/phile/ - For those who think young.

To quote Milo Yiannopoulos for the hundredth time in a month, pedophilia is the next civil rights struggle in America. However I doubt that even he believed things would start moving this quickly.

>>5176

agreed. when I first found out about my sexual orientation, I thought I would be dead before I saw any kind of change in attitude from society.

know i'm sure I'll see it in the next 10-20 years MAX. things are moving fast.

Things aren't moving at all. In fact it is getting worse. People celebrate MAPs being killed. Don't be delusional.

>>5190

That's the older generation, and they might be a lost cause. The younger generation tends to be kind of all right.

>>5193

I know I will be called negative or pessimistic….

That is actually not the older generation. It is all young adults and even teens. I work in a high school and kids call each other "pedophile" as an insult. They have called seniors boys who date freshman girls pedophiles. Many high school girls aren't interested in older men. If they are they usually aren't older than 23/24. Girls want to be sexually active with boys their own age (or within a small age range). Trust I have listened to too many conversations about girls discussing boys/men. They aren't displaying the same amount of interests as male MAPs.

The older generation actually supported older men with girls. (I.e my great grandmother was 15 my great grandfather was 25). The older generation encouraged women to marry young. To put family above career and education. The older generation was more strict with gender roles.

The younger generation is indoctrinating kids with feminism and other things. I heard boys calling themselves feminists!!!! Fucking insane.

Yes I am a downer but I'm speaking realistically.

Trannies get more respect and humanity than MAP. A celebrity can change sexes but find a celebrity adult that is OPENLlY admitting to wanting underage girls.

Yes I had to rant. Just still frustrated at boys calling themselves feminists….yuck

>>5194

Hmmm interesting. I feel like it's the opposite fore me, although it could be due to different countries and whatnot.

I have heard young people throw the word "pedo" around quite a lot, but after talking to some of them about it, it seems to me like it's just an insulting word with no meaning behind it. Compare this to the way kids call each other "faggot" sometimes, you'll know what I'm getting at. They don't actually mean it.

I've said this another thread as well, I've got like 8 young friends between the age of 14-20 that know about my partial pedophilia and they don't give two shits. In fact, a couple of them have agreed with me.

What I'm trying to get at, is that, maybe they don't all understand MAPs but it's really easy to make them.

Think about how easily the young people you were talking about, have converted to feminism. At that age, it's super easy to convert them back. Trust me.

Between the age of 10-20 they are easily manipulated into thinking just like you.

I know the situation might be very different where you're from, but the society around me is advancing faster than I was predicting. Maybe not at the ideal rate, but definitely fast.

On a similar note, I've recently seen multiple, highly upvoted comments on reddit (between 500-1000 points) that have talked about the clear distinction between child molesters and pedophiles, and how it's stupid to say that all pedophiles should die.

>inb4 leddit

I realise reddit doesn't represent society as a whole, but at least it's a step forward.

Obviously a lot more needs to be done, but don't lose hope anon.

>>5195

I'm in the US

I have asked kids who use "pedo" as an insult what they mean. I have heard,"child rapist", "worse thing you can be", "child molester" etc.

Reddit is still anonymous, we need people to post things like that on their personal social media.

>>5198

Far far form it. The kids at the high school i work at are actually split. Some support it others don't. My point is we are worse off because we hide. Trannies don't and they get hate but still get support.

I Never consider the internet when it comes to how the country feels about an issue. I'm talking about real life situations. I spend plenty of time around high school kids (from different places too). You will find more who support trannies than those who support MAPs.

>>5178

>>5156

I have looked at your blog. But can you post about:

Your plans about combating STDs/STIs? If children were allowed to have sex then there will be a rise in them getting STDs. How do we convince parents to allow their children to have sexual contact with adults? (Typically an adult would have more sexual partners than a child thus more exposure. Plus teens are giving other teens STDs. Nobody wants a preteen to catch anything.)

How young would you allow penetration?

What is the lowest age of consent?

