No.22605[Last 50 Posts]
I just want to know how many of you are pro or anti adult child sexual relationships. Do you believe children can consent and where should the age of consent be in your opinion? Do you believe adult child sexual relations are harmful in most or all cases?
I just want to see what the majority opinion on this subject is.
No.22606
younglove is probably a pretty even split. maybe slightly leaning towards pro.
its harmful in most cases, although that probably has a lot to do with predominantly antisocial assholes going out and doing it in this social climate while most sensible pedos aren't willing to risk it.
No.22609
No.22610
I think it should be 100% illegal to have sex with a girl before puberty, the AOC should be 14-16.
No.22611
>>22610
You mean 12-13. And it's 14 where I live.
No.22613
>>22609
i didnt say its inherently harmful you spaz stop being such a touchy bitch
No.22615
My attraction to children is mainly physical, and I don't think most are mature enough to be in a relationship. In fact, young people are becoming less and less mature every year. AoC should be increased, if anything
No.22617
No.22623
I'm against sexual contact. I don't think that it's intrinsically harmful, but there is an overwhelming risk that she will be hurt in the long run, due to societal pressures to make victimhood part of her identity, and that manufactured harm is still harm. I haven't thought much at all about age of consent, because I like 4ish-11ish, and those will never in a million quadrillion years be where the lines are drawn by the law.
And the boyfucker's degeneracies should never be acceptable. Don't push your faggotry on boys, double-perverts! But that opinion is mostly due to the fact that I have never meet a boy-pedo that I have liked; they are overwhelmingly stupid people who do stupid things.
No.22630
if a human is bad of course it will be harmful
we cant be stupid and outlaw things on an offchance something "might" go wrong or a child "might" get abused
see how well that is going here in America. lots of people in jail for nothing and lots of rape and torture and hush hush about keeping a child keep the secret
if we actually taught a child of sex and guided them in sexual contact from very young we wouldnt be in this shit hole posting anonymously
i believe child adult relations should be encouraged and would like to see this in the future. preferably in my life time
small petting is fine when they are very young but at age 5 and up is when they are good for fucking and penetration. we start teaching them super early, have sex with them at a nice young age, and guide them throughout their years
No.22634
If the circumstances are perfect (but they hardly ever are), I'm pro-adult-child sexual relationship.
I believe children can consent (they understand what they want and what they don't want), but that most aren't properly informed and educated. Without proper knowledge, children shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about sex because those decisions can drastically affect their lives and the lives of those they live with. So, until laws and procedures are put into place to educate children about sex and drive home the importance of such decisions at a younger age (around age 6 or 7 would be appropriate), I don't think children should be allowed to consent until they're at least 13-14. Even with proper education, I don't think AoC should drop below age 10.
I do not believe adult/child sexual relations are harmful physically when both individuals are consenting. However, in many cases, it can be harmful mentally and emotionally, and this relates to why I said at the beginning that circumstances need to be perfect for an adult/child relationship. Due to societal climate with respect to such relationships, the necessary secrecy and consequences involved make most adult/child relationships infeasible. A sexual relationship should be a comfortable relationship and that just isn't possible most of the time between an adult and a child.
No.22635
>>22634
Most adults aren't properly informed and educated either so the argument is non-sequitur.
No.22636
>>22605
>pro or anti adult child sexual relationships
Im anti child-adult sexual relationships, for numerous reasons.
>Do you believe children can consent and where should the age of consent be in your opinion?
I believe that children don't understand the ramifications of sex. Hell sexual relationships cause emotional turmoil in adults. So I don't think a child should be legally able to consent to sex with an adult. I personally think the age of consent should be 17.
>Do you believe adult child sexual relations are harmful in most or all cases?
I do think adult child sexual relations are harmful in all cases; because modern society is not structured in the way that a child-adult relationship can aid the development of a child. Even if it was I would still think it should be taboo I think sexual contact with an adult hampers the development of a child. Children are supposed to go to school and enjoy the company of older children, not become sex objects for the enjoyment of adults.
We all know that child abuse exists in a big way. There are child prostitutes that wealthy men (and women) exploit daily. These children are disposable in a world full of evil.
Any responsible adult attracted to children or not would abstain from sexual contact with a minor. I have; children find older individuals attractive but they don't understand how sex works. I like older women when I was young, but any woman who would have had sex with me at that young should have been punished.
It's natural.
No.22637
>>22635
Ahhh… it would be if children and adults were in the same situation, but an adult is better prepared and experienced enough to handle a bad decision, whereas a child is not. Thus, it's not a non-sequitur.
No.22638
No.22639
Maybe the fact that little girls and boys have been diddled before the right age (16-18 depending on where you live) is why our society is so fucked up. It's happened for most of human history.
No.22640
>>22636
Anyone older than 11 is not a child by strict scientific definition. Your whole argument is fallacious because it's been empirically proven that adult-child sex is NOT inherently harmful.
No.22641
>>22637
Your logic is still flawed because it presumes absolutes where none exist.
No.22643
>>22641
Which presumed absolutes are you referring to?
In reality, you're right, absolutes like an adult always being able to take care of them self due to experience don't exist. But in the eyes of society, that doesn't matter. Society says, if you're old enough to be an adult, then you can take care of yourself, whether you actually can or not. Society says, if you're not old enough to be an adult, then you're a child and you need to be taken care of and protected because you can't take care of yourself, regardless of whether that is true or not.
So, if that's the logical fallacy you were trying to point out, then it doesn't matter.
No.22644
>>22605
>Do you believe children can consent
Some can.
>and where should the age of consent be in your opinion?
Onset of menstruation for girls. Onset of puberty for boys.
This is for opposite-sex interactions. AoC should be 18 for faggotry.
>Do you believe adult child sexual relations are harmful in most or all cases?
Not inherently when there is consent, as the research shows. See the rest of the thread for the "revictimization" concept.
No.22645
>>22643
So you're countering a logical fallacy with another logical fallacy (appeal to majority)?
No.22647
File: 1433600659571.jpg (143.73 KB, 912x616, 114:77, We are going to end your f….jpg)
Oh god OP, why did you have to make this thread?
16 replies in and we already have fallacyfags, childfuckers, homophobes (topkek you hypocrites) and a faggot linking to wikipedia because thats so smurt ;DDDD
Fuck you OP
No.22648
>>22647
>le Wikipedia is not a valid source maym :^)
No.22649
>Do you believe children can consent and where should the age of consent be in your opinion?
Most children can consent, however the age of consent should remain as is at 16/18-ish, with all the romeo and juliet laws that give 3-4 year age difference a leeway. Another benchmark age should be made at 14, where offenders would only receive a decriminalised punishment. For offences with minors below 14, sentencing and punishment should be as is, with an option for the victim to drop charges if there is no evidence for use of force. I will explain the reasoning for this.
>Do you believe adult child sexual relations are harmful in most or all cases?
In most cases, yes, yes of course. The child will always have less experience in the relationship, the cards are always in the adult's hands. Do fairytale romances happen? Sure they do, but more often than not they don't. Look at chads and PUAs that pick up women and toss them aside once they've had their fill. Look at trailer trash that can only resort to violence to discipline their kids, all those cases of washed up negligent single parents and divorce cases where gaining custody is purely to spite your ex-partner. Adults in the right are already fucking up kids, and breaking hearts. Do you really want to change laws that will combine these two elements?
