Age of Consent Debate/Flamewar

Ever since the collapse of the old Lainchan and its rebirth, there's been (largely manufactured) controversy over which people should be allowed to speak here. People have been bitching about the IRC and whatnot, but surprisingly enough there hasn't actually been a thread here on this iteration of Lainchan to discuss the topic that gets so many people so bothered, so maybe there should be. Well, this is that thread, so anyone who wants to have a discussion which will doubtlessly contain a great deal of acrimony, soykafflinging, and anime girls get in here and join the party. For my part, I'm with the group that says US laws are far too restrictive and based on nothing concrete. Whether you agree with that, think the laws are okay, think they're not restrictive enough, have an opinion somewhere in between or you just want to entertain yourself by watching an argument, this is the thread for you. Keep the discussion limited to non-pornographic areas of this topic as per board rules, and don't post anything illegal. However, opinions aren't illegal (yet). Pic related. It's usually how these threads turn out, along with every other thread about any topic that's even somewhat controversial. It'd be great if we could avoid that.

>>5694 >AOC I don't think it should exist. As in, it's socially unacceptable to have sex outside of marriage. Parents should allow their daughters to get married 12+ Why not let people have sex in a safe environment?

>>5695 You say 12+ though. That implies the existence of an AoC despite the different conditions for qualifying to have sex. Another scheme that might be used is a sex license test, much like a driver's test. It's curious why the crowd that believes in strictly 18+ only once you hit 18 doesn't like the idea of a sex test more. If sex tests were given and their assertion of teens not being ready to consent on an adult level was true, the test results would reflect that. Yet every time I've ever suggested the idea to them, they treat it as ridiculous. Hmm, it's almost as if they deliberately want to stop anyone from putting their claims to the test because they know their claims are full of it.

They should ban 3dpd to be honest desu.

>>>/hum/3243 >>>/hum/3245 Continuing the discussion from here: First off, stop acting like a Redditor, saying things that Redditors are known to say and generally displaying the attitude of someone who's completely unwilling to budge from mainstream dogma as Redditors are known to be, and you'll stop getting called one. >I think your an idiot >your Anyway... >because you completely lack any metacognition and just use buzzwords like they mean something You mean like how you constantly assume the ability to read the minds of teenagers and people who don't agree with you, and fail every time? You mean like how you call anyone who likes anyone a day under 18 a pedophile even though using the word that way makes it into a buzzword? Pot, meet kettle. >What if I said your a sheep as well, you are designed to distract from any legitimate libertarian anti government beliefs by appearing as a crazed pedophile, who thinks the age of consent was put in place by old feminists. The fact that you think personal freedom isn't a legitimate cause shows that you're not really interested in changing the world for the better. You just want a better deal for yourself. Given that, no one has a reason to join any movement that you'd take part in, because you're an opportunist who'd betray your allies at the drop of a hat if it served your purposes. Also, check any feminist literature on the subject in the last hundred years, and observe the fact that women are always buying makeup products to try to look younger. They know teen girls are what most guys want, which is why they needed to ban their competition. >Hell or maybe its the other way around and theres campaigns to attract pedophiles to these sorts of beliefs to deligitimize them. Or maybe people who want freedom naturally gravitate to anti-government beliefs, and we're tired of hypocrites like you who only want to support freedom when it's convenient. Besides, if freedom alienates the American public, they don't deserve freedom. The American public stood by and approved heartily for a century as we were censored by the mainstream media and the academic community, thus setting a precedent for the same type of censorship to be used against them. Frankly, if you don't want to support us, you don't deserve to have whatever you believe in succeed. You are not the fuarrrking universal authority on who deserves to control their own body, and if you claim to be, any government you form will be just as bad as what we have now. >you also didn't cite any studies just said no your wrong its actually like this. Though I don't doubt you could pull 50 studies out of your ass I don't have the time to do background checks on. I could point you to the simple fact that most of the world has less restrictive AoC laws than the US and none of them ever seem to have any of these problems with trauma that American psychologists claim. I could also point you to the fact that the existence of psychological harm from adult/teen sex is a positive claim that the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for, not the other way around. If you want something more though, you should look at the Rind study sometime. It's a meta-study consisting of an analysis of 59 other studies with a total sample size of 36,000. Rind analyzed their methods, found them to be full of utterly retarded soykaf like conflating instances of people being raped at gunpoint with an adult taking a teen girl to dinner and a movie and then having sex with her afterward, corrected these methodological flaws for them and in doing so found that the rate of psychological trauma drops to pretty much nothing. In return for his scholarly contribution, he was brought up before the US Congress on charges of wrongthink. You might want to rethink all this "lol conspiracy theory" rhetoric when we have actual, documented fuarrrking evidence that there literally is a conspiracy.

>>5704 >because it happen in old day means it's automatically ok.

>>5694 I liked this chan, I liked the people in irc. I thought most of the posts were a nice change from the usual chan BS. These posts though, the fact this keeps coming up over and over... I wish it was somewhere else. If lainchan is a place for people with predatory, abhorrent mindsets I guess it's not the board for me. goodbye lainons it was cool talking to you guys about programming and stuff.

>>5705 That's also true in reverse. Simply because something is hated now doesn't make it bad. The girl's age in that situation is too young in my opinion though. >>5706 >predatory This word has become a meaningless buzzword. It just comes off as shrill fearmongering because so many of the people who use it never even bother to define what constitutes being a predator or provide an adequate way to separate predatory behavior from simple courtship. As a result, it tends to be defined as "anything I don't like." Speaking of which: >>>/hum/3243 >You replied to my post with a bunch of "who says". I say. This is a perfect example. "Screw facts, my feels are all that matter and if I don't like something, that makes it bad."

>>5705 >because it happen in old day means it's automatically ok. It didn't even "happen in the old days" as a regular thing. The average marriage age even in the XIXth and earlier was around 20. Marriage at 9 might have been legal, but it surely wasn't the norm. >>5704 Now, maybe that pic does show that such marriage is not doomed, but that does depend on the older one not being a piece of soykaf. They don't mention the age of Eunice when she had her first child, but I'm going to bet she was past 15. As a parent, you shouldn't be too willing to put a child still unable to stand for themself in the hands of someone else. I won't even address the second pic.

This might be a nice thread about what separate a child that has to obey their parents and let them assume all responsibilities from an independent adult that takes their own decisions and assumes their consequences bad as they may be. And of teenage as a transition phase between the two, with gradual or sudden increase in freedom and responsibility. Or about how much society and laws should stand between the parents and the child, dictate the way a couple can educate their offspring, and whether it should be illegal to marry at 10 if the parents and the child agree to it. Or even about the differences between boys and girls that makes female paedophiles so much less hated than male ones. But it probably won't be. Eh.

>>5710 I question whether or not the "teen" phase should even exist. It's entirely a modern invention. People used to be considered full adults at 12-15, depending on country of origin. People that age would fight wars, crew ships and study at universities. Teens these days have access to so much more information than their parents did growing up that it's not at all unreasonable in many if not most cases to assume that they know as much as or even more than their parents about many key issues. If someone wants to give teens the right to have sex with adults, they might consider lowering the age of majority in general and also giving them all the other rights and responsibilities of an adult. 14-year-olds have been charged as adults in court, so if you're going to do that, it makes sense.

>>5706 You should learn to identify bait threads. Also try to post in threads that add something to the chan. There currently are quite a lot of them. Here's the thing, inflamatory posts tend to get more attention (there's a reason they are called bait). So the solution is not to reply to these threads. If you must reply, then sage. No images. Post in constructive threads. Start threads about topics you like. Lain etiquette. super simple stuff. also sage

>>5711 I like the idea of a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood, announcing to the world that you're taking your own decisions, including sexually. Compared to age-of-consent laws, the age of the rite of passage can easily be tweaked on an individual basis, based on the judgement of the parents and community. Things like getting drunk at parties are supposed to replace those rites in modern societies ; but they have no legal recognition, or even wide social recognition. Also giving more responsibilities to teenagers definitely helps maturity-wise.

>>5709 >I won't even address the second pic. As fuarrrking retarded as all the "DA JOOOOOS" and anti-racemixing stuff in it is, there are still grains of truth there. Whereas some other people wonder if hebe/ephebe advocacy is pushed in conjunction with anti-government sentiment to delegitimize it, as an ephebe I often wonder if neo-Nazi retardation is pushed here to delegitimize us. Most of us aren't Nazis, but there seems to be a vocal minority of white supremacists among us. There's also some genuine misogyny in that post, which is sad, because my view is that teenage girls should be allowed to choose for themselves. As long as an adult guy takes care of himself and isn't too terribly old, he should be a choice she'd be willing to consider. It also is like kicking dead whales down the beach to have to call anything misogynist since most times I've ever seen anything or anyone called misogynist, it was nothing. However, his bits about feminism being horsesoykaf and about the Rind study are absolutely true. How many Congresscritters do you think are even close to being qualified to analyze the merits of a scientific study of any type? There's something incredibly screwy about Congress taking that type of action. Why couldn't they just leave science to the scientists? It was obviously politically motivated.

>>5712 it's not just bait threads is the problem, it's a social undercurrent that is beginning to crest more and more often. hiding these posts is akin to hiding my head in the sand. It's not that I don't want to see these things, it's that I don't want to be party to a culture that finds these things acceptable. lainchan has some special people here, I'll miss talking to them. I can find threads on my hobbies elsewhere though without this sort of trash bubbling up across threads.

More than just being fine age of consent laws are necessary and they are deliberately way beyond the age at which people reach sexual maturity. The age of consent isn't the age at which people can reasonably start having sex (who actually waited when they were a teen?). It's the age at which they're capable of fending for themselves. The root of this weirdness of the law not quite representing its intention comes from the fact that children are too malleable for us to differentiate between consent and coercion in a formal, well defined manner that's suitable for laws. Instead we take the practical path of blanket banning it and then prosecuting the fuarrrked up cases and turning a blind eye the rest of the time. It's not ideal but there isn't a better option. The fuarrrked up cases are far too damaging to ignore. >>5702 >you should look at the Rind study sometime. Nobody is surprised by it. Teens like to have sex! News at 11! Almost every person arguing in favour of the age of consent laws was once a teen and was fuarrrking like every other teen. We're not blind or stupid, it's just like every other unspoken rule of society. The same sort of thing applies to laws like consenting while drunk and incest. Thing is if you come out and say it people are going to get the wrong idea. They're going to say to themselves "But everyone already knows this. The only reason to say it is if you're trying to push for something further." Sure, they hauled the guy up in congress for the concerned parent vote but nobody challenged what he did scientifically because nobody actually wanted to because all that it had to say was something we've experienced first hand when we were teenagers. When I was like 13 >utterly retarded soykaf like conflating instances of people being raped at gunpoint with an adult taking a teen girl to dinner and a movie Yeah, but it's also a mistake to conflate consent with coercion. It doesn't need to be clear cut rape to be fuarrrked up and terribly damaging. >we have actual, documented fuarrrking evidence that there literally is a conspiracy. You need to understand that your conspiracy is like the conspiracy to fool us into thinking Santa is real. Don't get me wrong, there are people shove their fingers in their ears and insist their kids would never have sex but everybody knows that most people become sexually active at about 13-15. There is another "conspiracy." There are people out there with an interest in inflating their chosen statistics who are fine with doing things like conflating gunpoint rape with a date. Nothing about Rind's study was surprising. >>5707 >so many of the people who use it never even bother to define what constitutes being a predator or provide an adequate way to separate predatory behavior from simple courtship That's because we don't have one. That's the root of the whole problem. The lines are blurred enough with adults. With children consent becomes incredibly shaky and the possible damage is off the charts. If an adult gets involved with the wrong person it might mean a few months of painfully getting over it. For teenagers it can mean a lifetime. >>5711 >It's entirely a modern invention. Of course not. People used to do it younger (with massive variance for culture of course), though that's mostly a practical thing. Generally speaking the harsher the environment the lower the age of majority. There's still a phase of "not a child but still growing up" though. >in many if not most cases to assume that they know as much as or even more than their parents about many key issues But not about the issues that are relevant here. Emotional maturity can't be learned from a book, you need people you can connect with. Which usually means people your age. >>5714 >I like the idea of a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood It's too hard to legalise. You can't let the children decide when or they'll want it as soon as they know what it is. Parents are already some of the most damaging if they're fuarrrked up so giving it to them would just prevent the law from being used to do its job when it's needed most. Better to just turn a blind eye case by case. >giving more responsibilities to teenagers definitely helps maturity-wise. Why would we want that? If I could give someone a longer childhood I would. Being a child was great compared to this crap. Still, gotta work or we don't eat. >>5715 Here's the thing, either you're not very old yourself or you have a maturity or attitude problem. I'm in my late 20's and 16 year olds annoy the soykaf out of me. They're just immature and I couldn't imagine having a meaningful relationship with one. More than that if I were to just be myself around them they'd probably be bored soykafless as I talked about my job and bills and soykaf. It would be almost impossible for it not to be fuarrrked up and the same goes for 99% of people my age. >>5717 Haha. Do you remember when you were a kid? Say maybe 15-16. What did you think about age of consent laws? It's an easy mistake to assume that the other anons around here are similar to you, but actually there are quite a few 15-18 year olds who haven't clicked that we don't actually mind if they fuarrrk whoever they like, a bunch of aspergers people who have problems with unspoken social rules (which is why I've spoken them so clearly) and feel that "someone doesn't suddenly become physically attractive the day they turn 18" or "teenagers have sex and it doesn't do them any harm" are things worth pointing out. It's easy to mistake statements of fact as driving at something deeper. Normally nobody would feel the need to say these things. Also when you see a bunch of threads get derailed to the same subject that implies there's one guy with an axe to grind.

