/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

>>20575

>How would YOU personally explain sex to a little one?

"Remember what we did last weekend, sweetie? Yeah, that."

Just kidding.

Or am I?

Yeah, I'm kidding. ;_;

>I had the misfortune of trying this about 2 weeks ago and it was a clusterfuck. I first started off that it depends on what she wants to know. I said boys can have sex with other boys, girls can have sex with girls, or boys can have sex with girls and then boys and girls can have sex with dogs if they wanted to.

Can't tell if troll or just retarded. Why would you start out with faggotry? For fuck's sake, fags are less than 5% of the population. And that's what you lead with? And you end with zoophilia?

Keep it simple stupid.

"It's what adults do to make babies."

>>20595

I am personally against homos but I just was trying to convey that she needs to be open and aware that not only do boys and girls have sex. There are MANY different combinations

I don't want her ending up like me and knowing just the biological facts about sex. I want her to be "in the know" so to speak so when she talks about it at school or with her friends she is on the up and up

Again, she is a family friend so I'm kinda more relaxed about her having sex than say if she was my sister but that is probably due to just I am attracted towards her.

Oh and I've caught her watching porn a few times so in my speech I dabbled in porn is fake & such. Don't want her ending up like me with weird ass expectations

>>20598

See…… that is what I was told (something similar) as a kid

…… but then I thought where are all my brothers and sisters? My parents have sex like crazy

I want to give her as much info as possible but at the same time know it's going to be a process. Sadly I don't have all the time with her only see her sometimes on weekends. Even at that every other weekend

>"It's what adults do to make babies."

My mommy can't have babies

>"It's what adults do to make babies."

My uncle is gay why doesn't he make babies?

See lots of confusion. More examples but I"ll stop. Just saying there is so much info you don't even realize and don't want to confuse a young one but at the same time try to keep it toned down for them to soak it up slowly

>>20602

>My mommy can't have babies

How the hell does this kid know about menopause?

>My uncle is gay why doesn't he make babies?

Or about the sexual tendencies of relatives?

What you are doing is the equivalent of responding to someone that is asking what an oven is for by saying that some people use it for pottery. Why bring up these rare examples that don't even come up that often in day to day life?

>>20608

>How the hell does this kid know about menopause?

Not everyone is bashed by a bat of lies and kept in a shed all their life anon.

Some parents are honest, or think kids won't understand what they're saying/connect it.

>What you are doing

Well, he is doing that example, but there's nothing wrong with that example.

>What do you use an oven for?

Your answer would be "Well you use it to make clay harden into pots." His answer, the proper, non-nomieshit response, would be "Well, it depends on the oven, you can make pots in some, you can cook pizza in some, you can cook chicken in some, you can do a lot of things in certain ones."

If she asks "why is that man putting that into the oven" you could respond with your answer, however, if it was more general, even so much as "What's that (oven) for?" your answer would already be pretty sub-par.

>>20609

>If she asks "why is he putting that man into the oven" you could respond with "Because Europe must be cleansed."

ftfy

>>20575

You stupid spaghetti monster loli ruiner.

>rest of the thread

Christ.

You should just give the bare minimum information and nothing more. They can figure the rest out on their own. That's how it was with me, and it worked out great. I am glad I wasn't fed everything. Some of it was disturbing shit that I could to this day deal without knowing. I was pretty pissed off once I figured out what fags actually do, for example. (I was probably at least fifteen or sixteen at this time, because I'm not some moron who wants to know all the fucked up shit in the world.)

But no, that never occurred to OP. He's just a fucking faggot who wants to tell little girls about animal fucking. Kill yourself, OP. and be ready to fuck that loli you're corrupting

>>20619

>I was pretty pissed off once I figured out what fags actually do

…why?

being grossed out is one thing, but "pretty pissed off"?

never mind the fags, the fuck is up with you?

OMFG I hate the misuse of the fucking word FAG/FAGS. It's a cigarette or cigarettes, nothing more. Whoever thought, fag, was a good idea to call gays, is a fucking moron. Gays, homosexuals, or mos.

>>20627

Words can mean more than one thing, you enormous buttfucking AIDS-ridden faggot.

It's when two people get naked and touch each other so it feels good. If you do it in the specific way where the penis goes into the vagina then you can make children. Woah.

>>20600

>in my speech I dabbled

lol you really went to town with this

>>20602

>Just saying there is so much info you don't even realize and don't want to confuse a young one

You'll cause more confusion by trying to explain every little possible nuance compared to keeping it simple and then tackling the questions as they come, afterward.

>>20627

Fag meaning cigarette is British slang and fag meaning homosexual is American slang. So the person who came up with the term would have never heard of the cigarette meaning.

>>20609

Sex education in elementary school? That's… wrong it should be a high school subject.

>>20634

No, it should not. Knowledge protects children from many undesirable things. Example: sexual abuse ("this is our little love game") to pregnancies ("we didn't know this can happen). Yes, a few girls experience their menarche in 4th grade.

If you don't teach them facts, all they have are the rumours and half-truths they are told from other kids. And that serves no purpose.

>>20633

It's surreal to suddenly see someone who actually clearly knows what he's talking about in a sea of ignorance. Well, this thread isn't so bad but the other one I was just reading. I think my synapses melted, so I'm just trying to say thanks for posting something intelligible.

>>20634

You must live in a great country.

>>20635

>If you don't teach them facts, all they have are the rumours and half-truths they are told from other kids.

If a child really wants to learn about sex, he can just look it up on the Internet.

>Later that day a few lolis told me how yukky they find all this sexual education stuff, still there had the need to talk to me about it for about an hour.

So, in other words, children who had no interest in sex are now showing an interest? It's that kind of loss of innocence that needs to be avoided.

>You must live in a great country.

Sex education laws vary from state to state. I grew up in Virginia, where we had opt-out high school sex ed that I slept through because it was basically biology with sex organs and there were no tests to encourage you to pay attention.

>>20637

>loss of innocence

>innocence

>needs to be avoided

>USA

>>20638

>echolalia

>>20575

"Here, let me show you."

>>20637

>instead of providing a certain level of knowledge to all of them, the children who are interested should search for answers on the internet

This bullshit does not need to be further commented.

>>20637

>don't teach children about sex because TEH INNOCENCE

>be stunned over the rise of unwanted teen pregnancies

>optional: be horrified about abortions

Only in USA.

>>20644

If there was a rise of preteen pregnancy, I could see your point, but most teenagers are in fact in high school and not elementary.

>>20643

You know how drug education programs encourage children to start doing drugs? Same concept.

>>20627

bum a fag, m8?

>>20575

One of the MANY things people can do to pass the time.

I'm sorry if this has been said already( I didn't read all the thread, about 4 posts down was enough) but I'd just try to explain as how I understand it, and answer any questions that may come up. It wouldn't be anything special- just how I'd explain anything to anyone.

>Anon, what is sex?

Well little lady, I think this is one of those cases where it's best to learn by doing. Come with me, and I'll show ya.

>>20633

Did any of the children ask what a pedophile was? If so, how did you respond? If not, how would you have responded?

>How would YOU personally explain sex to a little one?

'uhh ask your mother…'

>>20670

Probably the most honest answer in the thread.

>>20670

>But my Mommy is dead

'uhhh-ummmm OH SHIT FUCK"

ya blew it anon. now she ran off crying because you didn't answer her question. how does it feel knowing because YOU didn't want to explain to her what sex was, she felt curious and had underage sex with a 30yo who took advantage of her? You could have saved her but you chose not to

I pity this world

>>20690

I would be more concerned about the dead wife at that point.

>>20693

Concerned? More like relieved.

>>20695

You know they always blame the husband.

>>20690

Enough answers in the thread.

>>20645

> preteens

> pregnancy

Biology doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

>>20714

Precocious puberty

>>20714

It happens sadly…

>>20714

>>20722

>>20830

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

>>20831

MMMMMMMMMM

Just the thought of fucking a PREGNANT 5yo makes me cum buckets!

>>20835

Is Campbell run by autists?

>>20835

Because 5yo pussy is finger lickin good!!!!

>>20846

Why? Because I'm on a pedo forum expressing my love for tiny little cunnys?

>>20851

No, because you type like a creepy faggot

>>20852

Well I'm an old fat hairy brown guy that loves little girl, bald, tight pussy so………defiantly not a faggot

>>20853

Tone down the creepiness you are scaring away the young cunnys that might browse here

We want them to feel safe and cam for us

>>20575

Hey Mr. smarty pants

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MyLt6l5n0

>>20611

lol'd

I would probably start by asking if she had ever masturbated, kids usually start that before they are interested in what sex is. If not, I'll explain that first. After that I'll explain that it is similar, but another person does it to you. The other person doesn't just have to use their fingers though, they can also use their tongue or, if it is a boy, their penis. I'll draw out what a penis looks like since they will probably have no idea. I'll explain that sex should be done with someone you trust and, preferably, with someone you love because it can change how you feel about a person, and possibly even trick you into loving someone you wouldn't otherwise. I'll go over contraception as a method to protect against pregnancy and STDs and I might try to slip explaining porn in there since she will encounter it pretty soon anyway. Ask her if she has any other questions and tell her that if she has any in the future that she can definitely ask me.

I feel like the main part of young adults lashing out at their parents by having a lot of sex in HS/College is because parents usually treat them like idiots or blow them off completely when they ask. This would lead them to act out in an attempt to "Show them who's too dumb to know about sex." I think the kind of talk I described isn't so descriptive that they will lose interest and get annoyed, but still descriptive enough to set a good base that can be added to later as they learn new things

>>21185

>first question regarding loli's presumably most private thing

Yeah.

>>20833

I wish for an advanced automatic detection of such shitposts.

>>21200

This is already an uncomfortable question to being with, no reason to have any barriers now.

>>21203

There is always a reason to have barriers.

>>21200

Why should she feel so ashamed about masturbating that she can't even acknowledge to another person that she does it? It's a good starting point to get into the concept of sex and how it feels

>>21212

>Why should she feel so ashamed about masturbating that she can't even acknowledge to another person that she does it?