When you make a law, it's not for the sake of pleasing the most people or being morally just, it's to prevent unfairness in the most objective way possible. I believe some kids can consent quite well, and definitely have comparable ability to adults once they are 15, but on the other hand, there're a great deal who won't be able to make proper decisions well into their 30s.
The age of consent as it is works as a control, it reflects the age at which education is suitable to ensure a stable income, better guaranteeing that the individual will be able to shoulder the burdens of sexual relationships, it works, and should remain as is.
The harsh penalty of diddling 17 year olds is completely fucking unreasonable, it should be brought down to 14, and age where a minors decisions definitely have weightage. However, it still should have a penalty to discourage it, because if a relationship forms and fails in this age range, the kid will still be fucked more than the adult.
And for the rare, off, relationships between preteens and adults where it works out, there should be a way for the kid to drop charges if found out. The courts should always be in favour of the victim, putting the the offender in a de facto statutory rape scenario. The child has to come into the defence of the adult, else it's charged rape through and through.
Any other system leads to kids being taken advantage of through loopholes or 18 year olds being fucked over for fucking 17 year olds.
>>22647
>gr8 b8 m8
No.22651
>>22649
>In most cases, yes, yes of course.
Prove it. Empirical evidence shows otherwise.
No.22652
>>22651
What empirical evidence?
No.22654
No.22655
>>22648
>le wikipedia brings my point across meme :s
You could at least link to a site actually dedicated to only philosophy/logic instead of fucking Wikipiidia. Their articels are to short and simplified to be valid. Though, if you would actually understand these issues you would explain it in your own words.
Rind was ripped apart, this is even mentioned in the wiki. Referring to it just shows that you are an uneducated idiot like most pedophiles who doesnt understand methodology, argumentation or the scientific method.
No.22656
>>22654
you posted a wikipedia page that doesnt actually have any of the evidence on it, just an outline of the analysis itself
if youre such a blithering retard you think mindlessly posting a link to a summary of a gigantic meta-analysis and not actually posting any of the information itself then save every single other pedo on earth the embarrassment and dont post at all
go read the studies yourself. copy paste the data. bring it back here. no one is doing your work for you and yes it is your work because you are the one pushing it.
No.22659
>>22654
>Approximately 1.8 million adolescents in the United States have been the victims of sexual assault. (http://www.nsopw.gov/en/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#victims)
Oh yes, the 8000 or so adult-minor sexual relationships that worked out in the study, absolutely dwarves the near 2 million cases of kids being fucked up. Rind offered evidence that it doesn't always end in tears, but for your average adult-child, or even adult-minor sexual relationship, it's overwhelmingly in the psychological trauma category. Nice job proving my point.
>>22655
>>22656
Rind checks out for what it is really. If you want to talk shit about psychological studies, blame the fact that it's a psuedo-science evidenced by politic climate. And Wikipedia is a valid source(sometimes).
No.22660
>>22639
I agree, people who've been sexually abused (even "mildly") usually end up messed up or race mix when they're older.
No.22661
>>22647
>childfuckers
>homophobes
leave.
No.22662
>>22655
>>22656
Or you could check Wikipedia's sources and inform yourself, you fucking samefag. My job is not to spoonfeed your lazy ass.
And the Rind study triggering autistic denial does not disprove anything.
No.22663
>>22659
>trusting feminazi government statistics
>ignoring the fact that later studies confirmed the Rind study even after correcting the methodological flaws
tip top kek
No.22664
>>22662
or you could do your fucking job like i told you to the first time you worthless piece of shit
its your faggot fucking job. do it. DO IT.
No.22665
but wait let me guess you havent read the god damned thing beyond the wiki page yourself have you?
No.22667
>>22663
Are you mentally retarded or such a pathetic ruseman that you can only target dying boards with less than 40 users?
2 million abuse cases to 8000 cases of minimal effect, is equivalent to over 200 forced sexual encounters for every healthy relationship. Even if you take into account all the false reports and exceptions that were prosecuted and added to statistics, that's still a whopping difference. You can't just wave away a 200 over times chance of a minor being harmed, and it means fuck all if Rind is true or not when the likelihood of a bad diddle is that much higher.
This simple logic is empirical evidence that children are harmed in most cases, your meme study is moot in regards to that.
No.22669
>>22667
Yeah, I bet you believe in the 1-in-4 women are raped lie too despite rape being on steady decline for the past 50 years as per the FBI's own data, don't you?
No.22670
>>22664
>>22665
>samefagging this hard
Oh wow, you sure are this upset ;^)
No.22677
>>22669
It doesn't even have to be 2 million, it can be half of that, it can be just 50000 cases, that's 1/40 the front number, and it would ```still``` prove my point. You can't wave away a 20000+% likelihood, and the FBI can't and won't falsify millions of statutory rape cases for some SJW bogeyman. If your game is to demonstrate how stupid you are, I'd be happy to oblige.
No.22678
>>22670
i put 'but' signifying it was my post you delirious fucking waste of skin
and you STILL refuse to do your job.
you've never even read the fucking analysis and you refuse to do so now even when you're trying to toss the wiki page around like it means anything
every single thing about you is pathetic. kill yourself.
No.22681
>>22663
>>22669
I sure do love how you cant stay on topic and have to bring in feminism maymays because you cannot support your flawed point anymore. You are trying to ridicule your opposite by involving him in things that are generally hated here e.g Feminism. This is the oldest and the most pathetic tactic in the book.
You know, maybe there can be a "healthy" adult-child sexual relationship, but it really does not matter. Fact is that most "relationships" are abuses where a coward takes advantage of the child, molests, sometimes rapes it and sometimes even puts the videos/pictures of it online for his fellow loners to see.
Under all this terror Pedophiles cause, what does it matter that there are maybe a few children who could have a relationship? Who gives a shit? Who cares about this minority of children that are already sexual deviants? You basically want that we legalize the abuse of children because of some isolated cases, taking parents and government every possibility to fight it.
If you truly believe that it is rational to legalize childfucking, then yes; You suffer from a mental illness.
I do believe that children should be free to be sexually active, but as THEY want it i.e with other children, far away from the hungry eyes of perverts like you. Children should be free to do that stuff without adults. They dont need your pathetic excuse of "guidance" and "education" u virgin . And dont come me with "consent" or that "children want sex with adults". Everytime an adult speaks to a child that is somewhat close to it, the adult has a position of power and authority, which gets off a lot of looser pedos already. When an adult starts mentioning these things (sex) the child doesnt know nor understands, how should it be ever able to give a honest answer? How should it ever be anything other than "yes"? A simple "yes" is not consent, it is the result of manipulation and from this manipulation children need to be protected. A child does not want your fat, hairy, sweaty and acne infested body on it.
You probably think that you are something special, that your moral sense, experience and knowledge are superior to everybody, that you are good looking and desirable traits common to narcissist, which a lot of pedophiles are , but this isnt the case. You are just one in Million, unable to even stand above his own lust; a pervert whose mind and live has been taken over by his selfish and immature desire. You will fuck it up one day, you probably already have by getting CP on some gov. honeypot. You will end up in jail, like most of you do. You and your desire are nothing special.
But I know, the rest of the world is mean and stupid, while you are the best. You truly have never evolved beyond the age of 14.
