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

[Detro]

It's far more prudent to draw a red line in the sand beforehand as opposed to having defendants take up a post-enforcement challenge in every case

It already exists. It's called having a period. If God didn't intend them to be able to reproduce at that time, then why make them able to reproduce?

 

[Deleted member 3497]

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.

18 yo female virgin = doesn't exist.

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

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

18 yo foids look past prime, physical prime = 8-14.

They want chad and prettyboys not some old fat fuck.

I'm 18 so not an oldcel and I'm a twig which is the opposite of a fat fuck, nice stereotyping.

 

[Detro]

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.

You're delusional. This is how all human societies worked for hundreds of thousands of years.
You're far better off saying because the need for soldiers and war has become practically non-existent we have the luxury to put filters on our warriors, not that "13-year olds shouldn't be permitted to fight". I guarantee you there's countless 13 year olds who were more of a man than any of us in human history.

 

[PPEcel]

You're delusional. This is how all human societies worked for hundreds of thousands of years.
You're far better off saying because the need for soldiers and war has become practically non-existent we have the luxury to put filters on our warriors, not that "13-year olds shouldn't be permitted to fight". I guarantee you there's countless 13 year olds who were more of a man than any of us in human history.

For hundreds of thousands of years we didn't have:

- indoor plumbing
- paved roads
- air conditioning
- the internet
- microwave ovens

Does this mean we should live in mud huts, shit on the ground like pajeets, and communicate to each other by engraving stone tablets? Because we've been doing that for thousands of years?

This appeal to tradition is pointless. We know better.

 

[Detro]

For hundreds of thousands of years we didn't have:

- indoor plumbing
- paved roads
- air conditioning
- the internet
- microwave ovens

Does this mean we should live in mud huts, shit on the ground like pajeets, and communicate to each other by engraving stone tablets? Because we've been doing that for thousands of years?

This appeal to tradition is pointless. We know better.

False equivalency.
Technology is just a tool to make our lives easier. It has little to do with social constructs and culture which are entirely arbitrary. Humans have been mentally the same for a hundred thousand years.
We shouldn't be making laws for the sake of outliers who are too retarded to comprehend sex at 17 years old.
If you wanted to be "scientific" about it you wouldn't be supporting the current age of consent regardless of your position anyways, because there's no developmental milestone at 18. You'd be championing putting it at 25+ if you felt the biological/physical markers were too young.

 

[DeepSea]

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.

They won't have a relationship in which both parties are equal. But I don't see this as a problem since I don't believe in equality. Normal relationships (i.e. how nature intends) are not equal either. Heterosexual relationships can never be equal since men and women are not equal. Until modern times, all relationships were very unequal, and the male was expected to dominate, and hold power over, the female. The only way to enforce equality in a relationship is to have a homosexual one or go even into transgender lunacy. Sow a penis onto a girl and give a boy hormone treatment to grow breasts, that way the boy and girl will look more equal.

In fact, this belief in "enforced equality" is the very reason why society and academia are so pro-transgender nowadays, and why they even seem to think it is OK to force young children to undergo a painful and life altering transgender operation yet seem to think that child-adult sex, which is not usually life-altering, is a heinous crime. Hypocrites.

As for power imbalance, I also think a power imbalance is perfectly fine. Not only fine, but very good and healthy in a relationship. We know that females tend to be hypergamous, so a power imbalance is very natural and healthy. Perhaps "enforced equality" is why women these days are less happy than they were in the 1950s when they had fewer rights. Typically, in a relationship with a power imbalance both sides get something very positive, the younger party gets someone with maturity and experience who can teach them and guide them, whereas the older party gets a virgin with youthful energy, and fertility. Power imbalance is good.

In my morality, there is no requirement to have this mysterious "understanding of what sex is" (an ill-defined, unsubstantiated concept). And besides, how will one ever have the experience if you never have sex? To become experienced in sex, one must engage in it. The sooner you engage in it, the sooner you become experienced.

Below a certain age, any rape is "true" rape.

That's the feminist definition of rape. Real rape is the penetration of the vagina or anus by force and without consent by a penis.

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

Whether or not the laws can be argued to be fair and technically sound is not relevant to whether they are normatively justifiable.

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.

I, for one, regret not having had a sexual relationship with a foid when I was a child. Many cases of consenting relationships—often destroyed by the feminist police state—are documented on this website.

What recourse does a child have to escape from a coercive sexual relationship?

Rape is still rape, use of coercion or force should be illegal regardless of the age of the participants. I'm sure if adult-child sex were ever legalized the standards for what qualifies as coercion would be sufficiently rigorous.

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.

Have you tried to get a child to do something when they don't want to? Children are often very forceful with their opinions and hard to convince to do things. When children are taught to blindly obey strangers, that is a failing of the parents, and not the fault or responsibility of society. Do you think it is wrong for an adult to manipulate a kid in order to get the kid to do something non-sexual, or is it only wrong when sex comes into the equation?

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.

All of these studies rely on the official APA definition of CSA, use representative samples of the general population, and do not only include cases where children were consenting. Rind's meta-analysis found that people who were sexually abused as children are usually fine when they grow up. Regardless of whether the "abuse" was consensual or not, they do not differ significantly from non-abused individuals in objective measures of adult social/psychological adjustment. CSA accounted for only 1% of the variance in psychological outcomes, ergo the claim that sex causes psychological damage to children is demonstrably false.

Also see: https://incels.wiki/w/Antifragility#Resilience_and_robustness

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.

Psychology is a legitimate field, but there is reason to be suspicious of the CSA industry, which has much control over the agenda and government policy, especially in the US and UK, and the funding of research. Studies that question the orthodoxy have been politically censored and condemned and are not funded either.

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

Creating a bond normally is a good thing but when it’s not legit and to trick someone, it’s inherently bad

I would call that a fauxbond or pseudobond then if it's not a legit bond.
Tricking people is obviously bad, but what kind of trickery are you talking about exactly?

