Hypocrisy There's nothing inherently pedo or immoral when fantasising about a 16 year old

DostoevskyCel

DostoevskyCel

Recruit
★★
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Posts
182
Online
4d 7h 53m
Normans will call you a pedo, but if you just examine the situation briefly it makes zero sense. So it's legal to fuck an 18 year old, this girl on her 18th birthday is the exact same person she was yesterday, as a 17 year old, but fucking her one day early makes you a violent criminal - no. 18 is an arbitrary age which is not chosen in accordance to any neurology or biology, it's randomly assigned to a bunch of other things too like driving or smoking, but a 17 year old is no more developed universally than an 18 year old. At 16, a girl is fully grown, and her brain will not stop developing until roughly 25. Spoiler alert, if you think a 16 year old is 'easily manipulated', all inexperienced people are easily manipulated you normie retards. Why do you think whores get into gangbangs in college, because they're inexperienced and easily coerced into hepta-chad bukkakes, and they can be in their early 20s.

Shakespeare's wife was 26 when she married the 18 year old Shakespeare, and she was considered an old childless spinster at 26, in the 16th century it was typical for women aged 18-22 to have all the children they will ever have, in today's times it's 28-30, over these few centuries, did we have a major moral shift which showed that late teens / early 20s are too naïve and inexperienced to have kids? No. So the question becomes what about today's moral standards makes it taboo to have fantasies which were normal 400 years ago? - nothing! When you hear of an age gap of four years, that's considered normal, for example 40 and 44 no one would bat an eyelid. But for a 16 and 20 year old he would be called an infernal raping pedo, when if they continue their relationship, they will reach the ages 40 and 44. The only difference is the ratio of the ages, but there is simply no difference other than a 16 year old is still in school, which is meaningless. Not to mention, there are many whores who use fake IDs to get into clubs and fuck chad, guess what, they weren't rejected access to a nightclub despite only being 16/17, because they have the same physiognomy as an 18 year old legal 'adult'. The term adult in today's soyciety simply means the age that the government allows you to choose to do whatever you want, no more forced education, etc. The age of consent is strictly nothing to do with development, but about 'adulthood', which could easily be 16 or lower in other countries, they just choose it to be 18 for the most part arbitrarily. And finally, the fact that global ages of consent range from 11 to 21, show this law is meaningless, and is rarely used in prosecution. It is there to act as a buffer so they can impose harsher sentences on actual predators, not some 20 year old in a healthy relationship with a 16 year old.
 
Tiredpoorcel

Tiredpoorcel

Shariaa law is the way to go.
-
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Posts
2,138
Online
31d 19h 42m
You are only a pedo if the foid is 12 imo
 
SoloAlex

SoloAlex

I hate privileged people
★★★
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Posts
798
Online
16d 20h 54m
16 yo is not pedo. It’s just against the law in many countries.
 
rope2cope

rope2cope

Greycel
★★
Joined
May 30, 2019
Posts
3,690
Online
64d 32m
16 legal here boyos, where's my 16 y/o gf @
 
DostoevskyCel

DostoevskyCel

Recruit
★★
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Posts
182
Online
4d 7h 53m
You are only a pedo if the foid is 12 imo
this makes more sense than anything else tbh, a 15 year old and 18 year old can look literally the exact same, so physical attraction to either doesn't make you pedo, only being specifically attracted to underdeveloped foid features is pedo
 
ItsOver4cel

ItsOver4cel

You're either a WinnER or a big LosER
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
21,699
Online
65d 7h 18m
You better include me in the screenshot IT cucks
 
ThoughtfulCel

ThoughtfulCel

G.O.R.I.L.L.A _M.A.X.I.N.G
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
17,816
Online
268d 13h 20m
After puberty there is no reason a man shouldn't find a female teenager attractive. I honestly don't give a shit what society says.

Before the age of consent was even lower and no one had any issues. Age of consent is literally an arbitrary number that changes depending on the current age or Era.

 
Sharkcel

Sharkcel

Blackpill in the water
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Posts
85
Online
1d 5h 28m
Not wrong that 90% of the reason people refuse to admit being attracted to anyone a day younger than 18 is because they are afraid of society judging them, but left to their own judgement they would have a different opinion. At the same time it is definitely immoral to sexualize people younger than around 16-18 because it ignores the concept of childhood innocence, as well as how younger people regret their sexual experiences later on in life. Although underage people may be developmentally similar, they are not necessarily mentally, and lack developed judgement and decision making which makes sexual intercourse below a certain age immoral in regards to maintaining a non-degenerate society.

For the age gap, it's not really logical to exactly splice the age gap from one relationship to a hypothetical relationship with a younger couple. For example, an age gap of 10 years would absolutely be fine if both parties are mature enough (lets say 40 and 30), but that same age gap for a younger age couple like 8 to 18 would obviously be beyond immoral and utterly degenerate.
 
Dr. Dicklet

Dr. Dicklet

normies are the disease....and I am the cure
★★★
Joined
Oct 20, 2020
Posts
1,206
Online
8d 5h 54m
It's legal in the uk, it's not bad whatsoever
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
6,814
Online
32d 14h 31m

nothing inherently pedo or immoral when fantasising about a 16 year old​

OP your title is shit since you're basically implying it is immoral or pedophilic to fantasize about a fifteen year old girl who just celebrated her Quinceañera
You are only a pedo if the foid is 12 imo

guess again faggot, keep coping
After puberty there is no reason a man shouldn't find a female teenager attractive
If all her skin was burned or flayed off you probably shouldn't be finding her bleeding-to-death remnants physically attractive TBH that'd be kinda dark.
You could fall in love with her personality and stuff eventually as you helped her rehab and deal with skin grafts but there's probably something off if you immediately got an erection while pulling her screaming flaming body out of a firey building infero, Evan Buckley
 
Last edited:
SoloAlex

SoloAlex

I hate privileged people
★★★
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Posts
798
Online
16d 20h 54m
OP your title is shit since you're basically implying it is immoral or pedophilic to fantasize about a fifteen year old girl who just celebrated her Quinceañera

View attachment 430666
guess again faggot, keep coping

If all her skin was burned or flayed off you probably shouldn't be finding her bleeding-to-death remnants physically attractive TBH that'd be kinda dark.
You could fall in love with her personality and stuff eventually as you helped her rehab and deal with skin grafts but there's probably something off if you immediately got an erection while pulling her screaming flaming body out of a firey building infero, Evan Buckley
Do you know the difference between onset and the end?
 
Azaylias

Azaylias

The Penguin from Familyguy1999
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Posts
6,363
Online
44d 9h 27m
After puberty there is no reason a man shouldn't find a female teenager attractive. I honestly don't give a shit what society says.

Before the age of consent was even lower and no one had any issues. Age of consent is literally an arbitrary number that changes depending on the current age or Era.

View attachment 430664
Once she's menstruating, she's ready. It's as simple as that
 
DostoevskyCel

DostoevskyCel

Recruit
★★
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Posts
182
Online
4d 7h 53m
Not wrong that 90% of the reason people refuse to admit being attracted to anyone a day younger than 18 is because they are afraid of society judging them, but left to their own judgement they would have a different opinion. At the same time it is definitely immoral to sexualize people younger than around 16-18 because it ignores the concept of childhood innocence, as well as how younger people regret their sexual experiences later on in life. Although underage people may be developmentally similar, they are not necessarily mentally, and lack developed judgement and decision making which makes sexual intercourse below a certain age immoral in regards to maintaining a non-degenerate society.

