/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

>>23732

Considering that age of consent is subjective, then yes.

>Can children consent?

>one of the very notions behind our continued existences.

WTF?

Are you completely feminist brainwashed?

The old testament allows men to rape girl children. You just keep them.

(Deuteronomy 22 28-29, in hebrew)

Consent is not required for relations. It is not a hard requirement and is not a religious requirement.

It doesnt matter whether they can or they cant fucking children should still be illegal.

>>23742

>letting the government dictate this

Yeah, that couldn't possibly go wrong!

>>23732

>Can children consent?

I think the better questions are "what is 'informed consent'" and "does it really matter?". Since no one who pushes this "they can't consent" narrative can define "informed consent" except by saying "the State says so" the obvious answer is it doesn't fucking matter. A girl should only ever do sex stuff with her husband who her father arranged for her. And if her father wants to do whatever with her when she's very young that's fine too.

>>23758

>implying that's the version I cropped

I think children can consent to sex with other children. I think that adults have a clearly apparent overwhelming power advantage that invalidates that consent when it comes to sex with adults. Children can decide whether they want to have sex with an adult, but the parents should always be informed and have the final verdict.

>>23768

And how does this apply to the 100s of other things in life where it's totally fine to have adult/child relations and no one says a word? What makes sex unique and potentially more damaging? Be specific.

>>23773

>Be specific.

This is the license you gave yourself to invalidate anything anyone could possibly respond with as not specific enough.

You're also laughably deluded by the way. Parents have the final verdict on nearly every single component of their child's life, not just sex.

So my response is it applies to every single last 'other thing' involving adult/child relationships.

>>23775

You went the wrong way. I'm not arguing about how parents treat kids, but rather the power advantage remark. How does having power over kids in regards to sex make it bad, when adults have power over them, say, in sports, yet people play sports with kids all the time, despite being better and stronger and having tons of potential for harm. It works fine because the adults take care not to body check their 7yo niece. Why can this mindset not work with sex?

I asked for specifics to try to get a direct, clear response but I'm worried this is already getting detailed with your pointless personal attack.

>>23787

I'm having a hard time understanding you, but could you explain specifically what children could not understand about rubbing genitals?

>>23794

>You went the wrong way. I'm not arguing about how parents treat kids, but rather the power advantage remark. How does having power over kids in regards to sex make it bad, when adults have power over them, say, in sports, yet people play sports with kids all the time, despite being better and stronger and having tons of potential for harm.

The same reasons that children aren't allowed to work in coal mines any more. Sure, it can be relatively safe, if done properly, but since the child doesn't know how to properly evaluate the situation and can't really exercise any power on their own, they get exploited and sent into the smallest, most dangerous places because they can fit and they don't know any better way to live.

>>23800

There's always the possibility for exploitation. It doesn't mean we not allow children to be movie actors.

There are usually two options.

1) Ban it outright, or

2) have it properly regulated. So children aren't sent into the smallest, most dangerous places.

Option 1 is the easiest to enforce so it gets chosen unless there's enough backlash to push for option number 2.

>>23794

I didn't say it inherently makes it bad, I said it was there, period.

Basically every form of non-parent adult-child relationship is heavily monitored to prevent abuse.

I swear to christ I've never met as jumpy and autistic group as pedos. Even if I said hurdur nuthin wrong w/fuckin kids you'd still find something in it to cry about.

>>23768

>I think that adults have a clearly apparent overwhelming power advantage that invalidates that consent when it comes to sex with adults.

>clearly apparent

To adults empathically looking at the situation yes. To children, not as much.

>overwhelming power advantage

I agree with this but with great power comes great responsibility. In fact I'd say these power advantages exist between children as well. It's an open question who's more responsible with their power though.

I agree that they may have a power advantage, but I disagree that it invalidates that consent. Primarily because of the double standard taken with respect to answers. If the child says "yes", the default assumption is one of fear/obedience to the adult's request ignoring the notion it could be a genuine "yes". If the child says "no" then it's accepted as the child's answer, a genuine "no".

>>23811

>To adults empathically looking at the situation yes. To children, not as much.

Yea thats kind of the point. Children are unaware of the power imbalance and are thus more vulnerable.

>but I disagree that it invalidates that consent.

you literally just said that children are unaware of the nature of the relationship. you can't consent to something you dont understand to a reasonable degree.

the double standard is correct by the way. there is little reason to not respect a no as genuine, and theres significant cause to be skeptical of a yes.

>>23818

>the double standard is correct by the way.

Nice confirmation bias.

>>23800

Children don't work in coal mines because it is extremely dangerous, and takes away from their schooling. Kids in most developed countries can't have any job until around when compulsory schooling ends. I agree with that; education IS kids' job, so to speak.

You also aren't addressing other situations that are still allowed, such as child beauty parents, acting full time, or doing any kind of sport at high intensity. All of those things involve adults either directly benefiting, or living vicariously through the kid.

>>23810

You're illustrating exactly why we get upset. Two posts in a row where you subtly dodge my question, and both times paired with unwarranted insults.

I'll admit that reading your post I originally responded to, I thought you had said "children can't consent to sex with adults, and CAN'T decide whether they want to have sex". It seems like what you're saying then is children can want to have sex with adults, and if their parents OK it, then it should be allowed?

>>23818

>Children are unaware of the power imbalance and are thus more vulnerable.

I agree they are vulnerable because of the power imbalance, but where we disagree is that I think they are actually less vulnerable because they are less aware of it.

What I'm getting at is that the more the person in power (adult or other child) makes it clear they are the ones in power, then the more vulnerable the child is.

Which brings me back to the point of it being the responsibility of the person in power not to abuse that power.

>>23795

The animals do sex for instinct, children are in a primary state of mind (not exactly like animals, but almost) sex is for adults because sex is malleable, children do not understand the malleable things they are usually choking with them if a child learns sex early will be seeing it as something superfluous (child's play) and ask for it like a dog with your leg

>>23836

That's idiotic.

Even as a child, the more aware they are of a power imbalance the more likely they are to seek a resolution other than sex. The issue isn't that the adult said "suck my dick or i'll kill your mom", the issue is that the kid actually believed him. That's the real problem, that's where the real power came from. It would still be there even if the adult didn't say anything at all, because the power comes from the child habitually trusting and subordinating themselves to adults. From a child's perspective, anything an adult has them do must naturally be the correct thing to do. Anything that sheds light on the imbalance or abnormality ultimately helps the child deal with the situation.

>>23846

It's just another medical operation in the eyes of the law, so parents can give consent for them.

>>23839

OK, so you're saying it will devalue sex or maybe put it in a position where it's more casual and open.

What exactly is wrong with that?

I think I could make an argument that the Victorianism, the shaming of sex, has generally caused a lot of issues in our culture. One of the reasons child sex is so taboo is because sex is seen as dirty and evil, when in fact it's one of the most important (reproduction) and positive things humans have access to naturally. So of course there is a clash when you put "innocent" children with dirty sex.

We legalize all kinds of foreign chemicals to put in our bodies and that's OK but sex is bad? I don't get it.

>>23872

>argumentum ad naturam

which foreign chemicals are you referring to exactly?

>>23897

Anything that we didn't evolve to either require or benefit from. The majority of the world cannot tolerate alcohol because they don't have a particular gene or set of genes that help process it in the liver, so it's literally a poison to them. A lot of medicines are derived from natural sources, but many others that are commonly used are not (e.g. Viagra).

Sex is so core to the being and existence of a species that I'm pretty sure I can say that it's "good", no appeal to nature fallacy here. Really, the burden is on someone to prove why it's bad, which has never been done and continues to get dodged in threads like these.

>>23915

You mean things like antibiotics, where we literally borrow the immune responses of fungi that we did not evolve? Or dessication to preserve food, an ability not naturally found in any creature?

You're arguing that natural things are always better than artificial things, how is that not an appeal to nature?

>>23917

No, read what I wrote. The person I was responding to said viewing sex as being natural and seeking it the way animals do was bad. I said, why? And you chose to focus on the foreign chemicals line instead of actually rebutting my point.

It's one thing for me to claim "if it grows on the Earth then it's good", which of course I didn't (lots of natural poisons out there for example). What I'm saying is that sex is literally essential to life, not to mention that it's just plain desirable to essentially everyone. It's built in to us to seek out sex because it's fun and makes everyone feel better.

It's the anti's burden of proof to explain why sex is bad, and they refuse and instead pick on tangential things, as you're currently doing.

>>23859

Sex is no different from any other form of bodily contact. The onus is on you to prove that it is universally harmful in all cases and not a joyful experience.

So-called power imbalances are a red herring, when they aren't called into question whenever adults hug, kiss or play sports with children. It's the demonization of sexual pleasure:

In other words, they have no argument. They just think it's icky and gross.

>>23922

This. You should really check out this thread for some arguments: https://8ch.net/younglove/res/23879.html

>>23959

STDs

>>23961

It's too bad we've never figured out ways to prevent and cure them huh

>>23959

no one is saying its universally harmful you trite obnoxious dipshit. its about the capacity for harm. hugging and kissing doesnt have the capacity for harm that sex does have and the clear and immediately apparent benefits to sports overtake their capacity for harm. Sex has zero benefit for a child that they couldnt acquire through infinitely less risky behavior.

your pathetically retarded drivel is why pedo advocates are laughed at as mental cripples.

>>23968

The exact same thing could be said about adult-adult sexual relationships

if you care about risk, then make preventive measures instead of banning shit

>>23970

No, its nowhere near the same thing. The capacity for harm is starkly reduced and the benefits gained are significantly increased.

If you cared about children, you wouldn't commit risky behavior that has no unique benefit warranting it in the first place.

There's plenty of reason to restructure laws to be less harmful both to pedos and to children, there's utterly zero to allow pedos to have sex with children.

>>23967

We did, but they mutated and became immune.

>Can children consent?

>one of the very notions behind our continued existences.

WTF?

Are you completely feminist brainwashed?

The old testament allows men to rape girl children. You just keep them.

(Deuteronomy 22 28-29, in hebrew)

Consent is not required for relations. It is not a hard requirement and is not a religious requirement.

It is not a bedrock issue.

Marry lil girls.

>>23972

Do you even realize how retarded you sound? We're talking about nonpenetrative sex only. Very little capacity for harm, large benefits include emotional bonding and empathy.

Just admit that you think adult-child sex is wrong because it's gross and maybe we could get somewhere.

Cars kill people, so let's ban cars mkay? Your arguments hold no water.

>>23974

You are also a troll, that's a shitty argument. Any relationship should take the interests of both partners into account.

Most here are far too sex-obsessed anyway.

>>23972

>allow

Tell me where I lose you on this.

1. Without a society, the default would be no restrictions on sex.

2. Things are restricted in a society when the risks vs rewards are put on a balance, where "rewards" also includes simple personal freedom to do said things if desired, and the risks clearly outweigh the rewards (over-simplification but you get the idea).

3. In order for adult-child sex restriction to be justified, the reasoning in step 2 has to be applied.

4. Your stance that there are "zero" reasons to "allow" sex only makes sense if you can show that merely having sex with children is so harmful compared with benefits that people should be completely banned from doing it.

You'll have an extremely hard time finding a study that actually concludes that non-coercive sexual activity with children is significantly more harmful than abstinence. Hell, I bet you can't find one that doesn't sweepingly refer to all sex with children as CSA (child sexual abuse). If you find one, please share it. I personally can't recall a single one from my hundreds of hours of reading.

>>23981

>Do you even realize how retarded you sound?

>the rest of your entire post

>BAWWWWWWWWW

>>23991

You're going to have extremely hard time finding a single study that suggests any form of adult-child sexual relations is emotionally/mentally/socially/physically better than none at all.

>>23922

I'm not even an anti, I'm just pointing out that the basis of your argument is wrong. Arguing from an objective reproductive tract is a clear appeal to nature, when sex for modern humans is primarily as a leisure activity. Sex is essential to continuing life, but it doesn't maintain life at any point, it is a secondary need for individual organisms. Take honey bee drones for example, bees need these drones to have sex to exist as a species, but to the individual drone, losing his virginity kills him. There have been numerous human cultures which have worked on abstinence, and desired it's benefits, all the while maintaining functional civilizations. Sex is built into us, but not to the point where it completely removes rationality, we can exist with it or with it regulated in some form. Your entire basis that it's some kind of miracle of the universe that justifies itself is faulty.

>>23993

Apparently you got as far as #2, then skipped to the last paragraph, before replying. Try again.

>>24012

See:

>>23991

>>24019

What the fuck does that have to do with anything I said, you faggot? 1 is a direct appeal to nature and the rest follow up from it. If pedos didn't recycle the same flawed arguments without understanding they're basis, we might even have got our fucking marriage rights the other day

>>24023

>muh appeal to nature

I don't think you know what that means. Is it an appeal to nature to say that people have inalienable rights? (i.e. "rights that exist on their own without a society). I've not once argued that, merely because a thing is natural, it is therefore good; but you and whoever else I've been arguing with seems to think they don't need to justify why a natural thing should be restricted, and that it's an "appeal to nature" to say it shouldn't be restricted without clear cause. Just like NOTHING should be restricted without solid justification.

So what's the solid justification? Clearly you have it, right?

>>24018

I gave you the same ultimatum you gave me.

You try again.

>>24049

No, you're taking for granted that a thing should be restricted, and telling me it's my burden to prove that it shouldn't. That's not how burden of proof works.

>>24051

You're the one that wants change from the current norm, the onus is by all means upon you.

There are many studies reviewing the effects of sex on preteens. The results are unanimously an overwhelming risk factor for harm coupled with zero unique benefit that couldn't be acquired through less risky interaction.

The onus is on you.

>>24062

Wrong. A law should be dismissed if there's no reason for it. The reason should be established and present for it to continue to exist. You don't get some kind of grandfathered-in exception from logic and liberty just because a thing is currently written into the law. You continue to ignore my post from earlier where I asked you to tell me where in my chain of logic you disagreed, and instead you skip around and play the game of talking points.

I'd love to see any of these articles btw.

>You'll have an extremely hard time finding a study that actually concludes that non-coercive sexual activity with children is significantly more harmful than abstinence.

>>24047

I think a lot of the problems we have with pedophiles is that they appear too interested in sex alone. Full disclosure: I'm actually a 16 year old highschool grad who has spent a lot of time studying the issue.

From all my research, I haven't been able to find a single non-religious argument for why sex is wrong except it's gross and icky and destroys a child's "innocence". But even if it isn't, you need to put more emphasis on the "love" part of the relationship. You love to cook, ride bikes, read stories together? So little of romance should be about sex.

If you came out as a unified community and took an active stand in other childrens' rights issues such as sex trafficking and (real) child abuse then you might have a fighting chance.

>>24062

Got links? And i'm pretty sure there are far less risky forms of sex such as mutual masturbation. Penetrative sex between adults and children should remain banned for obvious reasons, I don't think anyone sane would argue otherwise.

Once we get out of the realm of objective physical damage (STDs, Pregnancy) and into emotional damage, things quickly get very murky and jump into morality/subjective beliefs.

>>24067

The reason has been established and present, overwhelming risk and no unique benefit coercive or not (although by definition any act without consent is coercive rendering your statement meaningless).

>And i'm pretty sure there are far less risky forms of sex such as mutual masturbation.

"It's not as bad as the other thing" is not itself a justification.

>morality/subjective beliefs.

Underage sexuality substantially increasing the risk for substance abuse and self harm is not subjective.

>>24070

>overwhelming risk

No, this has not been established. When was this established? Do you have any proof that it has "overwhelming risk" besides a priori assertion?

>substantially increasing the risk for substance abuse and self harm

…said the studies where kids were abused and/or raped. Show me the study that

>that actually concludes that non-coercive sexual activity with children is significantly more harmful than abstinence

"How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?"