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.

Leading up to what bad end?
The most obvious bad end I can see is "but then they dump them when puberty starts because they're grossed out"
Which is obviously the major problem with pedophilia because you'd be dumping people when they're still vulnerable to rejection (adolescence)
This could be a greater letdown than getting dumped by some classmate you had a shallow/superficial relationship because you wouldn't value it as much.

That said: what if instead of doing a lovey-dating bond if pedophiles just superficially said from the outset a brutal "I want to lick your cunt but once it grows hair I'm moving on to the next girl!" ?
In that case I'm thinking them dumping a prepubescent once they become midpubescent would be about equivalent to getting dumped by some classmate.

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

TPM, am really trying to lead by example here: 'pedos' actually means 'children' you can't just drop the 'phile', and 'kids' should be replaced with something more specific like prepubescents, or maybe we could shorten that to prepubies, dunno

Pedophiles and non-pedophiles can both use trickery to convince a prepubescent to give their consent to sex, it's a wider problem than pedophilia.

Would I be right to think your argument is basically "risk of harm" rather than "inherent harm" ?

I would think using a licensing system you would test to see people's knowledge of usual trickery so they're prepared to spot it, so only people who are trick-resistant as we expect adults to be would be acceptable partners.

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

manipulation = skillful use of hands
pedipulation = skillful use of feet

Better terms I think would be: steer / direct / orchestrate / influence

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

Joined Jun 27, 2021

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.

Your example quote is usually an example of an exaggerated joke.

Also the fact that they're talking about a loose roastie tells you they're not referring to the tenth of the female population who are still vaginal virgins at 18

IT won't touch this

it'll touch my replies

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.

1st is healthy and normal, but...
it's also normal to suppress what you want due to taboos, even healthy things
it's also normal to hate suppressing healthy things (being a pathetic little piddy) and to actually suppress your awareness of that suppression
ie it's normal to internalize your suppressed wants and pretend it was your idea all along like a little cuck

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

Nope

"Kid" is not vague and ambiguous at all.

You're disagreeing but not actually making an argument.

Ambiguity can itself be a subjective subject, so you should entertain the idea that what seems to have clear meaning to you does not have clear meaning to others.

I for example see 40 year olds say "20 year olds are just kids" while in HS they call elementary-schoolers kids, and in elementary school you have them referring to lower grades as kids.

It's always relativistic usage having no absolute meaning.

"Prepubescents" or "Preadolescents" however is very clear, they have only one meaning or usage. So if that's what you mean you ought to use that.

PreAdolecents could I guess be abbreviated to PAs if you don't want to type the whole thing out each time: that's a character shorter than writing "kids".

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

It's basically spam when misapplied.
If there's disagreement on how to apply it then we should explore the basis for how we diagnose degeneracy and be consistent in how we apply it.

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

It would be unreasonable to stick to a flawed system when you can get more accurate results from a hybrid system

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.

I don't really know how to weigh the importance, I usually just analyze statements and what they might convey about underlying thinking and attempt to point it out.
Could just be grammar-nazi nitpick BS to make myself feel cool tbh

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.

Would you still feel compelled to avoid the premise of numbers and focus on the system if the age of consent was 50 ?
I guess I'm confused at why effort to split them.

What I think should be acknowledged is no matter what you pick there's going to be some older morons and younger geniuses not best served by it - therefore deriving our moral outlook from whatever a local guideline is (changing throughout the world) is essentially pure cuck.

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.

Driving/military are basically examples of a still imperfect yet better system than AOC, yes.

The former doesn't make the latter unreasonable but the results of the former should be used as a tool to adjust the latter depending on success rates.

ie if >99% of 18 year old military applicants are passing then you should consider lowering recruitment age to 17 and seeing how that group does
if <50% of 18 year old military applicants are passing then you should consider raising recruitment age to 19 and seeing if that improves your pass rate

The civil liberties issue surrounding the issuance of "sex licenses" -- a licensing system means the law would have a presumption of illegality

It already does, you're basically just giving unpublished sex licenses out to de-illegalize it once you reach AOC

By doing so it em[UWSL]powers the state to intervene where the state has no compelling interest nor moral justification to do so, which is not the case with minors.[/UWSL]

There is always a moral justification and compelling interest to intervene to protect people from risky behavior (as erotic acts sometimes are) in the case of vulnerable groups, which is not limited to minors. We already recognize this on some level and protect some adults from this, like certain tards, though you also have stupid shit like tard-on-tard pregnancy despite them having preschooler brains because muh freedoms, but few care since they're uncute uglies.

[UWSL]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. [/UWSL]

You're speaking as if you only brought up AOCs as a broad issue but not particular AOCs but that's not how I read the OP, I'll recap:

The AOC should not materially affect actual incels in any way"
In determining the AOC;
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,

So I get by that last sentence you think you're being non-specific, but you're still clinging to the idea that there's a fixed point where we can make absolute determinations rather than just a cost/benefit analysis for averaged outputs.

AOC would definitely affect incels in places where it's high. It's 21 in Bahrain and 20 in South Korea, for example.
Natives aside (not sure many of them post here on this English forum) that's obviously going to limit who can participate in the escort population (whether or not prostitution is legal) and also your ability to JBW and do sex tourism with girls who want to marry you and move back to North America.

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

Useless post because doesn't specify what you mean by children: before which tanner stage do you consider people to be children?

We should really be saying "preT1" to "preT5" to actually be particular in this discussion.

 

[PPEcel]

False equivalency.
Technology is just a tool to make our lives easier. It has little to do with social constructs and culture which are entirely arbitrary. Humans have been mentally the same for a hundred thousand years.
We shouldn't be making laws for the sake of outliers who are too retarded to comprehend sex at 17 years old.
If you wanted to be "scientific" about it you wouldn't be supporting the current age of consent regardless of your position anyways, because there's no developmental milestone at 18. You'd be championing putting it at 25+ if you felt the biological/physical markers were too young.