I know that back when I first realized I was a pedophile, and accepted that, I went through a phase that lasted several years where I hated myself and was deeply ashamed of my attractions. During this time, I didn't masturbate except very very rarely, because when I did, I felt it lent validity to my status as a pedophile and made it real, which ended up causing even more self-loathing and disgust.

Admitting to someone else that I masturbated would have been equivalent in my mind, at the time, to admitting that I was a pedophile. I wouldn't have been able to do so.

The way society views sex and anything sexual as something filthy, I'd imagine that a girl would think masturbation is something disgusting, even if she didn't know what sex was. So I can empathize with why she'd be reluctant to discuss or admit to anything she views as disgusting that she's done to herself.

>>21213

It is definitely possible that some girls are already ashamed of their own budding sexuality, but that is something they should talk through with someone and get over. A girl cannot have healthy views about sex if they have such unhealthy views about masturbation, and isn't healthy views about sex the whole point of the talk?

>>20637

>If a child really wants to learn about sex, he can just look it up on the Internet.

My god,I hope you are trolling.Not giving proper education 'cause they can google it' is one of the most common examples of how modern children get bad info about sex.Kids are trying to learn about it,and one of the greatest sources of dysfunction these days is that google and other equally clueless kids(and the occasional sociopath trolltard) are all they have to go on.

Without an educated and trustworthy person to guide them,kids are getting fed shitty info from every direction,and we're all paying for it.

Think about any other educational topic you would say this same thing for:

>If a child really wants to learn about algebra/history/biology/chemistry,they'll just google it or ask their friends.

While there is a shitton of info on the net,you need some education on the subject in order to filter out the shit and leave the tons of good info.That is the duty of everyone that knows better.If I were a teacher,why the internet is a shit source for a clueless noob would be first lesson.

>>21271

>My god,I hope you are trolling.Not giving proper education 'cause they can google it' is one of the most common examples of how modern children get bad info about sex

Seriously, try running a google search about something, like "can you get STDs from kissing" or whatever. You'll get a whole lot more accurate information than we got growing up without Internet.

>>21271

>If a child really wants to learn about algebra/history/biology/chemistry,they'll just google it or ask their friends.

No child wants to learn about those things. Yes, if a child is self-motivated he can learn far more on his own with a good Internet access and/or a library, but children don't usually care about learning boring shit. The whole purpose of classes is to force feed them education, it's not inherently better than self-study.

>>21272

Congrats, you just told that kid you are not an adult that can be trusted since you don't really give a shit about them. If they wanted to Google it they would have Googled it, they asked you because they trust you to teach them

>>21289

I'm not saying the child shouldn't be supervised while browsing the Internet, just that it isn't necessary to have a class dedicated to it.

Sex that is.

>>21293

I forgot to read the reply chain before it, sorry

Saying that teaching children about sex results in a loss of innocence implies that sex is inherently evil or sinful, which is exactly the kind of shit we shouldn't be teaching children. By most accounts (including the Christian one) sex is a beautiful thing and one of the greatest pleasures in life. Why on earth would we want to keep knowledge of it from our children?

>>21305

I tend to think of sex as something that's necessary for life, but not necessarily beautiful or should be talked about in detail, kind of like defecation.

>>21308

You talk to your children about defecation while you're potty training them.

Regardless i don't make that comparison.

Educating children about sex is necessary and sexual education in class has been shown to lead to safer sexual habits.

Your opinion is statistically hurting children, please reconsider it.

>>21308

And we should teach children based on your fucked up concept of sex why exactly? Also, does that mean we need to ban the book "Everybody Poops" since it is destroying kids' innocence?

>>21312

If there was a book called Everyone Fucks, that would be pretty inappropriate,wouldn't it?

>>20600

"Porn is like Wrestling. It's exxagerated for entertainment purposes." XD

>>20611

lol

>>20627

fag means bundle of sticks, or stick. hence cig having the same etymology. I Guess cause its cylindrical ( ° ʖ °)

>>20637

>If a child really wants to learn about sex, he can just look it up on the Internet.

LOL. that screams bad idea. I remember those forums where people were asking about that sort of thing and they were 11 or so. or 13. It was fun, most of the advice was good (This 13 y/o wanted to fuck his 11 y/o cousin, and everyone on the gaming forum I lurked was 'talk to her lol' and stuff) :P

>>21327

If you are asking people questions on forums/yahoo answers, you are using the Internet wrong.

>>21319

No, I think "Zieg Mal!" was a great educational book, though I could only find the German version so I haven't been able read it myself. People who want to demonize childhood sexuality and make it dirty are the ones who are fucking up kids psychologically, not the people who tell them to embrace this part of themselves and teach them how to be safe

>>21325

I thought it was all about things that should be burned: Bundles of Sticks, Cigarettes, and Homos all fit the bill

>>21329

>People who want to demonize childhood sexuality and make it dirty are the ones who are fucking up kids psychologically, not the people who tell them to embrace this part of themselves and teach them how to be safe

Then why did the hippie generation that embraced sex lead to - surprise- irresponsible sex? I'll never understand this whole reverse psychology concept in response to sex.

>>21335

I'm not saying turn your kids into filthy hippies, there is a middle ground between fucking every person you see and thinking sex is evil/taboo that is actually healthy. If you are open with children and treat them with respect then they will respect your opinions, if you treat them like they are stupid and lie to them they'll come back at you hard when they inevitably figure it out

>>21354

I thought having sex for reproduction only was the middle ground.

>>21356

Considering the fact that the only belief that is more extreme than that is being a Shaker, no it's not anywhere close to a middle ground

>>21360

>Middle ground is only having sex inside some form of relationship

No, that's completely irresponsible, what happens if you have a child? If it's not a legally binding relationship, then what's the point?

>>21361

The point is testing to see if you WANT a legally binding relationship, you fucking idiot.

People want to try before they buy, and people want to have sex. Some people fuck themselves over in the process, and that's entirely their concern.

That is the middle ground.

>>21362

It seems far more reasonable to have a long dating period without sex to see if you are compatible and then commit to the life changing child conception act after marriage. It also seems fairly moderate, I don't see how that's an extreme viewpoint.

>>21361

Having sex outside of marriage is not irresponsible, having unprotected sex outside of marriage is irresponsible. Hence the importance of strong sexual education

>>21363

Jesus you are stupid as fuck. Sex is a TREMENDOUS part of compatibility, and sex and conception have been separated for hundred of years.

Your endlessly refuted abstinence only opinion has not been the "middle ground" for a long, long time and is responsible for countless unplanned pregnancies.

Rape her.

>>21374

Maybe instead of being the worlds most tremendous permavirgin retard spouting shit he has zero understanding of, you try actually talking to married couples about their opinion on how important sexual compatibility and satisfaction is in a relationship.

>abstinence […] is responsible for pregnancies

This is nearly the most disgustingly idiotic post on this board.

Abstinence education is responsible for pregnancies, because guess what you imbecile people want to fuck and when your only lesson is "hurr juss dun do it" people aren't going to fucking follow it.

If you need proof look at any study that has ever been done on abstinence only education in any country on earth.

Just stop.

Just fucking shut up, stop, and listen to someone who knows better than you.

God damn.

>>21378

>you try actually talking to married couples about their opinion on how important sexual compatibility and satisfaction is in a relationship.

And you'll find that people who are long married tend to lack intimacy in their lives.

>because guess what you imbecile people want to fuck and when your only lesson is "hurr juss dun do it" people aren't going to fucking follow it.

So your solution is teaching elementary schoolers about sex in class? Having in depth sexual education is fine - in high school, and that doesn't change the fact that abstinence is always the best option even if you go over the other ones.

>tremendous permavirgin

> guess what you imbecile people want to fuck

Well, if people want to fuck no matter what, then how do virgins exist? People aren't the hypersexualized animals you or Tinseltown makes them out to be.

>>21374

You are forgetting the vast neurological consequences of sex. Orgasm doesn't just just result in ejaculation, there is a tremendous flood of chemicals in your brain that stimulates emotional closeness and pair bonding. In fact, it stimulates ΔFosB expression, which is the same thing that leads to nearly every type of addiction. To say that sex plays a small role in a relationship is, frankly ridiculous. It is so important that a case could be made that a lack of affect in older couples could possibly be explained by the lowering sex drive and decreased orgasm duration that happens in old age.

This information, of course, means that sex shouldn't be taken lightly. You are placing yourself in a highly vulnerable state due to the nature of the changes, but to shut yourself off to it completely in a relationship is damaging since you are shutting off a big part of bonding, and frankly a very mutually rewarding activity. Sex should only be done in a loving relationship with lots of trust, but to say that a couple must wait until they are legally bound before they find out if they are sexually compatible is ridiculous.

>>21382

>Maybe you should try asking yourself why you are a virgin

Can't afford to raise a family.

>Then go ask some other virgins.

They also can't afford it.

>Your wondrous stupidity has ruined untold numbers of young adults lives and I think god every single day that your beliefs no longer exists amongst the general population.

It's the loss of my values that are ruining the lives of a untold number of young adults. It's a good thing there are still a silent majority who don't believe in extramarital sex.

>>21386

>there is a tremendous flood of chemicals in your brain that stimulates emotional closeness and pair bonding

If the mere act of having sex causes you to become attracted to your spouse than would it matter who you had sex with? According to your own research, you would become attracted to anyone. So being "sexually compatible" is meaningless.

>>21359

I need a link to that fucking book,can't find a free download anywhere.

>>21387

>The mere act of SATISFYING sex releases oxytocin and vasopresin,the bonding chems.

Good sex=acceptable choice for a mate,bad sex=no dice.And yes,you can literally have that same satisfying sex with every man/woman/child, noun,verb,and adverb(but not adjectives cause we're not fucking animals[we are]),and fall into the deep emotional dependency that is love.

inb4 retard troll response:yes,with literally anything or anyone;name any outlandish <noun> and you can bet someone is in love/lust with it.

