Discussion [Serious] As an incel, there is literally no reason to support paedophilia

[JosefMengelecel]

just so hard to relate to such surety, like why would it always conveniently be a whole number?

It's not just "why not 11 or 13" but also "why not 11.5 or 12.5" and so on.

It just smacks of arbitrariness, anything that's not a 3-digit decimal doesn't seem like we reached that conclusion scientifically.

It also seems too general since if you compare Konata Izumi types to Yoko Littner types it's pretty clear physical development comes at differing rates so you're just averaging things out, and what use is averaging things out?

Idk that number seems to best. Definitely not denying other ages are good

volcel spotted

I am a volcel for not wanting a loose used up hole?

 

[Wizard32]

Idk that number seems to best. Definitely not denying other ages are good

so basically you're throwing spaghetti at a wall

 

[Caesercel]

Attractiveness is too subjective though really. Even for a given guy with trends it'll wobble, and it also depends a lot on context.

It's one of the problems I have in thinking of girls in decile scale because I think their rank is a lot more wobbly and circumstantial than a guy's.

I think its the same for rating guys. That's why I do not indulge too much in lookism faggotry. As for subjectivenes, it all comes down to what is biological and what is preference. Or if there is any interrelation between the two.

I mean most men probably did not choose to be attracted to foids, so its innate. But everyone has different preferences. But where does liking an 8 yo stops being a preference and starts becoming a psychosexual disorder. Its a hard line to draw. I think the answer lies in its non-normativeness combined with the minifoid's blurry status of pubescence, and her inability to take cock or bear children.

Its like with homosexuals. Lgbt proponents would say that its something you are born with, yet there is no official diagnosis of homosexuality. I can chose to fuck a man tomorrow and in the eyes of progressives I am no less gay than someone "born with it".

(Btw I used pedo as a singular to amass all of them into one single entity, thus diminishing its individuality and thus humanity.)

 

[Zensfy]

typical ad homs and non sequiturs

straight from the IT playbook, yup you're an infiltrator alright

just fucking lol if you geniunley think im an IT inflintator just because i dont feel like to replying to your cucked moralfagging ass

 

[Wizard32]

age of consent laws are important to stop adults from taking advantage of kids

Nope, just incarcerate anyone who does sex without having a sex license or to someone lacking a sex license.
Criteria for handing out a sex license can be something other than age, like "score >95% on 500 multiple-choice questions"

I used to think that the threads about normalizing having sex with minors are just IT bait but there is a weird group of people that think having sexual urges with kids is normal

Xeryes you are aware that the term "minor" includes anyone under the 18 (age of majority) including 17 year old girls.

You do not think it is normal for a man to be aroused by a 17 year old girl?

fact of the matter is that if you are sexually attracted to kids and you consider your self an incel you're are not an incel you're predator

This is like saying anyone who wants to eat meat is a carnivore.

To be a predator you actually need to prey upon something, not merely think about it.

I mean fuck what's next, anyone who's ever thought about roping has attempted suicide?

I'm sure the majority of us want to be with someone our age.

Only if the majority of us are teencels.

I'm going to randomly say you're 29 years old based on your username.

Ten years from now, would your ideal partner be a 39 year old woman who lacks viable eggs (can't have healthy kids with her) who has had sexual relationships with a dozen men prior to you, while you haven't enjoyed any?

How is that egalitarian?

How is that EQUITY ?

for context a child in books is under the age of consent of your state which is 18 or 16.
children shouldn't be subjected to your filth, shoot ur self with a shotgun immediately.

So basically "17 shouldn't be subjected" in states with AOC of 18
and "17 and 16 should, but not 15" in states where AOC is 15?

aka "I'm a cuck defining my circumstantial morality over government regulations"

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Why? For liking 8 yo tight virgin cunt more than 18 yo roastie cunt?

8 year olds are prepubescent and unattractive

18 year olds are at their peak

 

[PPEcel]

I mean, if you are an incel, you will not have sex anyways, regardless of what age the AOC is, so I also don’t see any point on people here wanting to lower the AOC

exactly

12-13 is a child? Are you retarded? There's 13yo foids with fully developed bodies who look 18.

keep on cherry-picking

Seems like a false dichotomy. I personally take neither stance as my view is actually it's healthiest to have a "inclusive of both" outlook rather than a "one or the other" outlook.

it's not

There are a lot of different ideas regarding what the term 'rape' requires and involves so it would help if you spelled that out too.

Like for example if I lied to an adult foid and said "I'm a billionaire" and she has sex with me thinking I'm betabuxing for her w/ billions but I'm actually broke, it's TECHNICALLY rape since she gave her consent under false pretenses.

I'm sure a lot wouldn't look kindly on that being lumped together with other kinds of rape though.

I'm thinking perhaps using rape as a standalone term is just too nonspecific to be useful in conversation, we should be defining subtypes and specifying what kinds of rape we mean.

if you are a reasonable person, putting your dick in an 8-year-old is rape by any definition, whether it's a more restrictive or expansive one

All you need to do is flunk the preteen military applicants out of boot camp because they can't deadlift a 200 pound bag

They don't belong in boot camp at all, and not because they can't deadlift 200lbs. They can't understand and consider the seriousness of enlisting in a military and the liberties one willingly gives up when they sign that contract.

 

[Wizard32]

An 8 year old is not only infertile, she can't even receive an adult's penis

Lina Medina disagrees with both of these points.

you cannot say that being attracted to infertile kids who can't physically have sex is somehow not degeneracy, it objectively is

non-procreative acts being degenerate, by that logic it'd only be on the level of handjobs/blowjobs or fucking your post-menopausal wife

what makes us protest is more is due to risk-of-harm

particularly with childbirth like apparently it can break up their anus or something so they poop themselves, that's not a nice thing to do to a girl you love

Why? For liking 8 yo tight virgin cunt more than 18 yo roastie cunt?

TBH what worries me more D is referring to them in insulting terms like cunt.

We should venerate the hole we want to fuck with smooth-sounding terms like pussy or flower.

If we use 'cunt' it sounds like 'turd' or something and why would you want to jam your cock into a piece of poop

 

[Deleted member 34972]

8 year olds are prepubescent and unattractive

18 year olds are at their peak

8-14 is prime, 18 is past prime.

keep on cherry-picking

How is a middle schooler a child? Please explain why.

 

[Lolimancer]

8-14 is prime, 18 is past prime.

you see prebub as prime?

 

[PPEcel]

I am a volcel for not wanting a loose used up hole?

If you turned down someone just for 18, you're a volcel. JFL.

just fucking lol if you geniunley think im an IT inflintator just because i dont feel like to replying to your cucked moralfagging ass

You're replying to me right now.

Nope, just incarcerate anyone who does sex without having a sex license or to someone lacking a sex license.
Criteria for handing out a sex license can be something other than age, like "score >95% on 500 multiple-choice questions"

This is a joke, right? You want the government to hand out sex licenses? As if incels aren't discriminated enough against?

Xeryes you are aware that the term "minor" includes anyone under the 18 (age of majority) including 17 year old girls.

You do not think it is normal for a man to be aroused by a 17 year old girl?

How is that egalitarian?

How is that EQUITY ?

Why the fuck does it matter what you're aroused by?

So basically "17 shouldn't be subjected" in states with AOC of 18
and "17 and 16 should, but not 15" in states where AOC is 15?

aka "I'm a cuck defining my circumstantial morality over government regulations"

Why are you, like I asked previously, hung up on the specifics of the AOC? It's clear who @xeryes29 is referring to when he says "kids", the pedantry is wholly unnecessary

 

[Wizard32]

it's not

That's a separate discussion we can have PPE but I think you are at least acknowledging we have a consensus that there are more multi-faceted options than just "A not B" or "B not A"

if you are a reasonable person, putting your dick in an 8-year-old is rape by any definition, whether it's a more restrictive or expansive one

If you are a reasonable person you can still talk about different conceptions we have of rape and which one you think this falls under.

