/phile/ - For those who think young.

>>4741

>but can we please refrain from blaming jews and feminists in this thread.

Yeah, I don't want to see anyone blaming the Jews. There's no solid evidence for that. But the feminists are actually responsible.

>>4741

Women usually used power by proxy. They'd convince their husbands, sons, fathers, or brothers that something was good or bad, and those men would work towards promoting or stopping that thing.

Feminism is responsible in that they pushed forth a doctrine that suggests that kids are unfit for many adult things like alcohol or hard labor. Given that this was pushed for during the insanely puritanical Victorian Era, the sex-negativity of society pushed sex as harmful to kids too, because it was a bad thing, and kids should be kept safe from bad things.

This played on our instinctive desire to protect our children, as well as to listen to women, so it was pretty easy to push through, despite the harm done to poor families because of it. (Child labor was often a necessary part of many poor families income)

The sex-negative attitude is what did it, as it attached itself to an otherwise good idea. "Keep kids safe to develop before you fuck them up with work and drugs" is something we can agree with. "Sex is an inherently corrupting force" is not.

>>4743

Blaming feminists is such a cliche. Most women don't identify with feminism. You make men seem like inept fools that women can easily fool. Plus is makes you and anyone else who blames feminists look like weak beta males. I guess it is easier to blame them than accept that plenty of men on their own accord don't like adult-child sex.

One of the reasons was because the older women that worked in brothels in the days of the "wild west" weren't getting very many customers because the men all wanted the younger, prettier girls, so they started pushing for it to be illegal to work as a whore until a certain age.

>>4749

Now, now, that's a far cry from legalizing sex and stigmatizing love.

Those whore rules are actually better for both the whores, and the upstanding gentlemen who want girls that aren't whores.

>>4745

Men, in general, are easy to manipulate, especially by women. I'm not suggesting that men didn't have any issue with adult/child relationships, however, I don't think it was such a big deal until childhood became important, which occurred when feminists pushed the tender years doctrine to get primary custody over the children in the event of a divorce.

By subscribing to a view of people that uses the terms alpha and beta, I would have thought you'd understand how easy it is to manipulate people, if you wanted to. The ethics of it is up for debate, but not the ease.

>>4755

The OP asked why the AOC laws began to change, not what's better or worse for whores, or for men that don't want whores.

One of the reasons, back then, was because of competition. The older women figured "If we make it illegal for men to have sex with a 12yo, then said 12yo's can't work in brothels and steal our customers."

>>4757

So you think women are smarter than men? To manipulate someone they have to be smarter than you. Also most men i know claim women are better with children so plenty of men are to blame for why they lose custody battles. Blaming feminists is just pointless and foolish. It just shows you don't understand how many fathers would literally kill if they caught a man having sex with his daughter. I can tell most of you aren't fathers. When you have children it changes your respective. A good father is highly protective our his daughters. No woman needs to manipulate a man to protect his daughter. Plenty of fathers don't want whores for daughters. I don't. I don't want my daughters having sex young and before she turns 18 she has a high body count. My daughters will be older and not having more than 5 but I rather it be a low as 1.

>>4759

Are you a blithering idiot, or just stupid?

Learn how to spell, use proper sentence structure, and phrase your words in a meaningful way, then get back to us when there's a chance we can understand what the fuck you're trying to say.

I'd wager a good amount of money that 99.9% of women are smarter than you.

>>4759

*Perspective, *of. Plus all the grammar mistakes I won't bother to highlight.

I'm blaming feminists because they played the system to bring about the change that resulted in the widespread hatred of MAPs. The over protective nature of parents in our society is also somewhat due to that change. Prior to that, children were seen as mini adults, once they could walk and talk. Yes, parents didn't want their kids being whores, but they would have been fine arranging their marriage at age 7. Look at other cultures around the world, and you can see that over protection is a western phenomenon.

I am blaming feminists because they are at fault. I never said men weren't also to blame, but there was no specific group of men, and it wasn't all men that were at fault. Therefore, I can't isolate who to blame on the male side, and I have no data to say how prominent the feeling was among men of the time.

Finally, women are more socially intelligent than men, on average. This is an evolutionary trait. Men would build society, women would shape it. Men would go out and hunt for food, women would stay home and develop bonds with other families.

Please, keep going. I love it when I piss someone off. It lets me hone my arguments.