Also,fuck your values.

>>21399

>>21387's problem is that he/she isn't willing to understand what you're trying to tell him/her. Just look at the answer:

> It's the loss of my values that are ruining the lives of a untold number of young adults.

Citation needed. (BTW, has even been explained what his/her values are?)

> It's a good thing there are still a silent majority who don't believe in extramarital sex.

A good thing to whom? Those who suffer from sexual urges their beliefs forbid to relieve? BTW,

> there are still a silent majority

Citation needed.

> If the mere act of having sex causes you to become attracted to your spouse than would it matter who you had sex with?

Well, does it matter? That there are people you're not attracted to enough to jump into bed with them doesn't mean you wouldn't have gotten attracted to them if you'd done so, you know.

> So being "sexually compatible" is meaningless.

It's meaningless if sex is irrelevant to you. Which it is, according to your posts.

>>21402

Please do not feed the troll. He is just trying to flood this discussion with meaningless bullshit because he is mortally afraid of the results that could possibly emerge otherwise, as those results could possibly be incompatible with his retrograde outdated views.

>>21374

> Sex is something that lasts, on average, for two minutes

Where the fuck have you gotten your statistics from?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/27/newser-short-sex/8281069/

> the length of the average sex act is 7.3

The shortest I could find.

Also:

http://www.livescience.com/11387-10-surprising-sex-statistics.html

> According to a survey of adults aged 20 to 59, women have an average of four sex partners during their lifetime; men have an average of seven.

> What?

Let's face it: If everyone on Earth were as value-driven as you are, you could be making valid points here.

The problem is, most people aren't. And ignoring this fact doesn't make it better. Unless you're some quixotic ivory tower inhabitant, you have to deal with the world as it is, not as you want it to be. Regardless of whether you want to turn it into a world like the one you want or not, you have to come from the current state. That's why >>21378 is right saying

> Abstinence education is responsible for pregnancies, because guess what you imbecile people want to fuck and when your only lesson is "hurr juss dun do it" people aren't going to fucking follow it.

Young people do want to fuck. You can deny this as much as you want, if you've ever gone through puberty you know it's true. It's just how our hormones work. And as there is (yes, there is) not enough rejection of sex in the public to put young people off their sexual urges, they will have sex. Not teaching them about sex in a timely manner (that is, before puberty hits them, and that is, if puberty stays starting earlier and earlier at its current rate, in elementary school) is careless. More, it's dangerously negligent. Just think about sexually transmittable diseases, unwanted pregnancies and so on. And don't tell me that wouldn't happen if you could talk young people into abstinence. You know that isn't possible. China has tried it, and China is a fucking dictatorship. Almost anyone and everyone who is down-to-earth apprehends that the only thing we can do is damage limitation (from your perspective of youth sex being wrong) and that, moreover, we have the moral responsibility to do so. And this attitude isn't quite new: It aready helped Marcus Tullius Cicero prevent his homeland – that is, the Republic of the Roman Empire – in DCXCI a.u.c. from being overthrown by a conspiracy that could have heralded the end of the Roman Empire centuries before it actually fell apart.

As a matter of fact:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

> Teens in the United States and Europe have similar levels of sexual activity. However, European teens are more likely than U.S. teens to use contraceptives generally and to use the most effective methods; they therefore have substantially lower pregnancy rates.

Guess why? Because sex education in Europe is more effective and down-to-earth than that in America. And that's why? I don't know; maybe America doesn't care that much as teen pregnancies aren't a problem for a country without public social insurance systems.

> Just fucking shut up, stop, and listen to someone who knows better than you.

Yes, he's right. You'd better.

>>21405

>Where the fuck have you gotten your statistics from?

http://news.asiantown.net/r/37923/short-sex-study-finds-that-during-sex-of-all-men-have-an-orgasm-within-minutes

>an "astonishing" 43% of such acts are completed within 2 minutes.

>Young people do want to fuck. You can deny this as much as you want, if you've ever gone through puberty you know it's true. It's just how our hormones work

If you don't understand that you can't always do what you want to do than you have no place in society.

>>21403

>retrograde outdated views

Says the free love hippie that belongs in the '60s.

>>21411

There's literally no sources cited in that article, just name drops.

>>21412

How much longer do you want to go on embarrassing yourself?

The fucking extent you go to preserve your completely ignorant beliefs that flies in the face of all of reality is otherworldly.

>>21412

Says the baffling fucking moron that has been completely shot down on every single account and refuses to just turn over and die already.

>>21414

>There's literally no sources cited in that article, just name drops.

You could have easily just looked up the names in google.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html

>In the discussion of marital coitus in the Male volume, Kinsey speculated that for perhaps three-fourths of all males, orgasm was reached within 2 minutes after initiation of coitus, and reported this as a frequent source of marital conflict

>Says the baffling fucking moron that has been completely shot down on every single account and refuses to just turn over and die already.

You can't just shoot someone down with insults and then declare yourself the winner.

>>21420

Google what? their names? yes let me go ahead and sort through every study that person has ever done to find the relevant research that probably doesnt exist because your article is most likely just paraphrasing an offhand comment they made once.

By the way, what exactly am I supposed to be looking for in your totally irrelevant study from the 40s and 50s?

Am I supposed to be laughing here or what?

>You can't just shoot someone down with insults and then declare yourself the winner.

No, we've proven you wrong with multiple sources and THEN insulted you.

Because you deserve it.

>>21435

>By the way, what exactly am I supposed to be looking for in your totally irrelevant study from the 40s and 50s?

>Am I supposed to be laughing here or what?

Do you not understand that Alfred Kinsey is the leading scientist in sex studies and his work is still relevant to this very day? And the fact he's dead so he can't provide you a more recent study?

>No, we've proven you wrong with multiple sources

Really? I'm the one posting all the charts and sources.

>>21420

>posts a study that directly refutes your claim

Why would you do that?

>Length of Coitus:

>Males:

>17.6% of males reported ejaculation less than 2 minutes after intromission

So is it 43% or is it 18%?

>>21436

>Alfred Kinsey is the leading scientist in sex studies and his work is still relevant to this very day?

I would assume you're saying that because there's some pool of contemporary data that supports him… right?

>And the fact he's dead so he can't provide you a more recent study?

Oh I see, one man is dead thus no one is allowed to replicate his research ever again.

Damn, wish i was smart enough to have thought of that.

>Really? I'm the one posting all the charts and sources.

Yes your infographic really blew >>21405

out of the water.

Fuck man, but are you a laughingstock at this point.

>>21437

>I would assume you're saying that because there's some pool of contemporary data that supports him… right?

>So is it 43% or is it 18%?

The more recent one states 43%, which supports Kinsey's hypothesis.

>>21438

You mean the more recent one that doesn't actually cite any research and is in fact literally just paraphrasing his hypothesis?

~wow~

>>21439

Oh, that study is from Dr. Harry Fisch's book The New Naked: The Ultimate Sex Education for Grown-Ups. If you really care that much to go look it up… go ahead.

>>21440

Gating your evidence behind a paywall is not the best strategy in debate, you know.

No, actually since you are the one making the claim here the onus is on you and you alone to bring us this evidence.

Hop to it.

>>21441

>Gating your evidence behind a paywall is not the best strategy in debate, you know.

Now you are just being silly. Not everything is freely available on the Internet. If you really care, you can go take it out of the library or buy it.

>>21443

You're the one that both brought up your idiotic claim and are now desperate to defend it by resorting to an over 60 year old study that proves you wrong itself. It seems like you're the one that cares more than enough.

It's unfortunate for you that we happen to have freely available evidence that prove you wrong while you do not seem to have any such free evidence for your side. That must be frustrating for you.

So I'll say again, the onus is on you to defend the claim that you brought up.

>>21444

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+New+Naked%3A+The+Ultimate+Sex+Education+for+Grown-Ups+pdf

Also, way to throw a fit about a throwaway factoid.

>>21445

Are you trying to make yourself look bad on purpose or what?

>sourcebooks

>amazon

>ebooks

>goodreads

>a bunch of other online shops and a "download our downloader" website

No, I'll say it one more time and I'll say it clearly this time.

Post your evidence. Do it directly. Go to the very page in this book. Copy it and paste it here.

Not a single poster here is going to do your work for you, and yes, it is your work.

Why are you so invested in this one single point anyways? What about

http://www.livescience.com/11387-10-surprising-sex-statistics.html

and

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

Are you just not interested in debating the fact that europeans who are much more devoted to accurate sex education at an earlier age than the US also have much lower rates of teen pregnancies in general?

Seems like something that sort of blows your whole system of belief away. You're not interested in discussing that?

>>21446

Says the hilariously hypocritical downsie that's hellbent on defending it.

It's a throwaway factoid that seems to be your sole argument here. That doesn't sound to great for your position.

I can sit back and let you own yourself at this rate.

>>21448

>It's a throwaway factoid that seems to be your sole argument here

No, my argument is that's it's insane to be teaching elementary students sex. The amount of time couples have sex with each other is just a bit a trivia, and not the crux of my argument.

>>21447

>a bunch of other online shops and a "download our downloader" website

You mean a torrent site? How can you never heard of that before?

>>21451

Oh, you mean the argument that was thoroughly trashed.

Go look at state by state sex education. The go look at state by state rate of teen pregnancies.

Go ahead and post a single study in unambiguous (I may be hoping too much that you know what that word means) support of sex education not being taught in elementary.

>>21452

I've already said everything I had to say on that and I'm not going to say it again.

>>21455

>Go look at state by state sex education. The go look at state by state rate of teen pregnancies.

Once again, teenagers aren't elementary school children. If puberty rates are dropping, then why aren't preteens getting pregnant? Because elementary sex education isn't needed, they don't tend to have sex.

>>21458

They have sex as early as middle school though, teaching elementary schoolers ensures that you teach the kid about the dangers of sex before they engage in it.

