/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

more can be found at littlebadgirls.com

that is not a good idea at all

Just wing it.

I hope you enjoy being kicked in the face and spat at by anti-pedos, ostracized by everyone you know, and getting a reputation as a child rapist for the rest of your life.

But other than that, it should be alright.

>>30227

>>30239

Do you guys seriously think it'll be that bad? There are some people I know of that speak of our plight, and … Well, I wasn't thinking I'd be completely rejected.

>>30240

You have to utter the words "I do not support or condone child abuse in any shape or form" multiple times. You cannot mention cp in any positive light, and since you're a britbong, might want to be careful about talking about loli too. I don't know if you're pedo or just pedo-sympathetic, but one slip of a word that brings you into pro-either of the things above, and >>30239

You can realistically argue for cucked pedophilia like Project Dunkelfield, you can push for sympathy by comparing to lgbt in the past or race-mixing, but if you're planning to touch on the slightest bit of possible child touching, then I hope you're young enough to be able to brush this off as being "a naive edgy teenage phase that I grew out of" or mentally capable of dropping your social life and reputation.

What points do you have though? How pedo will you get?

Best case scenario, you will fail the class. Even if you made flawless arguments, they still disagree and say you made a poor case. And even if they didn't disagree, they would assume they would be ostracized for agreeing, and would say that they disagree.

The worst case gets a lot worse. Use your imagination. You are not going to be relatable with this position. If you are charismatic, they will think of you as a manipulative sociopath, if not, a basement dwelling weirdo.

As an alternative, perhaps you could consider a speech about the importance of objective, logical evaluation of ethical arguments. It's a broader topic, and is much more easily defensible. There is plenty of groundwork that needs to be established before we talk about lolis anyway.

>>30241

>You can [maybe] argue for cucked pedophilia like Project Dunkelfield [if your teacher is really open-minded and liberal], you can push for sympathy by comparing to lgbt in the past or race-mixing, but [otherwise expect awkward stares, even more awkward questions and never to be allowed near first-years again]

fixed.

>>30241

>how paedo will you get?

It's a while away, so I have nothing definitive. This is why I put this up, but some spitballing:

- Children experiment with one another naturally, and we accept this, but as soon as an adult is introduced, the only scenario we can consider is rape

- We've forgotten why we don't support child/adult relationships and it's not about the safety of children, but self-gratification and hysteria

- Sex is a large part of being human and to keep children completely ignorant of their sexuality, or their future sexuality, putting forth negative connotations with sex, is damaging and limiting and reflects badly on our apparent progressive, sex-positive society.

My school is progressive as fuck, and I've spoken to a few people and they want to lower the age of consent to like, 10 - 12. I feel like I have some people who I can bring over to our side, but I think you guys may be right. I'm probably not going to convince anyone so what's the point of sticking my neck out? Still, who's going to do it if I'm not? There's nobody really speaking about it to the general public, only to niche audiences.

>>30245

>- Children experiment with one another naturally, and we accept this, but as soon as an adult is introduced, the only scenario we can consider is rape

>- We've forgotten why we don't support child/adult relationships and it's not about the safety of children, but self-gratification and hysteria

>- Sex is a large part of being human and to keep children completely ignorant of their sexuality, or their future sexuality, putting forth negative connotations with sex, is damaging and limiting and reflects badly on our apparent progressive, sex-positive society.

Ehh, I can see you making some traction with these. They are pretty limited in scope. I would advise stopping just short of full blown pedo though.

>My school is progressive as fuck, and I've spoken to a few people and they want to lower the age of consent to like, 10 - 12.

Shit son, are you talking to muslims?

Are you absolutely certain that they are as open minded as you think? It's easy to let your aspirations vastly exceed what you can realistically do.

>>30245

>Still, who's going to do it if I'm not?

Probably someone far in the future. After the libertarian revolution, when we no longer have to meekly surrender to every parachuted-in paranoid busybody fuck with a "safeguarding concern".

>>30246

>Are you absolutely certain that they are as open minded as you think?

They seem so. What I said about age of consent was said directly by a couple of people so little doubt with those guys.

Generally though, people are very casual. People are tolerant of the intolerant; I say racial slurs - I like the sound of them - and nobody cares, and there are a couple of homophobes, which is really rare in my area, and people just kind of accept it.

It's hard to talk about because I'm just picking up random details. It's common for year 11s (~16 yo) to date year 8s (~12), people had negative reactions to Romeo and Juliet's ages, and one guy was against his friend dating someone a couple of years younger than him, but really, the worst I heard was it being described as weird or people having concerned shock. Romeo wasn't called a monster or accused of grooming! lol

> muslims

Commie and a Muslim, haha!

>>30248

>It's common for year 11s (~16 yo) to date year 8s (~12)

That's teen-on-teen though, different story. Plenty of people seem to (begrudgingly) tolerate kids boning each other nowadays, but still scream the moment you replace that 16yo with, say, a 25yo. "Power imbalances" and shit.

>>30248

>>30249

>- Children experiment with one another naturally, and we accept this, but as soon as an adult is introduced, the only scenario we can consider is rape

I will give you my input: NEVER consider talking about adult-child sexual contact. That will completely derail your exposition. If you don't support that, you should be pretty ok if you talk about virtuous pedophiles

If you think you're good enough of a speaker, go for it, but keep in mind that people don't disappear when they leave your vision. You may say something to piss them off one day and they'll bring this up and blow it all out of proportion to fuck with you later. Many a politician have been embarrassed by things that they said twenty years ago. During the height of Gamergate, I remember the SJW opposition trying to smear some irrelevant gamer autist based on a off-color joke he made on Usenet, like, twenty years ago. Be careful.