>>24077

>said the studies where kids

Are you saying those studies only include forceful rape or abuse? Can you prove that claim?

There are mountains of studies at your fingertips. Just google "effects of preteen sexuality" or any variation thereof.

All you have to do is find a single study showing that adult-child sexual activity has ~any~ unique benefit over no sexual contact.

Depends on the age. I'm not-so-old, if you catch my drift. I think my opinion on this is a fair one.

I've notices that children become increasingly interested in sex and sexual behavior in the third grade. It starts with jokes, and giggles behind the teachers back.

You hit fourth grade, kids start to question sex and sexual activity. The jokes start to dissipate and the questions start to increase in intensity.

Fifth grade comes around and children aren't stupid anymore. Everyone knows. Everyone. Sex is about pleasure and procreation. They understand the need for protection, and careful planning. The jokes come back, but behind every joke is the understanding of the subject matter. Emotional ramifications aren't included in this understanding, however.

Sixth grade is in. You hear stories every now and then. "Jamie fucked Kevin." and "I heard Mr. Taylor tried to feel up Annmarie." Of course, these stories are true. Kids start to understand the emotional ramifications of sexual activity that isn't careful or meaningful. It's usually around the first suicide or mental breakdown. (At least it was in my case)

Seventh Grade. Kids don't care. Apathy kicks in. It's not normal conversation anymore, and rarely appears in banter. Children aren't regularly engaging in intercourse, but enough people are to the point where talking about it isn't as interesting as sports.

Eighth grade. It's normal. Kids have sex all the time. They understand. They know. They just don't care. This is the grade, however, where you start hearing about kids sleeping with adults. Girls have eighteen year old boyfriends. Guys sleeping with lonely housewives looking to take advantage of horny teenagers. They don't care. Sex is sex is sex.

Ninth Grade. Is anyone paying attention anymore? Anyone keeping track of who fucked who? Which teacher is having an affair with which student? It's so normal it's scary at first.

Tenth grade through twelfth. From here on out it's a roller coaster of emotions. People having bigger things to worry about than sex. Drugs, alcohol, tests, college, work, insurance, residence. Who has time to worry about gossip or sex when the whole world seems to be crashing down with reality. A lot of existential crisis here as well, though nothing to really worry about.

Now, this all might seem like rambling and you might be wondering, "What does this have to do with child consent?"

Simply put, children know. Everything you need to know about sex and it's ramifications usually kicks in at around sixth and seventh grade for kids. Because they've experienced it first or second hand. Don't believe the whole "think of the children" spiel for one fucking minute. Children aren't as fucking stupid as we tend to make them out to be.

These kids grow up on sex and drama and everything else. Telling a child whether they consent or not is meaningless to be honest. The second they walk into school, reality takes them by force.

>>24047

>muh appeal to nature

I could quote your posts with that exact same response, that's your entire argument. Appeal to nature isn't just a hippie green treehugger fallacy, it's a direct fallacy that assumes that things with less human intervention are better.

You've been doing that constantly, pinning the blame on society for restricting sexual behaviour. But the moment you get pressed as to why sex is justified in itself, you jump straight to the hippie version of the fallacy and argue "muh reproduction" and "muh survival of the species".

How is additional recreational sex for a species that doesn't need it, good for them exactly? Why is sex in itself good? How is something intrinsically morally right? You haven't addressed any of this, where's your justification?

inb4 "muh burden of proof". It hasn't shifted on me to prove otherwise when you haven't even made a proper case to support your stance

>>24089

I don't think you understand anything I've been saying. There's just as much need for me to prove a benefit (beyond liberty) as there is a need for me to show studies proving the benefits of playing video games, or getting tattoos, or skydiving, or any infinite number of things that people do for pleasure and not necessarily for the betterment of humanity. Given that all of those things I named have known harms, and in the case of skydiving possible death, why are they not banned?

>>24095

Wrong, again. Point out where in the thread that I claimed it was better BECAUSE it's natural. My argument has been, consistently, that the default state would be allowing a thing, and that restriction of that has to be established to be justified. This applies to anything, including things that aren't natural (see: video games et al above).

>>24089

Forgot to add that yes, I have read a lot of studies. The vast majority don't even bother to qualify or define "CSA", or child sexual abuse. The ones that do tend to define it as "illegal sexual contact", which is redundant because all sexual contact with children is illegal, meaning it covers both coercive and non-coercive acts.

If someone could show me a study that even

>non-coercive sexual activity with children is significantly more harmful than abstinence

I keep repeating this to drive home the point that such a study doesn't exist, so the anti's argument that "studies show x" is irrelevant. No one is seriously arguing that holding down a child and raping them is OK.

>>24110

Actually there is an extraordinary need for you to show any evidence of any benefit to overtake the extraordinary risk involved, and it's both utterly hilarious and utterly pathetic that you compare video games and tattoos to child sexual activity.

It' frankly pathetic that you hide behind such a worthless shield as if it helps you, any and all research on any type of child sexuality, be it with adults or with other children, show an extremely increased risk for depression, substance abuse, self harm, STDs.

I wait one my one incredibly simple request, until then we're done here.

>>24110

>About 21 skydivers are confirmed killed each year in the US, roughly one death for every 150,000 jumps (about 0.0007%).

>(about 0.0007%)

The rate of lasting harmful effects of child sexual abuse is over 70%.

>>24110

>hippie muh nature

>>23872

>>23915

>>23922

>muh natural state of scoiety

>>23991

>>24019

>>24047

Why are you avoiding the question? I'll repeat, how is additional recreational sex for a species that doesn't need it, good for them exactly? Why is sex in itself good? How is something intrinsically morally right? You haven't addressed any of this, where's your justification?

What is your basis for non-reproductive sex to be justified as an inexorable right?

>>24189

Additional recreational sex for humans is beneficial because of the releases of chemicals in the brain such as Oxytocin, which is recorded to benefit humans in may different ways from making a person more generous, to an increased pair bond and many more recorded positive effects.

>>24118

We're running in circles. You simply cannot fathom the concept that a thing shouldn't be banned UNTIL it's proven that its harms outweigh its benefits–liberty being one of the most important benefits of any thing under scrutiny. I use the word "liberty" because apparently if any synonym of the word "nature" crops up then the conversation derails into explaining what is and what isn't an appeal to nature fallacy.

Perhaps you're blinded by the fact that, unfortunately, some things are made illegal before the nature (oops, I mean the "scope and characteristics") of their harms are established as a result of hysteria and ulterior motives (see: marijuana). You believe that, once a law is set, it is now the burden of those who oppose the law, if they want to convince others that the law is unjust, to prove BENEFITS of the thing as opposed to ABSENCE OF HARM. Sex with children has not been shown to be harmful independent of level of coercion, thus laws that categorically ban all sex with children were written without considering an established harm.

You are taking a plainly illogical stance and I have run out of ways to explain why it's illogical, or perhaps fascist. The benefit of not having these laws is "liberty", as if that needs to be said. There is not established categorical harm that would justify banning of all sex with children when we already have laws that ban coerced sex, which is the kind that IS known to cause harm. I don't know what else could possibly be said here besides pointing you in the direction of some basic rhetoric resources.

>>24119

Assuming your citationless assertion is true, again you're referring to "abuse". Is abuse forcible rape? Tricking into having sex? Threatening to keep quiet about sexual encounters? Touching genitals while watching a movie on the couch or tucking into bed? Touching genitals while giving a bath? Masturbating in front of the child? Performing oral sex on them? Having the child perform oral sex on the adult? Having the child sit on their lap? Showing the child some porn unsolicited? Showing the child some porn after they asked about it? Walking in on a child masturbating and taking part? Walking in on a child masturbating and watching? Chatting sexually with a child online? Having sex with a toddler? Having sex with a preteen? Having sex with someone who is 6 months younger than the age of consent?

Do you see how retarded it is to use these blanket statements without qualifying them? I could just as easily refer to all sex between adults as "sexual abuse" because some percentage of sexual encounters are rapes, but that would be equally spurious.

>>24189

Again, liberty. Do you believe that all things should be restricted until their benefits can be proven? What an absurd corner you've painted yourself into.

>>24524

>a thing shouldn't be banned UNTIL it's proven that its harms outweigh its benefits

As is the case with fucking children.

e

Personally, I don't believe there should be age of consent laws. All other animals super mentally inferior to humans and they manage to fuck without consent all the time. But if you need some doctor to tell you what to think, you are in luck.

The American Psychological Association supports an age of consent of eight. The opinions of over 300 doctoral members of that august and conservative organisation were surveyed on what assessment criteria they thought would show capacity to consent, they came up with very basic factors, such as knowledge of the consequences of sexual behaviour, that an earlier study by one of the same researchers had shown could be met by those with a mental age of eight.

The reason it was possible to come to such a conclusion without igniting an even more explosive controversy than the Rind et al. Affair, is that the sexual rights of mentally impaired adults were at issue, rather than those of children.

“Assessing competency to consent to sexual activity in the cognitively impaired population”, by a certain Carrie Hill Kennedy. A “Sexual Consent and Education Assessment” instrument was used, with two dimensions, “sexual knowledge” and “safety practices”, indicating the ability to make safe decisions. Those judged competent had, on average, an IQ of 65 and an adaptive behaviour age of 9.4 years. Those judged incompetent had average IQ 46 and adaptive behaviour age 6.7 years. This would suggest, at an intermediate position, that competence is achieved at around 8.2 years, and IQ 55.

https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/a-less-impaired-vision-of-sexuality/

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J151v01n03_02#.UkxzORDl4ZU

Antis getting blown the fuck out in this thread.

>dat liberty argument

>>24527

Oh you're right, the thing that I've requested a single bit of proof of but has never been provided on any of the dozens of threads I've had this argument over.

>>24554

There can be no prrof for someone who constructs their own parallel reality around them.

Feel free to google "effects of preteen child sexual activity" or any variation thereof. Even solely between other children there's still a greatly increased risk of antisocial behavior, self harm, substance abuse, depression, stds, and suicide.

>>24273

And masturbation does not? If it's a simple neurochemical boost, aren't there other more effective sources? Besides the fact, oxytocin's workings are still not well understood, and may be responsible for a far wider range of behaviours.

>>24524

>liberty

So you had no basis to justify non-reproductive sex in the first place? As expected. The entire purpose of questioning you in the first place was to throw you off that high horse where you believed recreational sex was an inherent moral and natural right. Two pokes and you stopped using classic appeals to nature, and a question after, you resort to deflecting the question entirely.

If something has no apparent benefit, and no apparent harm, no effect would come from restricting it now would it? And until you find harm in restricting it, you have no case.

And while it's nice to see you shift the goal posts from

sex is natural>default society has sex>muh liberties,

you still haven't answered the original question. I'll repeat:

How is additional recreational sex for a species that doesn't need it, good for them exactly? Why is sex in itself good? How is something intrinsically morally right? You haven't addressed any of this, where's your justification?

What is your basis for non-reproductive sex to be justified as an inexorable right?

>>24560

>hurr do my research for me

I have researched; this is why I've concluded such studies don't exist. What a lazy reply.

>>24564

>liberty is not beneficial to have

>it's fine to restrict something that is harmless for no apparent reason

Okay. You have confirmed indirectly that you literally believe that all things should be restricted until it's proven that the restriction itself is harmful (ignoring the simple fact that restricting freedom is, in itself, harmful). You have selected this one particular thing to support banning and then shifted the burden onto people who want to unban it, all the while acknowledging that there was no reason to ban it in the first place. Your argument is ludicrous, it ignores logic and basic philosophy about human rights and government's role in restricting them, and I don't see the point in continuing to discuss anything with you. This is not leading in a productive direction, as I feel you're simplying making me jump through hoops as opposed to genuinely building a rational argument.

"Justify why gays NEED to have non-reproductive sex. Do they have the right to do so? Well, since you can't PROVE a societal benefit I guess we should make gay sex illegal, even though there's no harm in it." ← literally your argument

>>24568

>I have researched

No you haven't, you looked at the abstract of 1-2 studies, cried your heart out over 'muh coercion' and reinforced your own delusional beliefs.

You can lie to yourself, you can't lie to science.

>>24569

>avoiding this hard

I've asked for these sources countless times. Where are they? I've spent literally hundreds of hours, believe it or not, reading through studies (the ones that are freely available, otherwise yes, I only look at the abstracts because I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for access to various journals).

Where's the proof?

Where's the proof?

Where's the proof?

Until you answer this question your entire point of view is invalid.

>>24578

>being this pathetically subhuman

No one is avoiding anything. I told you exactly what to type to get literally and without hyperbole hundreds of thousands of studies that all come to the exact same consensus to the overwhelming harm involved. I haven't bothered myself because one, the indisputable fact that it IS your job to do do your work, and you have explicitly stated that you don't care what any study that doesn't agree with you has to show. Proof before swine.

Google the effects of preteen sexuality. The only avoidance that has ever occurred in third thread is you towards that request (that and being unable to post a single study that supports you, invalid or not. even just one).

>>24584

How about masturbation? Sex can be harmful and should remain banned but there's no reason not to allow consensual touch.

>>24594

Most reported sexual abuse is some form of touching, and still carries with it a hugely increased risk of negative long term emotional mental and social effects. A very clear reason to not allow "consensual" (no it isn't) touching.

>>24568

> This is not leading in a productive direction, as I feel you're simplying making me jump through hoops as opposed to genuinely building a rational argument.

That's as good as admitting you can't justify it at all. Which seems quite accurate as of now

Let's clarify the focal point that you continue to ignore: If something has no apparent benefit, and no apparent harm, no effect would come from restricting it now would it? And until you find harm in restricting it, you have no case.

Gays don't need sex at all, the right for them to have it was given to them by those in power, at the whim of those in power. However, if you were to ask: "Would a harmful effect come from restricting sex for them?", then you'd be able to come up with reasons to justify homosexual relations.

The same applies to justifying sex for the sake of sex, or even child sex in it's own sake. You can't. Not until you find a benefit at least. Liberty is nothing but a concept, it gives the illusion of having merit, but only because meritable qualities often accompany liberty. On it's own however, it's about as justified as a promise can be justified as a written contract.

Let me make this clear: I am not an anti. I am simply poking holes in weak rhetoric that is often repeated by people who don't understand the full scope of what they repeat. You should never justify things by a moral or ethical value alone.

So where is it? Where's the objective justification? What is your basis for non-reproductive sex to be justified as an inexorable right?

>>24613

>I am simply poking holes in weak rhetoric

You're being a sophist. If you speak english, you almost certainly live in a country with an express written desire to uphold personal liberties, probably in your countries constitution.

His argument is congruent with the framework of how legislation operates. Yours exists only in a hypothetical nonexistent vacuum.

The pedos don't agree with you, the antis don't agree with you, your own country does not agree with you.

>>24615

I like that last sentence where you used an appeal to majority as an attempt to intimidate. It's nice to go around defending imaginary concepts instead of actual logic, huh? There is no such thing as liberty, it's a non-value on it's own, and arguing from values is the entire reason pedos get shot down. Because values only have strength when repeated by a majority, and any given value on its own does not hold any more truth against any other given conflicting value. If you insist that moral absolutes are competent arguments, continue using those empty arguments that ultimately convince no one.

>>24584

>>24613

Listen. Let me come at this from a different, less aggressive direction.

My goal here is not necessarily to win an internet argument. It's to clear up ignorance about a topic that I'm interested in. So even though I truly feel I do not have the burden of proof, since my claim is simply noting the absence of proof of another's claim, I'll show you proof. I'll make a good-faith attempt to give peer-reviewed research that is sound and publically available, although that last part is proving extremely difficult since the vast majority of all research across all fields is tied up in journals that require paid access of some kind.