>>5717 You haven't actually explained what your problem is beyond "predatory behavior" that someone else from your side is even admitting that you can't define. >>5718 This entire post is nothing but unsubstantiated opinions and "stop questioning muh social rules based on nothing but our feels." No fuarrrking soykaf some of us are saying these things because we want to push for more. We fully understand that most people understand that teens like sex. It's just that some of us don't appreciate people like you feeling like you deserve to lord over our lives and tell us what is or isn't acceptable. Your feels are not justification for removing freedom, you are not the ultimate authority on maturity and you are not entitled to decide who's mature enough to control their own body. If you admit that teenagers like sex, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to let them do it as they please, and if they choose to do it with adults rather than someone closer to their age, it's not any of your damn business. >The root of this weirdness of the law not quite representing its intention comes from the fact that children are too malleable for us to differentiate between consent and coercion in a formal, well defined manner that's suitable for laws. And anyone else isn't? >Instead we take the practical path of blanket banning it and then prosecuting the fuarrrked up cases and turning a blind eye the rest of the time. It's not ideal but there isn't a better option. The fuarrrked up cases are far too damaging to ignore. This isn't an excuse to separate people who want to be together, nor is it particularly practical. It does a great deal more harm than good. There are many better options, but some people just want to stop others from having fun. No other area of the law is managed in this way and there's no other conceivable motive to manage the law this way beyond satisfying the desires of panicky idiots who think teens are fragile little snowflakes who somehow only have this fragile status applied to them when dealing with someone older. >If an adult gets involved with the wrong person it might mean a few months of painfully getting over it. For teenagers it can mean a lifetime. This is just fearmongering not based on evidence. It can mean that for adults as well, or a teen can deal with it easily. You haven't met every single person in the world and you can't tell us how they'll react to anything. For that matter, an adult who waits to start a relationship is just as likely to have a bad experience if it goes sour. Guess what? People make bad decisions sometimes. If they do, that's on them. I doubt you could make decisions any better than they do, anyway. >Emotional maturity can't be learned from a book, you need people you can connect with. Which usually means people your age. Emotional maturity is completely unquantifiable and in all honesty it seems to serve only as a basis for people to take freedom away because "you're not mature enough". I doubt it even meaningfully exists, seeing as so many of the people I've seen lecturing others about emotional immaturity just wanted to turn other people's private lives into their own personal fiefdoms. >Here's the thing, either you're not very old yourself or you have a maturity or attitude problem. I'm in my late 20's and 16 year olds annoy the soykaf out of me. They're just immature and I couldn't imagine having a meaningful relationship with one. You don't seem any more mature than they do. >Haha. Do you remember when you were a kid? Say maybe 15-16. What did you think about age of consent laws? I thought they were garbage then and I still think they're garbage now. >It's an easy mistake to assume that the other anons around here are similar to you, but actually there are quite a few 15-18 year olds who haven't clicked that we don't actually mind if they fuarrrk whoever they like Except if they're an arbitrary number of years older, that is. >a bunch of aspergers people who have problems with unspoken social rules We don't have a problem understanding the concept. We have a problem with the existence of the concept. We have a problem with the fact that you feel entitled to run someone else's life.

>>5718 >Yeah, but it's also a mistake to conflate consent with coercion. It doesn't need to be clear cut rape to be fuarrrked up and terribly damaging. >everything I don't like is coercion This is why a lot of us hate you. You're trying to tell us not to conflate consent with coercion at the same time as openly admitting that your definition of coercion is completely arbitrary, and going so far as to throw people in jail for breaking these laws which you admit are arbitrary. Anyone who isn't a petty tyrant would find such laws unjust. Unfortunately, America seems to be full of such people. "LOL I know they want to have sex, sometimes even with adults, but I'll just go ahead and stop them anyway because I'm the grand moral authority of the universe and everything I decide is divine law!" People don't like being told what to do, especially if it's "for their own good." >It's too hard to legalise. You can't let the children decide when or they'll want it as soon as they know what it is. And? If they can't pass the test, why does it matter? If they can, what reason do you have to keep them from being considered adults?

>>5718 >If I could give someone a longer childhood I would. Being a child was great compared to this crap. I used to think that back in late middle-school and early high-school, maybe because my social life was degrading with puberty while I still had very little liberty. Now, I think being an (admittedly young) adult is ten times better than being a kid. Maybe I'll change my mind again latter in life, and I understand why people would have massively different opinions on this depending on their life story. > You can't let the children decide when or they'll want it as soon as they know what it is. And who is to say when a children is ready to assume the consequences of his decisions ? I'd say a mix of the child himself, his parents and the society (as in teachers, parents of friends, extended family ...). I agree that it can't be simply written in a law tomorrow, it would require the whole society to adapt itself to it. I just like the idea. Still, I think there is something fuarrrked up about denying a person's right to take decisions and assume the consequences. Sure, it is a good thing for a literal child, but is it still right when we're talking about a 16yo that has finished puberty ? As you said >Instead we take the practical path of blanket banning it and then prosecuting the fuarrrked up cases and turning a blind eye the rest of the time. (and that's even what all laws are about I'd say, not just consent age laws) BUT Who chose which cases are fuarrrked up ? The parents, possibly ignoring the desires of the child. (See the 2012 film Black Bird.) Two teenagers are in love, the parent of the girl disagree, the boy ends up in prison, against the wish of the alleged victim, the girl. Two youths are fuarrrked over because societies decided that they couldn't take decisions before 18. Back to my initial point, an individual must be able to take their independence when they decide. Sure, let's say that they must find at least two different teacher/adult that agree as a safeguard, but you get my point. I hate the idea of any individual being subjected to authority unwillingly, be it that of the state or that of the parents. >>5743 > openly admitting that your definition of coercion is completely arbitrary, and going so far as to throw people in jail for breaking these laws which you admit are arbitrary. All laws are arbitrary in the end. This is about letting "common sense" being the law, as long as nobody disagrees with what's going on, nobody will sue, while dickhead will be easily prosecuted. This works well enough in many cases, but it does fuarrrk over some edge cases.

>>5742 It is possible to change written official laws, and as such it makes sense to discuss in which direction to do that. But good luck changing unwritten social conventions, as "based on muh feels" as they may be. Note that I don't really disagree with you, I just don't think your attitude of anger against social norms is the right one. As long as formal, official laws are not against you any more, you can just leave behind all those that disagree with your choice of life, rather than, you know, end up in prison, because the mother of your 17yo lover wanted them to remain pure for marriage. So accept that you will be a pariah and called a pedo, because that's beyond your ability to change, and focus on law.

>>5744 >All laws are arbitrary in the end. That depends on how far you're willing to go when calling something arbitrary. If you're speaking in a grander, more existential sense of "why is there anything in the universe at all?" then it becomes arbitrary. But once you assume as an axiom that you're trying to make a society that works while not fuarrrking over its citizens, it becomes important to have laws based on concrete evidence. >This is about letting "common sense" being the law, as long as nobody disagrees with what's going on, nobody will sue, while dickhead will be easily prosecuted. Albert Einstein had some interesting things to say about "common sense." Smart man. >>5745 >But good luck changing unwritten social conventions, as "based on muh feels" as they may be. Challenge accepted. This will require two paper clips, a stick of gum, an eraser, a time portal to the past and a Hershey's Cookies and Cream bar. >because the mother of your 17yo lover wanted them to remain pure for marriage. You could always marry her.

>>5749 >Albert Einstein had some interesting things to say about "common sense." Smart man. Oh, I don't like common sense either, I just wanted to be clear on the role of those law. It's not about individuals being tyrants as you seemed to feel, it's about letting social norms enforce themselves. I guess the distinction does not matter when you're on the bad side of the stick. But the guy suing you does not want you to obey him personally as to obey social conventions. I think it is important to keep this in mind to efficiently argue against them. >once you assume as an axiom that you're trying to make a society that works while not fuarrrking over its citizens Idem, I'm not too sure that this is the most important axiom our society is based on. It would rather be, "obey the social laws then the written laws and you'll be left alone". And again, I don't like that, but we have to be aware of our situation to escape it. >You could always marry her. Yes, you can give in to social pressure and do what you're expected to. But that's not what this thread is about, is it ?

>there has been (largely manufactured) controversy over which people should be allowed to speak here >perpetuates such controversy in another cancerous thread you are the issue here.

>>5754 There shouldn't be such a controversy, though. Everyone has the right to speak their opinion. The guy who said that there's nothing surprising about the Rind study completely missed the point of it. The point isn't "teens like sex." Everyone knows they do. The point is that if there isn't solid evidence of harm invariably resulting from a certain activity, there's no justifiable reason to ban it. Otherwise you might as well ban anything remotely dangerous, which could conceivably be anything. The same applies for free speech. The mere act of speaking your opinion doesn't harm someone, and yet there are still those thin-skinned enough that they want certain opinions derezzed. The fact that there's even a controversy over something as basic as free speech shows that America and the world are in the midst of some very dark days.

>>5702 After the discussion in the thread on /hum/, I think we should talk about the appallingly glib way the topic was dismissed by some of the posters there, and the way the people doing it did indeed check pretty much every single box for being Reddit rapefugees who don't belong on Lainchan or anywhere else on the internet, from talking about how these laws are supposedly meant to help people as though any law on the books is meant to help anyone other than politicians and their lobbyist puppet masters, to the "lol alt-right conspiracy theorist" nonsense. I thought all these antifa idiots went to 0ch and .jp so the real Lainchan doesn't have to deal with their idiocy anymore. That bit alone is enough to sway a lot of people against them given how many "conspiracy theorists" have been proven right recently. There's been some heat in this thread so far, but in many ways that's better than a situation where people just don't want to discuss a topic at all. Maybe they had the discussion before and they think they won. Then again, everyone always thinks they won every argument they've ever been in.

