Why would I hate myself
B
The insult doesn't detract from the content of the post, nor does it invalidate anything I said. Ad hominems are when you use insults AS your argument and attack the person instead of attacking the content of their arguments/claims.
This post glows
There is nothing wrong with a 90 year old dating a 16 year old.
Because it's what I've always questioned. I had the same opinion on this matter when I joined this site at 15 and I still do as I am still here at 19 years of age, and I will keep the same opinion on this my whole life, you won't convince me otherwise. I have lurked loads and stumbled on many of your posts advocating for viewpoints that I agreed about, however this ain't it, chief. This is probably the only viewpoint we don't agree on, to be honest.
Anyways, there's nothing wrong with questioning laws, especially illogical ones. The same way you would question one if it were illogical to you or made your brain riddled with questions. Theres literally no denying the AoC laws are linked to feminism, their history is linked to feminism. When applied, you have them not having the same equal effect for both genders. You've been on this site way longer than me, have you seriously not fucking stumbled across countless amounts of threads about female high school teachers getting no punishment for sleeping with their 'underaged' students (specifically in western judicial systems), whilst it's not the same way around? This is a classic example of sexual inequality, caused by the cucked AoC laws, and this clearly correlates to the blackpill. You probably have argued and complained about gender gaps in prison sentences, don't be so hypocritical now. Otherwise, based on your own logic, you've contradicted yourself, because it's pointless advocating about something that affecting you, right? Why argue for anything that actually brings female responsibility into equation? Because, lack of female responsibility is why they're living life on easy mode. In this case, (I hate having to keep repeating this example) there are many cases where a female willingly sleeps with an older male, yet only that older male gets the consequences. Yada, yada, yada, I can't be asked to utilise my brain for such an effortless counter argument that is only riddled with strawman arguments and ad hominems and I am too drained of energy right now anyways. It's disappointing coming from you, but I'll remain cordial with you since you didn't insult or seethe at me at all.
Here's one example I bothered to find, out of many other thousands of possible ones (You might call me out for cherrypicking but I really can't be bothered to state or repeat my many other arguments that I've already stated in my posts) . Can you disprove the fact that if he was some 40 year old balding man, he wouldn't have been charged not only with burglary but also be accused of doing something with that 14 year old? It's literally the same as good looking mass murderers/serial killers and their pretty privileges, along with the thousands of femoids fawning themselves over them.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ladbI35nY00&ab_channel=WSMV4Nashville
More proof the AoC laws are all about lookism. @Mainländer, @verybasedindeed
Just look at this comment:
You can check out the other comments on there, literally no one cares that this guy slept with the 14 year old. Even the normies in the comment section suspects him of sleeping with that 'minor', yet they don't give a fuck either, why?
Now, you may say that it shouldn't matter because it only affects sexhavers. Then, please, do me a favour and never complain about how your own mother spread her legs to your father and birthed you. Never complain about your life again and just sit there doing nothing, because it's not your fault, right, it's all sexhavers? This is the type of black and white thinking that is the same reason most men use in their predicament concerning female emancipation, and I don't want to be them. If men actually woke up, this shitshow would be all over and women would return to the kitchen to cook and clean, and inceldom would be less prevalent statistically. Also, there is another hypocrisy in your end. You are known to go on tirades about the triple parenthesis group. Why would you care if they are not responsible for your inceldom in any way? Wouldn't you just say it's because you're ugly and not because of them.
Show me anywhere in my posts in this thread, where I condoned paedophilia. Show me anywhere where I've said that I am attracted to prepubescent children.
I know. But the trash is not going to take itself out, is it? Forget about me for a second, you can't deny yourself that there are many men out there who suffer from a lack of sexual success because of hypergamy increasing, and that wouldn't be the case if emancipation wasn't there. Have you not seen the graphs showing inceldom on the rise, have you not seen that famous graph where it shows the percentage of high schoolers in the US that ever dated? Are you really that clueless?
These AoC laws still affect me (psychologically) and a lot of others in this thread simply because we're going to be socially outcasted for talking about our sexual attraction to biological women who have become recent biological women. Tons of normies irl have insulted me for doing so, do you think I am not meant to fight back at all? Also, paedophilia to most normies I know irl is where there is an age gap between two people, even if it is a one or two year difference, more so applicable if they're closer to the legal age but still legal age. NPC cucks berate each other constantly over it in my place of education, what makes you think I wouldn't be influenced by these NPCs that make up most of the population?