For the age gap, it's not really logical to exactly splice the age gap from one relationship to a hypothetical relationship with a younger couple. For example, an age gap of 10 years would absolutely be fine if both parties are mature enough (lets say 40 and 30), but that same age gap for a younger age couple like 8 to 18 would obviously be beyond immoral and utterly degenerate.
As for the age comparison I was just trying to illustrate how perception of maturity hinges on the role in society, but there is obviously objectivity here, there’s no strict number per se but there is developmental and cognitive imbalance which makes larger age gaps pedo
After puberty there is no reason a man shouldn't find a female teenager attractive. I honestly don't give a shit what society says.

Before the age of consent was even lower and no one had any issues. Age of consent is literally an arbitrary number that changes depending on the current age or Era.

View attachment 430664
Exactly, if IT cucks lived in Ancient Greece they wouldn’t care that 14 and 15 year old boys were sex slaves for war lords, but today they would have an aneurism (assuming they’re straight, faggots love pedo shit eg that desmond tranny)
 
Sharkcel

Sharkcel

Blackpill in the water
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Posts
85
Online
1d 5h 28m
Exactly, if IT cucks lived in Ancient Greece they wouldn’t care that 14 and 15 year old boys were sex slaves for war lords, but today they would have an aneurism
High IQ. A major problem with modern day soyciety is that they make immense decisions based on no moral or ethical foundation other than their intuition and desire to fit in with others. Essentially we live in a hyper-relativist world of ethics where if you go against the norm you are shunned regardless of whether you are backed by objective logic. Admittedly this type of visceral populist social cohesion isn't always bad if the majority opinion does actually happen to be logically founded. This sort of system though is flawed much like the system of Tyranny, wherein if the tyrant controls everything in a good way then society will remain good, but the minute that tyrant does something bad then society will reflect the tyrant's poor decision and go to shit. This is why unbelievably retarded ideas like abortion are now commonplace in soyciety, because people act not to chase objective morals but rather to sate their low-level emotions and fit in with as many people as they can.
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
6,814
Online
32d 14h 31m
it is definitely immoral to sexualize people younger than around 16-18
Pick a fucking lane you non-committal faggot: are you saying "younger than 16" (15) or "younger than 18" (17) ?

Also please elaborate by what meaning you intend by "sexualize" please.

it ignores the concept of childhood innocence

Disregarding fiction is generally a good idea.

If you think the average 15 year old girl hasn't had Chad's cock plunged balls-deep into her at least 15 times already you're basically coping.

Even if she was a virgin, she's not "innocent" in the sense of being ignorant of what sex is or lacking sexual urges so WTF are you protecting exactly?

Sex is obviously too advanced for your average toddler and shit, if you can't be trusted to operate a stove safely and need a babysitter to prevent you from burning house down then obviously you hare a long list of prerequisite skills to master before sexual intercourse would be on the radar.

Fifteen year old girls aren't your average toddler though. Sex really is not that complicated, and if you think they're just fine before sex comes along you're coping.

The polluting/poisoning of foid minds (and male ones too) is an insidious, multi-faceted and gradual process, and simply blaming sex for degenerate and unhealthy mindsets is a gross oversimplification.


That 6 May 2000 study you cited is bogus, did you even fucking READ it bro?

In 1996 and 1997 a questionnaire was administered to all third year pupils in 24 non-denominational state secondary schools in east Scotland as part of a sex education trial.3 The research was approved by Glasgow University's Ethics Committee for Non-Clinical Research Involving Human Subjects and the relevant local authorities' education departments. After a pilot study, questions relating directly to sexual abuse were withdrawn as one education department prohibited them. The questionnaire was administered with both the young people's and their parents' consent by researchers under “examination conditions” without teachers present.

An overall participation rate of 94% resulted in 7395 usable questionnaires (3665 boys, 3730 girls; mean age 14 years 2 months (with 95% aged between 13 years 6 months and 14 years 9 months)). The sample was representative of 14 year olds throughout Scotland in terms of parents' social class and proportion of one parent households (1991 census data). Regretted sexual intercourse, measured on a three point scale, was analysed by ordinal logistic regression (table).4 The proportional odds assumption was tested and found to be tenable in all cases.

Experience of heterosexual intercourse was reported by 18.0% (661) of boys and 15.4% (576) of girls, of whom 74.8% (873 from 1167 valid responses) said that their first such experience had occurred since their 13th birthday.

This should make it obvious that the polled teens are lying and not being given the questions in an environment which encourages honest answers. There's no way in hell that the female:male ratio of non-virgins is ever less than 2.

If you're not getting honest answers about whether or not you're a virgin then why would you get honest answers about whether or not you regretted the sex?

Foids not willing to tell the big lie (pretending to be a virgin) are still likely to tell the small one (regretting fucking Chad)

underage people may be developmentally similar, they are not necessarily mentally and lack developed judgement and decision making
If adulthood were some indivisible indicator of judgment where wisdom trumps lust, we wouldn't have HIV pandemics in bathhouses by faggots or roasties still willing to cheat on their husbands with chad at the drop of a hat.

The idea of promoting underage as foolish is mostly just a cope used to distract from the clown world where we LARP about adults being competent.

which makes sexual intercourse below a certain age immoral in regards to maintaining a non-degenerate society.
What's more important than whether or not you have sex (or when you have it) is who you have it with and how it is done.

If you have a loving husband with restraint who keeps clean and understands the importance of various things it would be fine at much younger ages, so long as he respects:
  1. safety
  2. receiving ongoing consent
  3. giving detailed explanations
  4. foreplay for arousal
  5. proper fluid intakesupplementary lube
  6. gradual acclimation to size (begin with intercrural, then just the tip, let girl control ROM, etc)
These are more important than "I aged five more years" because you're never old enough to be immune to Tyrone tearing your dry labia open with his cock and getting feces bacteria into your bloodstream.

For the age gap, it's not really logical to exactly splice the age gap from one relationship to a hypothetical relationship with a younger couple. For example, an age gap of 10 years would absolutely be fine if both parties are mature enough (lets say 40 and 30), but that same age gap for a younger age couple like 8 to 18 would obviously be beyond immoral and utterly degenerate.
8f/18m is the exact opposite of degenerate: your wife probably going to be producing viable ovum to carry a pregnancy in a year or two and you could gently get her accustomed to the enjoyable use of her vagina so she doesn't suffer a terrible pregnancy

30f/40m otoh is completely degenerate because at 30 your egg quality has already started to decline, so you're obviously not having sex for the purpose of viable biological reproduction

It's obviously unhealthy/degenerate/abusive to jam a cock into a preteen girl who's lived under enforced ignorance of sex and unprepared for the experience though. Sex isn't something to rush into, it should only happen after a great amount of precursor milestones of knowledge and petting to prep for it.
 
