[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

Keep it clean and legal. Thanks.

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Infinity Next Beta period has started, click here for info or go directly to beta.8ch.net
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.


If you have any complaints or just feel like chatting, we share an IRC with /loli/ at (#8chan-/loli/ @ irc.rizon.net). Come by anytime~

 No.26546

There is an incredibly harmful narrative that's wormed its way into the mainstream discussion about sexual consent. The idea that we should ignore "yes" and "no" when it comes to sexual consent.

What's that? That isn't mainstream, you say? That's rapist talk? Why yes, that is rapist talk, but that doesn't mean it isn't mainstream.

I am, of course, talking about those underage individuals who desire and pursue sexual relationships with older individuals. The very fact that the age of consent exists as a law is proof of the existence of such individuals, since you don't make laws against things that never happen.

The politically driven policy is to treat the kids who said "yes" exactly the same as the ones who said "no". I'm not talking about the adult not having sex with the kid, for those of you still unsure where I stand on that. I'm talking about how society is to treat those kids who did end up having sex with someone in violation of the age of consent.

What happens when you treat someone like a rape victim? They start acting the part. So much of the trauma that comes from rape stems not from the mere act of forced sex, but from the societal reaction. To take one example, the feelings of bodily impurity that may come about naturally when someone is forced into sex are added to by a cultural narrative that says that a person who has been raped will never be the same again. If the person didn't feel violated or sullied before, the cultural narrative can do the job of making them feel violated retroactively all on its own.

By treating "yes" the same as "no", we make damn sure that everyone who said "yes" and meant it ends up exactly as traumatized as the ones who said "no" and meant that. The pattern is so consistent, an alien observer would be forced to conclude that was the point.

The virgin/whore false dichotomy is at the root of a lot of harmful ideas the mainstream of society has about sexuality, and here we have yet another example. The people pushing the agenda of treating those young people who honestly and enthusiastically said "yes" precisely the same way we treat those who've been the victims of force or coersion aren't doing so because it's healthy for those kids. They're pushing that agenda because in their narrow minds the only other option is to call the kid a slut and move on with their day.

There is no inherent need to make such a child devalue his/her own choices and judgements. There is no value in making that child feel vulnerable and exploited. If we were actually concerned with the health and sanity of those kids, we would be looking for any way to make them feel safe and empowered, rather than deliberately imposing a victim narrative on those who haven't reached that point naturally.

The crime of rape is the crime of ignoring another person's explicit consent. Whether they said "yes" or "no", the rapist does what he/she was going to do anyway. Consent is all about the importance of that distinction. By ignoring that "yes", we're making sure that whether they said "yes" or "no", someone is going to ignore their opinion on the subject and mistreat them accordingly.

Amen!!!! NormalFags beware because this man will lead the movement!!!!

 No.26549

There's a belief among some pedos and non-pedos alike that children don't have the mental capacity to understand the difference between yes and no when it comes to sex. They think kids are incapable of making that choice on their own, so they tell them stuff like "No you didn't really say yes because you wanted to do it, you said yes because you felt pressured to do it. You don't yet understand the difference between right and wrong."

To counter that, I bring up a scenario and ask them to explain why it's different. No one has been able to come up with a good answer yet.

Here's the scenario.

A 12yo girl walks into a classroom and blows the teachers brains out with a gun. She's arrested, put through the criminal justice system, perhaps even tried as an adult. The jury is told the girl knew exactly what she was doing and this was a cold blooded, calculated, pre-planned murder.

Same 12yo girl walks into the same classroom and blows the teacher. Now she's a victim because she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong. That sucking his dick wasn't a choice she made, but something she was somehow pressured into doing. The jury in the teachers trial is told they must convict because he obviously "raped" her since she doesn't know right from wrong yet.


 No.26559

>>26549

The argument isn't that the girl was incapable of knowing right from wrong if she blew off her teacher, but that knowing "Shooting people in the face is bad", as 12 year old girls are expected to know, doesn't constitute the ability to consent to sex with an adult.