>>4745

I disagree, I think most people are deeply and strongly feminist. However the fringes are constantly evolving, which is what you call "feminism".

>>4759

I agree that fathers don't want sluts for daughters. However it used to be that people married earlier…

Today of course, since marriage doesn't exist (in any meaningful way), it makes more sense to not want your daughter to have sex early.

>>4774

>>4764

This is 8ch quit taking yourself seriously. Let see if you can understand this:

Feminism is not popular among women.

Feminism has a small impact on society

Plenty of men without being "manipulated" don't agree with the idea of having sex with girls. Usually these men are fathers.

>>4765

Read above.

You all must be the kind of men who are afraid of the average woman.

You are blaming the wrong entity. Mainly because feminism is a joke. It has no actual power. Blame science for discovering the developmental of the female body (seeing that sex with young girls is physically harmful), the brains of humans (when it fully forms), and research that indicates sex at a young age causes negative consequences. Blame society as a whole for allowing laws that give women rights.

Have any of you talked to men who are fathers IRL? I doubt it. I have and I can tell you no woman "manipulated" us into protecting our daughters.

Little boy you sound pissed, I'm not. I actually don't have an investment in this like you. You clearly want to have sex with little girls. I don't. You also clearly have issues with women because you believe they are to blame for why you don't get to have sex with little girls. You fail to realize plenty of men, mainly fathers, are to blame as well.

Btw "hone your argument" is pointless if it is just for the niche /phile/. I hope you actually mean to present this to people IRL or at least on mainstream websites.

>>4773

You don't give people the title feminist, this identity requires people to accept the label. Feminists try to force the label on people but that doesn't work. Besides define what you believe is feminism. This is usually the root of the problem.

>>4774

Ah, another issues of MAPs. Citing the past just shows you why we won't return. Here is a short non-comprehensive list on why that doesn't apply:

Lack of understanding of the female body (20's for reproduction)

Females had no alternative choices

Females didn't like it

Females were property

Virginity was prized more

Females basically had no rights

Age gap with young female was more cultural accepted

Technology was not as advanced for reproduction.

blah,blah,blah

Anyway my daughters are not property for some man. Now females can choose their mate. They can divorce. My daughters are bright, beautiful young girls who will meet great men while in college. I will let them decide when they are older. It is my responsibility as a father to raise and protect my daughters. Until they reach adulthood i am to blame for their mishaps. I also will warn them about being "slutty" is not the way to go. All the sluts I know are unhappy, unwed/divorced and bitter. Besides my daughters do not need to be married at 14 to a 20+ adult man who can't find a woman his own age. I know women who are 20+ or 30+ that are virgins.There are women who will become stay at home mothers who have college degrees. So don't think that a female who prizes education doesn't care about family. I know a woman who has a MD (her husband too) who is a SAHM. There are women who uphold certain traditions. However in the US most fathers are not interested in their daughter being dating let alone married as a teen or younger (perhaps small town people)and if she is several reasons : religious beliefs (you all are atheists) the male is close in age (I know a 16 and a 17 want to get married), or she actual does not have a positive male role model.

Finally most of the talk here isn't marriage it is sex. Another reason fathers get pissed if you are showing interest in their underaged daughter.

>>4780

Let's call it egalitarianism, equality, denial of sex differences, or something along those lines then. I don't know what the situation is in all of the West, but where I live most politicians and a lot of people really like that stuff. Most likely a lot more than feminists 50 years ago. Sure I don't think most people have deep beliefs, they just ape along.

Perhaps you are correct that it is not ideology but circumstance that is the underlying force pushing e,g, less tolerance for age gap, family later in life, etc.

I think a great deal of very bad social policy/norms/ideas have been made possible because of all the wealth and technological advancement (the wealth serves to cover up the bad effects of those bad policies/ideas/norms).

I don't however think that marrying early, having more strict sex roles, etc, would be bad for women or people in general. Perhaps why things were bad in say the Middle Ages was because of lack of technology and wealth.

Anecdotes aside, more intelligent women have significantly less children today. I also suspect you might over-estimate your influence over your daughters.

What does MAP stand for? male advocating pedophilia? male anglo protestant?

I am not actually thinking that pregnancy at 13 is optimal. I am a pretty ordinary guy in terms of sexual preferences. (Reason I browse these places is because I don't want to be too sexually excited 24/7. 13 year olds are only moderately-strongly exciting to me, whereas 16-20 would make my head spin.)