I honestly couldn't care less if I would still be an incel, at least there would be less sexual degeneracy and moral debauchery in this clown world if we still had the values we had 200 years ago. That's the only thing I really care for. My mental afflictions are all caused by me seeing women in education and how slutty they act as soon as they reach their menarche and start their prime, yet they are still considered 'innocent children'.
Don't ask me, ask the OP (now moderator). His viewpoint at the time posting (don't know if it's the same now) goes against my ideas. He thinks anyone under an arbitrary age is a child, when it's all dependant on hormones and biology.
Have you ever wondered why?
Another ad hominem. It's clear you're referring directly to me, and you have no idea what you're talking about. I would have around 200 days online on here if the option was still here for people to see under my user-title. Why do you care about me not posting so much? It doesn't matter. The reason I haven't posted is because I am too non-nt and too non-creative to post here, so I just lurk instead you're berating on my genes for no reason. It's the same way most incels here are good listeners, instead of good talkers in real life. I also stopped posting here because of fear of my opinions not being taken seriously, because I was under some arbitrary age, and this arbitrary age is based on the laws in real life, it has nothing to do with fucking maturity.
There's tons of lurking truecels here who don't post because they don't feel like it. It's like insulting graycels for no reason, everyone here was a graycel, and no one should give a fuck about some obscure rank on an obscure forum (it doesn't affect muh inceldom, right?), their own predeterminism that was caused by their brain realising and discovering this forum was the fault, not them. Also, I never talked about AoC laws in any of the times I posted here, this is the first time I am shedding light on it, and it's because of fucking idiots on here saying they don't have a problem with pre-pubescent males having adult women forced onto them.
If according to you it is, so than be it. But does that mean you discard it completely? Are we going to forget the gender bias on these laws now? Are we going to ignore the link to feminism to these laws? Why don't we also forget about the Jewish conspiracy too? It's just our ugly faces, right? Our environment and surroundings totally don't matter at all, right?
Age of consent laws are still being raised not by pre-boomer politicians in their graves but by modern day politicians. Age of consent in my own country went up a few years ago. You can look at curryland last year too, their age of marriage/consent went up to 18 to 21? Have you ever asked yourself why? I give up on this argument, honestly. What part of your flawed mind can't grasp the arguments I am making? Come on, your self proclaimed high IQ brain can do better than this, my buddyboyo. Finish me off already.
Ah, great. Another false retort. Where's the proof you have of anyone supporting this stance turning out to be 'paedophiles'? We all have different opinions on it anyways, my opinion is that anyone who is a pubescent should be considered an adult. Also, please take this time off to understand what the correct meaning of paedophilia is. JosefMengelcel and Zensfy were not exclusively attracted to prepubescent children, and those would be the only examples of the 'many paedophiles' you would bring up. I honestly couldn't give a shit about some incel here saying they are attracted to a prepubescent female, just that I would maybe tell them to turn it down a little since it's quite unnatural but still, that attraction to prepubescents is still there in men, and more common than you think (Most studies confirm that up to 5% of men are paedophiles). Why would you, it doesn't matter because of the muh ugly face thing, right? It's definitely more natural than finding some menopausal whore more attractive. I honestly couldn't give a shit if IT were to throw a tantrum about it too. They throw a tantrum at our very existence anyways and every time we talk against the status quo.
Yes. That's true. But that's not exactly what we're talking about. You're a known proprietor of basing sexual attraction of off arbitrary numbers, and that's what we're to argue for. You also support these arbitrary laws that are known to punish only men severely (which is based on their LMS). If @based_meme was fair and just in his arguments, he would also argue against you and all the others here who criticize the sexual attraction to young biological women based on socially constructed laws, but obviously, it's clear that the double standards begin to show here for whatever fuck all reasons.
Last edited:
I know this wasn't directed at me but since it applies to me as well, I'll answer for the sake of influencing a third party that might be reading if nothing else.
First off, self-interest isn't the only reason to oppose something. Not everything has to be done pro domo sua; I think it's hard for people who are amoral narcissists themselves to grasp this, but some people are not amoral narcissists who only care about stuff that directly affects them.