Also, you have never explained why it is so necessary that kids never learn what sex is aside from "hurr durr loss of innocence", I feel that that is a crucial part in attempting to justify denying children access to certain knowledge. I mean, is it important not to teach your kid how to change the oil in a car in elementary school since it would result in a loss of innocence on the subject?

>>21459

>I feel that that is a crucial part in attempting to justify denying children access to certain knowledge. I mean, is it important not to teach your kid how to change the oil in a car in elementary school since it would result in a loss of innocence on the subject?

Do they teach driver's ed in elementary school in Europe or wherever you come from too? Also, yes, I would be worried that if you teach a child to drive a car at a young age he would attempt to drive a car at a young age. I don't know if I would attribute it to a loss of innocence, since I don't tend to romanticise cars like other people do, but I would definitely consider it a danger.

>>21411

>>an "astonishing" 43% of such acts are completed within 2 minutes.

You obviously don't know any shit about statistics. Mean ≠ average. And 43% isn't even the mean. So you've just admitted that your claim 'Sex is something that lasts, on average, for two minutes' is wrong.

> If you don't understand that you can't always do what you want to do than you have no place in society.

That doesn't change the fact that young people do want to fuck – I don't think you'd deny that. And as I tried to point out, society at its current state doesn't provide them with enough substantial reasons not to do it. So even if they 'understand that you can't always do what you want to do' they don't recognize sex as something comprised by this principle (regardless of whether it actually is or not).

>>21437

> So is it 43% or is it 18%?

Hihi, you're right: Completely fail.

>>21443

That's absolutely right, >>21441 should have thought of that himself.

>>21458

> Because elementary sex education isn't needed, they don't tend to have sex.

I'll just quote >>21405:

> Young people do want to fuck. You can deny this as much as you want, if you've ever gone through puberty you know it's true. It's just how our hormones work. And as there is (yes, there is) not enough rejection of sex in the public to put young people off their sexual urges, they will have sex. Not teaching them about sex in a timely manner (that is, before puberty hits them, and that is, if puberty stays starting earlier and earlier at its current rate, in elementary school) is careless.

It's not about teaching elementary school children because they tend to have sex but teaching them because they have to be told about the birds and the bees once they start tending to have sex. It's like installing alarm equipment in your house: You hopefully do this before any burglar tries to break in and enter your estate, not the moment he does.

>>21462

I'm not >>21459, but you're completely right: That car example was bullshit. However, on the other hand the question why children should be denied access to certain knowledge is a good one. Where I live, it's written down explicitly in the constitution that access to information must not be restricted except for reputation issues (defamation) and the protection of the youth, raising the question how far that 'protection of the youth' reaches. Currently, the main laws that make use of that constitutional possibility are against depiction of serious violence and antidemocratic agitation. Sex is only a topic there when it comes to porn (which must not be sold to people under 18 years of age). So yes, what exactly would be wrong about children knowing of/about sex already in elementary school instead of not until middle/high school?

(To prevent harping on this issue: Of course smaller children might not yet be able to fully understand everything that could be explained about sex. Figuring out when this is possible is a non-trivial problem; you might not be able to serve all pieces of the cake at the same time. Also, finding an appropriate wording was the main purpose of this thread, so we won't be able to solve that issue quickly either. Therefore, let's just assume we've found an applicable time slot for sex education and that this time slot lies in elementary school.)

>>21514

>It's like installing alarm equipment in your house: You hopefully do this before any burglar tries to break in and enter your estate, not the moment he does.

If you live in a safe neighborhood, then installing an alarm is a waste a money. You can look at it the same with children, if the child is at high risk for having sex, then maybe, otherwise it's just telling crooks you have something valuable to steal. And by crooks I mean boys. And by steal I mean rape.

>So yes, what exactly would be wrong about children knowing of/about sex already in elementary school instead of not until middle/high school?

Let's say you are a high school senior. You are 18 (or 17) and you learn all about sex in school. You are around the age where you might consider getting into a relationship and making progress towards marriage/sex/children. Sex education sort of makes sense at that age. Now consider an elementary school child. You are going to be teaching him about sex when he isn't even close to his first girlfriend. What's the point of talking about something and then saying, "oh, but you are too young for it." It would just encourage children to start downloading porn and possibly opening them up to abuse from adults.

>>21519

> otherwise it's just telling crooks you have something valuable to steal. And by crooks I mean boys. And by steal I mean rape.

Except that boys are usually unable to tell from how a girl looks like whether she knows about sex or not. And, what about you look at it the other way round, the crooks being the girls? I have indeed heard of women raping men, but it's sufficiently uncommon, so I wouldn't suppose stealing to equal rape then. On top of that, I don't really see why girls who know about sex are more likely to be raped than those who aren't; I'd rather say girls who know about sex are more likely to be able to assess whether some situation could get them into the trouble of being raped (that is, at a point in time when the girl is still able to avert the rape).

Yet I do agree that

> If you live in a safe neighborhood, then installing an alarm is a waste a money

which I read as 'if you live in a society where people don't have sex anyway, sex education is a waste'. However, then we're back in the case 'society where young people don't have sex', and I already told you that you do have to deal with the situation that this isn't the case. I think nobody here is really harping on that case because it's, frankly speaking, uninteresting.

> You are 18 (or 17) and you learn all about sex in school. You are around the age where you might consider getting into a relationship and making progress towards marriage/sex/children.

I would first of all remark that at least where I live, some students start having relationships (no serious relationships, but they do go dating) as early as age 12. The average age where first sexual encounters happen is something around 16, although I would need to look that up. On the other hand, 'making progress towards marriage/children' happens later and later in life (that's one reason why birth rates are declining in industrialized countries), so 17/18 is, for most, not the age to already think about marriage and children.

> Now consider an elementary school child. You are going to be teaching him about sex when he isn't even close to his first girlfriend. What's the point of talking about something and then saying, "oh, but you are too young for it."

I actually had this kind of view on sex education when I was that age, being taught how children develop in grade 3. When I heard how sex works – which was told in a very dry way back then, like 'the man sticks his penis into the woman's vagina, the semen goes to the uterus and merge with the egg cell' – I even thought 'I'll never do that, it's way too weird!' In retrospect, it would have helped if someone had explained that sex is actually fun, because it sounded like some creepy duty. No one said back then, 'you're too young for it'. No one of us considered doing it, just because it's something children don't usually take pleasure in unless they discover it by accident.

What I'm trying to tell you is that you're making a valid point here. On the other hand, I'm not sure, in retrospect, what would have happened if I had not already known about sex when I accidentally caught my parents making love. (I don't know anymore how old I was but I was younger than 17.) Well, I've heard that's how children learned about sex in former times, when there wasn't any sex education in school. Once again, this isn't a 'perfect' world. In a world perfectly fitting your moralic attitude maybe parents don't have sex or are able to hide it from their children properly; in our world, this isn't always the case.

Apropos, what about children asking why boys look different down there than girls? Does answering that question count as sex education?

> It would just encourage children to start downloading porn

That is, if they know what porn is. I bet they do find out sometime; it would be preferable if they knew enough about sex beforehand to realize that porn isn't usually what sex is supposed to be like.

> and possibly opening them up to abuse from adults

Or, they know enough about sex to be able to tell when an adult is doing something sexual to them. A child that knows how the wind blows will less likely be tricked into sexual abuse by adults telling them it's OK or they do this only because they love them or they have to do this. In this respect, the crucial part is not the whether the knowledge itself is useful for the child but rather whether the child has also been taught how to use the knowledge properly.

>>21519

Many, many, MANY 17 or 18 year olds having been having sex for years you baffling fool.

You teach them BEFORE they start having sex. Middle school at the absolute latest, but there's still not even one single valid reason it shouldn't start in elementary school.

>It would just encourage children to start downloading porn and possibly opening them up to abuse from adults.

You are the absolute stupidest person alive.

From the bottom of every other poster's heart, PLEASE kill yourself. You legitimately do not deserve life.

>>21528

At least I don't make death threats.

>>21519

> It would just encourage children to start downloading porn and possibly opening them up to abuse from adults.

You have no idea how sexual abuse takes place, haven't you?

Protipp: One key element of prevention is knowledge. A child is more vulnerable to sexual abuse if it had no sex education, that is a simple fact. There even exists a correlation between religiousness and sexual abuse. The "keeping them innocent" shit means nothing but "keeping them defenseless".

>A child that knows how the wind blows will less likely be tricked into sexual abuse by adults telling them it's OK or they do this only because they love them or they have to do this

It depends on who is doing the teaching, really. If we had Mr. "sex is normal, everyone has sex" here pushing his agenda, I would imagine they would be more open to adult sexual attention then my personal flavor of fear-based ideology.

>>21538

>Telling you to kill yourself

>Death Threats

I can see why your opinions are so fucked up, you don't even know what words mean

>>21543

>You legitimately do not deserve life.

Is a death threat.

>>21538

>I may be the stupidest person somehow still alive, but at least I don't say mean things on the internet!

Well that's some consolation.

>>21544

The truth is only a threat to the guilty.

>>21542

It's not because there is no threat

Back on topic, let's see the results of earlier sexual education. In Sweden they start Sex Ed between 7 and 10 years of age. While their average age of first sexual intercourse is a little lower (15), it is partially because their AOC is lower (also 15). Their teenage pregnancy rate is below 1% while ours is one of the highest in any developed nation at between 4 and 5%. You seem to be on the wrong side of the numbers my friend.

>>21542

> If we had Mr. "sex is normal, everyone has sex" here pushing his agenda, I would imagine they would be more open to adult sexual attention

On the one hand, you're right – they'd most certainly be more open to adult sexual attention, at least in the sense that they are able to recognize adult sexual attention when they encounter it. (A child who doesn't know what sex is will of course not be able to recognize it.) On the other hand, whether increased open-mindedness towards adult sexual attention would actually enhance child-adult sex relationships remains debatable; it then depends on how 'sex is normal, everyone has sex' is being put across: If they're told 'sex is normal, everyone has sex, so don't worry if someone wants to have sex with you', then, I'm positive, tricking children into sex will be easier for malicious adults. If they're told 'sex is normal, everyone has sex, but you don't have to if you don't want to', things could look different. That's what I meant by 'the crucial part is […] whether the child has also been taught how to use the knowledge properly', i.e. the children have to be taught to question what they're being told by others who might be trying to manipulate them (in the negative sense).