For example we have terms like "rape by deception" or "rape by coercion" and so forth.

They don't belong in boot camp at all, and not because they can't deadlift 200lbs.
They can't understand and consider the seriousness of enlisting in a military and the liberties one willingly gives up when they sign that contract.

So how can you be sure that adult applicants DO understand the seriousness?
How do you evaluate them?

It seems like whatever means you use to establish that, you could use that to exclude the preteen military applicants to.

The less prepared they are, the faster you could rule them out with basic assessments.

 

[Detro]

Foids should be married by mid-20's
Adulterers (males having sex with a woman who is married to someone else, or being an unfaithful female) need to be stoned to death.
The only sex outside of marriage that should be happening is between men and prostitutes.


The fact people are arguing about who should be allowed to have sex with who is evidence of why western civilization will fall. It's self evident what God intended. Even if you're an atheist it's obvious which reproductive mode is beneficial for civilization and humanity as a whole.

 

[PPEcel]

How is a middle schooler a child? Please explain why.

Little to no emotional, physical, and sexual development. Do you not know what a child is? Do you need a dictionary?

 

[Numb]

I disagree but I will read more posts to give a final opinion

 

[Wizard32]

This is a joke, right? You want the government to hand out sex licenses? As if incels aren't discriminated enough against?

You were just saying "we can't have sex anyway so it doesn't matter" though.

Also if we were unfairly discriminated against we could sue and get massive bux for settlement.

Why the fuck does it matter what you're aroused by?

You should direct that question to @xeryes29 because they brought up "X is normal".
So since he wants to talk about normalcy, I am declareing that yes, attraction to SOME minors (ie 17 year old girl) is 100% normal and the vast majority of heterosexual men following standard biological urges feel that way.

Obviously less so if you subtract a decade and we're talking about a 7 year old minor, but then obviously you need to provide more context than 'minor'.

Basically saying 'minor' is just this cowardly BS because people don't want to risk being specific by going lower and getting flamed for going too low.

Why are you, like I asked previously, hung up on the specifics of the AOC?

You should direct that to @xeryes29 since he's the one who brought up "a child in books is under the age of consent of your state which is 18 or 16"

I'm not going to check state fucking law before I decide whether or not to be guilty about having a sex fantasy about some HS girl.

Conversely if AOC were suddenly dropped to 0 tomorrow I wouldn't suddenly feel like it's okay to fuck some 1 year old toddler.

I basically talk about this when idiots bring it up like we should derive our morals from law, the primary causality we should have is that philosophy is meant to inform policy. not vice versa.

Little to no emotional, physical, and sexual development

"little to no" is vague as fuck, it lacks particulars about what milestones you mean
basically a weasel-phrase to avoid thorough elaborations
I felt pretty emotionally developed at the time TBH and my view on that hasn't changed looking back.
Also I'm thinking cognitive/perceptive/fact-storage development is more important.

 

[Deleted member 34972]

Little to no emotional, physical, and sexual development. Do you not know what a child is? Do you need a dictionary?

Child = prepubescent. When do foids hit puberty? 10yo, with some hitting it younger. Impossible for a 12-13yo foid to be a child, how does it feel that even people with down syndrome are smarter than you?

 

[JosefMengelecel]

If you turned down someone just for 18, you're a volcel. JFL.

Why would I want to betabuxx some used up loose hole? Also I would get cucked anyways if I did. If you call that volcel then you have no right to complain about people being attracted lolis since technically you would be volcel for not wanting to fuck one according to your definition of “volcel”

 

[PPEcel]

So how can you be sure that adult applicants DO understand the seriousness?
How do you evaluate them?

The less prepared they are, the faster you could rule them out with basic assessments.

We can't, but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable for the law to make the assumption that adults do and minors don't.

Same reason why adults are generally allowed to file a lawsuit, and minors are not. Your absurd suggestion would entail everyone submitting a literacy test alongside every single claim.

There is absolutely no logical reason why a 13-year-old should even be permitted to enlist in a military as opposed to staying in full-time education.

That's a separate discussion we can have PPE but I think you are at least acknowledging we have a consensus that there are more multi-faceted options than just "A not B" or "B not A"

no

If you are a reasonable person you can still talk about different conceptions we have of rape and which one you think this falls under.

For example, we have terms like "rape by deception" or "rape by coercion" and so forth.

I don't disagree, but what's the point of derailing the discussion? I originally said: "There is no reason to get hung up on the AOC unless you in fact want to rape little kids and not face any legal repercussions for it," to which you erroneously disagreed because rapists would still be punished. My point was that having sex with kids is automatically rape. There is no need for any further discussion on this point since no matter what "conception" of rape a reasonable person would adopt, having sex with kids is rape.

 

[Wizard32]

Child = prepubescent.

we're never really going to get anywhere just debating back and forth over whether "under age of majority" or "under age of puberty" is the meaning of this five-letter word

if we take the etymology route for some insight then it actually meant newborn/baby/fetus

cild - Wiktionary

en.wiktionary.org

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/kelþaz - Wiktionary

en.wiktionary.org

going even further I think it meant "to ball up"

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/gel- - Wiktionary

en.wiktionary.org

which makes sense for primarily meaning "fetus" since feti ball up in the foetal position in the womb

so the history of Indo-Euro > Germanic > OE > modern English is basically we had a term referring to fetuses and a bunch of angry roasties started calling their younger rivals fetuses as a means of shaming the men who wanted to fuck them

This is literally what has happened

We can't, but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable for the law to make the assumption that adults do and minors don't.

It's definitely unreasonable to take a "18 year olds understand war perfectly 17 year olds can't understand" kind of stance.

if you don't want to test every capacity on the spot using progressive weedout then you can do some kind of prereq achievement system, like make a driver's license and passing your HS literacy exam in 10th grade a prereq before one can apply to be a soldier, for example.

If some 9th grader wants to take the literacy exam early because soldiering is super-important then let them.
If a bunch are passing and this bothers you then make harder questions.

There is absolutely no logical reason why a 13-year-old should even be permitted to enlist in a military as opposed to staying in full-time education.

The logical reason is in providing equal opportunity on a merit-based system.
If you think the majority lack the merits to be a soldier then you just test the merits directly and the majority will be excluded so long as you test competently.
Resorting to age is basically admitting "we're incompetent and our tests are shit"

no

What do you think is illegitimate about the idea that you can have the third stance "pubescent and post-pubescent girls are both attractive" in addition to "only pubescent girls are attractive" vs "only post-pubescent girls are attractive" ?

I don't disagree, but what's the point of derailing the discussion?

It doesn't seem like a derailment to me. If you have clearly defined the different types of rape and you clearly legitimately understand a situation to be rape, then you should be able to explain the rape type and the rationale, not just appeal to common sense.

For example this is pretty easy to do for guys sticking their dicks into newborn babies for various reasons:
1) even the most pathetic micropenis is going to be oversized so this is going to be inherently harmful and bloody
2) there is not only a language barrier but this is a prelinguistic creature who doesn't even have a language to order her thinking so there's clearly negligible conception of what is occuring

Probably different angles but those seem like the most obvious.
however the above rationale has a gradual diminishing the higher you go

I originally said: "There is no reason to get hung up on the AOC unless you in fact want to rape little kids and not face any legal repercussions for it," to which you erroneously disagreed because rapists would still be punished.

This doesn't really make it clear why you quoted my response to another poster when offering this quip, you should've quoted my response to your AOC statement instead.

My point was that having sex with kids is automatically rape.

That's not a point because kids is vague.

Say something like "sex with humans under 18 is auto-rape" or "sex with humans under 16 is auto-rape" or something along those lines otherwise you're just being evasive.

