/hebe/ - Girls

>>80686

brazlian here. It actually is true. He raped and killed the child. Them he was raped in jail, went to hospital, and was send back to jail where he was raped again. Some brazilian jail system for you

This guy RAPED and KILLED a fucking little BABY. It's hella different than tenderly loving and respecting a 12yo girl, but people still say it's the same.

>>80797

What's the difference?

>>80799

Physically: a whole lot of pain for the baby.

Communication: baby can't tell you when he is not comfortable(I'm sure he isn't)

Pleasure: a 12yo can enjoy the experience

Summary: I'm not sure if troll but that's a whole lot of difference

>>80797

>>80797

Another slut dead means the world becomes better place. Sluts don't deserve life. This little girl was a dirty nasty slut so it is his right to do as he pleases.

>>80808

A child cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape. All rape is rape, that's what Obama said.

>>80811

It was a boy, if i remember correctly.

>>80814

1 - Who says children can't consent? I mean, the law does, but science doesn't. It's not unusual for the law to be at odds with science. But don't act like something being illegal means jack all when it comes to reality.

2 - If children can't consent to sex, they can't consent to ANYTHING ELSE. What is labor without consent? Slavery. Therefore, children can't be asked to do chores, because slavery is illegal. What's taking someone's money without consent? Theft. Therefore, children can't buy things at the store.

There's no argument about consent that withstands scrutiny.

>>80832

The legal term "consent" goes further than the dictionary definition. Like the word hypothesis to non-scientist vs a scientist. There's a very big difference. Most preteens' minds are not well enough developed to understand the ramifications of legal action, don't have the experience to draw good conclusions from, and are easily fooled/coerced by adults. Here's the legal definition of "consent".

Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur.

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. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement.

Parties who terminate litigation pursuant to a consent judgment agree to the terms of a decision that is entered into the court record subsequent to its approval by the court.

In the context of rape, submission due to apprehension or terror is not real consent. There must be a choice between resistance and acquiescence. If a woman resists to the point where additional resistance would be futile or until her resistance is forcibly overcome, submission thereafter is not consent.

>>80832

>2 - If children can't consent to sex, they can't consent to ANYTHING ELSE. What is labor without consent? Slavery. Therefore, children can't be asked to do chores, because slavery is illegal. What's taking someone's money without consent? Theft. Therefore, children can't buy things at the store.

Yeah, the legal system doesn't work that way, at all in the West. Law is flexible as are punishments. What you're doing is called "fallacy of appealing to extremes" where you take something to an absurd level to make your point.

>>80814

Well hell. If Obama said it must be the gospel truth.

>>80797

A pedo is a pedo. You cannot differentiate. If you look at a girl under age 18 with lust in your heart its the same as brutally raping a baby.

Most of this "consent" thing is bullshit. I mean, it's decided by some old fart politican who know nothing about childrens.

In Japan or Argentina, these old fart says childs can consent at 13. But the same childrens "couldn't consent" if they were in EUA or Europe. In the end, it's just a cultural matter.

>>80861

>In Japan or Argentina, these old fart says childs can consent at 13.

There is no prefecture in Japan where they use the national AoC. Every prefecture's AoC is higher.

>>80855

Can you can tell the difference between a 15 year old and a 18 or a 17 from a 18 year old girl? Nevermind. You are a good goy.

>>80840

The western legal system is biased against men and privileges women and he didn't appeal to extremes, he made a valid comparisson. Appealing to extremes is something the guy i previolusly quoted would do. The denial of sexuality on children and teenagers is undoubtful the work of moralists and puritan assholes. It shows the arrogance and delusion of wanting to control something harmless and natural in everyone of us.

But hey, you people are all liberal when it comes down to some little shit who wasn't brainwashed at all! decides his sexual orientation.

>>80861

>Most of this "consent" thing is bullshit.

Please explain how a preteen can give informed consent. Start with babies and then work your way up to a twelve-year-old.

>I mean, it's decided by some old fart politican who know nothing about childrens.