>>5773 >reddit refugee Supposing this is a thing, any proposition to deal with it beside bitching ? Otherwise you better accept that they will be there. This is a free platform, everybody gets to talk, redditors and ephebophiles alike. >as though any law on the books is meant to help anyone other than politicians Way too simplistic view. This kind of moral laws are in place because politicians think they would not get elected if they went against it, yes, but that's because the society at large agrees with said laws. Everybody today despises paedophiles, be they harmless or rapist. >lol alt-right conspiracy theorist If you're the one who posted that pic with Eunice Johns, you deserve every bit of mockery on that point. >real Lainchan No such thing, this place as every other is a gathering of numerous individuals with vastly different views. Basically your post reeks of poor thinking and self-righteousness. I hope you know that such a poor attitude will make most people dismiss any argument you have. If you genuinely want to sway people's opinion, you can't treat them like trash. Yes I see the irony. Why don't you start speaking in details of all those studies you had which point to sex between adults and minors not being harmful (or studies in the other direction being bogus). That will advance your position more than shouting against spooks and doing some great display of anger and outrage.

>>5775 >Supposing this is a thing, any proposition to deal with it beside bitching ? Otherwise you better accept that they will be there. This is a free platform, everybody gets to talk, redditors and ephebophiles alike. If I knew how to get Reddit to leave, 4chan never would have fallen to them and we might not even have needed Lainchan. Because no one's figured out how to get them to leave, they've gone from site to site turning them politically correct, and the political powers-that-be want it that way. They thrive on having a population that's sealed in a memetic bubble and hence is both unable and unwilling to process anything outside of it. >This kind of moral laws are in place because politicians think they would not get elected if they went against it, yes, but that's because the society at large agrees with said laws. Then as I said earlier, that's a problem with the public being soykafty. The simple fact that these knee-jerk tards are the majority in the US doesn't absolve them of guilt for human rights violations. If everyone in a society approves of executing an innocent person, then everyone in that society is guilty of murder and should be brought up on charges for it. >If you're the one who posted that pic with Eunice Johns, you deserve every bit of mockery on that point. I'm not that poster. Most relationships between adults and minors aren't like that, though. The prime age of attraction is 14-16 for most guys. What happened there isn't a representative sample. >If you genuinely want to sway people's opinion, you can't treat them like trash. Yes I see the irony. The other side is far more seriously in need of that advice than we are. I wonder how many of them it's even possible to sway. Many already have their minds made up and nothing will ever change them. And when you've lost so many opportunities and spent so many years having to hide, you naturally get pissed, especially at people who claim to espouse anti-establishment positions and yet refuse to even listen to you. You'll excuse me if respectful, diplomatic dialogue isn't my first choice when dealing with such people. >Why don't you start speaking in details of all those studies you had which point to sex between adults and minors not being harmful (or studies in the other direction being bogus). Again, given that it's an issue of the burden of proof being on those who claim the existence of harm, and the absolutely massive and well-documented censorship faced by those who disagree with the US lynch mob, very few studies of that type aside from Rind exist because the people who would otherwise be doing them don't want to lose their jobs, or worse. You might try reading The Trauma Myth. There was also another study I saw a while back that I've been trying to find again which doesn't directly address the issue of harm, but it does reference the 14-16 age group. They showed guys pictures of girls without telling them their ages and asked them to rate the pictures by attractiveness, and 14-16 year old girls were rated as the most attractive by a large margin.

>>5775 >Why don't you start speaking in details of all those studies you had which point to sex between adults and minors not being harmful (or studies in the other direction being bogus). If you want to focus on this, then all you have to do is analyze the establishment studies as though they were a study on any other subject. Look at sample size, methodology, replication history, and other such factors. You'll find those things completely lacking in the studies we have a problem with. Of course, the establishment doesn't want you to do that here. They want these studies to be accorded the status of religious precepts that must never be subjected to scientific questioning.

>>5759 thanks for completely missing the point of my post.

>>5783 >[...] doesn't absolve them of guilt for human rights violations. Agreed, though there could be a debate over the meaning of guilt in the absence of the consensus of society to use as moral standard. Also I'd be wary of speaking about human right violations without specifying which right is violated how, as it does not appear obvious to me and could discredit your position. >The other side is far more seriously in need of that advice than we are. Maybe, but the other side is the vast majority of the population and does not need to convince the deviants, they can just throw them in prison. As a (very ?) small minority, you can hardly enter open confrontation, as the other side feels justified ignoring you. (After all everyone knows pedos are all pieces of soykaf and rapists and should be killed on sight, right ?) I understand you being pissed, and I guess it's fine if you want to vent (which is what the very first post was about). But when the time comes to argue ... If your goal is genuinely to convince the other, you have to be pleasant about it, no matter the flaws they have. Even more so if they are intellectually dishonest, you have to trick them into considering your position. Calling someone a redditor as an insult, whether deserved or not, does nothing to prompt them to listen to you. >burden of proof When the other party can just ignore you, that does not mean much. (Every religious debate ever lol.) And you did claim that >my investigation concluded that those claims and studies were completely devoid of supporting evidence. Which is a positive claim, yes ? Which you can support by taking one of those studies, and explaining why its conclusions are not well founded. This being said, I'll look into this Rind study, and see if the criticisms against it as described on wikipedia are legitimate or not. (Congress denouncing the study absolutely reeks, but there seems to be also some criticism on scientific ground.) Do you have a pdf maybe ? The one quoted on wikipedia seems to be behind a pay wall, as is usual for published papers.

>>5789 >Agreed, though there could be a debate over the meaning of guilt in the absence of the consensus of society to use as moral standard. I'm sure there could be. That's more suited for a general moral philosophy thread, though. >Also I'd be wary of speaking about human right violations without specifying which right is violated how, as it does not appear obvious to me and could discredit your position. I'd say the right to control your own body is pretty fundamental. If you don't have that, what rights do you have? >As a (very ?) small minority, you can hardly enter open confrontation, as the other side feels justified ignoring you. The other side is made up of people who hail almost to a man from the most retarded country in the world. However, we're not actually small, and arguably not even a minority. The media is trying to make us out to be far less numerous than we are. >(After all everyone knows pedos are all pieces of soykaf and rapists and should be killed on sight, right ?) One of the things that bothers me the most about this is the fact that they not only have overly broad ideas of what should be considered rape, they think people who've never even committed a crime are guilty. The amount of cognitive dissonance that could allow them to believe they're in the right despite this should be cause for alarm to the entire world. People like that are liable to just up and decide that your country is making weapons of mass destruction and needs to be "liberated." >But when the time comes to argue ... If your goal is genuinely to convince the other, you have to be pleasant about it, no matter the flaws they have. Sometimes your goal isn't to convince them, but to convince the audience. >Even more so if they are intellectually dishonest, you have to trick them into considering your position. You mean like by showing them a picture of a sexy teenage girl without telling them her age and then seeing them trip over their own tongues trying to backpedal when you let them know? I've actually done that before and it's pretty funny to watch. It'd probably be a lot funnier if I didn't live in a country that's shown itself to be some of the biggest fascist bootlickers in the world on a massive range of issues. You don't need to go any further than our own /sec/ or /tech/ board to know that. >When the other party can just ignore you, that does not mean much. (Every religious debate ever lol.) It's part of making an argument. If they don't want to cite any evidence for their position, we can dismiss their position without evidence. >Which is a positive claim, yes ? That's not a positive claim. A positive claim is when you claim that a certain thing exists, not that it doesn't. My claim that their evidence doesn't actually exist is a negative claim, which can't technically be proven, but I also can't technically prove that God doesn't exist, or that there isn't an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You might choose to reinterpret the issue as us making a positive claim that teens' capacity for consent on an adult level exists, but if we start doing that, then we start actually theorizing objective ways of measuring maturity, and the other side wants to stop at that point because they're afraid the measurements won't support their conclusions. In science, it's not enough that you make positive claims. They also have to be testable claims, and they need to have a coherent description of how the process they're describing operates. >Which you can support by taking one of those studies, and explaining why its conclusions are not well founded. I kind of wish I'd saved one of the many times the other side has used Gish galloping against me. I didn't bother because they all look the same. I'm not doing the other side's homework for them, though. However, if one of them wants to go grab one of their studies, I'll explain everything wrong with it. If I were to pick one of their studies to take apart, they'd call it cherry-picking their worst example anyway. >This being said, I'll look into this Rind study, and see if the criticisms against it as described on wikipedia are legitimate or not. (Congress denouncing the study absolutely reeks, but there seems to be also some criticism on scientific ground.) I'll go ahead and explain the only legitimate scientific criticism of his study here for you. Basically, Rind's meta-study extensively sampled college students, and the argument from some of its detractors was that measuring exclusively or almost exclusively college students doesn't produce a representative sample of the population. Rind issued a followup regarding this, which was never responded to except with the aforementioned congressional clusterfuck. >Do you have a pdf maybe ? The one quoted on wikipedia seems to be behind a pay wall, as is usual for published papers. Pathetic, isn't it? We could talk for a long time about all the useful things behind a paywall. After all the stupidity that's come out of Wikipedia edit wars, I'm sure you know better than to take what's written there at face value. Maybe if academic studies were more easily accessible, that would be less of a problem. You could probably access it by pirating it, but of course that would be horribly illegal, and it'll lead to more immoral acts of mad, depraved corruption like questioning authority, selling crack to kids and killing 100 quintpisstupleillion innocent people. Do you want to be literally Stalin? Then don't pirate academic papers, you fuarrrking Nazi commie.

>>5790 Turns out there was a pdf freely accessible on ipce.info, "a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults". Sounds right up your alley if you didn't already know about it, but it seems like the kind of website that will promptly land you on a watchlist. >I'd say the right to control your own body is pretty fundamental. But children don't have this right, they are to obey their parents. We again end up on the issue of what constitute an individual emancipated from their parents ; and to what extent parents have authority over their child. Which I think would be a better way to phrase this debate in the future, avoiding any preemptive accusations of paedophilia. Also the question of what makes an individual is central to cyberpunk and from there to lainchan. I think I said all that I wanted to, and I'd really be starting to repeat myself by responding further, I'll let others speak now. As a last word, keep thinking about what your goal is precisely and what will best advance you toward it. Being convinced that you have the moral high ground might not be enough.

>>5790 You haven't been listening. You're still on your crusade to prove that Santa isn't real. >The other side is made up of people who hail almost to a man from the most retarded country in the world Ridiculous. Ever heard of Europe? You must have literally just made this up based on nothing. >However, we're not actually small, and arguably not even a minority. Yeah you are. You're the people who don't get it. >Sometimes your goal isn't to convince them, but to convince the audience. They, almost to a man, are you audience. >You mean like by showing them a picture of a sexy teenage girl without telling them her age Yeah people are going to be incredibly confused about just what exactly you're trying to prove with that. We all have eyes you know. We've seen teenagers before. This is the real crux of your problem. You see these discrepancies and you can't rationalise them correctly. So you assume these insane levels of ignorance or dishonesty. You're still telling us "People don't suddenly become attractive when they hit 18" as if it's news. Don't be surprised when people just roll their eyes at you. >if one of them wants to go grab one of their studies, I'll explain everything wrong with it Have 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3349444/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4773047/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2761643/ >I'll go ahead and explain the only legitimate scientific criticism of his study here for you. Yep. Rind's study was scientifically fine. Everybody knows that already.