Social constructs and culture have indeed greatly evolved over time. We now have nation-states in place of tribes. We fight wars with satellites and sensors instead of sticks and stones -- point being that the educational requirements of effectively contributing to society in the 21st century is much than it was in previous eras. Like I said, no reason to let 13-year-olds join the military.

I have not once said in this thread that the AOC should be exactly 18. Your argument is an incoherent straw man.

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

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.

You don't even need to be that high-IQ, even a based-for-a-leftist negress like Whoopi understood that instinctively when she talked about Roman Polanski

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.

OTOH one could make the argument that persisting to deny vegetables shows too much reliance on 'feel good' seeking over 'good for long term health' when making choices.

Some guy could have genital warts he'd transmit to a toddler and might convince her "they're magic because I'm a frog prince" or some crap to rationalize why she should lick his dick, and now she has herpes for life.

So while I agree with you they can usually emphatically refuse things which feel bad, we should also be taking into account that there's more than this capacity which is important, but also knowledge of the potential bad ends that can result from certain activities.

IE why even if a preteen enthusiastically consented to drive a school bus and maybe they won't crash it, the risk is on average going to be very high that they will crash it, so I'd definitely want to be super-sure they've proven responsibility with a good licensing system.

I agree that coercion is harmful regardless of age. However, if the child agrees to the relationship, there is no notable harm.

Eh... not sure the best counter to 1-way generalization is to generalize in the opposite direction.
We could def see notable harm in some agreed-to relationships, though that is also true of adults.
Most often that'd be due to toxic abusive people and having a lack of support network to go to for help.

One thing inherently unhealthy about underage relationships IMO (and why I would never engage in one even though I don't view them as inherently harmful) is that in the context of illegality there is an atmosphere of secrecy which isolates abused partners from receiving input that could help them recognize abuse.

For example if 13 yo girl is dating 13 yo guy, she can talk to her friends about her BF and if he's exhibiting abusive behaviors, she might be helped in recognizing that by input from her friends.

If however she's dating 23 yo guy then she might hide it from her friends to protect him (a jealous friend might report him to police) which isolates her from potentially helpful input from her friends that cuold help her recognize and address an abusive relationship with the older BF.

Of course if it was considered acceptable for them to date then she could discuss the 23yo BF with frieds and get their opinions to possibly wake her up to any exploitive/controlling/etc stuff he would be doing by giving a frame of reference to their own experience/relationship.

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..

'usually' sounds like >50% and we probably want to be a bit more pragmatic than that in harm minimization

The abstract of the 2021 Daily study doesn't really go into enough particulars...

• sexual orientation (e.g., SCL 90-R) and perceived consent of the sexual experience (e.g., SCL 90-R and FACES-II) were the only variables that significantly impacted outcomes scores
• participants in the CSA group were significantly more likely to report being victimized in their first sexual experiences

Like what does 'significantly' mean in both these cases? Do you have access to the full copy to get some actual numbers here?

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)

going from 2% to 3% is basically a 50% average increase, still seems worth looking into, even if it's not as significant as alarmists let on

That said, I'm curious about what their CSA parameters are, because maybe we'd see higher than >50% if you limited it to preadolescent CSA and less than 50% if you limited it to adolescent CSA

there's definitely too much focus when we compare this to other stuff, like for example...

Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents

The relationship of elevated depression risk recently discovered among adult persons raised by same-sex parents with possible precipitating conditions in childhood has not previously been acknowledged. This study tests whether such inattention is supportable. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

At age 28, the adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression (CES-D: risk ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.4–4.6) as persons raised by man-woman parents.​

That's >100% increase, over TWICE the risk of problems if you're raised by same-sex parents than if you have a sexual experience as a minor.

You could of course argue some of that is circumstantial (ie social discrimination against your household rather than inherent problems of your household) but you could say the same of the 50% increase in Rind's.

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."

The college-only criticism is a pretty good one so I'm glad he did community samples including HS dropouts and stuff...

Though I am curious where he took this 2nd sample from, do you know?

Another factor we should take into account is a possible reduction due to suicides: obviously if someone offs themself because their rabbi molested them they're not going to be included in your poll to say they're depressed that the rabbi molested them.

I don't know the statistical significance that could have. If we assumed 100% of teen/YA suicides were due to having early sexual experiences (not likely, but just for argument's sake) how much would that skew the % do you think?

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.

Not sure how we could assess something like 'just as rare'.
I don't think we could ever get accurate polls on any group since Dark Triad folk are inherently masqueraded.
You basically only find out about the incompetent ones who reveal themselves.
IE you know about the Buffalo Bill but not the Nils Hagen.

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.

I am pretty concerned about pedophiles dumping prepubescents once puberty starts though. That really can't be framed in standard "let's get married and spend our lives together" type of romance put forth as the role model.

You'd need to do a cultural rewrite where prepubescent girls know from the outset they'll no longer be attractive to their BF and need a new BF who is okay with them having the old BF.

It basically isn't consistent with the established norms and I worry about how they'd take that shock.

It's probably already pretty common and I think most girls whether it by finding another guy to affirm them (perhaps being less choosey for the sake of getting validation?) but should we normalize that kind of bitterness?

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.

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.

Dude don't bash the Sophists those guys were fucking awesome, Plato was a whiny little communist bitch. They don't deserve to be compared with feminist BSers

SJWs are now literally pro pre-op trannies exposing themselves to minors.

Gooks vs trannies showdown in LA

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

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

I don't see how that's a pedo argument, it seems plausible one could be okay with prepubescent relations but still believe that they should be private 1-on-1 things.
You're making it sound like if you want to nude-cuddle with a preteen GF in a sauna that by extension you should want a bunch of other guys slapping her in the face with their cocks

Antifa violently believe that there is no correlation between being tranny and being a pedophile or being a pervert.

