Blackpill Age Of Consent Laws Are Illogical And Unjust

[BlkPillPres]

Age of consent laws are currently arbitrarily structured and illogical, there is no consistency is these laws and they are filled with ridiculous contradictions and loopholes as a result of how arbitrary they are

(1.) Arbitrary Time Variable - Consent laws revolving around age (time) at their core make no sense at all, because most individuals that age are having sex anyways, it makes no logical sense at all for an act to be rendered illegal solely for the other participant, based on the age of said participant.

Imagine if alcohol consumption laws functioned like age of consent laws

Its illegal for ANYONE 18 AND UP to drink alcohol WITH ANYONE UNDER 18, but ANYONE UNDER 18 can drink alcohol with ANYONE UNDER 18 legally. Also ANYONE UNDER 18 who drinks alcohol with SOMEONE 18 AND UP cannot be punished, ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS OF THE "LEGAL AGE" CAN BE PUNISHED

Imagine if murder laws functioned like age of consent laws.

Its illegal for ANYONE 18 AND UP to killl ANYONE UNDER 18, but ANYONE UNDER 18 can kill ANYONE UNDER 18 legally. Also ANYONE UNDER 18 who kills SOMEONE 18 AND UP cannot be punished, ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS OF THE "LEGAL AGE" CAN BE PUNISHED

When you apply the logic and structure of age of consent laws to other laws, you can immediately see the logical flaws that show how ridiculous the law is. That is the difference between laws created for logical reasons, and laws created as a result of social outrage, fear, morality, etc (EMOTIONAL REASONS). Laws structured to appeal to emotion are always logically flawed, take for example prostitution, If I go up to a high end prostitute and pay her $1000 for a full night of everything I want, I can get arrested, if I instead hired a low end escort, take her out to dinner, etc, with the IMPLICATION that sex is assured at the end of the night (of a similar standard to the prostitute), and everything comes up to $700, I committed no crimes. Are you seeing how arbitrary and ridiculous that is, anyone who is being honest can see it. That's because laws that are against prostitution are about morality and emotional responses society has against sex being something that is purchasable, even though we all know full well that it is still purchasable at the end of the day (dating is pretty much prostitution) and we are basically "sold sex" via advertising, its a commonly used advertising strategy.

Do you see how ridiculous age of consent laws actually are in their structure

Here is a hypothetical to show how ridiculous the law is:

Lets say I'm in a state where the age of consent is 18 years, and I have a 17 year old girlfriend, if we have sex 6 months before her next birthday, does it make sense that I be charged with statutory rape? (well I likely will be, with how biased the legal system is towards men)

Lets create an extreme example to show how ridiculous a time constraint can be when applied to the consent of sex. Lets say I'm in a state where the age of consent is 18 years, and I have a 17 year old girlfriend, if we have sex on the night before her birthday, 6 hours before she turns 18, does it make sense that I be charged with statutory rape? (well I likely will be, with how biased the legal system is towards men)

(2.) Arbitrary Location Variable - If I have sex with a 15 year old, In one country I'd be a criminal, in another country I'd be a "good person, a law abiding citizen", but didn't I do the exact same thing, isn't the act what's supposed to be reprehensible and not the landmass you stand on, or geographic region you reside in, when you commit said act.

Here is a hypothetical to show how ridiculous the law is:

Lets say there are two states both with differing age of consent laws, lets say on one its 15 and the other its 18, now lets say the borders for these two states are directly next to each other. If I had sex with a 15 year old directly on the line of that border, with one foot on either side of each state, I could be charged with public indeceny, but how the fuck would the state with the higher age of consent go about charging me with relation to "statutory rape"?