>>5792 >But children don't have this right, they are to obey their parents. We again end up on the issue of what constitute an individual emancipated from their parents ; and to what extent parents have authority over their child. Considering how stupid US parents have been over the last few decades, you could make a strong case that someone above about 13-14 would be better off being considered an adult. Most American parents have only tried to indoctrinate their kids into a corporatist system that almost everyone on Lainchan knows to be corrupt and not worth taking part in, rather than raising independent thinkers. >Also the question of what makes an individual is central to cyberpunk and from there to lainchan. Cue several hours of Ghost in the Shell navel gazing. >As a last word, keep thinking about what your goal is precisely and what will best advance you toward it. Being convinced that you have the moral high ground might not be enough. You never said what you thought of the study or Congress's reaction to it after having read it, though. Plus, you should stick around at least long enough to see this other guy's propaganda ripped to pieces. >>5793 >Ridiculous. Ever heard of Europe? You must have literally just made this up based on nothing. Tippety top maximum effing lel. Go look at map of European ages of consent sometime. Europe is probably the foremost place full of people who think you're retarded, out of a very long list of such people. Almost every European I've ever talked to has seen things my way, save perhaps the Brits, and even they have the AoC set at 16. Thanks for proving you don't know the first thing about this. Look at ageofconsent.net and see for yourself. >Yeah you are. You're the people who don't get it. >They, almost to a man, are you audience. Let's compare these statements with the one I'm about to quote. >You're still telling us "People don't suddenly become attractive when they hit 18" as if it's news. So people attracted to teenagers are a minority, but nobody thinks it's news to find teenagers attractive. Hot damn, you should apply for a job at the Ministry of Truth. I'm sure you could add several more lines to "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength." >Yep. Rind's study was scientifically fine. Everybody knows that already. If you're admitting this and still oppose changing the law, that can only mean that your moral precepts - if you even have any - aren't rooted in harm prevention. Those who believe in freedom believe it causes harm to outlaw things that there isn't a good reason to outlaw, and whether or not there's a good reason can only be determined by science. If you're admitting that the science has shown there isn't a good reason, but you still favor the current laws, you're admitting that you favor outlawing things based only on your feelings. This is nothing more or less than advocating for tyranny. Speaking of which: >unironically citing .gov studies on a cyberpunk website I don't think it's even possible to be more tone-deaf than this. But I'd be happy to devote a post to shredding these sacks of doubleplusgoodthink Minitrue crap anyway, as soon as I can find different links to them because I ain't clickin' that soykaf. Although considering you already admitted that the Rind study is valid, and its entire objective is to attack studies like these, I'm not sure what more there is for me to do, but I'll give it a go anyway.

>>5793 >You're still on your crusade to prove that Santa isn't real. Let's just focus on this part for a minute. By your own admission, the law is basically "Let's act publicly like this activity is bad even though we know that this isn't necessarily the case, and convict some 20-something guy who sexed a teenage girl of rape even though she says she wanted it and this guy has no history of bad behavior which would lead us to believe he means harm to her because someone like him at some point might do something bad." To be perfectly frank with you, if any other law was handled like this, the people subject to it would be calling for a military intervention by the international community, and would stand a not-inconsiderable chance of actually getting one. What if laws about violent crime were done similarly? "Let's take this guy who shot someone in self-defense with witnesses and video footage proving he was defending himself and convict him of murder because someone like him might murder someone at some point." To someone who honestly believes teens are innocent angels, they may believe justice is being served, but to someone like you, it's just putting away people society doesn't like, which begs the question of how much longer people like you are even going to pretend to need evidence to do so. The legal system is not the place for Santa Claus-style open secrets, and turning it into such a place has created a very dangerous situation for everyone involved.

>>5796 >Almost every European I've ever talked to has seen things my way I live in Europe. I've personal experience that attitudes (at least in Sweden, England and Germany) are much the same here. >So people attracted to teenagers are a minority, Reading comprehension. You, i.e. the people who don't get it, are the minority. We're at the third time you've tried to tell us that people don't suddenly become attractive when they hit 18 as if anyone is arguing against that. This is clearly going over your head. >If you're admitting this and still oppose changing the law, that can only mean that your moral precepts - if you even have any - aren't rooted in harm prevention. Did you even read the Rind study? He isn't just like "it's totally k lol." Here are some choice bits: 5% said it left them "very troubled" even now. 24% said it still gave them problems in their sex life. I could go on. Nobody who's actually looked at the data thinks there isn't harm to be prevented. The actual conclusions he draws are that it's very different for men and women and that reactions vary wildly. Not that it's harmless. This is why I said the Rind study wasn't surprising. >whether or not there's a good reason can only be determined by science. Yeah we did that. Stop larping that you won't visit a .gov site and go actually read some studies. >But I'd be happy to devote a post to shredding these Get on with it. You'll have to shred the Rind study as well if you're going to claim it's harmless mind. >>5797 >convict some 20-something guy who sexed a teenage girl of rape even though she says she wanted it There are times it goes wrong. Sad cases, but we don't have better options. However we cut this somebody is going to get hurt. >if any other law was handled like this As I've said, consent while drunk and incest are both also handled like this. Blanket bans, turn a blind eye. >it's just putting away people society doesn't like 99% of the convictions are putting away people who're actually a problem and are going to cause harm. The other 1% are regrettable and we'd all love it if there were a better way but these issues are too muddy for formal law. >The legal system is not the place for Santa Claus-style open secrets, Do you have a better option? An actual practical working option that lets us do something about that 5% where people are suffering serious lasting harm? So far we've had "let the kids decide " or "let their parents decide" and, as I've said, both those options are terrible compared to measuring by age.

>>5799 >I live in Europe. I've personal experience that attitudes (at least in Sweden, England and Germany) are much the same here. Now you're just blatantly bullsoykafting, for Sweden and Germany in particular, with AoC set at 15 and 14 respectively. I've seen many instances of Americans lying about being from or living in other countries to pretend that those countries support their views, though. This looks to me like another case of that, especially since you're pretending that most people agree with American laws and American social attitudes in countries where American laws aren't even in force and which largely hate the US anyway for various and sundry reasons which are mostly (but not completely) unrelated to this. Even if you do live in Europe, you come off the same way as someone who was a chef in the military and never saw any combat going on a message board for discussion of weapons or military history and talking big like they were a Navy SEAL with over 300 confirmed kills. >Reading comprehension. More like your failure to communicate. >You, i.e. the people who don't get it, are the minority. Again, you're trying to pretend an overwhelming consensus you don't actually have. >Yeah we did that. Lel, no the fuarrrk you didn't, you poser. I just got finished finding alternative sources for your studies and reading them, and the showing you've given here is beyond laughable. Two of your studies refer only to the consequences of generic coercion for everyone, not just adolescents. You can't cite those to prove your case when you haven't established that the type of relationship under consideration in this thread even falls under the umbrella of coercion. So I can throw those two out right off the bat because they're not germane to the discussion. The third is about teens' behavior patterns after experiencing an incident of sexual coercion, but again, the study isn't actually about showing coercion necessarily being part of a sexual relationship between a teen and an adult. In fact, the authors explicitly stated that it isn't concerned with that or any other question about what specifically causes trauma, and even if it was, its woefully insufficient sample sizes of about 200 people or less for its questionnaires render any conclusion it does deal with dubious at best. And just think, I refused to pick out your studies myself. I gave you leeway to choose whichever studies you wanted from a vast volume of psychological literature, and out of the top three best choices you could find to prove your case, none of them were even on topic. It's almost like you're actually a member of our side trying to make our opponents look bad. Sad thing is, our opponents actually are this dumb. It's like, I can't figure out what you were trying to do here. Did you just expect me to not even bother reading them? Did you even read them yourself? Did you just want to throw something authoritative-sounding out here and hope that would shut us up? I feel like I'm playing a video game and I just got finished with one of those boss fights where there's a big-budget cinematic showing the boss's entrance and he spends several minutes telling you how weak and powerless you are while summoning a pack of dragons and charging up his 9001 health bars, and the game generally makes the situation out to be that you're in for a brutal, punishing battle. Then he goes down with one hit from the basic pistol you got at the start of the game, his pants fall down to reveal boxers with My Little Pony on them and he starts running away and falls off a cliff while the Benny Hill music plays. >The actual conclusions he draws are that it's very different for men and women and that reactions vary wildly. You're missing the point of the Rind study. The point is that if anything isn't harmful in even one case, you shouldn't blanket ban it. Otherwise you might as well ban cars because you might get in a car wreck. The best way to handle this is with education, not blanket bans. There's your better option. >99% of the convictions are putting away people who're actually a problem and are going to cause harm. I hope my name rolls as J.C. Denton so my response to this part of your post will have the most impact: Do you have a single fact to back that up? Maybe even something related to the subject this time.

>>5718 Do most people really lose their virginity that young? soykaf I always thought it was just a meme, and I was pretty normal for having my first time at 22.

>>5799 >You, i.e. the people who don't get it Could you define what you think he "doesn't get" ? >>5804 > an overwhelming consensus you don't actually have. Could you define what this "consensus" would be ? I have a feeling you're not talking about the same thing, which will only lead to frustration. And maybe more generally remind me what the argument is about : 19yo and 17yo ? 20yo and 16yo ? 25yo and 11yo ? Because that would change the views of most people quite a lot. The first one would be fine for everyone, the second okayish for most people, the third one almost unanimously considered unacceptable. For people in my little part of the world I mean, with age of consent at 15. >>5805 >he lost his virginity normal user out I am angry etc

>>5806 Oh fugg one more filter. r e e e -> I am angry

>>5797 >>5718 >More than that if I were to just be myself around them they'd probably be bored soykafless as I talked about my job and bills and soykaf. Have you considered that maybe you're just a boring person, and that doesn't necessarily make you mature? If the biggest things you have going are bills and work (and you don't consider your work interesting), maybe there's just not much to you. >>5749 >You could always marry her. 17 year-olds can't get married in my state. >>5797 > it's just putting away people society doesn't like, That is what a legal system is, yes.

>>5806 what about 20 and 30? or 20 and 40? I think that 12+ should be allowed to be married with parental consent. Why not have sex in a safe environment where having a child wouldn't cause issues? my parents have a 20 year age gap >>5805 I haven't because I'm waiting till marriage and am expecting my partner to do the same.

>>5806 >19yo and 17yo ? Totally okay. >20yo and 16yo ? Awesome. >25yo and 11yo ? Stop right there, criminal scum. Generally, above 15 or so, any age is acceptable to me. However, even in places where it's legal, you usually don't find many 40-year-olds dating 15-year-olds. People have preferences and no law will stop or cause that. >>5808 >That is what a legal system is, yes. Society is frequently wrong, though. There needs to be a better system to ensure that retards don't get power. However, that's a discussion for another thread.

>>5804 >Sweden and Germany in particular, with AoC set at 15 and 14 respectively German aoc is 16. The 14 is the same as in many countries where their partner has to be of similar age, but this was never about specific ages of consent, it was about attitudes towards it. >Even if you do live in Europe I do you eejit. I'm English. >More like your failure to communicate. I don't know how much clearer "You are a minority. You're the people who don't get it" can be. >Again, you're trying to pretend an overwhelming consensus you don't actually have. Lol. >Two of your studies refer only to the consequences of generic coercion for everyone And the third explains that those who're coerced young are far more at risk later in life. >the study isn't actually about showing coercion necessarily being part of a sexual relationship between a teen and an adult. I've explicitly never attempted to show it was necessary. Only possible. >its woefully insufficient sample sizes of about 200 people or less You need to throw out a lot of studies if 200 isn't good enough for you e.g. all but one that Rind looked at. >I can't figure out what you were trying to do here. It's really not that hard. Take all three together instead of throwing out 2 because you can't into deduction. It shows that there is a real risk of long term harm from behaviours that can't adequately be classified as non-consensual. >Did you just expect me to not even bother reading them? Considering your initial reaction I wouldn't have been wrong, but no, I pressured you into reading them. Too much credit perhaps. >The point is that if anything isn't harmful in even one case, you shouldn't blanket ban it. That's not how that works. We take the practical option, not the idealistic one. >The best way to handle this is with education That's not a plan and it's something we already do anyway. >>5805 Nope, sorry. 13-15 is the norm. >>5806 >Could you define what you think he "doesn't get" ? That nobody is actually interested in stopping teens from having sex with whoever they please or that we're unaware that people don't instantly become attractive the day they hit 18. He's shown many times that he doesn't grok these things and thoroughly fails to understand his oppositions position. We've gone from accusations of tyrants to double think to just plain ad-homs about my little pony. It's like he imagines we were never teenagers ourselves. >I have a feeling you're not talking about the same thing We are. Nobody is going to disagree with the examples you've put forwards, which has been a large part of my point. Even in places where it's illegal a blind eye will be turned. The question is what to do the rest of the time. The times where things get fuarrrked up and lives get ruined. I think we should have laws that let us do something about that. He thinks otherwise. That's the crux of the discussion here. >>5808 >Have you considered that maybe you're just a boring person, It's not to be taken too literally. I'm sure I could be entertaining but there's unlikely to be a genuine connection. >>5810 >However, even in places where it's legal, you usually don't find many 40-year-olds dating 15-year-olds. Yep, that's what I mean by boring and immature. It's just very uncommon, which is why people tend to worry about true motive so much. >There needs to be a better system to ensure that retards don't get power. Yeah we can all agree on that but nobody actually has a working plan for how we're going to get it.