I don't think "a pervert" is specific enough to be useful.

As far as correlating transgenderism and pedophilia, I would make the same correlation with homosexuality/furries in that in terms of mentally embracing abnormal outlooks, one could say there is a 'slippery slope' that being open-minded to one predisposes you to being open-minded to the other ones.

Basically if you accept one thing you won't have that same instinctive "ew gross, not normal" response that normies get which prevents them from considering prospects.

I would similarly say there's a correlation between accepting wanting to fuck 2d anime girls and wanting to fuck 2d western squirrel girls.

That said, we should also acknowledge that any of these can definitely exist without the other, and that rather than there being some kind of inherent link, it might just be that the correlation is whether people deny/embrace perhaps inherently equal predispositions.

An alternate view might be that any deviation from biological norm (wanting to date/fuck/impregnate a pre/mid/post pubescent girl) are collectively chaotic and misdirected and flipping all over the place for lack of purpose.

They blindly deny the existence of deviant freaks like Jessica Yaniv--

Do they literally say Yaniy doesn't exist, or just try to minimalize as a statistical anomaly?

and just overall the blackpilled nature that unwanted male genitals is extremely offensive to women

TBH unwanted female genitals/boobs would be extremely offensive to me.
You might think 'no' but if some 90yo from a nursing home started flashing you, you'd probably be pretty startled.
Who's to say your startled is somehow less bad than foid startlement from cocks?

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.

Eh it's not just trannies:

1) gays in their pride parades are also entitled to flash their dicks to young boys​

2) rabbis in their synagogues are also entitled to suck the dicks of baby boys (just make sure to flay the skin as a mohel 1st bro)​

TBH gays/trannies are just distractiosn and midbosses, you need to deal with the (((greatest degeneracy))) or else our tolerance of that will always spawn tolerance for lesser degeneracies

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

I really can't pin down any particular prime age of attractiveness or prime age of marriage, but I definitely agree with you that it's perfectly fine to marry girls prior to their peak level of attractiveness.

That's actually a great way to be less superficial about marriage, so it's not about how a foid looks at her peak looks but how her personality is at that point.

Who says the best sex you have with your wife, the hottest you think she is, needs to be on your wedding night?

You don't even need to have sex with your wife right away, you could just live together and do things together.

If I had a lifetime ahead of me to have hot steamy sex with my wife then I could live a chaste decade with her from 10-20 tbh.

It's not even "I'd suffer through this so I get sex later" but really it could be it's own reward, because female companionship can be enjoyable without sex.

It's just a LOT more enjoyable if it's a chaste romance IE she's your betrothed and it's only you she'll be fucking LATER, and not the cucked stuff we have now where you're friendzoned and she's fucking chad and whinig about how chad fucks other girls to you while you have blue balls.

Blue balls are only worth suffering through for a girl who's promised herself to you.

Pedocels if you're attracted to children and children alone. Then you're not right in the head.

'right' is subjective, I don't think there's anything objectively bad about preferring one particular group (it's prejudism, but so is heterosexuality or racial preference and I'm fine with those too) it just subjectively doesn't seem conducive to coexistence with our monoamorist ideals

basically wouldn't hurt girls who dump guys so fast they don't get dumped for puberty, ironically has 0% to hurt mean girls who dump pedos for chad
but it would hurt the nice girls who actually pair-bond to a guy and want to live the rest of their life with him, I'm worried about the unicorn minority

who gives a fuck about the age of consent other than someone who wants to fuck literal toddlers

toddlers are 1~3 years old, that's close enough to wanting to fuck babies it usually gets lumped in with nepiophilia rather than pedophilia

I wouldn't classify 4~7 as toddlers, they don't toddle when they walk

Also 8~15 aren't pre-pubescent (they're mid-pubescent) but they're also undeer AOC and it gets wrongly lumped in with pedophilia if you want to fuck them

some invent alternate prefixes like hebe-/ephebo- which I guess is good if it discourages pedo- but I don't really like the idea of implying they're paraphilias at all TBH since they're healthy normal impulses

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

IRL babies are basically sub-puppy intelligence/knowledge so I'm not sure what the appeal of that would be.

but like... if it was a 30 year old woman's personality trapped in a baby's body by drinking a magic formula and she was sassy and independent and can speak in unbroken english and bully me?

I dunno bro, I'm open-minded enough to fuck a Gnome shortstack from WOW (or Yordel in LOL) and that's essentially what Staci is so... can't say I'd rule it out since I'm having trouble thinking of why it would be immoral to let her lie back and have her way with me

There's definitely enough of a size/power imbalance it'd be unsettling and worrying to put yourself in the position of the the pursuer though

Staci's not really a traditional baby though she's like a scifi type of thing where she's adultified in her speech/mannerisms so she loses the aspects of actual babies which would repulse you. She's basically the equivalent of how furries get anthropomorphized where you want to fuck them despite being repulsed at the idea of fucking most IRL animals because they are imbued with sapient elements of human adults

What is the benefit of the AOC to an incel?
You cannot provide an uncucked answer.

I want to ask out a 15 year old Becky who got rejected when Chad asked Stacy to the dance instead of her.
I want to go watch a nice movie together and maybe our fingers touch when we share some popcorn.
I want to give her the chance to see me and fall for my personality.

I realize 99.9% likelihood she cheats on me with Chad, so you might call it cucked buy my eyes are open to this possibility going in so it's not actually cucked when I'm aware of that risk.

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.