Basically you're defending a numerical system but instinctively avoiding the numbers you're defending because I think you know they're inherently arbitrary.

There is no need for any further discussion on this point since no matter what "conception" of rape a reasonable person would adopt, having sex with kids is rape.

PPEcel did you know that it is always rape to have sex with floofnoogals?

I expect you to agree with me.

Don't you dare ask me to explain what a floofnoogal is. It's whatever I need it to be in a given moment.

 

[PPEcel]

non-procreative acts being degenerate, by that logic it'd only be on the level of handjobs/blowjobs or fucking your post-menopausal wife

what makes us protest is more is due to risk-of-harm

particularly with childbirth like apparently it can break up their anus or something so they poop themselves, that's not a nice thing to do to a girl you lov

HJ/BJ are acts that further sexual interest though, in fertile mates. When someone has a sexual interest in a post-menopausal foid it simply shows that biologically they are attracted to femoids in general with particular type of appearance, even if that particular foid is no longer fertile. If a Victoria's Secret model is known as infertile for some reason, it doesn't count as degeneracy to still be sexually aroused by her.

However, being attracted to kids is necessarily "degenerate" because there is nothing about a childlike body that screams "fit for procreation".

And like I've said, "degeneracy" or "creepiness" should not be a deciding factor in public policy.

You were just saying "we can't have sex anyway so it doesn't matter" though.

I didn't say "we can't have sex anyway", I said "we can't ascend anyway". I'm not going to take a fucking multiple-choice quiz just to hire a fucking hooker, you dimwit.

Having mandated sex licenses is a civil liberties issue, plain and simple.

Also if we were unfairly discriminated against we could sue and get massive bux for settlement.

That's not how civil actions against the government works.

You should direct that question to @xeryes29 because they brought up "X is normal".
So since he wants to talk about normalcy, I am declareing that yes, attraction to SOME minors (ie 17 year old girl) is 100% normal and the vast majority of heterosexual men following standard biological urges feel that way.

Obviously less so if you subtract a decade and we're talking about a 7 year old minor, but then obviously you need to provide more context than 'minor'.

Basically saying 'minor' is just this cowardly BS because people don't want to risk being specific by going lower and getting flamed for going too low.


You should direct that to @xeryes29 since he's the one who brought up "a child in books is under the age of consent of your state which is 18 or 16"

I'm not going to check state fucking law before I decide whether or not to be guilty about having a sex fantasy about some HS girl.

Conversely if AOC were suddenly dropped to 0 tomorrow I wouldn't suddenly feel like it's okay to fuck some 1 year old toddler.

Xeryes' comment required no such level of specificity.

Child = prepubescent. When do foids hit puberty? 10yo, with some hitting it younger. Impossible for a 12-13yo foid to be a child, how does it feel that even people with down syndrome are smarter than you?

If you think the average femoid hits puberty at 10 you are delusional. 12-13 is the average age where a femoid starts to menstruate. Imagine trying to convince yourself that fucking kids is normal.

It's definitely unreasonable to take a "18 year olds understand war perfectly 17 year olds can't understand" kind of stance.

But that's not the stance I'm taking, I'm pointing out that a rigid age cutoff is the best option out of a flawed set of options and is therefore reasonable, as all of your suggestions are impractical and don't comport with contract law.

The logical reason is in providing equal opportunity on a merit-based system.
If you think the majority lack the merits to be a soldier then you just test the merits directly and the majority will be excluded so long as you test competently.
Resorting to age is basically admitting "we're incompetent and our tests are shit"

So we should have a three-year battle in the courts after every time someone has sex with a 13-year-old to determine whether she could've meaningfully consent, got it.

I think you're drawing a line between "an age cutoff is flawed" to "an age cutoff is arbitrary", even though both are very different statements.

What do you think is illegitimate about the idea that you can have the third stance "pubescent and post-pubescent girls are both attractive" in addition to "only pubescent girls are attractive" vs "only post-pubescent girls are attractive" ?

when did i say that

It doesn't seem like a derailment to me. If you have clearly defined the different types of rape and you clearly legitimately understand a situation to be rape, then you should be able to explain the rape type and the rationale, not just appeal to common sense.

For example this is pretty easy to do for guys sticking their dicks into newborn babies for various reasons:
1) even the most pathetic micropenis is going to be oversized so this is going to be inherently harmful and bloody
2) there is not only a language barrier but this is a prelinguistic creature who doesn't even have a language to order her thinking so there's clearly negligible conception of what is occuring

Probably different angles but those seem like the most obvious.
however the above rationale has a gradual diminishing the higher you go

I made the exact same point without having to describe the rape of a newborn infant, go figure.

This doesn't really make it clear why you quoted my response to another poster when offering this quip, you should've quoted my response to your AOC statement instead.

I did, please reread.

That's not a point because kids is vague.

Say something like "sex with humans under 18 is auto-rape" or "sex with humans under 16 is auto-rape" or something along those lines otherwise you're just being evasive.

Basically you're defending a numerical system but instinctively avoiding the numbers you're defending because I think you know they're inherently arbitrary.

I'm defending the premise of a numerical system, and by avoiding the numbers the discussion at hand can focus on said premise instead of your ridiculous line of questioning, which is essentially, "Why is the AOC at 16 instead of 15 years/364 days?" Your implication is that my argument is therefore arbitrary. It is not; arbitrariness involves random chance or personal whim, which the premise of my argument doesn't reply upon.

Are you trying to conclude that the AOC shouldn't exist because any rigid cutoff imposed by the law will be inherently arbitrary that would simply be illogical.

PPEcel did you know that it is always rape to have sex with floofnoogals?

I expect you to agree with me.

Don't you dare ask me to explain what a floofnoogal is. It's whatever I need it to be in a given moment.

Nice false equivalency.

 

[Mecoja]

We have 15yo incels and pedocels, no wonder people consider us a joke.

 

[TheProphetMuscle]

Elaborate on "manipulate" please.

Anything to get them to have sex. The best way is to get their trust and make them feel like they have some kind of special bond with you. Like a friend that understands the child and cares about them like nobody else. If you have that then you can get them to go places with you, make them feel guilty for not going along with the sexual behavior, trick them into taking drugs, and it’s easier to get them to keep their mouth shut

 

[Wizard32]

get their trust and make them feel like they have some kind of special bond with you. Like a friend that understands

Why is this framed as malicious?
In your standard normy relationship you also try to:

1) impart the sense your partner is understood by you by genuinely attempting to understand them​

2) impart the sense you have a bond by trying to create a bond​

Feeling understood and feeling you have a bond is a good thing so long as you legitimately have those things.
So long as someone is not trying to create a false impression I'm not seeing why it's inherently bad.
These are forces usable for good.

and cares about them like nobody else

Everyone cares about each other differently so that is always technically true.
You perhaps mean "care about them more than other people" ?
I don't think that's necessarily true. When trying to romance a girl you don't necessarily have to say shit like "I love you more than your dad loves you".
Sounds like a straw-man argument

If you have that then you can get them to go places with you, make them feel guilty for not going along with the sexual behavior, trick them into taking drugs, and it’s easier to get them to keep their mouth shut

Post-teen foids can be compelled by guilt to do sex acts and take drugs and isolate themselves from help too.

I would condemn that being done to anyone regardless of age.

The possibility of being able to abuse trust like this doesn't make earning such trust malicious.

Nor is 'manipulation' a particularly useful word, it should be relegated to literal handling of things by hands and not metaphor, I'm sure we have better terms.

We have 15yo incels and pedocels, no wonder people consider us a joke.

Cope if you think there's any reason we're considered jokes besides being subchad

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

8-14 is prime, 18 is past prime.

How is a middle schooler a child? Please explain why.

8-14 is not prime at all. 16-23 is prime

 

[Deleted member 34972]

8-14 is not prime at all. 16-23 is prime

How the fuck is that prime?