In the meantime, as I'm compiling this data, I'd like to try something that will maybe reduce the running in circles aspect. It's very simple:

Can you summarize my argument, as you understand it?

I feel like, in looking over my posts, that I've pretty clearly laid out my thoughts, but I'm obviously biased because I understand the meaning behind everything I wrote, whereas others may not. It could be that my message is just not clear. Here are all the posts I've made in this thread, for clarification: (Jesus I have posted a lot)

>>23773

>>23794

>>23795

>>23834

>>23872

>>23915

>>23922

>>23967

>>23991

>>24018

>>24047

>>24051

>>24067

>>24077

>>24110

>>24113

>>24524

>>24554

>>24568

>>24578

I would summarize the argument against mine like this; tell me what part is not correct: "There is research that children who have sex with adults have harms that manifest by adulthood. There are no recorded benefits of allowing adults to have sex with kids. If there are no benefits, it should continue to be banned. The argument that it should be allowed until proven otherwise on the basis of freedom and liberty is not relevant."

If you can accurately summarize my argument, and I can summarize yours, then the next step is bringing proof of our positions, as opposed to rhetorical and semantic bickering. I think there's no point in continuing until we do this.

Agreed?

>>24630

I like the point where you ignored everything else I said in a pathetically desperate deflection.

He isn't arguing from values, he's arguing from the literal same framework of law that gives rights to gays (and to everyone else).

>>24638

>The argument that it should be allowed until proven otherwise on the basis of freedom and liberty is not relevant

It's not about relevancy, it's about it being incorrect. It HAS been proven otherwise. You don't allow something provably extremely risky to children with serious and long lasting negative consequences to continue under the guise of freedom of expression or whatever.

>>24596

That psychological harm is a direct result of attitudes like yours and lack of emotional support from the parents, not the touch itself. If someone asks someone if they want to be touched, and the person says yes- but later is told by society that the touch is "wrong" then it's no wonder emotional harm results.

The question isn't "is intimacy harmful", because yes, currently it is- but WHY. If it's inherently harmful then you have a case. If the culture we live in makes it harmful then the culture must be changed.

All evidence points to the culture.

There is no inherent difference between touch in one area of the body or another, except society's reaction to it. This is a learned reaction and can be changed.

If you want to protect children, start by looking in the mirror and ditching the bigotry.

>>24651

> If it's inherently harmful

You keep claiming this is my argument.

>>24638

You can type up that long post but you still can't give a single point for either one of two questions? I'm not part of your long drawn out back and forth with a guy without sources, I'm trying to find out if there's more to your moralfag "muh liberties" argument, which is what everything else henceforth is based upon. You only need one simple point to add basis to your argument, what's stopping you?

Let's clarify the focal point that you continue to ignore: If something has no apparent benefit, and no apparent harm, no effect would come from restricting it now would it? And until you find harm in restricting it, you have no case.

What is your basis for non-reproductive sex to be justified as an inexorable right?

>>24640

>ignored

>deflected

No, I basically just tore you a new one with a simple request for basis that you're still struggling to recover from. I already said that whatever right was given to gays was not based on logic, but on morals >>24613, arguing from that similar moral/value perspective only works if you have people with similar morals backing you(which pedos do not), as morals and values are neither facts nor evidence. Shitter laws based on political pressure are irrelevant to discussion.

>>24652

It is your argument, but you can't bring yourself to admit it because you realize it would completely destroy your credibility.

Let's do a little thought exercise, and dissect the harm which results from these relationships. I'll even throw you a bone and agree that in many cases, yes, children develop emotional issues.

The question is WHY. Why does this harm happen, and how can we minimize it?

You can't possibly believe that the mere act of touching a certain part of the body, absent violence and cultural factors will always lead to massive and irreversible psychological damage that "destroys children from the inside out", do you? If you actually believe this, then i'll walk away, there's no hope of reaching you.

But if you do, then you would be agreeing that sex (any kind) is inherently harmful.

Need proof that sex is a social construct and the parts of the body considered sexual vary from culture to culture? In some places breasts are normal, and in others simply exposing a woman's ankles is enough to get it up.

Here's what's far more likely: We teach our children that certain parts of their body are shameful and should be hidden. When a case of adult/child intimacy is uncovered, the child witnesses their parents crying, screaming and generally in a hysterical mood. Despite efforts to console them by claiming that they "did nothing wrong" and "it's not your fault", children are smarter than you think and instinctively know when something isn't right.

Next, the child is taken to the police station for an intense interrogation session. The adult is ripped away from them, goes to jail, and the child is sent to "therapy" which instills the belief that what happened was wrong, even though it may have been enjoyable and led to no physical damage. Their minds are poisoned from the beginning. This isn't an opinion, this is fact.

What if you were told from an early age that your hands were a "dirty" body part and you shouldn't let anyone touch them? In this society, handshakes are considered a form of rape and people greet by rubbing their noses. How reasonable does this sound to you?

Now, let's switch it around. What if, after a case was uncovered we asked the child how THEY felt about it? Unless there is clear proof of physical damage, the amount of emotional damage the child receives is entirely up to the society they are raised in.

Children are most influenced by their parents at an early age, and their peers later. I'm interested in protecting kids from real, verifiable harm, not nebulous claims of moral turgor. We could create laws criminalizing the transmission of STIs to minors and punish the parents, for example.

>>24655

As for your abstract claims of "benefits", there are many. Touch promotes social bonding, mutual well-being and releases calming chemicals into the brain. But even more than that, it just feels good. We do a lot of things that don't necessarily contribute to society because they feel good. Unless it's harmful, there's no reason to prohibit them. Sex-negative attitudes like yours OTOH leave children with a lifetime of low confidence, negative body image and sexual shame.

>>24655

Actually, they're entirely relevant. You're right though, kinds need real political support which is lacking at the moment. Arguments like this are won purely on emotion in any case.

He doesn't need another argument besides "it feels good". If you agree that it has no apparent harm, then "it feels good" is the only benefit that needs to be proven.

Now, yes or no: Does masturbation feel good?

Baseless moral grandstanding doesn't give you the right to restrict the rights of others, and no- the right to self-ownership does not end where your feelings begin.

>>24613

He has a point, and i'm the same guy who wrote >>24656 Now, let's come up with a similar bullshit excuse like the Justices used: (If you can't guess, i'm actually against the recent decision).

>Denying someone's sexuality deprives them of their dignity and humanity as equal human beings.

>Excessive punishment for acts which cause no physical or psychological harm is cruel and unusual punishment.

>Government has no right to interfere in the private acts of others due to the right to privacy, unless they cause harm.

And, most importantly:

>It brings pleasure, joy and furthers adolescents' pursuit of happiness.

Flowery language and glittering generalities that appeal to american values will carry the day, just like they did with gay rights.

>>24656

>nope the things you've said arent your argument, i get to choose what your argument is

>>24659

>Denying someone's sexuality deprives them of their dignity and humanity as equal human beings.

As far as rights are concerned children have never been considered equal human beings. theyve had variably more or less rights compared to today, but their rights being less than adults has been an uninterrupted constant throughout all of recorded human history.

>>24656

Do you really feel that continuing to lie and misrepresent your opponent's argument helps your credibility? You complain when the antis do it.

>>24656

>Here's what's far more likely: We teach our children that certain parts of their body are shameful and should be hidden.

Look up the sexual revolution in germany back in the 60s and 70s. Children weren't taught that their bodies were dirty (we don't teach them that now but that's besides the point) and the sexual activity they were exposed to still caused overwhelming lasting harm to children.

>>24660

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm calling it as i see it, and you're dodging the question. It's simple: Do cultural factors play a role in the alleged harmfulness of intimate touch?

>>24663

I would like some links, and clarification on the type of sexual activity. I read stories that adults were behaving in lewd ways around children and coercing them into sex acts with each other despite resistance, in which case yes- that is sex abuse and should still be punished.

>>24663

Surprisingly enough, I found this paper which praised the sexual liberation of east germany: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/98911/excerpt/9780521898911_excerpt.pdf

>>24664

No, you're literally and directly lying about my argument, and every single browser here can instantly verify that for themselves that I have never claimed any act was inherently harmful, ever, not once, not in one post across multiple threads. I didn't dodge your question either, I directly answered it.

Really you're just making yourself look pathetic here.

>>24665

>ctrl+f "children"

Yes they can, but the society we live in still makes sexual activity - especially with adults - a hazard for children.

>>24641

>>24655

Please just answer whether I framed your argument correctly or not, and if not maybe you should write how it should be framed.

>>24661

Maybe that's a deeper underlying problem–the denial of human rights to children. Or rather, the haphazard, inconsistent application of rights to fit adult agendas and moral codes. (Kids can be put on the sex offender registry but are never allowed to legally consent to sex themselves; kids' testimony in defense of adults is irrelevant and to my understanding not even allowed in court but testimony against them is welcomed).

If we viewed people on a continuum, and children as "humans who don't have a lot of experience and growth" and adults as "humans who have a good amount of experience and growth", maybe we wouldn't think of them as wholly separate entities that must be treated radically different. There's nothing stopping us from writing the laws in such a way that they apply to all ages, using ability- or cognition- rather than age-based criteria (the equivalent of "you must be this tall to ride" as opposed to "you must be this old"), with the exception of mandatory schooling.

>>24675

The underlying problem is you being unwilling to accept the universal fact that prepubescent children rely on adults for every part of their lives. Children's brains are empirically not developed enough to make the sort of decisions required for independent life. It's not some culturally adopted viewpoint. Is is objective biological reality.

>>24676

Interesting. I had just looked through some studies earlier today on cognitive ability of children and their ability to give informed consent. One study involved making choices about medical care, the other cognitive tasks (things that would be on an IQ test).

The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions, Weithorn and Campbell 1984 (google it, there's a JSTOR copy that you can view for free if you make a free account)

http://stbb.nichd.nih.gov/pdf/NIH_MRI_neuropsychological.pdf

Generally it was found that children and adolescents' performance on a variety of tasks fit into one of two categories: (1) roughly the same as adults, or (2) linearly correlated with age (with each year their performance increased a set amount). With the medical decision study, the 14yo group was barely distinguishable from the adult groups, aside from 3 participants who consistently scored significantly lower than their peers. Even the 9yo group was found somewhat competent, at least to the point that they understood the options, although they didn't make as sound of decisions.

Like I said, it's a continuum of development. There is no "helpless babby -> independent adult" jump. A 12yo is somewhere in the middle, and does a variety of things independently and competently but needs guidance and help in others.

>>24679

This does not contradict what I've said about children and is a further deceitful lie about what I have said.

>>24680

Wow dude just admit you got btfo instead of whining about how youve been "misrepresented" all the time

Face it man, you lost.

>>24682

No, I haven't. You literally posted a link that reinforced my statement, and you have a proven and repeated track record of resorting to pathetic lies. There's nothing left to move forward with until you realize how pathetic you truly are. Children can't consent, are not equal to adults, and sex has been proven insurmountably to have a tremendous risk. It's just otherworldly how pathetic you are.

>>24680

>Children's brains are empirically not developed enough to make the sort of decisions required for independent life

Those studies show otherwise. I gave specific examples of how they did, or rather, that depending on the task, they can be somewhere between not competent to adult-level competent.

Also I'm not this person, in case you're thinking we're the same: >>24682

>>24685

There's nothing in those studies that show prepubescent children are anywhere comparable to adults on any relevant decision making metric. There's a lot in those same studies that show the opposite, a significant increase until adolescence. Not only can an adult easily manipulate a child, but so can a 14 year old.

>>24691

What exactly in my post (24675) did you disagree with? It seems like we agree that abilities grow over time. Do you have a problem with competency-based legal distinctions as opposed to age-based ones? Or rather, keeping the default age-based but allowing for competency-based if requested? Sort of like adult mental competency but in reverse.

>>24694

That children are apparently equipped to deal with more rights and more individuality. The evidence for preteens universally shows that no, they aren't.

>Or rather, keeping the default age-based but allowing for competency-based if requested?

This is actually the legal case. Children can petition for more rights and gain them if they are deemed sufficiently competent. For preteens this simply does not ever happen, whatsoever.

So even on your own terms with your own rules (and your own data) you still get "btfo".

>>24697

I've personally never heard of any legal means by which children can petition for more rights, so it's not surprising if children don't seek it out. You have to know about a thing to be interested in it. Is there a limit to which rights can be petitioned for?

Also I just want to confirm: you actually have no problem with 10 year olds being charged with sex crimes, while simultaneously not allowing even older children and adolescents any additional rights to consent to sex, assuming the petition thing doesn't allow this. Is that correct? You don't view this as being "haphazard, inconsistent application of rights"?

And I know it's horribly difficult to keep track of here but I am not the person insulting anyone. Up above is a long record of which posts are mine, past which I hope you can generally tell who's who based on the tone and usage of grammar and mechanics. I'll take this name from now on. (It would be nice if you kept it civil too btw).

>>24699

For a ten year old to be charged with a sex crime, the victim would have to be someone even younger.

>>24699

I believe it's valid to label children as sex offenders when they commit sex offenses, because ignorance has never been a defense from the law. I don't agree with how juvenile sex offenders or sex offenders in general are treated. Children cannot consent to sex. It's legally obligating to view the case as a crime with a victim and a perpetrator. Recognizing sex crimes is not inconsistent with respect to the law.

I'll be civil when other participants start respecting the discussion by refraining from making blatant lies in a vain attempt to discredit the statements I make.

>>24711

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/10-year-old-girl-jailed-charged-raping-4-year-old-boy-houston-texas_n_3744778.html

>>24713

Ignorance might not be an excuse, but how about mens rea? How can you not understand the consequences of noncoerced sex with an adult while understanding the consequences of coerced sex with another child? By your own argument a 10yo doesn't have the capacity to comprehend such choices, thus they shouldn't be held criminally liable.

>>24735

Yes, they should still held be liable because their actions were still criminal, as I've said. Case with no clear and readily apparent victim especially under the age of 12 are usually dismissed. So no, not by my own argument, by your own argument that you just invented as a retort.

>>24718

Yes, four is significantly younger than ten.

>>24737

>>24738

You're ignoring widespread established philosophy and law principles if you're claiming that simply performing an act implies criminal culpability. Sexual assault is not a strict liability crime in Texas, thus the accused has to be shown to have "intentionally or knowingly" done the act to be liable.

These are straight facts, not my opinion.

Having established that, if you support charging a 10yo with the rape of a 4yo, then you are acknowledging that she "intentionally or knowingly" committed a criminal sexual act. How does that NOT imply that she has competence to perform sexual acts with others? Either she understands the consequences of sex enough to be held competent, or she doesn't–there's no gray area, legally speaking.

>>24656

Was that really so hard to do? I wouldn't actually call any of those benefits to be strong arguments in support, but they have the weight that "muh liberties" doesn't

>>24658

>>24659

You're not getting it exactly. Arguments are won with emotion and morals specifically because one side has more support than the other. This is in line with what I mean about a given value having no superior weight to another. Values are arbitrary, like whether a toilet seat should be left up or down, it doesn't matter, because the majority decides the winning value. So the trick with arguing from values is to repeat it much more to give the illusion of a crowd, or have many more people backing you. Unfortunately, pedos are a small and divided community, you will make very little progress with that.

On the other hand, there are objective arguments based on evidence. As these are absolute and have an inherent weight irrelevant of opinion, they have to be taken seriously by the opponent and must be negated or disproved for the opponents to hold their argument. Ultimately, finding the curveball facts that they can't dissuade has a better longterm convincing effect.

