/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

i have never raped any chillens boy

There's a few threads on the catelog that relate to this…I mean, I'll spit one out if you give me something to go off of.

If not, there's not really much to say aside from kids like sex, can feel pleasure from sex, can desire sex, can seek sex, and can understand the basics regarding sex and rather or not they want it, or want to continue when doing it, at the very least, regardless of age (minus infant-tier), as it's not complicated.

There's nothing to really justify with it, as there's nothing bad to try and defend regarding it.

>>25261

Sorry ignore the autist, he's resetting his IP to shitpost because "waaa all I did was post swearing and irrelevant OT hate-posts while mad and got banned for 12hr."

All things should be allowed unless it's shown that their harm to society outweighs their benefits, whose benefits include mere liberty.

The null hypothesis is "there is no correlation between noncoercive sex with prepubescent children and harm". This has yet to be disputed using evidence. Thus, regardless of one's personal beliefs, it should be allowed.

The same argument applies to drugs, controversial media (video games/movies/etc), and a myriad of other things that are only censored or restricted due to the government imposing the personal morality of the few upon the many.

>>25264

>>25338

Going to declare /thread since these are both well-stated, and no antis have yet been able to come in and start spewing their inaccurate, emotion-based, irrational "arguments".

/thread

>>25345

Nobody's talking about child rape in this thread.

>>25338

The average consumer doesn't understand enough about drugs to be able to make an educated purchasing decision, so the government has to make the dangerous ones only available through a doctor. Likewise, children don't understand enough about sex to make an education decision about becoming sexually active or not.

>>25357

If you follow that train of thought:

- consumers have doctors to regulate

- children have parents to regulate

By your logic, it should still be allowed, just regulated by a parent the child trusts.

>>25362

>children=chemicals

The analogy works from the standpoint of the consumer being a hedonist looking for a thrill, but falls apart when you realise that children are conscious beings with rights, while drugs are inanimate objects.

>inb4 retarded strawpicking about some drugs being "alive"

>>25362

except for when you bring up parents pedos flip the fuck out and say it should totally be only the kids decision

the doctors themselves are regulated by medical standards, and in turn what parents can do to their children is also regulated by the government. it's already extremely difficult to make sure parents arent overstepping their boundaries or abusing their children, even with all child sex being illegal. making it legal under any context would basically give unscrupulous parents a complete immunity to do whatever they want to their kid and get away with it except under the most extreme circumstances.

>>25364

Yes, children have the negative right to not have to worry about being preyed upon by child molesters.

>>25364

Fair enough. It wasn't my standpoint. I was just pointing out the post that I quoted didn't take their argument far enough.

>>25365

>except for when you bring up parents, pedos flip the fuck out and say it should totally be only the kid's decision

I'm a pedo and I don't say that. If the parents were understanding enough to let me spend time with their daughter and we got close enough that she felt she was ready to take it further, but her parents were adamant about waiting until she was older, I'd respect their wishes.

>>25367

Plenty of other pedos do say it. There's literally strawpoll on this board that proves that fact. And you still didn't address what could be done if the parents themselves were morally compromised. There's literally no way you can relax child-sex laws that doesn't ultimately make it easier for legitimate child molesters to operate.

>>25357

This philosophy of the government needing to take a paternal stance to protect gullible morons is not universally accepted, and is highly susceptible to abuse. Again, is there evidence that this policy of restricting drugs is worth the tradeoff of impacting personal freedom? Why are many drugs restricted through prescription or even illegal when cigarettes are restricted through mere age limits, and they are AFAIK horribly harmful with zero benefits that couldn't be achieved through chewing nicotine gum.

And again I ask, what evidence is there that "children don't understand enough about sex"? If they truly don't, to what extent is that an inherent limit in child brains, vs shoddy sex education?

>>25365

>>25368

The number of pedos who do or don't support it is irrelevant.

Parents being morally compromised is irrelevant. We call that neglect, and no one is suggesting that shitty parents should get a pass if laws regarding consent were modified. With the current set of laws and system of enforcement, shitty parents already can do whatever they want with nigh impunity, so there is no basis to claim that loosening the law would have an appreciable increase of harm of children.

It sounds like you have more of a problem with parents getting too much leeway and benefit of the doubt when it comes to potential harm of kids, not necessarily the legalization of adult-child sex. Maybe then the approach should focus on improving parenting and being more vigilant in monitoring parenting, instead of blanket restrictions on things that "could" be harmful "if" the parent is neglectful (ignoring the fact that such a parent would be harming the child regardless of sex laws.)