Based Based Muslim man calls out America for its hypocrisy on “pedophilia.”
Based
I agree.
They're raised to be subhuman animal-like low iq retards.
Stupid, because I'm pretty sure people in Gaza are never officially educated about sex, masturbation, ... as adults and I guess also don't have beauty contests at all, so how is this even related to pedophilia?
Also, two children having sex with each other isn't pedophile, just an adult having sex with a child is ... it's normal to be attracted to people of your own age.
Also, two children having sex with each other isn't pedophile, just an adult having sex with a child is ... it's normal to be attracted to people of your own age.
Getting ITcuck vibes from you
I'm a man. Even if I have low T (never measured it), women always want high-T-men, so it's just another reason why i'm an incel.
Apt username
The problem of pedophilia is the power imbalance, which is also why e.g. (strongly) mentally disabled adults cannot consent and there are sometimes rules against e.g. supervisors having relationships with subordinates. There is no power imbalance between two kids, so often even if there are laws against sex with children, children having sex with children are exempt, sometimes also only within a certain age difference.
By the age of 12???? Fucking burn them all holly shit this civilization is fucking lost.
Muhammed was an admirable man. He created an entire religion that billions follow to this day simply to justify ravaging his nine year old wife's cunny.
Take your gynocentric feminist bullshit somewhere else.
Power imbalance is such bullshit. Its not like when some adult is trying to groom some literal 8 year old child into having sex with them. In that case it could be understood the child can't consent. But how can a 15 year old girl who is deemed by society to be perfectly able to open her legs and consent to fuck a teenage boy suddenly become a child who cannot consent to sex if the boy is 18+
Hell. What about 60 year old rich men fucking 22 year old sugar babes. There's a power imbalance there as well, right? But that's not illegal.
By your stupid ass logic 8 year old kids, or heck even 5 year old kids should be able to fuck each other since there is no "power imbalance".
Based indeed but religion is for coping niggers... so yeah
In some jurisdictions, they can. Sometimes it's also just illegal if the 18+ has used his superior experience to trick the younger one into sex. So laws do account for that, but of course not in every country.
In many countries, they are allowed to.
Sounds like excuses. Also jfl at this soyboy language. "Trick" lol. So a 15 year old girl is mature enough to literally spread her legs and take in dick of a 16 year old boy in her vagina. But suddenly she is susceptible to getting "tricked" if the boy is 18+ . What's stopping 18+ girls from getting tricked? What's stopping smart 16 year old boys from engaging in trickery?
Listen to your own soyfag illogical bullshit lol.
Lol name one
This is pure feminist bullshit.
A man has a power imbalance over a woman always with the ability to rape her, but we don’t assume that it’s immoral for men to have relationships with them.
Germany. People under the age of 14 cannot commit any crimes, so they can freely have sex. It is not legal for anyone 14+ to have sex with anyone 14 and under, but in case of low age difference, consent, and a similar level of maturity courts can still give the ok for 14+ with <14. Additionally, people over 21 may not have sex with 14 or 15 years old if the older person has abused the lack of maturity - but this has to be proven (so it's the other way around: Instead of courts having the option to give the ok, courts have to prove that some exploitation happened).
So you feminist faggots approve of two 5 year olds having sex with each other? I guess the meme about IT redditors being absolute pedos isn't entirely wrong.
These laws have exactly the same problems that I've laid out in this thread. This is not about "protection of children". This is pure feminist gatekeeping since you guys do seem to beleive that these 14 year olds are mature enough to fuck. But for some bullshit illogical reason they can't fuck adults
B
Define "children."
What I meant: People of the same age. In the legal sense in Germany: People under 14.
I'm neither a feminist, nor a faggot nor member of the IT community nor a pedo, so wrong in all four instances. I always complain how easy women have it, so obviously I'm not a feminist. I think gay sex is disgusting, so I am not a faggot. I am not an IT redditor because, well, I am definitely not liked there and I am not a pedo because just like I wouldn't fuck a guy (because I am not gay) I also wouldn't fuck a child (because I am not a pedo), but just like I have no problems with two guys fucking I also have no problems with two children fucking.