No.22683
>>22678
You could just post everything once but you are just incapable of controlling yourself, aren't ya? I'm sure that post counter of yours needs an even higher number to satisfy your desire ;^)
>>22681
>projecting this hard
oh wow
No.22684
It's over. You're done. This thread is now just to preserve how utterly destroyed you've been. cry your disgusting tears that all you can post are vapid 2 word replies because you know you have NOTHING to respond with. every other single poster here wants you dead. just do it. just kill yourself.
No.22686
>>22684
>taking an anonymous imageboard seriously
No.22688
>>22686
Now this is what I call damage control
No.22695
>>22681
> a coward takes advantage of the child, molests, sometimes rapes it and sometimes even puts the videos/pictures of it online for his fellow loners to see.
>Under all this terror Pedophiles cause
Not all child molesters are paedophiles
No.22696
>>22684
>It's over. You're done. This thread is now just to preserve how utterly destroyed you've been. cry your disgusting tears that all you can post are vapid 2 word replies because you know you have NOTHING to respond with. every other single poster here wants you dead. just do it. just kill yourself.
Dude its the internet calm down.
No.23055
>>22605
>I just want to know how many of you are pro or anti adult child sexual relationships.
I think they should be allowed in certain situations. I believe that child marriage is good and that it's best for girls marry when they're 6-15yo. I believe that any sort of pre-marital sexual activity is bad for a girl because it'll turn her into a disloyal slut, unless it's just with her father and he only does oral/rubbing.
>Do you believe children can consent and where should the age of consent be in your opinion?
I think there should be no AoC, a girl's father should decide when she's ready for sex, the State should not have the power to decide something like that.
No.23056
>>23055
Redpill bullshit and girl love is an unstable mixture that should be avoided at all cost. I'm uncertain if this is a parody or not.
No.23059
>>23056
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm totally serious. Do you have some sort of argument against what I'm saying? Like, what's wrong with my ideas?
No.23061
>>23059
That you treat the girl like an object who's purpose in life should be to serve you, else be bought and sold to fit this fucked up fetish you have for a history that never was. You also probably need to die.
No.23063
To believe that it is harmful, you need to believe that sex itself is harmful, in some way other than just those basic things like transmission of disease or physical harm (due to undeveloped parts, for example).
In other words, you need to believe in something like "sex is sinful/shameful" to believe there is anything wrong with such acts of sexuality. That is why you only see this anti-pedo hysteria in the west, because they are the ones under the Judeo-Christian idea that sex is a sin. You may think it is feminists or liberals pushing this.
Don't be fooled thinking that feminists/liberals are opposed to the Christian anti-sex way of thinking. That is one area where they agree―not only that, but they agree in a whole lot of other areas due to the simple fact that they come from a Judeo-Christian place.
No.23064
>>23061
>That you treat the girl like an object who's purpose in life should be to serve you
I don't know where you're getting this from what I said. I mean, a girl's place in life should be to serve her husband, just as it's a man's duty to look after and take care of his wife but that's different from what you're implying. Do you think girls shouldn't be married young so that they'll be loyal?
No.23066
>>23061
>servant = slave
You're a fucking retard.
No.23068
>>23061
Sauce? Google and IQDB return nothing.
>inb4 Google does for me
>implying Google doesn't filter results based on at least your IP and locale
No.23069
>>23063
You don't seem to realise that the concept of purity and virginity is widespread in many cultures, and promiscuity is generally looked down upon as well. This doesn't stem from your fedora-tipping theory of "Christians thinking wrong", but the simple biological fact that a pure women is more likely to harbour your genes than a sow. Taking sex for granted lowers it's intrinsic value, and as sex is the pinnacle of relationships, the value of a relationship falls with it, leading to unstable societies and lowered satisfaction.
>>23064
There's no guarantee that young marriage will result in loyalty, puberty fucks the brain up to the point where you could have a totally different person in two years. If you think women can be traded and kept like cards, you're in for a lot of disappointment, they'll complain and object and try to live lives using you as much as you plan to use them.
No.23070
>>23069
>fedora-tipping
:^)
No.23071
File: 1434448881002.jpg (Spoiler Image, 43.21 KB, 319x310, 319:310, 1411250039742.jpg)
>>23070
>:^)
nice response
meme/10
No.23072
>>23069
> agrees that a girl should only be with one man
>says girl being married young won't lead to hrr being loyal
I don't know where you're at with this right now. When do you think a girl should marry then? Why don't you think being with her husband when she's younger would be good for her?
No.23074
>>23069
You seem to be confusing "seeing sex as a sin" and "not being promiscuous." They are not the same thing. See places in East Asia where sex is not really seen as a sin and is more accepted in the open―people aren't being promiscuous either. "Being open about sexuality" is not the same thing as being promiscuous―it's simply the ability to express or reveal things about it without feeling shameful or that they did something wrong, so that people don't, for example, insult each other for being sluts and don't get rumored about for having sexual relations with x y or z. That's one of the biggest social problems in the west and if anything is to blame, it's this intolerance, not anything else.
No.23075
>>23072
>lacking basic reading comprehension
>unable to apply data to argument
The two aren't mutually exclusive, see how even the virgin marriages in the graph don't reach 90%? Furthermore, these are adult marriages where the relationship doesn't go through a personality reset phase(puberty). Marrying off your kids young is a whole different can of worms to abstaining til marriage. I don't really care when a girl should marry, but >>23064 was implying that fathers should peddle their child daughters to men as if that was a role to be fulfilled, and you're implying that it's beneficial to force a marriage on a child. In essence, you're vouching for kids and wives to be traded like cards, completely overlooking the emotional aspect of marriage and the aspirations and needs of girls.
>>23074
You're talking out of your ass, western societies are the most sexually open and accepting cultures in the world, East Asia is a caliphate in comparison. People aren't promiscuous there, specifically because they see marital value in virgins, and despise people who fuck around, men and women alike. Women are often shot down for not being virgins, sex education is stunted, harlots are openly shamed, public affection and showing skin is frowned upon.
That said, being "open about sexuality" is not what >>23063 was gunning for. >>23063 was suggesting that sexual restrictions should be lowered and sex should be normalised, which is in essence, the same as vouching for promiscuity.
No.23076
>>23075
Once again, you are not getting it, and seem to have some grave misunderstandings. East Asia is actually a lot more open about it than you think, and the only reason why you think otherwise is because of (mis)information you may have read about on the news or elsewhere. For example, it is not really looked down upon for married men to go to prostitutes. Porn stars are openly welcomed by big businessmen in China, something you don't find in America. Also, sex being normalized does not mean promiscuity being normalized. Those are two different things.
No.23079
>>23075
> western societies are the most sexually open and accepting cultures in the world
Have you ever been to the USA? Probably not.
> East Asia is a caliphate in comparison
> despise people who fuck around
Ever been to Japan? Probably not.
> Women are often shot down for not being virgins
Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. I've never heard of a women being shot there for not being virgin (however, I did hear of a girl student being killed there by another girl student who wanted to know how killing someone is like).
> public affection and showing skin is frowned upon
Ever been to a J-Pop concert? Probably not.
