful. They're just designed to propagate the argumentation process.

>>60338

>I always find it fascinating the word gymnastics some people will go through not to directly answer questions.

Copy-paste everything you have said in this thread in notepad, save it, and come back to it 5 years down the road.

>>60338

>but it really doesn't say much.

I said as much as the question asked of me. You don't get to ask a question and then complain about the answer that fulfills its criteria entirely.

Blame yourself for not asking much.

I'd love to have a stragner bang my little daughter.... Said no parent ever!

>>60338

>You find a way around the topic of the conversation and push it into another direction without answering questions.

The warped delirium you must live in also astounds me.

How is directly and concisely answering a question "finding a way around" it? What direction do you think I was trying to steer it?

You're insane, you're butthurt,and you have, for the millionth time, nothing left to say but utterly worthless empty false accusations.

I'm the same person by the way, you pitiable fool.

Wash your face, you're a mess.

>>60338

>I studied political psychology and that’s when I learned that politicians (and presumably lawyers) were morally flexible because they didn't have a belief system.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/fox_friends_punked_by_obama_su.html

Just because your beliefs are influenced by money doesn't mean you don't believe them.

>>60343

>I'm the same person by the way

Very interesting, indeed.

>How is directly and concisely answering a question "finding a way around" it? What direction do you think I was trying to steer it?

Because, in essence you said irrational people are irrational and rational people are rational. It is an answer, but says really nothing at the same time. The fact that you do not see this is also interesting. You actually think you're giving a sound logical answer to the question. Plus, the fact that you're so hot/cold with your hostility is an indicator that you probably are very hard to get along with.

>Just because your beliefs are influenced by money doesn't mean you don't believe them.

There is it again, "circular reasoning". You really like saying things which support themselves, yet say absolutely nothing when you analyze them. The words belief, influence and money are vague because nothing has been assigned to them. What are the beliefs? What are the influences? And what is the money (values)? Instead of answering the questions directly, you side step them. I posted research and you’re posting anecdotes. If you don’t have any sources to prove your point, all it really is personal bias, which holds no real value in debates. You actually need to ‘support’ your point of view.

>>60351

>Because, in essence you said irrational people are irrational and rational people are rational. It is an answer, but says really nothing at the same time.

Your question was this:

>So, you think it is irrational for parents to want to keep their preteen children out of the hands of people that would wish to have sex with them? Does that make sense to you?

My answer satisfies the criteria of your question completely, and it's my fault because you are satisfied with it?

What was the answer you wanted to get? There was clearly an answer you want to hear. So what would it have been? Or is it the truth that you don't care what the answer is?

You're right about one thing, I rarely get along with pathetic subhumans. If you want my approval, just kill yourself, and you'll have it right away.

>The words belief

So your claim about certain people's systems of belief is also utterly devoid of meaning or significance?

God, it is just simply beautiful when your opponent destroys themselves for you.

I think you're making pathetic projections about your own insufferable personality because everything you've just said reads like it was tailor made for your own posts throughout this thread.

If you don't think I have a position in this discussion, then why are you so clearly furious with me?

Do you really think your fuming rage behind every word isn't readily apparent?

I'm telling you you're a worthless animal whose mere existence is a continued cosmic mistake, and my emotional investment in this doesn't even register as a blip compared to your atomic fury.

>>60352

>My answer satisfies the criteria of your question completely, and it's my fault because you are satisfied with it?

>There was clearly an answer you want to hear.

I wanted any answer which you personally believed in, but you gave an evasive ambiguous answer. Instead of saying "I believe X, you gave me if X=Y then Y if Y=X then X" A perfectly logical answer, but one that says very little about your own belief about the subject. It's purely cold and analytical, but then you burst out into foulness and anger.

>God, it is just simply beautiful when your opponent destroys themselves for you.

And yet you return to this thread, day after day, spiteful, determined, and angry. Why is that? Why are you seeking my attention? What is drawing you to argument?

>>60354

>If you don't think I have a position in this discussion, then why are you so clearly furious with me?