Last edited:
DostoevskyCel

DostoevskyCel

Recruit
★★
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Posts
182
Online
4d 7h 53m
High IQ. A major problem with modern day soyciety is that they make immense decisions based on no moral or ethical foundation other than their intuition and desire to fit in with others. Essentially we live in a hyper-relativist world of ethics where if you go against the norm you are shunned regardless of whether you are backed by objective logic. Admittedly this type of visceral populist social cohesion isn't always bad if the majority opinion does actually happen to be logically founded. This sort of system though is flawed much like the system of Tyranny, wherein if the tyrant controls everything in a good way then society will remain good, but the minute that tyrant does something bad then society will reflect the tyrants power and go to shit. This is why unbelievably retarded ideas like abortion are now commonplace in soyciety, because people act not to chase objective morals but rather to sate their low-level emotions and fit in with as many people as they can.
Sadly hyper relativist just means feminine. We know females are largely incapable of independent thought (hence there are few female politicians, philosophers, etc) and this is why they were nazi in Germany and communist in Russia, their opinions reflect those of the most prominent male figure in their lives (further example, Nietzsche’s sister being nazi), and this is an obvious reason as to why incels exist, a low morality, vapid soyciety makes women hypergamous and seek out arbitrary makers of attractiveness (obvious example being 6 foot instead of 5’11 or 6’1, it’s just hive mind)
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
6,814
Online
32d 14h 31m
Do you know the difference between onset and the end?
Yes: pre-pubescent means before puberty begins, not before it finishes.

Just like post-pubescent means after puberty finishes, not after it starts.

If you want to cover "after it starts but before it ends" that is MID-pubescent and pedophilia was never written to cover those who prefer that because it's natural and healthy to prefer that at the start of a relationship.

Preference for post-pubescent is basically degen because you're fixated on needing to impregnate some stranger right away. Mid-pubescent preference is a romantic "we can holds hands for a couple years, I don't need to ejaculate inside you right away" outlook which can realistically exist in a society where fathers protect daughters from rape and match them up with moral suitors.

Obviously it's a soy/cucked outlook now because fathers don't protect their daughters from degeneracy. You can call disconnect from reality "unhealthy" I guess (unrealistic emotional expectations) but embracing the brutal clown world we live in is also an unhealthiness of a sort.
Once she's menstruating, she's ready. It's as simple as that
NO, once she's menstruating it's TOO LATE

Menstruation means you've already let at least one egg go to waste. It's unnatural and a sin against god and nature.

if you timed things correctly she would never menstruate because you would always make sure every egg she produces gets properly basted when she OVULATES.

this requires pre-basting the cake before it bleeds, since you can't know the exact time.

She should be pre-moistened before she gets pregnancy-crankiness.

If you soak her vagina in your cum your pair-bonding biochem will make the pregnancy more tolerable for her. Ideally coomed inside her dozens of times prior to the first egg-drop.

I don't consider this onanism and our sperm just isn't as precious as egg, it's more replaceable in higher numbers, and cum bonding dads/moms is a useful alternate purpose to actually creating a zygote.
 
Last edited:
Sharkcel

Sharkcel

Blackpill in the water
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Posts
85
Online
1d 5h 28m
@Wizard32 lol genuinely can't tell if this is real or just glowy/IT bait but I'll respond to it anyways cause I'm not a faggot.
Pick a fucking lane you non-committal faggot: are you saying "younger than 16" (15) or "younger than 18" (17) ?
I mean as in some point between 16-18, so lets just go with 18. When it comes to legality (which is what the topic of the age of consent resides under), you have to make broad sweeping decisions revolving around drawing a line in the sand, simply because it is impractical to do otherwise. (For example, toddlers shouldn't be allowed to vote, but adults should, and it's not necessarily clear where we should draw the line of when people should be allowed to vote but it has to be drawn somewhere so that's why the flat age of 18 is chosen, even though people at that age will still differ grandly in intelligence).
If you think the average 15 year old girl hasn't had Chad's cock plunged balls-deep into her at least 15 times already you're basically coping.

Even if she was a virgin, she's not "innocent" in the sense of being ignorant of what sex is or lacking sexual urges so WTF are you protecting exactly?
Obviously many underage foids have been fucked by Chad I'm not denying that, but I'm saying that that's objectively immoral because both the foid child and child Chad are too retarded to make certain decisions ranging from voting to sexual intercourse.
Fifteen year old girls aren't your average toddler though. Sex really is not that complicated, and if you think they're just fine before sex comes along you're coping.

The polluting/poisoning of foid minds (and male ones too) is an insidious, multi-faceted and gradual process, and simply blaming sex for degenerate and unhealthy mindsets is a gross oversimplification.
This seems somewhat hypocritical, since your admitting that there is a difference between a 15yo and a toddler, but are not willing to draw that line either (obviously the line does need to be drawn, so I think we agree on that). Saying that children do not maintain "innocence" (as in they should refrain to engage in sexual acts) just because they have sexual thoughts is like saying that a toddler doesn't have innocence because toddlers fondle their genitals or whatever the fuck. Also the mindset that just all underage foids should be promoted in their degenerate sexual intuitions is massively soycucked imo, why would u want to assist retarded foid intuitions at an earlier age?
That 6 May 2000 study you cited is bogus, did you even fucking READ it bro?
Yeah I'm too low IQ to read that shit jfl srry I was just pointing out that there is general scientific work on the topic.
that the female:male ratio of non-virgins is ever less than 2.

If you're not getting honest answers about whether or not you're a virgin then why would you get honest answers about whether or not you regretted the sex?

Foids not willing to tell the big lie (pretending to be a virgin) are still likely to tell the small one (regretting fucking Chad)
Not wrong tbh, foids especially lie about sexual topics due to incentives to blend with soyciety so it's not out of the question that they would lie about regretting sexual intercourse. At the same time though rationally doesn't it make sense that a child, lets say a 10 year old, would regret having sex due to poor/undeveloped judgement? Saying otherwise is like saying that the average 10 year old is as capable as a fully developed as the average 25 year old. Definitely many foids lie about sexual regrets, but considering the foundational logic that younger developing people have worse judgement it only makes sense that a significant amount of children of either sex would regret poorly-planned sexual encounters.
If adulthood were some indivisible indicator of judgment where wisdom trumps lust, we wouldn't have HIV pandemics in bathhouses by faggots or roasties still willing to cheat on their husbands with chad at the drop of a hat.