> suggesting that sexual restrictions should be lowered and sex should be normalised, which is in essence, the same as vouching for promiscuity
Only if people take the "normalisation" of sex as an opportunity to fuck like rabbits, which history tells us isn't really likely. We already had this kind of experiment in the 1960's (hippie generation): Even those who started living in a promiscuous way back then now regret it (at least the majority) and society didn't widely adopt promiscuity.
No.23082
>>23079
he didn't say shot with a gun you idiot he said shot down as in turned down for a relationship
No.23083
>>23075
Yeah, both those posts advocating child marriage are me.
>a personality reset phase(puberty)
But if a girl becomes attached to her husband when young she won't suddenly lose that emotional attachment.
>you're implying that it's beneficial to force a marriage on a child
And you haven't shown why it isn't. You've given data that agrees with my position but everything you're using to disagree with me is empty postulation and emotional bullshit.
>aspirations and needs of girls
Are you one of those people who think girls should have "careers"? The greatest thing a girl should aspire to is being a good wife and loving mother. All she needs is a man to take care of her.
No.23085
>>23079
>Have you ever been to the USA? Probably not.
You mean the country where sex is everywhere? Advertisement, billboards, movies, entertainment etc. and where cities are known for their sex scenes?
>Ever been to Japan? Probably not.
Japan censors its pornography and shota/lolicons are beeing threaten as pedophiles. The porn you see is made for export. And Japan has a countryside full of religious conservatives and xenophobes. (just like the US)
Japan is a country where everything is about honor and career. Playboys and Otakus are being looked down upon and are isolated from society.
Are you are an idiot.
>>23083
>But if a girl becomes attached to her husband when young she won't suddenly lose that emotional attachment.
Puberty has broken more than just a few child-parent relationships. What makes you think a girl will stay with an abusive sicko who abuses her and is a selfish narcissist? Your autism?
No.23089
>>23076
>East Asia is actually a lot more open about it than you think, and the only reason why you think otherwise is because of (mis)information you may have read about on the news or elsewhere.
Oh boy, here come some expert opinions from a person who's read more "credible" news articles.
> it is not really looked down upon for married men to go to prostitutes
citation needed
>Porn stars are openly welcomed by big businessmen in China, something you don't find in America
>the news you read is misinformed, but mine is true
>not hearing about all the porn stars/erotic models that are actresses
>never seen a landwhale migration in the form of a slutwalk
Yes, I'm sure rich fucks like Dan Bilzerian showing off his plastic sluts on social media is far less promiscuous than businessmen valuing pornstars for their (sexual) marketing capabilities. And what a handful of rich fucks do with their cash is surely respective of they're societies values.
>Those are two different things.
How so? Do tell, I'm waiting to see what you'll come up with.
>>23079
>Have you ever been to the USA?
>Ever been to Japan?
I know you must have shut yourself in a room during your stay, because you definitely don't know shit about either of those places.
>Ever been to a J-Pop concert? Probably not.
No, but from watching Gaga concerts, I can now conclude that the average western household uses cold cuts for clothing. It's becoming obvious you're just a weeb envying a fantasy Japan in your head.
>which history tells us isn't really likely.
Just 10 years of lgbt support and we get >>>/younglove/23044. The 60s were a super-conservative time where anti-gay protests were still a thing. It was also around the time where pornography started being accepted. The same pornography that has spread into a universal resource. Normalising sex and removing it's stigmas will lead to people fucking around.
>>23083
>But if a girl becomes attached to her husband when young she won't suddenly lose that emotional attachment.
Well puberty isn't sudden either. And that's if there's an emotional attachment.
>And you haven't shown why it isn't. You've given data that agrees with my position but everything you're using to disagree with me is empty postulation and emotional bullshit.
You haven't shown me how it'd work either. I've given data that is mutually exclusive to your conclusion and you are now just reiterating your argument and ignoring logic.
The data shows adult virgins having better marriages. It does not show children or babies or even teens having happy ever afters. The chart is comprised entirely of adults. For someone who's complaining about emotional arguments, you sure are letting emotions drive what you type.
> The greatest thing a girl should aspire to is being a good wife and loving mother. All she needs is a man to take care of her.
And here's where you refer to what I said above, "if there's emotional attachment". You refuse to acknowledge the female's desires in this situation, and even set up a standard for them to fill. This contradicts your claim that they will even develop emotional attachment, when there is a role they are forced to fill. I'm not even against child marriage, I'm against your "lets make all girls married off by their fathers because I want to fuck a little girl" mentality.
No.23091
>>23085
>if there's an emotional attachment
How would there not be?
>What makes you think a girl will stay with an abusive sicko who abuses her and is a selfish narcissist?
Where was I ever talking about abusive relationships? You're the one making this negative.
>I've given data that is mutually exclusive to your conclusion
How does the fact that virgin brides are more loyal contradict my idea that girls will be more loyal if they're married young?
>The data shows adult virgins having better marriages. It does not show children or babies or even teens having happy ever afters. The chart is comprised entirely of adults.
Yes, because the data that would show that child brides are good isn't available because child brides aren't allowed over here.
>You refuse to acknowledge the female's desires in this situation
Girls are stupid, what they want doesn't matter. That's why there are men to do things for girls and make sure they don't screw everything up. You let a girl follow her desires she'll get fucked by Chads and be a useless slut.
>even set up a standard for them to fill
Nature set up the standard for women, womens are made for making babby.
>there is a role they are forced to fill
No, it's a role she's made for but she has to be lead into maintaining it or she'll wander and get into all sorts of stupid bullshit.
No.23095
Listening to this retarded red pill faggot makes me understand why people go full SJW. He's only made 20 idiotic posts and already I want to join Tumblr and donate to the NCMEC, ACLU, and SPLC.
No.23098
>>23085
>The porn you see is for export
>It's illegal in most countries but theirs
Faggot
No.23099
>>23095
What a fucking faggot.
No.23101
>>23085
>What makes you think a girl will stay with an abusive sicko who abuses her and is a selfish narcissist?
Gee why do grown women do it?
No.23102
>>23091
>Girls are stupid, what they want doesn't matter
I'm sorry you became an emotionally crippled manchild.
No.23103
>>23091
>merging posts for a reply
>can't bring up any counterargument
>unable to refute anything
>contradicts himself
>admitting that girls should be treated like shit
>anally devastated enough to sperg out against an entire gender
>lets on the fact that he's been cucked by chads
>thinks arranged marriage is a viable strategy for getting pussy, let alone loli pussy
Oh wow, I'd ask you to fuck off to /mgtow/, but I don't think even they deserve this kind of shitposting.
No.23104
>>23095
Well, you sound like a massive gaywad anyway, so you can fuck off and no one would care.
>>23103
>can't bring up any counterargument
No, it's the guy I was arguing against who can't bring up any counterarguments.
>unable to refute anything
Nothing has been brought up for me to refute.
>contradicts himself
Please point out where I've contradicted myself.
>admitting that girls should be treated like shit
I didn't say that at all. Girls should be treated nice, they should be loved and taken care of so they will be happy. You're just putting words in my mouth because you know I'm right.
No.23105
>>23104
Not him but you basically said women should be slaves to men, how is that not treating them like shit?
No.23106
>>23105
>how is that not treating them like shit?
Is saying that dogs should be kept on leashes saying they should be treated like shit? Is saying that pigs should be kept in pens saying they should be treated like shit. No, women need control and stability in their lives, if they're allowed to make their own choices they'll make the wrong choices. Do you think things are better today with modern liberated independent women? With rampant divorce, single motherhood, false rape claims, affirmative action, and laws to limit freedom in the name of "security"?