I pine for female companionship that it would be it's own reward even if it's disingenuous and she cheats w/ Chad
if I just assume this will be the case it's like an Escort but LARPing a GF experience

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

Children don't like eating vegetables, so they are capable of consenting to sexual activity? How does that even make any sense?

basically he's talking about evidence that they can refuse things they find unpleasant
it supports the basic idea of "can consent or refuse" but not "can give informed agreements or rejections"

Because they’re post pubescent

a 95 year old woman is also post-pubescent

you probably mean "newly post-pubescent" or something

18 yo female virgin = doesn't exist.

My motto is 'never say never' but we're def talking sub-1%

 

[unsettling]

john stuart mill was a women's rights advocate, it makes sense that you have to bring up a feminist figure to support your cucked point of view.

utilitarianism doesn't align with incels as we dont care about soyciety or humanitarianism; you cant apply your line of reasoning towards commonly held beliefs on this forum like women's rights, for example.

no one ever said that pedophilia is morally upright, i have only seen pedocels argue from an amoral position. you made up this straw-man just to redirect the discussion to be centered around moral principles.

all you did is provide justification of why it's beneficial for society to keep children away from being taken advantage of, but you gave no incentives for why incels should care about the abuse of minifoids. regardless of whether or not promoting pedophilia benefits us in any way, it still doesn't go against our interests; and so i see no reason to defend the law in place.

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

For hundreds of thousands of years we didn't have:

- indoor plumbing
- paved roads
- air conditioning
- the internet
- microwave ovens

Does this mean we should live in mud huts, shit on the ground like pajeets, and communicate to each other by engraving stone tablets? Because we've been doing that for thousands of years?

This appeal to tradition is pointless. We know better.

Appeal to tradition is simply "13 year olds can fight a war", which we still see in African terror mobs.

We obviously need fewer soldiers and limit it to adults we view as expendable because teen chad is worth more than 30s chad

Real rape is the penetration of the vagina or anus by force and without consent by a penis.

The order you put these words in brings strange things to mind

 

[PPEcel]

john stuart mill was a women's rights advocate, it makes sense that you have to bring up a feminist figure to support your cucked point of view.

utilitarianism doesn't align with incels as we dont care about soyciety or humanitarianism; you cant apply your line of reasoning towards commonly held beliefs on this forum like women's rights, for example.

How did I borrow from utilitarianism? How does delineating a threshold for the intervention of the state, a somewhat libertarian principle, constitute utilitarian philosophy?

no one ever said that pedophilia is morally upright, i have only seen pedocels argue from an amoral position. you made up this straw-man just to redirect the discussion to be centered around moral principles.

The pedocels here clearly aren't arguing from an amoral position; if they were indifferent with respect to morality they wouldn't try to contend that "consensual" adult/child sexual relationships are harmless, nor would they be denigrating the non-pedo incels. Taking into account their frequent usage of the term "cucked" or "agecuck" to describe their opponents -- which in the context of this forum is a moral judgment -- how did you reach the conclusion that the pedocels are arguing from an amoral position?

all you did is provide justification of why it's beneficial for society to keep children away from being taken advantage of, but you gave no incentives for why incels should care about the abuse of minifoids. regardless of whether or not promoting pedophilia benefits us in any way, it still doesn't go against our interests; and so i see no reason to defend the law in place.

I have not once stated that incels should care about the abuse of minifoids (also interesting that you brought up minifoids in particular even though the AOC should be applied gender-neutrally), nor that incels should support or defend any specific law (straw man much?)

There is indeed no moral obligation for an incel to even care about paedophilia, but at the same time there is nothing within the blackpill that obligates incels to refrain from criticizing such behaviour. In addition, I'm pointing out that contrary to what the pedocels always say, merely supporting the existence of an AOC does not contravene any element of the blackpill and is not "agecuckery".

 

[Detro]

I have not once said in this thread that the AOC should be exactly 18. Your argument is an incoherent straw man.

If it shouldn't be 18, then what age and why? If you're going to arbitrarily put down a line, why can't it be 18, 25, or 14?

 

[PPEcel]

If it shouldn't be 18, then what age and why? If you're going to arbitrarily put down a line, why can't it be 18, 25, or 14?

The lowest possible age that manages to fulfil the government's compelling interest without being excessively overbroad. I think this is a question that is better decided by academic scientists and not politicians.

If you want me to ballpark it's probably 14-16 with a 5-7 year close-in-age exemption.

 

[Detro]

If you want me to ballpark it's probably 14-16 with a 5-7 year close-in-age exemption.

Why the age gap limitation?
If you can consent to sex you can consent to sex. This is why you're getting called an agecuck.

 

[Deleted member 6329]

I will agree on one thing.....calling prime teen's "grannies" and "roasties" is pretty cringe.

 

[DeepSea]

Some guy could have genital warts he'd transmit to a toddler and might convince her "they're magic because I'm a frog prince" or some crap to rationalize why she should lick his dick, and now she has herpes for life.

So while I agree with you they can usually emphatically refuse things which feel bad, we should also be taking into account that there's more than this capacity which is important, but also knowledge of the potential bad ends that can result from certain activities.

A parental consent system would be useful in preventing situations where the minor is too uninformed or naïve to understand sex and relationships.

I think that the kind of relationships you see now should not be taken as 100% representative for the kinds you'd see if the laws were different. As much as I don't like to think it, I think a lot of the guys (tho not all) who are dating minifoids are probably rather sketchy. First of all, you would need to be inclined to break the law. Secondly, in the majority of cases you would have to conduct the relationship behind the back of the father, which is kind of dishonest.

The abstract of the 2021 Daily study doesn't really go into enough particulars...

• sexual orientation (e.g., SCL 90-R) and perceived consent of the sexual experience (e.g., SCL 90-R and FACES-II) were the only variables that significantly impacted outcomes scores
• participants in the CSA group were significantly more likely to report being victimized in their first sexual experiences

The full study is available here.

Like what does 'significantly' mean in both these cases? Do you have access to the full copy to get some actual numbers here?