I just think females marrying as teenagers is a lot healthier on the whole (career after having raised children seems to make more practical sense). Women are more mediocre than men are, their greatest value is often to produce children. Whereas a man can more easily produce children or do productive work. There is no equality.

Marriage used to mean consent to sex more or less, hence why I brought it up, which actually makes sense since it is very hard to know what goes on in the bedroom. It doesn't practically matter if you consent beforehand or not, in terms of avoiding unwanted sex. Except marriage can inspire an ideal which make people more careful about who they go to bed with, and it protects men from false rape accusation. If you get raped there has to be significant evidence for it, unless we are fine with letting women decide who raped who. Marriage today on the other hand is a tax sham at best.

People shouldn't equate puritanism with traditional sex roles, as I have seen some people do on these forums. It certainly doesn't have to be associated.

Traditionalism in a broader sense can include things like polygyny (which benefits women more than men on the whole), and love for teenage girls. (Polygyny probably should be limited though…)

>>4782

>> Anecdotes aside, more intelligent women have significantly less children today. I also suspect you might over-estimate your influence over your daughters.

Ah, you must not be a parent. I actually don't over estimate this. My wife is intelligent (working on her PhD.) Yes smart women have less children but that not that bad. Adoption is an option I've seen being something certain smart women do.

>> I don't however think that marrying early, having more strict sex roles, etc, would be bad for women or people in general. Perhaps why things were bad in say the Middle Ages was because of lack of technology and wealth

You aren't a woman. You can't speak for what is good for them. Have you talked to them? You want to force them to do what you want. Plenty of women are fine getting married later in life. Besides not all women want to get married. Also I am disturbed because you strike me as the kind of person who would be fine with a 15 yr old with a 40 year old. In the US women tend to out live their spouse and increasing the gap would only prolong them out living their husband.

>>I just think females marrying as teenagers is a lot healthier on the whole (career after having raised children seems to make more practical sense).

You sound naive. Children are expensive. Most families need 2 income in order to keep the household afloat. Marrying as a teen might work for certain people however usually means her and her partner were close in age, from a small town, and are religious. Most girls in the US aren't marriage material. I think you need to see that. They have rights now and shouldn't be forced into marriage to make you happy. I notice a trend with MAP (minor attracted persons) that they despise women their own age and think that minors are magically more suited for them. Partly due to them fact they can be molded more than adults.

>>Women are more mediocre than men are, their greatest value is often to produce children.

Ah here it is. It is disappointing that you believe this. Plenty of women do great work. Your bias ignores this. Women actually do contribute to society. I doubt we as a society could advance if we assume a whole gender can't do anything.

>>Whereas a man can more easily produce children or do productive work.

Producing children is not impressive, raising them is. I am guessing you ignore all the men who don't do anything productive. Perhaps loom at crime stats unless you believe being a criminals is productive.

>>If you get raped there has to be significant evidence for it, unless we are fine with letting women decide who raped who

Disturbing. We have rape kits, inspecting the women's body, eye witnesses, expert witnesses. You seem like the kind of man who doesn't understand consent. You can rape your wife. Also finding out what happened in the bed room is not that hard (unless drugs were involved).

>>polygyny (which benefits women more than men on the whole)

No ask any non-Mormon woman this. No woman wants to share a husband. Have you seen how jealous can drive a woman? Would you want to share your wife with another? Not all men want a bunch of wives. That sounds awful. You must still be dependent on your parents the way you talk. Let me set it up for you.

You have 3 wives:

16 yr old

17yr old

18 yr old

Teenage girls are competitive with one another they will probably end up hating each other. Girls don't want to share. They also like expensive things, can you afford that?

You don't believe women can work. So you have to support 3 girls on your own. What is your occupation? What area do you live in? Then lets say each have a baby. Giving birth is expensive, babies are expensive. What size house do you have? How many bathrooms and bedrooms?They are a lot of work even with a woman caring for them. How will you spend time with your wives and children while being a workaholic? So not only do they have to share you but you will barely be there because you are struggling to keep the house afloat. You can't honestly believe the women in this example are benefiting. It would only be a benefit if you stripped women of all their rights. Society is fine, not perfect without what you want.

Yeah kid that is a lovely fantasy you have going there. The problems lies with you nor women. Some boys are seem to be born in the wrong era. You would have thrived in the past, now you suffer in the future. What you want isn't congruent with the way the world is going. Sorry about your luck.