> my personal flavor of fear-based ideology

So what exactly is you fear-based ideology? Until now, it rather sounded like an 'ignorance-based' ideology in which children wouldn't be taught what sex is at all. Of course you cannot make someone fear something they don't even know.

>>21565

> while ours is one of the highest in any developed nation

But what is 'ours'? USA?

> average age of first sexual intercourse is a little lower (15), it is partially because their AOC is lower (also 15)

In which respect does the age of consent influence the age at which teenagers first have sex? I'd believe that an average teenager doesn't even know (or at least care) about age of consent laws when he/she decides whether to have sex.

>>21544

No, it isn't. It's not threatening anything. Stop being melodramatic: your life is not that interesting.

>>21574

>But what is 'ours'? USA?

There is no where else someone as retarded as this guy could come from except the USA. Maybe Sub-Saharan Africa but niggers can't use computers

>In which respect does the age of consent influence the age at which teenagers first have sex?

Laws tend to influence the culture, also when parents can actually threaten to throw your partner in jail if they found out, it tends to influence your decision

>>21580

> Laws tend to influence the culture

That's a somewhat broad truism, isn't it?

> parents can actually threaten to throw your partner in jail if they found out

I see. I thought of cases where this is also the other way round, i.e. girl and boy both being under the age of consent. On the other hand, if your parents threaten to throw your partner in jail, there's something more wrong with your relationship (with parents, with partner) than just your age.

>>21588

>if your parents threaten to throw your partner in jail, there's something more wrong with your relationship (with parents, with partner) than just your age.

Parents tend to be protective of their children, especially female children, so it's not really that odd. Honestly, he should be glad the reaction was to not go for the gun.

>>21574

>Of course you cannot make someone fear something they don't even know.

You can easily promote fear in the broad sense. Like, "don't go anywhere unsupervised by a parent or someone your parent trusts or something horrible will happen to you." Of course, that means that the parent has to vet her child's supervisors to make sure they aren't child molesters, but that should be an expected parental job.

>>21589

> Parents tend to be protective of their children, especially female children

Yet throwing your child's boy-/girlfriend into jail – or threatening to do so – probably isn't the (psychologically) best way to get along with your heavily pubescent child. If your child isn't pubescent yet … well, then the act of throwing your child's mate in prison is something for the 'molested children get psychic problems only because they're being made to believe something bad has happened!' guys to discuss.

> Honestly, he should be glad the reaction was to not go for the gun.

If her parents are that explosive, yes, besides that he should have been more careful before in the first place.

>>21592

> You can easily promote fear in the broad sense.

Do I have to read this as 'I want my children to grow up in an environment of pervasive fear'? Do you really want children to feel threatened all the time?

> Like, "don't go anywhere unsupervised by a parent or someone your parent trusts or something horrible will happen to you."

I was been told warnings like that very often in my childhood. In fact 'protect yourself' workshops were held at our school back then telling us how we should behave if someone tried to trick us into his car etc. But if my parents had tried to sexually abuse me, no advice of that kind would have helped. And as statistics show that in most child abuse cases (80%) the abuser is a close relative of the child, I wouldn't fear phrases like the one you suggested consider that effective. (http://www.safehorizon.org/page/child-abuse-facts-56.html)

> the parent has to vet her child's supervisors to make sure they aren't child molesters

How would you do that?

> that should be an expected parental job

Yes, of course parents should try their best to keep their children away from child molesters in the first place. But you can usually not be absolutely sure you haven't accidentally missed one.

>>21595

> I wouldn't fear phrases like the one you suggested consider that effective.

Oops, I think I've created a garden path sentence. Should have been 'I wouldn't consider ["fear phrases" like the one you suggested] [that effective].'

>>21595

>Do I have to read this as 'I want my children to grow up in an environment of pervasive fear'? Do you really want children to feel threatened all the time?

The world is a terrifying place. Maybe we forgot that when we traded Grimm's death filled fairy tales for Disney's.

>But if my parents had tried to sexually abuse me, no advice of that kind would have helped. And as statistics show that in most child abuse cases (80%) the abuser is a close relative of the child

There's really nothing we can do if it's a parent. Children are going to trust and blindly comply with their parents no matter what you tell them.

>How would you do that?

That's why we have tools like sex offender registries.

>>21592

Looks like you are the one destroying the innocence of children, not their educators. Go fuck yourself with a rake

>>21607

Explain.

>>21608

Innocence, when applied to children, generally means innocence of evil. You are advocating exaggerating the evils in the world and not teaching them about the beautiful things in order to make them afraid and easier to control.

That is the problem with fear-based education, eventually the kid is going to figure out that you lied and then your basis for control over them is gone, leading them to make stupid, childish decisions. Hence the fact that America's teen pregnancy rate is far above that of any of the European countries that have mandatory sexual education woven into their middle/elementary school Biology classes

>>21609

>Innocence, when applied to children, generally means innocence of evil

Pretty much every children's story written has a bad guy in it. Children already have this sort of idealistic good vs evil view on life. I don't see how it would cause them to lose innocence. It's not like you are telling them that the evil people are very likely their close friends or, most disturbingly, themselves, both of which they can find out as they get older.

>You are advocating exaggerating the evils in the world and not teaching them about the beautiful things in order to make them afraid and easier to control. Eventually the kid is going to figure out that you lied

That's the thing, it's not an exaggeration. The world really is that messed up. I don't think it's even possible in words to describe how crazy this world we live in is and how easily you can lose everything.

>Hence the fact that America's teen pregnancy rate is far above that of any of the European countries that have mandatory sexual education woven into their middle/elementary school Biology classes

Yet they have more teen sexuality, which you apparently think is OK as long as they use condom like pregnancy is the only problem with youth delinquency.

>>21610

You are saying to tell them, "don't go anywhere unsupervised by a parent or someone your parent trusts or something horrible will happen to you." or "anyone who wants to have sex with you is a bad person who wants to hurt you". Those are lies

If they use condoms they will not spread STDs or get pregnant, what harm comes of kids being kids then? 15 year-olds are post-pubescent, it's not like they are being prematurely sexualized.

>>21610

>Yet they have more teen sexuality, which you apparently think is OK as long as they use condom like pregnancy is the only problem with youth delinquency.

It's one of the most pressing issues with teen sexuality, and condoms also happen to reduce STDs, so yes we generally do.

You lose dude. You've been losing this whole thread. Just stop. You're dead wrong. Just. Stop.

>>21611

>don't go anywhere unsupervised by a parent or someone your parent trusts or something horrible will happen to you

That isn't a lie at all. At the very least the child could get lost.

>anyone who wants to have sex with you is a bad person who wants to hurt you

You can't deny that the vast number of people who are just trying to get laid do, in fact, care very little for the people they are having sex with and just view them as another notch in the bedpost.

>A15 year-olds are post-pubescent, it's not like they are being prematurely sexualized.

You don't immediately become an adult post-puberty. Which leads immediately to:

>what harm comes of kids being kids then

It shows a lack of discipline, that's what.

>>21597

> The world is a terrifying place. Maybe we forgot that when we traded Grimm's death filled fairy tales for Disney's.

Even in fairy tales there's always a happy ending. Many older people complain that today's children are growing up much less happily than in their own childhood's times. I don't know why – if it's true at all – but compared with cold war kids, today's children seem to be experiencing less fear than they did. I wonder if this is really that bad?

> Children are going to trust and blindly comply with their parents

Giving fictional characters is not very convincing, but what about Jenny from Forrest Gump?

> That's why we have tools like sex offender registries.

And if the sex offender register doesn't contain that person because they haven't gotten amerciable yet?

>>21610

>>21623

> Yet they have more teen sexuality, which you apparently think is OK as long as they use condom like pregnancy is the only problem with youth delinquency.

> It shows a lack of discipline, that's what.

Whoah wait, are you comparing teen delinquency to consensual sex? A dangerous argument you're delivering there.

>>21611

> Those are lies

Let's draw a less far-fetched comparison. As far as I know, most children get told in elementary school or even earlier what they must not do to people because they would die from it, e.g. stabbing them with a knife etc. They're being told 'don't do this' because nobody wants them to become murderers. (And sadly enough, accidents still happen.) What's different when the subject comes to sex? If you don't want children to commit sex, like you don't want them to commit murder, you could be telling them what actions sex can comprise and that they must not perform them because … well, because you don't want them to have sex. There isn't really a rational reason a child could understand that explains why they shouldn't be having sex. (There isn't a reason either why they should already have sex. But that there is no reason to do something is usually not a compelling reason not to do it.) Most (pre-pubescent) children won't by themselves be willing to have sex either, so that's not the problem. The problem is that you don't want them to have sex, but aren't really able to convince them of that. Your solution is to just leave them in the dark, that is, keeping them ignorant. Because you don't see any advantage in letting them know if I understood that correctly, explaining away all possible advantages we were trying to point out with abstrusely hazy disadvantages that sound like you're just too afraid of children being in the know, as if knowledge were something dangerous.

>>21624

>but compared with cold war kids, today's children seem to be experiencing less fear than they did

Certainly not in the US. Thanks to 9/11 and the war on terror parents are more protective and give less freedom to their kids now than ever.

>Giving fictional characters is not very convincing, but what about Jenny from Forrest Gump?

Wasn't Jenny a hippie? I can just ascribe that to bad cultural influence. Basically the same attitudes I'm arguing against in this thread.

>And if the sex offender register doesn't contain that person because they haven't gotten amerciable yet?

That could be applied to any crime, really. There's no way to predict if a non-offender

might eventually offend.

>Whoah wait, are you comparing teen delinquency to consensual sex?

Except underage sex isn't consensual. If a 15 year old has sex with a 13 year old, they are both committing rape.