Again, the consent laws are not only about age, they also cover e.g. mental illnesses. What they are motivated by can be different, but it definitely is consistent with the goal of protecting children. Children are also not allowed to do many other things - for example you are not allowed to give a child alcohol to drink unless you are a parent (and obviously a parent fucking their child is also not great) ...
B
Do you apply reason to anything in this topic or does your morality blindly follow from law?
It's not LGBT or pedo content. I didn't show two guys kissing and even said that I found gay sex disgusting for myself, likewise for pedo stuff ...
No, my morality follows on the principle of harm reduction. For every action, I look at the benefits and the harm and then decide whether it is harmful or not. Sometimes I check whether some laws are consistent with my principles or not.
JFL at the absolute of Greycels on this forum
lol u have to be some redditor probably a lolbert one
Yes, I primarily use(d) Reddit for discussion, is this now a problem? I did not see in the rules that you could not be a Reddit member. Several other, sometimes prominent, members of this forum are also active on Reddit and even boast about their threads here.
B
Oh, YOU decide. OK, I see.
YOU can decide for yourself. Others can decide for themselves.
Yes, I thought it was implied that I was referring to my own morality.
B
What's also implied is that you believe your morality to be superior.
Someone who doesn't believe their morality to be superior should change it to whatever they believe to be better ...
It doesn't matter what you identify as but as long as you spew out their talking points you are one of them as far as this topic is concerned. Heck, I wouldn't have any problem with your feminist stance if it wasn't so stupid and illogical.
Ok weirdo. Heh, I guess this is what happens when you stick with your retarded logic too far.
If two children fucking each other is A-OK then it only leads to the conclusion that the idea of "consent" is NOT based on the absolute age when one is biologically and mentally mature enough for sexual activity, BUT ENTIRELY ON the agegap between the sexhavers.
Which leads to the same fallacies that I've already laid out in this thread:
Concerns that you haven't been able to answer and continue to ignore. Ladies and Gentlemen this is your brain on libtard pedophile logic. Child Sex is perfectly fine!
This has already been proven wrong here:
Again a point that you haven't been able to logically address besides spewing your brainwashed bullshit. Infact considering this line of logic:
We can conclude that your idea of "harm" is ENTIRELY CONTINGENT on the agegap between the sexhavers and your idea of "protecting children" is entirely based on removing that harm by disallowing sex with adults.
But SOMEHOW this harm caused by having sex with someone older than you MAGICALLY DISAPPEARS when you reach the age of consent.
Lol at this bs
But two children fucking each other is perfectly fine
So you are utilitarian and we are supposed to believe that you are not a soyfaggot redditor IT feminist
Last edited:
B
How do you know that what you believe is in fact better? What is "better" anyway? Better for you? Better for others? Better for society? Better for the downtrodden?
dnr muslims are whores and sluts too
View: https://www.tiktok.com/@titsaretits/video/7222705743911259398?q=muslim%20hot&t=1696784345954
their whole religion is cucked jfl goes against basic biological instincts as well
View: https://www.tiktok.com/@deranjelafans69/video/7244136048782036226?q=muslim%20hot&t=1696784345954
View: https://www.tiktok.com/@dezertflake/video/6810209974392720645?q=muslim%20hot&t=1696784345954
No, both on the "maturity gap" between the sexhavers and on the maturity of the sexhavers. The reason why there is an absolute age is that it is assumed that from this point on, the maturity gap cannot be assumed to be likely big enough so that it would make legal sense to automatically assume it to be exploitative, no matter how old. Still, in certain cases (like people with dementia or other mental illnesses) courts can find that the maturity gap was high enough.
I think there is also a core issue between criminalizing sex between children: The amount of morality children employ increases with their age just like their sexual maturity increases. If you assume that the children having sex act immoral, then you assume a pretty mature understanding of morality, which they don't have as children. Essentially the question is: Who is at fault? If it's just someone who "randomly" is 2 days older, is that fair? If it's both, who is the victim?
