[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 2hu / fur / htg / kc / madchan / sonyeon / tijuana / vichan ]

/younglove/ - Child Love Discussion

Keep it clean and legal. Thanks.
Winner of the 11th Attention-Hungry Games
/jp/ - You must be this high to post

/bane/ and /just/ stream on Saturday October 21
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 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.


CAPTCHA is enabled for thread creation only, not for regular replies. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I only have limited tools to handle spam, and I don't want to disable Tor all together. If this doesn't help at least a bit, I'll disable CAPTCHA.

 No.36668

Started a Reddit thread these days and I have gotten from interesting responses to absolutely ridiculous responses. You guys are welcome to participate and give your individuals inputs about experiences or overall anything you guys might want to add/share to the thread.

I know Reddit is cancer though, I have been cringing with some the responses, but it has gone better than even I have expected… Please disregard the stupid username I chose for myself. I never thought I would have used that account to this extent, it sorta happened.

https://www.reddit.com/r/confessions/comments/6shd1w/i_am_a_pedophile/

 No.36675

>>36668

Don't have an account and don't feel like making one, but my response to

>If I LOVED raping pedophiles and one day I caught one. I put a knife to their throat and said "consent or I am going to lightly cut the flesh from your muscle tissue, pull the skin from the muscle and fold it back like a red flower opening up to the sun on your chest where I will let the flies lay their eggs and maggots infest your living body until eventually they eat enough of you that you finally, painfully die." Do I actually have consent even though you have it?

would be this:

>Now imagine that I put a finger gently to your throat and began to slowly caress it, and asked "does that feel good? Should I keep going?" And then, for the sake of argument, imagine that it really did feel good, so you replied honestly with "I like it, keep going." Would that constitute consent? Or if I continued would I be a horrible baby-raping child abuser?


 No.36682

>>36675

Making an account is as easy as creating a username and a password. You don't even need an email for confirmation.


 No.36683

>>36682

Yes, but then I would have a >>>/plebbit/ account.


 No.36684

I'll see if I can call more people into that discussion, so it's not just you against the world.


 No.36685

From what I read until now, the thread is getting stalled on that famous old clash of

>children can consent

>no, they don't

>but sometimes they do

>no, they really don't, I know so and so who was raped as a child and they didn't consent to anything

You need to find a way out of that, maybe pointing to external sources that support your statements, otherwise there will be little advancement. But just creating the thread is already a big contribution for raising awareness, so you are already doing a good job.


 No.36692

File: 8474d0fc9f85b8d⋯.jpg (358.04 KB, 1680x1050, 8:5, 117492481-1680x1050.jpg)

>>36684

Yo, that's actually nice to hear for a change. I'm getting so much hate in there that, though I know they're ridiculous comments, it is still bothersome. Thank you.

>>36675

Yes, that person was full blown retard, I don't know why these people even bother replying, like at least keep it related to the actual discussion at hand.

>>36685

Lmao, yes. That's pretty much it. I don't even know how I'm having the patience to keep replying to the same questions over and over again.

>You need to find a way out of that, maybe pointing to external sources that support your statements, otherwise there will be little advancement.

Yes, I have sources on me, but I have to admit that I might probably need help to get some specific sources to address some of the questions at hand.


 No.36693

>>36692

Don't provide sources to people who won't show the same respect to you. Instead, indicate that you have sources but don't reveal them until they provide a source that claims otherwise. Then you can each compare the sources for relevance. This keeps you from having to spend 10 minutes tracking down a citation only to have it rejected out of hand.


 No.36694

>>36693

Yes, you're right. Thanks for bringing that up. I sometimes forget these people are normies, despite of having been these days breaking my mind over the incredulous comments they have made in general. I appreciate the tip and I will most likely use it, since it's true that are more than probable to just reject it anyways.


 No.36696

>>36693

It's OP's interest to convince other people more than it is the opposite, so I think he is the one who should be taking the first step.

In general, I have a feeling that it is too early to go full abolitionist instead of taking a more moderate, reductionist approach. The more drastic the change you propose, the more assumptions you will have to deconstruct.


 No.36699

>>36696

>In general, I have a feeling that it is too early to go full abolitionist instead of taking a more moderate, reductionist approach.

Yes, I have a terrible habit of always going full abolitionist, when I know it's harder for normies to digest that. I reap what I sow, lol.


 No.36700

>>36685

>no, they really don't, I know so and so who was raped as a child and they didn't consent to anything

Condemn what happened to that person. Sympathize with their suffering. Do not accuse them of lying.

They genuinely think we are indifferent to the suffering of others, use the opportunity to show them that is not the case. A lot of this is rooted in emotion, not logic.

Another case is when someone tells you they enjoyed it as a child and then became traumatized later on in life. There is a possibility they were coerced or manipulated into it, by telling such a person they were brainwashed into hating it you are insulting them. No one has the right to tell anyone how to feel about their childhood experiences - be they therapists, psychologists, family members, friends, pedophiles, extremist feminists and so on. We can only suggest the possibility that for some, not necessarily them personally, the harm may be caused by the stigma, and respect that they decide for themselves how to feel.


 No.36701

>>36700

Yeah, that was probably not the best approach made by me, I recognize that. I fucked up that one big time.


 No.36703

>>36700

Thanks for the tips by the way.


 No.36704

>>36696

Just posting a link to a study that they will never read isn't going to convince anyone. If you make them do a little research on their own to come up with a token citation, they'll come to realize for themselves just how against them the science actually is. For example, if you're arguing about intrinsic harm and the other guy brings Finkelhor and you bring Rind, you've already discredited his best source of legitimacy without even having to argue. Meanwhile, if you just post Rind, they can just say "that's just one study from nearly 20 years ago, it's no longer relevant."


 No.36705

>>36700

At the same time you are then fighting fire with fire. You know these people are mostly making up stories. You know most of these people would not feel the way they do without stigmas associated with the topic.

It isn't a matter of "sympathizing" with them. It is this stupid game of "I know you are lying, but I must play nice with you to help you admit it". You should never at any point fall victim to some random commenter's story. Take it with a grain of salt. Understand that even if they prove what happened to be real, it doesn't change the fact that they have shut their minds to the idea of stigma. It is your job to open their mind to this possibility.


 No.36711

>>36705

>it doesn't change the fact that they have shut their minds to the idea of stigma. It is your job to open their mind to this possibility.

Which is what I meant by

>suggest the possibility that for some, not necessarily them personally, the harm may be caused by the stigma

While a lot of it may be fabricated lies, the occasional story will be true and so it is unethical to take the approach you suggest. Moreover, by taking the stance that no one can dictate your feelings on past experiences and only offer possible interpretations you undermine the credibility of the csa industry while still opening their minds to the idea of stigma induced harm.


 No.36722

I'm with someone bringing up the "Stanford Marshmallow Experiment". It's rather interesting, but limited. He seems to be suggesting that there are no sociological factors implicated in this study when there are many for the replication of it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/confessions/comments/6shd1w/i_am_a_pedophile/dlg4axd/


 No.36724

>>36722

You guys are reaching the point where what is at stake is no more the morality of child-adult sex, but whether its criminalization is a necessary evil to avoid abuses. From there on is all about realpolitik.


 No.36732

>As a counter-question. Do you believe adults who are mentally handicapped, such that they have the mental age of a child, are generally capable of giving consent?

Kek. Mentally handicapped adults with a developmental age of 8 are considered sufficiently competent to consent to having sex with anyone they choose. Daily reminder to never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer in a debate.


 No.36734

>>36732

And because obviously I need a citation for that claim: https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/a-less-impaired-vision-of-sexuality/

>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.

Here's the (paywalled) source of the data:

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

Isn't it funny what happens when you ignore age and focus solely on competency?


 No.36735

As for the marshmallow experiment, it's not measuring what either of you guys think it's measuring. What it's measuring is discount rate (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertemporal_choice). If you offer me $1 today or a $1.50 in a year, I'd take the dollar now because I know I'd forget about it in a year. If you offered me $200 right now or $200 billion tomorrow, I'd take the $200 because there's no chance in hell you'd actually pay out $200 billion, but there's a chance you might pay $200 (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging).

So what we're presented with here isn't so much a measure of a child's capability of delaying gratification, but a measure of whether the child considers two marshmallows to be twice as good as one, and how much the child trusts the experimenter to actually pay out.

What would be far more interesting is if the delayed reward was disproportionally larger (one candy versus a whole bag) and the children were able to observe prior subjects receiving the reward as promised. How many would be truly incapable of delaying in that case? I'm guessing the number would be very low.


 No.36736

>>36722

If you need help bypassing paywalls of articles, you can use Sci-Hub (http://sci-hub.ac/). It doesn't work every time, but it's your best free alternative when it works.


 No.36737

>>36736

Here's the first marshmallow one by the way: https://sci-hub.ac/10.1037/h0029815


 No.36738

>>36735

I wish science was cheaper, so I could grab a bunch of kids and test that hypothesis myself.


 No.36741

File: 7c58931803ba982⋯.jpg (1.12 MB, 1092x1038, 182:173, randomedit28ed.jpg)

>>36724

I agree. We have indeed reached that point, but there's a lot of evidence that criminalizing child-adult sex and just about anything else will actually make the situation worse and the real criminals to be more likely even more secretive and organize themselves, which is what we see today in cp production for example.

>>36732

>>36734

Thanks for mentioning that study, I wish I could find the whole thing to download just to have it as reference as well. I love reading discoveries like these, reminds me of how the scientific community, at least not entirely, still adheres to the true foundations of scientific methodology and not putting "muh feelings" in them.

>>36735

As for the marshmallow experiment, it's not measuring what either of you guys think it's measuring. What it's measuring is discount rate (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertemporal_choice). If you offer me $1 today or a $1.50 in a year, I'd take the dollar now because I know I'd forget about it in a year. If you offered me $200 right now or $200 billion tomorrow, I'd take the $200 because there's no chance in hell you'd actually pay out $200 billion, but there's a chance you might pay $200 (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging).

Thank you! I was trying to explain something like this, but it didn't come out quite like I expected in my case. Trust is important, hence why I kept mentioning that sociological factors were present in these experiments.

>>36736

>>36737

I love you for this! Thank you, I will be sure to save that site with me, it will come in handy.

>>36738

Same, lol. Heck, I would try these with adults too, but making it like >>36735 mentioned "As for the marshmallow experiment, it's not measuring what either of you guys think it's measuring. What it's measuring is discount rate (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertemporal_choice). If you offer me $1 today or a $1.50 in a year, I'd take the dollar now because I know I'd forget about it in a year. If you offered me $200 right now or $200 billion tomorrow, I'd take the $200 because there's no chance in hell you'd actually pay out $200 billion, but there's a chance you might pay $200"… How many children would actually trust that the person would pay up what they offered and how many adults would? I wouldn't ever trust someone who randomly came to me and offered $200 as he takes them out and puts them in my hand and then telling me we would pay more if I wait until tomorrow, like lol, it's obviously a risk there, what if I fuck up and end up with nothing at all. Trust is really important.


 No.36762

Mother of God, //, you got everyone relied up against you. When someone told you they were close to an abuse victim, you disregarded that. When someone asked whether or not small children ought to be allowed to have intercourse, instead of replying in the negative, you said "If they're careful." You denounced child psychology. I don't think a single positive thing came from that thread.


 No.36763

>>36762

>When someone told you they were close to an abuse victim, you disregarded that.

This was already addressed, stop beating a dead horse.

>When someone asked whether or not small children ought to be allowed to have intercourse, instead of replying in the negative

Why would he reply in the negative?


 No.36766

>>36763

What do you mean "Why?" Small children—more than anyone else—should not be having intercourse. Period. Jesus of Nazareth, you gotta use your head: The people // spoke to accused him of trying to transpose adult sexuality onto children (i.e., "You wanna fuck children, sicko!"). Instead of sharply rebuking them and saying, "No, we would much rather be allowed to cuddle and kiss them; penetration of any kind (or any sort of extreme sex, for that matter) isn't really our thing, generally speaking," he played right into their fear.

// pretty much just pissed everyone off, with very few exceptions. He could've used that moment to acknowledge the point about the mentally underdeveloped state of prepubescent children and argue for an exception; but what he did was hunker down, and acted bullheadedly.


 No.36769

>>36766

Ah, right. The whole thing about how physical intimacy and oral are not what is referred to with the word sex. You have a point, they will assume we mean hardcore fucking and if we don't clear up that misconception then it's no surprise they react the way they do.


 No.36771

>>36769

I really wish you wouldn't use such a vulgar term to describe intercourse; it just devalues your statement.

Anyway, at this point the damage is done. // went full Omnipolitics16 and got everyone on his case. Nothing's going to sway the lot of them. I'd also like to take this opportunity to restate my case: Anonymous online activism is a dead end right now. Tell your folks, not the heartless yokels online.


 No.36772

>>36763

Yep, I am tired of idiots on here who harp on and on about how all penetrative sex is the devil. Even if I personally won't do it, I won't go on some virtue signaling warpath to make sure those who do want it feel like killing themselves.