If a child is allowed to consent to claimed they were raped but the adult claims it was consensual how do you handle that? Do you believe that a child would make false rape claims?

How would allowing children to consent lower child sex abuse when a majority of child rapists are not MAPs? Wouldn't giving children the right to consent increase the likelihood these non MAP rapists get off?

Do you think our justice system (if not from the Us then yours) handles rape cases of those who can consent that well? Do you think most rapist get convicted.

As someone who desires to go into politics after i graduate and is MAP i would love to for anyone to help strengthen certain points to present to the general public.

>"Your plans about combating STDs/STIs? If children were allowed to have sex then there will be a rise in them getting STDs."

Well, STDs result from penetration…

Personally I incline to the idea that intimacy with prepubescents should be of a very different nature to intimacy between adults - it should be unselfish, playful, light, led by the child, centered on the child's pleasure and their sense of being loved - it strikes me that penetration with children is more about the adult's pleasure than the child's, though I know that little girls will often want to try it out.

See my comments below answering your question "How young would you allow penetration?"

>"How do we convince parents to allow their children to have sexual contact with adults?"

In today's society - god knows.

So much depends on the nature of the family and kinship structures. The intensely nuclear family one finds in capitalist societies is an extreme and disfunctional institution - which creates our idea of 'childhood' and defines children as 'innocent' (I write about this in greater depth here: https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/towards-the-aetiology-of-paedophobia/). So long as the nuclear family exists children are not going to be allowed sexual rights.

The good news is that it's the West that is abnormal - most other kinship structures are more accepting of child sexuality. The 'Growing up Sexually Corpus' ( http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/GUS_MAIN_INDEX.HTM ) is full of examples of societies with more open and accepting ideas about child sexuality.

>"How young would you allow penetration?"

To be honest, this is a question I'm undecided on - I can see two approaches -

1/ if I remember correctly PIE, in their proposals for legal reform on consent, advocated no penetration before puberty between and adult and a child (and I think there was a moveable buffer-zone round the concept of 'adult' which would permit children and adolescents to engage in penetration if both partners wished it). I think that this is a reasonable because it allows children to have intercourse with each other (with the reduced risks of STDs and pregnacy).

2/ The other approach is to say that, if 'consent' operates effectively, then why should an adult and a child not try penetration?

Now, to argue this - one has to refine one's understanding of 'consent'. The idea of consent that operates currently is a flawed one - it conceives as consent as a PRIOR agreement - that one consents to having intercourse. And then has intercourse. This model doesn't even work when adults have sex with each other. You don't agree with your girlfriend beforehand what you're going to do in a sex session and then do it, rigorously following your planned 'sex agenda': the activity evolves through signals, one partner showing signs of preferring one activity or another, or showing signs of not enjoying a particular activity - the consent is ongoing, being constantly renewed, or withheld, or withdrawn. At any moment one partner could demand that they stop, or do something else - and all of this is generally non-verbal. The intimacy evolves organically.

How does this apply to a child and an adult having intercourse? Well, I can envisage a situation where a little girl wants her adult lover to fuck her. She says to him "I want you to fuck me". On the basis of the erroneous, conventional model of consent ('consent' as 'Prior agreement') it could be argued that she has consented to intercourse.

However, the adult, being a good paedo says 'ok, but I'm worried I might hurt you - I tell you what - I'll lie on my back and you can see if you can fit it in - that way you can control how fast it goes in and how far'. So the little girl straddles him, takes his penis and tries to put it into her vagina.

The child, in this scenario, has maintained control and is consenting to (in fact she's 'initiating) everything that is happening. Also the 'consent' is something that she is monitoring at every moment and either renewing or withdrawing: she may find she can take the penis into her vagina, enjoy it and continue with it. Or she may find she can't, or that when she does it isn't comfortable, and then decide not to carry on trying (i.e. withdraw her consent).

So, in this scenario the 'consent' that operates, and PROTECTS the child, isn't the Prior Agreement Consent, but an Ongoing Conset that is being constantly monitored and renewed. What protects the child is that she has power and agency in the interaction - she's not just a sack of flesh that, a quarter of an hour ago said 'fuck me' and now she's being fucked, regardless of whether she likes it or not.