Secondly, this question does affect men, particularly ugly men like most incels. This whole pedophilia paranoia shit is one of the main things if not the main thing being weaponized against men, particularly ugly men. It's a feminist agenda that makes the world way more dangerous to men, since your life can be over through some accusation that you touched a kid, downloaded CP or something like that.
With false rape allegations, at least it usually has to be proven somewhat; but in the case of pedophilia-related stuff, most people have been convinced that just literally touching a kid or even looking at a picture of them harms them, so the proof threshold is really low, making false accusations easier. Also, false accusations aside, it's revolting to me to see so many felow low-status ugly men having their lives utterly ruined by looking at pixels or falling for some underage police decoy out of desperation. Many users here are quick to laugh at someone like this and say they're idiots who deserve it, but they both underestimate how strong desperation can get (many are youngcels for sure) and indirectly contribute to the gynocentric state of things, where men are never cared for, no matter how much injustice and exaggeration in terms of punishment they undergo, not even by fellow men. Which contributes to the current state of things.
Primarily, in most cases, yeah. Ugliness matters more than the other stuff you mentioned. But the fact is, men in general, even the ugly ones, would be doing better with early marriages and no feminist crap like the pedo paranoia stuff.
There's also the fact not every incel is an unredeemable hideous monstrosity who'd be incel even in the most patriarchal of societies. Most of us are just regular ugly guys who very likely wouldn't have been incel before feminism and all the crazy shit that happened in the last decades. It's undebatable that inceldom is rising, there weren't nearly as many incels back in the 1850s or something.
The issue is, high AoC laws and all that pedo paranoia stuff come from feminism, and it's revolting to see incels in these forums siding with feminism against fellow low-status ugly men. It's unfitting that one would be banned/warned even for minor bluepill shit but not suffer any punishment for blatant whiteknighting, gynocentrism and feminism, which is what defending such state of things is.
My first paragraph already deals with that.
tl;dr: high AoC laws, draconian CP laws, pedo paranoia stuff and all that come primarily from feminism, make the life of average/ugly men harder, more dangerous and worse in general and thus are relevant issues for incels.
Last edited:
I read everything, not only the part you brought my attention to. I share many of your frustrations and ideas. We are definitely on the same boat here.
Age of consent laws minimize the options of men because now they have to compete for women in their twenties that have higher body counts and a lot more relationship traumas than their younger counterparts. Women don't come out of adolescence with their bodies and minds intact; they come out of it as absolute whores because, contrary to what agecuckolds think, teenage girls are far from being innocent and inexperienced at that age. So limiting the access of men to teenage girls just contributes to the promiscuity we see today.
Generally speaking, boys just want sex and validation from their girlfriends. They don't care much about building healthy families with strong values. Most teenage relationships don't last. Men that have nice cars, comfortable houses, and decent jobs are looking for spouses to build families with because they already have everything they could ask for, except wives. These men are far more responsible and stable than horny teenagers. Not condemning teenage relationships, as I think they are essential to our mental and emotional development, but relationships between adults and teenage girls should be cherised because they are more serious and fruitful than teenage orgies.
And yes, age of consent laws contribute to inceldom. You're a 21-year-old virgin that finally managed to attract a cute 15-year-old girl? Tough luck. You will be prevented from ever touching a girl this young. A 17-year-old sweetheart gave your 25-year-old, low-tier-normie self an indicator that she's interested? The law says you're not an entitled to a prime girl, inkwell.
We have infinite examples of men building families with teenage girls in traditional societies. Heck, it used to be like that just a few decades ago before the advent of feminism (coincidence?). My 20-year-old father married my mother when she was 15, and they have been married for 40 years! There was even some man in my family that was 22 when he married a 12-year-old girl and they went on to have many healthy kids. She never divorced him and loved him to the end. I think these might have been my great-grandparents.
Point is, life did just fine in traditional societies. Why can't we go back? Why do we have to accept what is being done to our society? This questioning is very important, which is why I am on board with you here.