>>24673

There's more than one person posting in this thread you autist

>>24764

>There's more than one person posting in this thread you autist

I've acknowledged that explicitly and don't see where I ever implied otherwise. No need for pointless personal attacks.

Are you 24584 or 24613? Then you're one of the people my question applies to:

Can you summarize my argument, as you understand it?

See 24638 for a list of my posts to make it easier to follow. I'd be glad to respond to any point brought up as long as someone indulges me in this one request that I think will help the level of discourse.

>>24748

Knowing it's wrong to rape a 4 year old is not the same thing as being able to consent to sex. She is not capable of consent, she is capable of knowing it's wrong to rape someone significantly younger than herself. Yes, there is a tremendous gray area. Please refrain from using lies.

>>24748

>Sexual assault is not a strict liability crime in Texas, thus the accused has to be shown to have "intentionally or knowingly" done the act to be liable.

I think juvenile offenses are handled differently.

>>24794

The argument from antis is that children "can't understand the consequences" of sex with adults, even nonviolent sex. What exactly are these consequences that they can't fathom, but they can understand the repercussions of being put on trial and possibly a lifelong sex offender registry?

Also why do you take such an aggressive stance in response to honest questions? Are you here to discuss or just here to get your kicks talking shit to pedos?

>>24827

They can't understand the consequences they face, they are still aware of the grave wrongness of such an extreme violation of another person. sometimes do to upbringing they aren't aware and they receive significant mitigation.

and as i've said, you are anything but honest.

>>24828

I'm not lying or misleading, if you want to actually debate stop needlessly insulting me, otherwise leave and go troll somewhere else. Disagreeing or interpreting differently is not "lying".

You didn't answer my question by the way. Specifically what consequences are they unable to understand about sex?

>>24830

>Disagreeing or interpreting differently is not "lying".

Of course, knowingly telling a falsehood is a lie. Asking you to stop repeatedly lying is not taking an aggressive stance or insulting, except of course to a compulsive liar.

Your question was a loaded one.

>but they can understand the repercussions of being put on trial and possibly a lifelong sex offender registry?

>>24830

>Specifically what consequences are they unable to understand about sex?

The forced secrecy where they have to keep this relationship a secret from everyone they know, and the possibility that everything could blow up if they were to make a single false step or a slip of the tongue. They have to deal with listening to others occasionally saying things about pedophiles and child-adult sex that goes completely contrary to their experience and due to the circumstances they cannot openly seek to get around the confusion that must cause. Sex itself isn't a very big burden, but being in a sexual relationship with an adult as a child is a huge weight. I haven't tried it myself so what I just said about it is only some basic examples that I can think of. Emotions and life is much more complicated than that, so I won't be able to fathom or describe all of the ways in which it can be stressful. Nor do I have a perfect understanding of how my own mind would react, much less how a child would react, so again it becomes unfathomably difficult to predict the 'consequences'. I'm speaking for myself here, but please do consider that maybe your perceived certainty of how things work may not be as stone cut when it plays out in real life.

>>24831

A loaded question is one that contains an inherent assumption. I'm only repeating the assertions you made, that a child is incapable of consenting to sex and that they are competent to stand trial for a criminal act (meaning they understand the concept and basic process of a criminal trial). I'll concede and retract the sex offender registry part, because it's not necessary to understand every aspect of the punishment to be held criminally liable. Can you not even name one direct consequence of sex that they can't understand (meaning, aren't competent to give informed consent)?

To point it another way: the mens rea aspect of sexual assault includes the notion that the accused knowingly performed the act without consent of the other. In order for what you're saying to be true, the 10yo in this case simultaneously was capable of understanding the lack of another's consent, but was capable of giving it herself. Is that correct?

If you don't give a reasonable response with a civil tone that address the two points I just made without distortion, I'm done with you. I've given a good-faith attempt at responding to everything you've brought forth, and my patience for repeatedly being accused of deceit despite my effort at being honest and courteous is really wearing thin.

>>24852

I'll agree with you that society imposes a burden on people engaging in child-adult sex. But that's a strange justification for making the sex illegal. Basically, "People don't like it and make the ones who do it feel bad, so because we don't like people feeling bad we should make it illegal."

Wut? How about just not making the people feel bad instead?

There's research that shows that the amount of stress and negativity of perception of a sexual relationship is correlated with number of interviewers (social workers, psychologists) and number of questions asked. When you're bombarded with people telling you the preferred narrative, that you're damaged goods, your innocence is gone, etc. you start to accept it.

I read a really good article from the point of view of someone who had sex with her teacher at age 13 or 14. She had mixed feelings about it in hindsight, but generally she admitted that she still enjoyed the relationship, and mused about how much of the negative feelings were due to an inherent "wrongness" and how much were due to harassment by parents and other authorities grilling her for literally years afterward. It illustrated how much society makes it into a self-fulfilling prophecy to satisfy their own preconceived notions. There are tons of stories like this but receive little to no press because of their taboo nature.

Yes they can. It's why it takes years in school to brainwash them and make them learn that individual opinions are worth nothing. It's all about what gains society as a whole.

From kids and drunks you will hear the truth they say.

>>24872

>But that's a strange justification for making the sex illegal.

Oh, of course. No doubt, all of this is based on a foundation of bullshit. But that doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous for the children. We should try to get the bullshit removed, but until we do, it's dangerous for the children.

Well, as with everything else one must take account for that there exist things that one doesn't know about.

Like a happy relationship between adult and child.

Only because it's the rape and molestation that one hears about, because that's the situation that ends up a report, doesn't mean that there's good things going onn that we don't hear about.

Bad news is the good news in the media.

Let's say that you sit on the couch with a little girl. You like her and she like you. Suddenly you are talking about sex and what's in your pants and she wants to see it. You are unsure but she insists and helps you to pull down the fly and grab you cock. Fascinated that you have a boner that stands right up and you explain that it's because of her and she smiles and start touching it and rubbing it and without a millisecond she is giving you a hand job and kissing it softly. You come like a rocket and it makes her laugh.

Question is: Did anything wrong happen?

>>24878

Question: How deluded are you that you thing that would ever happen?

Serious answer: If she did that it would mean with a 95% probability that she had already been molested an you are taking advantage of a molested child.

>>24876

Uhh no, no one has to take into account your desperately desired assumptions. The only thing anyone has to take into account as actually existing data. If you want anyone to take anything into account, show it.

>>24881

You, and many others on this board, should learn to play ball, instead of kicking the player.

It makes for more interesting debates…

Instead you saying that I'm a moron, and I'm saying that you're a moron. It's not very progressive.

If I say that child sex is healthy for the child. It's not necesarilly meant to be correct. Just a suggestion to… Play ball!

>>24884

All I did is tell you the utter, indisputable fact of the matter. You are the one getting butthurt and indignant about it, I'm the one telling you to "play ball" by actually putting your evidence where your mouth is.

"play ball" or cry.

>>24885

Okay, but if you are the know-it-all, then why are you here? On this little board… When you should sit and write a book and spread you wisdom and knowledge to millions of buyers…

>>24886

and the inevitable pathetic crying commences

>>24888

No, I don't mind. I've been in more challenging discussions. To talk to you is more like a waste of time. But I'm not in a hurry right now… You might not like pedos but you have a dark brain yourself. You're not a happy person. And you don't want anybody else to be either. It's incredible that you found this board.

>>24891

Every discussion must be a challenge when your only option is to cry.

But yea, attempting to support your claims with evidence is a waste of time when you don't have any. Much more "progressive" to just try to bring down the people who criticize you instead.

Wait, not progressive, pathetic.

God, everything you've just posted after just making this post >>24884 is just sublime.

>"don't call me a moron!" (I didn't)

>attempts to attack me directly

>well do you have any actual evidence to post?

>"I'm done talking to you!"

>>24893

I tell what i'd like to do; I'd like to go to the kindergarten with all you pedos and just stand and watch while you fuck all the little kids. I'll just stand there (without a boner. Well, just a tiny little one…) and take notice and see if they love it or hate it.

>>24900

Is pedos fucking kindergartners something you usually occupy your mind with?

>>24901

Always. Is there anything wrong with it?

>>24904

So now you are attacking the retarded. Those who can't defend themselves… You are a COWARD.

>>24874

I agree with that. My best guess, based on the homosexuality saga, is that we're at least 2-3 decades from decriminalization. There's a lot of stigma to roll back in the meantime.

>>24876

I'm not sure about the point of postulating the things that might exist. There are direct stories though of people who had these relationships and felt positively about it and had the same level of adjustment as people who had no such relationships.

>>24878

In some sense no, although she really needs to understand the anti-pedo culture and the fact that such behavior is going to be immensely punished if found out regardless of her own feelings. So as long as she's mature enough to know that, and that people are under no obligation to continue to do sexual acts later just because of one act now, then no, she's fine.

>>24900

What?

>>24923

the only reason homosexuality was destigmatized was because they fought back against the propaganda that faggots were out to indoctrinate children, by throwing nambla under the bus. pedos will never be able to shake the "out to get your kids" public perception, because it's literally correct. decriminalization will never happen. ever. the best thing you can possible hope for is how society deals with offenders.

>>24927

It was mostly because of the revolution that happened in the 60s. Christianity took a nose dive with old values and the new values was on the plus side for homosexuality. It's not a sin in the modern world. But things like that can turn around again. No war is fought and won forever.

>>24927

I firmly believe that there is little or possibly no merit in the campaign against pedophilia. Time has shown that false propaganda eventually fades and reason sets in.

Granted, sometimes this takes an enormous amount of time, but it'll eventually happen.

>>24936

ok buddy you can say i told you so when it happens

>>24945

If it happen it happens. But let's say that the government made it easier. The thing is that 99% of people move with wherever the wind blows. You hear the anti-pedo speaches now, but they only copy and paste the majority and cowardly take advatage of being on top of someone who is under a lot of weight.

>>24564

>tfw when this anon is that cuckolded

>>24902

Nothing wrong with it, while it's in your mind. If it goes elsewhere, then you are probably looking for some troubles, legally speaking.

>>24930

correct, as someone who lived through this I can tell you.

>>24927

Only once did i ever hear about NAMBLA associated with the gay rights movement. In fact I never heard of any pedophilic association until after it was pretty much fait accompli.

Blame that on disinterest in the media news at the time but that was my experience.

I heard plenty of how this was against biblical values, good christian people were in an uproar, yada yada.

>>25148

First of all the 2nd amendment in the U.S. constitution exists to allow the citizens of the U.S. to resist the U.S. Government and nothing else.

The U.S. doesn't have the power to allow me or anyone else anything, and most of the pedos in this thread aren't asking to rape kids, and even if they were such degenerates, they would most likely never go to the U.S. government and say please, mr. government, can I have permission to rape a child?

You see rape is a crime regardless of age.

How much hate can you harbor?

Against nameless faceless anons?

Even if every argument in your head was correct, you seem much more of a monster than any of the pedos in this thread.

That kind of hate and anxiety – let's just say you should probably seek professional help.

>>25208

My armchair diagnosis stands

>>25208

All of those could also be pedophiles.

>>25208

>>25211

So glad I'm a cunt so people won't mistake me for a pedophile

>>25208

HURR LET'S CENSOR PEOPLE LIKE ON /hebe/!,

>>25241

Can you at least try and be a bit creative about your hatred?

Like, throw in a reference to scaphism or the donkey, in there?

What? If they can make choices with reasons to their choices they can consent.

Do we give them IQ tests or something yo determine whether they can consent or not?

>>25274

"I like to shoot heroin because it feels good and I don't care that it'll kill me by the time I'm 20."

>>25380

it's about 50/50 personal thrill/trading. a lot of, if not most cp "communities" require original content to gain entry.

it's not very profitable, especially not for some random jackoff. the only people really making a profit off cp (besides vicky) are russian crime syndicates that trawl for free cp to collect and then resell to schmucks that dont know any better

>>25380

>each party has to be on the same level in some respect to intellectual capacity

So most adult sex should be illegal and we could fuck child prodigies without problem?

>>25380

>>25381

It's not profitable at all. You really can't make money out of CP because there are no means for you to find enough of a paying crowd, as compared to the costs covering all the tracts of productions. For CP to be profitable, you have to target celebrity/politician tier customers who can pay you to set things up while covering all the tracts, at that point it would be easier for them just to hire a girl to fuck and record it. Almost all CP you see was uploaded by narcissistic people taking their egos for a stroke.

>>25380

You seem to be making the argument that, because CP production is inherently not good, then sex with children in general is not good because you can't conceive of another reason to produce CP beyond exploitation.

Let's just assume it is exploitative, even the CP that is created by kids (cams, phone recordings, etc). What does that have to do with the myriad encounters that aren't recorded?

Or maybe you're not going that far and are simply asking why people create CP with no further implications. It's my understanding that most of those who create and share CP do so in exchange for access to private groups, as well as ego stroking. CP of this nature tends to trickle down from these VIP areas by people leaking it to public domains.

Now, one might argue, "If you are having sex with a child already, why do you want more porn, considering there's already plenty available at no cost?" That's a good question. Maybe they are sex addicts and simply having one child isn't enough? Maybe the VIP exclusive porn gives more of a thrill than the stuff they've already seen elsewhere? Maybe, like you say, there is a motivation to "give back" to the community, in a sense like people donating freeware software. This last one explains the behavior of those who leak to public areas.

I would also ask, why are so many adolescents, pre-teens and teens eager to perform sex shows and post them online? Surely having been raised in a culture of social media they are aware of the concept that peers can view them, though they may be naive to think that others (adults) won't. I posit that it's a combination of wanting to express and experiment with their sexuality, as well as being less inhibited in regards to sharing such content with others. If you grow up in a culture in which peers frequently get nude on cam or upload sexual images to others via texting or social media sites, it doesn't have the same connotation as it does to adults, who see it in the same light as porn stars. In fact, I bet if you were to ask these 10-17yo who perform these sexual acts on camera they would strongly deny the similarity between them and porn stars.

Of course, some unknown portion of underagers who get naked and play with themselves on camera are duped or blackmailed, as evidenced by the culture of "loops" or prerecorded clips of other adolescents that are fed into the webcam software to make it appear that the adult recording the stream is a child themselves. It's very difficult to determine how frequent this is. But there are certainly examples of people freely sharing it to everyone, such as through chat sites or Youtube. In such cases there can be no doubt that their intent was to show off for anyone who was interested.

>>25410

how about you ask those 10-17 year olds as adults how they feel now about their videos they made as children are now being passed around and jacked off to by potentially VERY unsavory types of people

>they would strongly deny the similarity between them and porn stars.

yea, because people are ashamed of being pornstars, even in totally sexually open cultures. sex is an incredibly intimate and private affair, and even with a non harmful sexual encounter recording it and showing it to others is a HUGE betrayal of trust.

sex is one thing, and im still iffy on that, but cp is absolutely always inherently exploitative and abusive. there's nothing redeeming or acceptable about it.

>>25415

They say over 90% of cp is incest based, so I'm not sure if one can count what's made as "porn". It's very obscure and weird and very few pedos fap to it. it's more like "incest fetish", father & daughter kind of thing.

That said, I can agree with you. Aestecially I would love to see it, a professionally filmed movie with adult & child. But one can't expect a 10 year old to make a decision that one is proud of ten years later. kids try stutt and become embarrassed of it later. A porn movie, especailly in the interent times is something that will always float around.

>>25416

how does cp being incest suddenly not make it cp

>>25415

They may regret it, true. Many of them demonstrate their forward-thinking in this regard by shielding their face during the whole session. They enjoy the exhibitionism but are aware that being identified will probably lead to a lot of drama in the future.

I think it comes down to how the recorder views the experience in hindsight. I imagine the feelings range from "lol I wuz so crazy" to crippling neurosis. (Never actually heard from someone who made one of these recordings so this is speculation.)