So, to return to your question - "How young would you allow penetration?" - a lot depends on the model of consent one operates with - maybe it doesn't depend on the AGE of the child but on the nature of the relationship between the adult and the child. A child of any age could maybe TRY to have intercourse provided it is the child who controls the activity and who decides how far it goes.

>"What is the lowest age of consent?"

A lot depends on what activity is being consented to - I'd say that there are a whole raft of non-penetrative, playful activities that a child of any age can consent to including having their bottom stroked, investigating another's body, kissing, touching, rubbing. As your previous question implies things get more problemmatic when one considers penetration.

Teleios are very 'fuck minded' - they think that 'sex', 'intimacy' even, and 'penetration' are synonyms. Their sexuality is goal-oriented - that if it doesn't end in penetration it's not 'sex', and you don't get a notch on your bedpost.

We need to be different. I think paedophiles should forget about fucking and think more about what it is that the child wants, what will give HER the most pleasure and what will make her the happiest and most fulfilled. If that's just being tickled on her bum - then we should be happy with that and grateful that a child is allowing us to express our love for her.

>"If a child is allowed to consent to claimed they were raped but the adult claims it was consensual how do you handle that?

I'm assuming that by 'rape' you mean 'sex with violence' - then that is a matter for the criminal courts to decide.

>"Do you believe that a child would make false rape claims?"

Yes, unfortunately this already happens.

>"How would allowing children to consent lower child sex abuse when a majority of child rapists are not MAPs? Wouldn't giving children the right to consent increase the likelihood these non MAP rapists get off?"

Unfortunately consent laws haven't eliminated rape between adults, so I doubt that recognising children's capacity to consent will entirely eliminate violent, coercive penetration.

But I address this question in the "Better protection of children from sexual abuse" section of https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/some-arguments-for-a-kinder-world/ . If there are any points I make there which you want me to go into more, or which you disagree with, I'll be happy to address them.

>"Do you think our justice system (if not from the Us then yours) handles rape cases of those who can consent that well? Do you think most rapist get convicted."

This is an impossible question - to be able to answer it one would have to have to know what proportion of rape trials resulted in wrongful convictions or wrongful acquitals. One has to assume that judges and juries are in the best position to decide since they are presented with all the available evidence - can we really second guess their verdicts?

>"As someone who desires to go into politics after i graduate and is MAP i would love to for anyone to help strengthen certain points to present to the general public."

Best of luck with your plans!

>>5203

Actually sexual contact can result in STIs/STDs. The risk is lower but still exists.

One can still become injured from enjoyable consentual sex. I can post studies of little girls who engaged in penetration with a man and received minor injuries. Would you still think penetration should continue if she has reoccurring injuries?

>>I'm assuming that by 'rape' you mean 'sex with violence' - then that is a matter for the criminal courts to decide.

This is a problem that could single handedly stop child adult sex. You didn't give a specific age range for sex or penetration. If a 9 year old agreed to touching but the adult raped her she would have to prove in court that she was raped. Nobody wants to have young teens and especially preteens testify in court. Being on the stand is stressful and intimidating for adults. No parent wants to see their child cross-examined by the prosecution. Then see the rapist get off. Allowing kids to consent would force them to have to handle the situation that now they don't have to worry about.

Additionally rape doesn't have to be violent. Rape is just without consent. If you had sex with a person in a coma. It could have been sweet and loving but they did not consent. Making rape seem "violent" further marginalized those who were sexually abused. Just like a person. could appear to be aroused (a female getting "wet" it is a natural body reaction to protect the vagina from injury.)

>>5206

>"Do you believe that a child would make false rape claims?" Yes, unfortunately this already happens.