The idea of promoting underage as foolish is mostly just a cope used to distract from the clown world where we LARP about adults being competent.
Absolutely true, I hate the concept of "maturity" often as people are definitely more competent than others across different ages, but like I said earlier there needs to be some line at which people enter a "mature" stage of life to where they can vote, have sex, etc, because otherwise toddlers would be able to do all those things and obviously that's out of the question. I totally agree that it is NOT a perfect system where this line in the sand has to be drawn, but it has to be done on the legal level because there's no remotely reasonable way to rate overall developmental maturity otherwise.
These are more important than "I aged five more years" because you're never old enough to be immune to Tyrone tearing your dry labia open with his cock and getting feces bacteria into your bloodstream.
I also agree here that Tyrone destroying someone's labia is going to happen regardless of how developed someone is, but it's not at all something should be legally prevented because retarded foids will be retarded foids, and if they want to idiotically destroy their beef curtains than that is their degenerate choice to make (it's not the governments job to save foids from their brain dead intuitions, however children should be given that chance as they are not fully developed).
8f/18m is the exact opposite of degenerate: your wife probably going to be producing viable ovum to carry a pregnancy in a year or two and you could gently get her accustomed to the enjoyable use of her vagina so she doesn't suffer a terrible pregnancy

30f/40m otoh is completely degenerate because at 30 your egg quality has already started to decline, so you're obviously not having sex for the purpose of viable biological reproduction

It's obviously unhealthy/degenerate/abusive to jam a cock into a preteen girl who's lived under enforced ignorance of sex and unprepared for the experience though. Sex isn't something to rush into, it should only happen after a great amount of precursor milestones of knowledge and petting to prep for it.
Solid IT bait ngl. Extrapolating the logic further, no one would say that a 10 year old and a 1 month old is even remotely sane. For 30f/40m I agree that people have kids too late in general but in an optimal society, relationships (although biologically rooted for the purpose of procreation) can extend beyond fertile years. I also agree that degenerate cock jamming should be avoided at any age, but unlike the age of consent which is a legal ordeal, this is a social concern because the government can't control if retarded foids jam Chad's cock into them and they get internal bleeding jfl. This is much like how the government is not responsible for someone jumping off a cliff and injuring/killing themselves, because it is simply unpractical to prevent someone from doing that in society and there is no reason that we should even try to prevent people from doing that in the first place, and therefore it falls under the umbrella of being a social concern rather than a legal one.
 
Michinomiya Hirohit

Michinomiya Hirohit

emperor
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Posts
9,932
Online
105d 7h 16m
Sadly hyper relativist just means feminine. We know females are largely incapable of independent thought (hence there are few female politicians, philosophers, etc) and this is why they were nazi in Germany and communist in Russia, their opinions reflect those of the most prominent male figure in their lives (further example, Nietzsche’s sister being nazi), and this is an obvious reason as to why incels exist, a low morality, vapid soyciety makes women hypergamous and seek out arbitrary makers of attractiveness (obvious example being 6 foot instead of 5’11 or 6’1, it’s just hive mind)
 
gymletethnicel

gymletethnicel

Genetic Garbage
-
Joined
May 8, 2019
Posts
17,037
Online
284d 20h 0m
After puberty there is no reason a man shouldn't find a female teenager attractive.
Basically yeah. There's no magic number, only thing that matters is puberty.
 
MrJangles

MrJangles

Recruit
★★★
Joined
Mar 19, 2021
Posts
213
Online
7d 13h 19m
13 should be legal
 
Dotrinfobe

Dotrinfobe

Officer
★★★★
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Posts
812
Online
15d 19h 6m
as well as how younger people regret their sexual experiences later on in life. Although underage people may be developmentally similar, they are not necessarily mentally, and lack developed judgement and decision making which makes sexual intercourse below a certain age immoral in regards to maintaining a non-degenerate society.
you are fucking retarded.

younger people tend to regret sexual experience when they grow up, coz its was their first experiences during yonger years. everyone are more likely to regret earliest expereinces coz experiences are built up, they dont pop out a rock. so you trial and error, and eventually you find some safe zone or comfort zone and you no longer prone to regret as much.

if everyone can only have sex starting 30 yr old then 30 yr of age would be the new age of regret.
 
Sharkcel

Sharkcel

Blackpill in the water
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Posts
85
Online
1d 5h 28m
you are fucking retarded.

younger people tend to regret sexual experience when they grow up, coz its was their first experiences during yonger years. everyone are more likely to regret earliest expereinces coz experiences are built up, they dont pop out a rock. so you trial and error, and eventually you find some safe zone or comfort zone and you no longer prone to regret as much.

if everyone can only have sex starting 30 yr old then 30 yr of age would be the new age of regret.
Partially true but for the most part this is obvious glow nigger shit, snap the fuck out of it.

People will obviously regret shit more when it's there first time regardless of age, but saying that the mental development and decision making of a kid is just as good as that of an adult is just disingenuous. Kids in there mid-teens are not significantly developed and are affected with insane levels of hormones that make them do stupid shit as well. There is a reason for why there is a legal voting age, and for why kids that do illegal shit don't get sent to prison but to juvie instead. If you deny that the age of consent should be a thing then you also deny all other legal concepts that involve excluding people based on young age.
 
Ellsworth

Ellsworth

Chad but they let me post here anyway
★★★★★
Joined
May 23, 2019
Posts
9,635
Online
66d 11h 36m
16 is fully grown. I can’t tell the difference between a 16yo and a 18yo
 
JosefMengelecel

JosefMengelecel

Proud advocate of räpe, incest, and pedophilia
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Posts
9,003
Online
108d 4h 27m
You are only a pedo if the foid is 12 imo
I heavily disagree. Most if not all 12 yo foids are pubescent. 12 yo makes you a hebephile which is a completely natural thing. Also finding a 12 yo virgin foid these days are extremely rare. Maybe even non-existent in the west
 
NorthernWind

NorthernWind

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Posts
457
Online
13d 15h 21m
Moralfags are disgusting.
 
Valiant Virgin

Valiant Virgin

Just a face in the crowd
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Posts
9,489
Online
22d 9h 48m
Agreed, I regularly masturbate to pictures and videos of 17-year-old and 18-year-old girls and don't feel an iota of guilt or shame about it despite what soyciety wants us to think. They're sexually developed enough for me to find them attractive, so it's completely natural.
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
6,814
Online
32d 14h 31m
You are only a pedo if the foid is 12 imo
The funny thing about this phrasing is that while it's intended to mean 13+ is non-pedo it technically also means 1-11 is not either
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
6,814
Online
32d 14h 31m
@Wizard32 lol genuinely can't tell if this is real or just glowy/IT bait but I'll respond to it anyways cause I'm not a faggot.
Not JUST, both
I mean as in some point between 16-18, so lets just go with 18. When it comes to legality (which is what the topic of the age of consent resides under), you have to make broad sweeping decisions revolving around drawing a line in the sand, simply because it is impractical to do otherwise.
You don't have to be that broad or sweeping if you just add in other criteria, like passing skill tests.

(For example, toddlers shouldn't be allowed to vote, but adults should, and it's not necessarily clear where we should draw the line of when people should be allowed to vote but it has to be drawn somewhere so that's why the flat age of 18 is chosen, even though people at that age will still differ grandly in intelligence).
To stop full-retard adults from voting we could easily reach a consensus to require something like passing a tenth-grade literacy test.

That need not replace age requirements, but supplement them. Like perhaps instead of 18 to vote, you instead need to be 17 and have passed the literacy test.

Obviously many underage foids have been fucked by Chad I'm not denying that, but I'm saying that that's objectively immoral because both the foid child and child Chad are too retarded to make certain decisions ranging from voting to sexual intercourse.
A kid making a decision to do something dangerous is not immoral it's just reckless.

What you'd call immoral is adults who benefit from leading kids to do that, but that factor is absent with kid-on-kid w/o a 3rd party

This seems somewhat hypocritical, since your admitting that there is a difference between a 15yo and a toddler, but are not willing to draw that line either (obviously the line does need to be drawn, so I think we agree on that)

I'm not sure what line in particular you're talking about. I don't see a false dichotomy divided by a single line as ideal.