Are they seriously going to argue that me having one foot on that land mass means I get jail time, how will they prove my foot was even there without a video recording?, they can't use personal accounts because I can just claim they are lying and now its my word against the word of other people who I can argue in court are biased. Are they going to use my "foot print" as evidence and match it to my shoe, I could easily just kick up some dirt and ruin the print before I'm arrested, are they going to test the chemical and structural differences in the soil on either side of my shoes and show that they are different, which proves I had my foot on both sides?, there's a lot that can be argued as to why that happened, either way I could just take my shoes off and throw it over on the other side and use that as my alibi, so now both shoes have the same soil content of both sides

What is going to be the logic behind the charge of statutory rape?

Also lets assume I didn't do a "half and half" (JFL) and I just had sex with said female strictly on the side where the age of consent is 15, meters away from the border sufficiently enough that it could not be argued that I was on the other side at any point in time, and the police spot of the other state spot me, they could arrest me for indecent exposure, but they definitely would not have any case to charge me with statutory rape since the sex took place within the state where it is legal

THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

In Conclusion:
One of the best examples of how ridiculous the logic of this is, is how Onision (famous youtuber) speaks about Austin Jones (ex-famous youtuber, now registered sex offender).


He ironically speaks about him as though he is different and above him, as though he hasn't comitted the same "bad deeds". Onision only gets away with what he has done, because he was on a different land mass. Austin Jones got into legal trouble for receiving videos of a sexual nature from at least 6 females within the age range of 14-15. Onision has on the record dated and fucked multiple 16 year olds, and married a 17 year old and had children with her. He is speaking about Austin like he's scum, for RECEIVING CONTENT of a sexual nature, from females that are only 1 OR 2 YEARS YOUNGER THAN THE FEMALES HE ACTUALLY FUCKED.

You can't make this make sense, there is no logic to how age of consent laws operate, they are arbitrary, I guy could literally move to sweden and fuck multiple 15 year olds and then talk down to a convicted "child rapist" in america who had sex with a 16 year old in the "wrong geographic region"

Do normies not see the logical flaw in ones morality and criminality being determined by the land mass they reside in.

 

[Weston404]

What is going to be the logic behind the charge of statutory rape?

 

[Deleted member 1780]

The laws are not meant to be logically consistent. The ones making them are not mathematicians that derive truth from assumed axioms. Logically inconsistent laws are what you'd expect from somewhat intelligent apes

 

[Blacktarpill]

They are just bunch of hypocrites. I think; a perfect AI should make all the laws. Humans are really subjective.

 

[NotQuiteChadLite]

Yiked and Yikepilled.

 

[Angry_runt]

I fail to see how this affects incels. If you didn't fuck JBs when you were their age, you're much less likely to fuck them when you're older.

 

[ElliotRodgerHere]

I fail to see how this affects incels. If you didn't fuck JBs when you were their age, you're much less likely to fuck them when you're older.

15 years olds are easier to fuck because they are naive and desperate for attention from older guys. Age of consent laws are explicitly anti-Male

 

[EyesAreSoCold]

I'll never understand american aoc or divorce laws they are so incredibly stupid. A woman at age 15 has 99% finished puberty and is a biological woman ready to fuck and make babies, being attracted to her is perfectly healthy but the normies are such brain dead npcs that they pretend that her age has any significance when every single male alive would fuck the average 15 year old if given the chance.

 

[ihaveno1]

AOC makes no sense to me if a foid has already hit puberty then why does it matter. A lot of 14-16 year old foids look like they're 18... it's like the alcohol age for US being 21 but 18 pretty much everywhere else. Just retarded bullshit imo

 

[Sgtpinkie]

Inb4 cucktears call us pedophiles for the 500th time.

 

[Gengar]

Inb4 cucktears call us pedophiles for the 500th time.

 

[Angry_runt]

15 years olds are easier to fuck because they are naive and desperate for attention from older guys.

Lol no, that's delusional.
Here's some of the countries where AOC is 15 or lower: Poland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Bosnia, Croatia, Greece, Czechia, Slovakia, France, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, China, Japan. AOC is 16 in Russia, Ukraine, UK, Spain, Australia, the US south and Canada.