>>21610

> Yet they have more teen sexuality, which you apparently think is OK

I'm not >>21609, but the situation is 'less teen pregnancy, more teen sexuality', isn't it? You say this is bad, but the first (less teen pregnancy) is obviously positive, and I don't really see why you have to consider the second (more teen sexuality) negative then. And what the fuck does it have to do with youth delinquency?

>>21623

> You don't immediately become an adult post-puberty.

That's why 15-year-olds still have to be prevented from bad things like becoming pregnant at a far too low age. Yet you seem to be denying them this guidance by saying they should be kept ignorant of how to prevent becoming pregnant. You're basically saying they shouldn't have sex and if they have, they must not know how to do it in a proper way. Which by the fact that you cannot effectively prevent them from having sex, as >>21524 and so on pointed out, leads to the conclusion that you're encouraging teen pregnancies, spreading of STDs and several other severe issues. You're a selfish ignorant moral-and-principle bigot.

>>21626

> That could be applied to any crime, really. There's no way to predict if a non-offender might eventually offend.

> Wasn't Jenny a hippie?

He's talking about the fact that she was being abused by her father and therefore did not (!) 'blindly comply' with him.

And that's exactly why your 'parents can check for abusers' argument is bullshit.

> If a 15 year old has sex with a 13 year old, they are both committing rape.

In many European countries, only the 15-year-old is.

>>21628

>He's talking about the fact that she was being abused by her father and therefore did not (!) 'blindly comply' with him.

I've never seen or read Forest Gump, so I don't know the situation, but I'll assume that when she was home she did whatever he father wanted to do and then ran away from home or something.

>In many European countries, only the 15-year-old is.

in the US 16 is the lowest it goes.

>>21626

> Certainly not in the US. Thanks to 9/11

Yes, you're right. This obviously depends on the region where someone lives, and discussing actual fear levels doesn't lead anywhere anyway, so we should stop discussing this.

> Wasn't Jenny a hippie?

She became a hippie after running away from her father who was an alcoholic and probably abused her (at least in the movie only suggested, but strongly suggested). There is one scene in which her father calls out for her to come in (maybe to abuse her again), but she takes Forrest (who is and stays oblivious to what's going on) and takes refuge in a crop field: She obviously didn't obey her father anymore.

> I can just ascribe that to bad cultural influence. Basically the same attitudes I'm arguing against in this thread.

Trying to impose your own cultural views on others is probably not the best strategy to cope with people as their reaction, if they don't agree with your cultural views, will not be so positive. It can range from polite lack of understanding to outright aversion (just as you're experiencing it in this thread).

Kept in perspective, sex isn't any different from other social interactions humans have developed – and sometimes lost again – during the history of mankind. Except that it wasn't really humans who invented sex, but nature (as a method of procreation). There is no 'natural' reason why sleeping together (as in 'sleeping with each other') should be viewed differently than e.g. eating together. Both are social interactions that are supposed to be enjoyed by everyone taking part, both are about the satisfaction of carnal longings (that can both be very strong) and so on. There is of course the difference that eating is necessary to survive while having sex isn't, but for the social aspect it's a detail that doesn't matter that much. And as several indigene cultures that can be found throughout the world show, it has happened that sex would be seen just as normal as food intake. So why is this not the case in our 'Western' culture? That's what Mr. 'sex is normal, everyone has sex' is basically going on about. My diplomatic answer would be: Because there is in our society a strong (and very old) notion of sex being 'animalistic' and therefore unfitting for a species whose self-image is that of a 'super-animalistic race', or pride of creation. Thus, people who argue in favour of not having sex often employ arguments along the lines of 'we're no fucking animals, we're human beings'. Yet all of that isn't quite helpful as until 1978 (when the first baby made by artificial insemination was born) the human kind vitally needed sex – to procreate. I'm not going to analyze how this has affected the way social standard (e.g. marriage) have evolved, but I want to remark that as early as around 1930 Aldous Huxley already noticed that sex and procreation should be able to get separated (and therefore, his conclusion, will be separated in the future).

In this respect, there is yet another way the relationship between mankind and sex can be seen. I'm thinking of Arnold Gehlen and his theory of humans being 'deficit creatures' (tracing back to Herder) stating what defines humans as being superior to other animals is that they have overcome their natural deficits (no selection-beneficial specialization) by shaping their environment instead of getting shaped. More generally, that they have overcome the state of being steered by nature's necessities and reached a state in which they can use whatever nature has given them for their own discretion. Thinking of that, I somtimes wonder why this isn't true for sex, i.e. why sex shouldn't be used by us for our own discretion as well, instead of just seeing it as a way of procreation, i.e. a necessity imposed on us by nature. Isn't using it just the way nature supposes us to do neglecting our superiority towards other animals that do just the same?

Continued:

> That could be applied to any crime, really. There's no way to predict if a non-offender might eventually offend.

That's what I was talking about; there is no practical way to predict if someone will offend a child. I myself consider being prepared for the worst case better than desperately trying to avoid that case at any cost. (Of course you shouldn't be negligent about that either.)

> Except underage sex isn't consensual. If a 15 year old has sex with a 13 year old, they are both committing rape.

In the legal sense, maybe, but are you realizing how stupid that sounds? 'They are both committing rape [to each other]'. With the concept of 'rape' that I have in mind, two people simultaneously raping each other sounds just ridiculous. Telling you to turn on your reason could be considered some kind of an insult, so I won't do so, but please consider that you don't magically turn 'able to consent' the moment you turn 18/16/whatever. Even at a significantly younger age people are, as a matter of fact, able to 'consent', if not in the legal sense, at least in a 'common sense' sense. So I would definitely state 'underage' consensual sex is possible, of course not in a legal sense. And in this respect, you're not only comparing a legal term (teen delinquency) to a casual one (no-one here was talking about the legality of sex, just about sex as it happens between young people), you're comparing 'apples to pears'. (If you don't get what I'm trying to get across, think of it as if there weren't any laws except for general ethics, not even moral concepts. If both believe they've consented to having sex, they have consented. For what we're talking about, subjectivity is crucial.)

>>21623

Again, I said you were exaggerating. You said something bad WILL happen, which you contradicted by saying they only COULD get lost. This distinction is a big part of the difference between fear-based teaching and practical teaching

>It shows a lack of discipline

Topkek

There is also the question: How are you supposed to be able to teach children biology, namely theory of evolution, if they don't even know how procreation works?

>>21637

>Again, I said you were exaggerating. You said something bad WILL happen, which you contradicted by saying they only COULD get lost. This distinction is a big part of the difference between fear-based teaching and practical teaching

It's not really a contradiction, something bad will happen, it just isn't known for certain what that bad thing is. Getting lost is just a single possibility in the multitude of bad stuff.

>There is also the question: How are you supposed to be able to teach children biology, namely theory of evolution, if they don't even know how procreation works?

First of all, this is really a high school subject, but anyway, even small children understand the concept of ancestors, they have grandparents and uncles and so on. So it's not that hard to explain that certain groups of animals share common ancestors, which is the basics of evolution.

>>21656

Hold on, are you saying that an unsupervised child will have something bad happen to them 100% of the time? If you let your kid walk by themselves to the park down the block they are sure to either get lost, get taken, or whatever other scenarios you have cooked up in your crazy mind? I figured you were divorced from reality, but this really takes the cake

>>21666

Murphy's law. If anything can go wrong, it will.

>>21656

> First of all, this is really a high school subject

Is it? Where I live, children learn this in elementary school. Well, not all the details, but the details, like how genetic reproduction works, what a DNA is, Mendel's rules or the principles of selection and mutation, are handed in later in grade 7 or so.

> groups of animals share common ancestors, which is the basics of evolution

The basis of evolution, as far as we know, is mutation and selection, and genes being passed on to offspring. While selection can be explained without the details of procreation, and mutation needs only the details of genetics, not the details of sex, the way genes are being recombined and passed on does at least need the details of how children are made. Even if you omit how an egg and a sperm cell get together in the first place, you need to explain to children what egg cells and sperm are and how all that stuff works. However, as you've not yet answered the question given in >>21524

> Apropos, what about children asking why boys look different down there than girls? Does answering that question count as sex education?

I don't even know whether you subsume this (where children come from) under sex education.

>>21677

Haha, now you're either joking or serving yourself a disservice. Such an answer shows that you really have no idea how our world works, including the humorous nature of Murphy's law. Heck, if you really believe Murphy's law is a law of nature, you cannot have any common sense.

And if you were joking, I wonder if you just don't have any serious argument against what >>21666 said or are too afraid it's a bad argument.

In either case, whether you were joking or being serious, this shows you've been rendered unable to justify you position, that is, you've lost. Hopefully you'll accept this now.

Also, I would be interested in what you have to say to what >>21632 wrote. If you don't respond to that, I'll even more believe you've realized your defeat.

Also interesting how our Mr. "sex is bad" cleverly circumnavigates the questions that he isn't able to answer without betraying his position, just by not responding to them, posting bunches of new claims instead that are so utterly idiosyncratic their discussion makes everyone completely forget the problematic questions that remain still unanswered. Guys, I think he's already seen his opinion's shortcomings (or he's really, really myopic) and is just trying to save face. It would be nicer of you (and help this thread stay somewhat down-to-business) if you didn't push new arguments in his face anymore. (Like, don't feed the troll.) Then we could get back to this thread's original purpose.

>>20575

> By the end I was mentally tired and could tell she was trying to soak it all in but her little brain couldn't handle it all.

You were trying to serve everything at once. You have to present it in palatable, bite-sized bits, like serialized.

Hey Mr. "Uh children shouldn't be told about sex", how are you going to explain to a pubescent child the changes his/her body is undergoing if you don't want to tell them it's so that they can have children? Which you can't tell them, because you would have to tell them before how babies are made, and you said you wouldn't do so before they're at least 17 years old, but puberty starts a lot earlier.