Has anyone ever considered a man who has a small sexual organ? Has anyone considered if the girl in question has already played with herself so much (with no outside pressure) that her body is more prepared than other girls her age? The list of possibilities go on and on, but I guess some pedos are only interested in saving face when it comes to pushing for MAP rights.


 No.36774

>>36771

Remember there's a huge non-participating audience watching the discussion unfold. The ones who are replying so loudly to // aren't really the ones who need to be convinced of anything. But if you think // got something wrong, go to the thread and contribute with your opinion.


 No.36775

>>36772

Um, ever heard of the "exception, not the rule" adage? The general rule is how we determine laws: Some children are mature enough to hypothetically give informed consent, but the vast majority are not; some men have rather small appendages, but most are too large for children to handle comfortably, much less without pain; and some people think pedophiles are swell, though most think we're demon spawn. You get the picture, right?

This isn't about saving face so much as it is being pragmatic: It's bloody hard enough as is convincing people to let us be near children, let alone that penetrative sex ought to be accepted. We aren't going to get anywhere if we deny established child psychology, argue for the abolition of the age of consent without a suitable replacement, or argue that penetrative sex ought to be permissible. People aren't even comfortable leaving us alone with their children yet, and you honestly think taking a hands-off approach to fucking kids is going to gain us any respect? Jesus.

I'm not virtue signaling: I'm being upfront with y'all.

>>36774

Yeah, and where are all those people when we're getting stomped? Nowhere, from what I can see. They might as well not exist—in fact, I'm not even sure they do exist. And I told you: arguing with these people is useless, especially now that // angered everyone.


 No.36776

>>36772

I'm sort of on the fence on this topic. While I don't really see any manner in which it's possible to fit an adult penis into an infant vagina without causing enough discomfort that the infant would protest, I'm willing to accept that perhaps in some limited cases, it's possible that penetrating an infant or toddler might not constitute physical abuse. But it would be practically impossible to verify any sort of consent after the fact when we're talking about an alleged victim that's only just learning to string together a coherent sentence. So in the given scenario of penetrative sex with a 3 year old, I'd be against it generally but willing to consider exceptional circumstances.

It's a fucking stupid scenario, though, because it's a corner case even among corner cases. The number of nepiophiles is small even compared to exclusive pedophiles, the number of nepiophiles that actually want to have sex with toddlers is even lower, the number that actually do have sex despite the risks are even lower, and the number of cases in which this wouldn't be a clear-cut example of rape are exceptionally low. The only reason it ever comes up is a stupid gotcha that forces you to either endorse AoC laws or throw the small but extant minority of consent-respecting pro-intercourse nepiophiles under the bus (or endorse baby-raping, I suppose), either of which would earn you the label of hypocrite.

My suggestion is to either ignore the fantastical scenario entirely, or to condemn it and respond to accusations of hypocrisy with an acknowledgement that it would be a flawed system, but one that's less dysfunctional than what we have now.


 No.36777

>>36774

>The ones who are replying so loudly to // aren't really the ones who need to be convinced of anything.

The ones who need to be convinced are the ones that just saw him get wrecked. It might be worth trying again in a few weeks/months, but that thread is a lost cause at this point. Anything else that gets posted is just going to get lost in the noise but keep the thread bumped and in peoples' minds.


 No.36778

File: 46f8bad3aaeec4b⋯.png (610.17 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, Screenshot_2017-05-09_02-4….png)

>>36772

Exactly my point here, everyone think kids are all the same, man.

>>36774

THANK YOU!

>>36775

Well, I'm sorry that I angered everyone, but I go up straight with how things are, reality. I don't think a minority should be suffering just because there's a minority that doesn't care about us.

I do admit I should have taken a better approach in some things I said, but not in everything. I still agree with abolition of age of consent and I still believe intercourse is fine as long as the child actively looks for that and to the extent in which is possible and enjoyable for the parties involved, not to force something unto them.

>>36776

>I'm sort of on the fence on this topic. While I don't really see any manner in which it's possible to fit an adult penis into an infant vagina without causing enough discomfort that the infant would protest, I'm willing to accept that perhaps in some limited cases, it's possible that penetrating an infant or toddler might not constitute physical abuse. But it would be practically impossible to verify any sort of consent after the fact when we're talking about an alleged victim that's only just learning to string together a coherent sentence. So in the given scenario of penetrative sex with a 3 year old, I'd be against it generally but willing to consider exceptional circumstances.

Yes, I can agree with that. I never meant to say all children can be fucked without disregard, only that just because a majority can't in general, it does not mean that it is impossible for none of them to enjoy these experiences in a genuine way.

>The only reason it ever comes up is a stupid gotcha that forces you to either endorse AoC laws or throw the small but extant minority of consent-respecting pro-intercourse nepiophiles under the bus (or endorse baby-raping, I suppose), either of which would earn you the label of hypocrite.

Exactly, I think it is hypocritical to go LGBT+ here. I will never want to see myself rejecting one of my fellow nepiophiles or any MAP at all… We, of all people, should know how FUCKING horrible that feels.

>My suggestion is to either ignore the fantastical scenario entirely, or to condemn it and respond to accusations of hypocrisy with an acknowledgement that it would be a flawed system, but one that's less dysfunctional than what we have now.

Agreed. No human system is perfect, but it's a better approach for both MAPs and children, at least sexuality-wise, though I wouldn't stop there, since children are restricted in a lot of other ways. That doesn't fall under pedophilia though, more like children liberation kind of thing, but something I also advocate for, personally.

>>36777

>The ones who need to be convinced are the ones that just saw him get wrecked. It might be worth trying again in a few weeks/months, but that thread is a lost cause at this point. Anything else that gets posted is just going to get lost in the noise but keep the thread bumped and in peoples' minds.

I agree, it got lost in the barking of these people, I am still getting a few interesting replies out of it though.


 No.36779

>>36775

Also, Ellen, I did detail in the comments to those that asked about nepiophilia concepts in general, as in not all of them want penetration and such. If you meant as in my introduction should have been more detailed, then yes, perhaps you're right in that. I should have super-extra detailed this for these people, since they know absolutely nothing about us, but I still did go specific in the comments, if you go through them.


 No.36780

File: 553100b08203c45⋯.jpg (1.38 MB, 1200x747, 400:249, schierkeedit.jpg)

ALSO, you guys should be aware that I might have made a few grammatical errors along a few of my comments. Like in many, I confused the word "condemn" for "condone". If you guys see such things, please pass me the section so I can fix that. A friend pointed a few out for me and I was kind of embarrassed by that and probably mislead a few people by my general wording, probably. But yes, in general one of the major issues were me confusing those two words. Much appreciated for anyone that does corrects me in that sense. I know I can make a few mistakes sometimes, and I recognize that.


 No.36781

>>36771

>Anonymous online activism is a dead end right now. Tell your folks, not the heartless yokels online.

Also, I agree with this. Most of my friend in real life do support my decision and a few who I am close with online. I have made people who are close and actually know me to acknowledge that pedophilia isn't what the normies like to make it out to be.


 No.36782

* friends


 No.36783

In any case, I really know that for next time I decide to do this again, I really need to be able to see things from normie's perspective, like >>36700 mentioned. I find it hard to see things from the brainwashed individual's perspective.


 No.36784

>>36783

What about starting with teenagers instead of toddlers next time?


 No.36785

>>36784

Perhaps. xD I think that's easier for normies to digest, though I'm not even a hebephile, I'm more of a nepiophile/pedophile. But guess it's better something than nothing.


 No.36787

>>36783

You didn't do anything besides bring negative attention to yourself. You didn't help us at all. You got clobbered, and everyone who cares to look can see that, so that non-participating audience you're fond of is probably sitting around shaking their heads and saying, "What an idiot."

No one is going to accept the abolition of the age of consent without a suitable replacement. And why would prepubescent children ever seek out sex? They don't have a sex drive, that happens during puberty. You guys got to read a little more before you blurt out your thoughts and opinions, because you're just saying nonsense that isn't supported by the data.


 No.36788

>>36785

No more threads. If you're going to be active, do it in real life, but only after you've read copious amounts of literature and you can defend your points, which you did a remarkably poor job of doing in your last thread.


 No.36789

>>36785

>though I'm not even a hebephile, I'm more of a nepiophile/pedophile

Does it matter? Most people you encounter aren't nepiophiles/pedophiles, why should they sympathize with your campaign?


 No.36790

>>36787

Excuse me, but I did present a replacements for it, it you bother reading the comments about those asked me about it.

Children without FULLY developed sex drives, not without sex drives, and they do look for sexual interaction, I never said in those threads they are always looking for sex.

Who said that what I claimed is not supported?

>>36789

I guess you're right there. Reminds me of what the LGBT+ did to us. Feels nice to be excluded. c:


 No.36791

>>36790

* a replacement


 No.36792

>>36791

* if you bother


 No.36793

>>36790

I didn't see anything other than "Well, if they consent…" The problem, of course, is that they can't give informed consent; they're literally too underdeveloped to comprehend the risk they'd be taking, even if the risk is minimal. There's also the issue of the adult being in a position of trust, although I'm not sure that would apply to people in late puberty or adolescence nearly as much as it does with small children. If you presented anything else, then please bring it forward here.

Anyway, children in general don't have sex drives. Puberty is the defining period when children obtain something akin to adult sexuality, and even then it isn't as developed. It's during adolescence (12+) that minors really get that drive we're familiar with.


 No.36794

>>36793

Here, Ellen:

https://www.reddit.com/r/confessions/comments/6shd1w/i_am_a_pedophile/dlfrfgt/

Like I said, it's in the comments. I know there's a lot of them. But it's there for those that actually asked me about them.


 No.36795

>>36793

Also, I do agree with you that not all can give informed consent, especially because of age, but they are still able to give simple consent towards this. Position of trust is also an important variable in this, otherwise the child might more likely not enjoy anything in the first place. Then again, trust is important in sexuality in general.


 No.36796

>>36795

Simple consent is not enough, you known that. Simple consent is just them expressing a willingness to do something; it doesn't mean they've really thought it through and weighed the risk, or that they even could weigh the risk, which, again, they cannot. And I don't think you get the concept of the position or trust or authority. In a normal adult-adult relationship, there is no position of trust. The position of authority is when you have power or influence of someone in such a way that you could force them to bend to your will, thereby making them more vulnerable to abuse than they otherwise would be.

That man was completely right: you are in the dominant position in the relationship simply by virtue of the fact that you're the adult. A young child will look up to you and submit to your will.

I find your list uncompelling, like most everyone else did—and I'm on the same team, so that should tell you something.


 No.36797

>>36796

I see. What would you say I need to add in such a list then?

And again,

>In a normal adult-adult relationship, there is no position of trust. The position of authority is when you have power or influence of someone in such a way that you could force them to bend to your will, thereby making them more vulnerable to abuse than they otherwise would be.

I see this happening with adult domestic abuse, which are a lot of cases. I do believe there is difference in power in these relationships too. Yes, not in the same extent, but it is there.

>That man was completely right: you are in the dominant position in the relationship simply by virtue of the fact that you're the adult. A young child will look up to you and submit to your will.

I might be in the dominant position but that doesn't that I want to enforce anything by being one.

>it doesn't mean they've really thought it through and weighed the risk, or that they even could weigh the risk, which, again, they cannot.

They can't in general perhaps, but what I don't buy is saying that all of them does not. If that were true, you wouldn't have had such low age of consent in the past.

Also willingness to something isn't enough, but that's why you mentor them in the first place, which I brought up countless of times in my thread. I'm not saying to just force everything unto them, because then it would correct what you say, they wouldn't understand anything. Teaching should be gradual and according to each case, no force should be there.


 No.36798

>>36797

* doesn't mean that I want


 No.36799

>>36797

>I see this happening with adult domestic abuse, which are a lot of cases. I do believe there is difference in power in these relationships too. Yes, not in the same extent, but it is there.

Sure, in some cases there is a power imbalance in adult relationships, but the vast majority of normal relationships don't have that imbalance, hence no position of authority.

Again, the exception, not the rule.

>I might be in the dominant position but that doesn't that I want to enforce anything by being one.

That's understandable, but the point is that it exists, and less scrupulous people will abuse that imbalance. I've been thinking about whether the concept of the power imbalance can be distinguished from the position of authority. I'll get back to you on that.

>If that were true, you wouldn't have had such low age of consent in the past.

The reason they maintained such a low age of consent in the past has to do with an entirely different issue, namely female virginity. In the past, when society really was patriarchal, girls and women were subordinate to men, and they were the property of their fathers and husbands. They didn't appreciate or even acknowledge the mental differences between fully grown adults and children until the first half of the twentieth century. Boys, I believe, had no age of consent.


 No.36800

>>36799

>That's understandable, but the point is that it exists, and less scrupulous people will abuse that imbalance. I've been thinking about whether the concept of the power imbalance can be distinguished from the position of authority. I'll get back to you on that.

Yes, there is a risk to that, but having things illegal will worsen the prosecution towards those that actually do exploit that trust with children.