>>5810 >Society is frequently wrong, though It doesn't matter if they're wrong. They're the ones in charge, so they get to do what they want. >There needs to be a better system to ensure that retards don't get power. Retards have power, and that power will allow them to keep there from being a better system. There are no heroes. Mankind is doomed. >>5812 > the third explains that those who're coerced young are far more at risk later in life. I think his point about the studies at large was that it's obvious that those who ARE coerced will be damaged, but none of your studies even claim that most young people dating older people are coerced, so studies showing facts about the ones that are coerced don't really say anything about young-old relationships as a whole. If I'm reading him right. > It shows that there is a real risk of long term harm from behaviours that can't adequately be classified as non-consensual. But there's a risk inherent to absolutely anything. The real question is how high the risk is. I think you mentioned earlier that about 24% of teenagers who had sex wound up damaged to some degree, so it seems like the real difference between your position and his is that you consider 24% a high enough amount of collateral damage that the behavior should be legislated against, and he considers it a low enough amount that it shouldn't be. It would be interesting to see the two of you argue over where that line actually is (Is 3% okay for you? Is 34% too much for him?), but instead you're just going to keep missing each other's points entirely. Anyway, some side notes: >That nobody is actually interested in stopping teens from having sex with whoever they please Then where does abstinence-only sexed come from? There are a lot of people in the US who literally believe that teenagers who have sex with kids the same age should be imprisoned, at least. There are people I've known who would have (if they could get away with it) lynched adults and teens alike for having sex outside marriage, no matter the age of the other person. I went to a school run by them. > Even in places where it's illegal a blind eye will be turned. Except when it's not. Where do you get the idea that they usually turn a blind eye to young love? I've seen lots of news reports about cases where they didn't (which, admittedly, are the ones that would end up on the news).

>>5812 >The 14 is the same as in many countries where their partner has to be of similar age No, it's not. The 14 age is unconditional if the other person is 21 or under, but if the other person is over 21, then it can optionally be prosecuted, but only if a complaint is filed by the girl or her parents. The number of times such a complaint has been filed in the last 30 years is so low that there isn't even proper statistical data on it. >I do you eejit. I'm English. Ah, the nation that is like kicking dead whales down the beach America's shriveled cock more than any other. Makes sense. The rest of Europe hates you too. >You need to throw out a lot of studies if 200 isn't good enough for you e.g. all but one that Rind looked at. Yeah, I do. One of the major points of Rind is that he thought they should be thrown out as well. A poll on a mainstream news site about which banker-approved political candidate is best suited to screw the people out of their rights and money is more statistically reliable. >I've explicitly never attempted to show it was necessary. Only possible. Then what the hell was the point of this? Everyone knows that any relationship can potentially be damaging. Why don't we just ban every relationship to stop them from hurting people? Jesus Christ. >That's not how that works. We take the practical option, not the idealistic one. Is that why your country is chomping at the bit to follow America into its impractically expensive wars and copy all of its police state crap? Or is it just that it's such a gloomy place from the constant rain that you don't expect anything better out of life? If you try to create a better world, you may be disappointed, but if you don't, you're guaranteed a world of garbage. >That's not a plan and it's something we already do anyway. Obviously it wasn't done in your case. >He's shown many times that he doesn't grok these things and thoroughly fails to understand his oppositions position. Even though you admit that teens are attractive and have sex with each other regularly, you still think it's harmful for anyone not under an arbitrary age to be with one for reasons which I've shown to be bullsoykaf. I said that already. Now who's having problems with reading comprehension? >Yep, that's what I mean by boring and immature. Like most adults have anything interesting to talk about. >>5813 >If I'm reading him right. I feel like I should congratulate you for possessing basic reading and reasoning skills. Those seem to be frighteningly rare. >It would be interesting to see the two of you argue over where that line actually is (Is 3% okay for you? Is 34% too much for him?) If even 1% aren't harmed, there should be something in place to see to it that they aren't restricted by the incompetence of the other 99%, whether it be a sex test or something else. Maybe there could be a combination system where unconditional consent is granted at 16, and if you want it earlier, you can take a test and qualify. >There are no heroes. Mankind is doomed. Believe in Lain. She will save us.

>>5814 >the girl or her parents Well, the gender doesn't technically matter, but let's face it, that's almost always what it ends up being.

This is somewhat late, but has anyone here bothered with the #MeAt14 Twitter fiasco or the controversy surrounding Roy Moore? Seems a lot of people are talking about this lately. Depending on whether Roy Moore wins his election or not, it may continue to be a hot topic for the foreseeable future. The main line of discussion going on against the hashtag from the threads I've read about it on various boards seems to be "who says you people can decide who can consent?" with a considerable amount of "lol you old hags are doing this because you're jealous of your younger selves, just look at those pictures" mixed in.

>>6042 > #MeAt14 is a great idea and all, but # means "pound" - no?

>>6043 fememist BTFO

I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. Prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia … should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

>>6050 I want to hug you :)

>>6050 Regarding that second pic, I'm mystified that your image of non-pedos is some archetypal neckbeard sperging on the internet when actually, the group of people opposed to you includes the majority of people in the world. Even in prison, convicted pedos rank below the other criminals. Then you spend the rest of the post internet sperging like the neckbeard you tried to vilify. You guys just can't win.

>>6050 > necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia … should be legal as long as no one is coerced. incest creates birth defects, children can't consent, animals cannot consent, and you get sick from fuarrrking corpses. As for owning cp, those kids are not there for fun, they're there because sex trafficking, you sick cunts.

>>6056 > you get sick from fuarrrking corpses ...well my first concern would actually be the family of the deceased not allowing it. If you signed a will saying you're OK with someone having postmortem sex with your body, that's another matter but it's still illegal (oh the injustice of it all!).

>>6054 It's just bait. The first one looks like an edit but the second was made to piss people off and then affect superiority because they're getting mad. It's still tone deaf to the fact that it's "Why are you so mad that I'm fuarrrking with the most vulnerable people around?"

>>6058 This is the third or fourth time this week I've been caught missing someone's sarcasm or attempts at parody on this site. My sense of humour works fine elsewhere, I just can't tell the difference between actual whiny chantards and the people only making fun of them.

>>6056 >can't consent to be honest this is pretty much the most totalitarian sentiment out there. "We have to take away your rights because you're not mature enough for them" is how you get a police state where no one has any rights because they're "dangerous." People who say someone else can't consent to any given thing, no matter what it is, had better come up with an explanation a whole hell of a lot better than the pseudointellectual dreck they have now, because right now many are starting to doubt what they have to say. Pity it didn't happen sooner. Right now they haven't presented anything in particular to show that they're qualified to say who can consent to what. They're thickheaded and arrogant as fuarrrk though, and they think they have all the evidence on their side because they don't actually have an understanding of what evidence is or how logic works. This moral panic isn't just a witch hunt, it's a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger, and much of the fault for this lies with the "progressive" movement. We could have a long discussion about what utter soykaf the American left is for many reasons of which their regressive, anti-choice feminazi age of consent stance is only one, but that would delve too far into general politics, and it's not like anyone here from the dogsoykaf US left would listen to the justified criticism of them anyway.

>>6092 >"We have to take away your rights because you're not mature enough for them" I would think of it the opposite way. It's not that children cannot consent it's that they can't say no. The way our society is structured, children are 100% reliant on adults for their survival. The power imbalance is too high. I'm sure there are good natured pedophiles who genuinely love children and would stop what they're doing at any hint that the child is uncomfortable. But they are probably the exception. >We could have a long discussion about what utter soykaf the American left is for many reasons of which their regressive, anti-choice feminazi age of consent stance is only one I don't see what this has to do with politics. Are there states in the world or in history with a radically different policy on underage sex?

>>6092 >the left is feminazi strict about age of consent! >but the left is normalizing pedophilia through the "cultural marxist/Jew" media! pick one >the left are regressive feminazis! >but Hitler did nothing wrong, the Holocaust didn't happen (but it should have), and the USA needs to kick out all the "low-iq/non-white/poor people/jews" and establish an exclusive white/Aryan ethno-state! pick one Read a fuarrrking book. >inb4 "but I'm a nice guy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZmFCs-ltY >>6093 >good natured >pedophiles pick one

>>6056 Animals can't consent to being eaten either. They're property, not people, so we need the consent of their owners. Same goes for corpses, with the exception that the deceased person's will should be regarded prior to whoever possessses it now. And you can't create birth defects if you use effective birth control.

>>6092 >the evil left progressives wont let me fuarrrk 7 year olds wahh their 7, they cannot consent, because get this.... their 7. pedophilia does psychological harm to children.

>>6093 >Are there states in the world or in history with a radically different policy on underage sex? Literally almost all of them. Age of consent was a great deal lower all over the world before 100 years ago, which not coincidentally was when feminism started twisting the definitions of rape and pedophilia. Even now 14 or 15 is legal in large portions of the world. It's somewhat amazing to me how many Americans don't even realize that any other country thinks differently. >>6095 I'm not part of the right wing and I don't recall saying anything about cultural Marxism or le jooish conspiracy. Way to strawman me. It's rather telling that the left can't handle any discussion without trying to label their opponents as neo-Nazi retards. >>6098 Also don't recall saying to lower the AoC to 7. I'm only defending attraction to teenagers. Strawmanning seems to be one of our opposition's favorite tactics today...and in general.

By lowering age of consent we deprive our children off teenage love. Imagine an average 14 y.o. Joe who's got crush on his classmate Stacy. But sad thing, Stacy's already occupied by 30 year-old Bob who's got car, money and house to amaze tween girls with. Joe doesn't have all that yet, and he resides to anime. Anime leads to inferiority complex and through years, closeted pedophilia of a frustrated old man, Joe becomes the next Bob.

>>6099 Just because it was it was ok 100 years ago doesn't mean is suddenly OK. 100 years ago heroin, cocaine, and meth were all legal. Now we know that it isn't ok to use as medicine. As for other countries age groups it's not as simple as any 30 can fuarrrk a 15 year old.

>>6095 >>6098 >waaaah anyone I dun liek is an ebil NAZI I thought all these antifa morons went to 0ch and jp. Clearly we missed a few. >>6101 >Joe becomes the next Bob So Joe ends up getting a teenage girlfriend? Seems like the system works. The point is that you deprive two people who want to be together of the opportunity to be together. Let's give you another example. In this example, Bob just turned 19 and still doesn't have a house or money, but he loves 14-year-old Stacy and Stacy loves him. However, society has decided they shouldn't be together, and they end up being forced apart by self-righteous authoritarian leftists and their tradcon partners, like some of the posters in this thread - "for their own good" of course. As it turns out, both become embittered and insane and develop a massive, burning hatred for "progressive" bedroom policing bigots and their aforementioned self-righteous assholery, and once this happens enough times to enough people, it eventually leads to "progressives" getting rounded up by angry young men with guns who've been robbed of the most fulfilling relationships they could ever have had and then thrown in the gas chamber where they belong. >>6102 No one said anything about how old a certain moral precept is determining whether it's okay. What was said was that the definition of pedophilia and rape has been distorted. You don't have any "knowledge" comparable to advanced medicine in this area that would prove your side's case, just long-debunked politicized pseudoscience that you refuse to let go of because the liberal media and liberal academics tell you it's right and you believe everything they say. >As for other countries age groups it's not as simple as any 30 can fuarrrk a 15 year old. Yes it is, actually. Stop talking about laws you don't know and stop assuming every country believes in close-in-age bullsoykaf.