No one argues that children don't know right from wrong and are therefore unable to consent to sex with adults, but that they are unable to consent to sex with adults for various other reasons. Reasons such as the inability to have a relationship with an adult where the imbalance of power isn't incredibly extreme, or how much easier it is to take advantage of a child's trust than an adult's, or how children are inherently dependent upon and expected to listen to adults.

None of these things have anything to do with knowing right from wrong. So a 12 year old girl can receive some pretty hefty punishments for shooting her teacher in the face, because she is expected to know that this is wrong, but her knowing right from wrong in this situation has literally nothing to do with the reasons why she cannot legally consent to sex.


 No.26565

>>26559

She understands "Shooting people in the face is bad", but can't understand "Sucking a man's cock is good"?

Your other arguments are because we refuse to empower our children. We'd rather treat them like mushrooms. Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.

Knowing that shooting someone is bad isn't the whole picture. Does she understand all of the ramifications of her actions before she walks in and pulls the trigger? I'm sure she knows she will "get in trouble" but does she understand what that trouble will be? Does she know what it's like to be handcuffed, put in a police car, taken to jail, locked in a cell, interrogated for hours, not allowed to call or see her parents, understand her right to remain silent, know what prison life is really like?

If she isn't capable of understanding those things, she shouldn't be treated as an adult and given a hefty punishment. She should be coddled and told she was somehow a victim for shooting the teacher.


 No.26568

>>26565

Yes, because those are extremely different circumstances with extremely different levels of understanding.

We don't refuse to empower children, we CAN'T empower them. Ignorance of the peculiarities of law has never been a defense from the law, it's a mere privilege we extend to children under very certain circumstances that does not include cold blooded murder. You're utterly fucking delusional.


 No.26576

>>26568

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You keep saying everyone that doesn't agree with you is "delusional" and yet you can't explain why we can't empower children to think for themselves, you just say we can't.

Explain the difference between the levels of understanding? Please oh wise one, share your expertise in child pyschology with all of us.


 No.26614


 No.26615


 No.26674

>>26576

Let's play the devil's advocate for a moment here. The (other) anonymous poster claims that we can't empower children. Putting aside all the arguments people used to disenfranchise blacks and women over the years (not developed enough mentally, too easily swayed by husbands, all the bullshit lines you hear about kids today are pretty much the same recycled arguments), there are a few logistical problems with empowering children.

Look at cereal boxes. When the instructions for the latest toy call for scissors or other cutting material, they always say the same thing: "Ask an adult for help." Not your parents, not your teacher, literally ANY adult. The inherent assumption is that any adult is going to put the child's safety above all other concerns, even if it inconveniences them.

I would argue that in any loving and caring romantic relationship, people should be putting their partner's well-being first anyway, so there's not necessarily anything wrong with that assumption as it relates to adult/child sexuality. Except that let's be honest, as a subculture, we're not 100% filled with desperate longing souls looking for Little Johnny Right or Little Jane Right in order to feel complete. We've got people in here who literally just want to whore around the fifth grade the way other, more mainstream "playas" might whore their way through the local clubs. At best, they're going to put their own needs and a child's needs on an equal level; at worst, they may very well argue that a one night stand never killed anybody and leave it at that. Which, let's face it, one night stands have made plenty of ADULTS cry beside a telephone that never rings for months on end; how much more would an underage girl feel the pain of it? And to bring the idea back into relevancy, how can we balance that with our societal assumption that demands all adults act like dispensers of wisdom, showing children guidance when asked for it?

The easiest solution could be to limit which adults bear that burden. Parents and teachers and policemen only. Then all the other adults can be declared the equals of children and children can be encouraged to treat them accordingly. But that idea would require some pretty massive shifts in our expectations of children in general. For example, dealing with their friends' parents. Supposed to show them respect, right? Call them Mister or Mrs. whatever? Not anymore. Do what you're told in their home? Nope, not automatically - now the child is expected to judge the request as they would judge a peer's.

