/phile/ - For those who think young.

Glad you're producing this good content, but I'd recommend starting to post your articles in a single thread so everyone can find them more easily. I can help you out, even, by indexing your opening post with links to each post containing a new article.

What you could do is make an indexed post next time you make an article, with links to your previous article posts, and a description of your blog, with a link to it if you so desire. And then before you post rigit, also link to whatever the next post number would be, and then right below it you could make your next article post, which would then become linked. And then after that, I can edit in links to the specific posts you make in the thread for each new article.

>>5458

Sorry - I'm new to 'channing' so I'm not au fait with the best way to do things :-(

When I post my next one I'll follow your recommendations.

Thanks

LSM

I think that we have to define what makes 18 year olds able to consent and remove the number and keep those factors as criteria. We should then assess each individual by them as a standard procedure. The definition of consent has nothing to do with harm, you can consent to having your head cut off. Give those who pass the assessment the right to consent to sex. If they choose to have consensual sex (As defined with 18 year olds currently) with a person who causes them emotional harm, that is entirely their problem. There can be no freedom without responsibility.

Now here come the problems. When do you give the assessment? How will parents react to it? Right now, parents need to sign forms for their kids to attend sex ed, so parents will definitely have to give consent to their children doing it. At what age is parental consent no longer needed? How does it integrate into other rights by age? (e.g. voting, driving, drinking)

And then there is a reason why people living on their parents' money can't fully give consent. They are not the ones risking with their actions. If they get pregnant, the child is on the parents, if they get std's the treatment is on the parents. You can't consent consent to spending money you don't. It could be argued that it is the case now, a person dependent on their parents can drive a car and risk their parent's money by doing it.

This ties back to parental consent to give the right to consent. If parents trust their child to not get pregnant, they should give consent to their consent. This is what we have with driving pretty much.

There should also be a one way post facto part to the parental consent. If there is a trial for the child having consensual sex without parental consent, the parents should be able to change their decision to giving them the right to consent and acquit the defendant, but not the other way around (i.e. convict a person who had consensual sex with their child)

There would also be an issue of people teaching their 5 year old misinformation about sex and making them pass the assessment so that they could use them for prostitution.

Overall this is a difficult issue and for the reasons a 5 year old can't drive a car a 5 year old wouldn't be able to consent to sex in most cases. If such legislation is enacted and there is social change in regards to the view on sex, you can expect progressive (the non-political meaning) parents of minors starting from about 12 years of age giving them the right to consent to sex.

>>5475

All good points. I've known many 18-25yo girls who knew next to nothing about sex and had hardly any interest. I've also seen girls as young as 5 who showed extreme curiosity and interest. Proper effective education is most important, but first a child must have the desire to learn and they must know somebody willing to teach who can be trusted.

As for what age parental consent is no longer needed, that's for everyone to decide for themselves. Only problem is there's no sure way to know for sure if they haven't learned all that's involved and possible consequences. It all comes back to responsibility and the freedom to make your own decisions. If only everyone was truly free to live and learn. At present there are laws and paranoias preventing kids and adults from living or learning.

>>5475

Your comment is interesting, but I think it also illustrates a problem with a lot of the discussions around the legalisation of child-adult intimacy in that it tries to envisage it in the context of society as it it today.

The idea that a child's rights depend on whether their parents grant them only 'makes sense' in a society where children are entirely dependent on their parents, where children spend all of their lives under the supervision of either parents or other adults in loco parentis (such as teachers).

It isn't always this way. Western Society is a freakish outlier as far as child-rearing is concerned. The community has disappeared from the lives of children and the family is kind - in most non-WEIRD societies after the age of five or six children are as much reared by the community as by their parents, and in such socieities children are not considered the property of their parents but as independent beings. Even in the West, in the 60s there were the hippie communes - many are now 'notorious' for 'child sex abuse' - but this happened organically because where children are freed from the nuclear family it naturally follows that they can take on an identity of being sexual beings.

Desexualisation is an effect of the nuclear family because in the nuclear family there is nobody who is not covered by the incest taboo towards whom a child can express its sexuality - and the more isolated the 'family' is in a society (in the USA and the UK the family is extremely isolated) the more strongly this desexualisation is felt. Children's sexualty feels 'right', 'acceptable, to the degree that children become autonomous members of the community and start to interact with members of the community who are not covered by the incest taboo - that is why in the West the older the child the more acceptable their sexuality is - because as they get older and start asserting their right to a life within the community they are able to take their sexuality outside of the family home, and it becomes undeniable.

This is why I think we shouldn't even be thinking of abolishing the Age of Consent without at the same time thinking about the changes in social structure that need to precede it - actually I think it comes down to economics - the nuclear family is a product of capitalism, and the freakishly isolated nuclear family we have today is a product of consumer capitalism. The good news is that if we are to tackle the environmental threats we face today, society will have to stop being growth and consumption-oriented and return to something normal - to something much more communal.