But why is it viewed any more negatively than kids recording themselves saying or doing something silly, or writing something ridiculous or to be ashamed of later? I've found things I made when I was kid and am kind of embarrassed that I actually thought it was cool to quote Beavis and Butthead unironically, but at the same time I recognize that I was much younger and that was part of the process of finding my identity etc.

Obviously the reason we view it more negatively is because our culture is extremely ashamed of sex in general, and child sexuality much more so. If we didn't view sex as something to be ashamed of we certainly wouldn't view our experimentation as being something to keep hidden at all costs.

I agree that tricking someone into stripping under false pretenses and then spreading it across the internet is a terrible thing to do. But your statement that "cp is always abusive" doesn't address the self-created CP, which is becoming more and more common as people are handed phones at early ages.

>people are ashamed of being pornstars

Not true. Some are, no doubt, but others don't make any attempt to hide it. Again, though, it's not inherently shameful to have sex with people, though I guess the TYPE of porn plays a big role (artsy vs. blowing a horse). The ones with the problem are those who judge the porn stars for doing something dirty that should be hidden.

>>25427

>But why is it viewed any more negatively than kids recording themselves saying or doing something silly

Because

1)that's next to nothing compared to being in child porn

2)most pedos don't jack off to videos kids doing silly things, they jack off to child porn or child models

It's insane that I even have to explain that difference to someone.

>Obviously the reason we view it more negatively is because

We view it negatively because people don't like children being betrayed in such a heinous manner.

>But your statement that "cp is always abusive" doesn't address the self-created CP

Self created cp that the kid gave directly to you? No? You got it from a pedo site somewhere? Huh, isn't that odd. It's almost like the kid didn't expect that vid to be shared with a bunch of strangers.

I reiterate, all cp is inherently abusive.

>Not true.

You misunderstood. I'm not talking about actual pornstars, I'm talking about everyone who isn't a pornstar. So basically 99.99~% of the population. They don't want to be porn stars because being the thought of being one is shameful to everyone who isn't.

So yes, true.

>>25456

>I reiterate, all cp is inherently abusive.

Something tells me this guys does not watch CP.

>>25464

something tells me you have nothing else to respond with

>>25427

Remember that porn is a business. The actors become rich and famous if they're good. None of them are ashamed, because it's a type of people who choose to do this. It's a career like sports, where you retire while you're still young. It's then that many meet problems, nobody wants to employ a former porn star. So you can say that the normies treat tham like they should be ashamed of themseleves and regret what they have done.

But regular porn and CP is not the same. Only vaguely. People having sex.

>>25465

Why does this ignorant anti think his uninformed opinions merits anyone's response?

>>25456

Your argument is circular. CP is bad because pedos jack off to it, and pedos liking CP makes them bad.

You don't realize that a large amount of modern CP is literally uploaded onto public sites by the makers (underage boys and girls), or broadcast into public channels. In the latter case the argument could be made that they don't realize it can be recorded, but the fact is they apparently don't care if at least some random strangers see them perform sexual acts non-anonymously. In the former case it's clear that they're making it available for repeated viewing without limit.

It's understandable that you wouldn't know this if you don't look into CP beyond mass media clickbait, so I don't blame you.

>They don't want to be porn stars because being the thought of being one is shameful to everyone who isn't

As I said, I'm questioning the reason why this is. Why is it bad to have sex and get paid? In Spain prostitution is legal, and they even have training for how to act, protect yourself, get more profits, etc. Not to mention one of the lowest ages of consent in the developed world. So it's not some inherent universal human trait to be ashamed of sex.

>>25491

It's a catch-22 situation when it comes to normies and cp, they want to reconfirm why cp is banned, but to do that, they need to watch cp, but they can't watch cp because it's banned. Suffice to say, they won't know a thing about it.

>>25494

First off, whos to say the child doesn't know the video will be shared? What could you ever make of things off camera? Secondly, if a child agrees to have sex with a person for whatever reason, and one of the terms accepted is to be recorded, then that is reasonable justification that the child understood what was at hand. You could argue that they did not understand how broad the scope of exposure would be, but that said, there wouldn't be tumblr and chansluts backpedaling and deleting their shit when their nudes get shared if being an adult automatically gave you that degree of judgement.

>>25494

>CP is bad because it is inherently exploitative and that exploitation hurts the victims self esteem and ability to trust others or form relationships

You can say the same thing about bullying and bullying isn't illegal.

>>25497

>First off, whos to say the child doesn't know the video will be shared?

post a single cp victim who did know and did understood the social/legal implications of sharing their videos. just one child will do.

>and one of the terms accepted is to be recorded, then that is reasonable justification that the child understood what was at hand.

1) see above

2) no it is nowhere near close to a "reasonable justification" because you have not shown they understood the implications of their actions

>there wouldn't be tumblr and chansluts backpedaling and deleting their shit when their nudes get shared if being an adult automatically gave you that degree of judgement.

adults are able to take care of themselves and are expected to deal with the consequences of their decisions.

>>25500

bullying is illegal in many places, and formally forbidden basically everywhere. if anyone finds out you're bullying, you'll be punished. also are you comparing people who make/view cp to bullies because both parties happen to be pathetic scumbags? astute observation, i couldnt have said it better myself.

and this whole discussion is a moot point anyways because we both know you jack off to cp whether the kid explicitly agreed to have it shared or not.

>>25501

>post a single cp victim who did know and did understood the social/legal implications of sharing their videos. just one child will do.

oh and for this i mean to say prepubescent child, i won't say anything about cp of adolescents, this is a pedo board after all.

>>25501

>if anyone finds out you're bullying, you'll be punished

If anyone finds out you're bullying, "boys will be boys."

>>25509

so you're a SJW feminist now are you?

no, there's no place or time where that meaningless sjw soundclip prevented a bully from getting punished.

its also hilarious that your argument is literally L I T E R A L L Y "we let other bad things happen so we should let this bad thing happen too"

>>25510

> we should let this bad thing happen too

what i meant to say was "let this significantly worse thing happen too"

>>25494

>they're making the video with the intention of only the person watching seeing it

Yes, if we're talking about a Skype call or something. When someone uploads a YT vid and doesn't set it private and makes comments in the video to the effect of "Hope you guys liked it, let me know what you want to see next video" etc then it's pretty obvious that they're performing for an audience.

I agree with you that there's a sort of continuum of possible exploitation relating to how involved the girl/boy is with producing and releasing it, and some pretty wide-ranging delusion from pedos to match. For example there is a CP vid with a girl being arguably forced to do a bunch of stuff on camera by what seems to be her mom, and a lot of the comments on CP sites are like "Oh man what a good mom, she loves mommy so much" etc and it's pretty pathetic, and this is coming from the point of view of a pedo himself. But a 5yo being conducted on cam by mom is significantly different from a 12yo voluntarily going out of her way to make a video and release it on YT or Younow. The problem comes when people lump examples like these into one big "CP is evil" blanket statement.

>cp victim

There are extremely few cases of people who had CP recorded and distributed actually commenting on the experience. The two that I can actually name were both coerced, one of them brutalized (Vicky and Tara), and I'm certainly not making the argument that what happened with them should be legal. So everything you're saying regarding a "cp victim" in regards to these webcam/phone productions is utter speculation, and continues to ignore the subset of vids and pics that had absolutely no adult involvement at any point in the production or release.

>why don't you ask any of the other literally multiple billions of people who feel that way

Appeal to popularity.

>>25497

Kids are actually more likely to make their social media accounts private than adults. Just hit up IG and see how many adults have their account private, compared to how many tweens do. I speculate it's because, having been raised in a culture of "everything you do gets put online", they simultaneously have less hesitation to put 'private' things online, but are more aware of how to secure such things so that only those you trust have access.

>>25501

>adults are able to take care of themselves

Interesting then that the vast majority of scandals and regret involving social media comes from adults. Based on the available data, one could argue that adults were the ones who need to be protected from themselves. Or, more sensibly, that "exploitation" should be condemned and punished on circumstantial bases, rather than arbitrary age cutoffs being set as the sole arbiter of harm.

>>25513

>When someone uploads a YT vid and doesn't set it private and makes comments in the video to the effect of "Hope you guys liked it, let me know what you want to see next video" etc then it's pretty obvious that they're performing for an audience.

Unless you're talking about children posting themselves naked on youtube, that isn't what we're talking about. if you are talking about children posting actual child pornography on youtube, then they clearly do not understand the implications of their actions and your example actually serves to prove my point exactly that they didnt understand the consequences their actions could have when they did them. When a child posts their dicks on youtube they aren't just embarrassing themselves, they're putting not only themselves but their whole families in social not to mention legal danger. They don't understand their actions, they're being exploited. When you take advantage of a child's poorly thought out actions either by jacking off to it or distributing it to others, you're exploiting them.

Although when I say that last sentence i can already hear you typing "oh well they'll never know i jacked off to their video so it doesnt matter"

to that i preemptively quote a wise man who once said "character is who you are when you think no one is watching."

just jacking off silently alone at your pc isnt hurting any children, but it is hurting your character, and putting you down an ugly path that you might not like the destination of.

>There are extremely few cases of people who had CP recorded and distributed actually commenting on the experience.

All you have to do is find one. Just one.

>Appeal to popularity.

popularity is literally what makes it valid. almost everyone feels the same way about intimate activity also being private activity. even in the most sexually open cultures known to man people still mostly fucked privately. what is even your suggestion? "NO STOP YOUR FEELINGS ARE WRONG YOU HAVE TO START THINKING THE EXACT SAME WAY I DO NO STOP GUYS STOP BEING EMBARRASSED ABOUT BEING IN PORN"

Wake me up when you've actually convinced society. Until then, CP is inherently exploitative.

>>25514

adults are able to deal with their mistakes. Growing up doesn't mean you stop mistaking mistakes, it means you can handle your mistakes. exploitation is handled on a case by case basis. it just happens that every single case of child porn is objectively exploitative.

>>25513

> a 12yo

As I mentioned in the post you quoted, that's outside the scope of this discussion.

I'll correct myself and reiterate that I'm talking about prepubescents.

see

>>25507

>>25517

You… uh… pre-empted a possible answer in order to shove some metaphysical "character" stuff down our throats? That's kind of a weird way to pose an argument.

The fact is, these mistakes wouldn't be so socially damning if they happened more visibly and just became part of life - and they're starting to, with the advent of modern technology. It's just kids being kids. Kids do dumb things all the time and on most subjects it's seen as ridiculous to hold them to it for the rest of their adult life.

>>25522

Yes, my argument there is ultimately 'muh feels'.

I still stand by it 100%. I don't think there's a group that shows more disdain for "feelings" than pedophiles. Probably because they know the feelings of everyone for them is that of violent hatred and disgust.

>Kids do dumb things all the time and on most subjects it's seen as ridiculous to hold them to it for the rest of their adult life.

What the fuck are you even taking about? The child is the one that has to carry it for the rest of their life, in their own heart, and normal people try to help them cope and get past it. If it's anyone's fault for perpetuating that shame it's the pedophiles that continue circulating their videos forever.

If your point is pedophiles should stop exploiting the mistakes of children then yes I agree fully.

Although it seems your point is "fuck the victims just tell them to get over being exploited." That, and to blame the victims themselves, of course, as pedophiles are so incredibly keen to do.

Honestly at this point it's clear there's no more reason to talk to you. You'll invent any justification in your head that exonerates you of the guilt of exploiting children that you KNOW FOR A FACT are going to be harmed by it later in life.

>>25517

>exploit

The Oxford English Dictionary gives one defintion as "make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand". Thus, to exploit someone requires that the taker (a) receive a benefit from the action ("make use of"), (b) perform the action in an unfair/underhanded way, with the implication that (c) the victim not benefit equally. I'll discuss where that last part comes from.

It seems to me that the implication of the victim not receiving a fair exchange is the crux of "taking advantage". After all, if they DID receive a fair reward in relation to that of the taker's reward and considering the context of the situation, then where is the harm? It would be like claiming I'm "exploiting" someone by taking money from them…in exchange for goods and services. There has to be a differential of what the exploiter gets vs. what the exploitee gets.

So in that sense, what does a watcher of blackmail/tricked-subject CP get?

>sexual pleasure at marginal cost/risk

What does a child who was recorded against their will get?

>thinks they're getting private sex show, thus sexual thrill

>actually not, just getting a momentary rush, at the cost of possible unwanted surprise later

Conclusion: probably exploitative.

——————-

OK, now watcher of self-made CP?

>sexual pleasure at marginal cost/risk

>for some, less guilt/shame

And the creator?

>KNOWS they're putting on an unrestricted, recorded performance

>getting exactly what they perceive–sexual gratification in the form of validation from others

How is this exploitative?

——————-

To put it another way. Is it exploitative for people to jerk off to nonsexual videos of kids? How about for people to laugh their asses off at kids doing silly things in home movies? In both cases you could argue that the kid in the videos would certainly prefer people not be doing what they're doing with the recordings, which seems to be your whole argument with CP (that the mere act of an individual masturbating to a video is causing harm to the child because they weren't fully aware that would be the outcome and would not have made the video if they knew).

I'm sure you'll dismiss me now because "you're comparing home movies to hardcore CP", which is of course not what I'm doing. I'm just asking why sex entering the equation changes whether something is exploitative or not.

Hit Reply on accident.

>>25517

>All you have to do is find one. Just one.

No I don't. The null hypothesis is that CP creation is not correlated with harm. It's your burden to prove otherwise. Why are antis so unfamiliar with this concept?

>Even in the most sexually open cultures known to man people still mostly fucked privately

That's simply not true. Even the Puritans fucked with their other children literally IN THE BED WITH THEM. This idea of sheltering everyone from sex is a fairly recent development. It also has nothing to do with being "exploitative", what a strange non sequitor.

My point should be pretty clear. Sex is seen as shameful, children are seen as asexual, thus when children and sex mix, it's taboo. But literally everything in that previous sentence is just an opinion. It has nothing to do with inherent harms. I think we've advanced as a society enough to acknowledge that things should be restricted on the basis of potential harms, not morality. If 80% of the population thinks a thing is morally wrong, it shouldn't make a bit of difference compared to 1% thinking it. The thing should be restricted if it actually harms, period.

>>25531

>How is this exploitative?

Because they don't know the harm it's going to cause them mentally socially or legally down the line.

So no, they DON'T know exactly what they are getting themselves into, your scenario is a fantasy that only exists in the mind of a pedophile.

Prove me wrong by posting a single child that did know what their actions meant and grew up not regretting it painfully. Just one child.

>Is it exploitative for people to jerk off to nonsexual videos of kids?

Nonsexual videos of kids, unless its also highly abusive, doesn't generally cause even a drop of the pain being exploited for cp causes.

But yes, it IS still exploitative, it's just nowhere near as big of consequences as getting rid of the video is usually much easier (unless it goes viral) and the impact it has on the child is nothing compared to being in cp. Generally normal people don't consider pedos jacking off to non sexual videos, although when they do consider it, it can become a bigger problem

To even make that comparison is simply nothing but a shitpost.

>>25532

All the evidence in the world disagrees with you. Countless, COUNTLESS statements made by the victims themselves disagree with you. So yes, it is entirely 100% your burden and your burden alone to prove otherwise. "not my burden!!!" is the sad pathetic rantings of a subhuman that knows he cant prove otherwise.

Pedophile tactics 101: shift the blame, shift the blame, shift the blame, shift the blame, shift the blame, shift the blame

>That's simply not true.

Yes it is you delirious fucking liar.

>that things should be restricted on the basis of potential harms

good, it's settled, cp should remain totally banned because the harm has been shown by OVERWHELMING evidence to be inherent. Show one single contradiction. Just one. Just one single solitary child's experience with being the subject of child pornography.