What are you waiting for? Go get those tight hot JBs. Where do you even live that you think AOC laws are holding you back?

Younger women (young teens) tend to like men for things like personality, personality stops mattering when they reach a certain age and their hormones really kick in (and so does societal influence kick in) and all they want now is Chad cock and/or money (what shiny trinkets you can buy for her, how well you can support her, etc)

Wrong and LSD-level delusional. I grew up and spent my teens in a country where the AOC is 14 and those girls are even more discriminating in terms of looks than older foids.
But if you want to persist in your delusion, I'll refer you to my reply above where there's a list of countries with low AOC. Why don't you try your luck there, Chad?

 

[BlkPillPres]

This conversation came up at work a while back and everyone agreed whilst the number itself is arbitrary, there is a need for a line to be drawn somewhere.

Obviously but that line has to have some kind of biological and statistical basis else it won't make sense logically

some girls can have periods before they are teenagers

Yes and some people that buy guns legally use them for crimes, that doesn't mean we ban all purchasing, because ON AVERAGE most people won't use their legal guns for crimes.

I think the law SHOULD START at the AVERAGE AGE for the most well known BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR of sexual maturity (menstrual cycle). That should be the STARTING POINT for the age limitation and then law makers state their reasons for increasing it maybe a few years further, but it can't just arbitrarily be upped to 18 for no reason.

I'd say the second factor of consideration should be the average age of when teenage FEMALES engage in sexual activity (maybe they can do an anonymous poll). Why did I specify females, well the 80/20 rule, if you polled all males around that age group and you got honest answers, you'd see that the majority are not having engaging in sexual activity around the age of 15+, its only a select few males, but if you polled females you'd see a majority of them are engaging in sexual activity and dating. So if we used the merged data of males and females, it would actually skew the results and make it look like the entire population was having sex at a much later age.

Based on what I have found by googling stats:
Average age for menstrual cycle: 12 years old
Average age for sexual activity: 17 years old (JFL we know its lower that this but lets go with it, I'd more likey say 16)

I'd say the best age limitation for age of consent laws, would be the median of these two numbers, which is 14.5, so I'd say 15 or maybe even 14 should be the age of consent.

Its a much more logically based standard than - "we just decide its 18 so its 18"

Wrong and LSD-level delusional. I grew up and spent my teens in a country where the AOC is 14 and those girls are even more discriminating in terms of looks than older foids.

Might just be a difference of culture then, its not like that where I live.

 

[whyAmIEvenAlive]

Obviously but that line has to have some kind of biological basis else it won't make sense logically

Yes and some people that buy guns legally use them for crimes, that doesn't mean we ban all purchasing, because ON AVERAGE most people won't use their legal guns for crimes.

I think the law SHOULD START at the AVERAGE AGE for the most well known BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR of sexual maturity (menstrual cycle). That should be the STARTING POINT for the age limitation and then law makers state their reasons for increasing it maybe a few years further, but it can't just arbitrarily be upped to 18 for no reason.

I'd say the second factor of consideration should be the average age of when teenage FEMALES engage in sexual activity (maybe they can do an anonymous poll). Why did I specify females, well the 80/20 rule, if you polled all males around that age group and you got honest answers, you'd see that the majority are not having engaging in sexual activity around the age of 15+, its only a select few males, but if you polled females you'd see a majority of them are engaging in sexual activity and dating. So if we used the merged data of males and females, it would actually skew the results and make it look like the entire population was having sex at a much later age.

Based on what I have found by googling stats:
Average age for menstrual cycle: 12 years old
Average age for sexual activity: 17 years old (JFL we know its lower that this but lets go with it, I'd more likey say 16)

I'd say the best age limitation for age of consent laws, would be the median of these two numbers, which is 14.5, so I'd say 15 or maybe even 14 should be the age of consent.

Its a much more logically based standard than - "we just decide its 18 so its 18"

I don't completely disagree with what you are saying, but even your number (founded in logic) is arbitrary to an extent, 15 isn't far off 16, which is a good age of consent IMO.