Politicians typically do what their constituency want in the West. These laws are mainly driven by women (who were typically abused as children) and married men. This isn't a conspiracy, it developed over time and is seen as a violation of trust.

>>87708

>Can you can tell the difference between a 15 year old and a 18 or a 17 from a 18 year old girl?

If you're socially intelligent there are almost always cues to pick up on. If not, then you can always ask. Ignorance of the law cannot be used as a defense (there are legal precedents).

>The western legal system is biased against men and privileges women...

It is the application of the legal system that is biased, not the laws themselves. That would make it a social issue, not a legal one. It’s also moot since there are a long list of legal, social, cultural, historical, scientific, and even religious reasons why preteen/adult relationships are inherently wrong.

>Appealing to extremes...

Happens a lot on this and almost every other forum with active members.

>It shows the arrogance and delusion of wanting to control something harmless and natural in every one of us.

Another invalid point. Child sexuality is tolerated to a certain point in Western culture (kissing, holding hands, dancing, hugging, etc). The problem is with adults trying to compete/engage with children on any level (sports, academics, legal, social, and most importantly sexual), except where the child has proven (to a court, ruling body, etc) they can. It is unbalanced, unfair, has very high rates of risk, and is generally seen as wrong in the vast history of human kind. The only places which allow it are those where girls and women have little to no rights. Pedophilia has never been the norm in any society at any point.

>little shit who wasn't brainwashed at all! decides his sexual orientation.

Again, this is a social issue. There is more validity in a spectrum of gender identity than there is in fully grown adults trying to have sex with babies. Men trying to screw babies isn't tolerated anywhere.

Your arguments are weak, delusional, inept, and lack the fundamental elements of basic merit.

>>80861

>Most of this "consent" thing is bullshit.

Please explain how a preteen can give informed consent. Start with babies and then work your way up to a twelve-year-old.

>I mean, it's decided by some old fart politican who know nothing about childrens.

Politicians typically do what their constituency want in the West. These laws are mainly driven by women (who were typically abused as children) and married men. This isn't a conspiracy, it developed over time and is seen as a violation of trust.

>>87708

>Can you can tell the difference between a 15 year old and a 18 or a 17 from a 18 year old girl?

If you're socially intelligent there are almost always cues to pick up on. If not, then you can always ask. Ignorance of the law cannot be used as a defense (there are legal precedents).

>The western legal system is biased against men and privileges women...

It is the application of the legal system that is biased, not the laws themselves. That would make it a social issue, not a legal one. It’s also moot since there are a long list of legal, social, cultural, historical, scientific, and even religious reasons why preteen/adult relationships are inherently wrong.

>Appealing to extremes...

Happens a lot on this and almost every other forum with active members.

>It shows the arrogance and delusion of wanting to control something harmless and natural in every one of us.

Another invalid point. Child sexuality is tolerated to a certain point in Western culture (kissing, holding hands, dancing, hugging, etc). The problem is with adults trying to compete/engage with children on any level (sports, academics, legal, social, and most importantly sexual), except where the child has proven (to a court, ruling body, etc) they can. It is unbalanced, unfair, has very high rates of risk, and is generally seen as wrong in the vast history of human kind. The only places which allow it are those where girls and women have little to no rights. Pedophilia has never been the norm in any society at any point.

>little shit who wasn't brainwashed at all! decides his sexual orientation.

Again, this is a social issue. There is more validity in a spectrum of gender identity than there is in fully grown adults trying to have sex with babies. Men trying to screw babies isn't tolerated anywhere.

Your arguments are weak, delusional, inept, and lack the fundamental elements of basic merit.

>>87711

> Please explain how a preteen can give informed consent. Start with babies and then work your way up to a twelve-year-old.

You are trapped in your own spinning vortex of circular logic. To wit:

1. Since we cannot prove if someone has the capacity to consent, we set an arbitrary age.

2. Once they reach that age, they are now deemed able to consent.

3. Go to 1, repeat ad infinitum.

>>87742

>You are trapped in your own spinning vortex of circular logic.