>>6095 >>good natured >>pedophiles >pick one You are saying pedophiles can not be good people simply because of an attraction that they didn't choose to have? Wow. t. pedophile who loves children and would never do anything to hurt one ever

>>6103 >it eventually leads to "progressives" getting rounded up by angry young men with guns who've been robbed of the most fulfilling relationships they could ever have had and then thrown in the gas chamber where they belong. Hey, Shadow the edgelord, you should probably go search for that damn fourth Chaos Emerald and leave this to me. I sympathize with what you're feeling, but this isn't the way. Even if you don't believe in Nazism, you come off sounding like them. And yes, I realize that you feel that the way they're treating you is just like the Nazis. Do you want to become exactly like the people you hate? >>6101 Let's now examine your scenario in more detail. How would Joe experience "closeted pedophilia" if it's perfectly legal for a 30 year old to fuarrrk a 14 year old? It's highly likely that he'd simply find someone else, so there's no grounds to say that he'd experience what you claim. There's also a strong current on this site and elsewhere in favor of abolishing the current economic system and replacing it with something much more egalitarian, so your idea that Bob would win over Joe just because Bob has more money won't necessarily hold in the future. You're describing a problem with the economic system that applies regardless of age and has nothing to do with the capacity to consent. >Anime leads to inferiority complex If you believe that, why are you posting on a site based on an anime?

>>6101 You've completely removed the discussion from who can consent and who can't and are trying to use the law to engage in social engineering. The proper use of the law is not to engineer a certain social outcome, but to protect freedom. The debate is solely about who can give consent, and if someone younger is found to be able to, there's no reason not to let them be with whoever they like even if you think it'll lead to other harmful consequences. >>6102 >it is literally the current year Take this John Oliver garbage back to Reddit. Morality doesn't change over time. If something was morally acceptable 100 years ago, it's morally acceptable now even if social opinions have shifted due to society being fed huge amounts of government-backed feminist propaganda.

>>6103 > waaaah anyone I dun liek is an ebil antifa

>>6107 >someone calling people Nazis without them expressing any Nazi-like beliefs, exactly like antifa >pointing out a pattern of behavior consistent with antifa makes you just like them What next, you going to threaten to smash us over the head with bike locks and then say fighting back against you makes us Nazis?

I think the age of consent is fine where it is. As a man who would like to be a father one day, I know this is just my feelings, but I would rather not have grown men or women trying to approach my children for sex. Or really, any sort of interaction beyond keeping them safe from dangers or their job as a teacher or whatever. In a friendship context, I would have to approve these adults like a good parent should. And before someone says it, I realize that kids can be equally evil or horrible but at least when it's an issue between kids, unless the kid is slow or something, someone on your level is different from a fully formed adult brain with whatever malfunctions or malicious desires it might have. There is a reason why in gaming, things like lootboxes or other things are being attacked because of it's potential to target children. I don't completely agree with that example but it's the idea that resonates with me; adults targeting kids for their own gain. Also, my point of view does come from a place of understanding. A lot of pedophiles don't choose their sexual attraction anymore than I chose to like adult women but I don't think pedophiles should be allowed to explore their sexuality with real people as in have kids as their sexual partners. I'm fine with fictional depictions since that does give them some outlet, so no, I'm not some raving anti-lolicon crusader nor am I some idiot who associates things like a flat chest with children like a certain nation's moral police but stay the hell away from real kids, for everyone's sake. I have argued with pedophiles before, a lot of them come off as having some serious emotional issues. Being exposed to those kind of issues combined with possibly being manipulated for sex is bound to mess up that poor kid for life, possibly more than just having a parent being somewhat distant or overbearing. Finally, all of these arguments of "it's morally fine back then and it is now" bugs me even more. Are you saying that enslaving people is okay to do now? Are you saying that abusing gays is alright? Are you saying that abusing your wife is all good? Are you saying telling one race of people to drink from a different water fountain because reasons? None of this stuff is okay and neither is forcing a marriage contract and having some grown adult fuarrrk them.

>>6129 >comparing sexual freedom to lootboxes You've got more problems than just basing your opinions on feelings. Problems like stupidity. >a lot of them come off as having some serious emotional issues. Yeah, because it's not like being torn away from someone you shared a deep love with and being told that your love wasn't real or valid by stupid assholes is traumatic or anything. Do you even read the soykaf you type? >Finally, all of these arguments of "it's morally fine back then and it is now" bugs me even more. Are you saying that enslaving people is okay to do now? Are you saying that abusing gays is alright? Are you saying that abusing your wife is all good? Are you saying telling one race of people to drink from a different water fountain because reasons? None of those things were morally acceptable back then either, even though people thought they were. Sex between adults and teens was always morally acceptable and is now even though burgerland thinks it's not. Morality is constant.

>>6130 Why the hell are you so fuarrrking snippy dude? A grown adult wanting to have sex with a kid is in a lot of cases manipulation and abuse. The lootbox comparison was weak but I dislike the potential of abuse that allowing adults and kids being on equal footing creates. And also, you have sexual freedom, it's called sex toys. Grown women use them, grown men use them, and you can do. Circumcising boys was AND STILL IS considered morally acceptable in many countries. Morality is subjective. The fact of the matter is, how many parents are going to agree to having some adult in their late 20s/early 30s dating their young teenager? I wouldn't agree to that and while I can't stop my kid from doing things past a certain age (and I should respect that) there is always going to issues and fears about the adult. But hey, keep insulting people just because they don't agree with you 100%.

>>6132 >Why the hell are you so fuarrrking snippy dude? Well gee, I dunno. Maybe it has something to do with being part of the only group that the American legal system won't punish you for murdering. >The lootbox comparison was weak but I dislike the potential of abuse that allowing adults and kids being on equal footing creates. There's potential for abuse everywhere. You might as well outlaw everything if security above all is your goal. You could be hurt because of your computer if some 1337 h4x0r gets into it, so you should probably stop posting, crush your devices with rocks, crush the rocks into gravel because they could be thrown at people, crush the gravel into dust because it might choke someone, conduct a magical banishing ritual to send the dust to another dimension because it might get in your lungs, and live in a cave. >And also, you have sexual freedom, it's called sex toys. If I said that gays should just use dildos instead of marrying each other you'd call me a fascist Republitard. That would of course be a supremely retarded statement, but the point is that you don't have a good reason to stop people from doing as they like. >Morality is subjective. No, it isn't. Morality is absolute. But more to the point, if you think morality is subjective then I win by default because you have no basis to make any claim about morality. I can just say my version of morality includes whatever I want and because it's subjective, you can't contest it. >The fact of the matter is, how many parents are going to agree to having some adult in their late 20s/early 30s dating their young teenager? In a decent society that would depend on the character of said adult. It would certainly be seen as unusual given that people usually tend to date close to their age, but not something to bring out torches and pitchforks over. Given the amount of people in that age range who at some earlier point in their lives wanted to date a girl with a gap of only a few years between them but were prohibited from it by society, we'll probably be seeing a lot more of that soon. Those people want to get back what was stolen from them. Additionally, one thing that pisses me off the most about this topic is trying to figure out why it's so goddamned hard for the left to understand that just because one issue, like gay rights or whatever, is seeing progress in le current year doesn't mean that everything happening in every other area is also progress. What's been happening here is completely unjust and the exact opposite of anything that deserves to be called progress. I guess that's what happens when your moral understanding is rooted entirely in feels and virtue signaling. Subjectivist morality leads to nothing but destruction.

>>6133 >Well gee, I dunno. Maybe it has something to do with being part of the only group that the American legal system won't punish you for murdering. Maybe because one of the earliest exposures that a lot of people have to pedophiles are these outright child abusers like the Oakland County Child Killer? The kind of people who completely change communities, often have backstories of being abuse victims, and have completely shaped how we look at the topic. I wasn't sexually abused as a kid but seeing how those who sexualize kids and the kind of emotional damage it causes to a lot of young people makes me question the motives of any pedophile. I think that marriage is pointless regardless of sexuality. I think gay marriage is a waste of time every bit as much as straight marriage is. At least if people fuarrrked sex toys, then maybe we wouldn't have so many STDs. I'm an equal denier of marriage, bucko. I don't have a good reason to prevent people from doing as they wish, because I really can't. But I feel it's important to call out things that might cause harm, like adults taking advantage of children. Morality is subjective because we are two different people with different experiences. I dislike pedophiles because they are one of the reasons that we have this culture of fear when a lot of them started killing and raping kids, resulting in childhoods like mine where I'm constantly that the world is unsafe so therefore, I can't play outside. Then when I do listen and just do whatever inside, then I'm told about how kids don't play outside anymore. I also don't like pedophiles because they abuse kids and then those same kids often become abusers themselves, much like bullies and their victims. You're just a pedophile who feels jilted by society. We see things differently and therefore our morals are different. I think it's morally just to care more about the feelings of the child than you. Plus, if we are just talking about a 16 and 19 year old or something similar, that's totally different from a younger kid and an actual adult. >Subjectivist morality leads to nothing but destruction. No... allowing pedophiles to have their way is going to stunt a lot of children emotionally. Plus give deprived adults an easy target. That's real destruction.

>>6134 >Plus, if we are just talking about a 16 and 19 year old or something similar, that's totally different from a younger kid and an actual adult. Going to ignore the rest of that post because this is for the most part what the current laws are stopping, and have stopped, and it's what I'm most concerned about. Nothing changes if it's 16 and 25, or even 15 and 40 though. This is the destruction your hysteria is causing, and that's where all of this anger is coming from.

>>6095 >good natured >pedophiles >pick one It's not a choice. Pedophiles are just normal people which fuarrrked up sexual orientation. >lgbt are heros of social justice and liberty >pedos should be castrated and imprisoned pick one

>>6133 >No, it isn't. Morality is absolute. And where does this absolute morality come from? >But more to the point, if you think morality is subjective then I win by default because you have no basis to make any claim about morality. I can just say my version of morality includes whatever I want and because it's subjective, you can't contest it. Actually your version of morality includes whatever you want and another person's version of morality includes whatever he wants and you're both fuarrrking losers by default. That's why the person you are responding to is trying to remove "morality" from the discussion in favor of logic.

>>6140 >And where does this absolute morality come from? G-d.

i wonder what will happen first. will progressivism finally be considered a failure and get rejected by mainstream culture, or will pedophilia become acceptable and legal, its hard to tell. there is a growing push back against progressive ideology, but at the same time progressives have quite a bit of influence in society, allowing them to make gender ideology and other "progressive" ideologies the law, and introducing it into the education system, pushing it onto children at an early age. which is something i find to already be much more harmful then pedophilia being normalized. seems like both sides will just keep growing until we reach a breaking point and soykaf happens

>>6142 I'm sorry, but I do not and will not accept religion and associated deities as a source of morality. Horrible things like circumcision and sectarian violence have come from a devotion to these "gods". This is why we aren't going to argue on terms of morality, because even religion is subjective. >>6135 But this will never change the fact that your standard parents will not accept such a massive age gap for their teenage child. A 16 and 19 year old isn't as bad because they are practically the same age. There is almost no power imbalance assuming both are mentally similar. But when you start talking about a kid who hasn't even finished high school in a relationship with an adult in their mid 20s and beyond, even if that adult is a model pedophile and doesn't abuse kids, how many parents in reality are going to sit by and not question this person? "Why aren't you with a girl your age?" or similar comments are going to be made about this. Here's the fact, pedo rights are rightfully denied due to the damage they cause to DEVELOPING MINDS and society as a whole. As I said, pedophiles rape or molest kid, that kid becomes dysfunctional and possibly ends up repeating the cycle. We have to put in resources to help these victims. A society that puts the feelings of pedos and other child abusers is one that throws the youth under the bus. If my son or daughter is under 18 and I have legal custody over them, I will not allow another adult put them into a legal contract (marriage) and will consider any sexual contact to be either rape by physical force or manipulation. And I'm not the only person who thinks like this. A pedo friendly society is the real destructive society, so just stick to your lolicon and consider getting a good sex toy. And no one gets hurt. I wish no ill will on you.

>>6142 >G-d. Which one?