I'm not saying it /can't/ be done, but it's quite the complicated matter.


 No.26680

>>26674

Where the shift needs to be focused is in the way we treat sex in society. Why do we need to treat it as some magical "thing" that kids can't understand until a certain age?


 No.26681

>>26680

I like to say that sex is like stocks - the more shares that exist, the less each individual share is worth. Some people are fine with being, ahem, a publicly traded company with tons of shares out there, while others find it more appropriate to be an exclusive investment opportunity with very few shareholders.

I don't think it's so much that anyone's arguing that kids don't understand how to play the stock market; you can teach the typical eight year old to play the stocks. The problem is that their company has an innately high value and they might be compelled to make some pretty bad deals without a long-term mindset as to future valuation.

Sure, the counterargument is that it's their company and they should be in charge of buying and selling, but, well… we have trust funds for a reason.


 No.26684

>>26681

That is your moral belief of sex. Not everyone agrees. This isn't evolutionary sound either.


 No.26685

>>26684

Okay, not everyone agrees. So who's moral framework prevails as the law of the land, then? Someone's has to. The trick is to find the principles which best balance the competing goals of safety and freedom.


 No.26692

>>26681

The trouble is, we don't even allow them to learn how to play the market in the first place. If they were taught they had the right to buy and sell, but also taught about future valuation, they could decide if they want to play the stocks or not, instead of being told playing the stocks is evil and bad for you and you will always lose.


 No.26695

>>26685

Not yours. Also what about escorts and prostitutes, gold diggers, pornstars etc. Sex work is a huge industry. People pay to sleep with "low stock" aka used up people. I've seen whores get married before virgins. I think your morals say "innocent and pure" is better than "used up and dirty" . The only reason a lot of sex is bad is STDs and pregnancy. Those can be prevented.

Some people like dirty and nasty over innocent and pure.


 No.28804

>>26681

>Future valuation…

No-one wants to have sex when you are old… virgin or not. It is about here and now, youth, beauty, and experience.

Those without sex-drive don't have sex often, or are just consenting to rape. (Ok, honey, why not, even though I get nothing out of it…) Those are the ones who usually get cheated on. They are like wet-noodles in bed… might as well be fucking a pillow… You hand has more personality.

Being nymphotic isn't a crime. However, suppressing a nympho for "your interest" to "protect her"… is selfish and fucked-up in the head. Why, because others will call her a whore… So, others call virgins whores and sluts. The difference is, the nympho who actually is sexually gratified, is happy. The one who is not, will never be… "Great support".

Truth is, that believing that you actually have control or impact on anything is a joke. You are the ones calling them whores, by making those laws. In the name of selfish "do what I say", without any actual understanding.

What future things are they messing-up?

People know she has sex… Great… she will be one of the first perused by those she wants to be perused by… Those wanting sex.

The other girl… still a prude… everyone knows she doesn't put-out… She'll be lucky if she finds a guy before 25, and I can guarantee that it will be the wrong one for her. (Guy who wants a virgin to fuck, but totally uninterested by her lack of knowledge and gets bored and leaves.) Great thing to promote… further isolation and happiness and suppression and future idiots who know nothing about relationships and sex.

Relationships are not about sex… Not only.. but without sex, you are just friends who tolerate one another and settled, realizing you have no future otherwise.

The other girl… has had ten jerks, and finally found one worth staying with, that pleases her sexually and mentally… Oh, the horror.. how dare she… Lets force her to be stupid and lonely and inexperienced in live and not live, like us… Kek…


 No.28809

>>26685

The most logical thing is to not have restrictions (Except forcing one to be involved) so that anyone can have their own preference.


 No.29243

>>26680

It is not about magic but the risk of sex. Parents are responsible for their child's health. Sex is related to health. If a child is having sex that is one more health issue they have to deal with. Additional check ups, more doctors. Etc. Parents don't want that. Who can blame them?


 No.29252

>>28809

You must be retarded. This won't happen. You or anyone not getting their preference is fine. The world doesn't revolve around your dick like that.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]