The extent to which people try to validate their poor behavior is sad. Piaget's theory of cognitive development as well as hundreds of studies by other scientists and researchers has demonstrated the limitations of cognition and perception in children.

>Since we cannot prove if someone has the capacity to consent, we set an arbitrary age.

AoC laws are not set in stone. Children can gain more rights through emancipation.

>Once they reach that age, they are now deemed able to consent.

AoC laws, though arbitrary, require some kind of minimum standard depending on cultural history. As above, this law is flexible enough to allow children the ability to excel at their own pace.

>Go to 1, repeat ad infinitum.

Nope. Your cycle was broken in three different ways. 1) Children's limited comprehension has been well documented. 2) The law is flexible enough to allow children to emancipate themselves. 3) Cultural differences allow for communities to set their own AoC laws according to their needs (eg modern society does not require preteens to be burdened with adult problems as they may have been in the Stone Age).

I know, it's hard to defend the indefensible, especially when you don't have a grasp of the topic. So, why try and then look like an ass?

>>87783

>Children can make choices about their sexual orientation but at the same time they can't consent to a sexual relationship. What a twist.

1) Choice does not require action. A child can make a choice to be a doctor at age 5, but that doesn't mean it will be so.

2) Children who undergo sex "changes" have to first be evaluated by psychiatrist, a doctor, must wait two years, and then begin hormone replacement therapy (no surgery until they reach the AoC or a court deems them competent – just like I said above). It is a long painful process which there have been only a handful of candidates.

3) Even when everything goes right, there is still a chance (somewhere around 30%) that the child will still have mental issues for the rest of their lives.

>The social issues you talk about were deliberately ingrained in the minds of people in order to help perpetuate these nonsense laws by creating negative stereotypes about men.

Sounds like an interesting conspiracy movie plot.

>However for some mysterious reason, only the straight white men are guilty.

It isn't a mystery for historians.

>You just keep inventing stuff to justify the persecution and segregation of men.

So, you're saying the jailing of "white" men for trying to have sex with babies is some kind of conspiracy? You better tell that to minorities, because they're the one's going to jail in vastly higher numbers than "white" folk. I think you watch too much television. The reason there's so many white people on the news is because it's far more interesting than showing a hundred minorities for doing the same crime.

>...retarded psychologists and crazy religious fucks but i must be mentally ill.

So, what you're saying all those scientists, researchers, and other professionals that spent years in college learning about sexuality and abuse, spend thousands of hours in clinical studies, and worked directly with people effected are somehow part of some conspiracy to stop pedophiles from screwing children? I’m going to go with you being the mentally ill one.

>My arguments are solid and clear, yours are dubious, deceitful and very tendentious.

My arguments are supported by science and some of the greatest minds. Yours seem to require people to believe in conspiracies and half baked notions. Wow... just... wow.

>>87712

> Please explain how a preteen can give informed consent. Start with babies and then work your way up to a twelve-year-old.

By being informed, and giving consent. It's not a trick question. If you don't deliberately keep blinders on your children to force them to be ignorant, you won't even have to have "the talk". But it's still a good idea to not chop that chapter out of the "Human Body Operation Manual" when you're teaching them about germs, handwashing, brushing teeth, and everything else they need to know to live. Granted, babies are probably too young to be able to learn this shit, but by 12 all of them should know that touching their pussy or dick feels good and should know what they have to do to keep themselves safe from disease, pregnancy, and unwanted sexual contact.

>>80840

Notably, in certain cases the fallacy of appealing to extremes is not a fallacy, and is instead a form of disproof called reducto ad absurdium, when instead of taking something to an absurd level, you take something absurd and apply it on the level to other identically viable situations and illuminate a grand pool of nonsense.

>>87795

>2) Children who undergo sex "changes" have to first be evaluated by psychiatrist, a doctor, must wait two years, and then begin hormone replacement therapy (no surgery until they reach the AoC or a court deems them competent – just like I said above). It is a long painful process which there have been only a handful of candidates.