About STDs and pregnancy - I'd argue for an age of consent for intercourse between a child and an adult of 12 - non-penetrative intimacy holds virtually no risk of STDs and pregnancy.

>>5479

I can remember a time when intimacy wasn't automatically presumed to involve sex, and all sex involving a male wasn't always assumed to be rape. At this point it'll take a massive awakening to get us back on the right path. Good thing the old systems are rapidly collapsing, technology is making communication easier, and certain agricultural products are slowly but surely becoming legal state by state. Be patient.

We can't and won't. I doubt any of you talk to actual parents. I guess you all need this fantasy though .

At the very least, we can automatically consider sexual activity in which the underage person is receiving pleasure to be consensual.

It is beyond absurd to consider giving a child an orgasm to be rape. Children need sex too

>>5749

I am sorry, but your misconceptions about Islam are absurd to the point of utter unreadiblity

Anyway, it is obvious you are some liberal atheist secular humanist. Ironically, these people are some of the biggest pedophobes around, and in fact hate religious people for supposedly being pedos (eg Catholic priest/boy sex, Muslim child marriages, etc).

Anyway, Muslim societies tend to be far more pedotolerant than Western secular liberal societies. I just dont see how you can even have pedofreedom when you have feminists and other liberals demonizing pedophiles as rapists and exploiters

>>5756

>>"I am sorry"

I accept your apology.

I'm presuming that the apology is for your deliberate unwillingness to understand that my essay is wholly concerned with 'perceptions' rather than 'facts', something I state over and over again.

I also try to be honest with my readers by declaring my dislike of islam as an ideology and allowing them to take this dislike into account as they read the essay.

Maybe that is where your confusion arose from - one is allowed to dislike, disapprove of, and criticise an ideology - maybe in some later essay I'll voice criticisms of fascism or communism too.

I hope that, if I do so, readers will be grown-up enough to accept that, address in the comments any mistakes they perceive me to have made, and not take a hissy-fit, slamming the door behind them because I've criticised their pet superstition, a superstition to which they've unilaterally arrogated the right not to be criticised or ridiculed.

>>"your misconceptions about Islam are absurd"

Do you mean 'absurd' as in 'man flying up to heaven clinging onto the back of a winged horse'? or as in "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" Quran (4:11)?

My misconceptions come from reading extracts from the quran and hadiths; from following what moslems are doing in places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Paris, Mali, Ivory Coast; from what moslems say and defend; from the actions and deeds of moslems I see about me; from a perception that humane and rational governance can not stem from dark-age superstitions - nor can 'morality' be based on 'obedience' since obedience entails a surrendering of one's ethical capacities to the will and dictates of another/others.

My 'misconceptions' are also supported by the way, in all countries, be they islamic or Western, protests about a cartoon of a bearded arab drew larger numbers of moslems than protests at the barbarity Daesh are carrying out in the name of their religion.

It's a bit of a case of “don't judge us by what we say, nor judge us by what we do – judge us only as we wish to be judged”

As to secularist's being paedophobes - that's as maybe - I certainly do not think anyone should use their authority to impose sex on children - as is alleged in many/most cases of priests (where the relationship was consensual I have no problem with it) not do I approve of child marriage - children should not enter into life-long commitments and contracts or be forced into early motherhood and be deprived of the benefits and joys of childhood just to satisfy our desires.

As a paedophile I will always argue that adults are there for the benefit of children, not the other way round. Not everything that leads to adults having sex with children is 'good' - though you seem to think so – 'the satisfaction of my desires at all costs' and 'what I want is always what is right' presumably are your mottos.

I'd be interested to read your opinions of the sexual enslavement of kafir little girls (à la Boko Haram and Daesh) and its islamic justification.

>>5761

>>5761

>I hope that, if I do so, readers will be grown-up enough to accept that, address in the comments any mistakes they perceive me to have made, and not take a hissy-fit, slamming the door behind them because I've criticised their pet superstition, a superstition to which they've unilaterally arrogated the right not to be criticised or ridiculed.

I seriously dont care if you hate Islam or think it is a "pet superstition". But at least be informed about Islam before you start attacking it

>Do you mean 'absurd' as in 'man flying up to heaven clinging onto the back of a winged horse'? or as in "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" Quran (4:11)?

No, absurd as in "I did not bother doing my research before criticizing another ideology"

Not sure why you are attacking Islam for being sexist, considering we are on a chan board, and we dont give two shits about gender equality.

>moslems

The fact you use "moslem" instead of "muslim" is quite telling as to how ignorant you are of Islam

If you hate Islam, fine. But at least understand it.