>The reason they maintained such a low age of consent in the past has to do with an entirely different issue, namely female virginity. In the past, when society really was patriarchal, girls and women were subordinate to men, and they were the property of their fathers and husbands. They didn't appreciate or even acknowledge the mental differences between fully grown adults and children until the first half of the twentieth century. Boys, I believe, had no age of consent.

I see, but I still don't see that as bad, except for patriarchy authority being present there. There was no reason feminists should have raised the age of consent, other than resent.


 No.36801

>>36793

We don't require informed consent from adults, why should we require it from children? I think a lot of people who repeat this don't actually understand what informed consent entails. It's carried over from the medical field, where it's used in situations where the patient doesn't have the ability to withdraw consent partway through, such as in surgical operations where the patient is unconscious. For most things, implied consent is sufficient. For example, if I say "Do X, so I can Y," and you do X, you've given consent for me to do Y. This is how sex works for everyone that isn't a child. There's no notarized contract granting express consent and waiving liability for negative outcomes. The very idea of that is sexist, because it implicitly assumes that the man is always the one in the position of power. What about in the case of adult women having sex with underage boys? Who is expected to seek consent, and who is expected to grant it? We need to get away from this irrational paradigm that informed consent is the one size fits all ideal form of consent for all applications, because it really isn't, and it really confuses a lot of people as to what does or does not constitute consent.

Secondly, there's this idea that children can't comprehend the concept of risk. This is demonstrably false. And besides that, pregnancy and STIs are practically irrelevant in the context of nonpenetrative sex. Why do we require knowledge of how babies are made before allowing someone to consent to, say, oral sex? And if it's nothing but concern for pregnancy and STIs that make child-adult sex illegal, why not go straight to the source and make it illegal for someone to impregnate or infect a minor with an STI? We could even require regular screenings for sexually active pedophiles. Obviously there's some people out there that will disregard the law, but odds are pretty good that those people are disregarding the law right now.


 No.36803

>>36801

We very much do require informed consent, though. Informed consent doesn't mean they have to get a notarized slip of approval before they can continue, it means they're able to digest the full ramifications of their actions, and therefore be held responsible for them. Here is an excerpt detailing informed consent:

>Informed consent presents four major problems: (1) does the child understand what he or she consents to, (2) is the child aware of the accepted sexual standards in his or her community, (3) does the child appreciate the eventual, possible consequences of the decision and (4) are the child and the adult equally powerful so that no coercion influences the child’s decision.

I think that one could argue that coercion or exploitation is not inherent in relationships with a power imbalance, but it's still a distinct possibility.

>This is demonstrably false.

It isn't that they can't comprehend the notion of risk, but that they won't understand the full weight of it. The number of 6-year-olds which understand the consequences or contracting HPV, or even know what it is are quite small. And I agreed that the risk with non-penetrative sex was minimal, but it's still there. You can get an STD just from kissing, for instance. Risk is risk.


 No.36804

>>36800

Feminists didn't raise the age of consent or make adult-child sex illegal, they just drew attention to it. It was outraged Victorians which sensationalized adult-child sex and raised the age of consent.


 No.36806

>>36803

>We very much do require informed consent, though.

We don't. Find me one example of an adult being charged with rape because his or her partner didn't know that it could result in pregnancy or infection.

>I think that one could argue that coercion or exploitation is not inherent in relationships with a power imbalance, but it's still a distinct possibility.

In most adult-child relationships outside of the family, it's the child that holds the position of power. The adult requires the relationship for sexual fulfillment, but the child doesn't have that biological drive and could take it or leave it. Additionally, the primary way that child molesters threaten children into silence isn't with threats of direct reprisal, but by telling the child that they will both be punished. By teaching kids about sex and consent at a young age, we take that tool away. Instead of hiding young children from sex, we should be telling them "this is what sex is, these are some of the reasons why you may not want to do it right now, here's what you should do if someone forces you, and here's how that will turn out."

>You can get an STD just from kissing, for instance. Risk is risk.

And yet kissing isn't actually illegal. You'll definitely draw public ire, but not criminal charges.


 No.36808

>>36804

I meant in US's case, but yes, you're right Victorians started this.

Also, I wish to add that I will, under no circumstance, blindly acknowledge the same psychology that repeatedly chooses to approach, us, the MAP community in such a biased way. I know you are aware of how legal terms, such as "child molester", among others, continuously participate in their studies, rather than disregarding such terms that are essentially of purely sociological/moral nature in order to pursue more accurate and fair results about us.

I cannot just stand around and agree with "psychologists" that keep lumping us together, some are forced to it, due to the nature of the initials studies and others just do it like that. Tell me, if we do not denounce these actions made by research… Just who the hell will???


 No.36809

Also, I can't help but laugh at the people claiming orgasms are harmful for children. Fetuses have been observed masturbating to orgasm in the womb. What steps are we taking to protect our unborn children from self abuse?


 No.36810

>>36809

EXACTLY! They also think that an child's orgasm would somehow equal to the same of an adult's, when it comes to chemical production, which is impossible.


 No.36811

>>36806

What? Like I said, informed consent is (primarily) about having the ability to comprehend the full ramifications of their actions, not that they're completely aware of them. Yes, being notified about the risk is critically important, but actually being able to understand the whole thing even moreso. It isn't simply that kids are kept in the dark about sexuality, it's that they literally don't understand it. An-18-year-old woman may be ignorant about the risks posed by sex (and there may be legal action), but she has the ability to full digest the consequences of her agreeing to them, as I've listed them. She's a fully rational actor.

>n most adult-child relationships outside of the family, it's the child that holds the position of power.

No? The adult is clearly the dominant partner in the relationship: they can outsmart, manipulate, coerce or threaten the child. Not to mention that adults are physically stronger. The child cannot compete with that; and the child may view the adult as an authority figure and acquiesce to their demands out of fear or unflinching respect.

>The adult requires the relationship for sexual fulfillment…

That's a relationship destined for abuse. Ideally, one would want a relationship which is built on trust, love, communication and mutual understanding, not pure, unbridled lust.

>Instead of hiding young children from sex, we should be telling them "this is what sex is, these are some of the reasons why you may not want to do it right now, here's what you should do if someone forces you, and here's how that will turn out."

We try to do that now, to a limited degree. Other countries are better at this.

>And yet kissing isn't actually illegal. You'll definitely draw public ire, but not criminal charges.

I'm just highlighting how easy it is for something to go astray.

>I meant in US's case, but yes, you're right Victorians started this.

Feminists still were not responsible for raising the age of consent, from what I know.

>Tell me, if we do not denounce these actions made by research… Just who the hell will???

To most experts, these are fair and justified terms. They believe all sexual activity between children and adults is abusive, hence why they fail to discriminate.


 No.36812

>>36811

Here, yes, they were responsible for it. Before advocating for voting, they did for making age of consent higher. Look that up, since it's rather interesting.

>To most experts, these are fair and justified terms. They believe all sexual activity between children and adults is abusive, hence why they fail to discriminate.

I know, that's why we can't just stay quiet and let them say all that shit, lol.

However, I still do agree that it's better to take more personal action than online action, since I know just how wide the anti organizations are here.


 No.36813

>>36810

I mean, I don't see why a child's orgasm would be vastly different from an adult's; I just don't think there's any evidence to support the idea that it's harmful. Brain chemistry is complex as fuck, and nothing operates linearly. There's no way to extrapolate out expected results from a mechanism of action with any degree of certainty.

>>36811

>informed consent is (primarily) about having the ability to comprehend the full ramifications of their actions, not that they're completely aware of them.

No, it's not. Informed consent is about being information. Incompetence is a reason why it may not be possible to be properly informed, but it's not the deciding factor of informed consent. Doctors don't just say "oh, he's 35, he's old enough to know that there's a chance this surgery might not fix the problem, or that there might be complications." They give lay out all the information you need to know and make sure you understand it before you agree or disagree to the procedure.

>The adult is clearly the dominant partner in the relationship: they can outsmart, manipulate, coerce or threaten the child.

I don't know where you got the idea that all pedophiles are brilliant, evil, Machiavellian master manipulators, but it's not true. On top of that, the idea that children aren't is doubly untrue. You don't remember ever manipulating an adult into punishing a sibling or classmate, or having the same done to you? Children understand family power structures very well, and aren't inhibited by adult concepts of morality.

But all this is beside the point I was making: the reason adults feel compelled to manipulate or coerce children is because they know that the relationship is more important to them than it is to the child. If a child came up to an adult every single day begging for sex, what possible reason would the adult have to try to force the child to have sex? Since it already takes effort to convince children to have sex because it's not something they'd be inclined to seek out on their own, indoctrinating children with the idea that sex is always bad and wrong means that you're increasing the level of coercion required from, say, the level needed to get your child to put his or her shoes on so you can leave for school, to the level required truly horrible, like, I don't know, crushing a pet kitten or something. It's the very things that you think prevent people from using coercion that force them to use it in the first place.

>That's a relationship destined for abuse. Ideally, one would want a relationship which is built on trust, love, communication and mutual understanding, not pure, unbridled lust.

If you're unwilling to accept that sexual fulfillment can entail anything other than

orgasm, feel free to replace the term with emotional fulfillment or whatever you prefer. It doesn't change anything.

>We try to do that now, to a limited degree. Other countries are better at this.

We don't. Yes and no don't mean anything unless separate things. What we're doing isn't educating children about their rights and what constitutes consent, we're telling them that sex is bad/wrong/illegal and that they're not allowed to do it and that anyone that does it with them will be punished. Other countries are maybe a bit better on explaining the mechanics and risks in a rational way, but as far as I'm aware there's no country on earth that tells 5th graders that sex with adults is okay as long as they freely agree to it. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I may consider moving there.

>I'm just highlighting how easy it is for something to go astray.

And I'm highlighting that our laws aren't actually designed to isolate children from risk; they're designed to punish perceived deviants. Give me one good reason why it shouldn't be illegal to pass STIs to children instead of it being illegal to have sex with children entirely.


 No.36816

File: fb532e0c9092275⋯.gif (903.13 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, 1484.gif)

>>3681

You might want to read this reply I got from one of these guys there. I don't know if a child orgasm would be the same as adult's, but I do agree with you that just orgasm won't prove to be harmful to them. However, this individual hints towards excessive sexual behavior, instead of just casual ones. They think it's all about mindless sex, despite me having expressed to them that I do not want that.

Take a read. I'm interested if you can see something here that I cannot. Nowhere in the abstracts he provided is there evidence linking to his claims on the post and all of them are also paywalls, therefore it's not even possible to read them, though I still have to try that thing one of the Anons provided me with to see if it works on these ones.

https://www.reddit.com/r/confessions/comments/6shd1w/i_am_a_pedophile/dlit6xx/


 No.36817

>>36813

Actually, it worked.

Here's that one whole study that's behind a paywall.

http://moscow.sci-hub.ac/f35b73443b1941f8ca49bf616ed321fc/rothbart2000.pdf


 No.36818

>>36817

That's not really relevant to the discussion, but I could have told you that just from his post. He only used that source as proof that infants have temperaments that change as they mature, which no one was disputing. It also doesn't sound like he read the paper himself. None of his articles are actually useful, because they're just demonstrating a mechanism of action. You can't extrapolate that back out to results; that's not how these things work. For example, we know what dopamine does, and we know that L-DOPA is converted directly into dopamine, and we know that velvet bean contains about 5% L-DOPA naturally, but eating a shitload of velvet bean doesn't have the effect you would expect from a huge boost of dopamine. In the same way, we can know that orgasm causes certain chemicals to be released, and we can have an idea of the role of some of those chemicals in the brain, but you can't directly conclude that orgasm has X effect based solely on that. You have to actually test what happens to the brain after it has a bunch of orgasms.

Protip: it's not going to cause anything bad. Humans evolved to have sex all the goddamn time. It's why we're notable for being one of the very few animals with hidden estrus and with no penis bone.


 No.36819

File: 1f7792fde97b97f⋯.png (607.07 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, Screenshot_2017-05-19_16-5….png)

>>36818

I see, that's what I was getting from his responses too. None of the papers really made sense to none of the points he tried to make in the post. Now I can see it wasn't just me misinterpreting his papers then. Thanks for getting back to me.

I do believe excessive orgasm, regardless of the side-effects, if any, it's still bad because of mainly the physical strain in the still in development body, so if that person specifically mentioned that point about excessive sexual behaviors then I would have agreed with him on that at least.

There is also one thing that I noticed from him, while analyzing all his other responses in other posts. He was a sex abuse victim, so maybe his bias thanks to that awful experience he had might be working it's way here. :/


 No.36820

>>36819

Sex is self-limiting. As you do it more, you desire it less. It's like eating. You eat, you get full, you stop. Sure it's possible to train yourself into doing one or the other compulsively, but we don't starve our children out of fear that they might get fat. Just stop shoveling fucking McChickens down your kid's throat and you don't have to worry about obesity.


 No.36821

>>36820

Yes, I agree. It's all about keeping a balance. It's not always time to play video games, there is shit that sometimes needs to be fucking done. Diet has to be controlled according to what calories you burn, and other things. Only problem is when people normalizes the excessive counterparts, like obesity, which you brought up.