And i suppose that the doctors can't refuse to subject the child to the "sex change" without being labeled as an intolerant homophobe and lose his job.

>>87976

What you're talking about is called conditioned behaviors, not understanding. It's just training. Informed consent (legally defined) requires years of learning.

>>87977

>reducto ad absurdium

You have to prove the original statement is absurd, which you have not. This has been said already and saying it again doesn't make it any more valid. You need to prove that "...if children cannot consent to sex, they cannot consent to ANYTHING ELSE." I believe that is an appeal to extremes because lack of consent to one particular thing does not necessarily mean children cannot consent to "anything". Legally, until they are 13 in most states, they cannot consent to any [legal] contract within the standards and laws of the land. I don’t think you understand the concepts you’re exposing.

>>87988

>And i suppose that the doctors can't refuse to subject the child to the "sex change" without being labeled as an intolerant homophobe and lose his job.

Doctors must comply with the law (if directed by the court). Doctors can refuse to perform the procedure under certain circumstances. Your statement is little more than your personal view of the subject which is bias and likely uniformed. At best it would be anecdotal, at worse, a stab at the absurd.

>>87795

>Choice does not require action. A child can make a choice to be a doctor at age 5, but that doesn't mean it will be so.

This statement has no significance to the argument you are trying to disprove. >>87783 stated that there is a discrepancy in accepted consent/decision making ability in children. Specifically, that they can make choices regarding their own sexual orientation but not their sexual behaviors with others.

The act of bringing these choices to completed actions or not is irrelevant. You need to explain how the law honoring a child's CHOICE of sexual reassignment but not honoring a CHOICE for sexual intercourse is somehow logical

Besides, which do you think requires more introspection and/or forethought? Both appear to have very permanent consequences.

>>80808

>baby can't tell you when he is not comfortabl

Sure it can. It cries. Very easy. A baby will always cry if you try to fuck it. This is a withholding of consent, and that means that even with the consent of the parents, sex with that child is illegal rape.

It's very simple. The minimum requirement is the consent or non-withdrawal of consent of the child. The secondary requirement is the consent of the parents. You have to have both for it to be legal (in an ideal system), period.

>>80840

>Law is flexible as are punishments.

Well, then your law is absolutely worthless.

It isn't based on anything but your faggot feelings.

>>80840

>What you're doing is called "fallacy of appealing to extremes"

That's reductio ad absurdum, and it isn't a fallacy. It is an effective rhetorical device, and you need to kill yourself for appealing to a false fallacy.

>>87763

>The extent to which people try to validate their poor behavior is sad.

Please prove how any woman can give informed consent.

If you can't within one hour, kill yourself.

>>88239

Every Western country has defined what legally constitutes consent. Use Google.

>>80814

Yes they can, even my country's law allows them to.

>>88248

>Defining consent is what makes informed consent possible.

Ok, then all creatures with a cunt ages 2-17 can give informed consent by definition.

Oh, does that not work for you? Do you object to the arbitrariness of it?

>>88379

What's even going on here?

You guys have it all wrong.

Arguing by logic, nothing would be illegal.

Arguing by morality, we would have totalitarianism.

Arguing by Science, we would prohibit almost everything.

When considering this kind of topic, you need to ask yourself some simple questions:

1. If a child (for example, 12yo female) has sex with an adult (for example, 20yo male) in a society where there is no negative moral value on sex with children, would the negative effect of that outweigh the wishes of those involved?

2. Would the negative effect of a punishment for a crime such as possession of child pornography or statutory rape outweigh the negative effect of the crime, when both parties consented?

3. Is the removal of free will in an attempt at citizen safety make any sense at all?

>>87783

I can't tell if you are a total moron or a troll, but it would probably be best to keep your nonsense to yourself.

>>80840

Nope, he's using the fact that logic must be universal. Changing the outcome of logical reasoning is called a double standard for a reason. Logic only works if it works all the damn time, because otherwise it isn't logic.