We could do several lines and groupings to reflect that people don't realistically jump from "ready for nothing" to "ready for everything".

I mean fuck we have 3 different tiers of driver licenses plus special ones for trucks and air brakes, we could at least aim for that kind of complexity.

Saying that children do not maintain "innocence" (as in they should refrain to engage in sexual acts) just because they have sexual thoughts is like saying that a toddler doesn't have innocence because toddlers fondle their genitals or whatever the fuck.
That depends entirely on what people mean by 'innocence' TBH which is why vague terms like that need to be clarified. It's an oversimplification as one doesn't leap from innocent to non-innocent in a single bound, it's a gradual spectrum.

Same with celdom TBH so it's not surprising if I have difficulty communicating ideas like this to those who gravitate towards embellishing a dichotomic approach.


Also the mindset that just all underage foids should be promoted in their degenerate sexual intuitions is massively soycucked imo, why would u want to assist retarded foid intuitions at an earlier age?
Not completely repressing sexual intuition does not automatically mean 'let it run wild'. I'm talking about the concept of responsible shaping and a controlled pressure release.

IE instead of letting Miss Teen get fucked by the inevitably law-breaking Chad in some alleyway because if she has to break the law to get sex she might as well do it with Chad... instead give her an acceptable non-Chad option so she can be a 'good girl' but still get to indulge herself: like one o fus as a husband.


rationally doesn't it make sense that a child, lets say a 10 year old, would regret having sex due to poor/undeveloped judgement?
COULD: yes
WOULD: varies

Saying otherwise is like saying that the average 10 year old is as capable as a fully developed as the average 25 year old.
Not really, 25 year olds are generally going to beat the shit out of a 10 year old in a Judo match, that doesn't mean 10 year olds will regret practicing Judo or that by saying 10yos should practice Judo I'm saying they are going to be able to toss around someone double their weight with ease.

Definitely many foids lie about sexual regrets, but considering the foundational logic that younger developing people have worse judgement it only makes sense that a significant amount of children of either sex would regret poorly-planned sexual encounters.
So teach planning.

The most poorly-planned shit is going to be the illegal unendorsed crap they'll inevitably do when suppressed.

It's like we take a "it's not guaranteed to be perfect so nothing at all" but then they go and do a worse-than-if-we-managed-it result anyway.

This attitude doesn't seem to extend to other things with risk also, keep in mind.

Chad could 100% regret joining the football team if he takes a bad tackle and breaks his leg, for example. But there's far fewer morality police whining about this even though a broken leg is objectively much worse damage than a stretched hymen.

Broken legs also cause far more emotional suffering than giving a blowjob to a chadlite you thought was cute until you met gigachad the next day.

Absolutely true, I hate the concept of "maturity" often as people are definitely more competent than others across different ages, but like I said earlier there needs to be some line at which people enter a "mature" stage of life to where they can vote, have sex, etc, because otherwise toddlers would be able to do all those things and obviously that's out of the question. I totally agree that it is NOT a perfect system where this line in the sand has to be drawn, but it has to be done on the legal level because there's no remotely reasonable way to rate overall developmental maturity otherwise.

You're mostly parroting normy talking points here. You've assumed we must draw a singular line on a singular criteria and are trying to fashion some logic to justify it, but failing.

"There's no reasonable way to rate overally development, so let's unreasonably rate it on the basis of age" is basically the argument here.

Age can be a factor, but why not weight other factors like achievements in education?

We rate the emotional intelligence of someone in relation to driving cars by seeing if they have the patience to study the rules of the road and retain the information enough to write it on paper, for example.

For stuff like being a doctor you do that in spades and do apprenticeships where people observe and correct mistakes.


I also agree here that Tyrone destroying someone's labia is going to happen regardless of how developed someone is, but it's not at all something should be legally prevented because retarded foids will be retarded foids, and if they want to idiotically destroy their beef curtains than that is their degenerate choice to make (it's not the governments job to save foids from their brain dead intuitions, however children should be given that chance as they are not fully developed).
Someone whos max IQ will be 200 will be IQ 100 at "half developed" while someone whose max IQ will be 90 is 90 at "fully developed".

So the expression doesn't really hold water.

What matters isn't % of max capacity in respect to one's own destiny but rather current capacity in respect to whatever requirement we think is reasonable to do certain things.

Solid IT bait ngl. Extrapolating the logic further, no one would say that a 10 year old and a 1 month old is even remotely sane.
Depends on what they're doing. If the ten year old is just gonna think she's cute and protect her until they can get married some day I don't really see a problem with it TBH



like Phil and Ro above

this is a social concern because the government can't control if retarded foids jam Chad's cock into them and they get internal bleeding jfl
Sure they can, look at what they're doing with COVID and shit, all you need to do is restrict people's freedom of movement if they're low-IQ.

We already do this with retards, it's just a matter of widening the boundaries of inclusion.
 
Kaisercel

Kaisercel

Recruit
★★
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Posts
155
Online
3d 6h 41m
Sex with a 16 yo is legal in virtually all Europe

 
Sharkcel

Sharkcel

Blackpill in the water
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Posts
85
Online
1d 5h 28m
@Wizard32
Read your response, a fellow rationalcel I see. Your not glowing lol srry I take it back, I actually respect this shit a ton. Fr tho if u like foids in they're early teens that's p fucked imo and u should prob get help (not even saying that in the bluepilled condescending faggot way like genuinely lol it's not normal), and accept that none of us here will fuck anyone a day younger than 18, because if we do we will be getting Tyrone's cock up our asses everyday for the rest of our lives rotting in prison because we refused to let ourselves be cucked by soyciety.
Not JUST, both
Absolutely based. Two birds, one stone.
You don't have to be that broad or sweeping if you just add in other criteria, like passing skill tests.
I'm not going to waste ur time and quote every part of your response because tbh I think p much all of our disagreement is just this.
You're mostly parroting normy talking points here. You've assumed we must draw a singular line on a singular criteria and are trying to fashion some logic to justify it, but failing.
Lets be honest here, both of us IQ-mog normies to the shadow realm and back multiple times over considering that for them not a single neuron fires past hearing the word "underage". I should clarify that the logic of using a strict universal line in the sand at a specific age is indeed unpreferable, but considering the general inadequacy and dysfunctionality of the government this is pretty much the best the government can do for the most part imo (I mean in the current day, not in a utopian society).

I completely agree that just drawing a single age, for things ranging from voting, to driving, to age of consent is generally irrational for an optimal society, because different people are capable to vastly different degrees, regardless of age. The thing is that when it comes to the concept of regret, I think it is an outlier because people's relative development (although it normally doesn't matter for shit) does matter here because then their is a plausible case for them regretting their decision once they do become fully developed. Therefore ultimately we must draw some line between puberty and the full developmental age of 25 at which people should morally be prevented from their own retardation due to their young age as enforced by the government, because otherwise it would be a disservice to their future selves as citizens of the nation. I do agree that optimally there should be achievement tests, just as there are for driving, for the allowance to be sexually active, because absolutely many foids today, even in their late 20s, simply lust after Chad/Tyrone, and then have their vaginas harshly torn apart and then seek to kill their children in utero as consequence of their uneducated degeneracy and then some even have the audacity to cry rape afterwards.