No I am not. You can be attracted to whoever you want, but if you actually try to have sex with immature people I will just assume you do it because you want to manipulate them. And AoC isn't the only age which defines whether adults can do something with children, there are also age cutoffs for alcohol, driving, non-trivial contracts etc. The age of consent isn't anything special there, the only thing "special" is the severe punishment if violated. I don't say being sexually attracted to minors is always morally wrong, I say pursuing minors for sex is, especially if there is a large experience gap, often morally wrong because the intent was to manipulate.
I also don't "support" the laws, but think the laws in e.g. Germany are sensible because they consider all aspects I want to have considered and are thus consistent. The laws in the US, which are more strict, are IMHO less consistent. I don't push for any change because they don't really affect me because, as I said, they don't really prevent me from having sex. It's like that with a lot of other laws I don't really care about because they don't affect me in a meaningful way.
No one here is actually a pedo tho. Just we aren't about to advocate some quota that'll lead us to some roasted far past prime wildebeest that look like our aunts. We want our own mostly pure woman that has no shared history.
Glad to have you on-board with me then, brocel.
Exactly. It's all about boosting the sexual market value of women in the long term, which they don't deserve. If we don't deserve anything, why should women deserve anything?
Correct. But I think teenage girls should be replaced with 'young adult women', otherwise, it's more so infantilizing them and grouping them up into western-constructed age groups. I think only the social constructs that we had fairly recently where it separates adults from children is more logical and biological based (paedophilia is a mental illness but in my opinion, it shouldn't be reacted to with punishment in most cases) , rather than this whole 'teenage' and 'pre-teen' concepts that are not even based on biology but useless social constructs that were meant to refer to two types of youthful adulthood, which should be the same in my opinion. You don't even have a word for teenager in Japanese, or many other eastern languages. There's only a concept of teenagehood in countries that were mainly colonized by Anglos and that word 'teenager' and other words outside the two yin and yangs (adulthood/childhood) were de-anglocised into words in their own native languages. Just based on this concept alone, native cultures outside of anglicized ones promote paedophilia. This is a backwards assumption. I dare any agecuck here to argue against this. They just skip over our posts, not even bothering to face our points.
There was no proper age of marriage/age of consent in my country 20 years ago. Now, it's set to 16 in some states, and 18 in the more cucked and liberalised ones. Both of my grandfathers coincidentally both married 14 year old women, and one of them (my paternal grandfather) had almost a dozen children with the same woman who died before him, he was in his early 20s and they were married for 60 years.
Even if it doesn't directly affect us, it still affects us externally. There are plenty of mainly average looking men who are forced to date down because of these laws which enables these roastie whores and inflates their egos. These men are forced to dilute the sexual market because of the jurisdictions based on the borders of the country they're living in. A hundred years ago, the sexual market would have been more equalised. Men would not be forced to date down (with more enforced monogamous laws pertaining to marriage that we had back then), more so, they would be valued on meritocratic values and how much they contribute to society. Now, it's the complete opposite since women are allowed to work, thus immediately seeing 50% of men underneath them straight away. The focus on meritocratic values have been removed, and now, women are enabled to pick based on superficial reasons (like looks) because of the right to work and emancipation that they have been granted. If women had their right to work removed and returned to their traditional gender roles, I really doubt these AoC laws would remain the same. I also doubt hypergamy would be on the same level as it is today.
What part of his post is based, graycel imbecile? I had the same opinion when I was 15 and joined this site, still here too at 19 and I have not given up on this same stance. According to you, anyone sexually attracted to a person under whatever arbitrary age to you is a 'paedophile'. I was a 'paedophile', when I was 15, even though, 'minors' can't be paedophiles, amirite? You're probably one yourself by your own logic because if you're a normal heterosexual male, you were sexually attracted to your agemates back then, nothing changes now, stupid.
According to you, anyone attracted to anyone under an arbitrary age is a 'paedophile', which is based entirely on illogical laws that are based on. You would be a pedo if you were attracted to a 19 year old in South Korea since anyone under the age of 20 is a minor there, keep fucking contradicting yourself with this 'minor' shit, which wasn't even put to use until very recently, you're ignoring the 99.99% of human history where it didn't exist where no one gave a shit about it and only probably cared when someone was literally a child which was deducted biologically, not by time or age since it didn't exist back then. Time wasn't measured properly by 'scientific principles' anyways until this recent century.