Another major issue that once again destroys all hope. Why would you discredit a child who says they have been raped? I know people who haven't come coward about their sexual abuse until they were adults. I also know people as children who told an adult and that adult discredits them. We need to support children who were sexually abused not shame them. If you want to put children in a position to consent to sex then you need to respect those who were raped. I know we love to focus on children who consented to sex. However plenty of other children didn't and we claim society made them feel that way. Both sides (anti and pro are wrong here). Anti claims no child consents while pro (sometimes implicitly and unintentionally) claims all children consent. We should never speak for children. If you trust them to give consent then trust them to know they were abused. Everyone should listen to the child.

Perhaps you meant "a child's yes still means no". If so always state that. I know people who were sexually abused as kids. Make sure you remember them when making comments.

>>Unfortunately consent laws haven't eliminated rape between adults, so I doubt that recognising children's capacity to consent will entirely eliminate violent, coercive penetration.

You danced around my question. I am explaining how do you combat those who feel that giving a child consent will increase child sexual abuse because:

Now children have to prove they were raped in the court of law. This will cause mental anguish for a child possibly more than an adult in the situation.

Most people who rape children aren't loving MAPs. How will allowing children to consent stop them from abusing that loophole? Rapists will always exist however by allowing children to consent it gives them more room to get off from raping a child. I like your ideas but they aren't pragmatic in regards to laws and the jusitce system.

>>5206

>>But I address this question in the "Better protection of children from sexual abuse" section of https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/some-arguments-for-a-kinder-world/ . If there are any points I make there which you want me to go into more, or which you disagree with, I'll be happy to address them.

You are a great writer. Quite eloquent. However you just use rhetoric language and not actually discuss the cons ands refute them. You don't prepose laws (that protect children and allow them to enjoy sex) which actually would be more important than anything else.

Your writings has underlying assumptions that everyone or even a majority of people who want to be with children are good people. That no one has any intention of using children. We don't live in that world. You barely discuss the malicious adults who plan on using children. To ease parents who hate the idea of their child having sex, how do we convince them that their child won't get raped or used if we barely discuss the bad guys?

People can be charming, manipulative, cunning and sneaky. We can't weed out everyone bad from our lives. Do you think parents who risk their child possible receiving negative consequences from adult/child relationships or just remove the option completely? I think you have to truly understand the parents POV.

>>This is an impossible question - to be able to answer it one would have to have to know what proportion of rape trials resulted in wrongful convictions or wrongful acquitals. One has to assume that judges and juries are in the best position to decide since they are presented with all the available evidence - can we really second guess their verdicts?

Remember look at it from the concern of a parent. "If my child is allowed to consent how sure can I be that if something goes wrong justice will occur". I would recommend actually researching this. One thing that could help ease the strain would be to hopefully find evidence is that shows rape cases are handled properly and justice is served. Additionally I would suggest you actually having what France has (police force that works just with children). The

I know I am being harsh but you have great ideas and points so I'm trying to challenge you to get out more postive and supportive evidence for child/adult relationships.

>"Actually sexual contact can result in STIs/STDs. The risk is lower but still exists."

I'd be interested to read some studies, or evidence, that show what STDs touching, kissing and even cunnilingus can transmit.

But it strikes me that if touching and kissing can transmit STDs then such diseases are as likely to be transmitted to a child by a parent dressing a child, bathing him/her or just showing non-sexual affection as a paedophile sharing non-penetrative intimacy with him/her.

Another point is that of trying to remove all risk from a child's life - life can be risky, kids die in swimming pool accidents, when riding on bikes - do we stop them doing that? And I'm no doctor but it seems that most STDs are very treatable.

>"One can still become injured from enjoyable consentual sex. I can post studies of little girls who engaged in penetration with a man and received minor injuries. Would you still think penetration should continue if she has reoccurring injuries?"

I really can't imagine that a child who'd received injuries from penetration, and especially if those are reoccuring injuries, would want to engage in penetration. I just can't see her consenting to that.

And any adult who tried to insist that she engaged in her, forced her or whatever should be answerable to the law for that. Moreover penetration, if it DOES happen, should be something a child does to the man, not the man to the child, so the child is in full control of what happens - so it should never get to the point where the child is experiencing discomfort or pain.