I think this is our entire disagreement but yeah neither of us are cucked at least imo. Also your example of Chad joining the football team and breaking his shit and getting a concussion and becoming brain dead is unironically a decent point, and I do think that certain sports should be prevented at young ages if there is any significant chance of them becoming injured. Ig i'm just authoritarian af idk.
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
6,814
Online
32d 14h 31m
@Wizard32
if u like foids in they're early teens that's p fucked imo and u should prob get help
What exactly is the problem I need help with?

Being attracted to someone you can't fuck (for whatever reason) is a situation we need to make peace with in life.

TBH wanting to fuck a 14 year old girl is a lot less stressful than wanting to fuck a 24 year old girl.

In the latter case, my inability to do so forces me to confront shit like "she just wouldn't like me" or "I'm too high-inhib to approach" etc.

In the former case however I can just shrug and say "oh well, it's illegal, I'll never need to find out if she'd like me because it's too high-risk to try even if she did"


(not even saying that in the bluepilled condescending faggot way like genuinely lol it's not normal)
Wanting to fuck 14 year old girls is 100% normal for men.
The only thing abnormal is admitting to it because the majority of normal men are high-inhib scared pussy fucks.
Myself included of course: I wouldn't say that shit in public because I don't want to get lynched by a bunch of hypocritical white-knights in denial.
I'm just slightly lower-inhib on the internet than most folk because I've given up on the idea of using the internet to build IRL social networks like normies spend most of their time on via facebook and crap to orbit their oneitis.

accept that none of us here will fuck anyone a day younger than 18, because if we do we will be getting Tyrone's cock up our asses everyday for the rest of our lives rotting in prison
You're coping if you think you're not risking tyrone's cock even by fucking girls in their 20s/30s: you'll probably still get a false rape accusation and go to jail anyway.


I'm not going to waste ur time and quote every part of your response because tbh I think p much all of our disagreement is just this.
Do you see a problem with something like "you can vote at 18 if you've passed grade 10 literacy" (which they should've done by 15, three years ago) and "you can vote at 20 if you haven't passed grade 10 literacy" ?

That would be a huge step up TBH.

It's a hell of a lot easier to pass a literacy exam than Helein-tier "you can vote after you've served a two year military term battling insect aliens" in SST

Lets be honest here, both of us IQ-mog normies to the shadow realm and back multiple times over considering that for them not a single neuron fires past hearing the word "underage". I should clarify that the logic of using a strict universal line in the sand at a specific age is indeed unpreferable, but considering the general inadequacy and dysfunctionality of the government this is pretty much the best the government can do for the most part imo (I mean in the current day, not in a utopian society).

Government already does it more complex for driving. We just need a Department of Sexual Bodies to compliment the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Driving is actually more dangerous than sex (kills more people) but for some reason sex crimes have bigger punishment because of foid feels and orbiting.

I'd say if you need to be 16 to write a driver's exam then you could make that the age to get the most dangerous form of sex (anal penetration of another via penis) and make it 15 to do the next-most dangerous duo (finger in anus or penis in vagina) and 14 to do the next-most-dangerous duo (finger in pussy or penis in mouth or hand-on-balls) and 13 to do the next most dangerous (shaft in hand or finger in outer labia) and 12 to do the next-most dangerous (tongue on penis or tongue on clit) and 11 for the least dangerous duo (fingertip on glans of penis or clit).

Keep in mind though these ages are just minimum req to write the exams regarding safety: you'd still have to pass the exams to get a license to do them and it would be revoked if you engaged in deviant behavior like breaking laws, so that would give kids incentive to not do shit like jaywalk or shoplift.

The thing is that when it comes to the concept of regret, I think it is an outlier because people's relative development (although it normally doesn't matter for shit) does matter here because then their is a plausible case for them regretting their decision once they do become fully developed.
Nobody is ever 'fully' developed, there's no marker for what that is.
Plausibly regretting a decision is also not enough of a reason to prevent people from making decisions, even as a teen.
For example a teen could regret taking Art instead of Math. Does that mean you don't let them choose their courses?
You should be further elaborating with language as to the difference.

Therefore ultimately we must draw some line between puberty and the full developmental age of 25 at which people should morally be prevented from their own retardation due to their young age as enforced by the government, because otherwise it would be a disservice to their future selves as citizens of the nation.
The line can be done by testing to see if they know basic facts to make responsible choices.

Like for example don't let someone have a finger stuck up their ass (or their finger up another's) if they don't understand basic shit like...
1) fingernails can tear the rectal lining and cause bleeding: they should be short and smooth and care taken to angle the digit properly to minimize contact​
2) fingernails can have dirty under them and carry bacteria which infects the bloodstream through such tears​
3) lubrication and using a slow speed is safer​
4) someone who gives consent can withdraw it: you should be attentive to their communication and cease if they change their mind​
5) there are people who look down on those who finger anuses or get their anuses fingered, or who do not but pretend to out of fear of cancel culture: understand you are putting your reputation at risk if people found out and may be the target of social discrimination as a result​

People who can't regurgitate even basic shit like this obviously shouldn't be given that freedom. You can always add any facts I overlook to this.

Not really sure what else someone ought to know. and TBH this seems like teens would all know about except the dumbest of niggers, and a licensing system would prevent them from doing it.

I do agree that optimally there should be achievement tests, just as there are for driving, for the allowance to be sexually active, because absolutely many foids today, even in their late 20s, simply lust after Chad/Tyrone, and then have their vaginas harshly torn apart and then seek to kill their children in utero as consequence of their uneducated degeneracy and then some even have the audacity to cry rape afterwards.
Xactly.

Our biggest struggle would be to prevent foids from cheating since orbiting guys lusting for them would probably help them in hope of sexual rewards (which they probably wouldn't get)

I think this is our entire disagreement but yeah neither of us are cucked at least imo.
I'm totally cucked, I waste way too much time thinking about old flame oneitises and hypothetical scenarios of fucking them which are heavily unlikely to happen.
Any wasted resources on unfulfilled sexual promise is cucked, so long as you do not embrace it.

Also your example of Chad joining the football team and breaking his shit and getting a concussion and becoming brain dead is unironically a decent point, and I do think that certain sports should be prevented at young ages if there is any significant chance of them becoming injured. Ig i'm just authoritarian af idk.
It's mostly misandry and "toxic masculinity" which prevents such precautions.
Though that could be said of a lot of female sports too.
Or crap like letting teen girls get their ears pierced or extreme tans.

Getting pierced lobes or burned skin is way more harmful than getting your clit lightly rubbed TBH
 
waste matter

waste matter

The CHOsen KHHV
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Posts
5,480
Online
41d 12h 58m
After puberty there is no reason a man shouldn't find a female teenager attractive. I honestly don't give a shit what society says.

Before the age of consent was even lower and no one had any issues. Age of consent is literally an arbitrary number that changes depending on the current age or Era.

View attachment 430664
Based as always brocel.
 