FWIW, it's still 15 in some European countries.

But also, I think the major concern is allowances be made legally for similar age groups. If the age of consent is 15, then a 16 year old having sex with a 14 year old should be decriminalised. I think age of consent laws are far from perfect.

 

[Michael15651]

I say we just burn it all

 

[Deleted member 15752]

I think; a perfect AI should make all the laws. Humans are really subjective.

 

[Angry_runt]

Yes and there's an entire history of anecdotes of men courting young teens because you can basically "groom" them into liking you, they're more pliable and reasonable at those ages.

I'm sure young foids are pliable but only around their peers and people who are close to them. Someone on this forum taught me the word propinquity and its effects:

The propinquity effect is the tendency for people to form friendships or romantic relationships with those whom they encounter often, forming a bond between subject and friend. Workplace interactions are frequent and this frequent interaction is often a key indicator as to why close relationships can readily form in this type of environment. In other words, relationships tend to form between those who have a high propinquity.

So when there's a generation gap and the accompanying social gap (grown men and teenage girls don't hang around much), you're already faced with a big obstacle even if young foids are somehow less shallow, which they aren't. This is the demographic that's really into Justin Bieber and guys like him.

Where do you live anyway? Can you afford a plane ticket to a country where the age of consent is lower? Why theorize based on a couple of your own experiences (where young girls were into you ) when you can try it out in the real world? I've lived a long time in a country where the age of consent is 14 and most 14 year old girls hook up with 14 and 15 year old boys, most often the ones they go to school with. That propinquity thing. If you're an incel you're already fighting a losing battle and you think the added obstacles of a generation gap and a social gap will somehow help you?

 

[BlkPillPres]

Where do you live anyway?

JFL I am not in a position to say just yet, would be too risky for me.

 

[Darth Cialis]

Daily pedo thread.

 

[GameDevCel]

because most individuals that age are having sex anyways

that shoun't be allowed

 

[BlkPillPres]

that shoun't be allowed

I agree, and that's my problem with the lack of consistency in the law, which is why I made my comparisons to alcohol consumption laws, if an ACT is illegal, then it should be ILLEGAL PERIOD. If its illegal to have sex with 15 year olds, it should be illegal for 15 year olds to have sex.

Imagine if it was only illegal for someone under 18 to drink alcohol in the company of someone 18 and up, but so long as its with someone in their "age group" its legal JFL, the law would not make sense then

 

[GameDevCel]

I agree, and that's my problem with the lack of consistency in the law, which is why I made my comparisons to alcohol consumption laws, if an ACT is illegal, then it should be ILLEGAL PERIOD. If its illegal to have sex with 15 year olds, it should be illegal for 15 year olds to have sex.

Imagine if it was only illegal for someone under 18 to drink alcohol in the company of someone 18 and up, but so long as its with someone in their "age group" its legal JFL, the law would not make sense then

100% agree, but normies don't comprehend logic and reason

and also the democrats like this system, because it gurante theres going to be no virigin left when they reach marriageble age, this creates more single mothers and therefor democrat voters

 

[whyAmIEvenAlive]

I agree, and that's my problem with the lack of consistency in the law, which is why I made my comparisons to alcohol consumption laws, if an ACT is illegal, then it should be ILLEGAL PERIOD. If its illegal to have sex with 15 year olds, it should be illegal for 15 year olds to have sex.

Imagine if it was only illegal for someone under 18 to drink alcohol in the company of someone 18 and up, but so long as its with someone in their "age group" its legal JFL, the law would not make sense then

I thought they were both treated the same tbh. As in they are both illegal but decriminalised. Those particular laws are their to protect youth (from either themselves or people older than them), but not to punish youth for their own mistakes. So in that regard, the law does make complete sense.

 

[Cuyen]

They are just bunch of hypocrites. I think; a perfect AI should make all the laws. Humans are really subjective.