>>25533

Please show me this evidence of harm you keep referring to. Like I said, I already did some of the legwork and have looked for these statements about CP, and I've only found the two mentioned. It is your burden to show this proof, not mine to find it for you. If you can't understand the idea of null hypotheses and burden of proof then just stop before you embarrass yourself further, or drop the point and revise your argument. After all, your entire argument rests on the assumption of harm. It seems rational to bring proof of the harm to the discussion. I'll be glad to bring proof of any assertions I've made thus far, if they're in contention.

>delirious fucking liar

Anti tactics 101: ad hominem attacks when backed into a corner and losing composure.

Are you denying my specific example about the Puritans or just the overall idea that sex needing to be hidden is a recent development? I can cite sources, though unfortunately it's a broad idea so you'll probably get a book title rather than a quick article.

>>25535

google "child pornography harm"

No, it has been and always will be your burden no matter how much whining you do. There's so, so much evidence just googling the above.

One something happens over and over and over without fail, and nothing has ever appeared to contradict it even on one single occasion, it's completely fair to say that it is the case. While you're busy demanding evidence that applies to every single victim on earth (i could post article after article, victim statement after victim, that you would ultimately brush off as "nah thats just one individual experience), I'm requesting of you for one child, one single child. Until then you have less than nothing. Which is why you attempt to shift the blame. It will never happen, the burden will always be on you.

Go ahead with your citation. I'm not saying that people didn't have sex with children, I'm saying that for 99% of humanity throughout human history sex has been a 2 party private affair. Your puritan example- people had sex with children in the room– who were asleep. They did it as a matter of necessity, they had one shared bedroom, they took the privacy they could get. No one was staring their kids in the eye while plowing their wife.

>>25536

Sorry man, you're just wrong. You think it's my duty to prove something contrary to your claim, which in turn you have done nothing to support besides asserting "Trust me, there's lots of proof, you should go find it [for me]". I'm sure that's frustrating to you but you just plain don't understand the process of forming arguments that are not epistemological in nature. This is the same discussion from many posts above, and possibly you're the same person from before, even. Maybe, like the other person, you are mistaking "current legality" or "popular opinion" with "status quo" or "null hypothesis", similar to how people assumed marijuana was inherently dangerous due to its (nonsensical) categorization as a Schedule I drug, despite having no evidence that it actually caused harm.

What's interesting is I'm making very few positive claims at all; I'm mostly pointing out over and over that the claim that "X causes harm" continues to have not even a single link or citation or even vague anecdote to back it up, and those who keep making the claim continue to be asspained when called out about their lack of evidence, presumably because they are aware they have none.

Not that this is some bulletproof source but at least it's a solid starting point, I would recommend reading and fully digesting the information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Once you've read it, ask yourself which of these claims sounds like an argument from ignorance:

1. There is no proof that self-produced CP causes harm, so until shown otherwise we assume it doesn't cause harm, or at least that it is not known whether it causes harm or not.

2. There is no proof that a child who produced CP wasn't harmed, so until shown otherwise we assume he/she was harmed.

I would also go up in the thread and read the back and forth regarding burden of proof, since that's all this has devolved to again.

Only when you truly understand the above will you see why it's nonsensical to continue asking me to give proof of a negative proposition.

>i could post article after article, victim statement after victim, that you would ultimately brush off

I've given no indication I would do such a thing, because I've been given no opportunity. Literally no one has posted any proof for me to respond to. Please share the proof, I'm literally begging you. Please please please do it. I only ask that you make it specific to the point we're arguing so it doesn't devolve into an argument about the evidence.

>>25542

"Sorry man" but you are the one totally lacking any support whatsoever.

>so until shown otherwise we assume it doesn't cause harm

No, you pathetically desperate sophist, given the indisputable social context given to any type of cp, we should assume it does cause harm. The origin of the cp doesn't matter. What matters to the victim is that it is now out there being jerked off to. That is the source of the emotional harm. It is COMPLETELY unreasonable to assume just because the child took the pictures they aren't emotionally harmed by the consequences as they grow up just like literally every other type of cp victim.

Vast majority of victims of cp suffer from the consequences, it's ignorant to claim victims of self-made cp exploitation do not suffer.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to post just one child, just one single contradiction.

And I'll say again this is mostly a moot point regardless since someone as clearly disgustingly desperate to defend jacking off to any form of child porn certainly also jacks off to other types of child porn as well.

>>25543

Your response proved how ignorant you are, unfortunately. It's quite telling that you didn't respond to the vast majority of what I brought forth, and instead reasserted that vast amounts of proof exist (somewhere, just not here of course) and again asked me to prove a claim that I'm not even making.

>>25544

And here we have more ad hominem attacks.

It's ok, I forgive you. I know it's hard having your beliefs questioned; just imagine how often pedos have to deal with it But I have confidence that some day you'll cool off and spend some time reading this treasure trove of harm data you are referencing to confirm what you're saying. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you HAVE actually read about subjects of CP, though your last reply subtly conceded that you have no data on self-created CP…that doesn't matter though, right, just like giving something away is the same as having it stolen against your will? Same thing completely)

Really looking forward to your bright future my friend.

>>25544

That people spend time thinking about what is "right" and what is "wrong" material for someone in their private moment to enjoy, is hilarious.

They sit and obviously see this in their heads and somehow "love to hate it". Maybe a little too, before one jack-off to some "normal" anal queen on a porn hub.

There's plenty of testimony from even nude child models like dasha that said they had a good time and don't regret their modeling. Can you say that there's any such statements for self-made cp?

>>25560

>nothing's wrong as long as you don't get caught!

>>25559

What a hilariously pathetic passive aggressive response from such a disgusting subhuman.

>you didn't respond!!!

Actually I did, you are the one that literally hasn't made one single sentence refuting that it's completely logically valid to assume victims of self made cp suffer just like victims of every other category of cp. Probably because you can't say fucking jack, you totally unworthy of life hypocrite failure.

You even made the point about kids who upload embarrassing videos to youtube suffering shame and embarrassment. Any human intrinsically understands such a concept, but when it comes to CP such a disgusting worthless subhuman like you of course desperately denies it to the end. You'll eventually kill yourself.

>>25562

I agree. If one was to follow other people's opinions on how to live, one would be torn apart. And that goes for everything

>>25565

Yes, I'm aware that i don't live alone on the planet Pluto. My point is that there are things that makes you enjoy life. You can ask other people about their opinions. And maybe follow a majority… Or you can use drugs, jerk off to CP, whatever… because YOU like it.

And let's not twist what I say. This is about enjoying CP, jerking off to it because it makes you horny to watch, not producing it.

>>25565

And who do you think you are, by the way. If you've gotten many mails for admirers lately, because of the way you chose to live, I'd love to read them. Please introduce me to your fans.

>>25566

You enjoy those things entirely due to the subtle aggregated effects of everyone you've ever interacted with in some manner directly or indirectly.

Pedos just haaaate the concept of morals, despite the fact that your morals are 90% congruent with the rest of the society you live in. You differ on one single key point and suddenly you consider yourself a renegade maverick. It's a pretty pathetic perspective pedos partake in.

>>25568

>incoherent shitposting intensifies

>>25573

Oh, another I-know-It-All Specialist in this forum. "Pedos just haaaaaate the concept"… Always good to see a self-imposed spokesman for pedos who are not a pedo themselves.

I just love it when someone speaks on my behalf. It takes more confidence than skills.

>>25563

>pathetic

>subhuman

>unworthy of life hypocrite failure

>kill yourself

You seem to be getting more and more upset with each post, friend. I've found that people who get extremely upset in arguments either have some strong emotional connection themselves, or actually are just hiding a lack of confidence in their position. I wonder if one of these describes you?

You "responded" in that you "wrote words following my post", but not in the sense that the rest of us view a proper response. Meaning, you:

1. Didn't acknowledge that the claim I'm making about CP and harm is that there has been no evidence presented here, which is a fact, and that without evidence it cannot be concluded that there is a connection.

2. Didn't answer my question regarding which of our positions relied on argument from ignorance.

3. Didn't give any indication that you understood the information in the link, or any other relevant source on the topic

4. Didn't share any proof of your claim, despite my literal pleading for you to do so. (Ironically, I've presented the only examples in the thread of people who were involved in coercive CP production, and wholeheartedly agreed that their experience, being categorically different, was harmful.)

Instead, you chose to distort what little you did refer to from my post, repeated assertions that I had already responded to which you have never rebutted, and loaded up on personal attacks.

>You even made the point about kids who upload embarrassing videos to youtube suffering shame and embarrassment

I'm pretty sure the point I presented was that kids do silly things they regret, and it's generally understood that there's little reason in beating oneself up over choices made as a child based on the fact that you would make different choices now. Further, that sex is seen as inherently shameful, and therefore sexual choices made in the past are viewed as extremely negative, which I equated to being as silly as shaming me as an adult for quoting Beavis and Butthead when I was prepubescent. But feel free to quote something I said to the contrary.

>>25573

>projecting

Please tell me more about my personal morals and how all pedos are the same person.

>>25580

And what did those people in your example say? Oh yes, every single last one of them directly states that the fact that the cp exists for pedos to fap continuously harms them. The production of the cp harming them is one thing, they're saying the mere fact of the cp's existence also harms them. It's deluded to think the with this universal fact corroborated by every victim of cp that's ever talked about the subject, that's it's magically different for the victims that produced the cp themselves.

>I'm pretty sure the point I presented was that kids do silly things they regret

>BUT THEY TOTALLY DON'T REGRET PRODUCING CP OF THEMSELVES RIGHT?!?!? WHAT A CRAZY ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTION!

>>25582

>I'm totally not like everyone else that lives nearly exactly the same life I do!

The only difference between you and anyone else is that you also happen to have a disgusting habit. While it does make you worthy of an agonizing death, it doesn't mean the rest of your life isn't the same form as everyone elses.

>I made my own morals all on my own! They just all happen to be nearly exactly the same as yours except for this one issue!

so you take this one issue and proclaim that morals no longer matter, and you just do whatever you want on your own initiative. What you wants just happens to be everyone else generally wants. What a crazy coincidence.

>>25606

>a person has sex with his gf, she records it and uploads it on Redtube Amateur

>a person rapes someone and records it and releases it to Darkweb

>2nd situation is bad

>1st situation has a factor in common

>1st situation must be equally bad QED

Literally your logic.

Also I thoroughly enjoy watching you embarrass yourself further by distorting the vast majority of the cherry-picked quotes you got from me. Not to mention go off on some bizarre tangent about morals.

Do you actually believe that proof of what you're saying exists? Have you seen it? I know by now you'll never show it here, but I'm just curious to see whether you've even researched it yourself or if you're just running through mental gymnastics to constantly remain on the opposite side of the debate from a pedophile.

A better question is can children resist being raped. Yes, I believe children can say "yes" to sexual activity, but an equally important question is whether children are able to say "no" to sexual activity from a partner that is much more physically and mentally developed than them.

>>25654

>something is either bad or not bad

Apparently your logic.

The only thing embarrassing here is your pathetic double think.

Fact: victims repeatedly state that they are harmed by the continued circulation of their cp

Fact: vast majority of people feel shame for embarrassing things they've done as children

Fact; in our cultural the shame felt towards sexual matters is exponentially more severe than other activities

Fact: it takes an overwhelming level of delusion to proclaim that with the above facts victims of self produced cp are not harmed by knowing that their cp is being circulated. You KNOW they are being harmed and you DON'T CARE. Fact.

>whines about distorted strawmen

>creates a hilariously distorted strawman

utterly pathetic

>>25656

If you want to learn something about kids and their ability to say yes and no, get yourself a job in a grocery store and listen to children and adults. It's not the children who find it difficult to say no, it is the adults … kids pointing and know what they want … until they get it.

>>25661

how old are these kids you are talking about?

>>25661

Funny because I have worked at a grocery store and nigga that's dumb as shit and has nothing do do with the debate regarding the nature of consent.

>>25668

Yes it has. And if you can't either build up on it or tear it down with reason, can you please stop kocking me on my head.

>>25671

there's nothing more to say about your retarded hypothetical that has nothing to do with consent

>kid: i want that shiny thing!

>pedos: SEE CHILDREN ARE CLEARLY CAPABLE OF INFORMED CONSENT

>>25658

>continues to ignore vast majority of points I bring up

Okay. Continue to bury your head in the sand, it really doesn't matter to me. All this exchange does is affirm my beliefs when the opposition (you) can't present anything other than logical fallacies.

>>25712

>talks about burying head in sand and ignoring points

>ignored absolutely indisputable facts

God it's fucking beautiful when subhumans get destroyed and passively cry like faggoty fucking failures anonymously on the internet. Enjoy your inevitable suicide. Your parents definitely will.

>>25724

Truly the words of reason.

>passive aggressive faggotry

I already posted the words of reason, which you proceeded to not even spend one sentence responding to in favor of being an indignant downsy. no one has ever loved you.

>>25501

>post a single cp victim

Maybe after you post some cp specifically proving that the child did not know the video was going to be shared, or maybe you can stop this game of demanding Russell's teapots and bring a bit of logic to the table?

>you have not shown they understood the implications of their actions

Just as you refused to back the claim you made above, you shall have to first prove that they did not understand the implications first, in addition to a video proving the child did not know the video was to be shared.

>adults are able to take care of themselves and are expected to deal with the consequences of their decisions.

Adults vary greatly in ability and any expectations of them are based on an arbitrary number. For what the age of majority hopes to achieve in making sure individuals are ready for adult decisions, it sure does a terrible job at that.

>>25504

This is a plain strawman. The argument on whether the child consented to the video being shared is an argument against the nature of creation of cp. It is not an argument against whatever method the cp is used, thus your input is moot.

Never fapped much to CP, all the obsucrity, and the incest doesn't appel to me. Their dads learning their daughter that dad is boss of the house and if he say that daughter must do homework or give him a blowjob, she must listen and do that.And if she say something to outsiders he will be angry. It's about power, not consent.

We all hate our parents, and teachers. They tell us what to do and mold us. Sit down, stand up.

If sex with children is ok it must always be on the childs premises. If you're horny you can't trick them to give you a blowjob. They might do it but it will be a power thing.

>>25735

>Just as you refused to back the claim you made above, you shall have to first prove that they did not understand the implications first, in addition to a video proving the child did not know the video was to be shared.

>cp specifically proving that the child did not know the video was going to be shared

ahah you pathetic sub nigger animal even the worthless faggot above knows that isnt how it works. jesus christ how does getting even more pathetic than that abysmal retard not instantly kill a man.

There is no amount of pathetic faggoty impotent whining you worthless nothings will ever be able to cry, the burden will always be on. Always. And. Forever.

>>25740

Well that's just one subset, and it's not like it's exclusive to incest like you mentioned.

Personally I think fathers being more a part of their daughters lives means they're the best candidates to make sure sex doesn't harm their children as they grow up.

>>25765

I suppose it depends on how you view the relationship between sex love and romance. Westerners in my experience think things like this:

–if you have sex with someone and "love" them, it's a romantic love only, not platonic or familial

–physical touch is a sign of sexual attraction

–having sex tends to make people develop romantic feelings, if they didn't already exist

–having romantic feelings tends to make people want to have sex

So if you fall into that camp then a parent having some kind of sexual contact with their child is muddying the waters. Let's say the parent wants the kid to internalize the above morals; what message is it sending when dad fingers his daughter?

If you DON'T agree with those generalizations, then you better be sure about the consequences of parent-child sex. One could argue that we keep these relationships separate as a way of not watering them down, kind of like how keeping people clothed makes it more exciting to seem them naked (immediately preceding sex). Then again, that's kind of like saying you should withhold praise amongst friends or else your praise will get old.