>>4784

Yes a lot of things are made very expensive nowadays.

>"Disturbing. We have rape kits, inspecting the women's body, eye witnesses, expert witnesses. You seem like the kind of man who doesn't understand consent. You can rape your wife. Also finding out what happened in the bed room is not that hard (unless drugs were involved)."

Rape as something inflicting determinable physical damage would be a practical definition, though I don't think that's the definition any longer in many places. If a woman simply regrets the sex or gets a few extra strokes of penis which she did not want, or has sex while moderately drunk with some person she later feels aversion towards, how are your rape kits, and imaginary witnesses going to determine anything? Nowadays people talk about more subtle things as rape than forcing the penis into the vagina.

Have fun continuing being one of the cool feminists.

>>4784

Look at what work or education men and women choose to go into. https://anonfiles.com/file/78a20cb102978242a60e12af63fa08b6

Men do physically demanding labor, and they also dominate the professions requiring very high intelligence (engineering, physics, etc). Men extract resources/wealth/energy from nature and maintain the infrastructure that enables that to be put to use. Women nurse people, pass on cultural teachings, push paper, or in other words funnel around the resources the men create.

Yeah men have more criminals and retards. I however fail to see the fundamental need to commercialize much of the work of women, except to enable governments to get more moolah through that wealth being funneled into the new taxable hands.

A lot of what most people do nowadays seems like filler to keep people busy ("idle hands are the devils workshop") but men have the saving grace of having a few geniuses who are responsible for more wealth and thus life than previously imaginable. See e.g. Haber process.

Technology mostly works as a multiplier of work output. It doesn't actually change dynamics between genders very much, in say physically demanding work. The more things change the more they stay the same.

As a side-note: Look at the bell curves or standard deviation in IQ for men and women.

The most innovative and productive discoveries are not made by "smart" people, they are made by exceptions who rarely exist in the female species. There was a time when studies were done on this and the average science(?) PhD had an IQ of about 130. Eminent scientists: 145-160. Steve Hsu mentioned that one in a google tech talk called "Genetics and Intelligence"

>>4784

To clarify I never intended to state that women aren't, in a broader sense, very productive. Not however in the typical sense a capitalist thinks of it.

I don't think we can just ignore genetics and call child birth unimpressive. The reproduction of humans capable of civilization is very important. So long one does the basics of raising a child and does not abuse the child, genes are what is most fundamental in determining its capacity for civilization. Those people's scarcity, if looking at the world population, does give them a lot of value in producing children, and women are the bottle-neck so they get the most of that value.

>>4780

>Feminism has a small impact on society

Wrong. It has brought into effect many welcome and unwelcome changes. Feminism made spousal rape a thing, made wage equality a reality, and some claim it gave women the vote. It also made drunk sex a reason to expel a man, made mean tweets into a big enough deal to speak to the UN, and made it so you can't speak about men's issues without being thought to be against women.

>Plenty of men without being "manipulated" don't agree with the idea of having sex with girls. Usually these men are fathers.

Influenced by society then, whatever.

>You all must be the kind of men who are afraid of the average woman.

Strawman. Get your shit together.

>You are blaming the wrong entity. Mainly because feminism is a joke. It has no actual power.

See above. See the current protests on college campuses. No power my foot.

>Blame science for discovering the developmental of the female body (seeing that sex with young girls is physically harmful), the brains of humans (when it fully forms), and research that indicates sex at a young age causes negative consequences.

Show me an article that isn't marred with poor methodology, sample selection, or bias. Show me one where it shows sex is harmful, when it isn't forced. Show me one where it shows that sex itself causes negative consequences, instead of bigots like you stigmatizing it. Bring your sources to the fore, because right now you're yelling unsubstantiated bullshit.

>Blame society as a whole for allowing laws that give women rights.

No. I applaud society for this.

Have any of you talked to men who are fathers IRL? I doubt it. I have and I can tell you no woman "manipulated" us into protecting our daughters.

Naturally. Also irrelevant. Parents want to stop their kids engaging in behavior that is dangerous. Therefore, you think sex is dangerous. I think you're wrong. If science is allowed to study it without bias, I'm sure you'll be proven wrong.

>Little boy you sound pissed, I'm not. I actually don't have an investment in this like you. You clearly want to have sex with little girls. I don't. You also clearly have issues with women because you believe they are to blame for why you don't get to have sex with little girls. You fail to realize plenty of men, mainly fathers, are to blame as well.