See Table 1 in the paper.

• Non-case group = participants who never had sex with adults when they were minors.
• Case-group = participants (mostly females) who had sex with adults when they were minors
• "Victimized then" means that the CSA was perceived as non-consensual at the time of the event.
• "Victimized now" means that the participants viewed the CSA as non-consensual when they filled in the survey.

Only 10-20% of the people in the case group changed their minds about the experiences as they grew older and ended up believing that they were abused. This is significantly higher than the percentage of people in the non-case group who ended up believing that their past sexual experiences with peers were abusive, but it's still a small minority.

That said, I'm curious about what their CSA parameters are, because maybe we'd see higher than >50% if you limited it to preadolescent CSA and less than 50% if you limited it to adolescent CSA

There are very few studies with representative samples that only look at prepubertal CSA. One of these studies, Laumann et al. (1994), was included in Rind's meta-analysis. Apparently, it found a small correlation between CSA and negative outcomes. Rind comments on it here, here and here:

"In the Laumann et al. (1994) national study, which included only contact cases of CSA, effect sizes were small for both male (r = .07) and female (r = .05) participants. Laumann et al. created a severity index based on level of contact (kissing or genital touching vs. oral sex or intercourse); the index failed to moderate current adjustment. These results show that the evidence is not as consistent as our critics claim."

Keep in mind that peer precocious sex has also been shown to correlate with negative outcomes in adulthood, so it's not at all clear if CSA has a uniquely harmful effect.

There's no shortage of stories of young girls who have been pressured into sex by their peers. Nor is there a lack of accounts where girls had older partners who treated them well (see this webpage).

going from 2% to 3% is basically a 50% average increase, still seems worth looking into, even if it's not as significant as alarmists let on

If cases of rape and sexual violence were not included, the percentage of the variance in psychological outcomes accounted for by CSA would be much lower than 1%.

 

[PPEcel]

Why the age gap limitation?
If you can consent to sex you can consent to sex. This is why you're getting called an agecuck.

because it would be disproportionate for the state to intervene otherwise

i was called an agecuck long before i suggested a close-in-age exemption, don't be disingenous

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

pedocels here clearly aren't arguing from an amoral position;
if they were indifferent with respect to morality they wouldn't try to contend that "consensual" adult/child sexual relationships are harmless,
nor would they be denigrating the non-pedo incels.

I just want to chime in here that I do not classify myself as a pedophile and also that I denigrate pedophile-MAAs the same way I denigrate racist-MAAs because you shouldn't discount a loli's value just because she's non-white or prepubescent as that smacks of an excess of prejudice

usage of the term "cucked" or "agecuck" to describe their opponents -- which in the context of this forum is a moral judgment

I've never viewed 'cuck' as saying "the cuck is immoral". Cuckery is basically getting fooled so it's actually describing a victim who is probably a very moral idealist.

Even biddys who knowingly do degenerate homo-adjacent things wrongly called cucked like drink Tyrone's cum out of their wife's beef flaps aren't necessarily "immoral" because I can't really see a victim in that situation other than perhaps themself, but it's a slippery slope to be calling people engaged in self-harm immoral.

I supposed what could be viewed as cucked (deceived) about such practices is perhaps that they aren't aware of how it is self-harm? IE deceived into embracing the degeneracy.

There is indeed no moral obligation for an incel to even care about paedophilia

What sort of things do you think we should have moral obligations regarding, if anything?
As misogyny-adjacent as I sometimes feel with female disregard for male disposability, wanting to spare a loli a broken heart is one of those rare things I actually sorta care about tbh
Which is why if lewds for them were legalized it would need hella hoops to jump through and hella penalties if abused
The purpose should also basically be, in acknowledging Chad will fuck them regardless of law, that we at least slightly decrease the chance of Chad breaking her heart by hooking her up with a sub-Chad who won't. Even if she dumps the sub-Chad and breaks his heart that's fine because he'll still cherish the memory, while she will feel empowered as being the dumper instead of the dumpee.

merely supporting the existence of an AOC does not contravene any element of the blackpill and is not "agecuckery".

just to clarify by this you mean "supporting having some kind of AOC" (perhaps a low one) rather than "supporting all AOCs" (particular high ones) ?

Like it's hard not to view it as agecuckery if you supported raising AOC to something like 21 because you know that isn't going to lessen the pussy that Chad gets in the slightest way and will only result in pussy being further monopolized by Chad because rules don't apply to him and he is high-inhib.

All you are doing is depriving the high-inhib law-abiding gentlemen sub-chads from a chance and opening the door to false accusations via 'regret rape' if he does manage to somehow get a foid to temporarily allow him access.

I will agree on one thing.....calling prime teen's "grannies" and "roasties" is pretty cringe.

believe it or not I agree, it's this meme that I think just starts off as a joke in loli communites tbh

Spoiler: NSFW there is a drawing of a 2d baby in the nude

the problem with jokes is people start to take them seriously and then you basically have these pedophile/nepiophile lolicons trying to co-opt the term loli to exclude teen girls despite that actually being the original meaning of loli

it's like letting a foid into your gaming circle, suddenly she takes over and redefines it and kicks out the founders. Letting prepubescent girls be called lolis too was a mistake, they should've been given a new term.

Keep in mind that peer precocious sex has also been shown to correlate with negative outcomes in adulthood, so it's not at all clear if CSA has a uniquely harmful effect.

There's no shortage of stories of young girls who have been pressured into sex by their peers. Nor is there a lack of accounts where girls had older partners who treated them well (see this webpage).

Any idea on the % difference in outcomes between precocious peer sex and precocious elder sex?

If cases of rape and sexual violence were not included, the percentage of the variance in psychological outcomes accounted for by CSA would be much lower than 1%.

Even just going by the stated cases?