Keep cowering behind your lair and throwing ad hominems behind my back like an addle-brained simpleton. You couldn't even be bothered against my first counter-argument against you. Now, you're doing the same here, albeit, it's me arguing with someone else now. I already argued against him, yet you're cowering and hiding again instead of facing straight on with my counter-argument.
How the fuck can you manipulate someone by sex alone? It is an act, not a medium of manipulation. Stop personifying it. A male procuring sex from a female has genuinely the same correlated outcome regardless of his age. You do know that without the AoC laws, coercion and manipulation would still be illegal, right? What difference is there between a 14 year old man young man sticking his penis into an agemate's vagina as compared to a 40 year old man doing it. If she's sexually attracted to a 40 year old man by hypothesis, then she can be manipulated by him as much as her own agemate. It doesn't make a difference? You're forgetting that the 40 year old man could be shorter and weaker than a young adult male. What large experience gap are you talking about? Do you seriously think a childish acting mentally retarded 40 year old who hasn't seen the day of light is the same as a 14 year old young adult female who has slept around and has experienced more to life than that 40 year old male, and had her dopamine receptors fried from doing so?
How are they more consistent? Elaborate?
Last edited:
not really I don't have any kids
Username checks out.
Mirin your ebic strawmanning skills. Keep seething and malding, faggot. When did I bring up 5 year olds in my arguments, retard? I only talked about a normalization in attraction to women that are biologically considered women. I am not the one to blame if you've been so mentally blighted you can't even have a go at my arguments.
Also, people are going to have conflicting arguments here anyways, and there's nothing 'infiltrating' about arguing on this site on literally anything that isn't bluepilled, retard. Nothing wrong about stating your personal opinions on something and voicing your own opinions, nothing narcy about it too. Keep throwing words around.
When the fuck did I show any indications of narcissism in my posts? I just shared my opinions which you didn't even bother to fucking look at and respond to because you're so mentally ignorant and so fallacious that you've done nothing to contribute to this argument but constant dickriding and backslandering instead of actually arguing with me verbatim. If anyone is a narcy, it's frankly you, and it's not my fault you're so lacking in moral conscience and so much of a brainlet. No one gives a shit equivocally about you or what you think too if it's the opposite of your subjective morality. So much for a civilised 'rebuttal', filled with nothing but personal insults. Anyone who's based and blackpilled here has already said shit that goes against the laws of a sovereign nation. It's already futile if this site is a glowpot as many suspect.jfl at your narci ass thinking anyone cares about your existence on this site, I just ignored your previous reply because I don't like your type and didn't bother to reply
Also, I remember you from my previous account you had that bald manga avi and you actually are a p3do
I am not this person you mention of, nor does it contribute to the argument if I learn that you had an alt or not. The previous avi I had before this one was a Takeda Shingen avi, and that was my first one (It makes me cage that you would call Takeda Shingen a paedophile if he were alive today, for marrying a 16 year old woman, the equivalent to an 11 year old woman today) Anyways, I am not a pedophile, just look up the fucking term to see what it means. You don't even have to bother responding anymore. It's utterly pointless.
Least agecucked user.
You don't manipulate them _by_ sex, you manipulate them _in order to have_ sex.
And you do it because you gain pleasure by the sex, that's why you try to manipulate others. It's the same reason why sometimes shady businessmen try to get contracts signed by minors which they don't understand. However, minors cannot consent to at least some of these contracts (at least here, don't know about the US). Same principle.
Coercion yes, but manipulation typically isn't illegal. For example, a gullible 14 year old teenager could maybe be easier convinced that the 40-year-old could teach her new tricks. While 40 years old incels won't have more experience, "regular" 40 year old normies absolutely do, so they know much better than random teenagers how to psychologically get someone to have sex with them. On the other hand, people of the same age have - on average - a similar amount of experience with trying to get laid and seeing the consequences.
No, I fully agree that not in all cases an age difference also yields an experience difference. In fact I agree that someone with down syndrome, who usually can reach the mental maturity of a 14 years old, could be a good fit to a non-disabled 14 year old. However, this obviously is difficult to put into laws.
With rights come more responsibilities. When you are young, you cannot consent to sex and many other different things, but you are also not liable for the crimes you commit. When you are old, you are both liable for the crimes you commit and can consent to sex. So basically the "mental model" of the person according to the law is consistent, it's not that they are regarded as mature in one area and immature in another.