General tips for public speaking, from one autist to another: shit sux. I've learned to force myself to do it for professional reasons, but I'll never have the inborn easy that some will. That said, I'll give some tips. Don't prepare a lot of things. Fill up a note card (or equivalent) for every five to ten or so minutes. Order them carefully to make it flow logically, sure, but otherwise, leave out the detail and only have topics and major subtopics. No one wants to hear you read a speech. The notes are just so you don't forget a topic. Experiment with arrangment. How you order the subject is often just as important as what you say. Read the crowd, change things based on how they are reacting. And most importantly, if this is something the entire class has to do, keep in mind that they likely don't care too much about you and are more worried about their own presentation, so don't sweat it.

>>30263

This may also be something to consider. It's an intellectually easier route olto argue that being a pedophile isn't bad than to argue that pedophilia is good, and an easier one to accept for normies. It is your choice though.

I haven't read it, but expect this book has some good material.

Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex

History lesson:

Earlier fucking in history and prehistory.

Age of interest in primitive societies.

Napoleon Chagnon

Girls typically get their periods between the ages of 10 and 12, and as soon as the period begins, girls are married off.

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

Our own unjustified cultural arrogance to condemn social practices.

Related in theme, Cultural interference by the United Nations.

Dynamics of hate and dynamics of bullying. Need of societies to identify a group of people as forfeit of sympathy and as outcasts. Relationship to dynamics of social popularity in bullying.

Address lunacy of tenet that Nature/God would develop humans to be physically able to sexually reproduce but mentally incapable.

Psychology studies show that, controlling for other factors, there is no measurable damage due solely from sexual contact between children and adults.

Sexual economics/marketplace. In-group preference of women. Interest groups for older women, who have influence and can vote, restricting access to erotic supply to men to increase demand of men for said older women as a group. Use of increasing 'age of consent' to restrict supply in the sexual economy.

For-profit-non-profit groups lying and increasing hysteria for their own power and benefit.

Governments using child damage hysteria to increase their power: Great Firewall of China, raids in Internet cafes.

There are good resources for analysis or essays to be found at:

https://ipce.info/

>>30276

Thank you for this! Very helpful, and I'll search for those essays.

again, it's really appreciated. love you, 'lark'

>>30276

>Address lunacy of tenet that Nature

Easy, nature is not a perfect system, and human emotional/social development have far outpaced our biological development.

Why would nature give us jaws so small most of the population have teeth crowding issues? Answer, it didn't, we did, when we started cooking and portioning our food into smaller and easier to chew pieces.

Yea, sex doesn't have to be child abuse, but the only lunatics here are the ones that refuse the undeniable reality that adults have a mental advantage over children and child molesters regularly use that advantage with no consideration for the children they fuck.

Why would nature give us so narrow pelvises that 1 out of 3 women used to die from childbirth?

Pointing to an obscure primitive tribe as some sort of ideal will only get you ridiculed and discredit all of us.

Please stop latching on to every single pro-pedo argument no matter how inane it is, it's just a hindrance to pedo acceptance when you retards think you have a point to make.

>Why would nature give us jaws so small most of the population have teeth crowding issues? Answer, it didn't, we did, when we started cooking and portioning our food into smaller and easier to chew pieces.

Old living dentists have information which refutes this. If you ask them, (as I have), they will tell you that have observed an increasing mismatch in proportions of jaws and teeth.

We have had well prepared food for much longer than the occupations of old dentists, so food preparation can not be the cause.

This mismatch may be from increased variety of breeding with people from different regions and interracial breeding. Take one parent with a small jaw and matching teeth and another with a large jaw and matching teeth and you get a child with mismatched jaw and teeth.

Using your analogy to justify prevalent claims regarding sexual development would be ridiculous. The prevalent claim of dominant influence is that all children are mismatched with physical sexual development and emotional and mental ability and that they are all traumatized by the experience. That is akin to claiming that all humans have mismatched jaws and teeth.

Even in situations of definite low mental ability, such as with sex between an adult mentally mature person and a mentally handicapped person (adult or child) would not be inherently damaging.

Consider an animal with less than human intelligence. If you want to fuck or be fucked by your dog, there is no harm done.

>>30284

It's just one issue present in an obviously imperfect system.

> If you want to fuck or be fucked by your dog, there is no harm done.

There is also huge amounts of animal abuse among the zoophilics as well, if you want to go down that avenue.

Sure you can probably fuck a dog in a way that isn't harmful, but don't be so desperate to justify fucking dogs that you'll say that "there's no harm done." Because there is often harm done, the harm just isn't inherent.

> If you ask them, (as I have)

No you haven't.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cooking+food+jaw+size&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

>Why would nature give us so narrow pelvises that 1 out of 3 women used to die from childbirth?

That impresses me as something which you pulled out of your or someone else's ass. How unsanitary.

The largest known drop in fatality rates came from radically increased hygiene or sanitation. Hygiene/Sanitation has been mainly responsible for the reduction in mortality of mothers giving birth – not broader hips. The hips are not fixed at a certain width during pregnancy. Joints of the hip bones soften and some ligaments loosen.