Finally - though I'm still undecided on a rational leve, emotionally I feel that adults should not engage in penetration with prepubescents - there's so much ways of giving a child pleasure that don't involve penetration that I think it's a bad sign when a paedophile is overly preoccupied with fucking - it shows they are more concerned with their own needs than those of the child they purport to love.

This might sound pompous but I think that paedophiles should aspire to act ethically and unselfishly - and if that means 'no penetration' then so be it.

>"This is a problem that could single handedly stop child adult sex."

Does the existence of rape between men and women and men and men have any bearing on the legality and ethical status of normal loving relationships between adults?

would making teleiophilic love illegal increase or decrease the incidence of rape between adults?

>"If a 9 year old agreed to touching but the adult raped her she would have to prove in court that she was raped."

That is nothing new - children have to prove they are raped in court under the current system too.

Unfortunately things like rape happen under every legal system and every system of laws. The elimination of crime is an unacheivable ideal

"Allowing kids to consent would force them to have to handle the situation that now they don't have to worry about."

If there were a law that prevented adults penetrating prepubescents the child would not have to prove that they didn't consent.

>"Why would you discredit a child who says they have been raped? &c "

I think we may be at cross-purposes here as I don't quite understand what you're getting at - from what you write it seems that you think that I believe children, if raped or forced into non-consensual sex, should not be able to bring accusations of rape against the person or persons involved. I can not see where you might have got that impression from, and it is such an extremely unjust position that I'm a bit amazed that you could attribute it to me.

Of course, just as with adults, if a child is raped the person who commits that act should be punished.

Maybe the nuance you're suggesting is that children should always have their claims believed, and not be put through having to testify?

Unfortunately, children DO make false claims against adults. Just as women occasionally make false claims about being raped.

I've worked in primary, secondary and tertiary education most of my life. I have seen pupils make false claims of innapropriate behaviour against teachers - in one case I actually was a 'witness', having been present when the innapropriate behaviour allegedly happened (it didn't happen and the teacher was exonerated - but he still had to leave teaching). Moreover in the UK 'paedo' is a word children will use against adults - I've been out walking with a camera and had that shouted at me by children (ironic really as, of course, technically they were correct, though I had absolutely no interest in the children and hadn't even noticed them until they started).

Many children seem aware that they have a 'nuclear option' in such accusations, and some are willing to use it. There is no way anyone in a fair legal system should be able to make an accusation and have that accusation automatically accepted as true, all accusations must be tested - and that goes for children too. Children are rightly valued for their imaginations but they also have a very loose relationship with the truth - to assume that a child can never lie flies in the face of what we know about the nature of childhood.

>"I know people who were sexually abused as kids. Make sure you remember them when making comments."

I won't temper my thoughts and opinions to your sensitivities. I assumed, till I read the above, that you were interested in serious thinking, not some old woman's tea-party exchange on the weather and the church-restoration fund. If you find something offensive in what I write then that is your problem, not mine.

>"You danced around my question. I am explaining how do you combat those who feel that giving a child consent will increase child sexual abuse because:

Now children have to prove they were raped in the court of law. This will cause mental anguish for a child possibly more than an adult in the situation."

Even under the current system children have to provide some kind of statements or proof - an accusation is not enough - and rightly so. Moreover even under the current system children rarely actually appear in court - there being experts who interview children sensitively and represent them in the actual courts. I'm sure that even this is unpleasant for the child. But you seem to want me to suggest a legal system where children who are unfortunately coerced or raped don't have to substantiate that claim. I don't think that any legal system should go down that route.

>"You don't prepose laws (that protect children and allow them to enjoy sex) which actually would be more important than anything else."

OK - I suggest that PIE's proposals for reform of consent laws is a good starting point - Tom O'Carroll gives a full account of them in Chapter 6 of his book "Paedophilia: the radical case" - https://www.ipce.info/host/radicase/chap06.htm

>"Your writings has underlying assumptions that everyone or even a majority of people who want to be with children are good people."