Mate, I'm calm. This is fun. I don't give a shit about sex with girls. I would like to be allowed to love one, but society itself stops that. I don't believe women are to blame. I blame Feminism, and the warping of our naturally protective nature. There's probably other reasons too, but I'm not claiming to be an authority on the subject. I putting forth my two cents.

>Btw "hone your argument" is pointless if it is just for the niche /phile/. I hope you actually mean to present this to people IRL or at least on mainstream websites.

Does a YouTube channel count?

I won't address the rest of the arguments you've made. That's your beef with someone else. They can defend themselves if they wish. We aren't a collective.

>>4793

>Did you make that MAPs video posted on /phile/ not long ago?

I think so. I posted each of my videos in the same thread. I posted a compass rose, which is the symbol I use on my channel, Cartograph.

>>4800

Yeah the compass! Those videos were really good and I hope they get some more exposure.

>>4801

Thanks! So do I. :P

>>4793

Certainly a good amount of old traditions are outdated, but with others I think we have "thrown the baby out with the bathwater" and become delusional about the ability of technology, redistributive schemes and social programs to solve problems (or ignored the problems of such solutions). I'll just link some stuff instead of going on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTBPPc-IexI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfqA_YvqDps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN7T7BkYjPE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQuTUglFhg0

More on topic:

I suspect the promotion and increasing prevalence of sexual promiscuity, the end of marriage - which served to guide people into long-lasting stable relationships with certain requirements on all parties, lead people to be more careful about at what age people had sex. No one could deny that there are less risks, even today, associated with sex and relationships, if one simply avoids it. (Think what you will about that.) So instead of figuring out who to have a lasting relationship with (perhaps with help of parents), since it is so much harder today (some of the videos I linked go into that), people instead took a step back and said "we aren't going to risk it". Various instinctual drives and whatnot feeding into that, which now had no outlet but the altogether rejection of sex at an early age.

>>4821

>figuring out who to have a lasting relationship with (perhaps with help of parents)

IF ONLYYYY

>>4821

Nature has a way of correcting itself. I've known many friends and relatives who married the first person they banged, usually before they were 20. Almost all of them were divorced (with kids) and miserable within 5 years. Parents insisting that their children "do the right thing" instead of realizing they're still young and haven't lived yet has done plenty to ruin marriage.

Don't get married or have kinds until you're at least 30-35 and you both have your shit together. And for those who enjoy being single we could use some of that consensual dating like they have in Japan. (see /loli) Anything to ensure people don't get married or pregnant and stay happier.

>>4824

>Don't get married or have kinds until you're at least 30-35 and you both have your shit together.

You're part of the problem, you mother fucker! Man, an unfortunate side effect of the death of /younglove/ is that apparently we got all the survivors! Fuck you, pal, you're saying to be normie shitbags and marry an old and ugly hag when you, too are old and ugly! FUCKING RETARDED!!

>>4863

Better solution. Don't get married at all. That way you're not forcing your lgf to make a lifelong decision before she's able to grasp the scope of it, and you don't have to be stuck with an 'old hag' for the rest of your life when she grows up. If you both want to stay together as you age, then go ahead, nothing is stopping you.

As for waiting to have kids, that's probably a good idea. If you're too young you may not have the security in life to give them the life they deserve, or you may have them taken away by the state or the mother, depending on circumstances. That's less likely the more secure you are in life.

I really don't understand the hype around marriage anyway.

>>4863

Depends on what you are talking about. Today it ain't so great because it is mostly a (sometimes costly) ceremony. Well besides the relationship aspect.

You all have very interesting views of marriage. Never heard of anyone who thinks or speaks like this. Then again I'm what 8chan calls a "normfag".

>>4878

Marriage is a contract where a man agrees to be his wife's servant, and at any time she can decide to take all of his stuff and make him even more of a slave until their kids are 18. Until the laws and attitudes of women change dramatically, avoid marriage at all costs…unless she's loaded and doesn't care if you ever have kids.

And then there's option B: find a lgf and have tons of fun. Then when the relationship winds down (usually within 3-6 months) agree to see other people and start hanging out with one of her friends or sisters. Repeat.

>>4898

Sorry to see you feel that way. I've been married over a decade with children. No problems like that.

>>And then there's option B: find a lgf and have tons of fun.