You can only consent with another young person.
This part of the reply alone gave me a lot to think about.
In fact, it was common for girls to be called young women at that age. Now they are called children. It's entirely cultural. There's no biology to it.
The United States of America, Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand all have this concept of teenagehood. Worse: they intertwine the two, leading to the erroneous perception that teenagers are children. In reality, "teenagers" as you said are young adults going through puberty.
Got it.
In fact, it was common for girls to be called young women at that age. Now they are called children. It's entirely cultural. There's no biology to it.
I didn't know that the Japanese language doesn't have a word for teenager. Very interesting piece of information. And it just goes to show how this is a Western phenomenon.
Absolutely!
The United States of America, Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand all have this concept of teenagehood. Worse: they intertwine the two, leading to the erroneous perception that teenagers are children. In reality, "teenagers" as you said are young adults going through puberty.
Very true.
Except that, in most cases, girls procure men for sex, not the contrary.
You picture a man stalking a girl and manipulating her into spreading her legs for him, but that is not what takes place in the majority of cases.
Girls chase these men because females date up and men date down. Girls like taller guys. Girls like richer guys. Girls like stronger guys. And girls like older guys. It has been like this from the dawn of humanity. It's only different now because of socially constructed laws that harm men and leverage the sexual market value of feminist hags. Don't fall prey to them.
Some men even try to resist the temptation, but they eventually figure there is nothing wrong about it if both parties consented to it. Meanwhile, agecuckolds like you pay lip service to feminism by arguing in favor of these draconian age of consent laws.
@SociallyStupid, blacks should date people their own race.
It’s creepy for blacks to date whites because there is a race imbalance and blacks are violent and have a low IQ and are looking for victims to abuse of different races.
It’s creepy for blacks to date whites because there is a race imbalance and blacks are violent and have a low IQ and are looking for victims to abuse of different races.
Last edited:
I am not spamming garbage essays though. They'd actually relate to the point if you'd be bothered to read them, but eh, each to their own I guess.
I know. It just pissed me off a little because you responded to his argument whilst you skimmed over mine because it was still related to me and he was still responding to me. But very well, I apologise if my response would have seen a little hostile to you, I didn't mean it and was just trying to be cordial with you until my temper took a hold of me. I don't have anything against you, just the opinions you hold which I hope will change. Take care, fren
.
Even if what you said were true, then they would have an advantage (physical strength/violence) and a disadvantage (low IQ), which you could say balances itself out. But it is also core to the current political ideology to not see that any race has inherently different IQ or aggression potential, so obviously this will not be put into laws and everyone is considered a racist when suggesting that.
I don't really argue in favour of them, just that I don't see an immediate need to change them, you could say it's neutral. And like I said, here they are different than in the US. I think 18 years as AoC is too high and that I am comfortable with the laws in my country.
Ok, maybe I am a bit mistaken because obviously that has never happend for me.
I said this to show how all this agecuckoldry sounds.
But how will the manipulation take place if you're not sexually attracted to them? What magic skills are granted with age in which you can 'manipulate' anyone under a certain age like some sort of a superpower? Isn't it not on 'life experience' or age whatever nonsense you talk about, and just based solely on genetic potential/predetermined traits you are born with?
You never told me how a 40 year old would have that 'power imbalance' apart from telling me that the 'power imbalance' would be wealth, not age, contradicting yourself again. Teach what tricks? How would this be possible if she wasn't sexually attracted to him? Assuming you live in Germany, which you most likely do since your geographical region is Central Europe, let's refer to the laws there.
So, according to your previous post which I dug up and quoted and going solely by that, the law jurisdictions separate and punish 4 different groups differently. The first one, you have a child. Now, what is a child defined by to you? Is it an organism that can reproduce, which many individuals under that age bracket can or do? Do you think the trillions organisms reproducing on our skin are all children? Is it even biologically based at all, rather than based on Judeo-Christian laws that were bastardized by Christian puritan feminists, on the same religious principles that you criticize for having subjective morals? It is absurd to me that any amoral or atheistic person can agree with these laws which are based off laws religious jurists made in the 12th century anyways. It's just pretending to be morally superior, when you aren't morally superior anyways, you apply the same hypocrisy a lot of religious people do when they say that their morals are superior, but then they don't follow it. It's the same as many atheists claiming to have morals based on objectivity, when laws like these were all based on originally religious principles, it's more proof that many irreligious people follow a universally dogmatic pseudo-religion that is pushed by the globohomo governments they are living in.