Sharkcel

Sharkcel

Blackpill in the water
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Posts
85
Online
1d 5h 28m
What exactly is the problem I need help with?
lol srry bro dont get wound up over my remark there is just a subjective opinion of mine not objective at all im just saying that only like a personal level not a rational one. I'm just very personally averse to having shit like this even remotely associated with me being an incel, because genuinely wouldnt fuck a girl 15 or younger imho unless they were somehow using massive amounts of fakeup to fraud older age and I if I wasn't aware of that. Again, subjectively, my opinion is that children should absolutely not be thrusted into any sort of sexual situations beyond masturbation bc i believe it would be highly dangerous and utterly degenerate in causing a demand pull of social acceptance to normalize and become okay with sexualizing children in their early-teens. This isn't to mention that I believe it is utterly cucked for feminism because retarded jb foids that lust after like some 20yo Chads dick literally want to be degenerately fucked by him despite her being of such insanely young age (literally half the age of Chad), and in no way do I support that cucked radical lgbt+ and feminist retarded degeneracy in any way. Again, this is subjective technically so u don't have to respond to it it's just my opinion, but a very strong opinion of mine. (by the way I think i sound like a passive aggressive cuck here, i absolutely dont mean to be i just really hate shit that i think is pedo).

Government already does it more complex for driving. We just need a Department of Sexual Bodies
Not wrong, I mean to say that the government today would have to fund money towards this becoming a reality, which I would absolutely not support as it provides no utilitarian benefit for anyone other than those that are exclusively satisfied by fucking children. It's hedonistic dog shit in my opinion, especially considering that sex is already possible to the exact same degree as of currently, just with slightly older women who are currently considered to be of legal age. As for the hypothetical of an ideal world in which a sort of sexual achievement test should exist however, I absolutely agree on that note, my contention however being that developmentally-caused regret is the key major issue here.

Nobody is ever 'fully' developed, there's no marker for what that is.
Plausibly regretting a decision is also not enough of a reason to prevent people from making decisions, even as a teen.
For example a teen could regret taking Art instead of Math. Does that mean you don't let them choose their courses?
You should be further elaborating with language as to the difference.
So this sounds like the meat of our disagreement. When I say that people don't reach full development until the age of 25. Their inherent biological cognitive systems on which their judgement lies is objectively relatively inferior to that of the capacity that they will reach at what contemporary science on the topic deems to be approximately 25 years of age ("The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so..."). I assume that you understood me to mean that a person reaches peak amounts of knowledge and therefore experience that serves as the primary resource on which decisions are made at 25 years of age, but obviously that's not true. I am instead referring to the actual relative measured capacity itself of the human brain which I clarify above.

People who can't regurgitate even basic shit like this obviously shouldn't be given that freedom
tbh this is def sperg level specificity of the hypothetical but pretty based lol i respect it, a licensing system would definitely be optimal in this regard.

Our biggest struggle would be to prevent foids from cheating since orbiting guys lusting for them would probably help them in hope of sexual rewards
True. Polyamory is inherent in human nature but must be repressed for an optimal society to function without utter degeneracy occurring as we unfortunately see it happening today.

I'm totally cucked, I waste way too much time thinking about old flame oneitises and hypothetical scenarios of fucking them which are heavily unlikely to happen.
Any wasted resources on unfulfilled sexual promise is cucked, so long as you do not embrace it.
Lol damn, p brutal.

It's mostly misandry and "toxic masculinity" which prevents such precautions.
Though that could be said of a lot of female sports too.
Or crap like letting teen girls get their ears pierced or extreme tans.

Getting pierced lobes or burned skin is way more harmful than getting your clit lightly rubbed TBH
Based. I'm unaware of how pierced lobes is harmful, but tanning for sure has risks I believe. Regardless it's definitely true that it's fucked that kids are allowed to do this retarded shit lol.

But yeah ight so i guess we only fundamentally rationally disagree on the topic of development and regret although we have very different subjective opinions on intuitions towards sexual activity at certain ages. Tbh i'm kinda bored of the topic it's just kinda some water shit where some ppl wanna fuck 10yos (which is rlly rlly fucked imo), but also some ppl wanna lock others up and label them as sex offenders for mutually engaging in a relationship with a 17yo just because one of the party's in the relationship is a fucking month, day, hour, minute underage (which is also utterly degenerate imo). But yeah i think it's fair to say that in the rational sense we can agree to disagree. I appreciate the not glowing the fuck out even though we disagree extremely in the subjective sense (I just have strong emotions behind the opinions because I hate being associated with pedo shit entirely). But yeah if u respond i respect it but i prob will respond with some boring generic agree to disagree shit cause this shit is boring af to me and is super uncontroversial in the current world but ye.
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
6,814
Online
32d 14h 31m
lol srry bro dont get wound up over my remark there is just a subjective opinion of mine not objective at all im just saying that only like a personal level not a rational one. I'm just very personally averse to having shit like this even remotely associated with me being an incel, because genuinely wouldnt fuck a girl 15 or younger imho unless they were somehow using massive amounts of fakeup to fraud older age and I if I wasn't aware of that.
I would not either in the context of modern society.
If you're saying you wouldn't outside of that context then you're basically just LARPing and coping because the boot of society on our neck shapes u


Again, subjectively, my opinion is that children should absolutely not be thrusted into any sort of sexual situations beyond masturbation
Who the fuck thrusts people into masturbation?

You're moving the goalposts here because I never talked about thrusting anyone into any anything.

Feel free to look back at my previous posts and point out where I talked about applying any kind of pressure whatsoever.

"Let them do it if they initiate it in an uncoerced environment" is more my view, which is definitely not 'thrusting'.

I believe you're using that term because you want to reframe this argument in a black-and-white way that makes sense, by opposing something more obviously wrong, because my argument is too gray.

Thrusting ANYONE into a sexual situation is a bad thing: the term implies applying pressure and coercion, which is unethical.

Of course there's probably something misandric about that association because of how males as active movers 'thrust' in sexual penetration.

Perhaps we should adopt other terms which use female sexual analogies in oppressive ways.

Like women grapple cocks with their vaginas, so how about instead we say "children should absolutely not grappled into any sort of sexual situations" ?

Basically sex should be a mutual thing involving cooperation, it shouldn't be just one party acting unilaterally. You obviously can't get a perfect 50/50 split but you should probably be hovering between 40/60 to 60/40 on average.

This is more like if I wanted to court a girl and somehow succeeded enough that she wanted to jump on my cock, that should okay.

That wouldn't be thrusting her into anything, she's be thrusting herself onto my cock, not having my cock thrust into her.

I mean AFTER that point I'd gently return some light thrusts, sure, but first-thrust? Nope.

bc i believe it would be highly dangerous and utterly degenerate in causing a demand pull of social acceptance to normalize and become okay with sexualizing children in their early-teens.
Sexualizing is adding sexuality where it is absent, but it is already present in early-teens. You're LARPing if you think 13/14 year olds don't have strong sexual impulses. You can't just have forgotten what it was like unless you've ruined your brain with drugs.

If you want my respect you'll find a term other than "sexualizing" because you aren't actually imparting something which is absent.

We're literally talking about whether it's acceptable to oppress people or not. It is oppression to inhibit people's ability to socialize with others, sexually or otherwise, directly or indirectly.