>>25784

Well romantic and platonic are by definition mutually exclusive, but anyone with experience of consensual incest can tell you that you can love someone in both a familial and romantic way.

I don't think there's much worth in making the distinction to be honest. What would you call a father that doesn't have sex with or exposes himself to his daughter, but masturbates her when she desires it? Consider all the mothers from older times that masturbated their boys, were they ALL harboring fetishistic desire for their children?

>Let's say the parent wants the kid to internalize the above morals; what message is it sending when dad fingers his daughter?

It depends on what other messages he's also sending about the nature of sexuality. A parent knows more than anyone else how their child is developing mentally and emotionally so it's for that reason that I say they have the best position to judge the consequences of sexual activity for their child.

Someone who excessively praises others is known as a sycophant and the term is usually spoken of in a negative sense.

>>25785

So are you envisioning a scenario where the child is the initiator or the parent? I guess I just don't see the allure of having sex with one's own child, especially if it goes sour. It's adding a layer of complexity and drama whereas the parent could just foster an open atmosphere for discussion instead if he/she wanted to help be a guide. It's not necessary to be so hands-on, so to speak.

>>25786

There's very little "necessary" activity to parenting. Yea it is very complex and does add risk, but still as I've said a parent is in a better position to carefully assess that risk than whatever older person the child might have a relationship with. The whole situation takes a very degree of empathy and keen insight and shouldn't be attempted by most people.

>>25787

very high degree of empathy*

>>25787

It's not a matter of necessary vs not, I just don't understand the point at all. What can be gained from physically engaging that can't be done just by talking and letting them watch porn? I'm sensing this is heading down the road of wanting to have sex with one's kids and giving retroactive justification for fulfilling that desire. (Not that that's inherently bad but I am merely questioning how sincere and strong these apparently child-centric reasons are.)

>>25789

IMO having them watch porn is much more dangerous to a child's well being than direct sexual activity.

Unlike the dubious research examining child sexuality, porn's effects on the mind can and has been very well studied and isn't censored by political pressure.

>I'm sensing this is heading down the road of wanting to have sex with one's kids and giving retroactive justification for fulfilling that desire.

I'm sensing that your mind is already made up and there's nothing more that could be said to change that.

All I'll say is I don't seek to have sex with my daughter, or to expose myself to her at all. I'm not attempting to justify fantasies. I said this in my first post.

>>25764

>makes an illogical, unprovable claim

>gets asked for a simple speck of proof

>blathers like an idiot unable to comply

>asshurt seething out of every pore even though he wasn't even insulted

If making money was as easy as throwing antis under the bus, I'd be a very rich man.

>>25807

>illogical

>i've laid every single step of logic that leads exactly to the only possible conclusion of me being utterly right

>literally every single spec of cp research AND every victim testimony on the planet is congruent to every word i've typed

You are so pathetically fucking desperate. Your existence is an insult, even child rapists are disgusted by you. It's sublime that you don't even know how painful your death is going to be.

Go the fuck ahead and post your faggy fucking attempt at what a sub-nigger animal thinks is "logic" vindicating you not being raped to death.

>every cp victim states significant harm comes from knowing their cp is perpetually available to access

>but for some reason you think it's logical to assume this doesn't apply to victims of self-made cp EVEN THOUGH YOU YOURSELF HAVE SPENT MULTIPLE POSTS EXPLAINING WHY THEY ~WOULD~ ALSO SUFFER HARM

literally your only argument is >b-b-but you can't know!!!!

Yes, we can know to a certainty.

>I'd be a very rich man.

Too bad you're a pathetic nobody that's only temporary relief from the unending agony that is his life by posting anonymously on a pedo board, and you can't even do that without disgusting every other poster

God it's fucking beautiful.

>>25818

Pro-tip, not all of us are the same person. I was arguing with you for a long time but gave up when you devolved into seething illogical rage. Someone else apparently is a glutton for punishment and is also attempting to interact with you rationally while you do your best to prove you're not capable of such discourse.

>>25843

>i'll say it's illogical without ever explaining why in even one post because i know it's not and i'm incapable of a real response

it is fucking sublime

>>25844

Yep, never even once addressed anything you wrote. I definitely didn't explicitly explain which specific logical fallacies you used either, even though I had multiple opportunities:

>>25542

>argument from ignorance

>>25559

>ad hominem

>>25580

>distortion

>more ad hominem

>>25654

>your illogic distilled into convenient greentext that anyone with an IQ higher than 80 could see made no sense

Nope, I was "incapable of a real response" in "even one post".

why am I getting dragged back into this…

>>25852

Because you can't, you pathetic faggot fucking failure. Slit your worthless throat and die gurgling in your own blood.

Fact: victims repeatedly state that they are harmed by the continued circulation of their cp

Fact: vast majority of people feel shame for embarrassing things they've done as children

Fact; in our cultural the shame felt towards sexual matters is exponentially more severe than other activities

Fact: it takes an overwhelming level of delusion to proclaim that with the above facts victims of self produced cp are not harmed by knowing that their cp is being circulated. You KNOW they are being harmed and you DON'T CARE. Fact.

>>25852

>>your illogic distilled into convenient greentext that anyone with an IQ higher than 80 could see made no sense

Anyone with an iq over 55 would see how pathetically worthless your delirious strawman shitpost was and that it didn't even come CLOSE to implying anything I have ever stated. I have never said one bad thing must be equal to another, that was your desperate subhuman attempt at having ANYTHING to respond to me with and you STILL failed fucking abominably.

YOU

HAVE

NOTHING

>>25818

>my lies are the one and only truth

Arguments presented prior:0

Arguments presented in this post:0

Total arguments presented:0+0=0

What drives such a creature to crawl into a niche board just to humiliate himself? If he really wanted to embarrass himself as an overcompensating fool, he could have easily have felt that suffering in his own daily life.

>worthless faggot fuckstian STILL can't even begin to have an actual rebuttal

AHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

fuck it's beautiful how much you writhe and squeal like the little fucking pig you are desperate to get some stillbrn last word in. god its fucking beautiful.

Fact: victims repeatedly state that they are harmed by the continued circulation of their cp

Fact: vast majority of people feel shame for embarrassing things they've done as children

Fact; in our cultural the shame felt towards sexual matters is exponentially more severe than other activities

Fact: it takes an overwhelming level of delusion to proclaim that with the above facts victims of self produced cp are not harmed by knowing that their cp is being circulated. You KNOW they are being harmed and you DON'T CARE. Fact.

cry your fagot tears until you drown in them.

>>25857

>has to make pathetic lies

>can't even make up his own passive aggressive butthurt comebacks

>Too bad you're a pathetic nobody that's only temporary relief from the unending agony that is his life by posting anonymously on a pedo board, and you can't even do that without disgusting every other poster

God it's fucking beautiful.

Fact: victims repeatedly state that they are harmed by the continued circulation of their cp

Fact: vast majority of people feel shame for embarrassing things they've done as children

Fact; in our cultural the shame felt towards sexual matters is exponentially more severe than other activities

Fact: it takes an overwhelming level of delusion to proclaim that with the above facts victims of self produced cp are not harmed by knowing that their cp is being circulated. You KNOW they are being harmed and you DON'T CARE. Fact.

>>25853

>>25859

>>25861

> "Fact:"

> actually assertions with zero evidence

> expects us to prove these assertions wrong

And now you've sunk to "fingers in ears, nah nah I can't hear you" argument by repetition.

I'll admit, I actually kind of enjoy making the semi daily trip here to see how much of a spectacle you can create next.

Also, not that I expect you to have this level of reading comprehension, but you really need to try to distinguish between posters by their writing style. You have this delusion that everyone disagreeing with you is the same person, like there's this one big bad pedo out to get all the kids.

>>25864

>being this pathetically desperate

http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/real-life/i-am-a-real-victim-of-child-pornography-and-it-affects-me-every-day-and-everywhere-i-go-20131216-2zgn4.html

>There is a lot I don’t remember, but now I can’t forget because the disgusting images of what he did to me are still out there on the internet. For a long time I practiced putting the terrible memories away in my mind. Thinking about it is still really painful.

http://blog.missingkids.com/post/59488030157/the-real-story-victim-of-sexual-abuse-speaks-out

>I am being exploited and used every day and every night somewhere in the world by someone

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130720-plano-victim-hopes-her-story-helps-others-understand-the-impact-of-child-pornography.ece

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/International/story?id=1919036

"Because Matthew put my pictures on the Internet, the abuse is still going on," she said to legislators.

>fingers in ears, nah nah I can't hear you

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

Now you find ONE SINGLE STATEMENT that doesn't say exactly what the FACT I've posted says.You are the pathetic worthless disgusting subhuman animal that has no proof to back up your laughably impotent "b-b-b-but its different for self made cp!!!!!!" garbage.

god it is fucking beautiful

GOD IT IS FUCKING BEAUTIFUL

Fact: victims repeatedly state that they are harmed by the continued circulation of their cp

Fact: vast majority of people feel shame for embarrassing things they've done as children

Fact; in our cultural the shame felt towards sexual matters is exponentially more severe than other activities

Fact: it takes an overwhelming level of delusion to proclaim that with the above facts victims of self produced cp are not harmed by knowing that their cp is being circulated. You KNOW they are being harmed and you DON'T CARE. Fact.

>>25864

What's truly fucking sublime is you being able to say NOTHING. It is the absolute best thing about this board. You have absolutely nothing but pure fucking worthless pathetic passive aggressive denial in the face of the entirety of reality.

Fact: victims repeatedly state that they are harmed by the continued circulation of their cp

Fact: vast majority of people feel shame for embarrassing things they've done as children

Fact; in our cultural the shame felt towards sexual matters is exponentially more severe than other activities

Fact: it takes an overwhelming level of delusion to proclaim that with the above facts victims of self produced cp are not harmed by knowing that their cp is being circulated. You KNOW they are being harmed and you DON'T CARE. Fact.

>>25861

>absolutely terrible at insults

>relies entirely on toddler style whining and namecalling

>thinks he has any authority to dismiss proper insults that have hurt him

You'll get to the right mark some day, kiddo

>like a small child, he believes that by saying "fact" things become true

>probably does not know the meaning of the word "fact"

>unable to provide any evidence still

Where's the facts, kiddo? Where are the facts?

>completely incapable of even attempting to refute a single word

it is GLORIOUS

Fact: victims repeatedly state that they are harmed by the continued circulation of their cp

Fact: vast majority of people feel shame for embarrassing things they've done as children

Fact; in our cultural the shame felt towards sexual matters is exponentially more severe than other activities

Fact: it takes an overwhelming level of delusion to proclaim that with the above facts victims of self produced cp are not harmed by knowing that their cp is being circulated. You KNOW they are being harmed and you DON'T CARE. Fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/nyregion/pornography-victim-makes-voice-heard-in-queens-case.html

>I wonder if the men I pass in the grocery store have seen them. Because the most intimate parts of me are being viewed by thousands of strangers, and traded around, I feel out of control. They are trading my trauma around like treats at a party, but it is far from innocent. It feels like I am being raped by each and every one of them

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586308/Child-porn-victim-makes-gut-wrenching-case-for-restitution.html?pg=all

>I live every day with the horrible knowledge that many people somewhere are watching the most terrifying moments of my life and taking grotesque pleasure in them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcwhaK6rth8

>>25865

Holy. Shit. You actually posted some kind of evidence to support your claim. It only took, what, 25+ posts to break down and do it.

>1st link

As someone who is pretty familiar with CP, as well as technology, I have my doubts from the very beginning. wtf is the Misty Series? Is it really something else but the name was changed? (I suppose it's actually Vicky.) Also how exactly does the Dept of Justice know when someone "views" these things? Someone has a copy of the .jpgs and somehow the Feds get a little alarm when someone opens it in an image viewer?

Having said all that, let's assume for the sake of argument it's 100% true. OK. Uncle rapes niece and records and publishes it, all without her consent. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that this is acceptable? She repeatedly states that the CP causes her harm because it's a reminder of the abuse her uncle did to her in person. I don't see how this supports your view that self-produced CP is equally harmful.

>2nd link

Same girl, see above.

>3rd link

This story is at least confirmed legit. Again, a girl was abused in person, and the abuse was recorded. She is reliving a painful memory when she is reminded that people are still trading CP of something that harmed her at the moment it was happening, meaning her adopted dad having sex with her. The article doesn't say this, but a lot of the pics were of her locked in cages and so forth. So yes, it's understandable that such terrible memories keep getting brought back when her CP surfaces.

Our whole argument has been about girls who consciously, willingly perform sexual acts on camera. We could split those into two groups: the ones who did so in a chat room (which may or may not have involved trickery), and those who actually did 100% of the process themselves, including recording and uploading the pics/vids. Your links involve a significantly different set of examples, girls who at no point were comfortable with the sexual acts and did not wish to have the images viewed on the internet.

It's like me claiming that, based on the stories of two adult women's rapes, that all sex with women is harmful. No, RAPE is harmful. If I recorded the RAPE, I'm sure seeing that video would also be harmful. On the other hand, a woman masturbating while pointing a camera at herself is not even the slightest bit the same situation, other than that a recording device is present, and thus one can't conclude that she will suffer the same harms as those who were raped.

I also think on some level you're aware your examples don't support your argument, with you preemptively noting that our discussion has been about self-produced CP. Somehow you think your glib dismissal is sufficient to explain the vast difference between rape and consent.

>>25869

And Vicky is another that was raped, this time by her dad.

I will at least acknowledge that you took a step forward in seeking out some kind of evidence. Unfortunately, your evidence is only relevant in that it involves CP, not that self-produced CP is equivalent in harm.

>>25890

>even though they all say they are harmed by the cp being circulated, something inherent to all available cp including self-made cp, we should still assume it doesnt harm children who make their own cp for whatever reason!

>On the other hand, a woman masturbating while pointing a camera at herself is not even the slightest bit the same situation

That's an adult woman, not a child you desperate shithead. Given the indisputable taboo and highly illegal nature of CP it is INSANE to think the vast vast vast vast vast majority of prepubescent children do not highly regret and feel extreme stress for producing cp as they grow up and realize what they've done. Pure fucking desperate denial of reality.

Also I never once in one post from the beginning of this thread, starting at post #1 that it was equally harmful, that is purely your continuous pathetically desperate lie to discredit the facts. I've only ~ever~ said that it is more harmful than embarrassing non-sexual content children produce.

Also you disgusting faggot fuckstain, I told you to google the EXACT PHRASE I USED TO GET THOSE LINKS at the very beginning of this bullshit. Kill yourself you disgusting nigger animal. There's no one on earth that wants you to live.

>>25875

>let's assume a thing, assert that it's true, and then make someone else prove that it's not

Yeah, that's not how burden of proof works. Emotionally charged topics aren't immune from basic logic and philosophy.

>LS girls

Everything I've read suggests that they're either neutral or slightly positive (the latter because of the relatively large amount of money they were paid…most of them were very poor). A comparable group is the Candydoll models. For the longest time "Laura B" and "Valensiya" had pics of their CD sets on their social media. Val still does on her IG from what I understand, though I don't have the link. Another model still has pics on her VK page.

An investigative report tried tracking down the infamous Sandra, or at least that's who you could infer they were talking about despite them not naming her, and eventually she basically told them to fuck off. You could tell how disheartened the reporters were that they spent all this time finding her only to discover she didn't fit their harm narrative.