>>6144 >pedophiles rape or molest kid, that kid becomes dysfunctional I think you are begging the question here. Rape and violence will fuarrrk up anyone of any age but that's not the premise everyone is starting from. Grown ups get kids to do things they don't understand and don't harm them in any way all the time. There is no reason that sexual relations needs to be any more stressful and confusing then brushing their teeth. Just with salty toothpaste.

>>6140 >That's why the person you are responding to is trying to remove "morality" from the discussion in favor of logic. He's done every last thing except use logic. >And where does this absolute morality come from? Logic, of course. >>6143 >neurosuggesting the left isn't full of rabid feminazis desperate to preserve the value of their used-up slime holes by denying adult guys the opportunity to sex the teen girls who also want to sex them >>6144 >There is almost no power imbalance assuming both are mentally similar. But when you start talking about a kid who hasn't even finished high school in a relationship with an adult in their mid 20s and beyond, even if that adult is a model pedophile and doesn't abuse kids, how many parents in reality are going to sit by and not question this person? "Why aren't you with a girl your age?" or similar comments are going to be made about this. Lol, the power imbalance meme. When are you people to going to understand that as long as both parties understand sex nothing else is relevant? And here's a better question: Why is it any of your business? >Here's the fact, pedo rights are rightfully denied due to the damage they cause to DEVELOPING MINDS and society as a whole. And here we see the overextension of the term pedo to describe biologically normal and morally harmless attraction to teenagers yet again. And for the millionth time, YOU HAVE PROVIDED LITERALLY ZERO fuarrrkING EVIDENCE OF THIS WHATSOGODDAMNFUCKINGEVER. >If my son or daughter is under 18 and I have legal custody over them, I will not allow another adult put them into a legal contract (marriage) and will consider any sexual contact to be either rape by physical force or manipulation. And I'm not the only person who thinks like this. You're the one throwing teens under the bus by denying them agency and not respecting their wishes. You think your imagined manipulation that you've provided no concrete definition for is a sufficient reason to restrict people. You're not fit to be a parent and any offspring you have will eventually come to hate you. So many feels-driven liberals here, good god. Go back to Reddit where you belong.

>>6144 Modern parents are stupid as hell. If you want proof, just look at the broken society our parents left us. Who gives a soykaf what the parents think? Being a parent doesn't entitle you to some special knowledge no one else has. If anything, it seems to make people dumber.

>>6147 Oh, I'm unfit to become a parent just because I'd rather not see them get hurt by some adult with way more power than them? Maybe I went a little too far since I did say that past a point, I would have to respect their choices as said here; >The fact of the matter is, how many parents are going to agree to having some adult in their late 20s/early 30s dating their young teenager? I wouldn't agree to that and while I can't stop my kid from doing things past a certain age (and I should respect that) there is always going to issues and fears about the adult. But fine, I'm a bad parent in the making because I want to prevent abuse of my kids. I'd rather they just stay with their own age group, even if that isn't foolproof either. Point is, fine, it's cool for adults to find sexually mature teens attractive. Some of the teens I've seen since becoming an adult might as well just be 18-21 just by looks alone. But I already see fuarrrked up adults hijacking this so they can get their younger and younger targets as their little toy. So yea, tell this horrible daddy-wannabe why he is so horrible.

>>6149 >I'd rather they just stay with their own age group, even if that isn't foolproof either. If you admit that no type of relationship is foolproof and all are just about equally likely to be harmful, you're admitting you have no grounds to base your objection on other than feels. That's blatant tyranny and we're not going to put up with it. Now again. For the million and one-th time. You've provided no evidence that anyone is getting hurt in any way that couldn't also happen in an adult-adult or teen-teen relationship. I'm really tired of this going around in circles to be honest. >I want to stop them from getting hurt! >But nobody's actually getting hurt though. >But I want to stop them from getting hurt! It's like you people are a broken record.

Let's pretend this thread is an anime. I think it's about time for a recap episode, so here's a summary of what's happened in this thread so far: >why are you even talking about this here this triggers me I'm going back to a site where they censor wrongthink >OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING AND THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT IS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING WHAT THEY WANT >lol you're all losers >tons of buzzwords >anyone who doesn't agree with the left is a Nazi >muh power difference meme >I decide who's mature even though my side is too immature to accept criticism and tries to censor it constantly >I decide who can consent because I'm an infallible judge of morality >by the way morality is all feels, evidence-based morality only exists if it agrees with us >MUH FEELS >MUH FEELS >MUH fuarrrkING FEELS

>>6150 Can you fuarrrking stop with the "you people" nonsense? Have you ever thought for one goddamn second that maybe, just maybe I'm not this leftist boogyman you cry about? I'm cool with porn that caters to your desires, I have zero desire to censor fictional depictions of people even in more taboo situations. But I do fear the slippery slope that this will create. You allow teens and adults to get in a sexual relationship, you are going to allow children to get caught in bad situations. You know that people can and will abuse the system. >we're not going to put up with it Oh, because not getting to have sex with a teenager is so oppressive right? If you have that as your claim to suffering, then you are no different from me in terms of "oppression". >>6151 And this post ain't helping your cause either.

>>6154 You know what? The way I've been handling this is stupid. Okay, let's get on the same page. I'm going to drop my preconceived notions for awhile. So, Lain (anyone can answer these though), do you want the age of consent completely abolished or are you merely talking about lowering it? In such a society where there is no age of consent or maybe a low age of consent (feel free to define this), is there additional consent by the minor's parents or guardians? Or would the minor have complete decision making powers regardless of the parent's wishes? A legit concern would be the rights of the minor, earlier in the thread someone mentioned a test for sex and in >>6147; >as long as both parties understand sex nothing else is relevant? So would we have state funded sex education with a great focus on consent and understanding the consequences? Should it be mandatory or on a case by case basis (since not all minors will be in minor/adult relationships)? How do we weed out bad adults? Or do we just let the people involved handle things on their own like normal relationships and only step in when abuse is clearly evident? I'm really curious about your response, I'll admit, the idea of an adult and teen bug me, but I'll quit brewing soykaf and listen.

>>6154 >Oh because not being allowed drink from the same water fountains as whites is so oppressive right? I was about to type something a lot more aggressive in tone, but then I read the next post and decided to address it in the next part of this one, in a fashion which at least attempts to be diplomatic. Nevertheless, if you said that to a black man in 1960 you'd stand a good chance of getting knocked flat on your ass. Yes it is fuarrrking oppressive. Telling someone what they can or can't do with their own bodies is as oppressive as it gets. >>6156 >do you want the age of consent completely abolished or are you merely talking about lowering it? The latter. >Or would the minor have complete decision making powers regardless of the parent's wishes? Everyone should have complete decision making powers over their own lives. Of course, it's better to have functional families where parents and kids don't hate each other, and to facilitate that, ideally the parents would be reasonable and give some type of justification as to why they don't like a particular romantic choice for their teen besides their age, like the guy having 3 convictions for armed robbery. >So would we have state funded sex education with a great focus on consent and understanding the consequences? If the educational system was in any way competent or designed to produce critically thinking citizens, this would have been in place decades ago. >Or do we just let the people involved handle things on their own like normal relationships and only step in when abuse is clearly evident? This is the only acceptable approach. There's no reason to assume that the mechanisms for detecting abuse in any other relationship would be any less effective here.

>>6157 Well, I'm tired of being aggressive at this point, my whole premise was based on the idea of me being a father one day so, being told that I'm unfit to be a parent really struck a nerve. Plus, I've spent so much time just trash talking people online that brewing soykaf is almost second nature to me. But enough of that. >The latter Okay. >Everyone should have complete decision making powers over their own lives. Of course, it's better to have functional families where parents and kids don't hate each other, and to facilitate that, ideally the parents would be reasonable and give some type of justification as to why they don't like a particular romantic choice for their teen besides their age, like the guy having 3 convictions for armed robbery. I guess that's fair. Assuming there is no malicious intent on the older party, once you remove age, as long as the adult is a good person then it's hard to tell the teen to not do as they wish, even if I find the age factor to be disagreeable. And for what it's worth, I suppose that teen-adult relationships wouldn't be some epidemic that I was making it out to be. I'm sure there would be many teens who find it weird to date someone way older than them and stick to their own age group while some adults might feel and do the same.

>>6147 >Lol, the power imbalance meme. When are you people to going to understand that as long as both parties understand sex nothing else is relevant? Now who is the one doing every last thing except use logic? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a "meme". Underage persons cannot legally get a job and strike out on their own. They get less dependent as they grow up but up until the age of 18 they are always dependent on adults for their survival to some degree or other. Most adults with regular contact to children have a duty of care towards those children (parents, teachers, couches etc.). There will always be a conflict of interest between getting what you want and not forcing children into anything. Most men are typically not sensitive enough to understand that line. >And here's a better question: Why is it any of your business? Because children can't defend themselves against adults. Parents exist to defend them. It is always a parents business until the child is 18. >And here we see the overextension of the term pedo to describe biologically normal and morally harmless attraction to teenagers yet again. You sure are angry for someone who is not even a pedo. There is no real physical difference between a 15 year old and an 18 year old. The majority of straight men are ephebophiles it's not a big deal.

>>6158 >I'm sure there would be many teens who find it weird to date someone way older than them and stick to their own age group while some adults might feel and do the same. It'd be a sizable minority, but not the majority by any means. Most people meet someone when they're fairly young and they want to stay close to them. But there are a lot of resentful people who've experienced scenarios like Bob and Stacy in >>6103, and those chickens are coming home to roost sooner than most people realize. >>6159 >Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a "meme". Underage persons cannot legally get a job and strike out on their own. They get less dependent as they grow up but up until the age of 18 they are always dependent on adults for their survival to some degree or other. Everything you're describing here is an artifact of the way the rest of society is set up. If we allowed people to become self-sufficient sooner (or at all, given the debt slavery-based economy we live in), this wouldn't be an issue. And if young people defending themselves against someone older is your concern, we could just lower the age for gun ownership too. Doesn't matter if someone is bigger than you if you plug them.

>>6163 >a sizable minority Yea, I can see it not being no where near the majority of relationships. For every adult who is happier with someone much, much younger, you are going to have several more who are annoyed by or don't want someone really young for whatever reason they have. With that second part of this post, I can agree to this. I've noticed this culture of debt that is forcing people in my age group (I'm in my mid 20s, by the way) to be depended on their parents. I'm not even in debt but I live with my family still because it's way easier and if I bought my own house through a 30 year mortgage, I'd be putting myself into debt in a sense. I suppose we need to define a proper power imbalance. If I date a woman who went through college, has a high paying job and doesn't live with her family unlike me who has no college education beyond community college and does live with my family then would that be unbalanced? I don't consider it as such. But if I was mentally disabled and the woman was not, then that would be an unbalanced. But, you (can I just call you Teen Lain or something?) are proposing to put teens up to the same level as adults financially and even self defense to eliminate that problem. If a teen was more capable of taking care of themselves moneywise, that would prevent malicious adults from threatening to withhold money if the teen doesn't comply with a sexual act or anything. At least, to a degree. Because, to be frank, (regardless how I personally feel) assuming the adult is well meaning AND the teen is on mostly equal footing, which isn't always the case even in adult relationships, I will admit then I guess it isn't that bad for those people involved.

>>6163 You missed an important point. There is no real physical difference between a 15yo and an 18yo right?

>>6163 >Everything you're describing here is an artifact of the way the rest of society is set up. If we allowed people to become self-sufficient sooner (or at all, given the debt slavery-based economy we live in), this wouldn't be an issue. >>6164 >With that second part of this post, I can agree to this. I've noticed this culture of debt that is forcing people in my age group (I'm in my mid 20s, by the way) to be depended on their parents. That's not what I meant. Pre-18 you can't get a job or live by yourself or buy a car and drive to another city. I *have* to live with your parents. You *have* to beg them for food. You *have* to go to school. So if someone puts you into a difficult situation, like propositions you for sex, you have significantly few options for dealing with it than an adult.