Even if your suspicious figure of deaths were nearly correct at some place in some time, you are implying that narrow pelvises were the cause of practically all those fatalities. It is far fetched that 1/3 of mothers would die at their first birth because of narrow hips. The impact that would have on the ability of a population to grow would be too great. It seems likely that a large portion of the deaths of mothers which happened did not happen with the first birth.

>>30282

>That is akin to claiming that all humans have mismatched jaws and teeth.

Point to the part of my post where I said that.

>The prevalent claim of dominant influence is that all children are mismatched with physical sexual development and emotional and mental ability and that they are all traumatized by the experience.

Fallacy by fallacy, just because the uninformed masses make stupid arguments does not mean they are completely wrong and there is no issue with child sex.

> The hips are not fixed at a certain width during pregnancy. Joints of the hip bones soften and some ligaments loosen.

No shit, and broader hips can accordingly stretch further than narrower ones.

Point to a single doctor who makes a case that narrow hips are not an issue in childbirth. I'll wait.

>> If you ask them, (as I have)

>No you haven't.

I heard from 2 old dentists, 1 indirectly, that they had seen a increase of problems with alignment of teeth over the years they had practiced. The one I asked directly said there was an increase in mismatch of the jaws to the teeth.

>>30289

and you took that and came to the conclusion that

>so food preparation can not be the cause.

despite many many researchers saying 'cooking almost certainly contributed to the way we've evolved' and precisely zero of them saying 'no that is definitely not the case.'

Dentists are not anthropologists, btw. And I still sincerely, sincerely doubt you've actually asked one let alone two dentists about anything to do with this and are literally making up lies to try to contradict me.

Usually when you're going to be a stubborn myopic autist about something contrary to the main point of the discussion (nature is an imperfect system and our emotional/social/cultural development has passed out biological development), you want it to be something that you're at least right about.

Puberty is not an on/off switch, and a child being physically able to bare children does not make it a good idea, regardless what people who live in mud huts and worship rocks believe.

>When Yanomami tribes fight and raid nearby tribes, women are often raped, beaten, and brought back to the shabono to be adopted into the captor's community. Wives may be beaten frequently, so as to keep them docile and faithful to their husbands

Yes, clearly these people fuck children because they are aware of the benefits of doing so for all involved, not because they're savages.

>>30240

Ofcourse it will. My own parents and brother tried to assault me when they found out I had lolicon on my phone.

I live in the UK too bro, people who've been wrongly accused of being paedophiles have been burned to death here, you being an open pedo would get you mobed at the very least, you'd be lucky to escape with only a beating.

Seriously dude, how fucking dumb are you?

>>30299

Where are you in the UK? North or south?

Your immediate family are also cunts.

>>30300

far South.

I understand the reaction, the media is constantly pushing anti-pedo stories. They calmed down eventually let me move back in (since I was a minor at the time) to the house but It didnt feel the same and moved out to get my own place with my friends.

>>30299

>>30303

Story tiem.

>>30306

Never bothered locking my phone. I was depressed at the time and didnt care if I got caught.

>>30299

>>30303

>>30324

Look who's back! Welcome. Have you succeeded in staying away from the slav children?

So are you still planning on doing this, OP?

>>30410

That's impressive. Did you make it clear that YOU are a pedo, or is it a more academic thing? Keep us updated and watch out.

>>30413

It's probably the former! But please, I'm just lucky I live in a place where people are way more easy going and also most likely won't beat the shit out of me.

And I actually planned on using the studies you put up. Thank you for that, by the way.

I had to look up what you meant by program. Is that stuff for university? I'm still doing GCSEs and it's English language for this.

>>30436

I referred to paedophiles as them, like I was a third party. That's enough subconsciously, but I'll probably have to say that I'm not a paedophile directly at some point. I wish I didn't have to lie about it though.

>>30438

I meant the latter.

>>30438

>I had to look up what you meant by program. Is that stuff for university? I'm still doing GCSEs and it's English language for this.

He means your major or what degree track you are on, I think. I don't know what you call those in the UK, but it's what subject your studies revolve around (IE, math, law, medicine, physics, computer science, etc) or what your end goal is (get a medical degree, get a law degree, get a psychiatric license, etc). Calling it a program is a little weird though.

>I referred to paedophiles as them, like I was a third party. That's enough subconsciously, but I'll probably have to say that I'm not a paedophile directly at some point.

Smart move tbh fam. I wish I could be open about it too, but I'm too scared. You are taking a lot of risk as it is. Especially considering the angle you are coming at the subject from.

>>30413

Who is this Nene-chan and why did I just spend a minute watching her eat, and why am I planning on letting this loop?

>>30471

She's a Japanese junior idol that I am infatuated with. I'm am a bit ashamed that I like a girl who's DVD is titled "Nene-chan, 5 years old!". It's a lot tamer than anything by Candydoll, for example. And now I see that I am justifying myself. I don't have to justify myself to you. Fuck off.

I don't have the Japanese titles on hand, but she has 2 DVDs, coded POPO-001 and TKG-001 (or maybe TGK-001). Good luck finding them. I had to wait on a seedless Japanese torrent for a week before I lucked out and was able to download the 6yo video.

>why did I just spend a minute watching her eat

Because she a cutie!

>>30471

She's a Japanese junior idol that I am infatuated with. I'm am a bit ashamed that I like a girl who's DVD is titled "Nene-chan, 5 years old!". It's a lot tamer than anything by Candydoll, for example. And now I see that I am justifying myself. I don't have to justify myself to you. Fuck off.