The point is that you cannot be sure that there is a power imbalance. Quite often in these situations, both parties know exactly what they provide: The 60 year old provides money, the 22 year old provides sex. Of course there sometimes _are_ power imbalances in these situations, which the law cannot cover and there _are_ cases where a 16 year old boy tricks an 18 year old girl. When you assume a power imbalance by law differs from country to country and it will never be perfectly able to catch all power imbalances while catching no situation without power imbalance.
You don't. Any ethical standards can only be compared to goals. I personally think that too many special cases show that the ethics is not based on a sound principle. Thus, I don't like contradictions or "special cases" in my ethics.
The more I learn about Islam the more I like it, I guess the fanatic believers are much like the unwashed normie masses of the west today, while the sharp few realize Islam is a powerful tool to use on a population, to be a high ranking member of Islam society must be the ultimate lifestyle available on this earth.
B
You don't know, yet you believe your own morals to be superior. That makes you no different than any random person standing beside you who has any other random set of morals.
Goals for what?
There are plenty of ethical systems based on sound principles. You just haven't studied them. It sounds like you make up your morality based on how you and others around you feel is correct i.e., the society you live in.
By definition, you're a moral relativist, which means that your ethics are inherently a series of special cases. What's good for you is not necessarily good for another. Your moral good may be a special case for another, and another's moral good may be a special case for you.
You mentioned earlier that your ethics is based on the harm principle. How are you able to determine all possible harms? Some harms are physical and visible, others are psychological and invisible. Other harms you can't conceive of, because you don't have all of the available information, such as what a person is thinking (like how do you know the 15 year old is thinking clearly when they're fucking a 17 year old, but suddenly they're manipulated and can't think for themselves if the other person is now 18). How exhaustive of a list of harms do run your moral calculus through? What happens when you encounter a novel situation?
You keep oscillating between legality and morality here. It’s a very common tactic used by intellectually dishonest people.
As I said earlier, men can rape women because they have a strength power imbalance but just because the power imbalance exists doesn’t make the relationship immoral by default.
Love how you have to dwell into deeper mental gymnastics since your position is entirely untenable. Like an emotional foid who can't use logic.
I'm presuming actual biological sexual maturity doesn't factor in your definition of "maturity" since you are fine with actual 5 year olds fucking each other.
Its funny how that if an adult grooms a 5 year old kid into having sex with him then its wrong according to you but if an adult grooms two 5 year olds into fucking each other its A-OK.
What a braindead line of reasoning. Your concept of maturity is not based on anything concrete but a nebulous notion of who can manipulate who using a "maturity gap", that you cannot even properly define.
Who the fuck are you to assume that such " Maturity gaps" do not exist among full adults. Who the fuck are you to decide that power imbalances among adults couldn't be used to leverage sex. If your idea of age of consent is not based on the biological reality that KIDS ARE FUCKNG KIDS and its NOT OKAY FOR THEM TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY as a principle then your ideology FALLS APART and reveals itself as a hypocritical farce. Since you refuse to apply your own "power imbalance" logic to adults. You do not have any concrete theoritical grounding or principle for your feminist arguments other than it being "legally untenable" to apply your logic to adults.
But since you are a retarded utilitatian you probably don't even care about proper logical grounding. You guys try to minimise "harm" but cannot even decide what "harm" even is.
Answer one question. Why is a maturity gap bad? Since you seem to admit that many examples of maturity gaps exist that are not covered by law (this alone should discredit maturity gaps as a basis for age of consent bu I digress). And since your entire argument is that we should, in principle, avoid sexual activity in such instances but can't since its not "legally tenable". Then in a hypothetical scenario where it was " Legally tenable" would you want to make it "legally enforceable"
Which means would, if you could, throw a 60 year old rich man in jail if he manipulates an innocent slightly immature 19 year old girl in need of college money into becoming his sugar babe? And the "maturity gap" is proven beyond doubt to be above whatever bullshit cutoff you set.
Would you throw in jail, the 22 year old rockstar who pumped and dumped an 18 year old high school senior with promise of a life together which never came.
And if your answer to any of these is yes. Then how do you even begin to decide which sexual relationship has enough of a gap for you to consider it unjust on one party?