But Als tend to think like humans actually

 

[Remyx]

Younger women (young teens) tend to like men for things like personality

BluePillPres

 

[ReasonableResolver]

BluePillPres

Thank you for exposing 1 more brainlet to be ignored.

 

[BlkPillPres]

BluePillPres

Thank you for exposing 1 more brainlet to be ignored.

This right here is why I often get tired of arguing with the low IQ retards on this site, I post these long detailed explanations, and its like you idiots have the attention span of a gnat and skim through the entire thread, never really reading anything, and pick out one line out of context to quote, this happens all the time, please stay away from my threads and stick to what you're competent at taking part in, low effort bait/meme threads and reddit posts about guys getting cucked.

When was it that this site became like this, its like it just got invaded at some point by idiots, responses were never like this when I came, people actually read your posts and made good arguments, they weren't busy trying to find one liners and meme and joke around.

the primary point of my argument is not really about the qualities they "prefer in a man", its about them being less judgemental period about said qualities, I'm sure they still consider looks, just a lot less, I'm sure they still consider money, just a lot less.

Just as how having multiple sex partners increases a womans likelihood to divorce (which has been proven by studies), can it not be argued that the more experience that a female has judging men on looks, wealth, status will increase how harshly she judges men in general (that sounds like common sense to me)

AM I NOT REALLY JUST ARGUING THE SAME "MULTIPLE SEX PARTNERS INCREASES DIVORCE CHANCES" ARGUMENT? (if you think about it)

The reason why multiple sex partners increases chances of divorce is "experience", the more experience women have judging something, the higher their standards of judgement for that thing increases, my argument that younger females judge less harshly is no different than that assertion.

I thought they were both treated the same tbh. As in they are both illegal but decriminalised.

No, it is ONLY ILLEGAL FOR THE "LEGALLY AGED" PARTICIPANT

Those particular laws are their to protect youth (from either themselves or people older than them), but not to punish youth for their own mistakes. So in that regard, the law does make complete sense.

1. You are ironically making the cliche demonstrably false argument of "they are innocent at that age", they aren't, at 16 if one of my hot teachers was trying to fuck me I wouldn't be "confused" or "feel violated", its like people forget how they themselves thought when they were that age, you would have been glad, felt like you were lucky, even the female students would talk about male teachers they liked (if you listened in on their conversations)

2. The law does not make sense in that regard because individuals in that age group are not innocent and are already having sex to begin with.

Like I keep saying we are treating this BS like "schrodinger's consent", where individuals of a specific age group both are devoid of and at the same time retain the ability to consent, they are in a super state of consent they both have the ability to and also lack the ability to, and we arbitrarily decide when that "super state" shifts into a "normal state" based on the age of the person they had sex with.

 

[D.R.]

The whole notion that anyone of a particular age over another cannot consent in general is completely non-sensical, you already kind of used alcohol as an example (which would be kind of a shitty one as alcohol is actually more harmful for younger children at least than adults), but you can use really anything. All their arguments ultimately boil down to some kind of believe in the sancrosanctity of sex over anything else.

Children don't have fully developed brains yet, they can't understand every single traffic rule yet, so they can't consent to drive a bicycle. Sometimes kids are pressured by their lazy parents to go school on a bike and get into a car accident, so therefore I think everyone who gives a child a bicycle should be thrown in prison for life. They can't consent, prove me wrong.

Obviously, the pedophobic hypocrite only believes children cannot consent to sex in particular without ever specifying why that is the case, they have never demonstrated that sex is so particularly harmful that it's the one thing that children should not be allowed to consent to it, agreed to sex presumably has the same positively stimulating effect on a child's body as on an adult's, so there's no reason to assume that sex that was agreed to by the child (just like a child can agree to the pleasurable sensation of eating ice cream) causes any harm outside of the confines of a society that demonizes sexual contact with or amongst children and minors.