 No.36828

>>36827

>In effect, competency ultimately determines whether one can give informed consent.

Yes, competency is a requirement of being informed. But informed consent is about being informed, not about being competent. Therefore, a competent adult who is not informed about the potential risks of sex, including pregnancy (and these people are out there, believe me) can not give informed consent to sex. And yet no one has ever been charged with rape on the grounds that their competent adult partner thought babies arrived by stork. Why not? Because we don't actually require adults to give informed consent. Implied consent is sufficient if you're both over whatever age is socially acceptable.

Additionally, on the topic of competency, adults with developmental disabilities are typically considered sufficient competent to consent to sex at a behavioral age around 9 (See: >>36734). No one is administering these sexual competency tests to actual 9 year olds, but I'm guessing the vast majority would pass.

>You're not entitled to jack; be grateful that the child even wants to be around you and would humor you. That's a blessing in and of itself. We're not their parents, we have no right to demand anything of them.

You can fuck right off with your moral high horse. You're the one endorsing policies that result in an increase in coercion. You can claim that other people aren't worthy of having sex, but that's not going to stop them from doing it. They're doing it right now, despite the laws and the severe sentences. We have the option to use the law to encourage healthier sexual relationships, but instead we use it to ban sexual relationships outright. I wonder what would happen if all sex was banned, even for adults. Do you think birth rates would go down? I'm guessing now.

>Yes, it does. If you're just after someone to have sex, then you're not in a relationship a healthy relationship. Children are not made for one-night stands and quick hookups. Either go in with the mindset that you're going to appreciate them for all they're worth, or abstain from seeing them. They aren't adults, and we can't afford to act recklessly with them.

That's not at all where I was going with that, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that and being intentionally obtuse. But on the off chance that that's genuinely what you took away from that, allow me to rephrase: the adult requires the relationship to assuage the crushing loneliness of being an adult primate without a mate.

>I mean, they's literally a program setup to teach children about sexuality from kindergarten up, it just isn't implement all that thoroughly.

And does it also teach that children can say yes or no? Or is it more "how to recognize when you're being (statutory) raped because you're not a person until you're 18" bullshit?

>Isn't sex (or sexual activity) the main way STIs and STDs are spread?

Isn't driving cars the main way car crashes happen? Maybe we should just ban cars instead of trying to make our roads and cars safer. Oh wait, that's a terrible idea. So yeah, let's not make sex illegal unless you infect a child with an STI.


 No.36829

>>36828

Indeed I am tired of all these people who bow down to parents as if they are some demigod. The fact is, many kids 18 and under live in mediocre to completely horrible relationships with parents. Yet you still have these virped types screeching at us for wanting to make the world a better place for these younger generations.


 No.36834

>>36828

I'll deal with your reply later when I have more free time.

>>36819

Why the heck do you keep that topic alive? You know full well that you're aren't going to convince anyone of anything, even if your arguments were rock solid (which they certainly aren't). They have absolutely no incentive to switch sides right now. Let the damn topic die already, Omnipolitcs16. All you're doing is bringing down more heat


 No.36836

File: c9b3f119d027bc6⋯.jpg (294.08 KB, 1000x1486, 500:743, lolibooru 137226 sample.jpg)

>>36834

Pardon me, you're implying my arguments are bad just because I choose to not suck psychology's dick, since I know it's biased. If you do not question science, science wouldn't have gone this far in the first place. You need to acknowledge that, instead of keep repeating everything as the ultimate truth.

People aren't always going to hear what they want, and I'm fine with that. I'm not the type to say thing they want to hear, I tell what they need to hear. It is your and those antis opinion that my arguments are not "solid". You haven't specified any actual flaw in my counters, rather beating the dead horse that all the other Anons did mention and I personally already admitted to them, mostly in my approach, not my actual statements.

If you think that questioning something that's established is wrong then what is even the point of discussions in the first place? I'm not there to be good O'l Ben my boy and tell people things they want to hear, as I said. I tell them what needs to be said, let them get angry or not (you know they will still get angry anyways), but don't just half-read my thread and judge my arguments, I'm pretty sure you mostly just read my replies to LipStickPaper, which mind you, she's an anti herself and wasn't there to discuss in the first place, despite what she appeared as.

If even then, you thought my arguments were flawed, rather than sitting around, you should have jumped into the thread or at least comment something minimum here, it could have been something as small as throwing me a pdf or something, but coming here to shit on me afterwards isn't really going to help at anything, because anyone can be a critic and I know you are aware that I don't agree with you on many things, as well as many other Anons here.

We all have our differences, rather than looking flaws in each other, can't we just help ourselves instead and discuss things without setting an "ultimate truth", which in your case happens to be that topic. Be aware of the many flaws psychology has and don't be afraid of pointing them out, rather than keep endorsing them. If you can't accept that, at least expect from me to not receive the same output, because I do not blindly endorse everything without questioning it. That is what it means to promote skepticism in the first place. Studies, but also investigating further than what there is already.

Having said that, I still agree with you on dropping the thread. I also see it as futile, but I still wanted to bring those points to normies regardless of how harshly reacted to them. They need to read these things and eventually acknowledge them, since they cannot escape the reality that we exist forever.


 No.36837

* how harshly they reacted to


 No.36838

Ellen you need to chill the fuck out. Pour yourself a drink, smoke something, pop some pills, whatever works for you. You're fucking batshit insane.

>>36787

>And why would prepubescent children ever seek out sex? They don't have a sex drive, that happens during puberty. You guys got to read a little more before you blurt out your thoughts and opinions, because you're just saying nonsense that isn't supported by the data.

Get out of your house more often. Seriously.


 No.36839

File: a147caa74e4bf18⋯.jpg (258.12 KB, 1333x1000, 1333:1000, amazons-live-video-network….jpg)

>>36787

>And why would prepubescent children ever seek out sex? They don't have a sex drive, that happens during puberty.

There are cases where they do, and yet again, current implemented raising methods actively keeps them from these things, it's almost like an invisible force for some people to recognize, but it's there how parents try to hide natural affection, instead of not doing so, like they do with all other interactions. If you raise a child not being exposed to sunlight, and or caged somewhere, like this one girl, whom I forgot her name, you would also expect something similar due to things she didn't have contact to. This means that it seems to be more cases like that because of the raising methods currently used, rather than just not having a developed sex drive, they are still sexually curious.

http://www.villagecounselingcenter.net/Children_with_Sexual_Behavior_Problems_-_Assessment__Treatment_76114759.pdf

Studies also make references towards these, but of course, as you might expect, they classify it as something abnormal and unnatural, when sexuality is simply something that should considered normal as well.

Like I said in that thread, if you actually have read it, this is mostly the fault of the moral approach, rather than children actually being born like that. Children are being coerced from not seeking out the nature of sexuality in countless of ways. Some parents might be more acceptive, but as of today, most reprimand their children for such things, of course that will affect their development in such area.

I thought I saw this part of your reply, but must have read over it, hence why I make this comment now.


 No.36841

A major fail.


 No.36846

File: d7737e7c4d25636⋯.jpg (290.92 KB, 1303x2000, 1303:2000, F144-a-sevres-amour-menaca….jpg)

>>36766

>>36771

>>36775

>>36787

>>36799

God bless you.

Human history until "women's liberation" was classified by marriages with power distributions as uneven as those present in an adult-child relationship.

Children are not competely asexual creatures, but they are much less interested in sex than adolescents and adults.

An "adult-child" relationship means that the adult will have a strong, driving interest in something- sex- and that the child will not share the intensity of this interest. Simultaneously, the adult will be in a position of power.

This can end one of two ways:

> The adult represses his own drive in order to accomodate the lower or absent interest of the child

or

> The adult abuses his position to get out of the child what he wants

This type of relationship creates unique ethical problems that this chan community needs to take seriously and resolve if they want to be able to explain themselves to a wider audience.

Even if individual adult "pedophiles" have the ethics to accomodate the child's need for more platonic, typical child interactions- even if an individual is conscientious, and interacts with the child in the way they want to be interacted with, even if that means being platonic-

most people are selfish lovers, whether in this sort of relationship, or in a normal one.

This creates a huge problem on the level of society, which is child abuse. This is not a problem that is to be brushed off- anyone here who claims to really love children, should be more concerned about this issue than the general population.


 No.36849

>>36846

>>most people are selfish lovers, whether in this sort of relationship, or in a normal one.

Very good and sad point. Personally I think this is the true issue. It is not just about children being able to consent, or the risks of sex, but people fearing their child being taken advantage of by a selfish lover.

It is not that child love is not real in MAPs but some individuals only seek to pleasure themselves and not their partner. Whether they be a child, someone their own age or older.


 No.36851

File: 8ea14e128e0e9f7⋯.jpg (1.32 MB, 1280x853, 1280:853, homuraedit2.jpg)

>>36846

>An "adult-child" relationship means that the adult will have a strong, driving interest in something- sex- and that the child will not share the intensity of this interest. Simultaneously, the adult will be in a position of power.

>

>This can end one of two ways:

>

> The adult represses his own drive in order to accomodate the lower or absent interest of the child

>

or

>

> The adult abuses his position to get out of the child what he wants

I've been mostly saying about going with the >The adult represses his own drive in order to accomodate the lower or absent interest of the child

part that you mention but people chose to kept misinterpreting what I said when I meant just that and that there are particular cases where you could either go less, if the child is perhaps undeveloped, or more if the if the contrary, not that the position should be abused.

I don't know where people got that idea that I suggested that in the first place, unless of course, nobody actually read the thread at all.

>most people are selfish lovers, whether in this sort of relationship, or in a normal one.

Yes, unfortunately this is true. That is undeniable.


 No.36852

However, I still stand on the issue that sexuality is not as openly as promoted as it should be in order to condone an actual positive growth towards the nature of sexuality and the aspects surrounding it. The taboo needs to be destroyed and that shouldn't be neglected either.


 No.36853

>I hope so too. I did a search and he posted the link is a pro-pedo sub thinking he is making a difference…

Did you mention the thread in another sub or is she talking about our board?


 No.36854

>>36853

Where is that? I don't think she's talking about this board. She probably meant one of my sources or I don't know. If it's LipStickPaper, I would disregard her, since she came from the PedoHaters sub.

Also, notice she says "sub", so she might probably, if anything, be hinting to something on Reddit.


 No.36855

>>36854

https://www.reddit.com/r/confessions/comments/6shd1w/i_am_a_pedophile/dlep6p2/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=confessions

Yeah, she says "sub", but it could that she's just unfamiliar with the terminology and calls any forum a sub. The point is that if her hate group knows about this board, they can be around trying to dissuade you. I personally don't oppose antis coming here, since I think the board should be an open, yet safe, space. But you should take that in consideration when weighting how much value you give to someone's opinion just because they seem to be on the same side as you.


 No.36856

>>36846

One thing I'm going to point out is that there's a huge focus on sexual abuse over physical and emotional abuse, while science shows that sexual abuse alone causes little to no harm: nearly all of the negative effects attributed to sexual abuse are a result of coexisting physical or emotional abuse (Rind, et al. 1998, 2001). Nonsexual abuse is a far more pervasive problem with more than 10 times the prevalence, and 80% of abusers are the children's parents or caregivers.

In the broad view, it's not pedophiles that harm children; it's parents. And how do we protect children from their parents? By bringing other adults into their lives who have a vested interest in their wellbeing. So, how do we entice unrelated adults to step in to balance out the power imbalance between child and parent? With sex. Or physical and emotional intimacy, if you prefer to see it that way. I can see why this bargain of sex for protection would be distasteful for you, it sure does sound like quite a racket. But when you consider that the alternative is to leave those children enthralled by dependence on their abusive parents, is it really that bad of an idea?

And yes, some of these relationships will turn out to be less than ideal. That's the nature of humanity. But there's still an important factor to consider: the parents. We haven't shipped them off to the gulag, we just added a mediating perspective to their relationship. The child can still refuse to have sex with his or her lover if the child feels that his or her needs aren't being met, and generally count on the parent to enforce that refusal. So now we have a relationship with at least two adults with similar power, each with self-interested reasons to ensure that the child is as well cared for as possible.

If we're going to argue power politics, please argue power politics instead of waxing philosophical over your platonic ideal of what a perfect relationship should be.


 No.36858

>>36856

>If we're going to argue power politics, please argue power politics instead of waxing philosophical over your platonic ideal of what a perfect relationship should be.

^^ This.


 No.36859

>>36855

Yeah, I did a search too using part of the link of my thread and it did led me here. I am inclined to think that if she would have actually seen this thread, she would have gathered a battalion of normies to here already. What I did notice with them though is that they completely misinterpreted everything I said, but that didn't came as something new for me.


 No.36860

>>36859

Here's a tip: no one is interested in nuanced views of things they don't believe in. If you want to convince someone, pick the simplest and most defensible position you can, and argue it full stop*. Maybe you'll eventually get to the point where you agree enough to hammer out the details, maybe you won't, but don't dither over details like whether the AoC should be 2 or 4 or 7 or whatever when that just distracts from your goal.

*This doesn't mean you should just scream louder than the other guy. Keep strong opinions, loosely held, and always be willing to change your mind when presented with new information.