No.23107
>>23106
>Comparing women to mindless animals
>Not treating them like shit
Whatever dude
No.23108
File: 1434506839039.png (Spoiler Image, 31.77 KB, 238x220, 119:110, 1385732737324.png)
>>23106
Yes, my child, this is just human nature at play and nothing else, there's no real reason to believe there might be a systematized indoctrination of women
No.23109
>>23105
Women should be servant to men, not slaves. Unlike what you've been told, they're different things.
Giving freedom to women is part of the reason as to why the modern world is utter shit.
No.23110
>>23109
Too bad for you they aren't then, huh.
Cry your faggot tears forever.
No.23111
>>23106
It's not just women that are the problem, everyone needs to respect their elders more. It's like people think the moment you turn 18 suddenly your parents and grandparents have no say in your life.
No.23112
>>23106
>Do you think things are better today with modern liberated independent women?
Pretty astronomically yes.
No.23114
What we really need is a return to feudalism, where everyone's lot in life was set at birth and in proper service to their liege lord. It is the natural order of things. The collapse of feudal society is why the world today is such shit.
No.23115
>>23112
Yes, having twice as much competition for any given job position is great. You should be able to come up with at least one example if it is really that good.
No.23117
http://8ch.net/tech/res/238796.html#259307
An SJW pro-feminist is conflating liking young girls with homosexuality. Please assist.
No.23118
>>23115
Competition is good.
No.23119
Men should marry young girls and kill every SJW and pro-feminist on the planet.
As was done in the past.
No.23120
File: 1434514413917.jpg (83.78 KB, 346x435, 346:435, 530f4e7987f611d58b0c68c7b0….jpg)
Wait just a fucking minute! You're the one who's been shitting up a certain textboard lately, aren't you?
No.23121
>>23118
Not in the job market. Competition doesn't improve the quality of workers, it just means more people are unemployed and unlike women, men can't get married and not worry about work.
No.23123
Deer aren't mentally mature either, they have lots o sex and fawns tho.
Feminists should be shot.
No.23124
>>23120
If you could will that anime girl you posted into existence, would you fuck her? How, why, so one and such.
Also who are you talking to? And which text board?
No.23127
>>23114
My lot in life was already set in life, I just wasn't aware of it at the time. The only difference is we have corporations instead of liege lords.
No.23128
File: 1434515478167.jpg (70.56 KB, 388x565, 388:565, 7c870f61743aff4ed8e8affacb….jpg)
>>23124
No, because she is a victim of mental and physical abuse, and she's fucking creepy and accomplice to serial murder.
>Also who are you talking to? And which text board?
I was talking to myself and using a rhetorical question to signify my realization. I know it's you, even without the bible verses.
>>23127
That's loser talk.
No.23130
>>23128
I'd like to see you be positive after working years at low paying dead-end jobs.
No.23132
File: 1434516229468.jpg (109.77 KB, 850x478, 425:239, 521067b2795435dac51340ebe0….jpg)
>>23130
I don't work a low paying job anymore, and I try not to stew in my own self-pity besides. Tfw gets paid 75¢ an hour to entertain a toddler and he seems pretty happy. Everyday is a new opportunity to make a change in your life. For instance, instead of blaming women, a corrupt society, and everyone else for your personal troubles, you could man the fuck up and take responsibility for running your life and see where that leads.
No.23133
>>23132
>Tfw gets paid 75¢ an hour to entertain a toddler and he seems pretty happy
Most people have to pay to have dates, so getting paid for it is a bonus.
>For instance, instead of blaming women, a corrupt society, and everyone else for your personal troubles
Yeah, because I'm the only one with this problem. (http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2013/03/survey_low-wage_workers_feel_t.html) Oh, right the entire fucking country is having the same exact problem.
>you could man the fuck up and take responsibility for running your life and see where that leads.
Yep. I trained and studied and worked for free and you know what all that hard work earned me? A completely unrelated minimum wage job.
No.23135
File: 1434517768760.jpg (62.91 KB, 550x678, 275:339, 9f492d7ee0319d63ecd95b613c….jpg)
>>23133
That is so very, very sad, but the fact is that your unfulfilled life is not going to get any better by bitching about the scary feminist. You're waiting on the world to suit your needs instead of taking the practical route and adapting to the changing environment like billions of lifeforms before you have. It is hard, that is true, but the only other option is stagnation and death. The choice is yours.
Also, note that feudal work was pretty equally split by gender. The whole arranged marriage thing was really only done by the aristocracy. If you really want to see your wages rise, you should hope not for the end of feminism, but for the bubonic plague. Rigid societies like that only work when labor is plentiful, thus wages are cheap. By wiping out a great percentage of the world population, it caused a labor shortage, which meant a rise in wages and decrease in power of the rich.
No.23136
>No, because she is a victim of mental and physical abuse, and she's fucking creepy and accomplice to serial murder.
She's cute.
No.23137
>>23133
>Yep. I trained and studied and worked for free and you know what all that hard work earned me? A completely unrelated minimum wage job.
If you don't like it there is only one solution.
A graduate degree only gets you unpaid internships.
No.23138
>>23133
The reason you cannot have a young girl is because women banned it in 1875.
Ignore 23135, he's a faggot. Things are not ok. They never will be ok. Down the current path is you forever being a pauper, never having a young girl as a bride, and eventually dying in that state after decades.
There is only one way to change this, and it probably won't work either, but it would bring you to the end quicker.
No.23141
>>23136
She's not, actually. She's autistic who says `-uu-'' a lot and has murder fantasies, the only one who pays her any attention is her even more autistic, obese, passive-aggressive, obsessive, petty, vengeful, worthless pedophile of a cousin, and her only friend is a psychopathic eunuch. She's a very sad girl in need of help.
>>23137
>>23138
I'm not sure I like where you're taking this.
No.23144
>>23135
If I was unwilling to adapt to the environment, I wouldn't have the minimum wage job at all. I would be in college trying to earn that dream job while racking up the debt. Accepting my place in society is adaption.
>Also, note that feudal work was pretty equally split by gender
I'm not feudal system advocate anon.
No.23146
>If you really want to see your wages rise, you should hope not for the end of feminism, but for the bubonic plague.
Knowing my luck, the plague would hit when I'm between jobs and have no health coverage.
No.23152
>wagh! Im such a pathetic cucked vagina that I want fathers to sell me their babies so I can lose my virginity!
>wagh! its all the worlds fault Im a minimum wage failure who didn't finish school properly!
>wagh! women are cattle, I hate feminists so much, theyre the reason my loser self can't get a girlfriend!
>wagh! I don't want to improve my life someone else has to change it for me!
>wagh! all those women more qualified and succesful than me must be feminists who are trying to hurt my feelings and me!
>abluhblublah! my arguments are always right ablubuh! yours are wrong (sniff), I dont need to acknowledge logic or fact ;'(
His posting got worse. How did it get worse.
No.23153
>>23110
>baiting this hard
>gives up
top lel m8
No.23154
File: 1434532017014.jpg (182.74 KB, 646x800, 323:400, 7ae9afe155c7fb9f3f6bec20c7….jpg)
>>23117
https://8ch.net/tech/res/238796.html#259307
Stop using non-encrypted 8chan, please. It's for your and everyone's sake.