This isn't to mention that I believe it is utterly cucked for feminism because retarded jb foids that lust after like some 20yo Chads dick literally want to be degenerately fucked by him despite her being of such insanely young age (literally half the age of Chad)
That's not insanely young IMO.
There's also nothing retarded about lusting after someone attractive, that's a pretty natural impulse we've evolved.
The only retardation is being dominated solely by that and disregarding the importance of personality.


in no way do I support that cucked radical lgbt+ and feminist retarded degeneracy in any way
I'm losing track of how this connects to our topic, sorry, could you explain?

Again, this is subjective technically so u don't have to respond to it it's just my opinion, but a very strong opinion of mine. (by the way I think i sound like a passive aggressive cuck here, i absolutely dont mean to be i just really hate shit that i think is pedo).
Pedophilia is a paraphilia which requires:
a) present for at least six months​
b) cause clinically important distress​
c) impair work​
d) cause problems with social or personal functioning​

You're misusing the term if you think "I'd be open to responsibly fucking someone unusual" is enough to qualify for paraphilia.

Your ranting about "early teens" also shows you're forgetting the PREpubescent requirement: 13/14 girls are in the middle of puberty, not preceding it.

Basically if mentally you still think "pedo" your brain is using the wrong vocabulary.

That's basically guys who obsess predominantly about fucking preschoolers and are too sad/angry about the inability to do so that they can't do basic functions.

It's really an insulting thing to call a guy and I think 99% of the time gets misapplied.

TBH we should probably come up with a paraphilia diagnosis for guys who get this way about being able to fuck their looksmatch because it actually is disordered to think you can achieve your looksmatch when it is contrary to the hypergamous natural order.

Not as aberrant as those guys thinking they can score higher, of course. But realistically we should be aiming for one level lower, just recognizing how women are.

Not wrong, I mean to say that the government today would have to fund money towards this becoming a reality, which I would absolutely not support as it provides no utilitarian benefit for anyone other than those that are exclusively satisfied by fucking children.
I disagree about that: being able to have sex with teen girls (I refuse to call them children that's government propaganda) isn't just good for people who will ONLY fuck girls, but also a boon to those who would ALSO fuck them.

It's even a boon for those who WON'T fuck them, because the ALSO guys will have more options freeing up the 20s/30s women for the WON'T guys to fuck.

It's hedonistic dog shit in my opinion
As a virgin I don't have much patient being lectured about my hedonism.
You can lecture gigachad about his hedonism: he's fucking the teen girls anyway regardless of legality.

sex is already possible to the exact same degree as of currently, just with slightly older women who are currently considered to be of legal age
These women have less competition at present and thus exert undue power. They would have better attitudes with a broader ranger of competition.
With inferior bodies they'd need to work on their fitness and personalities.

As for the hypothetical of an ideal world in which a sort of sexual achievement test should exist however, I absolutely agree on that note, my contention however being that developmentally-caused regret is the key major issue here.
Sharkcel if a woman decided to be our BFs and fuck us she'd probably regret it 99% of the time anyway when she thinks "I settled, I could've had Chad if I worked harder"

It just seems like concerntrolling tbh to care about this flippant attitude of foids.

If we are decent and moral in our behaviors then there really isn't anything to regret about being with us.

By embracing concern over them regretting fucking us you're basically saying that it's justified to regret being with us.

Face it: the foids will never regret fucking gigachad. It will be a memory that gives her tingles the rest of her life.

This is all about you feeling sad she might regret fucking US: but that regret is unjustified and shouldn't have our legal policy built around it.

So this sounds like the meat of our disagreement. When I say that people don't reach full development until the age of 25. Their inherent biological cognitive systems on which their judgement lies is objectively relatively inferior to that of the capacity that they will reach at what contemporary science on the topic deems to be approximately 25 years of age ("The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so..."). I assume that you understood me to mean that a person reaches peak amounts of knowledge and therefore experience that serves as the primary resource on which decisions are made at 25 years of age, but obviously that's not true. I am instead referring to the actual relative measured capacity itself of the human brain which I clarify above.
Prefrontal cortex BS has been pushed for decades as justification and it's complete BS which ignores plasticity of function and how teens with "undeveloped" PFCs can regularly outperform post-teens with "fully developed" PFCs in terms of responsible decision-making.

TBH in 30s feel a lot more impulsive/angry and prone to irresponsible outbursts right now than I did as a teen. PFC gets too much credit.

tbh this is def sperg level specificity of the hypothetical but pretty based lol i respect it, a licensing system would definitely be optimal in this regard.
SWAYED

I'm unaware of how pierced lobes is harmful
Assuming you avoid infection you're still putting a hole in your body which things can snag on and cause further injury, even if you don't attach an even-more-snaggable earring to it.

I guess you could say that entirely cutting off your earlobes isn't technically "harmful" either if you view them as pointless decoration. Some people apparently don't even have those lobes, right?

Usually having non-scarred nerve impulses from skin is a good thing though. They're erogenous zones and that serves an inherent purpose (much like a foreskin or a clitoris) plus it can help you feel a breeze.

But yeah ight so i guess we only fundamentally rationally disagree on the topic of development and regret although we have very different subjective opinions on intuitions towards sexual activity at certain ages
Not sure what you mean by intuitions, can you elaborate as to what different intutions we have in mind?


Tbh i'm kinda bored of the topic it's just kinda some water shit where some ppl wanna fuck 10yos (which is rlly rlly fucked imo)
Calling something "fucked" seems like a convenient way of avoiding thinking deeply upon it.

What exactly is so horrible about us as potential boyfriends or companions that we would "ruin" a girl by dating her before her teens?

We're not gigachad who has so many options we look down on women as disposable objects and take them for granted and toss them to the curb for the next fresh pussy catches our eye.



you really think her mental wellbeing is going to be that much better off by not having a steady appreciative fiance and instead just playing mind-games in HS with various chadlites? she'll likely turn into a corrupt predator by the time you're willing to fuck her

, but also some ppl wanna lock others up and label them as sex offenders for mutually engaging in a relationship with a 17yo just because one of the party's in the relationship is a fucking month, day, hour, minute underage (which is also utterly degenerate imo).
whatever age you're a "month under" is still arbitrarily set nation to nation though

But yeah i think it's fair to say that in the rational sense we can agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree makes sense in the case of "chocolate is best" vs "strawberry is best".
The agreement comes from the mutual realization that taste is subjective.

But you seem to be going beyond "prefer chocolate" to "chocolate only and strawberry is fucked" so you're going beyond the boundaries of the taste-compromise.

I appreciate the not glowing the fuck out even though we disagree extremely in the subjective sense (I just have strong emotions behind the opinions because I hate being associated with pedo shit entirely).
You hate being associated with the pedo label: if you want comradery then where we can reach a mutual understanding is in the mutual recognition that "this gets called pedo" without needing to actually say "it is".

Kind of like we can all agree that inceldom gets CALLED misogynistic but it actually does not require hating all women and only a (probably small) minority actually do. There are more incels who LARP about "hate all women" for drama than who literally do.

But yeah if u respond i respect it but i prob will respond with some boring generic agree to disagree shit cause this shit is boring af to me and is super uncontroversial in the current world but ye.
You're LARPing about being bored, bored people don't respond.
 
C

Currycel25

Banned
-
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Posts
692
Online
5d 6h 32m
Who cares if it's immortal morality is for background characters