>>21682

Come on, we learned about deodorant and lady products far before we learned about sex. I think that was part of my, "you are entering high school" talk. Or maybe it was middle school, I don't remember. Either way far before sex ed.

>>21680

I just never got around to reading his post because it's too lengthy and it sounds like it came from a college manual.

>>21678

>In either case, whether you were joking or being serious, this shows you've been rendered unable to justify you position, that is, you've lost. Hopefully you'll accept this now.

Obviously, considering your posts shows that you are a risk-taking individual, while I'm a risk-adverse one and therefore our views will never reconcile. There is no way you would see the huge risk in teaching a child about sex, or if you do, would just ignore it.

>>21710

You mean your views will never reconcile with reality.

We've shown why you are wrong. Opinions don't even come into play here. You just are not right, and your utter wrongness has had a huge hand in hurting children and young adults, and thank yeezus its it's over and done with in education.

>>21710

> Come on, we learned about deodorant and lady products far before we learned about sex.

And that has to do with my question because of …?

If a pubescent asks you why it's suddenly happening that his penis is stiff every morning, you cannot tell him if you don't want him to know about sex.

> I just never got around to reading his post because it's too lengthy and it sounds like it came from a college manual.

Whose posts?

>>21710

> There is no way you would see the huge risk in teaching a child about sex, or if you do, would just ignore it.

There seems to be no way you would see the huge risk in not teaching a child about sex, or if you do, you are certainly ignoring it. Seems you are much more risk-taking than I am.

Or are you talking about the risk of making a fool of yourself by trying to explain sex to a child? Don't be afraid of trying it. It's not in the least as risky as a child who's never learned the risks behind sex (involuntary pregnancies, STDs and so forth) accidentally participating in what he/she doesn't know to be sex when he/she grows up without knowing how to do this properly.

>>21717

> thank yeezus its it's over and done with in education

Don't feel too confident about that, there's a lot of schools in the US where education means religious indoctrination or where teaching the important things is prohibited by law. It's even worse in third-world countries.

>>21725

>If a pubescent asks you why it's suddenly happening that his penis is stiff every morning, you cannot tell him if you don't want him to know about sex.

No, you can't. My parents just said "you'll understand when you're older" and I was satisfied with that at the time.

>>21727

> No, you can't.

At least something we agree on.

> I was satisfied with that at the time

So that explains why you're obviously unable to understand why knowledge is so utterly important: You lack the least bit of natural curiosity. Given that knowledge (!), I'm finally able to understand your strange view on how our world works: Projecting your own boring frugality on others, you assume that everyone will be 'satisfied with that' and that everyone will behave the same way you did/do. Of course, discussing with someone who's this incapable of imagining that others might be different is ultimately pointless, so I'm declining to continue this. May others try their luck with you. However, If I may give you one final advice, having finally been able to diagnose what your problem is: As you're both unable to acknowledge the differences between humans and unwilling to learn, don't even discuss anything with other people. Stay away from discussions, especially from discussion boards. You may not consider it a trouble yourself, but trying to take part in a discussion, you're really, really bothersome to others who are keen to a serious debate and, as you might have noticed, tend to react quite upset about discussion partners who both hold a marginal view (or a view considered marginal there) and refuse to either be open-minded or explain their position in a way appropriate for their audience. Be fair, don't flood threads. It isn't worth it.

I wouldn't have been satisfied with "you'll understand when you're older".

>>21717

> Opinions don't even come into play here.

'No sex before marriage' is an opinion, isn't it? Regardless of whether his baulky views are correct or not, it's his fucking right to have an opinion like 'no sex before marriage'. We must never forget Mr Voltaire: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' Even if 'what you say' contradicts almost every ideal enlightenment has helped us achieve as rights.

>>21735

If your first inclination when you meet someone who has a different viewpoint to them is to tell him to avoid all discussion with other people, you may want to take your own advice about being more open-minded.

>>21737

> your first inclination when you meet someone who has a different viewpoint

First, it wasn't my first inclination, but my last. Second, my advice wasn't because of you or someone having a different viewpoint but that person's attitude of refusing to adhere to any basic principle of the foundations of discussion.

Oh, I just saw…

>>21736

> We must never forget Mr Voltaire

Please respect this. Try to be what enlightenment wants us to be. Ask the right questions. Rid yourself of any mental barrier. Sapere aude, dare to use your own mind. Release yourself from your self-incurred tutelage. Read >>21632. But don't bother others with your unwillingness to adjust yourself to those you're discussing with. Don't bother others with your refusal of learning. Don't accuse others of not allowing you your right to express your views unless you're also willing to have your views challenged and willing to seiously concern yourself with your views' criticism. There really is no fucking point in starting or taking part in a discussion with the sole purpose of enforcing your own beliefs against any resistance. I'd be very much obliged if you could just stop flooding this thread with anything anymore, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Thank you.

Could we please just return to the original topic? Sigh…

>>20633

> filename "loli mit echse.jpg"

Is your country Germany?

Sex education in Germany is not the best you can think of, but one of the best you can find. (Now.) What you wrote sounds like a pretty wise curriculum.

>>20637

> If a child really wants to learn about sex, he can just look it up on the Internet.

And what will it find? Porn, probably. And porn, as we all should know, isn't what real sex is or is supposed to be like. Explaining them how sex is supposed to be is a much better idea. Regardless of when (but should be before they happen to find porn online, and that can be pretty early if things go as wrong as they usually do).

> So, in other words, children who had no interest in sex are now showing an interest?

No, in other words children who were until then too embarassed to ask about sex were now encouraged to show the interest they already had. It's that kind of loss of innocence that has to happen in a controlled way.

> sex ed that I slept through because […] there were no tests to encourage you to pay attention

A very bad idea of Virginia. Regardless of when it happens, sex education should be made in a way the students absorb it properly. It's far too important to be slept through.

>>20670

The mother will probably say 'You'll understand when you're older'… :)

>>21201

Automated shitpost detection would be nice, but rather hard, if not impossible, to implement. Otherwise we could think about the next level, automatically deleting posts that disturb this board's harmony, like e.g. >>21374 ff.

Again, could we please just return to the original topic? Sigh…

Just to remind you: The original topic was

> How would YOU personally explain sex to a little one?

>>21748

"You'll understand when your older."

>>21749

Nice explanation. In case irony isn't one of your assets: It doesn't explain anything at all, so it isn't an explanation.

>>21772

I think he was being ironic himself.

>>21772

Being an adult gives you permission to do that sort of thing to children.

>>21779

It still isn't an explanation. And OP was asking for explanations ("How would YOU personally explain sex to a little one?").

>>21779

'Whenever humans are being kept in nescience on purpose, it's to preserve the privileges of those who do know. Yet another thing that never changes.' Eschbach, Quest

>>21803

Refusing to offer an explanation is in it self a sort of explanation. It conveys the idea that the subject in question is taboo and forbidden, both of which are excellent descriptors of sex. So by not conveying a concrete idea of what sex is, you perfectly convey society's repressive attitude on sex.

>>21894

A child who's smart enough to figure out by himself/herself what you wrote there is very likely to be also smart enough to understand any explanation of sex that doesn't refuse to offer an explanation.

Unfortunately, most children aren't this smart. Most adults aren't either.

>>21918

It's an unconscious process, not a conscious one.

>>21919

Yes, you call this socialization. And as socialization is indeed unconscious, you cannot draw any conscious knowledge from it. And that's why most children, even if they unconsciously understand what you're trying to tell them, won't draw anything from it they could embody in their conscious mind, leading to them not achieving any information gain, which should be the main purpose of an explanation. So apart from the question whether to tell children about sex or not – and society's attitude towards sex, which heavily depends on which society we're talking about, and there are societies which aren't very repressive regarding sex, e.g. in Sweden –, if you did (or had to, whatever), how would you do it? (And I don't necessarily mean you personally, it's a question to everybody here.)

>>21710

> you are a risk-taking individual, while I'm a risk-adverse one

No, sir, that's not what you two differ by. You're just only seeing the risks of children abusing knowledge about sex, whil he's just seeing the risks of children being abuse-prone due to ignorance; so both of you are seeing risks you want to avoid, but differ in what they are.

The real reason why you're not finding common ground is that you just seem to have an irrationally strong aversion to children having the least contact with anything the least sex-related and are desperately trying to find anything logical-sounding that backs your opinion, while he just seems to have an irrationally strong aversion to children being kept ignorant and is desperately trying to find anything that could convince you of his opinion. I'd like to believe it's because he's worried about what could happen to your hypothetical children if you keep them ignorant, but in truth he's probably just as a stubborn faggot as you are.

Another common similarity between the two of you is that you're both making convincingly valid points, but sadly based on assumptions that can only be present in a perfect world (of according kind); like your infamous "if you live in a safe neighborhood" premise. So it's not remarkable that you cannot agree. The truth probably lies somewhere in between your extremist positions.

>>21305

>Saying that teaching children about sex results in a loss of innocence implies that sex is inherently evil or sinful, which is exactly the kind of shit we shouldn't be teaching children.

Thank you. This whole loss of innocence thing needs to be buried. Right next to putting sex and virginity on pedestals.

>>21542

>>21592

Seriously?

A broad sense?

Not just sex education which chooses to downplay the positive side of things while purposely emphasizing the negative aspects of sex to discourage them?

Argh, I read people's points which sound like their going somewhere with it then it ends up going nowhere of value and gets shot down into a derailment of fighting some losing battle.

No sure if we are still talking about sex ed, but this thread (http://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/375dtx/puberty_2015_sexual_education_norwegian_state/) was an interesting read and the videos have some very … interesting seconds in it.

I'm surprised nobody else here has watched porn with a kid. Definitely gets a conversation started.