And appealing to this said social consequence that creates the harm in consensual sex regardless of age as an argument is no more than an argumentum ad baculum fallacy in the end of course, which many pedophobes seem to think is actually a good argument ''if they don't feel traumatized for it right away, we're surely gonna make them feel traumatized later on with our retarded bigot behavior, so it's still wrong for the pedo to have sex with the child!''. Yeah, same non-sense I can say about anything else, if we all have a big taboo against giving children tomato sauce on their spaghetti, then even if the tomato sauce is not inherently damaging to a child's health, the child is still going to feel very bad once we act like a bunch of hysterical dumb cunts about the child being given tomato sauce by an older friend, but why would anyone see that as proof that the tomato sauce is somehow the real problem and not our hysterical dumb cunt behavior? It's an appeal to consequence.

 

[Remyx]

This right here is why I often get tired of arguing with the low IQ retards on this site, I post these long detailed explanations, and its like you idiots have the attention span of a gnat and skim through the entire thread, never really reading anything, and pick out one line out of context to quote, this happens all the time, please stay away from my threads and stick to what you're competent at taking part in, low effort bait/meme threads and reddit posts about guys getting cucked.

When was it that this site became like this, its like it just got invaded at some point by idiots, responses were never like this when I came, people actually read your posts and made good arguments, they weren't busy trying to find one liners and meme and joke around.

Another tl;dr, just stfu and create a new account called BluePillPres

 

[Cuyen]

Daily pedo thread.

I dont agree with you

 

[Darth Cialis]

I dont agree with you

Cause you are almost jailbait age.

 

[Michael15651]

Daily pedo thread.

The pedopill strikes again.

 

[BlackpilledTruecel]

A must-read post for everyone, true masterpiece

 

[Opus132]

To be honest i'm sort of mystified at why incels are obsessed with age of consent.

What difference would it make to anyone here? Lowering age of consent just means giving Chad even more options.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Lowering age of consent just means giving Chad even more options.

Wrong, if incels could target women of younger ages while they are still virgins, still naive and not as obsessed with looks, still able to make "paternal" attachments to you since you are psychologically a "father figure", etc, they could easily marry these girls and pair up with them

Women aren't born extremely picky cunts, they are all born with the potential and inclination to be extremely picky cunts, if kept in line it can be prevented

Women also never forget "their first" and often hold strong attachments to these men

JBF (Just Be First) is also a rule

Also in a culture where the age of consent is lower, fathers would probably be pairing up their daughters and marrying them off, and men don't pick son in laws based on his jaw line lol, the pick the guy who they think this "hard working" and "going places", but fathers don't get to pick period anymore, so they just accept whoever their daughter brings home

You saying it would not make a difference is like saying history never happened, it did make a huge difference in the past

Reminds me of this image:

Guys like us are stuck in the present fighting over scraps because women get to choose, in the past we'd all probably already be married by 15 or 16, for some of us even younger

Age of consent is a significant factor in the cause of inceldom, because its that system that affects women's ability to choose, these things are all connected

 

[Sheogorath]

high IQ from OP, solid bump from necro

 

[MaxZM98]

the logic is that 15 yr olds are too young for sex and it'll scar them for life...yet most women lost their virginity to their classmates before 16 and turn out fine

 

[Caesercel]

So many banned users. And so many dead users. Like this guy

Daily pedo thread.

He was incel enough to make 4000+ posts but then decided to disappear.

To be honest i'm sort of mystified at why incels are obsessed with age of consent.

I used to wonder the same. For some incels its obvious cuz they are "you know what". But for others, I think this is the mindset:

Wrong, if incels could target women of younger ages while they are still virgins, still naive and not as obsessed with looks, still able to make "paternal" attachments to you since you are psychologically a "father figure", etc, they could easily marry these girls and pair up with them

Younger girls are easier to groom.