I don't have the Japanese titles on hand, but she has 2 DVDs, coded POPO-001 and TKG-001 (or maybe TGK-001). Good luck finding them. I had to wait on a seedless Japanese torrent for a week before I lucked out and was able to download the 6yo video.

>why did I just spend a minute watching her eat

Because she a cutie!

How in the fuck is this comment not original?

Seriously OP be careful doing this and make sure you dont let on that you are a paedophile.

I know current attitudes towards pedos sucks and we need to change it. But dont intend to be a martyr or anything.

Hey, just casually bumping my own thread right back up to the top :)

Would it be cool if I just dropped a ~800 word essay on you guys soon? I think it'd be handy to get some harsher criticism than what my teacher would give me.

I finished it now, but it's really just the umpteenth draft, honestly. I'd like to reread it on a couple more occasions and tweak it some more before I post my autism onto the internet for it to stay, forever.

We're doing a practice speech on thursday, by the way, so getting kind of close, which is kind of scary. Part of me just kind of wants to back out, but I'm not going to.

(I hope this wasn't a double post. issues first time posting)

>>30618

Yeah, that's cool. Just drop it word for word so that suits that browse this place in future can dox your paper.

>>30618

Yeah, that's fine. I'll read it. But know that no one would blame you for backing out. If you are uncomfortable with going full pro-pedo but still want to do something about it, you can still change the topic to something that stops short of mentioning children themselves in the context of sex.

Also, >>30621 raises a valid concern if you have to submit your paper to a plagiarism checker. _They_ probably will never check, but they could, if _they_ were really, really bored. It is pretty easily beaten by a thesaurus though. If you are worried by it, you can just post summaries of the points, not the actual sentences you will end up submitting.

This isn't what I'm going to be submitting, I don't think. I'll have to rewrite it in controlled conditions with a couple of pages of notes to help me. Not allowed to just write out what I've said verbatim.

Across different cultures, the span of and ideals relating to childhood, shift and change. For example, across the globe, children are made to work at increasingly younger ages, mostly due to necessity, but in developed countries, we have the luxury of not needing to do so, and so who we consider to be children covers a larger range. What this shows is that the length of childhood is not fixed, but one which is unique to each society. This suggests that the extreme lengths at which we go to to ‘protect’ our children from certain things is largely unnecessary, and are not done because of the need to do so, but because of our own ideals and principles. However, it’s not only unnecessary, but damaging and incredibly limiting.

In our culture, we glorify the ignorance of children and we construct this sort of Orwellian bubble which we impose upon our youth. This is highlighted in the topic of children and sex; we cannot cope with idea of a child in a sexual situation. However, children are naturally interested in romance and sex, and sometimes do experiment amongst themselves, and occasionally at very young ages too. We don't give kids enough of an opportunity to do so though, because of our own irrational fears. Instead of encouraging children to engage in this, we discourage or remain indifferent, continuing to push an anti-sex narrative and furthering social stigma.

And sex is such a large part of who are too; it defines how a lot of people view us and it also influences many of our decisions. On a fundamental level, I believe we are our sexuality. After all, it is why we’re here - because we’re passionate about sex, because we’re sexual creatures, it’s why we survived as a species. And looking at our society, it reflects that, through the media, the social lives, behaviour and values of people. It shows, through us and the world we’ve created.

So removing this opportunity, and shielding them from sexual matters is a questionable action, and it’s not one I can sympathise with. We’re failing to prepare them for the nature of our society and failing to allow them to discover and explore themselves, which are both core tenets of parenting, I feel: to allow your child to explore and understand themselves, as well as the society they are a part of. By refusing to allow your child to explore their sexuality, I feel as though you’re significantly harming your child’s development. I don’t think you will ever truly understand yourself or be comfortable with yourself until you accept and explore your own sexuality, and it’s such a unique, individual thing and it defines us in such a large way that it can’t just be ignored until someone’s mid teens.

Children, from birth, know what they like and what they don’t like; it’s built within us, from day one. Something which many of us are familiar with is the fact that kids are very rarely afraid to let their feelings known, especially when they are experiencing any form of displeasure. The rambunctious, overt nature is what many love or hate about children. But when it comes to sex, we are unable to trust the decision made by the person - we decide for them. The reasoning behind this is hard to pinpoint, supported by nebulous phrases such as: “They’re too young,” or “They just can’t consent.”

But one criticism I’ve heard of this is that sex is seen as a highly emotional thing, and so, children could never take part in it without being traumatised by the intense, spiritual nature of it. Well, firstly: I see no reason why an intensely positive experience - which is what consensual sex supposedly is - would be damaging. Perhaps very taxing, exhaustive, confusing, at worst, but definitely not traumatising. Secondly: this is a matter of subjectivity, and many people take part in casual sexual relationships without the intense spiritual and emotional connection associated with it. They may feel closer to the person, as they have shared an experience with them, but that’s all. Sex isn’t inherently like this; it depends on your perspective. Thirdly: if sex was inherently like this, then two children having sex with one another should result in two traumatised children. But that doesn’t happen; they experiment, fool around, and they’re fine. The traumatising element must lie in something which differs between child/child relationships and child/adult relationships: social stigma. Lastly: it’s pretty much just very condescending and it also completely undermines a child’s humanity. You really don’t need to have a degree in psychology or understand the ins and outs of society to have a relationship.

Don't be afraid to roast me. If it's that bad, I may need it.