What is "tons of fun?" I hope you don't mean anything sexual.

>>Then when the relationship winds down (usually within 3-6 months) agree to see other people and start hanging out with one of her friends or sisters. Repeat.

I would never let someone like you near my daughter. No sensible parent would agree to that nor be happy to see their daughter upset when you dump her. They are toys to play with them drop when you are bored. They are human beings that deserve more respect than that. You clearly have issues with relationships. Additionally you must not know girls. No good sister would date an older guy seeing how he broke her sister's heart. I think you objectify girls and just want to use them.

Concerned parents on a pedo board? Odds are nobody wants anything to do with your kids, assuming that you don't of course. So please, relax, don't feed trolls, and get your mind right, especially if you're a white knight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaweMdH4n6g

>>4912

So I'm not allowed to post because I am a parent and a white knight (whatever that is). I am trying to understand you(possible fight for your rights) and other like you but instead I get insulted/mocked. I'm not here calling for your head on a pike but I still get rude comments my way. You have to understand my children come first not strangers in the internet. If you have read my other posts you would see I would not have a problem with my child befriending an adult (despite their sexuality) however I would not let an adult who takes pictures of random children (or other strange activities) befriend them.

Perhaps you all don't want outsiders here considering to be an ally then that is fine. I will just go back to consuming what the media lies about. I misunderstood the purpose of this place.

>>4928

Hey, don't get so offended by random shitheads. Also, you can report people if you think they're over the line. This isn't /hebe/. We have moderation here.

But I do want to ask you why you think it's immoral to simply take pictures?

All comments are welcomed and appreciated as long as they keep a good discussion going.

There is no need for anger or hatred here, but plenty of room for love and even humor so please don't take anything personal.

If you have children you should know that they're far safer today than at any other time and place in history (especially in the US). Chances are many of those who we've been told to fear are doing exactly what your kids are: sitting in front of their devices looking for entertainment or possibly someone to talk to.

As for images people take and look at, EVERYONE is doing it now, especially young girls seeking attention (which basically means all girls). It's the new version of you show me yours I'll show you mine, just harmless fun. A good rule is don't talk to strangers, but if they do just don't use full names or give their real address or info to Captain Howdy and everything will be fine.

Lastly, sex is not the end of the world. It can be and usually is a beautiful thing. To parents and lawmakers I know it's too often confused with murder. Relax. You were young and curious once and you lived. Give them love, attention, and guidance and your kids will too. Here ends tonight's unnecessarily long rant.

>>4741

Another reason is childbirth. Before age of consent laws childbirth was one of the leading causes of death in young women. This was partially due to girls being impregnated before their bodies were fully developed into late adolescence and able to handle the process. C-Sections were just as painful and risky due to the primitive medical processes of the time and due to a lack of understanding of the fledgling use of anaesthesia. Abortion was out of the question, outright illegal worldwide.

Nowadays you never hear of women dying from childbirth whereas every other historical figure or historical fictional character was orphaned due to their mother dying giving birth.

>>4932

But people do get hurt. You are entering their lives, manipulating and using them for access to a lgf. Then when they develop emotional connections to you, by your admission, you just dump them after you get bored. You are abusing trust and treating people as obstacles and objects.

>>4932

You actually should stop taking sex do lightly. if sex isn't a big deal.Would you have an open relationship? Where just like you allow your gf to talk to strangers she can have sex with them to? If not then you actually don't take sex lightly as you thought.

I know someone who teaches safe sex to teens. Heard of super gonorrhea? That is a new form resistant to antibiotics. The problem is you don't understand what the extra work for girls. Girls have to get an extra doctor (gyno), girls can catch disease from guys and guys are just the carrier. For example hpv can't be detected on a guy but a girl can get it and possibly develop cervical cancer. Not not all females are built the same way. While one girl can handle your dick another may he hurt by it. Girls have to be more careful regarding sex because they tend to experience more issue Ethan men. Additionally girls get pregnant so another consequence for sex that men don't deal with.

Sex is nothing to guys because we don't have the same issues as women. So of course you don't see the big deal. You know what girls/women who feel the and way are like? They have had multiple abortions, quite promiscuous, have incurable std, have been treated for std, etc. I doubt that sounds great.