Also, here's how you link to the post properly:
>>>/tech/259307
>>23119
Adapting does not imply conforming. You have to fight against the system in order to increase the odds of crashing it.
No.23158
>>23109
If they don't get a choice then they are slaves, fag.
No.23161
>>23158
You fucking retard, restricting freedom is not the same thing as taking away the liberty to choose.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/servant
>A person who performs duties for others, especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.
>A person employed in the service of a government.
>A devoted and helpful follower or supporter.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/slave
>(Especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
>A person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.
>A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something.
I don't want a slave.
No.23166
>>23161
Restricting freedom on the level of lifestyle choices is taking away liberty to choose you dingus. And nowhere does your definition of servant incude the word "marriage", while your definition of slave includes "forced to obey". Get fucked.
No.23169
>>23152
Because women get into management positions because they are qualified and not to fulfill quotas.
No.23171
>>23166
No one talked about being forced to obey, you idiot. Are you mentally challenged?
Freedom implies responsibility. Women have freedom without responsibility, while men don't have that "privilege" (which is a bad thing regardless of who does it).
No.23172
>>23171
>They aren't allowed to decide for themselves and must follow whatever their father/owner tells them to
>No one is talking about being forced to obey
Don't you see the incongruence?
No.23173
>>23161
>I don't want a slave
>I want someone who's forced to stay with me
topkeki
No.23174
>>23173
>They aren't allowed to decide for themselves and must follow whatever their father/owner tells them to
I never said that.
>>23173
>projecting your own desires this hard
:^)
No.23181
No.23182
>>23174
>Projections
But I'm not the one who wishes for the restriction their freedom :^(
No.23184
>>23181
So? I'm not the author of >>23055.
No.23187
>>23184
Ok, then mr "not that guy", how do you plan on restrict their freedom?
The answer will still be them not being able to choose for themselves which is restriction of freedom and in this case (being forced to have a lifestyle they don't want with someone they don't want) is slavery
No.23188
No.23195
>>23152
Holy shit, you are so mad. It's okay, you're wrong, get over it.
>>23187
>The answer will still be them not being able to choose for themselves
Yes, women shouldn't choose for themselves, women make wrong decisions. You probably think no-fault divorce and universal suffrage are good things too.
No.23197
>>23195
>Women shouldn't choose for themselves
>Somehow not slavery
And I don't, just as I don't think it's women fault
No.23200
>>23195
>Holy shit, you are so mad. It's okay, you're wrong, get over it.
Ahahaha, this is gold. You literally replied with "abluhblublah! my arguments are always right ablubuh! yours are wrong (sniff), I dont need to acknowledge logic or fact ;'(". Absolutely brilliant, my friend!
>Holy shit,
See this part, he swears to impart a hostile tone to his only retort. Absolutely terrifying! The word "shit" imparts much more hostility than poo, or excrement, or faeces, and is much more than it's equivalent waste product colloquialism, "piss". That is intelligent vocabulary right there! Simply unheard off!
>you are so mad.
Why, of course! Why didn't I think of this before?! All I've ever needed to win every argument was simply to call someone "mad". With one word, the word "mad" he has completely turned around a devastating set of insults perfectly describing his life! His deflection of his inner frustration into a single climatical pejorative has released the turmoil from his heart and simultaneously offended all who oppose him in his eyes. Genius!
>It's okay,
Remarkable! Even when going for the stinger, he still cares for the well being of his opponent! By carefully placing the contracted "it is", in the form of "it's", next to an "okay", he softens the remark to a more subtle tone. Very thoughtful.
> you're wrong
And another universal damage control is presented. By simply denying evidence, he automatically becomes correct. And by contracting "you" with "are", it becomes the snappy "you're", a word in which the combined form is far more effective than the sum of it's parts! A bold declaration of absolutes ascertained by his credibility as a mimimum wage worker! Logic, coherency, counterarguments, all irrelevant in the face of such unique argument. Such tactics! Such ingenuity!
>get over it
Here he once again demonstrates his supreme knowledge and intelligence, incomprehensible to functioning members of society, by asking his opponent to "get over it". There he implies that all that he has said is true and only true, and that he has already insulted and offended the opponent with any one of the 13 words he has used in these two sentences, such that the opponent should now change his/her views or quell the anger he has imposed on them, and carry on with their lives upholding the values in his self declared truth. There are simply no words for such a display. Truly a game changer, no a genre changer, in the grand scheme of internet damage control and witful comebacks. Blessed be all.
No.23202
>>23171
>demands women be enslaved
>pretends he never said that
>spergs about unrelated topic of responsibility
>unrelated topic is just as much shit as anything else he says
>dares to call someone mentally challenged after all that
I'm sorry I can't join your tard playgroup buddy, you're just going to have to keep complaining about women yourself.
No.23203
>>23202
>you in charge of detecting samefaggotry
Good riddance.
No.23206
>>23203
>same trashy opinions
>fucking admits it right here >>23195
Go fuck yourself
No.23208
>>23206
That guy isn't me. You need to stop thinking that whenever people have vaguely similar opinions they must be the same person. And when I made this post >>23195 I wasn't trying to imply that I was that other guy, I was just giving my say on what you were saying.
No.23218
>>23152
jesus just go back to srs
No.23219
>>23218
>wagh! People don't agree with my regressive views of forcing others to be as objects!
>wagh! The SJWs are oppressing me! They're the reason my life is shit!
I fucking swear. The vapidness of the anti-SJW is just as frustrating as they are.This whole thing is like a deconstruction of the whole stupid fight. It's not even conservatism vs. progressivism anymore, it's just anti-conservatism vs. anti-progressivism fought with outrage, shrill harping, and ``witty'' one-liners where everyone has a deep emotional investment in everything and takes everything as an assault on their identity, with a sizable amount of literal insanity thrown in. Everyone involved should be gassed.
No.23220
>>23089
I have not read more "credible" news articles. There are no credible news articles. The only credible way to understand things is directly through learning Chinese/Japanese/etc. and talking to the people themselves. In my case, I have seen first-hand how East Asian countries are much more advanced than the West when it comes to attitudes towards sexuality. In fact, the West is pretty much in the dark ages compared to China, Japan, Thailand, etc.
I theorize that the only reason we have this myth that East Asia is somehow restrictive about sexuality is that we like to fool ourselves into thinking we're always more culturally advanced. However, it is people in the West, not people in such anti-Japanese countries as China and South Korea, who are freaking out over "weird Japanese porn."
No.23221
>>23085
>shota/lolicons are beeing threaten as pedophiles. The porn you see is made for export.
A lot less than in the West. The porn that you see is mainly made NOT for export. Just see how much of their work makes it over to the U.S. Almost none. Comiket and all those doujinshi aren't in English and aren't ever planned to be in English. Not only is there Comiket, but also Mimiket, Sunshine Creation, and Comic Treasure. Do you really think that people like Nako Miyasaka would really make works like these: https://twitter.com/naco_miyasaka/status/512212766552121344 for export when "Is the Order a Rabbit" has a much bigger Japanese fanbase than overseas fanbase? And the only English translation is an illegal upload, not one sanctioned by Miyasaka.