We should probably also imagine that good-outcome cases might not even be cited in the study, for if they had a good time they might not want to risk there being investigation and finding out who it was

 

[BITG]

How exactly would it be rape if consent is given.

Also what is the maximum age you consider a "little kid"

Any woman who's had her first period is not a child anymore.

The problem with this line of argumentation is that most girls/women will die if they try and give birth at the age of 13, their bodies aren’t fully developed for 2-3 more years.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to let 13 year olds get pregnant, not to mention I would assume that 13 year olds make horrible decisions, just like I did at 13 Kek.

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

.

The problem with this line of argumentation is that most girls/women will die if they try and give birth at the age of 13, their bodies aren’t fully developed for 2-3 more years.

Simple, a couple of changes to the law would make it so they can consent but are not allowed to bear children.

This arguement kinda falls flat when you realize 13 year olds are fucking men two years older than them. Them fucking men 10 years older thann them makes no difference.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to let 13 year olds get pregnant, not to mention I would assume that 13 year olds make horrible decisions, just like I did at 13 Kek.

So you no longer make horrible decisions?

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

most girls/women will die if they try and give birth at the age of 13

'most' would be over 50%

doesn't seem to line up with trends. Where are you getting your stats fren

 

[PPEcel]

'most' would be over 50%

View attachment 464674

doesn't seem to line up with trends. Where are you getting your stats fren

Think 50% is an exaggeration but it does seem like the chart has no data for foids below 15

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

Think 50% is an exaggeration but it does seem like the chart has no data for foids below 15

true, nor for 50+, a lot harder to find data for these groups, I'm just saying if we extend these curves it's probably likely that 45+ die in child birth more often than 10-15 do

 

[BITG]

'most' would be over 50%

View attachment 464674

doesn't seem to line up with trends. Where are you getting your stats fren

Graph doesn’t show 13 year olds

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

Graph doesn’t show 13 year olds

I know, but you can see the inverse bell curve there and extrapolate

 

[Michael15651]

kill yourself

 

[BITG]

.

Simple, a couple of changes to the law would make it so they can consent but are not allowed to bear children.

This arguement kinda falls flat when you realize 13 year olds are fucking men two years older than them. Them fucking men 10 years older thann them makes no difference.


So you no longer make horrible decisions?

Well I also don’t believe minors should have sex with other minors Jfl. That’s retarded, I agree with that. So it shouldn’t be allowed. And no, I don’t make horrible decisions anymore imo. Maybe slightly bad ones, but I wouldnt say horrible.

I know, but you can see the inverse bell curve there and extrapolate

Actually it seems to be higher at 15-19 than 24-29, so I actually think what I’m saying is true. Could you get more data from earlier ages? My whole point is that a LOT of 13 year old girls/women cannot give birth without dying.

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

it seems to be higher at 15-19 than 24-29, so I actually think what I’m saying is true

15-19 is definitely higher (though I imagine that's more due to 15-16 fatalities than 18-19 ones)

I've seen this claim:
"Adolescents age 15 through 19 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy or child birth as those over age 20; girls under age 15 are five times more likely to die"

but that's obviously misleading since 15-19 is less likely to die than 30-34, so they probably mean twice as likely as 20-29 which is the lowest rate

5x as likely to die would be something like 600 instead of 200, which on the chart is equal to the 35-39 rate

it's also very likely that number is inflated because the higher rate of extremely young in the entire 1-15 range (like 7-10) is going to pull up the average of the upper bracket (like 11-14) which might be much lower if viewed in isolation

Could you get more data from earlier ages? My whole point is that a LOT of 13 year old girls/women cannot give birth without dying.

'a lot' compared to what though? women aged 40-45 who we don't stop from getting pregnant despite the risk?

also I'm not anti-abortion so in cases where some guy creampies someone who pregnancy endangers you jail him for breaking the rules and give a morning-after pill

 

[BITG]

15-19 is definitely higher (though I imagine that's more due to 15-16 fatalities than 18-19 ones)

I've seen this claim:
"Adolescents age 15 through 19 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy or child birth as those over age 20; girls under age 15 are five times more likely to die"

but that's obviously misleading since 15-19 is less likely to die than 30-34, so they probably mean twice as likely as 20-29 which is the lowest rate

5x as likely to die would be something like 600 instead of 200, which on the chart is equal to the 35-39 rate

it's also very likely that number is inflated because the higher rate of extremely young in the entire 1-15 range (like 7-10) is going to pull up the average of the upper bracket (like 11-14) which might be much lower if viewed in isolation


'a lot' compared to what though? women aged 40-45 who we don't stop from getting pregnant despite the risk?

also I'm not anti-abortion so in cases where some guy creampies someone who pregnancy endangers you jail him for breaking the rules and give a morning-after pill

I don’t think women above the age of 40 should give birth either tbh.

 

[MarquisDeSade]

I don't want inceldom to be conflated with pedophilia either but there's a lot of edgelords here that you just can't talk any sense into. Let's be honest here, if a big tittie eighteen year old offered their pussy to these edgelords even if she had a minimum of seven dicks in her prior none of them would say no turning it down, volcel if you wouldn't. [About 85% of them would say yes, even if they go on ranting about "Muh hundred percent pristine clean virgin pussy" all day long ad nauseam.]

I know this and you guys know this too, let us not kid ourselves here.

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

Let's be honest here, if a big tittie eighteen year old offered their pussy to these edgelords even if she had a minimum of seven dicks in her prior none of them would say no turning it down, volcel if you wouldn't.

Speak for yourself. If having a shred of decency and standards makes me a volcel then I gladly accept the title.

 

[MarquisDeSade]

Speak for yourself. If having a shred of decency and standards makes me a volcel then I gladly accept the title.

Volcel.

 

[MarquisDeSade]

Prime: 14-17

18-20 years in a United States prison though along with a lifetime subscription to sex offender registry.

[Our laws are cucked, that goes without saying, but it is what it is over here.]