I'm not furious or even frustrated in the least. I've been very cordial with you. I don't even use internet terms to degrade you. I actually have to set a calendar reminder if I make a comment so I can check back to see if someone has responded to one of my posts in various forums, otherwise I'd forget. I'm sorry that you don't occupy my thoughts. I have at least a dozen people any given month calling me names in therapy. It doesn't bother me - I know they cannot help themselves.

>I'm telling you you're a worthless animal whose mere existence is a continued cosmic mistake, and my emotional investment in this doesn't even register as a blip compared to your atomic fury.

Yet, you keep coming back to me. Why is that? Do you have an urge to be right? To prove a stranger wrong? What is driving that obsession you're feeling right now?

>>60360

>I wanted any answer which you personally believed in, but you gave an evasive ambiguous answer. Instead of saying "I believe X, you gave me if X=Y then Y if Y=X then X" A perfectly logical answer, but one that says very little about your own belief about the subject. It's purely cold and analytical, but then you burst out into foulness and anger.

You are truly deranged in your projections, you know that?

You know why you think that? Because it's all you are capable of yourself. Purely and absolutely.

Unlike you, I'm a human being with a conscience. I gave you that answer because it is the answer I believe in.

I give you my personal opinions, and you cry that I don't use logic, I use logic, and you cry that I'm not giving you my personal opinion that you just told me was vague and meaningless.

Every single ounce of your being is disgusting. If you had any compassion for other humans you would kill yourself this instant. You don't deserve life.

>I'm not furious or even frustrated in the least. I've been very cordial with you.

ahahahaha.

You ever read those articles or hear on the news about some murder trial, and the family of the victim issues a statement that they 'forgive the killer and pray for god's mercy upon them'? That's you. You type like I murdered your family. It's in every keystroke.

And let me tell you, it's just fucking adorable that you think you can get away with "A-ACTUALLY I DONT EVEN CARE!" Just fucking wow. It's sublime that I have you dancing this impotent vain charade for the audience.

Oh, and the browser tab tells you when there's a new response, you hilarious dipshit. Fucking lord, this is too rich.

>And yet you return to this thread, day after day, spiteful, determined, and angry. Why is that? Why are you seeking my attention? What is drawing you to argument?

You answered your own question. It is so I can watch you destroy yourself, day after day. Because it's beautiful to me.

The projection is a delightful coincidence too.

And speaking of personal opinions, have you forgotten this little gem you gave me when I asked for YOUR personal opinion?

>Do you personally have a problem with 2 similarly aged children sharing in sexual exploration?

>There are three rules which collide at this point; preteens cannot consent therefore allowing them to "explore" would be breaking the law, psychology says they should be able to explore to a point (first kiss, holding hands, slow dancing etc) because it builds awareness, and cultural norms. There has to be a balance between these three things else you open the door for abuse.

Not only was it absolutely vague, ambiguous, and evasive, it didn't even have the decency to answer my question at all. When I asked you the question a second time, you completely refused to even acknowledge it.

In short

>if X=Y then Y if Y=X then X" A perfectly logical answer, but one that says very little about your own belief about the subject.

In full

>kill yourself

>>60366

You really do love arguments - you can't help yourself. All I have to do is post anything and here you come to get the last word. It must be so frustrating for you to live your life that way. I've seen no empirical support for your stance, no dedcutive reasoning, and a lot of ambiguity. You type, but nothing really supportive comes out - it's all just your personal opinion, which is another way of saying pure bias. The only thing anyone can really determine is you think you should be able to have sex with babies up to twelve-year-olds.

The overwhelming majority of scientists and researchers on the planet have come to the same conclusion. It's your job to convince them they're wrong. I'll wait for your next tirade with bated breath. Try at least to make one citation that won't be debunked so easily.

>>60434

It's literally perfection unfolding before me. You ask for my personal opinion, I give it to you, and now, of course...

>nothing really supportive comes out - it's all just your personal opinion

It's beautiful.

I would say this is the moment that you completely bankrupt yourself and totally submit your resolution to defeat, but that was probably awhile ago wasnt it?

If you had anything else to say you would have said it. all your left with is fetus-tier "nu-uh!" prattling and mindlessly contradictory statements and trite bittersweet"I b-bet your life sucks!" death-wails.

It's simply beautiful.

>>60470

Well, if your preference is having sex with babies is a beacon of pride for you, wear it proud for everyone to see.