Furthermore, it just doesn't make sense how you can punish based on made up age brackets. There are plenty of 'children' under 14 having sexual intercourse with each other. There are plenty of 13.99 year old German females with sufficient development to reproduce and be penetrated, having sexual intercourse right now, behind closed doors, without any rehabilitative punishment.
Now, let's say in Germany, there was a 12 year old female who stabbed a 40 year old unarmed man to death. How would that be punished? She'd probably get a slap on the wrist according to the laws that you idealise, (the age of consent laws there will definitely influence this incident). The general prosecution would probably go like (if you apply the reasoning behind the laws of so called 'minors being taken advatage of' by 'grown ups' to this incident) , muh
"it wasn't a real stabbing, she's just experiment with the knife, or she can't consent to holding the knife because of that arbitrary age, or she must only be stabbing people from her own age group, in order to avoid being traumatized" Or even that there was this 'power imbalance' between this unarmed 40 year old man and between the assailant between the age. Know how stupid this sounds?The age of consent here in the UK is 16, yet I knew an 11 year old black woman in my school who got pregnant and blurted out two twins in the last year of primary/elementary school here. Nothing happened to her, for whatever reason. She went on with her life and dropped out of school to chill out with the same bunch of thugmaxxers (one of whom who probably impregnated her) It just doesn't make sense to restrict sex under a certain age at all, there's still no stopping them when the adult sexual hormones come in. And none of the parents care, especially those single mothers that are found in council estates/projects. They don't give a shit if their daughter ends up in the same predicament as them.
I don't know ... if I could pick up girls, I obviously wouldn't be an incel. But I imagine maybe telling them that they can teach them to be great or whatever ... people who have sex know it better than me.
It's not important how I define child, but the law defines it as anyone under 14.
No, I don't think it is based on biology.
I honestly cannot properly evaluate which laws I would like in the area of age of consent to have as the data I would need to decide is missing. I just can say the current laws aren't obviously wrong for me as they do not fail to consider something important to me.
This is a problem with literally all cutoffs ... even things like speed limits: Is 51 km/h really _that_ much more dangerous than 49 km/h etc.
When you have discrete rules for a (more or less) continuous function it will always not work properly, but that's independent of the subject of law.
Yeah. I agree it might not be ideal as it caused essentially a lot of criminal children, but in the ideal world the parents would be responsible. I also don't think the laws are ideal, but just that they are not necessarily wrong.
B
I'm not out to change your mind. I want to understand why some of you are batshit insanely obsessed with it.
There is nothing wrong with questioning things, but there's a difference between that and being, let's say, a passionate advocate.
Yes, I'm very well familiar with feminism's influence on the rising AoC laws. I don't support AoC laws because they're inconsistent, arbitrary, and culturally influenced instead of scientifically informed, not because I can't get my dick wet with a 10 year old that happens to have menstruated when she was 9.
All of this is irrelevant, because I never said - here or elsewhere - that lookism doesn't apply to court rulings and public perception of crime, so you're fixated on arguing a strawman.
I didn't say you did. I said it comes off that way, which means it conceals the pedos here who (more or less) make the same arguments in the same fashion. There have been a handful of pedo users in the past who, if you switched the usernames, you can copy paste everything you said and it would be practically indistinguishable from what the things they say (minus the writing style).
We've all seen those graphs. What you're doing is conflating two separate issues. Our lack of sexual success has almost everything to do with A) our genetics, B) hypergamy, and C) feminism and its inherent enabling of hypergamy in culture (including changing the laws to be more favorable towards them). In that order, with a very large weighting towards A and a very small weighting towards C.
It has practically nought to do with AoC laws.
Then that's what you open with. Say that the AoC laws are about your psychological well-being in being able to openly display and talk about natural attraction and how you lament the cultural shifts that have stigmatized men of all ages being attracted to young, prime females.