Despite my daughet going to a nice private school, girls are getting pregnant, getting STDs or getting abortions. These girls don't value sex so they act in risky and disgusting ways. My daughter and her friends do see sex ad being serious. They don't have STDs, don't have children and didn't have abortions. With my daughtrler waiting she doesn't have to go to a gynecologist and she can focus on other things.

Trust me I've seen how girls turn out when they are raised to think sex is no big deal.

>>5050

While very personal and private, especially for girls, sex doesn't have to be the ultimate taboo. It can be a beautiful thing, if only kids (and many adults) were permitted to learn and think of it in a different way. Most problems you mention are all rooted in kids learning about sex all wrong.

Mostly I blame abstinence only which is mainly fear, not education. If the focus was on safety and individual responsibility you'd see far fewer STDs and pregnancies. They might even hold off on sex if it's something their parents and teachers are encouraging them to learn about. If only schools were places where kids went to learn instead of indoctrination centers. As usual it's a huge problem that busy parents can't or won't do much about.

>>4741

>>4741

Having read a little bit further into this topic, and the similar topic of homosexuality, I have a couple hypotheses to suggest.

1. Feminism wielded women's power by proxy to force a sex-negative attitude on society and keep children celibate, basically creating a feedback loop. Celibate children learn sex=bad, grow up to teach that sex=bad to children.

This makes sense to me, but it ignores all other factors involved in societal change.

2. Economic changes spared children the responsibilities of adults, such as working to provide for the family, and raising children that their parents don't have time to. Without the responsibilities, the rights were also removed, such as the right to choose marriage and sex.

This also makes sense, considering the changes in the way industry worked when child labour and sex became illegal. However, this also ignores all action on behalf of people.

3. Economic changes primed the zietgeist for change, which was directed by feminists wielding women's power by proxy.

This captures the essence of both the first and second hypotheses, and takes into account most factors that could affect change in a society. There are more factors I could bring up, but they seem too "chicken and egg" for my liking, so I'll leave them out.

If one of these hypotheses can be confirmed, we can develop a theory of change in societal attitude to sexuality, which can be used to find the best way to bring about positive outcomes from our movement. For example, if my first theory is correct, we should organize into a collective, and wield the power that brings to force change from the top down. If my second is correct, we need to be more proactive in finding ways to change how income is earned, such as encouraging the change from service jobs to IT ones.

For my third hypothesis, it might seem like we should combine the two examples above. However, I think that while encouraging the economic change towards IT will be beneficial, becoming a collective won't be. We don't have the numbers or the support that established collectives have (LGBT, Feminism, POC), and were we to join them, our message would be lost. Instead, we'd need to direct the societal change through individual action, and through the deconstruction of collectivist thought. When collectivism crashes and burns, we'll be there to grab the reins.

And if none of my hypotheses are correct, then we'll need to develop more to test. If we're persistent, we'll get there eventually.

>>5055

Fuck that. Fuck casual boning. Fuck any state-sponsored sex shit. Parents need to do their goddamn jobs.

>>5095

Well said, very succinct. If only parents realized it isn't their job to turn their kids into robot slaves of the state.

>>5090

Wow I'm a bit late to this thread but these are some very good points. Particularly the second one, I had never thought of that

in the past sex with minor was not illegal but it was rare because fathers were taking care of daughters (paternalism), now we have paternalism from the state

>>4960

you act like your average loli is going to know how to scrub geo tags from their iphone selfies

>>5767

>local control of schools

you mean that parents chose curriculum? what that has got to do with sex with minors?

>>5770

Federal central control of the schools is a heavy contributor to the state basically raising most of the kids in this country. And of course the state enforces ass-backward values.

>>5833

You're just mad because that fuck, Sanders, is effectively done. In

Enjoy voting for Hillary. Idiot.

>>4759

> It just shows you don't understand how many fathers would literally kill if they caught a man having sex with his daughter.

In patriarchal societies (eg old-school Muslim countries), fathers did marry off their little girls to men. It was simply premarital sex that they hated

Additionally, your hypothesis does not explain why pedophobic normies also get butthurt when pedos have sex with kids on the otherside of the world, or fap to pictures/videos of kids who are adults by now

>>4780

>Feminism is not popular among women.

>

>Feminism has a small impact on society

By historical standards, 95% of modern Western women are radical feminists. So yes, they are feminists

>>4780

>You all must be the kind of men who are afraid of the average woman.

roastie detected

>seeing that sex with young girls is physically harmful

Penetrating babies is not the only form of adult-child sexuality. Unless you believe licking a little girls clit till she cums buckets is somehow physically harmful to her.