Legal tenability is not an argument since completely removing the age of consent is also legally tenable. You MUST have some grounding for why you think something should be illegal. If you think that maturity gaps in relationships are the primarily principle behind AOC and it has nothing to do with children being biologically and sexually different from adults. Then you must prove WHY maturity gaps are bad and at what cutoff of proximity are sexual relationships allowable.
And since your argument doesn't have a solid base and you cannot even begin to define maturity and its role in sexual relationships. And you refuse to accept that children are considered immature PRECISELY because they are biological fucking children. I am led to conclude that your conclusion is the grounding in and of itself.
Which means that you PERSONALLY WANT children to be able to have sex with each other and you PERSONALLY WANT adults to stay out of that child orgy. You PERSONALLY WANT to perpetuate a system that exacerbates inceldom by allowing whores to chase chad as early as 12 and become used goods by 17. Which makes you nothing more than the feminist soyfaggot IT infilttator that you are
You are perfectly fine with 14-15 year old literal hoes filling themselves up to the brim with a new chad dick every 6 months. But they somehow become innocent angels who are too innocent and immature for it if some older normie or incel dude tries to leverage his age and experience for that pussy. Fucking hypocrite
Last edited:
It does factor in. Unless motivated by external factory, 5 year olds simply aren't likely to fuck each other, unless ...
an adult grooms them. Then the adult can be acting morally wrong, at least he is responsible for what happens.
Yes, but it is a concept I can use for everything from contracts between adults about a phone contract to, well, sex. And I just personally like using fewer concepts even if they aren't as well defined as a result.
Some of our closer relatives, e.g. the bonobos, do engage in sexual activity with kids, so I think a purely biological motivation isn't 100% sure either.
Well, the nice thing is that you can use a lot of science to get estimates. For example, in principle it should be possible to estimate the effect of sex and actually all other activities at various ages on the "success" (however you measure it) of the person. Then, you can base your morality of various actions on these measured effects. In my opinion, this is just conceptually very clean. Also, it has the advantage that in theory, it should be independent of personal moral preferences, as you don't know the result of your measurements before you do them! And then, another nice thing is that, in concept, you can just measure various forms of "success" or a "good life" and then let people with various preferences decide what is more important to them. It is a clear separation of science and morals/politics.
It isn't necessarily bad, but it can easily be bad because the more experienced person can trick the less experienced person. With some age constellations, you can assume that so often one, less experienced, person likely isn't very interested, while the other, more experienced, is, that the harm of not having great experiences between them, benefiting both, because it is not allowed, is smaller than the harm of awful experiences strongly harming one person.
Maybe? Also, this sometimes happens in different constellations. For example, the producer of GirlsDoPorn was arrested because he tricked people into having sex. The problem is that above a certain age age itself isn't a good predictor for experience any more. For example, we all have zero experience even though we might be way beyond 18.
Difficult to prove. Even if you could prove that the rockstar said it, you'd have to prove he didn't mean it. But guess what: I think in some jurisdictions, certain deceptions to get sex are illegal. For example, in Israel some Arab who claimed to be Jew was jailed for rape by deception.
While I cannot give you any sources, I am pretty sure that the amount of children who were traumatized after being abused as children is way higher than the number of children who just had normal sex (or sex-related things) with each other where no adult was involved.
Biology is still relevant as we can presume that children not yet in puberty have a way lower sex drive and thus are less prone to initiate sex, so there likely was another factor at play.
No. Some people have delayed puberty and are biologically "children" till they are 19. As a result, they might be infertile and have a low sex drive. Still I think they should freely have sex if they want to as they have the emotional capability to understand the consequences of it. Similarly, people who for other reasons like hormonal imbalances or taking antidepressants have a low sex drive should be able to have sex.
So you admit it’s flawed reasoning.
Adolescents are not kids in the biological sense.
it’s clear BS not based in any concrete evidence.
How exactly is there “tricking” into sex, and how can you measure what harm occurs?
Can you prove any harm in consensual acts?
1. You are a biological adult as soon as you can reproduce, which is around the beginning of puberty.
2. Sex drive kicks in at puberty so they would be both fertile and have a libido.
@SociallyStupid address this.
Yikes sweetie YTA
Opinion rejected.