Yes, and I quickly learned that it's because pedos like to latch onto incel forums for the fact that it's one of the only spaces on the open net where they feel they can be open about their paraphilia. They want to scream at society and these places seem to be the only places they can do that, so instead they scream at anyone who calls them out by calling them "agecucks" and "moralfags."
I don't know you. It's only reasonable to look at past users who've behaved similarly and come to the same conclusion, if only tentatively.
No, I wouldn't discard it completely, but put it on very low priority on things to "give a fuck about as an incel." You're putting words in my mouth.
Again, you're bringing up shit that I don't argue against, and as I said, things like unjust gender bias in the application of the law are completely irrelevant when it comes to our inceldom.
I'm not talking about contemporary changes to the law that go from 15-17 or whatever the fuck it is depending on whatever country. It was you yourself who brought up the first change of the AoC laws in the US from 10 or 12 (7 for Delaware) to whatever it was changed to.
"Flawed mind." You can't even remember the shit you said last page. JFL
The proof is in their posts. In the very same paragraph you acknowledge the users themselves. KEK
As for many, 1 is too many here.
Last edited:
B
Don't be a passive aggressive soyboy. If you're going to insult me, at least be direct, accurate, and fair.
It's not a question of only caring about something that affects you, but strongly caring about something that doesn't personally and immediately affect you to the point of great personal cost to self. Hence the phrase, "hill to die on."
Then fight AGAINST feminism, not FOR changing AoC laws. You're focusing on a symptom instead of the disease.
You're seriously trying to use "some incels get so desperate that they resort to cp" as an argument against the evils of gynocentrism that have resulted in the AoC laws and its effect on culture?
You can't force yourself to be attracted to something you aren't. If they seek out cp, it's because they're paraphilics who get hard at prepubescents, not because they were forced into desperation by the gynocracy. JFL
As I said, attack the disease, not the symptom.
Last edited:
I read the entirety of what you said to me. I'll see if I can respond back to your post if I make up the time for it later and if I don't have to semi-necro this thread again just like I did when you responded at the same time prior and it was this time of day where I would usually not be awake. This site really starts to lag out for me at this time anyways. Just left this message here so it doesn't look like I am disrespecting or ignoring you by it seeming like I checked the response back but didn't respond to it. Anyways, have a wonderful day buddyboyo, if we're not comrades in mind and thought, we're still comrade in arms.
B
Most users here aren’t even pedos, not actual ones anyhow.
What was your looksmax.org account?
S
Yes. If you think a 8 year old is attractive than you are sick in the mind. But being attracted to a 15 year old because she is already developed is natural. But acting upon that attraction is weird asf unless you have no other options. So it really depends on how underage in my opinion.
HELL NO FUCKING EVERY GIRL I KNOW IN PERSON I HAVE PROOF IS OPENING HER LEG FOR RANDOM CHAD TYRONE AT 13 YRS OLD WTF WHY IS CUCK GOVERNMENT SO BADLY WANT TO STOP INCEL TEIR OLDCELS FROM EXPERIENCNG TEENAGE PUSSY VIRGIN VAGINA THIS IS CRAZY AGE CUCKS SHOULD ALL BURN ALIV AT THE STAKE
I used to see maps at gas stations and rest areas.
My cousin lost her virginity at 11 stupid cuck and she is white girl from rich liberal family not black ghetto trash
I have a cousin who was fucking different guys at an age like that or so I heard anyhow which I wouldn’t doubt.
and she was fucking older guy but she deny me sex when I ask and she’s 18 now fucking old hag used cunt non virgin
it’s crazy age cuck are delusional fucking stupid fags age cuck should burn roast alive on the stake is the only way!!!!!!!! And their vile cunt daughter should be distributed to me and other trucels on here
Every white girl in rich liberal suburb USA states is fucking chads at 13-14 and parents are cucks!
Hell yeah! Nobody gives two shits about them. If you can ascend then more power to you, doesn't matter how old that girl is.
Kek
i don’t help those who are antisemite
If I convert to joo will I be under the protection?
Send me $
Not really as some girls menstruate even at age of 10. But yeah like 12+its technically hebephilia
You can tell when they are ripe for the picking and it's for dam sure before they turn 18 and after they are 14-15
I feel empathy towards the hoards of incels cought in all these pedo hunters videos
Similar threads
IncelTill.idie
Users who are viewing this thread