>>30645

I'm hesitant to post this, because I'm about to sound like a contrarian, nitpicking dickhead. But please know that I am not trying to argue with you myself, I am only trying to point out potential ways that people could assault your thesis.

>For example, across the globe, children are made to work at increasingly younger ages

False, intuitively. You may have a source that claims that, but my first thought is that the kids who are in electronics factories these days would have just been working in the mines fifty years ago.

>we have the luxury of not needing to do so, and so who we consider to be children covers a larger range

True, but it probably more of a demographics and economics issue than it is mere free time. To support that and your next statement, I'd suggest that more time spent in education, needed in an advanced society where there are few low-skill jobs, means more time as a dependent, meaning more time where the parent has control, which is the cause of extended adolescence.

>This suggests that the extreme lengths at which we go to to ‘protect’ our children from certain things is largely unnecessary,

It doesn't follow. You can claim that it isn't objectively correct based on your previous statements, but to claim it unnecessary is a much stronger claim, and would require showing that it either has no effect or a harmful effect. That's probably what you are going for, but you haven't said it.

>and are not done because of the need to do so, but because of our own ideals and principles

The unstated premise here is that the ideals and principles in question are bad, or at least flawed, and shouldn't be relied upon for determining what is "right". To argue with you, I would claim that reality is a blurry thing, and can only be interpreted through an ideological lens. Even if it an objectively correct moral code does exist (and that is hell of a hill to die on, to be sure), and on a personal note, it does seem to me that there should be one, we can't wait around while mankind attempts to nail it down. The world will keep turning. All that to say that this line of reasoning is … highly questionable on a philosophical level.

>In our culture, we glorify the ignorance of children […]

Good paragraph, but:

>We don't give kids enough of an opportunity to do so though, because of our own irrational fears.

It isn't really irrational. It is based on the societal axioms provided known as 'culture', yes, but that is not the same as irrational. Arbitrary, sure, but everything is arbitrary. Veering pretty hard into postmodernism given your previous favoritism to anti-relativism to he honest. But I'm nitpicking I guess. The left's preference to believe that things are social construct is a sword that can cut you just as deep as the right's more objective morality can.

>On a fundamental level, I believe we are our sexuality

WHEW LAD. If your school is as leftist as you've said, that may be a good card to play, but that's not going to work very well with just about anyone else.

(cont)

>>30662

(cont)

>it’s why we survived as a species. And looking at our society, it reflects that, through the media, the social lives, behaviour and values of people. It shows, through us and the world we’ve created.

I may be reading too much into this, but it seems like you've switched from an identity politics based argument, to a nature based one, then back to identity.

>So removing this opportunity, and shielding […]

Good paragraph. Like before though, heavily audience based. You are dragging entire other ideologies in here with you, whether you know it or not, which is unavoidable, even for subjects as "hard" as mathematics, so don't think I'm faulting you here. I'm just telling you. (As weaselly as that sounds of me.)

>Children, from birth, know what they like and what they don’t like; it’s built within us, from day one. Something which many of us are familiar with is the fact that kids are very rarely afraid to let their feelings known, especially when they are experiencing any form of displeasure. The rambunctious, overt nature is what many love or hate about children. But when it comes to sex, we are unable to trust the decision made by the person - we decide for them.

I don't disagree, and while some of that may be debatable, it is pretty soundly reasoned. The only problem is that is sounds very, very… "pedo-y". You may want to consider revising it.

>The reasoning behind this is hard to pinpoint, supported by nebulous phrases such as: “They’re too young,” or “They just can’t consent.”

Still haven't really shown how this is unnecessary, much less nebulous. I recommend coming at this from the angle that they are empty truisms. It's going to be much easier to defend.

>But one criticism I’ve heard of this is that sex is seen […]

That's a whole lot of words to say "I don't believe that sex is an intrinsically negative experience for children" several times in slightly different ways. Butcher "firstly" and "secondly" until it's half that size. If you stand up and read that, it's going to sound like pure autism. That said, the thesis you are making here is a very strong point.

>Thirdly: if sex was inherently like this, then two children having sex with one another should result in two traumatised children. But that doesn’t happen; they experiment, fool around, and they’re fine. The traumatising element must lie in something which differs between child/child relationships and child/adult relationships: social stigma.

That's excellent. It's not only good logically, but it's very good from an emotional aspect as well. If you are feeling bold, you may consider appealing to personal experiences that your audience had as children as well.

>Lastly: it’s pretty much just very condescending and it also completely undermines a child’s humanity. You really don’t need to have a degree in psychology or understand the ins and outs of society to have a relationship.

Kind of a weaker point than your "thirdly", to be honest. I don't think this works very well as a conclusion. Consider switching the two.

—

This doesn't sound like a speech, it sounds like a lecture. I recommend reworking almost all of it. Record yourself saying it, and listen to the recording a day later. It's going to sound dry. People are going to have a hard time following something like this, even with the inflammatory topic. Half of what keeps people paying attention is how you say things. And I don't mean the word choice, I literally mean how you choose to stress certain words, the length of pauses between sentences, and stuff like that. Pauses aren't just for dramatic effect, they allow a moment of reflection in the listener. A reader can always glance away and process the sentence, but a listener in a crowd can't ask you to repeat things. Most of your sentences have way too many clauses that are dependent on one another to allow that. I know you aren't going to be reading this verbatim, but let go of the idea that you are going to be able to use such unwieldy and formal language effectively at all.