>>60509

Just stop responding. Obviously this shill has some kind of agenda with these walls of text. He's way too invested in this thread.

>>60510

I already said I really really like that he keeps posting.

I'll sage from now on though because I prefer to see the lera thread on top.

>>60510

>>60510

Men that look at pictures of children that were being used to make money or who's pictures were stolen... Men that rationalize fantasies that will never be... Men that will live without satisfaction knowing that the vast majority of people hate them... THAT is investment.

Movie quote...

Joe: Listen to me. This is a man who had succeeded in repressing his own desire, who had never before given into it right up until I forced it out. He had lived a life full of denial and had never hurt a soul. I think that's laudable.

Seligman: No matter how much I try, I can't find anything laudable in pedophilia.

Joe: That's because you think about the, perhaps 5% who actually hurt children. The remaining 95% never live out their fantasies. Think about their suffering. Sexuality is the strongest force in human beings. To be born with a forbidden sexuality must be agonizing. The pedophile who manages to get through life with the shame of his desire, while never acting on it, deserves a bloody medal.

>>60702

the one who's being hilariously pathetic in their rationalization here is you

>>60702

nymphomaniac was pleb shit.

>5% who actually hurt children

ludicrous. is that what normies actually think?

>>60716

thats probably the percentage who actually hurt children. now, as for the percentage who have fun with children...

>>60718

pedophilia diagnosis doesn't correlate with psycopathy diagnosis: a pedo is just as likely to hurt somebody as a non pedo.

psychopaths only make up about 1 percent of the population, and i don't think all of them preffer to attack people they're sexually attracted to.

i suspect your problem is that you're using a different definition of the term "pedophile". we should begin by agreeing to use the correct one.

>>60719

hurting people doesnt require a diagnosis of psychopathy, or even the intention of causing harm

>>60720

do you mean that pedophiles, as defined by psychology, are more likely to lack empathy with the suffering of human childs, without being psychos? are you planning on supporting your extraordinary claims with something not out of your ass?

>>60723

now you're being almost as retarded as the anti

unless you are him trying to false flag as a pedo

by hurting i dont mean beating or raping, and suffering isnt always immediate or apparent.with any intimate activity its easy to say or do the wrong thing without meaning it and hurtings someones feelings. what percent of adult relationships are there where no one ever got hurt?

>>60739

now i get it. everybody interacting with kids is likely to cause them some (unintentional?) psychologhical damage, parents and teachers are the usual suspects. what i don't get is why you needed to word it like it was something only pedos do.

>>60740

>now i get it. everybody interacting with kids is likely to cause them some (unintentional?) psychologhical damage, parents and teachers are the usual suspects.

It's a rationalization for someone that knows they are doing wrong. The bank robber rationalizes that the money he steals is covered by insurance. The pedo rationalizes that since everyone could potentially cause psychological damage his actions are no different than a parent, guardian, or instructor.

There is no way to rationalize grown adults having sexual relationships with preteens without either giving preteens adult rights from birth or by removing their rights completely. Those kinds of relationships can only function in the distorted fantasy of someone that is trying to rationalize their [unfulfilled] desires. And when he cannot, it comes out as rage and frustration against anything that challenge their fantasy world.

>>60740

i didn't word it as something only pedos do, you were just being an oversensitive victim-complex pedo that thought i was.

>>60743

give up pathetic subhuman. no one is interested in your perpetual delirious butthurt.

>>60702

Pedophiles are hated regardless of attraction to kids. They do not tell people what they want to hear, do not shave everyday and have physical disabilities. The real investment comes from the people that are socialized, ignore the truth about themselves, wear jeans, and hate anyone that's honest in order to fit in.

>>59533

Sums it up m8.

>Fukkin' retards, mane

>>60035

Retarded. The tired old trope of muh ill will has nothing to do with age, no matter if some people would prefer it to remain safe in their reality-free denial zones.

Are you not aware that most adults will do inane things for a perceived authority figure anyway? Again, this does not have to do with age.

>>59565

That's weird. I'm in my late twenties, have done all sorts of things in life, and I can still remember when I was 3.