>>114032

:3

>>114032

>I know it must be difficult to read through your tears, but he actually already told you that the law is based on extensive research into the mental capabilities of children.

Actually It's not, because the difference between Piaget Stages has been proved to be bullshit. Children can gain the abilities of the stages they are yet to enter regarding their age range (Like as abstract thinking and such)

And also, said laws came upon in the XVIII century and had nothing to do with children being able to consent or not, they where made to stop parents from prostituting their children and to stop children from prostituting themselves

>>114008

1. probably

2. no and i dont know how anyone could possibly argue otherwise

3. that's atrocious grammar, and yes it does make sense as demonstrated by literally every page in human history. absolute unrestricted free will and society are incompatible.

>>114032

>Simply put, sexual identity is not a choice.

so you're saying that children are intrinsically aware of their sexual identities and are able to make the correct CHOICES in living according to their sexual identities?

because sexual identities do not exist in a vacuum. pedophilia is a sexual identity, are you going to tell us fucking kids is a choice, but deciding to go through hrt and surgery to live according to your sexual identity is not a choice? because it simply is.

>>114032

>Sexual reassignment is a cure for a mental illness called sex dysphoria. An incurable condition

oh, i shouldnt have even bothered to respond, because you've already completely revoked any input you have here, you baffling fucking retard.

>>114082

>1. probably

Is that taking into account the "...in a society where there is no negative moral value on sex with children" part of the sentence? In our society, you would be totally, unavoidably correct, but is that because of the way our society works? It's a well known fact that the main factor inducing trauma in victims of sex abuse is not the sexual act but the manipulation involved, the confusion, abuse of power and authority, and social backlash. Even someone with no knowledge of the subject can understand that if they think about it for a bit; as someone on another site once said, "sex is normal, ruining someone is not".

Personally, my interest in this topic is as a thought experiment more than anything. That is to say I don't expect or really care about, nor have any personal stake in changing consent, but I do like to see people do things rationally, rather than just basing their morality off law.

>2. no and i dont know how anyone could possibly argue otherwise

Then another question:

What are the effects, and why / how do they outweigh autonomy?

Also, from my perspective at least, these are the effects of some situation like that:

Both parties consent to sex. Both have no regrets. When the 12yo reaches age 18 it is found that this happened and the 20yo goes to jail. The girl loses her relationship, the boy loses his life; either literally or from being destroyed by society: no job, no friends, lots of people want to kill you and know who you are.

End result: Unhappy girl, dead or destroyed boy.

This is a positive example gone wrong, and I know the problem is that there are a lot of negative ones that would get through if the law wasn't there. But that's the issue; making both work. Ultimately it should come down to whether it is actually going to achieve anything to ruin the life of someone who didn't really do anything terrible. Currently, there's no way to do that.

>3. [...] and yes it does make sense as demonstrated by literally every page in human history. absolute unrestricted free will and society are incompatible.

We're not talking absolute unrestricted free will, we're talking the difference between 'freedom' and totalitarianism.

Creating a nanny state usually hurts people more than it saves them.

Also, can your logic be consistent? If the removal of free will in an attempt at citizen safety is used as a reason for legislation, shouldn't all sports be prohibited? If that sounds absurd, the logic used to come to the same conclusion about this topic is flawed.

If you make an exception due to the influence of psychology (and therefore chance at long term trauma) then there are still many things that would be prohibited through this logic:

1. Driving (because those that crash sometimes don't recover psychologically)

2. Violent video games (because of the possibility of triggering psychopathic behavior)

3. The military (for obvious reasons)

Again, if these seem absurd, then the logic is flawed.

There are some examples of things that inevitably help people by removing their rights, but do we want to live in a society where other people decide for us what we can do because "it's for your own good"? How would you feel if someone said you are not allowed to use a computer because you might get a virus and lose all your data? Logically it's the same, morally it's very different. I would love for people to understand and be aware of the difference.

>that's atrocious grammar

Yeah, but grammar has nothing to do with the topic.

Also, thank you for your reply. It's always nice to see more discussion of issues this taboo.