 

[Wizard32]

HJ/BJ are acts that further sexual interest though, in fertile mates.

Pair-bonding with pre-fertile mates facilitates love and procreative success once fertility arrives.

When someone has a sexual interest in a post-menopausal foid it simply shows that biologically they are attracted to femoids in general with particular type of appearance

Yes: a post-menopausal non-fertile appearance. IE you are fetishizing someone post-fertile who will never become fertile, thus the relationship does not facilitate procreation in any way.

That's simply the truth if you want to take some kind of basic "nature's laws" argument regarding degeneracy, fucking post-fertile foids doesn't generate new life forms. You're both just wasting time you could be spending nurturing the next generation who will actually continue reproduction.

If you want to take a little laxer approach of memes beyond nature's laws crap then we need to drop the 'degenerate' language because we've gone beyond that base concept.

even if that particular foid is no longer fertile. If a Victoria's Secret model is known as infertile for some reason, it doesn't count as degeneracy to still be sexually aroused by her.

By what definition of degeneracy?
What would you call degeneracy's antonym?
How would you define the parameters of this antonym?

The term "generate" as in to generate new life is why we venerate heterosexuality and other natural inclinations, right?
Fucking post-fertile foids is flying in the face of that.

If a geriatric Victoria's Secret model has enough plastic surgery to look like a fertile young woman that's not much different than a tranny altering their appearance to fool you into thinking they're fertile young women, or a tall pre-pubescent girl getting breast implants to fool you into thinking she's fertile.

However, being attracted to kids is necessarily "degenerate" because there is nothing about a childlike body that screams "fit for procreation".

Again with the 'kids', you ought to stop talking like IT and use some more technical terminology suitable to your IQ.

Prepubescent girls are 100% fit for procreation within the span of a decade whereas post-menopausal Victoria Secret models and trannies will NEVER become fit for procreation.

The attraction to the former makes infinitely more sense than the latter in terms of reproductive impulse.

You're basically saying "purchase vomit, it still pretty much resembles the fresh food it used to be ... but don't purchase a green banana because it's not ideal to eat it immediately"

And like I've said, "degeneracy" or "creepiness" should not be a deciding factor in public policy.

Cool, so we should ban anyone who whines about degeneracy from these threads.

I didn't say "we can't have sex anyway", I said "we can't ascend anyway". I'm not going to take a fucking multiple-choice quiz just to hire a fucking hooker, you dimwit.

It's not like you'd have to take it for each hooker fuck you'd just take it once, it'd be a couple hours, easy. You'd do it if you had to and it'd be a worthwhile thing to give us an extra tool to potentially jail the occasional chad who's too lazy/dumb to pass it, on the rare occasion we get evidence.

Having mandated sex licenses is a civil liberties issue, plain and simple.
That's not how civil actions against the government works.

it's already a civil liberties issue, you effectively don't have liberty to engage in interpersonal actions if you punish those who would choose to engage in interpersonal actions with you, or punish you for engaging in interpersonal acts with those of your choosing

Xeryes' comment required no such level of specificity.

So bitch at him then, not me for calling him out for it

If you think the average femoid hits puberty at 10 you are delusional. 12-13 is the average age where a femoid starts to menstruate. Imagine trying to convince yourself that fucking kids is normal.

You should have worded this comment to Draestyn as "convince yourself that fucking pre-twelves is normal".

Anyway the simple answer here is YOU ARE BOTH WRONG

Stages of Puberty: A Guide for Girls and Boys

Puberty is a time of dramatic change for girls and boys. As a parent, you’ll want to know what to expect so you can help your child through each stage of development. Read on to learn about the Tanner stages of puberty and what happens during each one. Also learn how you can support your child...

www.healthline.com

1st stage of puberty is tanner 1 (internal change, no obvious external signs signs) and begins around age 8 in girls​

2nd stage at 9-11 (tanner 2) is when breast-budding occurs with minor pubes​

3rd stage is age 12 (tanner 3) is when pubes thicken and breast-buds get bigger and hips/thighs widen​

4th stage is average age 13 in girls (tanner 4) when first period tends to occur​

period can however occur earlier, and all stages tend to occur earlier with high-BMI girls, likely indicating that low-BMI girls delay puberty due to starvation creating a lack of resources needed to feed a fetus

tanner 5 is age 15 btw and when it finishes and they're biological adults: women reach full height 1-2 years after 1st period on average

So basically Drae mistakenly thinks stage 2 (visible puberty) is when puberty starts (nope, it began a year or two prior to that) and you mistakely think stage 4 (menarche) is when puberty begins. Both are wrong.

But that's not the stance I'm taking, I'm pointing out that a rigid age cutoff is the best option out of a flawed set of options and is therefore reasonable, as all of your suggestions are impractical and don't comport with contract law.

Options will never be perfect, options are always flawed, but there is some point at which we can declare those options necessary to employ fairer opportunity.
A point at which it is practical. So how do we assess when we are at that point?

Easy feedback loop is a mixed system: do tests, have minimum age despite whether you pass or fail the test.
You let people younger take the test (but don't let them fuck if they pass it)

But you use that to inform you as to what changes should make, either:

a) make test harder so underage stop passing it (also resulting in fewer overage passing it)​

b) accept test is adequately easy and lower the age to where a % are passing it​

c) if you make it so hard not enough overage are passing it, make it easier (also resulting in more underage passing it)​

So we should have a three-year battle in the courts after every time someone has sex with a 13-year-old to determine whether she could've meaningfully consent, got it.

Nope: just a simple matter of whether they have a license or not.
The "battle" is a simple matter of grading.
Sex is more important to a lot of people than being able to drive so spending around the same amount of time to qualify for a probably LESS dangerous act is not too big a speed bump IMO

I think you're drawing a line between "an age cutoff is flawed" to "an age cutoff is arbitrary", even though both are very different statements.

You mean I'm equating them like synonyms?

How about "it is flawed because it is arbitrary"

A non-arbitrary age cutoff would need to be impartial which would require no politicking about it, instead it should be purely mathematical based on % of age group passing tests.

I get the point you don't want to waste public resources letting some illiterate pre-K girl sit down to write something like this, so you obviously make basic other requirements besides age like "hey, be literate".

You can be as oppressive as you like about this, like "must score at least 50% in 10th grade English" for example.
That would make sex illegal for a lot of niggers but that's fine.

If there are some 10 year olds able to read as well as the average 15 year old then they deserve a chance to be fairly evaluated.

when did i say that

You seem confused so I will reiterate chain of conversation preceding this so you will understand why I paraphrased you this way:

you "a fully grown adult male should, biologically speaking, be attracted to someone with the body shape of a fully grown adult femoid, and not a kid. "​

me " Seems like a false dichotomy. I personally take neither stance as my view is actually it's healthiest to have a "inclusive of both" outlook rather than a "one or the other" outlook."​

you "its not"​

me: "That's a separate discussion we can have PPE but I think you are at least acknowledging we have a consensus that there are more multi-faceted options than just "A not B" or "B not A" "​

you "no"​

me " What do you think is illegitimate about the idea that you can have the third stance "pubescent and post-pubescent girls are both attractive" in addition to "only pubescent girls are attractive" vs "only post-pubescent girls are attractive" ?"​

​

Does this clarify things for you?

I made the exact same point without having to describe the rape of a newborn infant, go figure.

You actually didn't. You're expecting other people to make your arguments on your behalf.

I did, please reread.

Beginning to suspect you're trolling, tell you what, if you adequately address the above green-text I'll spend some time digging up this conversation chain too. For now I'm gonna skip on it because your replies above were low-effort and dismissive.

I'm defending the premise of a numerical system, and by avoiding the numbers the discussion at hand can focus on said premise

I'm not understanding how you can focus on the premise of defending a numerical system by avoiding the numbers of that system.