Famous Let's Players such as Kojima Tennin コジマ店員 and Kosuke こーすけ lightly joke about being lolicons all the time, and it's still something people openly talk about there.
>And Japan has a countryside full of religious conservatives and xenophobes
Xenophobes yes, religious conservatives no. Japan is one of the lowest countries when ranked by "percentage of people who think of religion as 'important.'"
No.23223
>>23089
In China, where pornography is supposedly illegal, you can see pictures of naked women on the front windows of stores. Do you find that in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, or New Zealand?
Also, try seeing this:
http://www.quora.com/Does-the-blocking-of-websites-by-Chinas-government-affect-the-Chinese
Do you find high-profile business people in the English-speaking world, like Steve Jobs, on stage with well-known adult entertainment actors/actresses?
No.23224
>>23220
So you're a weeaboo it seems. Wanna tell us all about how Japanese samurai steel can cut threw western tanks next?
You anecdotal evidence means nothing. You probably think that life is like it is in the moe moe anime, or you probably were hanging around some sluts. Just because some weirdo can get someone to have a mockery of a wedding to a character in a dating sim on his NDS does not make them open. Neither Japan, Korea, nor China allow fag marriages.
Also, you seem to have classified promiscuity as ``advancement''.
Finally, do not confuse their more open, less sexualized ideas about nudity and the human body as the same as sexuality itself.
>However, it is people in the West, not people in such anti-Japanese countries as China and South Korea, who are freaking out over "weird Japanese porn."
Who freaks out about that? They get mocked for it. That's not freaking out.
No.23225
>>23224
You can toss around the word "weeaboo" but the big difference here we're talking about is knowing Japanese vs. not knowing Japanese. It makes a world of difference and it's you, not I, who is the one giving out anecdotal evidence.
I have not classified promiscuity as advancement. You seem to have an aptitude for misreading things.
Their more open ideas about nudity does not mean that it is less sexualized. It is indeed very sexualized and when people say 見えた they mean it in a sexual way. Ever heard of 下ネタ?
>They get mocked for it.
And yet, it's not China or Korea, staunchly anti-Japanese countries, that are mocking them for it.
No.23226
>>23224
Also for the record, I don't really watch anime. I have, however, watched a lot of Japanese let's play videos and they lightly joke about sex all the time.
No.23227
>>23224
>calls someone weeaboo without even knowing what it is
epic
No.23230
>>23208
>vaguely similar
>vaguely
>demands women be enslaved
>pretends he never said that
>claims he wasn't samefagging
>links to a post as proof
>linked post specifically mentions enslaving women
>same trashy opinions
>practically word for fucking word
>lel, im not a samefag guise, that makes my identicall opiniones more trusty
No.23231
>>23230
Nice evidence. Oh wait, you have none.
No.23232
>wagh! its all the worlds fault Im a minimum wage failure who didn't finish school properly!
Graduate degree.
No.23233
>>23231
>post filled with evidence
>hur hur, thats not evidence ;''(
you've won another internet argument, add it to your stampcard :^)
>>23232
tiptop, I didn't know they had degrees in men's studies and internet whining
No.23234
>>23233
>I'm an enormous cockmunching cumguzzling homo faggot who cannot grasp the concept that two or more people might think in the same way about a given subject
oh wow
No.23236
>>23234
>I have been utterly humiliated on an anonymous imageboard and have nothing left but middle school insults, so I will pretend I'm still right after being torn apart multiple times
>this soothes the pain
tippity-top
No.23237
>>23236
>still no evidence
No.23239
>>23237
>>23230
you're embarrassing yourself
No.23240
>>23239
Good thing that the post quoted isn't mine then :^)
No.23241
>>23240
okay tiger, as long as you think you're a winner in your own head
No.23242
>>23220
>>23225
>>news articles are wrong unless they support my view
>spoken to 4-5 asians
>took a trip to asia once or twice
>that makes me an asian socio-anthropologist
>took a japanese class
>now I am an honourary nihon samurai
>japanese use sexual words for their intended meanings
>western people don't use sexual words for their intended meanings
>watch me ctrl+c some dank japanese slang to show off my superior nihongo
Try living and even schooling in multiple Asian countries for a few years. You guys are talking out of your ass, I find it hard to believe you can even find Japan or Asia on a map. And then you dare to back it up by saying you've taken a class in Saudi Arabian or spoke to 2 Asians. Pathetic. Fucking chinasmack lurkers know more about East Asia than either of you weebs.
>>23223
>third world developing countries
>able to enforce laws properly
>quora
You're not aware that tits are allowed on tv for most Euro countries? Or that you can find a topless woman on the third page of many British tabloids? And while mentioning porn laws, did you also not realise that porn is legal and uncencored in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, or New Zealand? And what was the purpose of the quora link? Every answer said it hindered them in some way. Also, let me get \this straight, because a handful, a minute handful of businessmen have spoken to pornstars, it's a cultural norm? Want me to bring up meat dresses again? Could you ever find a documentary defending prostitution like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805439/ on public asian television? Tits and groping accessible on television even for kids? Even hot spring documentaries are nipple and ass free and often pulled off air when they try to push it. The only exception is Hong Kong, and it's not only much less provocative than any western country, it's also the most westernised country in east Asia. Not to mention tits are only allowed on special subscription channels, in effect being classed as pornography.
And if you are the same guy who's peddling his elementary japanese certificate as a phd in asian culture, you just linked quora, an anecdotal answer site that's even less reliable than a sensational news site. So fuck off
No.23785
>>23242
I have never taken a Japanese class. I frequently watch Japanese let's play videos. It is indeed a lot better knowledge than someone who doesn't know Japanese. Hint: news articles about people who speak other languages are usually more incorrect than they are correct. Viewpoints are very different, and news articles in one language tend to stick to the viewpoints of the people who speak that language, not the people they are about.. That may be hard to understand if you don't speak more than one language.
And yes, you don't find people like Steve Jobs or other top businessmen being welcoming and accepting of porn stars. Perhaps you don't know this, but China has the most thorough internet censorship in the entire world. A documentary defending prostitution? They don't need one because it's already accepted and legal in many parts of East Asia.
No.23806
>>22605
>pro or anti adult child sexual relationships.
Pro
>Do you believe children can consent
Too vague.
Legally consent - no.
ordinary consent (willingness) - yes
>and where should the age of consent be in your opinion?
imo there should be no "age" of consent.
If the operative word is "informed" consent. Then the value of the consent should be tied to how "informed" they are not how "old" they are.
It's just a lot easier to enforce laws on an age instead of trying to determine whether the consent was informed or not.
>Do you believe adult child sexual relations are harmful in most or all cases?
The sexual act itself, probably not in most cases and definitely not in all cases.
The harm comes from later factors which are accepted as fact which, if they were addressed may reduce the likelihood of harm occurring in most cases.
No.23809
>>22623
>but there is an overwhelming risk that she will be hurt in the long run, due to societal pressures to make victimhood part of her identity, and that manufactured harm is still harm.
An example of what I mean. Having the view that the only way to avoid this is to be against sexual contact is what keeps things in this state of limbo.
Challenging these "social pressures" brings about the possibility of removing that "manufactured harm".
No.23812
>>22659
>Approximately 1.8 million adolescents in the United States have been the victims of sexual assault.
Did all those 1800000 adolescents hate the sexual contact?