 No.36861

>>36855

She's pretty much always around here, no joke. Take a look for yourself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PedoHatersAnonymous/

>>36860

I will keep that in mind. Thank you. So pretty much never mention abolition nor a set age to avoid dealing with the dilemma I have of not leaving nepiophiles left out…

I like your input, thanks for approaching me with that. I really needed it.


 No.36862

>>36856

Couldn't have said it better my self. So many people in this community go on and on about pedophiles or hebephiles being the "selfish lovers". The reality is that parents are by far the majority in this category but they aren't sent to prison. They are praised for indirectly supporting the status quo of "child lovers are evil. Muh studies confirm this"


 No.36863

>>36849

Yes, this is the true issue. This is something a wider community can relate to, but it is of particular concern here. The problem of being "trapped" in bad relationships also happens to adults. This used to happen mostly to women, but now it's a universal liability.

I don't have an easy response to this problem.

>>36851

I get what you're saying. If you want to talk to a wider audience, this is not the road to go down. It would be more tactful to say that the child's own interest and responses would determine. It would be even more tactful to say nothing.

This community, and the general movement to make this more acceptable, is plagued by a simple fact:

prepubescent children are not intensely interested in having sexual relationships.

They are capable of having genuine, fulfilling emotional relationships with humans.

They are capable of a degree of sexual experimentation and play, but it's just nothing like the orgasm-hungry libido of an adult.

I've been a child. I remember being in a very meaningful, intense emotional relationship with an adult, with lots of physical closeness, in which I would have liked a little bit of sexual play and experimentation, but I wasn't driven to it with that adult intensity. I had a crush, and never got to figure out what to do with it.

I can extend genuine compassion to the people here who are driven towards this sort of relationship, because their Desire and their Love are in opposition.

You should spend more time talking about what this sort of relationship could mean to the child or do in their life, and not talking about crude details of sex acts.

>>36856

"SCIENCE SHOWS that secual abuse alone causes little to no harm"

I could have just stopped reading there, or I could just ad hominem you and tell you to just talk to anyone who has ever been sexually abused,

or I could just tell you to stop being stupid.

Statistics are a funny thing. There are many many more parents in the world than pedophiles. Pedophiles are very rare, but most people become parents.

Competent parents protect their children from the abuses of other people, therefore, the only way for a child to be abused is for their parent to be weak, incompetent, or to abuse themselves.

In the broad view, I am not persuaded that one pedophile is less of a risk to one child than that child's own parents. If children need to be protected from their parents, it is their grandparents, aunts and uncles who do it.

You are not the first one here to fail completely to explain why the child would have an interest in this sort of relationship.

You all write primarily about the sexual aspect of the relationship you would like to have, but for the other person, the sexuality will not be the central theme.

In my case, as a child, I needed stable adult affection that my instable family environment wasn't giving me. It's


 No.36864

>>36862

After reading your post and rereading mine, I want to make sure that it's clear that I don't hate all parents across the board, and I don't hate the idea of parenthood. Most parents are great people. A whole lot of parents are absolutely amazing. I do, however, have concerns about the isolated nature of the modern family and how pedo-hysteria is causing that isolation to increase with every passing year. I think that ratcheting down that hysteria will do a lot to increase community involvement not just from pedophiles, but from all sorts of people who withhold their support for fear of being branded a pedophile for interfering with the insular family paradigm.


 No.36865

File: 4a8df6839fa17ea⋯.jpg (38.11 KB, 635x952, 635:952, 4e0a6d-20150212-cupid7.jpg)

>>36863

(woops, hit post early there)

It's hard to imagine a child in a stable, healthy environment having any interest in such a relationship. The most realistic thing I can imagine is an adult filling in an absent caretaker role in the child's life, and obtaining satisfaction from the limits of the child's affection and interest- which can be infinite and mild, respectively.


 No.36867

>>36863

>I could have just stopped reading there, or I could respond to your perceived fallacy with a fallacy of my own

OR, you could have read another ten words and arrived at the citation for my claims instead of whining about my phrasing. But, hey, you do you.

>There are many many more parents in the world than pedophiles. Pedophiles are very rare, but most people become parents.

It's a good thing abusive parents are rare, too. CPS claims to protect 3 million children in the US. Taking their numbers at face value, that's about 4% of the 74 million children in the US. Pedophiles account for around 1-5% of the 250 million adults in the US. Assuming the number of children that could benefit from a strong relationship outside of the family power structure is somewhat more than the number that require CPS intervention, that's a fairly reasonable ratio. And as you've noted, children from less stable families will be the ones most receptive to a pedophile's offer of affection and support in exchange for intimacy, which means that for the most part, pedophilic relationships will tend to grow where they're most needed.


 No.36870

>>36867

There's something "transactional" about how you plant this situation that inspires distrust.

If someone "gives you" intimacy spontaneously, that's a beautiful thing. If they "trade" it to you for something they need…

I don't know, I hear that in third world countries, there are prostitutes that will have sex for food?

Are you looking for a way to give something,

or are you looking for a way to take something?


 No.36872

>>36870

All human interaction is transactional. People give to charity because it makes them feel good. Is it unethical that they should receive that feeling of goodness in exchange for money? Or can you just accept that they're doing something to help others for selfish reasons?

If you were purely rational and purely altruistic in your pursuit of better lives for children, you would be working as an executive for a Fortune 500 company while living as a hermit and sending all of your income to helping children you've never met in Africa. But you're not. Well, I'm about 98% sure that you're not. Instead, you're probably trying to help a small handful kids you know personally. In exchange, you might receive affection, or a chance to watch and appreciate the fleeting beauty of a young child, or the knowledge that you've made a life better through your actions. Those are all great reasons, and if your own reasons aren't on this short list, I'm sure yours are just as valid.

But sex is also a valid reason. I'm guessing you were raised as a Christian, and you consider various forms of sex to be a sin or otherwise immoral. That's fine, and you're totally entitled to base your own actions off of those views. But many of us weren't raised that way. Many children weren't, either. In this sense, sex is just another bargaining chip. Note that I'm not saying that in a denigrating way, or to try to separate the physical act from the emotional component; I just offered love and appreciation of beauty as alternative bargaining chips. But while it's a currency that's not worth anything to you, it's valuable to others, and children should have the option to spend it in exchange for things that they need, whether that's affection and attention, emotional or financial stability, or whatever.

Ask yourself, what's a better outcome for those third world prostitutes? That they have sex, and eat? Or that they don't, and starve? If you were to simply ban them from having sex, you'd be forcing the latter.


 No.36877

File: c5d0413a622915e⋯.jpg (241.33 KB, 973x1946, 1:2, Eros_type_Centocelle_MAN_N….jpg)

>>36872

Look, it's the current year. We all know that people do things to satisfy drives.

My income would be squandered in Africa, they would just breed more hungry children. I value human advancement. Helping the small handful of kids I know personally is called "working within my reach". I help to raise the people that the future needs.

Receiving affection and watching fleeting beauty is nice, and no harm to the subject. I also need these things on a very fundamental level.

Being sexual with them beyond their interest or capacity, or imposing an adult role on them while they're trying to live their lives, would be harmful to them.

This is the difference between doing something selfish which helps or is neutral to others, and doing something selfish which harms others.

This is the difference between good and evil.

I also don't -need- sex in that same way. No one does. People want sex. People need love.

I am not subject to the Christian slave morality. This is my own morality I am describing to you.

I gained this ethos by experience. I've tried being selfish with people, inconsiderate of their interests. I've tried imposing upon them the roles I would like them to fill.

This method only left a scar in my heart.

I learned to just give people what they need, and now my heart sings.

The best outcome for a third world prostitute would be to be fed without the expectation of sexual favors.

You seem to think that I'm arguing about what should be banned, or legal, or punished. That is not my interest, here.

I am trying to tell you what love is.

my alarm went off

slept five hours

still dark outside

almost didn't go

but then I remembered

the smell of your hair

when I kissed

your head goodnight

two cups of coffee with cream

two cigarettes

a full tank

onward


 No.36885

>>36877

>My income would be squandered in Africa, they would just breed more hungry children.

Oh wow, I honestly wasn't expecting the "those children fucked up by being born into the third world and they deserve whatever they get" argument from you. Ever notice how shitholes like Africa and India tend to turn into baby farms, but developed countries have much lower birthrates? Maybe solving the massive issues these places have with preventable diseases is the first step toward developing them into places worth living, and curbing the population explosion in the process. And if you really do think children in Africa are better off dead, maybe you should contribute to a charity that distributes condoms and birth control pills so they don't have to live short, brutal lives of starvation and hardship.

> I help to raise the people that the future needs.

How do you know that the one or five or twenty kids that you help are specifically the ones the future needs? The simple answer is that you don't, and that you're instead being driven by a very human desire to provide for your tribe. Oops, there's that word. Desire. Will you let it be a demon that haunts you, or will you embrace your desires and use them to help others?

>Being sexual with them beyond their interest or capacity, or imposing an adult role on them while they're trying to live their lives, would be harmful to them.

There's nothing harmful about doing something beyond your interests. Fairly often, people ask me to do things that I don't have any particular interest in. Occasionally even things I don't want to do. Sometimes I do those things despite that disinterest because it's not a big deal for me or because I respect and appreciate the person asking. Sometimes I don't do it. Either way, I don't feel abused or exploited in any manner; not for the doing and certainly not for the asking. That's not to say I've never had interactions with people where I felt coerced or cheated- I certainly have- but in my experience those interactions have more to do with particularly manipulative individuals making the request than the nature of the request itself.

>This is the difference between doing something selfish which helps or is neutral to others, and doing something selfish which harms others.

And see, now we're deep into the territory of "sex is inherently harmful for children." And the thing about that claim is that it's actually a testable hypothesis. The results are in: sex is not harmful to children except in cases where force is involved, or when it's later reframed in the context of social stigma. Both of those things can easily be solved by ending the pedo-hysteria that's causing children to be ever more dependent on their parents.

>The best outcome for a third world prostitute would be to be fed without the expectation of sexual favors.

Fed by whom? You don't appear to be volunteering. Why would anyone else? That said, I actually agree with you, but I would extend your sentiment from sex workers alone to all workers. Regardless of what you do, you should be doing it because that's what you enjoy, not because you're required to do it to survive. I also happen to think sex work will continue to exist in a world with a universal basic income. Go ask over in reddit.com/r/liararoux. She quit her high paying job as a web designer to become an escort because that's what she enjoys doing. And yes, I'm aware that not all escorts have sex with clients, but she does and makes no pretense otherwise.

>You seem to think that I'm arguing about what should be banned, or legal, or punished. That is not my interest, here.

>I am trying to tell you what love is.

I think we're in agreement about what love is. I just think your (and most others') fixation on flawless loving relationships born of pure agape ignores the reality of the nature of human interpersonal relationships and deprives people of all ages of fulfilling but less than ideal relationships, leaving them with emptiness instead.


 No.36886

>>36877

Have you ever heard of sexualized children? For many kids, once they find out what sex is, they seek it out, a lot.


 No.36887

File: e210a042d5fec5a⋯.jpg (86.39 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, H-S12.jpg)

>>36885

> Maybe solving the massive issues these places have with preventable diseases is the first step toward developing them into places worth living, and curbing the population explosion in the process.

Making those places worth living is not the interest of the species. They would just consume more resources and produce nothing. It is in the interest of the species that Western civilization look out for itself.

This is called "working within my reach".

> How do you know that the one or five or twenty kids that you help are specifically the ones the future needs?

every half of a second

a thousand little acts of love

hold up the sky

I know that the future needs good people in places of power, so I teach people to be good, and powerful.

Of course I "desire" this. It is natural and good that I should desire it. I do not work upon my own tribe in the sense of blood. Of course I work upon a "tribe".

This is called "working within my reach." Do you understand yet?

> There's nothing harmful about doing something beyond your interests.

It is, specifically, harmful to teach children to have uninterested sex in a transactional way. They will carry this attitude with them into their adult lives, and it will make it easier for them to attain deep emotional satisfaction in a future adult relationship. They will be more likely to enter into unsatisfying relationships, or acquire a frustrating sexual orientation, like your own.

> And see, now we're deep into the territory of "sex is inherently harmful for children."

Yes, we are in that territory. Sexual relationships with children have enormous potential to be harmful to them- not just because of force or stigma, but because a child can learn certain behaviors and attitudes in such a relationship that will lead to future risk and unhappiness.

Like it or not, we must discuss how to live in the world we live in, not in a fantastical one free of "pedo-hysteria." If anything, we must be speaking to the parents.

> I also happen to think sex work will continue to exist in a world with a universal basic income.

This is the stupidest imaginable brand so far. You isolate people by advocating for any sort of prostitution. For moral reasons, you should never advocate for child prostitution. For strategic reasons, you should not do this now.

> the reality of the nature of human interpersonal relationships

I know I haven't always lived up to my ideals, believe me.

I get up every morning and fight for my ideals. That is the only way to bring happiness to those I love.

It is necessary that this community have an agreed upon ideal and model of interaction, and a brand, so that when parents think of you, they think of that, and not Law & Order: SVU.