Watch some Shadee El Masry or Hamza Yusuf if you want to get a good idea about what actual fundamentalist Islam preaches (hint: it has nothing do do with "Daesh").

Anyway, if you want to be a little mul7id (atheist) smug shit, fine, but dont think you speak for *MAP*s. You surely dont speak for me.

Its you atheists who are attacking Islam for allowing child marriages. Liberals are some of the biggest *MAP*phobes around.

>>5859

>>"I seriously dont care if you hate Islam or think it is a "pet superstition". But at least be informed about Islam before you start attacking it"

It is a religion - and therefore the invention, dictated to a scribe, of a dark ages warlord using credulity, superstition and fear to bolster his conquests. There is no more to be 'informed' about than there is about the Easter Bunny - it's a historical and cultural fiction and artefact.

I no more need to be informed about islam in order to condemn it than I need to have studied 'Mein Kampf' in order to condemn the deeds of the Nazis.

>>"considering we are on a chan board, and we dont give two shits about gender equality."

Who the fuck is 'We'?

You should give a shit about gender equality. To think a man is worth two women might serve your inadequate sense of self worth but it doesn't stop it being stupid bullshit - demonstrably untrue, too - I could pick a woman out of a crowd and the chances are that she'll be smarter than you, better educated, physically fitter, certainly more beautiful and certainly morally superior to you.

On what grounds can you even consider yourself superior to the worms that infest the faeces of a dog/pig cross? never mind another human?

>>"The fact you use "moslem" instead of "muslim" is quite telling as to how ignorant you are of Islam"

I use the word 'moslem' advisedly - I'd spell it 'mozlem' as I prefer the phonetics that way (if you speak arabic you'll understand).

>>"Watch some Shadee El Masry or Hamza Yusuf if you want to get a good idea about what actual fundamentalist Islam preaches"

Why would I want to get a good idea of what fundamentalist islam preachers?

Why would I want to listen to the ravings of idiots who take an already moronic superstition and pursue those stupidities to their ultimate illogical conclusions.

I don't only judge islam by the deeds of Daesh, Boko-Haram, Hamas but by the kind of sick shit that happens in most islamic countries - acid attacks, honour killings, women being raped and then stoned for having been raped, homosexuals being murdered, cattle getting furious because someone drew a cartoon of some guy called MoreHamHead (may he know no peace)…

One only has to observe the slime trail of evil and brutality that islam trails behind it to know all one needs to know about it.

>>"dont think you speak for *MAP*s. You surely dont speak for me."

I've no wish to speak for you.

In fact I've no wish to be associated with you.

Your defense of child-rape, of depriving girl-children of a liberty, freedom and education, and her right to choose her sexual partners, your defense of treating children as baby-machines, and presumably FGM too - are like you taking a pork and beer-shit on the fine and noble cause of children's rights and liberation which should be an integral part of being a MAP.

You dream (at least I hope you do - I hope you never get any power over a real little girl) of treating children as if you had contempt for them and hated them - I discard you.

I'd take a western paedophobe over you any day - at least they think it's adults's role to protect children, at least they THINK they're acting in children's best interests.

You just don't fucking care so long as you own a child who you can oblige to pander to whatever sexual desires you may have - irrespective of whether the children are willing or not.

The fact that you have failed to condemn the sexual enslavement of girls (à la Boko Harma and Daesh) speaks volumes.

When I come across paedophiles like you I kind of understand why the world hates us.

i am against changing age of consent, we should focus on legalization of cp

>>5887

>>>/hebe/, you fucking faggot.

>>5888

im not sure what do you mean

so /phile/ is only for those who want change in age of consent?

>>5891

I said that because I think those are bullshit priorities. A portion of "CP" even becomes legalized if the AOC gets lower. Well, I guess not technically, but the point is, it's infinitely better to drop the AOC. And, frankly, a probable majority of CP really should remain illegal. From all my readings across all boards, most people will agree, a huge amount of it is fucking disgusting, with like confused five-year-olds sucking their dads' cocks. There's no good reason to legalize that. I'm all for legalizing consensual CP of PUBESCENT individuals, but to even get to that point, you really need to make those acts legal in the first place. Doing so means that the quality of CP as a whole goes way up, because the actual good shit becomes not considered CP. It is then not almost impossible to find like it is now. No more sifting through stomach-churning shit for anything decent! I personally just don't even bother with 3D pr0nz because of how disgusting what I'd have to sift through to find anything good would be. On the rare occasion when I just need a fucking amazing fap, I read loli manga.

But, furthermore, the ultimate reason AOC should be lowered instead of your dumb idea is so we can be more socially accepted and have a much higher chance of actually getting laid and a much lower risk to actually getting laid.

>>5894

imo movies depicting legal sexual activity should be made legal, now age of consent is about 15 and the lowest age of legal pornstars is 18.