For any number the system applies to be workable it should be defensible.

instead of your ridiculous line of questioning, which is essentially, "Why is the AOC at 16 instead of 15 years/364 days?" Your implication is that my argument is therefore arbitrary. It is not; arbitrariness involves random chance or personal whim, which the premise of my argument doesn't reply upon.

It doesn't rely on YOUR personal whim but it certain relies on the whims of those who put it in place.
If not that, then how is it chosen? A bunch of behind-the-scenes bickering which I'm sure is 100% reasonable and science-based?

Are you trying to conclude that the AOC shouldn't exist because any rigid cutoff imposed by the law will be inherently arbitrary that would simply be illogical.

I'm saying it shouldn't exist in isolation, but it could certainly exist in a dual approach.

Like you need to be a certain age to take a driver's exam in most cases, so that's a dual system. The only tweak I'd make there is if a significant enough amount of 16 year olds are passing on their first go, that's evidence you might want to lower it to 15... or if a significant amount are failing on their first go, you might want to raise it to 17.

As for what is "significant", I guess that could also be an appeal to an arbitrary % (ie why 99% and not 95% or not 90% or not 80%) but at least that's an effort to move in a less arbitrary direction.

Nice false equivalency.

I'm not sure you can fairly evaluate the equivalency considering your lack of education regarding what a floofnoogal is.

I'm just asking you not to use a term designed to describe newborn goats, because "kid" gets used too nonspecifically to have worth in conversation, it's an appeal to emotion.

You can talk specifically via age, via education, via tanner stage, just SOME measurable level that doesn't broadly get used for anything between 0 and 30

 

[TheProphetMuscle]

Why is this framed as malicious?
In your standard normy relationship you also try to:

1) impart the sense your partner is understood by you by genuinely attempting to understand them​

2) impart the sense you have a bond by trying to create a bond​

Feeling understood and feeling you have a bond is a good thing so long as you legitimately have those things.
So long as someone is not trying to create a false impression I'm not seeing why it's inherently bad.
These are forces usable for good.


Everyone cares about each other differently so that is always technically true.
You perhaps mean "care about them more than other people" ?
I don't think that's necessarily true. When trying to romance a girl you don't necessarily have to say shit like "I love you more than your dad loves you".
Sounds like a straw-man argument



Post-teen foids can be compelled by guilt to do sex acts and take drugs and isolate themselves from help too.

I would condemn that being done to anyone regardless of age.

The possibility of being able to abuse trust like this doesn't make earning such trust malicious.

Nor is 'manipulation' a particularly useful word, it should be relegated to literal handling of things by hands and not metaphor, I'm sure we have better terms.

Creating a bond normally is a good thing but when it’s not legit and to trick someone, it’s inherently bad. Pedos make children feel really cared about and understood. Often more so than the other people in their life by being very attentive and loving and charming. My main point was that children have less judgment skills and life experience so they’re easier to trick. And those are methods pedos often use to trick kids into sex

Why is this framed as malicious?
In your standard normy relationship you also try to:

1) impart the sense your partner is understood by you by genuinely attempting to understand them​

2) impart the sense you have a bond by trying to create a bond​

Feeling understood and feeling you have a bond is a good thing so long as you legitimately have those things.
So long as someone is not trying to create a false impression I'm not seeing why it's inherently bad.
These are forces usable for good.


Everyone cares about each other differently so that is always technically true.
You perhaps mean "care about them more than other people" ?
I don't think that's necessarily true. When trying to romance a girl you don't necessarily have to say shit like "I love you more than your dad loves you".
Sounds like a straw-man argument



Post-teen foids can be compelled by guilt to do sex acts and take drugs and isolate themselves from help too.

I would condemn that being done to anyone regardless of age.

The possibility of being able to abuse trust like this doesn't make earning such trust malicious.

Nor is 'manipulation' a particularly useful word, it should be relegated to literal handling of things by hands and not metaphor, I'm sure we have better terms.

Cope if you think there's any reason we're considered jokes besides being subchad

Also, manipulation is defined as to control or influence using tactics so it is a good word

 

[Transcended Trucel]

Children are easier to manipulate into getting sex from. Id say it’s immoral to have sex with someone under 15 or 16 but why the fuck would i care what happens to foids or random kids?

Bruh, you are talking about literal pedocels here. Don't take their arguments seriously enough to make elaborate responses. Most of them are edgefag teenagers anyway. The discourse on this forum will never shift to pedo's favour simply because most normal men are guided by their sexuality which automatically outrightly rejects pedophilia.

this and this all good points. idc about Kidsor others. also younger foids are probably easier to manipulate due to less experience and resources. and yeah most of the real pedocela are minority and most men wouldn't go that young even if no AOC existed.

 

[WØLF]

this and this all good points. idc about Kidsor others. also younger foids are probably easier to manipulate due to less experience and resources. and yeah most of the real pedocela are minority and most men wouldn't go that young even if no AOC existed.

Why did you quote me kek

 

[Transcended Trucel]

Why did you quote me kek

damn didn't notice jfl

 

[WØLF]

damn didn't notice jfl

Based either way

 

[Oldcelloner38]

I just wanted to say I hate the pedo cels here, they make incels look horrible

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Pedocels literally are so low IQ and lack self awareness they are like foids.

“You like 18 year olds? enjOy yOUR looSE ROastIE.”

Also if you would reject an 18y y/o virgin then you are a giga fakecel pedocunt.

 

[Notorious Inkler]

IT won't touch this

 

[NorthernWind]

24 y.o. man attracted to 11 y.o. girl = unhealthy and abnormal.
38 y.o. man attracted to 18 y.o. girl = based and should be encouraged everywhere.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I'll keep this as short as I can because I have a bad habit of being rather circumlocutory.

Obviously, this does not cover those users who express such desires purely in jest.

Pedonormativity

One of the more fascinating aspects of the pedocels on the forum is their -- well, I'll call it "pedonormativity". A very small but loud minority of individuals on this forum are attracted to and desire to have sex with children; which is fucked up, but it's not my place or that of anyone else to police their sexual fantasies, so long as they remain just that.

But the wannabe kiddie-fuckers go as far as to insist that their paedophilia is normatively desirable, suggesting that their deviancy is somehow morally upright for reasons that are best summed up as, well, "hurr durr young prime preteen virgin cunt". In the process, they imply if not outright suggest that if you are a 20-year-old male who is sexually attracted to 20-year-old femoids -- a perfectly natural and healthy train of thought -- you are somehow "less based" than they are because you are "cucked" enough to settle for "washed up loose roast beef flaps". It's hyperbolic to such a degree you'd expect the typical 25-year-old femoid to walk around with canes and hearing aids.

This I don't understand.

On the age of consent

The AOC should not materially affect actual incels in any way, even tangentially. There, I said it. Let's face it, do you idiots really think that you are going to "ascend" with a 13-year-old? That you will somehow be attractive to her? That you will be any less of an incel should the AOC be lowered to 14 or 12 or 9?

There is no reason to get hung up on the AOC unless you in fact want to rape little kids and not face any legal repercussions for it (barring any reasonable discussion on the proportionality and fairness of modern criminal justice systems). I don't understand why some think it's an issue worth talking about.

The politics of creepiness

The AOC brings me to another point; which is the claim advanced by the pedocels that paedophilia is outlawed because and only because normalfags consider it "creepy". It certainly does not help that the amateurs on CuckTears follow that line of argument. I will agree that "X is creepy" is a flawed justification for a state to proscribe X. As disgusting as raping a child is, there is no inherent wisdom in grounding law and jurisprudence in what are essentially visceral, emotional reactions.