 

[MarquisDeSade]

Prime: 14-17

Yeah i mean not fucking 18 yo hole makes you a gigavolcel

Yeah, but these guys want a hundred percent pristine virgin pussy in a world where supply of that is extremely limited.

As for me, I just want my dick wet period, I don't care if she's a virgin or not, I just want a woman that is alive and breathing that desires me wanting a long term relationship. Bitch could have down syndrome and a side of turrets where I wouldn't give a shit, I'm not a perfectionist on the matter of sexuality because I myself am not perfect. I know that I will never acquire a hundred percent perfect woman and I'm fine with that.

Fortunately I could legally fuck a 15 yo but chad only

The benefit of not living in United Cuckistan.

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

Volcel.

In this situation, gladly

 

[PPEcel]

Yeah i mean not fucking 18 yo hole makes you a gigavolcel

"Incels".is jfl

 

[SuccessfulShark]

No sex until marriage is ideal, none of that consent bullshit, there I said it.

 

[Insanitycel]

if everyone on this forum could ascend with a cute jb would you be against that because “muh pedophilia”

 

[Deleted member 6329]

Also why are some you worried about "muh rep"? We're already hated and despised by the world.

 

[Detro]

because it would be disproportionate for the state to intervene otherwise

Why do you think the state would ever need to intervene?
Laws already cover rape, coercion, and power disparities.
There's no reason to believe that a 15 year old can consent to sex with a 15 or 18 year old but not a 20 or 30 year old.
You're an agecuck, your position makes no rational sense and the only reason you hold it is because you were raised in a culture were it's not allowed to be questioned ( if you do you're a creep and/or pedo ) so it's accepted as reasonable.
You won't find a single religion or pre-modern law system that says "16 year olds can marry, but only within this particular age range otherwise that's bad because the older party has too much experience "

 

[PPEcel]

Why do you think the state would ever need to intervene?
Laws already cover rape, coercion, and power disparities.
There's no reason to believe that a 15 year old can consent to sex with a 15 or 18 year old but not a 20 or 30 year old.
You're an agecuck, your position makes no rational sense and the only reason you hold it is because you were raised in a culture were it's not allowed to be questioned ( if you do you're a creep and/or pedo ) so it's accepted as reasonable.
You won't find a single religion or pre-modern law system that says "16 year olds can marry, but only within this particular age range otherwise that's bad because the older party has too much experience "

I'm not saying that the state shouldn't intervene when a 15-year-old has sex with someone who is also 15 or 18, I'm saying it would be potentially disproportionate to treat someone who is 15 or 18 the same way the system would treat someone who is 30. This should apply to every crime, not just sexual ones.

My position makes perfect sense; the main group of people here questioning my position are the ones who self-admittedly say they are attracted to 10-year-olds or those even younger, so it's obvious they're letting their sexual desires cloud their reasoning.

 

[Escthectrler]

Agecucks are either fakecel cockblocking whiteknights, or bluepilled soyfags. There's no reason to care about young foids fucking adults as an uncucked straight man. Not doing anything about abortion and male genital mutilation, but screaming like a pussy about young rosties getting fucked by adults should show you where their minds are at.

 

[Detro]

I'm not saying that the state shouldn't intervene when a 15-year-old has sex with someone who is also 15 or 18, I'm saying it would be potentially disproportionate to treat someone who is 15 or 18 the same way the system would treat someone who is 30. This should apply to every crime, not just sexual ones.

My position makes perfect sense; the main group of people here questioning my position are the ones who self-admittedly say they are attracted to 10-year-olds or those even younger, so it's obvious they're letting their sexual desires cloud their reasoning.

Age and accountability for crime is an entirely different topic.

You have no rationale or logic to explain why someone would be able to consent to sex, but only with someone within an arbitrary age range of them.
It's always an appeal to emotion " b-but think about the gross old men who manipulate young women into sex?!?"
Funny, you will never hear about a "naïve" heterosexual 14 year old male who gets tricked into gay sex. Why? Because they can consent but we live in a gynocentric society.

 

[Black&Red]

I don't give a flying fuck about tryhard wannabes and their weird fantasies, they can moist over rapping a puppy freshly out of the bitch if they want, as long as they admit their orientation to be unnormal and don't try to normalize them they're ok in my books, don't care about kiddos well-being either, let stronk toilets protect them; caring about other people's offspring is cucked.

 

[BlkPillPres]

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.

Yeah, and there's no reason to be against it either, normie problems aren't our problems

Normie Problems Are Not Our Problems (One Of The Only Perks Of Inceldom & The Black Pill)

I feel like this is something that I have to remind many of our users of: We aren't normies, we aren't part of their game, and race obsessed idiots, or idiots who still consider themselves "part of the human race" (overly empathetic fools), throw away one of the only perks of being incel -...

incels.is

Age and accountability for crime is an entirely different topic.

You have no rationale or logic to explain why someone would be able to consent to sex, but only with someone within an arbitrary age range of them.
It's always an appeal to emotion " b-but think about the gross old men who manipulate young women into sex?!?"

Also this, it makes no sense that a 13 year old girl can just walk out of a bathroom after giving some highschool Chad a blowjob, but if she blows me next its rape because she's innocent, not "mentally developed" and unable to consent

Girls around these age groups are consenting every day in every hole for mini Chad, society can't have it both ways, its completely contradictory

 

[Deleted member 34161]

Dont give a fuck. I dont condone raping a little kid, but dont care otherwise at all. pedo hate is normie as fuck

 

[Caesercel]

Does this mean we should live in mud huts, shit on the ground like pajeets, and communicate to each other by engraving stone tablets? Because we've been doing that for thousands of years?

YES

 

[BrettyBoy]

taking advantage

Also why are some you worried about "muh rep"? We're already hated and despised by the world.

Normal fags can sod right off.