Followers of the Pedo Muhammed are not qualified to speak on matters of manhood or morality.
Followers of the Pedo Muhammed are not qualified to speak on matters of manhood or morality.
You are changing your narrative. You just posited that 5 year olds having sex is A-OK which means that to you sexual maturity is a non factor. Now you say otherwise.
Also the point is that that 5 year olds are not likely to fuck each other. 12 years old are more likely to fuck and 15 years old even more so. But you have decided to put all of them in the same category of "too immature to be approached by adults but fine if they fuck each other". What happens when a 12 year old boy fucks a 5 year old girl?
Love how you don't even admit that an adult grooming 5 year olds into fucking each other is undeniably immoral.
Biological maturity is by far the simplest and most reasonable concept one can use. Far less contradictions than this "maturity gap" or "power gap" bullshit.
What is with feminists and libfaggots and their obsession with bonobos. You are confusing the concept of using biology as a basis for building social codes in cases where such biological is obviously relevant, to arguing for complete suspension to biological instincts. This is bad argument.
You clearly have no clue about how scientific study works. But such nuance is not expected from a utilitarian anyway. Since your worldview is illogical you have drowned into even more bullshit to to keep up the house of cards. How do you even begin to describe what "success" even is, or what a "good life" is. By defining those terms prior to the experiment (which is necessary) you have already laid out the moral paradigm before the measurements even took place.
You are probably one of those homosexuals who thinks that 100 gender identities are "scientific" And anyone opposing that bs is "anti-science"
That doesn't answer the question at all. Only replaces it with another one being, why is getting tricked bad. Besides raising the same old question , what about one adult tricking another into sex? I am asking this for the 100th time now and at this point I'm well aware that you'll be unable to address this besides coming up with some bullshit about it being "less likely" ; while ignoring the simple fact that its more easy or likely to trick children PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE BIOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT FROM ADULTS AND NOT BIOLOGICALLY MATURE ENOUGH TO TAKE SEXUAL DECISIONS OR ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY.
No you can't assume anything of that sort.
You fucking idiot. You harp on about "harm" this and "awful experience" that but as it is constantly pointed out to you that as a utilitarian you are banned from defining anything as harmful a-priori.
AGAIN. THE ONE AND ONLY REASON A RATIONAL PERSON WOULD THINK THAT A SEXUAL EXPERIENCE BETWEEN PARTNERS WITH SUCH AGEGAPS WOULD BE HARMFUL OR AWFUL EXPERIENCE FOR ONE OF THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS A CHILD AND HENCE TOO IMMATURE TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY.
YOUR LOGIC HAS ZERO GROUNDING PRECISELY BECAUSE YOU TRY TO DEFINE THE AGEGAP ITSELF AS THE HARM, A LOGIC YOU REFUSE TO AGAIN AND AGAIN APPLY TO ADULT COUPLES WITH AGEGAPS. HENCE MAKING YOU A CONTRADICTORY HYPOCRITE
Just kill yourself feminist cuck
Michael Pratt was arrested for sex trafficking and lying to the girls. So clearly not the same as the question I posted. Since agegaps to you are evil in and of themselves you should in principle argue for the sugar daddy to be arrested even if he was upfront about what the relationship was going to be like.
And if you argue that in such a case this relationship is fine then you should, in principle be also fine with a 22 year old boy sleeping with a 11 year old girl, the latter ,according to your twisted logic being perfectly capable of sexual activity.
Of course this is true and PRECISELY BECAUSE AFTER A CERTAIN AGE CHILDREN ACHIEVE MATURITY INCLUDING SEXUALL MATURITY AND GROW INTO ADULTS.
Holy shit how do you even operate with that 60 iq brian of yours lacking all self awareness. Literally ALL of your arguments are contingent on the fact that children are not sexually mature and biologically different from adults. Yet you FAIL to see it for yourself and continue to insist that sexually immature children having sex is A-OK as long as its among themselves.
Which leads to the conclusion that agegaps are the only things that matter to you (you reject this but cannot even explain why since it is indeed the correct inference to make from all your arguments). But then you FAIL to apply your own logic to adults with agegaps or powergaps .