>>22236

I've watched porn with a kid in the room (she was asleep and I had my laptop on some nice HC videos and jerking off with her feet and eventually came on her butt. pulled her panties down a bit then cleaned her up before parents came home) but that isn't the same thing

Never actively watched porn with a child. I wouldn't want to show them that anyway. Well, at least not the porn I watch

I mean kids don't mind kisses in movies and think humping is funny but I have seen a few that enjoy humping scenes (though you don't see the nudity)

I was caught watching a porno once by a little girl. She saw me quickly close my laptop and asked what I was doing and watching. I had my erect penis out (since masturbating) and just told her I was watching movies and making myself feel good

If she kept on pushing I might have tried something with her but she just looked at my penis for a few seconds, asked if she could watch what I was watching (i said no), then she left back to her room. I feel I did the right thing

>>22237

I was at a friends house messing around on his computer when I found his video folder. His 6 year old cousin walked in and we watched clips for about 20 minutes. I went by the thumbnail and filename to choose raunchier stuff trying to find out what would be her limit. By the end, we were watching a pregnant girl getting DPed. Then her parents came back goddammit.

She was sitting in my lap for the last 15 minutes of it at least.

>>22238

How "on your lap" was she?

Did you place her directly on her erection, so she could feel it on her anus, or did she sit sideways more so on your thigh?

>>22239

I was wary of letting on at first but by the time there were people fucking, my boner was probably not the most novel thing she was experiencing. She showers with her dad and has made references before to hard thingies.

>>22236

Also highly illegal.

>>22247

Not everywhere.

>>22248

Where is contributing to delinquency of a minor not a crime?

>>22293

Why should a child be delinquent just because of watching porn? I'd rather say it's the one showing it to them who's breaking the law, not the children. Remember, children won't usually know what porn is.

Where I live, children aren't criminally responsible anyway, and watching porn isn't illegal either (regardless of age), so showing porn to children isn't "contributing to delinquency of a minor", but it's still illegal (providing minors with sexually explicit material or something).

>>22331

>Why should a child be delinquent just because of watching porn?

CDM is just sort of the catch all crime for anything involving helping a child violate the law. It's illegal for a minor to possess pornography, and by letting the child look at porn, you are giving him porn (sort of) and it could be considered possession.

>Where I live, children aren't criminally responsible anyway, and watching porn isn't illegal either (regardless of age), so showing porn to children isn't "contributing to delinquency of a minor", but it's still illegal

So it's legal for a child to view porn on his own, but if you give a child a USB stick with porn he asked for, it's bad? You can complain about my laws being harsh on children, but at least it's more consistant.

>>22335

>It's illegal for a minor to possess pornography

No it isn't, it's illegal to distribute porn to a minor.

>You can complain about my laws being harsh on children, but at least it's more consistant.

You're right, is harsh, it's also incredibly stupid.

>>22335

I don't know about your laws but I just wondered why a child should be delinquent just because of looking at something. That doesn't sound very consistent to me; criminalizing the mere act of using your eyes (looking, watching, seeing etc.) is something I'd bluntly consider undemocratic. Freedom of information, ever heard of? People are free to consult any source they like. Or at least that's what those freedom laws are all about.

Of course providing someone with material considered inappropriate for them is another issue.

> So it's legal for a child to view porn on his own, but if you give a child a USB stick with porn he asked for, it's bad?

Yes, bad for me, not for the child, though. And if a child views porn on his own, I don't see why that should be illegal (or why anyone should care) really. The one who provided the child with that porn, however, shouldn't have done so. ("The one" could be the internet, and the internet will hardly be prosecuted, but that's not a problem of the legal system.)

By the way, if I provide a child with porn and I'm that child's parent or legal guardian, it can also legal, "for educational purposes", says the law, although I doubt any state attorney or judge would buy any explanation why porn should have been "for educational purposes".

> You can complain about my laws being harsh on children, but at least it's more consistant.

I'm not complaining about your laws, I'm just questioning the idea behind the issue itself, that is, the question why there should be anything children looking at which should be criminalized. I'd say that's not really a question of consistency but rather a question of what the intention behind the law is, i.e. what should be illegal and why.

>>22344

> No it isn't, it's illegal to distribute porn to a minor.

That obvioulsy differs from country to country.

>>22355

It's not looking that illegal, it's possessing. Generally in order to look at something, you need to possess it first, like you need to get a porno mag before you can look at a porno mag, or you need to download a file before you access it.

>walking to vending machines to grab some snacks at apartments

>walk back towards apartment

>qt waves at me and says "Hiiiiiiiiiii"

>wave back at qt "Hey gorgeous"

>I stop and just stare at her for a second

>"Lemme see it" she states

>See what?

>"It"

>nonchalantly laugh and walk home

First time she did this was about 5 weeks ago. Just told me again a few minutes ago (got me some cookies & chips)

She seems pretty set on seeing "it"

I don't think I can get in trouble by just showing her right? Like strictly for scientific purposes since she is curious

Should I film her of her asking me to see it for future purposes? Just in case anything goes wrong

>>22364

I think she just wanted to see what you got from the vending machine.

>>22367

LMFAO

If you are correct and that is what she was wanting to see then I have got this all wrong. Never even thought about that. My mind is glued on little girls all day so as you can see this is an easy mistake

Good thing you saw that. Might have made a HUGE mistake if I think she wanted to see what I was hoping she wanted to see

>>22364

>>22368

wut

You could try asking her what she wants to see. Like, further than "it." Eventually she'll describe something more, such as "what you always get when you come out here, can I have some?"

>>22403

Hey faggot, why you delete the sticky? Not only was an active, rule-abiding argument going, but that was my only link to that German site. Worst mod ever.

>>22404

I wonder what >>12607 is then if it isn't the sticky.

No real reason to list /km/'s open to everyone now, months later, so why keep it as a sticky?

>>22406

Oh, I saw it gone and assumed you deleted it. I guess I'm too quick to call you stupid. I admit that I was wrong, and I apologize.

>>22359

> It's not looking that illegal, it's possessing.

Well, children possessing porn being delinquent doesn't sound that weird to me, although I still wonder why preventing or not preventing people from possessing something based merely on age should be consistent. But there are many other examples of this being done, so it seems to have its use somehow.

On the other hand, that's not what the original dispute erupted around; the original problem was whether showing a child some porn would make the child a criminal, and as you needn't possess something to be shown it, according to your latest argumentation the child shouldn't be seen as a criminal as long as the person who shows the porn doesn't donate (or lend) it to the child. Or at least I consider being shown something a systematic exception to the principle "in order to look at something, you need to possess it first".

>>21589

Yeah. Uh that's something they only do in Dixie and some other 'conservative' regions of the US.

>>21589

Are you Arab, or from some way assbackward part of Latin America? Or are you a Redneck from Texas of Tennessee…

>>22538

Like, >>22537 said, I'm from below the Mason-Dixie line.

>>22540

unsurprising. (i was 22537 too). Again, that's very limited in culturla outlook.

So I go on to explain that sex is how people make more people, and that it makes men and women feel very good the science of why people want to have sex is because it is progamed into the brains of all animals to want to make more of them.

I also explain that some men and women like their own sex and that is normal too. That the feeling of love and attraction are biological. Then I go on to explain masturbation and the 12 yo starts getting embarrassed. I know she gets herself off when mom and dad aren't home and she thinks I'm with her sister, or the music is too loud to hear.

We had about half the conversation that day and I put on my best guilty face as they kept asking question after question. "Look, your mom and dad should really teach you about this stuff but if they don't, or they tell you something else you know they are lying to keep you safe. Next time I'm here we can talk more."

This went on for two years the the older sister turned out to be much more sexual than her mother who had her at the age of 18 and I later found out that she wanted to experiment with older boys because if what she had been watching on the internet. Gotta love unrestricted access. We ended up fooling around one night after her 13th birthday in the laundry room .

She liked giving oral as much as I liked giving it to her. That progressed to her grinding on top of my cock and when she got used to it that it wouldn't make her climax any more easily I asked her to try it on the inside. She was so cute the first time and I couldn't believe what was happening. A very willing and enthusiastic young girl on top of my lap getting herself off. When I picked her up and set her on the dryer I could barely contain myself. Every last bit of stamina I had I spent fucking this girl until she shook for 10 minuets before I pulled out and came on her little bare mound.

>>22741

>>22740

>>22737

>>22735

>>22734

Boring

>>22741

more please

>Be 26. My little is 13. Seated next to each other.

>"Anon, what is sex?"

>You should ask your mother or father that question.

>"I already did. I want to hear your answer."

>Well, sex is two people using their sexual organs to stimulate both their partner and themselves, for either expressing a passionate love or fulfilling a desired lust.

>"Drop the textbook, you know I'm not a dyke, so you don't need to pretend like you need to tell me what all sex is. If we were to have sex right now, what would it look like?"

>I'd put my penis into your vagina and we'd gyrate until we couldn't any longer.

>"That's what I thought"

>…Then I remember we are seated in the back of her school's auditorium listening to a play and the crowd cheers for the end of the second act and we both cheer with them.

>>23371

Hot

>>20575

I wouldn't since explaining sex is a parent's job and my kids won't address me by my name but as daddy, dad, father, etc. Regardless onto the actual question.

Probably something along the lines of

It is the process of human reproduction or an action with a similar overall feeling for at least one of the people involved. Sex involves two or more people, and you shouldn't do it until you fully understand the consequences of sex and what it might mean in the long run both for your health and your relationship with others. Unless you are having sex with the goal of having children you should always wear protection and take other methods to avoid accidental pregnancy. Also it is probably best for both you and your future children if you don't get pregnant until you are both married and financially stable.

Of course this uses the girl in the OP as a base, eg. a girl who is late prepubecent or early puberty, if a six year old or a five year old asked me I would probably ask them where they heard it and tell them something along the lines of what >>20598 says. For children ages like 8-10/11 probably do something in between. Regardless sheltering them from it is retarded, they will find out anyway, at least you can instill them basic ideas like protection and not getting pregnant.

>>20602

>My uncle is gay why doesn't he make babies?

Because he is too poor to afford a surrogate to house his baby for nine months and doesn't want a loveless marriage just for the sake of kids.

stick benis into vagoo

>>21398

found this http://illinoisfamily.org/110files/uploads/2013/05/Its-Perfectly-Normal.pdf