>>5885

You are acting like you are the first atheist I have met on the internet.

You are simply recycling arguments you guys made 15 years ago. Its stale and boring, and at least back then, I was still an atheist. Try harder.

Believe whatever you want to believe, and I believe whatever I want to believe. Just dont think you speak on behalf MAPs in general

>Muh ISIS

>Muh Boko Haram

You have no arguments I see. Just stale anti-Islam cliches. I aint gonna condemn shit.

I would like you to condemn Craig Hicks (a Sam Harris fan) for killing 3 Muslims at Chapel Hill

>>5903

Different anon here. Yeah, I condemn that guy. Why don't you condemn fucking ISIS? Saying you ain't condemning shit weakens you in this debate. Now, carry on.

>>5906

Because we have nothing to do with ISIS

"Condemning" implies that I am somehow responsible for their actions. I dont even consider ISIS to be real Muslims.

Personally, I admire Craig Hicks- he was not a pussyshit unlike most atheists and went out and removed a few theists. Too bad you are throwing your buddy under the bus for the sake of political correctness

>>5917

Bullshit. You can condemn people you have nothing to do with with ease. I condemn the sick fucks that actually abuse children for example. I'd kill them all if I got the chance.

>>5917

>>You are simply recycling arguments you guys made 15 years ago.

The arguments are being recycled because the problems haven't gone away or changed.

Cancer still exists so there are still people trying to find a cure for it.

>>I would like you to condemn Craig Hicks

Of course I condemn Craig Hicks - my stance against brutality is what makes me hate Isis and Boko Haram and islamo-fascism - all of whom you clearly support:

> I aint gonna condemn shit.

Isis etc are doing what they do in your name - they are part of the Umma, they are your moZlem brothers, they are defining what it means to be a moZlem nowadays.

When a 'paedo' rapes or kills a child it behoves (look it up in a dictionary) all decent paedophiles to make clear that this is the OPPOSITE of real paedophilia.

And not to make excuses for them or to employ 'whataboutery' as you endlessly do.

When a moZlem murders innocent people decent moZlems should do the same.

Your refusal to condemn isis etc shows that deep down you wish them success. By not condemning them you are contributing to the idea that they speak for all moZlems.

If you have shit on the bottom of your shoe you'd best wipe it off quickly otherwise people will start thinking it's YOU that smells of shit and not just your shoe.

>>5922

Fine, but I dont see why he had to assume that I support ISIS or Boko Haram. No Muslim I know of supports them. Those guys happily kill any Muslim that stands in their way.

It just shows intellectual laziness and dishonesty to assume ISIS=regular Muslims. Even other Islamists think they are pure scum.

>>5939

>The arguments are being recycled because the problems haven't gone away or changed.

Don't you ask yourself why we haven't changed? I mean, if I actually agreed with your arguments, I would have been an atheist long time ago. In fact, the opposite has happened…

Plus, as a paedo living in the West, you have a lot more to fear from fellow Westerners than from us.

>Cancer still exists so there are still people trying to find a cure for it.

Cancer, unlike conscious people, lacks sentience, and therefore cannot be reasoned out of existence. Religion, since it rests in rational minds, should have been exterminated a long time ago, but it has not.

> all of whom you clearly support:

uhhh… where did I say I support them?

Are you grasping at straws? Dont do that, it makes you look desperate.

>Isis etc are doing what they do in your name

And so did Craig Hicks, Stalin, etc do in you name as an atheist.

So did Marc Dutroux, Salvatore Sicari, and Charlie Jaynes, did in your name as a paedophile. It doesnt mean anything if evil people do evil things in "your name"

Plus, ISIS would kill me if they ever caught me. They kill tons of religious Muslims all the time. Not only dont I support them, I simply cannot support them since they are after us too.

>When a 'paedo' rapes or kills a child it behoves (look it up in a dictionary) all decent paedophiles to make clear that this is the OPPOSITE of real paedophilia.

Good for them.However, it is interesting you are talking exactly as the Muslim apologists you despise.

>And not to make excuses for them or to employ 'whataboutery' as you endlessly do.

Tell that to NAMBLA and the murder of Jeffery Curley (the murderer was a member of NAMBLA).

>When a moZlem murders innocent people decent moZlems should do the same.

We do. Just google "muslims condemn terrorism".

>Your refusal to condemn isis etc shows that deep down you wish them success.

Nah. I just dont care, the Middle East is too fucked for me to care one way or another if they win.

And I am not sure why you, a pedophile and an atheist, and therefore far more hated minority in America than Muslims are, think you have any grounds for attacking us.

If you are going to compare us to ISIS (whom I hate), then I will compare you to Marc Dutroux (there was a mainstream paedophile rights movement in Europe until his murders of children came to light and an anti-paedo backlash ensued)