>>30662

>>30663

You're clearly working at a much higher level than me and I have to say, it was very enlightening. I've never even heard of truisms before, for example. And there are so many things I didn't even think of that I want to point out because I'm proud I've gone through the thought process now. Anyway …

A couple of things as I'm working through it:

I was mostly thinking of African tribes when I was writing this. It's not as much factory work as it is, sort of, informal, helping-your-dad-out work.

Should I just ditch the argument about the subjectivity of age ranges then? "We're not objectively true," doesn't sound like a particularly convincing argument.

Also: I'm speaking to a class of ~20, so I don't know if any of them had any sexual experiences as kids.

>>30645

>>30671

I can think of anything that >>30662 and >>30663 didn't say.

It's good stuff. I wouldn't have noticed any of that and I doubt your class will either.

>>30645

>The traumatising element must lie in something which differs between child/child relationships and child/adult relationships: social stigma.

Much more important are the differences in experience and intelligence. A 20-year-old girl knows that, because you're a basement dweller with herpes and an occasional violent streak, the correct reaction is to laugh in your face when you ask her out. A 10-year-old, on the other hand, believes you when you tell her she'll get in trouble if she tells anyone, even though she only finds sex with you painful and unpleasant.

This is why plenty of adult/child sex relationships are fine - if the pedo is a good guy, he will treat the lg with love and respect. But pedos are a diverse group, and a disproportionate number of us are extreme autists who ruin things for the rest of us.

>>30737

Wait, are you advocating for basement dwellers with herpes and violent streaks to have painful and unpleasant sex with children? Please avoid putting self-insert fictional elements in arguments, it muddles the point brought up.

>>30739

I don't think anyone reading that post had that misunderstanding but you.

>>30739

Sorry, I forget that much of the audience here has difficulty with narrative cues. No, I wasn't advocating for that.

More directly, then: a woman is far more likely than a little girl to know how to spot a bad actor, and what to do about him. So we have age-of-consent laws that deter bad actors from preying on little girls, but the unfortunate result is that all adult/child sex is denied, not just its bad forms.

OP argues correctly that adult/child sex is not bad on its own. But he does not offer any suggestions on how society will protect lg's from bad pedos and let good pedos do their thing. Parental consent is one idea.

Anyway, more importantly, I suspect OP might actually not be trolling, which is troubling. To a casual and selective listener (e.g., classmates) he will be all but explicitly identifying himself as an active child molester. OP, if you're still around, I was a teen pedo once too, and I also wanted at times to tell the world. And I don't want to discourage that, advocating for pedo rights is important. But presenting thin arguments to a high school crowd is not the way. I can guarantee they will be talking about you behind your back, and maybe worse.

>>30742

>>30745

>statement 1: women cannot be tricked into fucking basement dwellers

>statement 2: basement dwellers can trick girls into going so far as to have painful and unpleasant sex

>conclusion: This is why plenty of adult/child sex relationships are fine

Forget narrative cues, the whole first post was fucked up. Keep closer to the second post's narrative if your point is meant to be seriously considered.

>>30737

The majority of violent rape of children are from non-paedophiles; it's from sadists.

The issue of children not telling people about uncomfortable and negative relationships can be solved by creating a sex positive society and removing social stigma. This is not an argument against what I said.

>>30745

The idea of parental consent to me sounds retarded. Why the fuck should a parent decide who their kid should go out with? Reserve the right to remove a person from your child's life, if need be, but actively picking and choosing is stupid.

I'm not telling the world about my paedophilia though. I love saggy tits and celluite.

>thin arguments

lol okay

>>30748

> I love saggy tits and cellulite

I'm posing as a non-paedophile, is what I mean.

DOUBLE POST DOUBLE POST DOUBLE POST

>>30671

>You're clearly working at a much higher level than me and I have to say, it was very enlightening.

I probably know more fancy words because I have finished uni already, but my only real advantage here is that I didn't write it, and I can only discern meaning from what you actually wrote. When people write, they have an idea of what they mean, and when they read it back, they interpret it within that context.A second person reading it can't do that, and will apply a different context. You should be away of that too, especially on such a dangerous topic.

>I was mostly thinking of African tribes when I was writing this. It's not as much factory work as it is, sort of, informal, helping-your-dad-out work.

Well maybe. I don't know much about African tribes, but I don't think it's true even in that case. Even a hundred years ago, kids would have been doing much more housework (or more likely, farmwork) than now. Even if there is an increase in responsibility placed on children these days, I suspect that it isn't a deviation from the norm, but a return to it, and idyllic childhoods would be a short-lived phenomenon that is the product of a society rich and powerful enough to allow it.

>Should I just ditch the argument about the subjectivity of age ranges then? "We're not objectively true," doesn't sound like a particularly convincing argument.

I wouldn't. Not being objectively true supports the idea of subjectivity of how we determine childhood. The only troublesome part is in trying to claim that you have an answer that is objectively true. The only way to really make such a strong, absolute claim is with religion, which is probably not going to convince many people these days. advocating for a merely different thing is simpler, and can be argued on many grounds.

>>30747

My sides. Ok friend, apologies for the confusion.

>>30748

Perhaps the world leaders should convene and decree that society be sex-positive going forward?

I agree that parental consent is not ideal. Do you have any other concrete ideas for protecting children from "sadists" after the AOC is repealed?

>>30750

>I'm posing as a non-paedophile, is what I mean.

Sounds like you have your heart set on it. Good luck.