What the Redditcucks should've brought up is John Stuart Mill's harm principle. From there you can arrive at the conclusion that 1) the state has a compelling governmental interest in protecting minors, and 2) normatively justifiable for the state to impose a minimum AOC in doing so. Some normies would ask, "At what age can individuals meaningfully consent?", but considering the degree to which the criminal justice system is interwined to this question, I prefer to ask this question instead:

In determining the AOC;

Wrong question: "At what point does an age disparity between sexual partners get creepy, justifying the intervention of the criminal justice system?"

Right question: "At what point does an age disparity between sexual partners become harmful to the degree that the state's compelling governmental interest in protecting minors outweigh any potential individual liberty interest, justifying the intervention of the criminal justice system?"

To be honest, I don't know where exactly the AOC should be -- all I do know is that an AOC should exist, for the same reason that there should be a minimum age for voting, smoking, driving, enlisting in the military, or running for public office.

It is not "agecuckery" to agree to an argument as basic as this one, and if you think that this somehow contradicts the tenets of the blackpill, you need to consider whether you're letting your sexual desires override your philosophical judgments.

I think the people who are against you on this point are just memeing and shitposting

 

[PPEcel]

24 y.o. man attracted to 11 y.o. girl = unhealthy and abnormal.
38 y.o. man attracted to 18 y.o. girl = based and should be encouraged everywhere.

Are you trying to make a point or

 

[Deleted member 31122]

High IQ

 

[ldar_ricecel]

I just wanted to say I hate the pedo cels here, they make incels look horrible

Pedocels literally are so low IQ and lack self awareness they are like foids.

“You like 18 year olds? enjOy yOUR looSE ROastIE.”

Also if you would reject an 18y y/o virgin then you are a giga fakecel pedocunt.

High IQ

 

[PPEcel]

Pair-bonding with pre-fertile mates facilitates love and procreative success once fertility arrives.



Yes: a post-menopausal non-fertile appearance. IE you are fetishizing someone post-fertile who will never become fertile, thus the relationship does not facilitate procreation in any way.

That's simply the truth if you want to take some kind of basic "nature's laws" argument regarding degeneracy, fucking post-fertile foids doesn't generate new life forms. You're both just wasting time you could be spending nurturing the next generation who will actually continue reproduction.

If you want to take a little laxer approach of memes beyond nature's laws crap then we need to drop the 'degenerate' language because we've gone beyond that base concept.


By what definition of degeneracy?
What would you call degeneracy's antonym?
How would you define the parameters of this antonym?

The term "generate" as in to generate new life is why we venerate heterosexuality and other natural inclinations, right?
Fucking post-fertile foids is flying in the face of that.

If a geriatric Victoria's Secret model has enough plastic surgery to look like a fertile young woman that's not much different than a tranny altering their appearance to fool you into thinking they're fertile young women, or a tall pre-pubescent girl getting breast implants to fool you into thinking she's fertile.



Again with the 'kids', you ought to stop talking like IT and use some more technical terminology suitable to your IQ.

Prepubescent girls are 100% fit for procreation within the span of a decade whereas post-menopausal Victoria Secret models and trannies will NEVER become fit for procreation.

The attraction to the former makes infinitely more sense than the latter in terms of reproductive impulse.

You're basically saying "purchase vomit, it still pretty much resembles the fresh food it used to be ... but don't purchase a green banana because it's not ideal to eat it immediately"


Cool, so we should ban anyone who whines about degeneracy from these threads.


It's not like you'd have to take it for each hooker fuck you'd just take it once, it'd be a couple hours, easy. You'd do it if you had to and it'd be a worthwhile thing to give us an extra tool to potentially jail the occasional chad who's too lazy/dumb to pass it, on the rare occasion we get evidence.


it's already a civil liberties issue, you effectively don't have liberty to engage in interpersonal actions if you punish those who would choose to engage in interpersonal actions with you, or punish you for engaging in interpersonal acts with those of your choosing



So bitch at him then, not me for calling him out for it



You should have worded this comment to Draestyn as "convince yourself that fucking pre-twelves is normal".

Anyway the simple answer here is YOU ARE BOTH WRONG

Stages of Puberty: A Guide for Girls and Boys

Puberty is a time of dramatic change for girls and boys. As a parent, you’ll want to know what to expect so you can help your child through each stage of development. Read on to learn about the Tanner stages of puberty and what happens during each one. Also learn how you can support your child...

www.healthline.com

1st stage of puberty is tanner 1 (internal change, no obvious external signs signs) and begins around age 8 in girls​

2nd stage at 9-11 (tanner 2) is when breast-budding occurs with minor pubes​

3rd stage is age 12 (tanner 3) is when pubes thicken and breast-buds get bigger and hips/thighs widen​

4th stage is average age 13 in girls (tanner 4) when first period tends to occur​

period can however occur earlier, and all stages tend to occur earlier with high-BMI girls, likely indicating that low-BMI girls delay puberty due to starvation creating a lack of resources needed to feed a fetus

tanner 5 is age 15 btw and when it finishes and they're biological adults: women reach full height 1-2 years after 1st period on average

So basically Drae mistakenly thinks stage 2 (visible puberty) is when puberty starts (nope, it began a year or two prior to that) and you mistakely think stage 4 (menarche) is when puberty begins. Both are wrong.



Options will never be perfect, options are always flawed, but there is some point at which we can declare those options necessary to employ fairer opportunity.
A point at which it is practical. So how do we assess when we are at that point?

Easy feedback loop is a mixed system: do tests, have minimum age despite whether you pass or fail the test.
You let people younger take the test (but don't let them fuck if they pass it)

But you use that to inform you as to what changes should make, either:

a) make test harder so underage stop passing it (also resulting in fewer overage passing it)​

b) accept test is adequately easy and lower the age to where a % are passing it​

c) if you make it so hard not enough overage are passing it, make it easier (also resulting in more underage passing it)​

Nope: just a simple matter of whether they have a license or not.
The "battle" is a simple matter of grading.
Sex is more important to a lot of people than being able to drive so spending around the same amount of time to qualify for a probably LESS dangerous act is not too big a speed bump IMO



You mean I'm equating them like synonyms?

How about "it is flawed because it is arbitrary"

A non-arbitrary age cutoff would need to be impartial which would require no politicking about it, instead it should be purely mathematical based on % of age group passing tests.

I get the point you don't want to waste public resources letting some illiterate pre-K girl sit down to write something like this, so you obviously make basic other requirements besides age like "hey, be literate".

You can be as oppressive as you like about this, like "must score at least 50% in 10th grade English" for example.
That would make sex illegal for a lot of niggers but that's fine.

If there are some 10 year olds able to read as well as the average 15 year old then they deserve a chance to be fairly evaluated.


You seem confused so I will reiterate chain of conversation preceding this so you will understand why I paraphrased you this way:

you "a fully grown adult male should, biologically speaking, be attracted to someone with the body shape of a fully grown adult femoid, and not a kid. "​

me " Seems like a false dichotomy. I personally take neither stance as my view is actually it's healthiest to have a "inclusive of both" outlook rather than a "one or the other" outlook."​

you "its not"​

me: "That's a separate discussion we can have PPE but I think you are at least acknowledging we have a consensus that there are more multi-faceted options than just "A not B" or "B not A" "​

you "no"​

me " What do you think is illegitimate about the idea that you can have the third stance "pubescent and post-pubescent girls are both attractive" in addition to "only pubescent girls are attractive" vs "only post-pubescent girls are attractive" ?"​

​

Does this clarify things for you?



You actually didn't. You're expecting other people to make your arguments on your behalf.


Beginning to suspect you're trolling, tell you what, if you adequately address the above green-text I'll spend some time digging up this conversation chain too. For now I'm gonna skip on it because your replies above were low-effort and dismissive.


I'm not understanding how you can focus on the premise of defending a numerical system by avoiding the numbers of that system.

For any number the system applies to be workable it should be defensible.