Also in a culture where the age of consent is lower, fathers would probably be pairing up their daughters and marrying them off, and men don't pick son in laws based on his jaw line lol, the pick the guy who they think this "hard working" and "going places", but fathers don't get to pick period anymore, so they just accept whoever their daughter brings home

I disagree

 

[joe_incel123]

Daily pedocel thread

 

[BlkPillPres]

Younger girls are easier to groom.

Exactly

I disagree

I don't see how if you agree they are easier to groom while young

 

[Caesercel]

I don't see how if you agree they are easier to groom while young

Lower AOC doesn't gurantee that father's will pair their daughters to eventual partners.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Lower AOC doesn't gurantee that father's will pair their daughters to eventual partners.

It doesn't guarantee, but it makes it more likely, young ages for consent are an aspect of a patriarchal culture, if something like that is allowed to take root, change to culture itself would begin to revert in a sense

This is another reason why I believe feminists would never allow the age of consent to be lowered, they know the cumulative effect it would have over years, it seems like something small, but if allowed to take root it can crumble the entire system

Take paternity tests for example, they are literally banned in France, now imagine if paternity tests were mandatory for all babies born in a hospital period, the effects of that over a few year would be drastic, a lot of women would get killed then and they'd be forced to stop cucking their husbands when they catch on to the trend JFL

There are 3 simple things that I would wish for, these 3 things alone would completely destroy the gynocracy

1. Legalize prostitution (globally)
2. Mandatory paternity tests for all babies (globally - with the fathers always present)
3. Age of consent lowered to 13 (globally)

That would basically end any significant influence women have on society

If these 3 things could happen, it would not matter if women could work, if they can own property, if they can vote, etc, all of their perks would mean nothing because they'd no longer have any real power or influence

Prostitution would take away their monopoly over sexual resources

Mandatory paternity tests would take away their ability to cheat and bank on a cucks resources to take care of them

Lowered age of consent would drastically increase the competition they have for getting men

 

[Mainländer]

Astronomical IQ. You just have to do exactly that, apply that same logic to other but similar stuff, to see how retarded and arbitrary those laws are.

AoC laws are emotion/lookism-based laws that came from feminism, which is not science or even religion, but an ideology.

 

[ionlycopenow]

This just in : certain laws aren't made for your own good but rather to opress you

 

[Deleted member 22572]

Only read the first few paragraphs but I agree

 

[BlackpilledTruecel]

It doesn't guarantee, but it makes it more likely, young ages for consent are an aspect of a patriarchal culture, if something like that is allowed to take root, change to culture itself would begin to revert in a sense

This is another reason why I believe feminists would never allow the age of consent to be lowered, they know the cumulative effect it would have over years, it seems like something small, but if allowed to take root it can crumble the entire system

Take paternity tests for example, they are literally banned in France, now imagine if paternity tests were mandatory for all babies born in a hospital period, the effects of that over a few year would be drastic, a lot of women would get killed then and they'd be forced to stop cucking their husbands when they catch on to the trend JFL

There are 3 simple things that I would wish for, these 3 things alone would completely destroy the gynocracy

1. Legalize prostitution (globally)
2. Mandatory paternity tests for all babies (globally - with the fathers always present)
3. Age of consent lowered to 13 (globally)

That would basically end any significant influence women have on society

If these 3 things could happen, it would not matter if women could work, if they can own property, if they can vote, etc, all of their perks would mean nothing because they'd no longer have any real power or influence

Prostitution would take away their monopoly over sexual resources

Mandatory paternity tests would take away their ability to cheat and bank on a cucks resources to take care of them

Lowered age of consent would drastically increase the competition they have for getting men

I love the way you think, I agree with literally every point you make. Sadly, the west is way too far gone

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

The laws are not meant to be logically consistent. The ones making them are not mathematicians that derive truth from assumed axioms. Logically inconsistent laws are what you'd expect from somewhat intelligent apes

 

[Deleted member 23682]

They are designed so most girls are not vrigins when married,

https://incels.is/threads/society-i...-not-be-virgins-when-they-are-married.222427/