>>30747

>Parental consent is one idea.

what happens when parents are the bad actors?

the main issue that i see is that i cannot think of ANYTHING that would let an adult have any sort of sexual contact with a child that wouldn't make it easier for actual child predators in some way shape or form, and i believe child safety from predators is way more important than getting to have sex with children.

>Why the fuck should a parent decide who their kid should go out with? Reserve the right to remove a person from your child's life, if need be, but actively picking and choosing is stupid.

i don't think he means something like arranged dating where the parents pick the candidates, i think he means the child does and the parents give co-consent. basically you need to get a yes from both parties, if either the child or the parents say no, then it's a no.

>>30755

>Perhaps the world leaders should convene and decree that society be sex-positive going forward?

that sounds like some brave new world shit

>>30757

I know, but then parents are still picking and choosing really. It's just a longer winded way to go about it. I don't see many parents respecting the wishes of their kids when it comes to relationships.

>>30755

There is no real way to protect children from rapists.

>>30751

Can I ask where you live, anon?

>>30755

Is this passive aggressiveness intentional? It makes you sound like a bitch.

>>30760

>Is this passive aggressiveness intentional? It makes you sound like a bitch.

I don't think explicit sarcasm is the same as passive-aggression.

Is your aggression intentional? It makes you sound insecure.

>>30759

>There is no real way to protect children from rapists.

I think AOC laws with high penalties discourage all sexual interaction with children, rape or otherwise.

>>30761

>high punishment reduces crime rate

Not grounded in reality.

>>30759

> I don't see many parents respecting the wishes of their kids when it comes to relationships.

Why should they? A parent should have every right to have the final word on who their kid gets to associate with, because it's a simple objective fact that they know better, and that is not up for dispute.

>>30759

>There is no real way to protect children from rapists.

There's no 100% guaranteed way to protect children from rapists, there are plenty of reasonably effective ways like better sex education.

>>30762

What's your evidence for that? I'm actually curious if you can find even one single scrap that contradicts that, because yes, it is also an absolute undeniable fact that yes actually punishment does deter crime, and more punishment deters more crime, and you are simply wrong if you think otherwise.

>>30759

>Can I ask where you live, anon?

…I guess? The southern United States. Why?

>>30764

Simply curious. You found that creepy or something?

>>30763

> parents know better than their children and that's not up for dispute

Whatever you say lol (it's not fact at all)

> it is fact that punishment does deter crime

Just compare countries. The ones which have harsher punishment generally have higher or around the same crime rate.

>>30765

>Simply curious. You found that creepy or something?

No, I'm just not used to being asked that on anonymous imageboards. I am self-conscious now though. Did I say something weird?

>>30765

It's a complete absolute fact. What would your argument otherwise even be?

>>30765

Also,

>Just compare countries. The ones which have harsher punishment generally have higher or around the same crime rate.

is up there the stupidest fucking things I've ever read.

>>30225

did u end up doing this

op is a fucking autist and does not realize that it will be disasterous in its effects XD

Surprised to see bumps.

I did do it, but I was scared shitless and acted like an autist. Knees weak, arms heavy, etc., etc. Got the worst grade in class and wanted to blow my brains out after fucking the speech up, but no real repercussions. My friend said that it 'apparently sounded like you were coming out of the closet.' I guess because I was nervous. That's it though; that's all that came of it.

Also, someone shit talked pedos in their speech and got an A* so there's some symbolism there.

>>31112

[smuganimecharacter32.png]

Surprised to see bumps.

I did do it, but I was scared shitless and acted like an autist. Knees weak, arms heavy, etc., etc. Got the worst grade in class and wanted to blow my brains out after fucking the speech up, but no real repercussions. My friend said that it 'apparently sounded like you were coming out of the closet.' I guess because I was nervous. That's it though; that's all that came of it.

Also, someone shit talked pedos in their speech and got an A* so there's some symbolism there.

(is this a double post?)

>>31112

[smuganimecharacter32.png]

the cringe is real

>>31128

good thing I'm anon then.

>>31126

Oh, it happened already? I was thinking it would be an end-of-term thing and that you would bump with results.

Shame about the grade. It took a lot of balls to do something like that. I would have pissed my pants and adlibed a speech about cereal manufacturing or some shit. I'm really just glad you didn't get hurt further though.

How did you respond to your friend's question, lel?

>>31127

>Got the worst grade in clas

How bad is that? Can you still pass the class?

I actually got a good grade. In the speech section, they just throw marks at you.

Some faggot who spent half of his time indulging in awkward silences got an A. I can only imagine how bad mine was.

>>31126

>Also, someone shit talked pedos in their speech and got an A* so there's some symbolism there.

Also some learning opportunity there for all of us IMO, so what was their speech about? Do you really think they got that on content or was their delivery just that good? Was it very academic, checking lots of "look how much research I done" boxes, or more like empty political rhetoric? How did the audience react?

>>31164

> what was their speech about?

It was on prisons. She said that we should keep in mind the fact that the people in these prisons were as lowly as paedophiles and because of that, we have to keep the treatment of prisoners harsh, with an emphasis on punishment …but it wasn't worded as well :^)

> was their delivery just that good?

It was generic. Emphatic, but there was no real passion. Fucking loud though; pretty much screamed at us.

The way the GCSE is set up incentivises generic pieces. I think it's because it's all theory: they want to see consistent addressing of the audience, clear order, conservative usage of grammar, text book examples of persuasive techniques, like opening with a rhetorical question …

> how did the audience react?