>Mainly because feminism is a joke. It has no actual power

The vast majority of Western women are militant feminists by historical standards.

>Blame society as a whole for allowing laws that give women rights.

Women rights= feminism.

>Have any of you talked to men who are fathers IRL?

Married Muslim men have no problem with the fact that their religion allows marrying little girls, and they will absolutely defend the practice. They just dont want their daughters to have premarital sex.

>You don't give people the title feminist, this identity requires people to accept the label.

People label everyone else all the time.

>>>4782

I am not actually thinking that pregnancy at 13 is optimal. I am a pretty ordinary guy in terms of sexual preferences. (Reason I browse these places is because I don't want to be too sexually excited 24/7. 13 year olds are only moderately-strongly exciting to me, >>whereas 16-20 would make my head spin.<<

There is A psychological difference!

*MAP*philia & Ephebophilia should be the biggest focus on defining the subject discussion of "sexual attraction" which in my opinion, are completely different conditions and should be treated as such, and definitely not pigeonholed into one generalised thing!

>>>4782

I am not actually thinking that pregnancy at 13 is optimal. I am a pretty ordinary guy in terms of sexual preferences. (Reason I browse these places is because I don't want to be too sexually excited 24/7. 13 year olds are only moderately-strongly exciting to me, >>whereas 16-20 would make my head spin.<<

There is A psychological difference!

*MAP*philia & Ephebophilia should be the biggest focus on defining the subject discussion of "sexual attraction" which in my opinion, are completely different conditions and should be treated as such, and definitely not pigeonholed into one generalised thing!

>>4782

I am not actually thinking that pregnancy at 13 is optimal. I am a pretty ordinary guy in terms of sexual preferences. (Reason I browse these places is because I don't want to be too sexually excited 24/7. 13 year olds are only moderately-strongly exciting to me, >>whereas 16-20 would make my head spin.)<<

Paedophilia and Ephebopbilia are Psychologically much different!

There needs to be more teaching understanding, and legal definition on the difference between, the sexual attraction of non pubescent children (paedophilia) and the sexual attraction of early-mid pubescent teens (ephebophilia) because they are totally different, and should be understood and especially legally treated as such!

just postin a copypaste

no political movement.

we can't use the train of the lgbt etc movement, it has a finite life expectancy, because it is one of the pillars of the SJW agenda.

being /hebe/ is not a mental illness that seeks validation, it was completely normal (in the actual sense of the word) until proto-feminazis used their newly gained suffrage to ban alcohol and push the AoC up to the fucking sky to keep out competition. even if their hate for men liking young and healthy girls is subconscious, you have all observed it in your life: women hate competition, with an even harder burning passion if the competition outcompetes them. of course you'd want to marry a girl before she gets poisoned by the west instead of some old spittin' never-be-happy hag who will born you deformed children because her eggs are older than the mountains. be it conscious or unconscious, women shudder at the thought of men being able to choose between themselves and /hebe/. thus it was outlawed by tyrrany of majority, women are the majority of the electorate and more than enough men are beta schlubs who'll fall for their stupid "not informed decision" crap.

are you able to explain the inner workings of transistors and all this junk in your pc? if not you shouldn't be allowed to use a pc according to feminazi logic.

adults aren't that informed either, obviously. all those stats about random testing niggers in USA for herpes, spread of AIDS even today, unintended pregnancies aren't very convincing of any informed mind at all.

liking young girls has to return in a sane matter, not by bullying under the veil of political correctnes and progress. just like any other part of the special snowflake movement will fail, hebes will be discredited even harder if they side with the same group of people who fucked them in the first place

pic related - all branches of the SJW will come crashing down sooner or later. we can't afford to be associated with them

at the second pic focus on the equality fact #4

fuck i wrote a rant - again

>>4741

check out this John Ehrlichman's quote:

>The Nixon campaign in 1968 had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

and compare it with this Barack Obama quote:

>the Snowden issue vastly overstated the dangers to US citizens in terms of spying. The fact of the matter is, our intelligence agencies are pretty scrupulous about US persons. If it's technologically possible to make an impenetrable device or system, where encryption is so strong that there's no key then how do we apprehend the child pornographer?

now, i swear i'm not an tinfoil hat, but for me the cause of the demonization of hebe/pedophilia is obviously political