 No.36890

File: 4aa62e77fda5a23⋯.jpg (640.08 KB, 800x530, 80:53, punpunandaikoedit2.jpg)

>>36887

>This is the stupidest imaginable brand so far. You isolate people by advocating for any sort of prostitution. For moral reasons, you should never advocate for child prostitution. For strategic reasons, you should not do this now.

I think he is right on this one. There is nothing wrong with prostitution, in my opinion, but this will not benefit the child, not while living in the current society we are now. We shouldn't advocate for that yet for those reasons.

>Like it or not, we must discuss how to live in the world we live in, not in a fantastical one free of "pedo-hysteria." If anything, we must be speaking to the parents.

While, yes, we must start by discussing how to live in a world where we currently are involved in, we must not quit fighting against that "pedo-hysteria" mind-set.

>Yes, we are in that territory. Sexual relationships with children have enormous potential to be harmful to them- not just because of force or stigma, but because a child can learn certain behaviors and attitudes in such a relationship that will lead to future risk and unhappiness.

Said behaviors and attitudes are learned given on the same situation of force and stigma you said it is excepted from.

Right now, I can agree on sex not being the main approach we take on when discussing child-adult relationships, because that is but one of the many things that compose these types of relationships.

That doesn't mean that it should be completely ignored though. Like you said in earlier, >It is, specifically, harmful to teach children to have uninterested sex in a transactional way.

their interest in these things is of importance as well in order for them to have a healthy growth, instead of teaching them to satisfy someone without them having an interest into doing it, that, in many ways, would only raise a slave, which is just unfortunate.

To clarify, I'm not saying that all children won't have interest in these particular things, some do and some do not. Lumping them completely on one of these sides is what I'm against, since it's bound to hurt them when it comes to things they want/don't want to do in the long-run, at least legally.

>>36886

Yes, they do exist. People need to stop denying they do not, because more than hurting us, it's hurting those children that do look for such natural things.

However, for people to acknowledge such thing, the taboo towards sexuality in general needs to get destroyed, like I said earlier. Something people seem to forget, that sexuality is just yet another natural act, that in it's core, it won't really hurt anyone, except for the approach you wish to take.

Like some individuals have brought up here, expecting a child-adult relationship to be the same as an adult-adult one is unrealistic and something not even most of us wants anyways, for if that was the case then we would just date adults.

In my case, I don't even want sex. I just want a little companion that whom I can have different conversations with, cuddle, learn from each other, play video games, etc. All of that, while also supporting them as they grow, by not restricting them from anything, as long as there is no harm.

Realistically though, such thing does have it's limit now, for such relationship could happen, but the limits when it comes to sexuality are bound to be still there and that must be respected (but not undisputed) in order for us to grow future generations who are more open to topics of this nature, the way it should be with many, if not all topics in order to have accurate communication and no censor from anything.


 No.36893

File: 0b6a2d717fa5a04⋯.jpg (6.77 KB, 269x187, 269:187, theydoexist.jpg)

>>36886

> Have you ever heard of sexualized children? For many kids, once they find out what sex is, they seek it out, a lot.

>>36890

> Yes, they do exist.

I'm sorry, friends. Those perma-wet lollies you dream about, they don't exist.

I'm sorry, parents. Those fig-leaf covered, stork-delivered cabbage patch kids you dream about, they don't exist either.

Children have libido.

This libido is much less than that of an adult.

They also do not have a psychosocial need to be in a sexual relationship, the way that young adults, and particularly young women, have that psychosocial need.

> In my case, I don't even want sex. I just want a little companion that whom I can have different conversations with, cuddle, learn from each other, play video games, etc. All of that, while also supporting them as they grow, by not restricting them from anything, as long as there is no harm.

God bless you, you made me think that there's a person on the other side of this screen. The "CP plus whore" thread a little further down really has me… doubting in this place.

I will namefag. I am zarathustra, I am the one who writes the poems and posts the images of Cupid and Eros.

Hi.


 No.36894

File: 421539cde8b8a7c⋯.jpg (1.64 MB, 1200x872, 150:109, aikoedit5.jpg)

>>36893

>I'm sorry, friends. Those perma-wet lollies you dream about, they don't exist.

Not saying all of them are perma-wet lolis, but yeah you're right, some people make them out to be "sluts", which is a word that infuriates me to hear when describing the little ones. They are not objects.

>They also do not have a psychosocial need to be in a sexual relationship, the way that young adults, and particularly young women, have that psychosocial need.

Agreed. They do not have that need. They just need someone that supports them, some of them being curious to these activities or not is something aside, and should not be the main worry when in these relationships.

>The "CP plus whore" thread a little further down really has me… doubting in this place.

Yeah, I hate that thread too, I wish I could purge it. Like I said, I hate people that call children, like some do in cp, as implying them as something as just sluts. They're humans for fuck's sake, not objects.

>I will namefag. I am zarathustra, I am the one who writes the poems and posts the images of Cupid and Eros.

Much respects, I love your poems and I like that thread you started with them. I think that thread deserves to be bumped more often.


 No.36896

>>36887

>Making those places worth living is not the interest of the species. They would just consume more resources and produce nothing.

The thing about developed countries is that they actually do produce things. By encouraging economic development in third world countries, not only do we bring them to a level where they have products to offer us, we also create markets for our own products, increasing our domestic wealth.

>It is in the interest of the species that Western civilization look out for itself.

This is a very narrow and bigoted view of the world that causes more suffering than just about anything else. It's important to recognize one's limits as to who is and who isn't tribe, and what that distinction entails, but it's just as important to recognize that even non-tribe people are still people, and still worthy of basic human dignity.

>This is called "working within my reach".

With the advent of modern transportation and communication, these people are no longer outside of your reach; they're merely outside of your tribe. I'm not saying you're a bad person for directing your efforts where you see fit; I'm just asking you to take a moment to reflect on your motivations. You're not being purely altruistic here; your goal isn't "to help children." Your goal is to help *your* children, with the understanding that you will receive something in return. Give and receive. Transaction. Do you understand yet?

>It is, specifically, harmful to teach children to have uninterested sex in a transactional way.

I don't think I was clear earlier. You appear to arguing more with the connotations of my verbiage than with the thoughts I've been trying to convey. You think of a transaction in terms of a financial transaction. Money in exchange for goods or services. I'm defining love in terms of a transaction. Trust and affection in exchange for trust and affection. Support in a time of hardship in exchange for future and past support in times of hardship. Good feelings and enjoyable time spent together in exchange for the same. And not just on a one-to-one basis, and not everything all the time, but any of the above in exchange for any other, to the extent that either partner in the relationship requires or can offer, in a manner which both partners deem to be equitable.

Note that I am explicitly not advocating for children having sex in exchange for money or food or gifts. What I'm advocating is for children to be allowed to exchange their love in the form of any of the five "love languages", in exchange for love in the form of any other. Can you not see the difference between an exchange of love (in the form of gift giving) for love (in the form of physical touch) and a cattle auction?

>Sexual relationships with children have enormous potential to be harmful to them- not just because of force or stigma, but because a child can learn certain behaviors and attitudes in such a relationship that will lead to future risk and unhappiness.

Once again, you're claiming effects that are not supported by empirical fact. This is quite literally just your opinion.

>Like it or not, we must discuss how to live in the world we live in, not in a fantastical one free of "pedo-hysteria."

You don't think it's relevant to talk about how we should conduct ourselves once we've actually achieved our goal of general acceptance? That seems rather short sighted to me. I also notice you're dodging my point that the structures that have been created to prevent undesirable pedophilic relationships actually cause more harm than those relationships themselves.

>This is the stupidest imaginable brand so far. You isolate people by advocating for any sort of prostitution. For moral reasons, you should never advocate for child prostitution.

>>36890

>There is nothing wrong with prostitution, in my opinion, but this will not benefit the child,

Once again, I'm not advocating child prostitution. Children don't have an adult obsession with money the same way they don't have an adult obsession with sex. What I'm saying is that you're so upset at the idea that a group of people might be getting exploited for sex that you fail to consider that some and perhaps even many of them are in the business because they genuinely enjoy it.

>>36887

>I know I haven't always lived up to my ideals, believe me.

You're reading a personal accusation in to my words that I never intended. The "nature of human relationships" I was referring to isn't a bad thing, and not a good thing. It's just the reality that we're working with. Basing your goals on something other than reality isn't a way to set yourself up for success.


 No.36897

>>36896

>Once again, I'm not advocating child prostitution. Children don't have an adult obsession with money the same way they don't have an adult obsession with sex. What I'm saying is that you're so upset at the idea that a group of people might be getting exploited for sex that you fail to consider that some and perhaps even many of them are in the business because they genuinely enjoy it.

Yes, you're right about that. I know some people do enjoy these things, but the case still remains that children shouldn't, at least now, participate in these things due to the legal consequences that it might bring, as well as the social/moral ones, unfortunately, even if they do somehow enjoy these activities.

I have nothing against prostitution as a way of life and making income if the individual enjoys it, like you said.


 No.36899

>>36897

My point is that children won't choose of their own volition to become prostitutes, regardless of the legal or social climate. I never said anything about child prostitution until >>36887 accused me of endorsing it; the discussion before that was about adult sex workers, at least on my part.


 No.36900

>>36899

>My point is that children won't choose of their own volition to become prostitutes, regardless of the legal or social climate. I never said anything about child prostitution until >>36887 accused me of endorsing it; the discussion before that was about adult sex workers, at least on my part.

Ah, I see. Well, in that case, no, there is absolutely no problem with prostitution at all if the adult, like you state, chooses to be one.


 No.36902

File: 8e4f7a417103ff1⋯.jpg (11.65 KB, 225x225, 1:1, images.jpg)

>>36896

> The thing about developed countries is that they actually do produce things.

We do not need more consumer goods and more markets and more consumer societies. We need technological advancement.

> This is a very narrow and bigoted view of the world that causes more suffering than just about anything else.

Western civilization has been the sole producer of technological advancement since the Reinaissance, and currently accounts for more than 95% of invention. The other 5% is Japan.

> With the advent of modern transportation and communication, these people are no longer outside of your reach; they're merely outside of your tribe. I'm not saying you're a bad person for directing your efforts where you see fit; I'm just asking you to take a moment to reflect on your motivations. You're not being purely altruistic here; your goal isn't "to help children." Your goal is to help *your* children, with the understanding that you will receive something in return. Give and receive. Transaction. Do you understand yet?

I'm sorry, you don't understand yet. They are my tribe, they are mine, not because of blood but because I have chosen to work to elevate them.

I hold up as much as I can.

> And not just on a one-to-one basis, and not everything all the time, but any of the above in exchange for any other, to the extent that either partner in the relationship requires or can offer, in a manner which both partners deem to be equitable.

I fully recognize how abstract you can be when talking about being transactional, and I reject it on that level. Love is selfless sacrifice.

if you don't love me

just don't hurt me

don't chain me down

don't punish me

> Once again, you're claiming effects that are not supported by empirical fact.

People who have had sexual experiences with adults as children, are more likely to have sexual interest in children as adults.

People who were sexually abused as children have less relationship stability as adults.

It's beyond my obvious threshhold to find a citation for those two statements. These reflect universal consensus within the discipline of psychology.

> You don't think it's relevant to talk about how we should conduct ourselves once we've actually achieved our goal of general acceptance?

No. I think I should think about how to conduct myself right now.

> I also notice you're dodging my point that the structures that have been created to prevent undesirable pedophilic relationships actually cause more harm than those relationships themselves.

That is quite literally just your opinion. There are no good ways to even measure that assertion, or know how much harm would be caused by undesireable pedophilic relationships, absent regulation.

> you fail to consider that some and perhaps even many of them are in the business because they genuinely enjoy it.

Okay, well, some women are whores. I have no interest in arguing that they should be criminally prohibited from being whores here on this chan, so they have won their minimum threshhold for acceptance.

This is just not the sort of life advice I would give to my daughter.

Again, I reflect on the paradox of Moslem culture- they can marry girls from the age of nine, but they recognize that a whore is less than a dog.

I think there's something to be learned from every doctrine.

> You're reading a personal accusation in to my words that I never intended. The "nature of human relationships" I was referring to isn't a bad thing, and not a good thing.

It's not that I felt accused. I confess spontaneously. I've lived a long life, and I haven't always lived it well.

The reality of the relationship that brings me to this website, is that I give, and I don't ask for anything.

I've tried having selfish relationships, and they made me unhappy.

What I am doing now is good for me. I'm better than ever. Never thought I'd have a book of poems in me, until I left all that behind.

Abstention is freedom from Desire.


 No.36907

>>36899

>My point is that children won't choose of their own volition to become prostitutes, regardless of the legal or social climate.

Masha is a counter-example to this, and by no means the only one out there.

>>36893

>I'm sorry, friends. Those perma-wet lollies you dream about, they don't exist.

You can easily find case studies that document just how sexualized children behave. Their behavior can be excessive even by modern whore standards. It sometimes takes considerable interference from therapists and social workers to change them. It's giving a child with little self-control the experience of the most amazing drug and then trying to make them forget it exists.