It doesn't rely on YOUR personal whim but it certain relies on the whims of those who put it in place.
If not that, then how is it chosen? A bunch of behind-the-scenes bickering which I'm sure is 100% reasonable and science-based?


I'm saying it shouldn't exist in isolation, but it could certainly exist in a dual approach.

Like you need to be a certain age to take a driver's exam in most cases, so that's a dual system. The only tweak I'd make there is if a significant enough amount of 16 year olds are passing on their first go, that's evidence you might want to lower it to 15... or if a significant amount are failing on their first go, you might want to raise it to 17.

As for what is "significant", I guess that could also be an appeal to an arbitrary % (ie why 99% and not 95% or not 90% or not 80%) but at least that's an effort to move in a less arbitrary direction.



I'm not sure you can fairly evaluate the equivalency considering your lack of education regarding what a floofnoogal is.

I'm just asking you not to use a term designed to describe newborn goats, because "kid" gets used too nonspecifically to have worth in conversation, it's an appeal to emotion.

You can talk specifically via age, via education, via tanner stage, just SOME measurable level that doesn't broadly get used for anything between 0 and 30

View attachment 464332

Not in order because I'm on mobile and cba to format this tidily. Just figure out what I'm addressing.

"Kid" is not vague and ambiguous at all.

No reason to "ban" anymore for pointing out what "degeneracy" is, there's no reason to ban anyone for merely having an opposing view.

Just because a test is flawed does not mean it is unreasonable.

OK you've made the point that one can be attracted to pre- and post-pubescent individuals, though I'm not sure how important that point is.

The reason to avoid the numbers and discuss the premise of said system is so the argument can focus on the premise instead of said numbers, despite your failed attempts at derailing the conversation; by following the positions stated in the OP it is easily defensible.

The military already has a "dual approach" -- if that's what you call the imposition of a competency evaluation and a rigid age cutoff, though you have made no argument suggesting that the existence of the former makes the latter unreasonable.

The civil liberties issue surrounding the issuance of "sex licenses" -- a licensing system means the law would have a presumption of illegality. By doing so it empowers the state to intervene where the state has no compelling interest nor moral justification to do so, which is not the case with minors.

You keep asking me to provide a specific age cutoff when I've already pointed out the argument is about whether the AOC should exist and not where the AOC should be. I'm not taking the bait, if you want to engage in the latter discussion you can write your own thread.

 

[NorthernWind]

Are you trying to make a point or

Older men attracted to younger women is natural, unless its children.

 

[DeepSea]

if you are a reasonable person, putting your dick in an 8-year-old is rape by any definition, whether it's a more restrictive or expansive one

Any reasonable person should agree there is a huge difference between "true" rape and statutory rape. The latter is consensual, but illegal due to age differences. While the former is illegal regardless of the ages of the participants.

Any reasonable person should also agree that children are very good at knowing what they want and don’t want, like and don’t like. If you have ever tried to persuade a young child to eat its vegetables, you will see how capable children are of giving consent. Likewise with intimacy/sexuality: a child can make it abundantly clear, either verbally or through body language, whether or not she is comfortable with what she is doing.

I agree that coercion is harmful regardless of age. However, if the child agrees to the relationship, there is no notable harm. Show me a single study which shows that consensual sex between adults and children usually results in psychological damage. There are plenty of studies showing otherwise. (Sandfort, Kilpatrick, Rind et al (1997)., Ulrich et al., Rind, B. (2020), Daly, R (2021), etc..

To quote Dr. Bruce Rind:
"In laymen's terms, if two of one hundred persons in the general population have clinically significant problems, only three of one hundred persons having experienced child sexual abuse do—far fewer than the large majorities implied by sexual victimologists" (source)

Regarding these findings, the authors of Abnormal Psychology, which is an academic psychology textbook, had this to say:

"One criticism of the original study was that it relied on college students, who may be unrepresentative. Perhaps they were able to attend college despite CSA because they were especially resilient. However, in another study, Rind analyzed data from community samples (samples not selected on the basis of educational attainment) and got virtually identical results (Rind & Tromovitch, 1997). Some of Rind’s statistical decisions and analyses have also been criticized, but he has shown that his results do not change much when he analyzes the data the way his critics would."

Creating a bond normally is a good thing but when it’s not legit and to trick someone, it’s inherently bad. Pedos make children feel really cared about and understood. Often more so than the other people in their life by being very attentive and loving and charming. My main point was that children have less judgment skills and life experience so they’re easier to trick. And those are methods pedos often use to trick kids into sex

Pedophiles who positively prefer to be tricking and coercing children and who just want to use them for sex are just as rare as teleiophiles who have the same dark-triad tendencies.

If a child responds positively to the attention of a pedo, it is because she or he wants that love and maybe needs it. I'm not saying that every child needs or should have that - it's up to the child and their parents/caregivers. It's just one of the possible relationships that, if conducted correctly, and respectfully, should contribute to a child enjoying life and flourishing.

Also, manipulation is defined as to control or influence using tactics so it is a good word

The idea that we create a dividing line which is completely ineffective at preventing manipulation, a line which says "hey, if you're both under it, you can be manipulated into sex and it's totally legal, as well as if you're both over it, but if one of you is over and one is under, then it's suddenly a horrible crime", is bogus.

I 100% agree and i wanted to make this thread but i was too scared lol, age of consent laws are important to stop adults from taking advantage of kids

Age of Consent laws have destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of men who never harmed anyone. Spend some time thinking about it and do some research. Don't just believe feminist lies and sophistries.

 

[SlayerSlayer]

I'll keep this as short as I can because I have a bad habit of being rather circumlocutory.

Obviously, this does not cover those users who express such desires purely in jest.

Pedonormativity

One of the more fascinating aspects of the pedocels on the forum is their -- well, I'll call it "pedonormativity". A very small but loud minority of individuals on this forum are attracted to and desire to have sex with children; which is fucked up, but it's not my place or that of anyone else to police their sexual fantasies, so long as they remain just that.

But the wannabe kiddie-fuckers go as far as to insist that their paedophilia is normatively desirable, suggesting that their deviancy is somehow morally upright for reasons that are best summed up as, well, "hurr durr young prime preteen virgin cunt". In the process, they imply if not outright suggest that if you are a 20-year-old male who is sexually attracted to 20-year-old femoids -- a perfectly natural and healthy train of thought -- you are somehow "less based" than they are because you are "cucked" enough to settle for "washed up loose roast beef flaps". It's hyperbolic to such a degree you'd expect the typical 25-year-old femoid to walk around with canes and hearing aids.

This I don't understand.

On the age of consent

The AOC should not materially affect actual incels in any way, even tangentially. There, I said it. Let's face it, do you idiots really think that you are going to "ascend" with a 13-year-old? That you will somehow be attractive to her? That you will be any less of an incel should the AOC be lowered to 14 or 12 or 9?

There is no reason to get hung up on the AOC unless you in fact want to rape little kids and not face any legal repercussions for it (barring any reasonable discussion on the proportionality and fairness of modern criminal justice systems). I don't understand why some think it's an issue worth talking about.

The politics of creepiness

The AOC brings me to another point; which is the claim advanced by the pedocels that paedophilia is outlawed because and only because normalfags consider it "creepy". It certainly does not help that the amateurs on CuckTears follow that line of argument. I will agree that "X is creepy" is a flawed justification for a state to proscribe X. As disgusting as raping a child is, there is no inherent wisdom in grounding law and jurisprudence in what are essentially visceral, emotional reactions.

What the Redditcucks should've brought up is John Stuart Mill's harm principle. From there you can arrive at the conclusion that 1) the state has a compelling governmental interest in protecting minors, and 2) normatively justifiable for the state to impose a minimum AOC in doing so. Some normies would ask, "At what age can individuals meaningfully consent?", but considering the degree to which the criminal justice system is interwined to this question, I prefer to ask this question instead:

In determining the AOC;

Wrong question: "At what point does an age disparity between sexual partners get creepy, justifying the intervention of the criminal justice system?"