Yes, I have known many paedophiles, both in real life and through the Internet, and found that they are good people, some of the best, most moral people I know.

Of course there are bad people, but I think that many of these have become bad because of the stigma, persecution, alienation, frustration and the fact that their culture presents only one idea of the paedophile - that of a flawed, libidinous, out-of-control monster.

Part of my vision for a better society is that the culture should present young paedophiles with positive role models - they exist - Lewis Carroll, J.M Barrie, Richard Hughes, Benjamin Britten, Ernest Dowson… and I know many paedophiles (and hebephiles) look to these talented and moral people from the past as admirable persons. But whenever the culture considers the paedophile side of these people it is always done with it pulling a metaphorical disgusted face. It must be horrible for young paedophiles nowadays trying to build an identity for themselves - all they ever get is the paedophile as monster kind of thing. In short, paedophiles in our culture, don't get any 'education' on how to live ethically - they have to work it out for themselves, and will often get it wrong. A lot of the disrespectful comments you see on chans (8chan's 'cute girls' is an example) I think stems from this.

I have become friends with one or two paedos who used to leave 'I'd fuck her' and MOARRR typed comments on the chans, and found that they acted that way because it was the first way of acting as a paedophile they encountered - they'd never been presented with anything better. Once they joined a more serious forum they quickly shook that off and showed themselves as serious ethical people.

>"You barely discuss the malicious adults who plan on using children."

Well, have current laws been effective in preventing these kinds of adults abusing children? I suggest that the current laws actually make it easier for them to do so.

Anyway why do I have to discuss them? Does a dating site promoting the wonders of the love between men and women have to also counterbalance its panegyrics with accounts of rape and abuse? Does an art critic praising a painting also have to discuss what that painting would look like if someone took a shit on it? Does a review for a new car also have to include photos of what its passengers look like after it's been driven off a cliff?

No legal system has been able to wholly eliminate crime. Laws are there for when things go wrong. Malicious adults exist under the present dispensation as they would be under the laws proposed by PIE.

>" Do you think parents who risk their child possible receiving negative consequences from adult/child relationships or just remove the option completely? I think you have to truly understand the parents POV."

I understand the parents' point of view - that's why I think Age of Consent reform is probably impossible under the current economic system.

Your comments have set me off on a thought experiment. The experiment has only provoked questions so far, but I'm hoping to eventually really get my teeth into it and post an essay on it on my blog - it's simply this:

"what would happen if consensual sex and intimacy (i.e. non-penetrative sex) between adult men and women were rendered illegal and treated exactly as if it were rape and the vocabulary of consensual sex and its concepts , history, culture and traditions were represssed?"

What would the results of ALL intimacy being labelled as 'rape' be?

What would happen to 'desire'?

What would be the effects of the resulting guilt, fear, secrecy, betrayal, paranoia, regrets?

Are there any historical parallels? (prohibition in the USA? laws banning inter-racial sex under Apartheid or the USA laws against inter-racial sex under slavery)

Would incidents of true rape (i.e. coercive or violent penetration) be likely to increase or decrease?

>>5218

I am very interested in seeing this.

I'm glad to see some serious discussions going on here. In 2016 and beyond may even more people wake up to the fact that prohibition and abstinence-only doesn't work, in fact they make most things worse. Education kills ignorance, fear and many other horrible things. The more we can encourage freedom and curiosity the more learning and responsibility we'll see.

That said, Merry Christmas to all (even if you're an atheist like me). Things can only get better from here.

>>5218

Very well said. Guilt, fear, shame, paranoia, and of course misinfo and bad assumptions haven't done anyone any good. Perhaps what the antis fear most is that if their stupid laws were removed (or just completely ignored by everyone), if prohibition was ended and people were allowed (and even encouraged) to be more intimate and affectionate with those they loved regardless of age, there might be far less rape and assault and other things they keep telling everyone to worry about (even though the real stats disprove them). But even then they still wouldn't have it because they're not happy until all people are just as miserable as they are.

Here ends tonight's rant. We've seen what repression and prohibition does. How about freedom?