>>36902

>People who have had sexual experiences with adults as children, are more likely to have sexual interest in children as adults.

>People who were sexually abused as children have less relationship stability as adults.

>It's beyond my obvious threshhold to find a citation for those two statements. These reflect universal consensus within the discipline of psychology.

It's impossible to find a credible citation because none exists. That there is a consensus in a field does not constitute evidence. This is especially true of a field that has, since its inception, been heavily influenced by politics.


 No.36914

>>36902

>Love is selfless sacrifice.

…for those you expect to see a return from in the future. It's not actually all that selfless. Not that that's a problem.

>People who have had sexual experiences with adults as children, are more likely to have sexual interest in children as adults.

Factually incorrect; all current research points toward prenatal causes.

>People who were sexually abused as children have less relationship stability as adults.

Also mostly incorrect when you control for comorbid presence of physical and emotional abuse, although there's evidence to show that some girls (but not boys) are harmed as a result of social stigma. This effect is greater in girls who are older at the time of first sexual contact.


 No.36931

File: 83bf06e57d4027f⋯.jpg (85.83 KB, 800x611, 800:611, gal267_93.jpg)

>>36907

> That there is a consensus in a field does not constitute evidence. This is especially true of a field that has, since its inception, been heavily influenced by politics.

> You can easily find case studies that document just how sexualized children behave.

The degree of cognitive dissonance between the two statements above is really mind-blowing. I just want you to lean back for a while and reflect on it.

I'm just going to try to type this very slowly:

1: People who are sexually abused, regardless of age, can have difficulty in having stable, satisfying sexual relationships because of this.

2: The above statement applies to children as well as to adults.

3: Children who have sexual experiences with adults are more likely to become adults who want sexual experiences with children.

4: In our society, adults who want sexual experiences with children are subject to frustration and punishment.

You will never argue your way through any of these axioms.

A path around might look like this:

"Yes, that's true. That's why I don't sexually abuse people. Let me explain the difference between contact and abuse."

"Actually, as an adult attracted to children, I've found a way to have satisfying, mutually beneficial relationships with them, which do not subject me to frustration or to punishment. Therefore, if children become like me in the future, they can practice this same method and achieve similar results. Let me explain what this right way is."

I'm trying to not give the questions -and- the answers, but you're just not going anywhere on your own.

> …for those you expect to see a return from in the future. It's not actually all that selfless. Not that that's a problem.

What are these future returns? I expect, and would eventually have to insist, that he grows up, takes the moral and practical education he receives from me, and applies it to his own life.

Youth is short. You eventually have to cut people free, give them more distance so they can have an independent, normal life, and hope that they pay it forward.

My pleasure is the knowledge that I have improved the condition of my fellow man.

Like we've agreed upon, everyone serves their own drives. I get off on helping. That's my drive. There's no other angle.


 No.36935

>>36931

>The degree of cognitive dissonance between the two statements above is really mind-blowing. I just want you to lean back for a while and reflect on it.

Good attempt, but failed nonetheless.

Those case studies were written by child mental health care professionals who were of the opinion that children should not and cannot be sexual. As such, they were not influenced by biases attempting to explain sexually aggressive behavior as natural, but rather as the result of toxic outside influences. Their description of the objective realities of how these children behaved towards adults and other children cannot be questioned, for they did not attempt to misrepresent them but rather misinterpret them. As such, we have overwhelmingly clear descriptions of lewd childhood behavior, the only true point of contention being their interpretation.


 No.36937

>>36931

Once again, sexual abuse is a diagnosis in search of symptoms. It has no predictive power for outcomes later in life because it's defined in legal terms rather than physiological or psychological terms, and guess what? Your body doesn't actually give a shit what the law has to say. The adverse affects you're claiming are not a function of sexual abuse, rather, they're a function of physical and/or emotional abuse. Currently, there's a moderate correlation between sexual and physical/emotional abuse, but that's only because non-abusive sexual relationships are illegal. Yes, abusive relationships are illegal as well, but abusive people are likely to be less conscientious, and more likely to disregard the law.

It's important that we make this distinction because there are many ways in which people are harmed by the lack of erotic contact, especially as infants and children. Now, I'm not saying that we should all be out there fucking two year olds for their own benefit. I'm saying that the fear of being branded a pedophile results in adults refusing to touch children under a wide variety of circumstances that in the recent past wouldn't have been worth consideration. This constitutes neglect, which is a very serious form of emotional abuse with lasting effects, including not just sexual dysfunction, but also a predisposition toward social and physical violence.

Here, have some sources:

Yates, A. (2004). “Biologic perspective on early erotic development,” Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13(3).

Okami, Paul; Olmstead, Richard; and Abramson, Paul R. (1997). “Sexual experiences in early childhood: 18-year longitudinal data from the UCLA family lifestyles project – University of California, Los Angeles,” Journal of Sex Research, 34, 339-347.

Prescott, J.W. (1975). “Body Pleasure and The Origins of Violence,” in The Futurist and The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists.

Yates, Alayne. Sex without shame: encouraging the child's healthy sexual development. New York, Quill, 1982.

Levine, Judith, and Joycelyn M. Elders. Harmful to minors: the perils of protecting children from sex. New York, Thunders Mouth Press, 2003.

I'd appreciate one source in return that indicates sexual abuse may have negative effects beyond those of physical or emotional abuse, or negative effects in cases where physical and emotional abuse were not present.


 No.36954

>>36935

>As such, they were not influenced by biases attempting to explain sexually aggressive behavior as natural, but rather as the result of toxic outside influences.

The reason no one fabricates evidence of sexually aggressive children is because it is impossible given the number of witnesses.

>As such, we have overwhelmingly clear descriptions of lewd childhood behavior, the only true point of contention being their interpretation.

This much is correct. It really boils down to "so is this a bad thing?"


 No.36958

>>36931

You mentioned that you are a traditionalist in another post, so I can understand why you want to cling to the idea that kids are not sexual.

This is the one thing that has confused me being raised in a Christian household with no sisters. I often wonder how much you learn about sex that goes on under the radar of parents. I think a lot of Christian parents would be appalled at how lewd discussions become outside of church with friends.

Regardless of religion, as others have stated, the studies were done by hardcore "anti" scientists. How could they possibly lie about their findings and say girls can be sexually active before puberty? The difference is they want to blame it on some imaginary boogeyman (specifically males) but other scientists look at this data and say "hmmm, maybe children are not asexual beings after all?".


 No.36959

>>36958

>I think a lot of Christian parents would be appalled at how lewd discussions become outside of church with friends

Which is hilarious, because those parents were doing and saying the exact same things themselves 20-30 years ago.


 No.36962

File: bb2c5b921ac33a6⋯.jpg (419.26 KB, 987x1280, 987:1280, photo_2017-05-18_23-15-03.jpg)

>>36958

>You mentioned that you are a traditionalist in another post, so I can understand why you want to cling to the idea that kids are not sexual.

I find that amusing because traditional societies had lower age of consent in the past and also because this topic you guys are on about now reminds me of this…


 No.36963

>>36962

Maybe you're late to the party or I'm forgetting what I write in which thread- that is the whole point. My arguments for relationships with children are based on traditional societies.

I'm just tired, I'll respond better to the rest of this tomorrow. Love for everyone.


 No.36965

File: 42a3264fd1279fb⋯.jpg (1.91 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, kannaedit.jpg)

>>36963

Yeah, probably wrong thread. I'm late for the party in this one. XD

We are talking in the other thread about my views on relationships and/or how I would reply to one in this current society.


 No.36971

>>36836

Look, I'm going to repeat myself one last time, beyond that, you're on you're own: I have no intention whatsoever of getting entangled,

bickering with ninnies. I've made it crystal clear since arriving here that online activism is useless right now, and I fully intend to stand by that. So no, I won't go there and help you. You went there, created that topic (probably on impulse) and got wrecked. You didn't reach anyone, from the looks of it. Mission failed. You literally failed to sway anyone you spoke to, from what I read, not just LipStickPaper, who's an obvious pedophobe. I don't wanna be a dick, but there it is.

>>36838

>Get out of your house more often. Seriously.

No U?

>>36828

> You're the one endorsing policies that result in an increase in coercion.

I'm starting to think we're using different definitions here. Coercion means to persuade or force someone to submit to your will via brute strength or intimidation; the exact opposite of what I'd advocate for. I don't know where you got that kooky notion from. Again, be thankful the kid wants to be around you—it could be much worse.

>the adult requires the relationship to assuage the crushing loneliness of being an adult primate without a mate.

An adult primate? Who the hell talks like that? Whatever. You ought to have made you statement clear and unambiguous from the beginning, then we wouldn't need this back-and-forth we're having now. Anyway, I agree now that you've cleared your position up.

>And does it also teach that children can say yes or no? Or is it more "how to recognize when you're being (statutory) raped because you're not a person until you're 18" bullshit?

It teaches them what consent means, bodily autonomy—stuff like that. But it also tells them about what constitutes "appropriate behavior", so not perfect.

>Isn't driving cars the main way car crashes happen?

Driving is a necessary facet of modern life. We pretty much need them to go anywhere; I'm pretty sure the same couldn't be said for sex, especially with children. False equivalence.


 No.36973

File: 8defa8dce4302a9⋯.jpg (2.29 MB, 1920x1200, 8:5, kamichamakarinedit.jpg)

>>36971

>Look, I'm going to repeat myself one last time, beyond that, you're on you're own: I have no intention whatsoever of getting entangled, bickering with ninnies. I've made it crystal clear since arriving here that online activism is useless right now, and I fully intend to stand by that. So no, I won't go there and help you. You went there, created that topic (probably on impulse) and got wrecked. You didn't reach anyone, from the looks of it. Mission failed. You literally failed to sway anyone you spoke to, from what I read, not just LipStickPaper, who's an obvious pedophobe. I don't wanna be a dick, but there it is.

Fair enough. You did say online activism is useless now and I can't say I disagree with you on that, especially after seeing how people constantly misinterpreted everything I said so far.

>You didn't reach anyone, from the looks of it.

Wasn't actually alone on this, so maybe you didn't read far enough where I do clarify myself.

>Mission failed. You literally failed to sway anyone you spoke to, from what I read, not just LipStickPaper, who's an obvious pedophobe. I don't wanna be a dick, but there it is.

No offense taken, you are right in a few observations that you made, while I also am clear that I disagree with you in a lot of them. I do know I fucked up a few of the responses, and for that I am grateful that you guys cared to point out to me these flaws I do acknowledge I had while there, but the thread as a whole was mostly an eco-chamber of antis shitting on me, so the actual better discussions are buried by these, so I can't blame you to think that, since it is what does show up when you first open the thread.


 No.36976

>>36971

>the exact opposite of what I'd advocate for.

My point is that you're not considering the full consequences of the policies you're endorsing. The parent-child relationship is one with enormous power imbalance. Not because the adult is physically larger, but because it's rooted in dependency of the child on the adult. The pedophilic relationship is one where the adult is dependent on the child, but the child has no such dependence. This gives the child power in the relationship.

Now, if we tolerate these relationships, we have a situation where the child becomes less dependent on the parent and has someone to turn to in order to balance out the parent's power. The child still has the parent to turn to protect him or her from the pedophile if he becomes violent or coercive.

However, if we continue to ban pedophilic relationships, we keep our current situation where the parent holds absolute dominion over the child and where the pedophile has to employ far higher levels of coercion, both to overcome the social conditioning that says that child sexuality is always bad, and again to keep the relationship a secret. Instead of these two relationships balancing out in a way that guarantees the child agency, the add together to create a situation where the threat of force is implicit in every interaction between the child and either adult.

>Who the hell talks like that?

Apparently it worked. If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

>bodily autonomy—stuff like that. But it also tells them about what constitutes "appropriate behavior"

Oh, great. "Okay, so there's this thing called bodily autonomy. But that's just for people; you've still got ten more years of being property. So be aware of it but don't take it to heart."

>Driving is a necessary facet of modern life. We pretty much need them to go anywhere; I'm pretty sure the same couldn't be said for sex

>I'm pretty sure the same couldn't be said for sex

>Sex [isn't] necessary for modern life

>Sex isn't necessary for life

Can't make this shit up.


 No.36979

>>36976

It's why I gave up with this person a long time ago. Although it is a stretch to say people like him/her are antis in disguise, that other poster asking about "Are antis taking over the board." seems to highlight a key thing I noticed recently. The fact that things like color max were discussed openly a few years ago, but now we have tons of people screaming how most CP is evil, and those who watch ones and zeroes on their screen are equally evil is quite a change. Whether this shift in attitude is a good thing remains to be seen.


 No.36981

>>36979

I would say this change most likely represents either people becoming cucks, antis in disguise (like you said), people genuinely changing approach towards this issue and/or lastly, a major change irl towards pedophiles, even if subconsciously, it would still affect us somehow.


 No.36982

>>36979

>It's why I gave up with this person a long time ago.

I'm beginning to get there as well. They ignore every argument that they can't refute, go quiet for a few days, then it's back to the very beginning. Either a troll or someone in a pit of despair so deep they can't read with comprehension or think rationally. Given most of their arguments are ad misericordiam fallacies it could be the latter and they're just coming here to lash out.