Right question: "At what point does an age disparity between sexual partners become harmful to the degree that the state's compelling governmental interest in protecting minors outweigh any potential individual liberty interest, justifying the intervention of the criminal justice system?"

To be honest, I don't know where exactly the AOC should be -- all I do know is that an AOC should exist, for the same reason that there should be a minimum age for voting, smoking, driving, enlisting in the military, or running for public office.

It is not "agecuckery" to agree to an argument as basic as this one, and if you think that this somehow contradicts the tenets of the blackpill, you need to consider whether you're letting your sexual desires override your philosophical judgments.

speaking of pedos, SJWs are now literally pro pre-op trannies exposing themselves to minors.

Gooks vs trannies showdown in LA | Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

https://www.asian-dawn.com/2021/07/04/trans-rights-protest-turns-violent-in-koreatown/ Almost a week ago, a video spread like wildfire, showing a woman confronting an employee at Wi Spa because a transgender man exposed his penis in the women’s section of the spa. “He is a man,” the woman...

incels.is

It's almost as though they now buy into the (pedo) argument that children should be normalized to the exposure of genitals-- that nude bodies of all types are nothing worth getting fussed over, and you might as well have that shame removed at an early age. Antifa violently believe that there is no correlation between being tranny and being a pedophile or being a pervert. They blindly deny the existence of deviant freaks like Jessica Yaniv-- and just overall the blackpilled nature that unwanted male genitals is extremely offensive to women. This is a discussion they vehemently disallow, and are are all (((powerful))) enough to shut down any opposition to it no matter how popular.

so long as you use the right lingo, it seems like any man can use the gender dysphoria loophole to invade female spaces. And at the end of the day, SJWs don't care, so long as it seems like you're on their side-- and most importantly YOU DON'T GET CAUGHT. This is where Dr. Pizza failed.

It angers the fuck out of me, that no one is entitled to shit. EXCEPT TRANNIES AND THEIR FUCKING PRONOUNS-- this is the one thing (((they))) absolutely are entitled to no matter what.

 

[BodyFat10orRope]

8 year olds are prepubescent and unattractive

18 year olds are at their peak

you see prebub as prime?

The retard sees pre puberty little girls as "prime".

Also if you would reject an 18y y/o virgin then you are a giga fakecel pedoc

Exactly. 18 year olds look very good. Actual prime physically. AOC for marriage should probably be 13-14.

 

[Witch Doctor]

Pedocels literally are so low IQ and lack self awareness they are like foids.

“You like 18 year olds? enjOy yOUR looSE ROastIE.”

Also if you would reject an 18y y/o virgin then you are a giga fakecel pedocunt.

Based

 

[Algeriancel]

Pedocels if you're attracted to children and children alone. Then you're not right in the head. those "developed foids" will obviously not even look at you. They want chad and prettyboys not some old fat fuck. So who gives a fuck about the age of consent other than someone who wants to fuck literal toddlers.

I swear some of you will probably abolish AOC and fuck babies if you could.

Sheepcel speaking facts. Who know a richfag can be so based.

 

[SuperPerfectCel]

What is the benefit of the AOC to an incel?

You cannot provide an uncucked answer. Make no mistake, it's cucked for an incel to be in any way defensive of foids. They give you nothing in return. We are not the state.

Anyway, it was a lot easier to buy a virgin foid back in the day when men could actually target them during the ages where they'd actually be virgins.

 

[Abominationcel]

 

[PPEcel]

Any reasonable person should agree there is a huge difference between "true" rape and statutory rape. The latter is consensual, but illegal due to age differences. While the former is illegal regardless of the ages of the participants.

Any reasonable person should also agree that children are very good at knowing what they want and don’t want, like and don’t like. If you have ever tried to persuade a young child to eat its vegetables, you will see how capable children are of giving consent. Likewise with intimacy/sexuality: a child can make it abundantly clear, either verbally or through body language, whether or not she is comfortable with what she is doing.

I agree that coercion is harmful regardless of age. However, if the child agrees to the relationship, there is no notable harm. Show me a single study which shows that consensual sex between adults and children usually results in psychological damage.

Children don't like eating vegetables, so they are capable of consenting to sexual activity? How does that even make any sense? In such a scenario the only person determining whether consent is given (through bodily/verbal cues) is the would-be rapist -- and even then, a child has no understanding of what sex is and cannot reasonably consent. The imbalance of power (both physical and in terms of access to legal, financial, community resources) and the vast difference in psychosexual development makes any instance of sex between a child and an adult rape. Below a certain age, any rape is "true" rape.

You quote studies in which individuals who suffered from CSA had an impression of the activity being "consensual" at the time of the study. That by itself exhibits a degree of selection bias rendering your argument moot. You are effectively arguing that because a small group of people who didn't think they were raped (even though they were) didn't consider themselves harmed, therefore rape in general should be legal. It is absurd.

It is reasonable for the law to make the presumption that paedophilia is harmful. There is no good mechanism for a child to indicate to a court that he has "agreed" to a relationship without any element of coercion, physical or emotional, and to remove the AOC in favour of whatever flawed alternative you would impose to examine "coercion" is irresponsible and impractical at best.

If a child responds positively to the attention of a pedo, it is because she or he wants that love and maybe needs it. I'm not saying that every child needs or should have that - it's up to the child and their parents/caregivers.

There is no instance in which a child needs sexual attention, ever. That is absurd. What you interpret as a "positive" reaction stems from a child's ignorance as to what is a sexual act is and entails.

It's just one of the possible relationships that, if conducted correctly, and respectfully, should contribute to a child enjoying life and flourishing.

What does that even mean?

What recourse does a child have to escape from a coercive sexual relationship? Can a child even tell when some course of action is considered correct and respectful? You can't base your argument on this condition and then argue that children can give consent, which they can't.

The idea that we create a dividing line which is completely ineffective at preventing manipulation, a line which says "hey, if you're both under it, you can be manipulated into sex and it's totally legal, as well as if you're both over it, but if one of you is over and one is under, then it's suddenly a horrible crime", is bogus.

I think it is an issue for two extremely young individuals to have sex, though given the ages of the participants it should not be an issue for the criminal justice system.

Even if you are correct in your contention that "oh but any particular age cutoff is arbitrary", which you aren't, it doesn't logically follow that "the AOC shouldn't exist".

Age of Consent laws have destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of men who never harmed anyone. Spend some time thinking about it and do some research. Don't just believe feminist lies and sophistries.

Like I've said, there is plenty of valid discussion to be had about fairness. proportionality, and due process with respect to the criminal justice system.

My personal view is that the state should always seek alternatives to incarceration in the case of young offenders and first-time offenders whenever possible. Also, when it comes to sex offender registries: the U.S. is the only country where such registries are public, there's no need for sex offenders to be treated as harshly as they are in the U.S., it does not make anyone safer.

But none of this negates my contention that it is normatively justifiable for the state to impose a minimum age of consent.

Regarding these findings, the authors of Abnormal Psychology, which is an academic psychology textbook, had this to say:

Psychology is a female-dominated field and psychology professionals are often far from being objective and honest. Their position of authority can serve as a vehicle to lend academic credibility to feminist propaganda. When the APA labelled traditional masculinity as psychologically harmful, most academic psychologists supported their decision. It's probably not a great idea to blindly follow the consensus in any field that is not a hard science.

You can't suggest that psychologists are unreliable and then rely on cherry-picked quotes from an academic psychology textbook to support your arguments. So academic psychology is a valid scientific field when you want it to be, but when their conclusions differ from yours, you think it's invalid. Your hypocrisy and pseudo-intellectualism can't be any more blatant.