>>25891

I can understand why people assume it's harmful, but as I've stated repeatedly, assumptions are worthless without some sound basis. Showing harm from CP involving rape is a better basis than nothing, but still not enough to conclude that all sexual imagery involving children is inherently harmful, regardless of the circumstances. Does that make sense? Also, if you're now admitting that the levels of harm are different, how different are they exactly? Like, on a continuum where "being raped and having the experience recorded and shared" is on the extreme end, and "having the greatest thing ever in your life recorded and shared" is on the other.

Also, let's just pretend for a moment that everything you're saying is right. Does that excuse your horrendous conduct in this thread? You seem to believe you're on some moral high ground, yet you conduct yourself like a savage. There's no place for insults and threats in a discussion, and there's no point to it. If anything, it weakens your position because it makes you look like a jackass. Either drop it and continue the debate or just admit that you're here to blow off steam making fun of pedos. At least if you are honest about your intentions I could have some respect for you; as it is, I'm just shaking my head at your immature (no pun intended) behavior.

(Who wants to guess the reply is filled with more insults and threats?)

>>25397

>It's not profitable at all. You really can't make money out of CP

There are dozens/hundreds of CP paysites on the darknet. It's mostly nude modeling but that fact they're still out there means people are still paying for CP.

>>25894

>but still not enough to conclude that all sexual imagery involving children is inherently harmful, regardless of the circumstances.

>Does that make sense?

no that doesn't make sense, because you don't have to show it's inherently harmful. you only have to show it's harmful often enough to not tolerate as a rule and the circumstances surrounding cp make a VERY compelling case for that, and the only logic on your side at all is "well you don't know for sure"

what's truly funny is i bet you also use those studies from the czech republic to say that they're evidence that legal cp possession lowers child abuse rates despite them being waaaay more circumstantial than what you're burying your head in the sand over

(but now that i've said that i also bet you'll deny it)

you're being an obstinate empiricist when it suits you because you have nothing else you can hold on to

>>25908

>you only have to show it's harmful often enough to not tolerate as a rule

But you haven't done that at all, kid. "Subhuman" and "fuckstain" are just bad words, they're not evidence in the slightest, even a retarded autism child can type them on a keyboard. Where's the evidence? Where is it?

>>25912

there is no case in law that demands 100% indisputable evidence, you only need enough circumstantial evidence to make an overwhelmingly compelling argument. and EVERY SINGLE THING about CP is precisely that evidence.

i have given you the exact logic and the exact supporting evidence over and over and over and over and your ONLY RESPONSE YOU HAVE EVER GIVEN is

>b-b-but thats not self made cp!!!

as if that changes a single fucking word I have ever said throughout this entire thread.

you are DISGUSTING

you are NOT A HUMAN BEING

you deserve to DIE IN FUCKING INDESCRIBABLE AGONY

but try to sage and run away like the nigger animal coward you are

>>25902

>dozens

I am on Darknet all the time and I can literally name like 2. Please tell me you're not just using hearsay.

>>25904

>your stance

My stance is merely "There has been no meaningful evidence provided, and until then we cannot make solid claims of harm". That's simply a fact until someone provides evidence.

>All coherent logic

Lay it out for me, bro. There certainly hasn't been empirical data presented about children producing CP, either for or against.

I certainly have not claimed that we "can't" know–don't distort my argument. I claimed that we "don't" know, and therefore can't make convincing conclusions. I speculated that the harm, if any, is negligible in most cases, but I'm not pushing that angle because, again, no proof.

>her whole family in jeopardy

How does this work exactly?

>Everything we know about CP

Which is…what, exactly? There is a dearth of scientific evidence on the effects of CP in either direction. (I've looked.) It's understandable because of the ethical issues involved that such studies would be difficult. I can though recall at least two studies in which either CP or lolicon (I can't remember which) was correlated with a drop in rape rates, so there's that.

>Masha

She was not an LS girl so this is a pointless red herring that doesn't apply to my statement. I already acknowledged that her situation was entirely different, due to the coercion of her adopted father.

>That really says absolutely nothing

Love that goalpost moving. "Show me someone who wasn't harmed!" Do you want someone who gushes about the experience, is that the standard for "wasn't harmed"?

>>25908

>circumstances surrounding cp

Clarify what this means. I know you don't have evidence of harms of CP production, because as I stated in the post right above, such data doesn't exist. Evidence of harms of being raped? Yes, I agree that is harmful. But one can't take the harms of being raped + recorded and apply the harms to a different situation not involving rape. The harm came from being raped, with the CP serving as a reminder and prolonger of the harm. This is straight from the mouths of the two girls cited earlier.

I like how you try to preemptively poison the water regarding any study that might support my position. I've already avoided bringing up Rand because people can't conduct a rational discussion when his name is mentioned. But I only brought up that study as a sidenote that one of the few studies focusing on the effects of CP came away with positive conclusions. I am not using it as some cornerstone to my argument, so dismiss it all you want, it's irrelevant.

>when it suits you

I actually think I've been pretty consistent with my empirical stance. I've not made any unqualified claims or assertions without at least mentioning the evidence/source, though I haven't given direct links.

>>25926

>more insults and racism

You're nothing if not predictable.

>>25928

Yes, there are dozens at the very least. Every variation of BD company or LS and everything else have their own paysites. You can find a list of paysites on tor or freenet yourself if you don't believe me. But you yourself can think of 2 right off the top of your head so that just proves the point itself that someone somewhere is theoretically making money off CP.

>>25931

BD and LS don't exist anymore, nor have they for like a decade. I already stated that I am on Darknet constantly and at most could name 2, meaning to the best of my knowledge there are 2 or possibly a handful more. This is in reference to nudes, as you originally stated; there are more than 2 nonnude child modeling companies, if that's what you're now referring to. The vast, vast (95+%) of CP that I've seen over the years has been amateur privately-produced stuff from a dad or uncle or something. Very little of it is affiliated with any sort of payment scheme.

>>25932

Now you're claiming that proof that self-produced CP causes harm has been posted here? Where? Don't be a sophist; you know what was posted was "testimony on recordings of rape".

>everyone but you

Appeal to popularity.

>self-serving

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with my argument. I argue for many things that I have no desire to take part in myself, on the basis that I don't think things should be restricted unless proven beyond a doubt that they must be.

>All victim testimony that we do have all concur that victims are harmed by the continual circulation of their CP

Feel like I've already addressed this multiple times, but recordings of rape is not on the same level as recordings of an act that you sought out to seek pleasure and excitement.

>Jennifer Lawrence is a great example of an adult being emotionally harmed by their self-made porn

Huh, I could have sworn the reason she was upset was because she didn't mean for it to be public. Interesting that you think that's the same as uploading a video of your vagina to Youtube.

>Please explain YOUR logic for why a girl wouldn't grow up suffering emotional harm knowing that she produced illegal pornography and that pedos have access to it.

I already did, over and over; you just can't comprehend it, apparently.

>the dearth is in one single direction. That it causes significant harm

I don't think you know what "dearth" means, my friend. If you're going to claim that there are tons of studies regarding CP effects, which I strongly contend there aren't, since I've searched for them a lot, then post them or drop the claim that they exist.

>Oh fuck right off with that you little disingenuous sophist jackass. Fucking hell, excuse me for getting my child modeling brands mixed up.

You got called out for trying to link two things that were unrelated, and now you're attacking me to obfuscate it. Okay.

> she isn't crying about her father (what are you even talking about?) she's concerned about the types of people masturbating to her material

Masha Allen was adopted, and her adopted father Matthew raped her repeatedly and took pics which he uploaded to the internet.

>"Because Matthew put my pictures on the Internet, the abuse is still going on," she said to legislators.

She was abused, which eventually ended, but she is still experiencing fallout from it because of the CP. Like I said, the CP is a reminder of the abuse.

It's sort of like this: if someone beat the shit out of you, you would look back later and have bad memories of it. But the memories and emotional power would fade. However, if someone had recorded the fight, and you saw that video occasionally, it would bring it back much more clearly, and you'd mentally experience the trauma all over again. But does that mean recording people who are in a boxing match should be illegal? No! Because, even though boxing is similar to a regular fight, it's categorically different in terms of mental trauma because it's consensual. The people in the boxing ring choose to be there.

Again, this is simply me stating my logic, as you've asked me to clarify it to a form you can understand. I maintain that my position is not slam-dunk because I don't have an army of girls uploading masturbation vids to IG, just as your position is not slam-dunk because you have no evidence that girls who were not raped will still suffer because someone saw their genitals.

>pedophiles can still on the other hand jack off to child models or loli or literally anything else that is not child pornography

The irony is that child models are much more coerced and not necessarily comfortable with being photographed as compared to girls uploading YT vids.

>I'm done

K. Bye. (You'll be back though.)

>>25943

>I don't have quotes from an army of girls uploading masturbation vids to IG

fixed

>>25926

I'm saging because I'm not actually arguing, just flinging shit at you, but somehow or another, you're still being completely dominated. How can a person that's seriously arguing get trashed by someone merely shitposting? That's something you can ponder about, while you find that circumstantial evidence that doesn't exist. That's right, instead of presenting any evidence at all you've just moved the goalposts demanding some imaginary "circumstantial" evidence. So where is it? Where's this circumstantial evidence? Why can't you bring it up?

>>25912

>>25958

>>25857

Should you be banned because you shit post? Sheesh you need to change your tampon in both your cunt and ass you are quite pissy no?

You just insult people and talk with arrogance. You must be depressed IRL get help. No healthy person speaks this way. I know you will just insult me, claim I'm trolling and ban me. However relax this is just the internet if this bothers you them this must be all you have and look forward too get help nigga.

>>26049

>Should you be banned because you shit post?

If I was bannable for any of that, this guy'd be out of the ballpark for his low grade shit a long time ago. You can peel open a fresh can of passive aggressive whining, but you still don't have evidence, and you never will. I'm still waiting, kiddo, where's the evidence?

>>26074

Wow you got issues. Shit man i pity you. It must suck being depressed. So you lash out at people online telling them to die, name calling, insults, blah, blah, blah. I hope you get help one day this is just so sad.

>>26083

You have me confused with someone else. Like i am starting to think you must be doing this to several people thinking they are the same person. This would explain the attack mode.

Also why are you bring autism into this? I actually know autistic kids. You are attacking innocent kids when you use autism as an insult. I've seen kids cry over being bullied for autism. Maybe you should consider this if I'm an evil rapist while you are a saint?

Sad please get help, you now just really appear distraught. I'm not your enemy, never been. I'm not "insulting" you but actually trying to be mature. You just seen to throw out hate and insults. Why? Pedophiles get enough hate yet you add more to it?

The way you talk doesn't sound kid friendly nor healthy. I'd imagine I'd worry about that before attacking a person online for being an exclusive pedophiles who has consensual fun and naughty fantasies. :p

>>24068

>If you came out as a unified community and took an active stand in other childrens' rights issues such as sex trafficking and (real) child abuse then you might have a fighting chance.

Im 24, just to point out theres 'virtous pedophiles' but most ppl hate them as they seem to be sellouts to normalfaggotry or whatnot. Also, back when 12chan was still a thing and operated ont hre clearnet a lot of people were still arguing over….some of the same shit here.

>>24119

propaganda studies, as shown by the Rind Study which provides a different rate.

>>26096

Well said. There are many more with self-confidence than intelligence in this forum.

>>24532

heh. what the Qu'ran says. 8. Wow, that's hilarious.

>is this proof that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammed was his prophet?

[im a fedora tiping atheist raised christian, dont take this too seriously]

>>26096

on the *chans, autism is basically someone I dont like/behavior I dont like. Sometimes it is used as a more insulting form of 'pedantry' or 'being pedantic'.

It's like calling people 'cuck'. Now it's 'someone I dont like' or 'something I dont like'. Also, spamming 'faggot' in early *chan years..

>>26124

I know i can be asshole but i don't get the "die rapists" just sounds like a troll who hates pedophiles. I believe in consent. I also think the fighting can just get petty. I don't like it and maybe i should just move on.

>>26126

I use "mean people words" (a cute girl taught me that) too but certain shit really bothers me. I understand chan culture but if we all are pedophiles or a type of phile we have to remember kids in all this. Maybe because a girl IRL (all platonic) i know has it. I feel like a wussy punk but it breaks my heart when she cries telling me kids mock her for it. I feel like a wimp just admitting that. Grrrrrrr need to feel manly again.

Idk i think I'm maturing and taking this place seriously now. I do want to talk to level headed people. I'm risking myself IRL and i just liking talk to dudes who get it. Will my desires align with yours? Maybe. But if consent and no harm are present I'm good. For example i don't get the foot fetish, but if you and the loli like it then go for it.

>>24718

cool, the new black panthers are defending the loli :)

>>26143

Im the dude in the other thread who was wondering what you meant by your relationships, but honestly I avoid calling people autistic or cucks or whatnot in threads, so that wasn't me!

>>26096

Good golly, this just keeps getting better. Not only do you get off on raping kids, you still have the gall to pretend you're some kind of "friend of autistic children". And you've all but confirmed that autism by your complete lack of reading comprehension and your insistence on replying to every post of every thread.

The guy I was replying to was a fucking anti, the kind of person you despise so much, and yet you came in, aspergers blazing, defending him thinking I was putting down a "rapist type" like you. Did the word "shitposting" mess up your brain chemistry when you read it? Is it a trigger word for your auto-sperging?

And of course, play the moral high ground by pretending your cock-addled passive aggressive whining is somehow "maturity". If you want to insult someone, just fucking say it out directly, you pussy. No need to backpedal into circles of "g-get help" or "muh mature gentlemen whinging", when you're meek direct insults fail.

>>26126

Autism was memed out like the word cucks some time back. But it's still used correctly when it refers to people displaying true autistic behaviour, like failed reading comprehension/reasoning, lack of social perception leading to replying to every post and misreading context, and pattern like repetition of the same phrases. All of which this crown autismo namefag has been doing in every thread(yes, he's replied to every thread that's touched the front page since his arrival).

>>26146

I try too as well, i actually want to have valuable discussions and not destructive arguments. I have platonic and romantic relationships. I have to really know a girl before the romance. To just whip out a dick is foolish and dangerous. Once it is established let her whip it out for you. I think black girls and mixed with black girls mature faster and have high sex drives. I think people don't realize biological and cultural differences so they act like im some monster claiming, "little girls don't like this and that". Okay maybe the girls you know are different? These girls have people showing them rap songs, listening to rap, ive seen teen girls talk about sex or pretend to give blow jobs with phallic foods in front of kids! They just know so much… ;)

I also date an adult woman (she is less bitchy) who knows i am a pedophile and even lets me date her daughter. I think she has a fetish for male pedophiles because i didn't think she would be so accepting. I date her as a cover. I pay the bills though.

>>26180

>To just whip out a dick is foolish and dangerous.

B-b-b-ut Anon-kun!! Aren't you supposed to….give her the dick ( ° ʖ °)

>I think black girls and mixed with black girls mature faster and have high sex drives. I think people don't realize biological and cultural differences so they act like im some monster claiming, "little girls don't like this and that". Okay maybe the girls you know are different? These girls have people showing them rap songs, listening to rap, ive seen teen girls talk about sex or pretend to give blow jobs with phallic foods in front of kids! They just know so much… ;)

There's studies on faster puberty among black girls in US, yes I know I know blah blah.

>I also date an adult woman (she is less bitchy) who knows i am a pedophile and even lets me date her daughter. I think she has a fetish for male pedophiles because i didn't think she would be so accepting. I date her as a cover. I pay the bills though.

I'm tempted to say 'it's because you're feeding her' err 'paying for her'. Basically, for a lot of women (with children) in relationships they can tolerate that because you are helping them and being nice to the girl.

>>26193

Not to random little girls unless you want to get caught. An idiot would go to a park meet a little and then in seconds whip out his dick. Safety first!

Still think she has a thing for pedophiles she even ask me if i think certain girls are cute.