>>36973

>You did say online activism is useless now and I can't say I disagree with you on that, especially after seeing how people constantly misinterpreted everything I said so far.

Just the fact that there's someone defending pedophilia is a shock to a lot of people. It's like the dog you were kicking every day for years suddenly barks back and tries to bite you. Don't underestimate the importance of standing up for yourself.

Notions of children enjoying sex, stigma-induced harm, or pedophilia not being caused by csa, to list a few, are world-shattering to a lot of people. They're going to react, they're going to deny it, censor you, threaten you and so on. You can't expect them to instantly be convinced. It's also not as if we can just make a few attempts to argue our case, then decide it didn't go as smoothly as imagined and give up and walk away. A community the size of reddit will take years to subvert.

Read the works of Nazi propagandist Goebbels, anti-corporate activist Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" and psychological works on desensitization for a better understanding of how masses of people are made to change the way they think. The censorship utilized on reddit is insufficient to prevent this from occurring.


 No.36983

>>36982

>t's also not as if we can just make a few attempts to argue our case, then decide it didn't go as smoothly as imagined and give up and walk away. A community the size of reddit will take years to subvert.

Agreed. We must not stop just because people choose to deny reality, even some of us deny the entirety of these things by succumbing either in propanganda and/or studies induced by bias. As someone who is both intrigued and fascinated by Nazi ideology I find it interesting how all these people got convinced of this. There were this important elements in order for that to happen:

1. Strong sense of unity

2. An identifiable enemy

3. Embracement to a "root"

4. Setting a common goal

Among other factors, which are very simple, but created one of most powerful movements known till today.

>Read the works of Nazi propagandist Goebbels, anti-corporate activist Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" and psychological works on desensitization for a better understanding of how masses of people are made to change the way they think.

I will check on these, this discussion also brings to my mind again about Spaniard Fascists during their Civil War. Reading their documents and propaganda also makes reference to the way you manipulate masses in order to make them proceed to a common, as long as you convince them and show them how things will be for the better and the powerful utilization of repression methods for those who are "different" or plainly "heretics" to the establisment.


 No.36984

>>36931

>3: Children who have sexual experiences with adults are more likely to become adults who want sexual experiences with children.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?


 No.37006

>>36984

And even if he does find a study proving this, we come full circle to the problem of stigma. A psychologist would be committing career suicide if he says that pedophiles/hebephiles exist not because of abuse.

You have to ask yourself then. Why do we have a handful of studies that can ruin a person's career? Did a hebephile with deep pockets pay him off to say these things? Did the psychologist do this because he is a hebephile himself? Did he only say these things because he saw all the suffering we face and wanted to give a different perspective?

At the end of the day, "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -probably George Orwells


 No.37007


 No.37008

>>36976

>The pedophilic relationship is one where the adult is dependent on the child, but the child has no such dependence. This gives the child power in the relationship.

Literally no one one has that interpretation, aside from those who're invested in its success. There is a clear skew in favor of the adult even in pedophilic relationships. You may try to functionally limit the influence you have on a child, but it never completely goes away. And I don't know what you think is going to happen, but from where I'm sitting, children will never be emancipated from the oversight of their legal guardian or have that oversight loosened. Children will never have the agency you crave.

What I'm purposing is that we be allowed contact in a limited fashion, where any coercive or effacing affect we have is restrained and minimized, and where we can maintain a healthy power dynamic so we don't hurt children. I never said we shouldn't have any contact with them. I wouldn't be here if I believed that.

>Apparently it worked. If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

I didn't say it was "stupid"; I hinted that it was an odd or unusual thing to say, which it is.

>Oh, great. "Okay, so there's this thing called bodily autonomy. But that's just for people; you've still got ten more years of being property. So be aware of it but don't take it to heart."

Learning about bodily autonomy doesn't mean we allow them to do anything they want—it means they learn to appreciate the concept, and, furthermore, what constitutes healthy behavior. You can teach a kid how a car operates; that doesn't entitle them to start driving around town.

>Can't make this shit up.

Recreational sex, which is what children would be exposed to in this scenario, is unnecessary. I don't see how that wasn't clear in context.

They ignore every argument that they can't refute, go quiet for a few days, then it's back to the very beginning

I don't know if you've heard, but there's this thing called "having a life". It's revolutionary, I know. I have a job, hobbies, friends, and everything that goes along with that. I'm not going to be prowling this place all the time to chat with strangers. I waste more than enough of my lunch break chatting with you lot; If I don't respond immediately, chillax.

>Given most of their arguments are ad misericordiam fallacies

>uwatm8.jpeg


 No.37009

>>37006

>A psychologist would be committing career suicide if he says that pedophiles/hebephiles exist not because of abuse.

>What is… James Cantor.


 No.37012

>>37008

>Literally no one one has that interpretation, aside from those who're invested in its success. There is a clear skew in favor of the adult even in pedophilic relationships.

Okay, let's try a little storytime here:

Once upon a time, there was a man. He was homeless, through no fault of his own. There were plenty of unoccupied houses around town, but none of them available for purchase or rent. In fact, there were more unoccupied houses than homeless people. The man goes to owners of several unoccupied houses, and tries to get them to rent to him. The answer he receives from all of them is that due to some ridiculous government regulation, the houses have to remain unoccupied for ten years. Eventually the man gets upset and tells a homeowner that he doesn't care, and he's moving in anyway. The homeowner tries to stop him, so the man beats the shit out of him and then moves on in. Fortunately the police were nearby and came to arrest the man, but that didn't save the homeowner from being beaten.

A year later, the law that said that the houses had to remain unoccupied was repealed. Another homeless man tried to find a place to rent, but it turns out that most of the homeowners still weren't renting out their unoccupied houses for one reason or another. He asked around though, and eventually found someone willing to rent a place to him. This owner knew that the man didn't have much choice than to agree to whatever he was offered, so the owner demanded an exorbitant sum. Despite being physically much larger and stronger than the owner, the man knew that he was better off taking the deal and working hard to make ends meet than to use violence and end up in prison.

So, which story had the better outcome? Between the desperate man and the owner who had no particular interest in whether the house was rented out or not, who was in the position of power during their bargaining? You're arguing in favor of the first story, assuming no ethical agreement could be made between the physically stronger homeless men and the much weaker homeowners, when in reality, the first story ends in misery while the second ends in a mutually beneficial agreement in which the man gets a home to live in and the landlord gets a very large check each month.

>And I don't know what you think is going to happen, but from where I'm sitting, children will never be emancipated from the oversight of their legal guardian or have that oversight loosened. Children will never have the agency you crave.

Notice that I stated several times in my previous posts that the parent serves an important role. I'm not arguing for children to move out at 8 years old. What I'm advocating is something like a secondary parental figure that will naturally tend to balance out the parent's power. Even in situations where both the parent and the pedophile are self-centered assholes, the child has the opportunity to go along with one or the other in any given decision. If both are in agreement on something, it's probably in the child's best interest, like getting vaccinated.

You'll notice that I'm referring to a single parent in all of this. That's because abusive households are far more likely to have only a single parent, or a doormat/absentee parent. In a functional household with two loving parents who have time to spend with their kids, the child will be less receptive to the pedophile's affection and attention. Therefore, this relationship will tend to occur most often in the situations most likely to otherwise be abusive.

>What I'm purposing is that we be allowed contact in a limited fashion, where any coercive or effacing affect we have is restrained and minimized, and where we can maintain a healthy power dynamic so we don't hurt children.

I think that's how I'd describe the relationship I've laid out previously.


 No.37016

>>37008

>I don't know if you've heard, but there's this thing called "having a life". It's revolutionary, I know. I have a job, hobbies, […]

In spite of your severe time restrictions, you somehow manage to post more than everyone else combined. Look, I don't care what you do with your time, that's your business. But since you're here, on a discussion board, you have to conform to how debates are conducted. You cannot simply repeat your beliefs over and over again while ignoring what everyone else has to say. Read the responses directed at you and reflect on them before you respond and try to make your arguments well-reasoned.


 No.37025

File: 04829f6dafc8af2⋯.jpg (34.52 KB, 453x555, 151:185, ca14881c457b81867bfa7811ea….jpg)

>>36935

>>36937

>>36958

>>36984

I'm responding here because this topic converges with the simultaneous conversation in the other thread.

Here's evidence:

>>37024


 No.37027

>>37016

I don't know if you've noticed, but the vast, vast majority of posters here go without pen names. Part of the reason you see my stuff everywhere is simply because I have a name with which you can identify me, for your own sake. Hell, I don't even know who you are.I'm responding to a bunch of people who won't even identify themselves.

Another reason is that I'm just a fast typer, ergo I can respond rather quickly to multiple posts. I really don't waste more than fifteen minutes on this board a day, if that. (And I'm not on everyday.)

Finally, I do respond to points raised by other people. I don't know what you're on about.


 No.37036

>>37027

So what you're saying is you don't think before you post?

>>>/b/


 No.37043

>>37036

Lol, ouch. Burn.

>>37025

Umm, evidence for what? That sex with children is always harmful? I saw no pdf files in your post?

And even if you do find proof, this is one of many reasons this board exists. That is, to combat shoddy science done in the name of "protecting children" and "getting politicians re-elected" and "being a white knight scientist for everyone to revere". It is astonishing how biased science is these days, but it is no wonder considering many people have a chip in their shoulder about creationism/racism/feminism.


 No.37050

>>37043

>It is astonishing how biased science is these days, but it is no wonder considering many people have a chip in their shoulder about creationism/racism/feminism.

What's even more astonishing is the fact there are people here who also fall for that stupid obvious bias in science and many other forms of communications. They fail to see that and they're acting like Falangist Spain in WW2, to mention an example. I don't know how many of you folks know Spanish or not, but I would to share this manual that was made for children in Spain during their times in the Civil War. It's basically a book containing all propaganda and mixed-up definition of words, but stating them as facts… Kind of reminds me of certain societies nowadays when it comes to certain minorities… Oh, wait!

https://laicismo.org/data/docs/archivo_500.PDF


 No.37051

* would like to share


 No.37135

>>37036

Or it could be that your posts don't require a lot of time to respond to? Hold this L, please.


 No.37144

>>37135

Lol. The same can be said of your posts. Nice comeback. /s


 No.37159

>>36775

>And I told you: arguing with these people is useless, especially now that // angered everyone.

>everyone

Do you even know how these websites work? Just how many views do you think AMA type threads on low-traffic subs get (especially ones that aren't bumped to the first few pages)? We're talking at most a thousand, more likely only one or two hundred people.


 No.37161

>>37027

>I'm just a fast typer, ergo I can respond rather quickly to multiple posts.

>just a fast typer

>>37135

>just a fast thinker

We're reaching levels of autism that shouldn't even be possible.


 No.37167

>>37161

Indeed…


 No.37180

>>37159

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I was speaking about everyone (or pretty much everyone) in that thread. The vast majority of people in //'s thread went ham on the dude. And besides, I'm almost certain that his results would be reproduced with nearly anyone else, so I don't see the point in trying right now. It doesn't matter where you go, be it /r/LGBT, or /r/Confession or /r/IAMA—you're going to get dunked on by the most people there.

>>37161

What?


 No.37181

>>37180

>What?

Wowww you really are oblivious. No wonder people are tired of your "sex is harmful and viewing cp is always harmful" crap. You could at least have some modesty while pushing these ideas. Maybe then you could "attract some flies with honey" as they say.


 No.37185

>>37181

Excuse me, but the intent behind that comment wasn't obvious, at least not to anyone not familiar with the local board culture, like me. Don't got sassy.


 No.37867

https://archive.fo/w8X6J

How'd I do? Admittedly not my best work (or my most eloquent opponents), but I think I did okay.


 No.37870

>>37867

I commend you for being the sole reasonable person in that chat, from what I can make out. Well done.


 No.37873

is this topic really that big of a fucking thing that there needs to be it's own board? I'm surprised. I really hope you don't go mainstream. fucking spooks me.


 No.37877

>>37867

Tailoring your responses to the individuals you're talking to is key to effective communication.


 No.37878

>>37873

Why would it spook you? We are against penetration, we do not approve of rape, manipulation, coercion, abuse of power or any form of violence against children.


 No.37882

>>37873

>is this topic really that big of a fucking thing that there needs to be it's own board?

No, it rightfully deserves to be spread out among all boards, the same way heterosexual discussion is. This is the only place we don't get banned instantly despite not breaking any rules, though.

>I really hope you don't go mainstream. fucking spooks me.

Why not? What specifically are your concerns?


 No.37903

>>37878

That is a blanket statement to say "we are all against penetration". Sure maybe quite a few are against full penetration with 8 year olds, but for hebephiles? Ummm. Their bodies on average can accept full sex, but you already know that if you heard the phrase "if there is grass on the field"


 No.37936

File: 2113cfbf90f01bd⋯.jpg (63.62 KB, 720x564, 60:47, VVVVVVVVVV14.jpg)




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 2hu / fur / htg / kc / madchan / sonyeon / tijuana / vichan ]