That page mentions they're victims of assault but that doesn't really speak to whether they hated it or even how their lives turned out afterwards.
No.23813
>To believe that it is harmful, you need to believe that sex itself is harmful.
I think there just needs to be a distinction between the sex itself and the aftermath such that they can be examined individually.
I get the impression a lot of people already agree the act isn't harmful in and of itself and that the harm comes after the act. Where I think there is a flawed conclusion is the assumption that the only way to prevent the harm that comes after the act is to prevent the act itself when there may exist other alternatives.
No.23822
File: 1435407227715.png (63.72 KB, 1582x724, 791:362, Prostitution_laws_of_the_w….PNG)
>>23785
You know nothing about Japan or Asia, and you never will. You don't even know Japanese, you are merely pretending you do. Your sources of cultural info are about as valid as a used piece of toilet paper that has a shit stain in the shape of a world map. Everything you have claimed hitherto and will claim will be complete rubbish.
No.23966
>>23822
Hello, reading Japanese news articles is a lot more direct knowledge than whatever English-language sources you are getting. And even if you'd like to use such a map, there is no way it's an accurate reflection of social norms, since laws tend to be a reflection of history as well as the present due to how they tend not to change even with the times.
See the article http://r25.yahoo.co.jp/fushigi/wxr_detail/?id=20150519-00042301-r25 for a sampling of opinions on whether going to a prostitute counts as "cheating" (for men).
No.24005
>>23966
>>23966
Your average college project easily trumps 200 people when gathering data, and the survey uses the same headline grabbers as a Dailymail style pop news site
Please read this post again >>23242 where it says I have lived and schooled in multiple Asian countries(none of which adhere to your horseshit), before fucking off to your Japanese lets play videos and biased unsourced surveys.
No.24025
>>24005
You say "unsourced" but how are you to say that those from R25 are "unsourced"? You have not shown that it is untrue at all that anything in the article is actually untrue.
No.24029
>>24025
Its a survey which doesn't even adhere very well to it's intended sample demographic, and it doesn't even mention it's methods. This is ultimately irrelavent because it's a fucking street questionnaire and not an actual study or proper survey of any sort. New York Times opinion polls have more weight than this
I don't even need to disprove a minimal sample size survey from your shit site to know you have nothing but hot air backing up your delusions
No.24039
>>24029
At the very least, you have provided no counter evidence other than a simple map of laws, which doesn't usually tell much when the banning of prostitution in Japan is only a technicality.
No.24042
>>24039
First off, you have failed to discredit anything I have said, because you only have circumstantial shit backing you and nothing else. Second, you're just perpetuating a cycle diverting me to the next little non-issue you want me to disprove, in a lousy attempt to pretend you had anything worthwhile to say in the first place.
You declared here >>23785 with such confidence that prostitution was legal in most of asia, and it blows up in your face in one picture right after. What does that say about your credibility? What does that say about anything else you want to justify with your unrealistic sources and anecdotal evidence? Why do I have to even justify anything after when it could just have been out of your ass as everything before?
I called you a japanese N5 learner cert kiddy as an insult, and it turns out you don't even have that basic qualification. You mentioned super secret resourceful news sites and gave me the equivalent of japanese yahoo news. Am I going to find out you never really went to Japan either?
You have nothing left to say. Nothing left to prove. You have utterly and completely destroyed yourself with your own incompetence. Go back to your daydream of some rule 34 Japan. Go back to your fantasies of some Jap kid rimming sperm out of your asshole while jacking it to some Let's Play video.
No.24048
>>24042
Again, you fail to provide any sources showing what you wish to prove other than that map you provided. Are you going to say that no brothels exist in Japan that operate openly as brothels? In the first place, prostitution laws with regards to authoritarian governments (read: China) can't be said to be a reflection of popular will, and even a quick read over the Wikipedia article about prostitution in China shows the reality of the situation, especially in such a poor (relatively, in terms of GDP) country as that one.
Furthermore, you talk about prostitution only, hardly a good indicator about openness about sexuality. Even if one agrees about being open and not feeling shame with regards to sexuality, that does not mean anything with regards to attitudes with regards to prostitution, which is also an economic activity, not just a sexual one.
Again, what country in the world other than China are foreign porn stars greeted like celebrities?
No.24096
>>24048
You have NO SOURCES. Period. You've proven that everything you have said so far is bullshit, you have literally become a discredited source of information. You're still using that retarded porn star CEO bit after it's been thrown out by argument twice. Nothing you have said is anywhere close to being more prevalent than in the anglosphere. The only reason you're even still here is to try and save face, and you're doing a terrible job at that.
No.24127
>>23144
Go out and make some friends with people who have successful businesses, the best way to get a good paying good without going to college is probably through connections. Either that or you can pick up a trade and make a better wage.
No.24166
>>24127
>Go out and make some friends with people who have successful businesses
Are you kidding? I know someone who has a five figure income. My grandfather has an insurance company worth thousands. Neither of them ever gave me a job or set me up with an interview because it's a dog eat dog world out there.
>Either that or you can pick up a trade and make a better wage.
I am A+ certified, so it's not like I don't have a trade. But yeah, I know everyone has one of those, so I guess you mean a real trade like carpenter or something. My brother is certified for small engine repair and automobile repair (and paid quite a bit for the training) and he works picking weeds for a living. From the way I see it, people don't really care what you know how to do, just how much education/experience you have.
No.24167
>>24166
>I know someone who has a five figure income.
>My grandfather has an insurance company worth thousands.
Five figures a year isn't that high in any first world country. A company only worth thousand is a tiny speck on the map. A tiny gas station could have a worth of over a million dollars\euros\pounds\francs easily.
No.24168
>>24167
>Five figures a year isn't that high in any first world country
The average household income is in the US $50,500. The average individual makes $26,695. So how is someone making $100K "not high." Oh, wait, that's six figures. I meant six figure income.
>A company only worth thousand is a tiny speck on the map
I thought you just said successful business, not Fortune 500.
No.24169
>>24168
As far as insurance companies go, thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, is a pittance. It's not uncommon for a single home in America to cost hundreds of thousands.
And he's right, a five figure income is not itself anything special. There is literally no legal job in the US that does not pay 5 figures annually for a full work week. Of course something like 80K is one thing, but you didn't say 80k, you said "five figure income". $10,000 is five figures, and that is thousands of dollars a year below the poverty line.
No.24170
>>24169
Houses are expensive. And they only have like 16 people working there, so it can't be worth that much.
No.24171
>>24169
I meant six figure.
No.24172
>>24170
To be able to function as an insurance company, you need to be able to pay the cost of a service. That's literally the point of insurance. If you can't pay for a house, you can't insure it. What do they even insure? Golf clubs?
>>24171
aight, just saying.
No.24173
>>24172
What are you talking about? They don't actually provide insurance, they just sell it. Only the major companies provide the service, the multi-million dollar ones. They just handle the paperwork and crap.
No.24175
>>24173
Ok well when you say "insurance company" usually you think of the insurance company, not some agency the insurance company contracts out to.
No.24177
>>24175
Yeah, I thought the provided insurance at first, too, back when I was a kid. That aside, I also know a guy who sold his business for 1M. He's a total asshole. Which is probably why making friends with rich people does not provide you with success. Because they are all greedy assholes or they wouldn't have found success in the first place.
No.24197