The audience as more so caught up in her stupid opinions, honestly. She had the gall to say that "They wouldn't be in prison if they didn't commit the crime," in response to someone pointing out that innocent people are sometimes sentenced.

Also, this girl, along with a few others, did the thing where they pretend to be scared to do public speaking (when they're all fucking Stacies and are at the top of the social food chain) in order to look cute. It pissed me off because I go up there and make a complete cock of myself, and then these people make it a fashion.

>>31206

That's a fucking shame. I know the type of cunt that she is, and she probably couldn't form a rational argument if she had a month to do so and relies on appearance and mannerisms to sway the crowd to be sympathetic. They always have the advantage.

>>31223

>relies on appearance and mannerisms to sway the crowd to be sympathetic.

It feels like a lot of people look at LGBT, feminism and other sides of SJWdom, their roots in academia, their obsession with logic, fallacies and social pseudoscience and assume that political success must therefore always lie on the other side of scientific study and a carefully argued "case", as if the world runs like some kind of undergrad philosophy class. This ignores just how much of their success more likely comes down to being on the right side of the cultural status quo. Or their sheer effectiveness at stopping debates rather than starting them. "Shutting down" arguments they don't like with angry, emotional slogans. Scaring opposition into exactly the sort of silence they constantly whinge about being imposed on them and their victim-of-the-week.

Whether they know it consciously or not these people are playing a political game, and a dirty one at that. As much as we all hate the cunts for it, perhaps we need to start doing the same.

>>31206

>The audience as more so caught up in her stupid opinions, honestly. She had the gall to say that "They wouldn't be in prison if they didn't commit the crime," in response to someone pointing out that innocent people are sometimes sentenced.

Caught up as in believed or as in righteously called her out on her shit? If so there may be hope for the future yet.

Unless those "studies" are right, that most <16yo's are freaky libertarian, only to turn full metal SJW on campus. Then we're all fucked.

>>31256

>Whether they know it consciously or not these people are playing a political game, and a dirty one at that. As much as we all hate the cunts for it, perhaps we need to start doing the same.

Yeah, I've argued that before on here. The problem is that that is a very hard thing to train for. You either have charisma or you don't. You can practice at it and get a little better of course, but if you don't have the talent to charm a crowd, then you don't have it. Further, logic and debate are much easier, because the rules are written and the same for everyone. Emotional arguments are not like that. I, as a straight white male, can not make the same statement as a gay black female and have have the listener hear the same thing. It is an artform rather than a science.

Really though, science itself isn't as clear cut as people think. Intuition and feeling play a huge role, even if only when scientists choose which leads to pursue. Pure logical debate is an ivory tower discipline. If you read Plato, even he, who no one would try and say is an anti-intellectual, regularly makes strawmen out of his enemies. That is the nature of rhetoric. The challenge is trying to make it not obvious.

Additionally, the playing field is not level for us. People think we are liars already and are looking for deceit, while the antis can say whatever the fuck they want and they rarely get called on it. We are held to much stricter rules, and logic can't help us with that.

>>31261

>Additionally, the playing field is not level for us. People think we are liars already and are looking for deceit, while the antis can say whatever the fuck they want and they rarely get called on it. We are held to much stricter rules, and logic can't help us with that.

Yeah, like I said, cultural status quo. I think what you have to remember is that pretty much everyone with any stake in this is ultimately motivated by emotions. Our emotions, kids emotions, parents emotions, and it's not as though you can just make your logical arguments to impassionate bureaucrats, legislators, journalists and other intelligentsia, then let equality laws do the rest of the work for you. Especially if you're of a pro-contact/choice/legalization/whatever persuasion, sooner or later you're going to have to convince individual helicopter soccer moms and manly-man dads to shut up and let you and their precious son/daughter touch each other in places. SJWs strike a natural chord with these people, it'll take some chords of our own to overcome it.

But IMO that doesn't have to involve direct gospel-preaching public speeches like OP's or charismatic talking heads on TV, which it sounds like you're assuming. There are lots of peripheral, libertarian issues you can agitate for that don't require you to even mention pedophilia, much less come out as one, but still move people in our political direction and without prejudicing the contact debate the way it feels a lot of people banging the drum on "non-offending MAPs" do.

Teen infantilization/youth lib, free speech, social interventionism, alternative approaches to police and criminal justice (did anyone tell that girl about Scandinavian prisons?), press ethics, anything to do with witchunts and hysteria in general are all good. You can discredit opponents without having to argue for yourself too, just look at how effective attack ads are in US politics.

And it's not like you have to be Donald Trump to be convincing enough. Hell this is the Internet, nobody even has to know you're a straight white guy if that matters.

(Also, sorry OP for being late to the party with those suggestions)

>>31257

>Caught up as in believed or as in righteously called her out on her shit

Righteously called her out on her shit. I have no idea why, but my year is surprisingly sane in comparison to the rest of the country. They can't stand feminism either.

>If so there may be hope for the future yet

I think this is the exception, rather than the rule. Millennials are still probably going to ruin everything.

>>31267

Yeah, I doubt we're going to get far if we blatantly advocate for contact rights. At the end of the day, the everyday person isn't open minded enough to listen to a pro-contact argument. The moment they realise what you're saying, they'll close up and you'll get nowhere.

What I did probably isn't the way to go about it, but I'm not slick enough to dance around the issue like that, and I thought I could probably get away with it considering the people in my year.

>>31280

>and I thought I could probably get away with it considering the people in my year.

Compared to what some predicted at the start of this thread, I'd say you did :)