And your defence for this is some bullshit about how its less likely for an adult to trick another adult but more likely for adult to trick a child. While IGNORING the fact that this is true PRECISELY BECAUSE CHILDREN ARE SEXUALLY AND EMOTIONALLY IMMATURE COMPARED TO ADULTS AND HENCE EASIER TO "TRICK". A fact that you do not take into account while positing that two 5 year olds fucking each other is A-OK.
And thus the cycle of your stupidity continues....
Good job not answering the question and avoiding the main point like you always do. My question was if he meant what he said and you have absolute knowledge of the matter. Would you throw him in jail or not.
And if you would, based on the ground that there's a power difference. That he only hot that sex because he was a rockstar. Then you should go kill yourself right now.
And if you would based on the ground he lied , then that means power difference got nothing to do with it. Then what about a 22 year old boy who sleeps with a 11 year old girl but doesn't lie about his intentions at all. If you are really true to your logic that 11 year old is a fine age for sex then you must forego the power difference bullshit if you want to maintain logical consistency (which you obviously don't )
You cannot give me any sources because the rest of the drivel you posted is entirely horse shite. There is no rational reason to believe that a "child" would be less traumatized about having sex with someone closer to their age than having sex with someone older.
What? Does the trauma signal starts tingeling more if the adolescent detects through magic that he is fucking someone older. Is there a single iota of rationality behind this? (Of course not, since you are a utilitarian you do not believe in logic)
Infact, if anything, some research shows that many children were not traumatised of sexual abuse until society told them that something bad was done to them. Which means that you will have to PRESUPPOSE that, either agegaps are bad (as you do) or children shouldn't be having sex (as I do) BEFORE THE TRAUMA EVEN TOOK PLACE. Making your whole line of reasoning about scientific enquiry bullshit.
Why are you inceltears users such raging pedophiles?
Exceptions do not define the rules you utter pedophile feminist. Ironically you are the one who keeps on crying about what is "unlikely". Well a man reaching puberty at 19 is unlikely as fuck.
And if emotional maturity to understand the consequences of sex was THE factor then according to your logic two 11 year olds having sex with each other are perfectly capable of understanding the consequences of their actions 
YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT , ASSUMING CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TRAUMATIZED AFTER HAVING SEX WITH ADULTS THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE TRAUMATIZED AFTER HAVING SEX AMONG THEMSELVES.
YOU ARE TRYING TO DEFEND THE SHEER ABSURDITY THAT A 16 YEAR OLD GIRL WITH A BODY COUNT OF 10 EITHER LACKS THE EMOTIONAL CAPABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEX IF AN ADULT IS INVOLVED BUT CAN UNDERSTAND THEM PERFECTLY IF THE BOY IS HER OWN AGE
OR
SHE IS TOO IMMATURE AND COULD BE "TRICKED" THE MOMENT AN 18+ GUY APPEARS BUT IS IMMUNE TO TRICKERY IF THE BOY IS HER OWN AGE
Last edited:
Got any links? It makes sense especially in regards to statutory rape victims.
Back in the day when you were a teenager, you were already considered an adult. The term "teenager" came around in the 1950s from the U.S (because why the fuck it wouldn't have been from another decrepit "nation") because people were living longer lives, so your childhood was therefore extended longer. This is why you see men in their 30s and 40s flock to the movies to watch the next Marvelshit and collect their creepy-looking funko pops. They're just children trapped in the bodies of adults, and most don't know how to conduct basic tasks or maintain even the most rudimentary of responsibilities.
Additionally, we think it's wrong for men to court younger girls because "they're not mature" enough which is ironic because girls around 11-17 are sexually active. So according to their actions, they are sexually mature enough in order to engage in sexual relations and therefore should be married to men who have their shit together.
>inb4 glowie pedo grAYYYcel
Additionally, we think it's wrong for men to court younger girls because "they're not mature" enough which is ironic because girls around 11-17 are sexually active. So according to their actions, they are sexually mature enough in order to engage in sexual relations and therefore should be married to men who have their shit together.
>inb4 glowie pedo grAYYYcel
Similar threads
Buried Alive 2.0
Users who are viewing this thread