>>59519

> for some reason children are able to consent if the person is 2-3 years around their age

i don't think the same person sees it both ways

like those cases of 10yo kids condemned in court by touching a 5yo, ridiculous

we can argue about the arbitrariety of the current "age of consent", AKA the age at which a person can interact with any other person older, but the age difference makes perfect sense really.

if AoC were 14yo, you would then explain to a 14yo that even if a year later at the age of 13 she could play doctor with kids of any age, now she can only do so with kids 9+ and from now on, only 5y younger

shit.

http://8ch.net/phile/res/3990.html

>>59518

The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, had been locked in battle over whether hebephilia should be included as a disorder. Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14 year old’s.

The proposal was being discussed because children are going through puberty at a younger age and the current definition of pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children.

Hebephilia.

>>59565

>However, there will always be a certain percentage of people that will remember it and feel it was a violation of their trust.

Why would a consensual (!) sexual relationship with a 14 year old e a violation of their trust if it is with a 19 year old but not with another 14 year old?

>>59599

>The original article is, "University Academics Say Pedophilia Is ‘Natural, And Normal For Males To Be Aroused By Children’" So, yeah, pedophilia. Santa and Sesame Street fall right into pedophilia. And I see you ignored the other imbalances.

Read the article you dunce, in context it is clearly referred to as the hebe age bracket.

>>60065

>Children's lives revolve around other children, relatives, and instructors

Wow, in what 3rd world country do you live where Children are locked up all day? Here, they play in the neihbourhood and meet all the people there, literally all age brackets.

>>59518

>>59962

>59962

>The law is clear.

So, you're just a sheep to the shepherd? Do you actually have a word of your own?

>>82468

It must be the USA.

>>59518

The comments in that article are the sort of shit are pretty disgusting.

Fuck normalfags.

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/child-sex/child-sex-trauma-theory-causes-child-sex-trauma-6

gonna leave this here

>>91591

I, and I'm sure many others, have known this for years. Problem is trying to get anti's to believe it.

>>91591

>>91754

Like so many things it'll take another century of nonsense before people wise up.

There's also a link to a story on how Vogue Kids Brazil was considered CP (Copine level 5!?!). I'm guessing it's like Vogue Bambini, cute but far softer than just about any NN set made in the past decade. In related news, 7yo girls going hard to Single Ladies is not only still freely available but REALLY tame compared to what's come out since.

The lines are constantly being redrawn. Be patient. Enjoy the show.

If you rest your argument on consent, you lose, simple as that. Very young children can't consent to *anything*. Parents consent for them. I notice many of you don't worry that they can't consent to being spanked or going to school or church. Because you don't care about consent. You just use it as a crutch because you have no better arguments.

Teens however CAN consent. They understand their actions, which is why we give them more freedom and more responsibility, and take them to jail if they break the law. The age of consent was originally used to punish teens for having consensual pre-martial sex with each other. Now it's used mostly to punish 19 years olds who have a 15 year old girlfriend who the parents don't like.

Children are vulnerable. They need protection. They definitely need protection from abusive adults. But some of you take it as self-evident that any sexual touching is de facto abuse. Even if the child enjoys it and loves the person they're with.

And let's get down to the real issue. It is like homosexuality in the sense that being gay was illegal because the people who practices it had a sexual urge that most people found distasteful. Not because it was actually harmful. It's the same with pedos. People find the thought of getting sexy with kids disgusting and base all their arguments on their own feelings, not on facts or reason.

Finally, no branch of psychology or medicine claims that child sexuality is harmful. Masturbation is healthy at any age." Not long ago it was considered extremely perverse for anyone to beat off at ANY age. Times have changed, for the better. Times will change for child sexuality as well.

What I propose at the minimum. Age of consent is dropped to 14 globally. Between 11 and 14, you can prosecute an adult for sex with someone in that age group only if you can prove assault. So consensual sex is okay as long as there was no force or threat. Below that, it gets tricky, because it's easy to manipulate small children and they do need protection. I would say that gentle sexual contact is okay in any situation where an extended hug would be okay. Or in situations where the child is cuddling with you.

Also I would add that sex education should start before puberty so probably 8-10 years old, for the sole purpose of reducing teen pregnancy and STDs.