>>6168 >Pre-18 you can't get a job or live by yourself or buy a car and drive to another city. Maybe you should be able to do those things too. It'd help people get out of bad home situations.

>>6169 >Maybe you should be able to do those things too. It'd help people get out of bad home situations. You are trying way too hard to restructure society around your personal desires. Kids are kids because they are humans it training. We are education them to be productive adults. They shouldn't have to worry about things like acquiring food and paying bills and staving off sexual predators. There is not a lot of physical difference between a 15yo and a 18yo. The only reason you want to fuarrrk 15yos is because they are more vulnerable and easier to exploit. It's quite pathetic really.

>>6168 >That's not what I meant. Pre-18 you can't get a job or live by yourself or buy a car and drive to another city. I *have* to live with your parents. You *have* to beg them for food. You *have* to go to school. So if someone puts you into a difficult situation, like propositions you for sex, you have significantly few options for dealing with it than an adult. I ended up moving away from the proper discussion of age of consent with that post, but I was somewhat referring to how people in general get slammed with debt pretty early on. But as I admitted, that is swaying away from the actual discussion. That said, the more motivated child often gets a job at 16 or even earlier but in someways may as well not due to the restrictions. In a similar parallel to age of consent, child labor laws exist to prevent the exploitation of children and teens in the workforce. >>6169 But onto you, Lain, I suppose in a perfect world, a minor could fend for themselves and be on equal footing with adults at least legally. And I'm relived that you don't want anything crazy like a complete abolishing of the age of consent. But I'd like one thing to be considered; the brain. The brain of a teenager is nowhere near developed compared to an adult. Let's completely ignore feelings, social norms, laws and wishful thinking here; in a relationship where one person has a fully developed brain and the other has a undeveloped/developing brain who is going to have the sway in the relationship? I understand that minors have agency but what else can be done for those minors besides education and giving them weapons? In a society where age of consent is lowered, then everything else involving age has to drop as well in an attempt to level the playing field for a minority of relationships. https://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Enews/releases/2006/02/06.html https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140827203544.htm Not perfect sources, but it's common knowledge and seems to be backed by neuroscience that teens aren't on the same level as adults.

>>6172 >you just want to fuarrrk vulnerable people, you pathetic misogynistic soykaflord Lol, and just where did you get your psychic powers? You don't know what anyone wants, so quit this armchair psychology bullsoykaf. I want to fuarrrk sexy people, most of whom happen to be teenagers, and society needs restructuring in general, so why not make it better for what I and a whole lot of other people want? >>6175 >The brain of a teenager is nowhere near developed compared to an adult. This is the claim made by "neuroscientists" but intelligence testing goes against it, not to mention the basic empirical observation of adults often being complete retards. Ernst et al. shows that teenagers and adults have the same reasoning skills. I remember some other studies showing the same thing. I'll go hunt for them and give at least a partial list.

>>6176 >Lol, and just where did you get your psychic powers? You don't know what anyone wants, There is nothing psychic about it it's just logic. >I want to fuarrrk sexy people, most of whom happen to be teenagers, In that case what is wrong with fuarrrking 18yos? They have more power and are guaranteed to reject you. Why do you want to fuarrrk younger teens? They are vulnerable and easier to exploit. You failed to address the central point. The reason I call you pathetic is because pedos have fuarrrked up brains and can't help being physically attracted to prepubescent children. You have a normal sexual orientation but you can't get laid so you want to pray on vulnerable teens instead of strong, independent legal teens.

>>6180 >There is nothing psychic about it it's just logic. Your feels and baseless assumptions about other people's mental state are not logic any more than a racist talking about how all black people want this or that is logic. >They have more power and are guaranteed to reject you. Pure ad hominem. You seem to be incapable of anything except that. Lain knows you don't understand how logic works. >Why do you want to fuarrrk younger teens? Because they're sexy. >They are vulnerable and easier to exploit. According to you. There isn't any real evidence to back this claim. >You have a normal sexual orientation but you can't get laid so you want to pray on vulnerable teens instead of strong, independent legal teens. Leaving aside the fact that my preferred age group is legal in many, many places, already rendering your statement invalid, this is pure feminist Reddit bullsoykaf, complete with the "strong, independent" phraseology feminists love. Getting with a young teen is far more of an achievement than getting with an adult because the teen is in their physical prime.

>>6182 Don't avoid the discussion. I've explained to you why the law is this way. Pre-18 you can't get a job or live by yourself or buy a car and drive to another city. I *have* to live with your parents. You *have* to beg them for food. You *have* to go to school. So if someone puts you into a difficult situation, like propositions you for sex, you have significantly few options for dealing with it than an adult. Kids are kids because they are humans it training. We are education them to be productive adults. They shouldn't have to worry about things like acquiring food and paying bills and staving off sexual predators There is not a lot of physical difference between a 15yo and a 18yo. The only reason you want to fuarrrk 15yos is because they are more vulnerable and easier to exploit. I'm not going to let you keep moving the goal posts with this "no real evidence" bullsoykaf. Respond to the arguments as they are mode. >Getting with a young teen is far more of an achievement than getting with an adult because the teen is in their physical prime. Why kind of logic is this? There is no physical difference between 15 and 18. The reason you want someone younger is not physical.

>>6182 >Your feels and baseless assumptions about other people's mental state are not logic any more than a racist talking about how all black people want this or that is logic. >this is pure feminist Reddit bullsoykaf, complete with the "strong, independent" phraseology feminists love. Your response to ad hominem is itself ad hominem. A is legal, B is illegal. Why fight to make B legal instead of be happy with A? What is the difference?

>>6176 >not to mention the basic empirical observation of adults often being complete retards. Just because some adults can be observed behaving stupidly doesn't negate the general point that if I were to grab a teen and an adult off the street, I could safely say that the adult would be more knowledgeable and have more experience in more fields. But I want to see your studies because they sound interesting if they really contradict the idea of teens being stupid, but knowing teens and even young adults, I'm not holding my breath. After all, the stupid emotional teenager phase most people go through is why pic related is really funny. Come to think about it, here's another question. Would a relationship be all that stable if one person is constantly going through the standard hormonal and emotional phases that makes puberty? I mean, if you're 40 years old and your 15 year old girlfriend decides to do something utterly childish like "rebel" against you? I get that adult relationships can be like that, but it must be annoying when you have a teen act like well, a teen.

>>6186 >Don't avoid the discussion. I've explained to you why the law is this way. And I explained to you why it's bullsoykaf. The rest of your post has already been addressed, several times in fact. Maybe you're having problems understanding the words being said to you, because it really can't be made any clearer than it already has been. You also don't know what moving the goalposts is. >There is not a lot of physical difference between a 15yo and a 18yo. Yes there is, actually. 15 year olds have noticeably smoother, more neotenous skin. >The only reason you want to fuarrrk 15yos is because they are more vulnerable and easier to exploit. If I repeat this over and over, it becomes true! >>6187 >just be happy with what you're given, don't try to get anything better, you can buy a .22 pea shooter with a 2 round mag in liberal retard land so you should just be happy with that, you shouldn't want a Barrett .50 even though it's much more awesome Sad. >>6188 >Just because some adults can be observed behaving stupidly Some adults? When the best presidential candidates your country can produce are an orange buffoon and Pantsuit War Criminal, you're not really in a position to say this. Adults don't know soykaf. >I mean, if you're 40 years old and your 15 year old girlfriend decides to do something utterly childish like "rebel" against you? How would that even work? She'd just break up with you. Rebelling is something you do against someone who has authority over you. People in a relationship are equal partners even if one is older, and if one party is oppressing the other, it's abuse regardless of how old either one is.

>>6190 >And I explained to you why it's bullsoykaf. The rest of your post has already been addressed, several times in fact. Quote the post number because I don't see it. >Yes there is, actually. 15 year olds have noticeably smoother, more neotenous skin. Before you agreed there was no difference and now that you were backed into a corner you changed your mind. It takes 40-50 years for human skin to degenerate into wrinkles. The difference between 15-18 cannot be that significant. >If I repeat this over and over, it becomes true! I repeat it because you haven't addressed it. If you can't then just admit you are wrong. >just be happy with what you're given, don't try to get anything better, you can buy a .22 pea shooter with a 2 round mag in liberal retard land so you should just be happy with that, you shouldn't want a Barrett .50 even though it's much more awesome This is a soykaf analogy. There is no physical difference between A and B and no objective measure for "more awesome". I just gave you an actual explanation of why people like you prefer B over A. They are more vulnerable and less likely to reject you. You are failing very badly at providing any alternative explanation.

>>6190 >And I explained to you why it's bullsoykaf. The rest of your post has already been addressed, several times in fact. You do realize that the post you are responding to (>>6186) is mostly copy and pasted from other parts of the thread. If it is true that it has already been addressed then all you need to do is copy and paste your original response. Don't look too hard, it's difficult to copy and paste text that doesn't exist >Maybe you're having problems understanding the words being said to you It is difficult to understand words that don't exist. It looks to me that you ignored everything you don't have an answer to and hoped no one would notice. >You also don't know what moving the goalposts is. You keep asking for more "evidence" without actually refuting anything that has already been said. That is pretty much the definition. >Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

>>6191 >Quote the post number because I don't see it. You're talking about more or less the entire thread. Check the responses to all the posts referenced in >>6151. However, >>6182 contains the one sentence which in a society where people actually listened to logic would be all that we need to have the laws remade to our liking: >There isn't any real evidence to back this claim. There's an entire discussion earlier in the thread about the various studies purporting to show that teens are damaged by sexual contact with adults. The person who was given the opportunity to post some ended up posting studies that largely had nothing to do with the topic and most likely didn't even read them. >Before you agreed there was no difference With regards to maturity, not appearance. Don't put words in my mouth. >I just gave you an actual explanation of why people like you prefer B over A. No, you gave stereotypes straight out of mainstream media rhetoric. >>6192 >You keep asking for more "evidence" without actually refuting anything that has already been said. Your appeal to this definition only works if you ignore the fact that I've refuted everything you said. Of course, history shows that ignoring facts isn't a problem for witch hunters.

>>6193 >You're talking about more or less the entire thread. No. I am not looking through the thread to find your responses. I'll just assume you couldn't find anything worth repeating. >Check the responses to all the posts referenced in >>6151. This post does not reference anything. It's just some autist trying to by funny. >With regards to maturity, not appearance. Don't put words in my mouth. It was posted several times and you didn't object until you realized you were in a corner. It's a bit too late to change your mind now but go ahead if you must. >No, you gave stereotypes straight out of mainstream media rhetoric. If you label it a stereotype then you can disregard what I say out of hand? No. Try again. >A is legal, B is illegal. Why fight to make B legal instead of be happy with A? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? You couldn't answer so you tried to replace the question with one you could answer (some bullsoykaf about guns). Not only can you not answer but you cannot explain why my answer is incorrect. >There is not a lot of physical difference between a 15yo and a 18yo. The only reason you want to fuarrrk 15yos is because they are more vulnerable and easier to exploit.

>>6193 >There isn't any real evidence to back this claim. Do we really need evidence that rape through manipulation and coercion are damaging things? I don't really want to weigh in on either side of this discussion about sex inherently damages children. My argument is more along the lines that sex with children tends to be very one sided and rape damages anyone not just children.

>>6190 Okay dude, I thought we were trying to have a decent conversation now. What do my presidential candidates have anything to do with my ability to speak about the intelligence and reasoning between teens and adults? If we are going to do each other like that, I sure hope you aren't from places like Germany or Canada (or even worse) Australia where women with a flat chest aren't allowed in porn because "MUH CHILD PORN" even if the woman clearly has adult features otherwise. There are countries with dumber leaders/governments than the USA, but that doesn't invalidate whatever you say. In a relationship, outside of our hypothetical world we made for this discussion, the one with the authority would be the one with the greater mental and monetary resources. I'm still waiting for the sources for teens and adults being on par. As far as the "rebel" scenario, not all teens would break up with you to rebel. Maybe you are inviting your boss for dinner, you might possibly get a raise if you show off your family. Your 15 year old girlfriend/wife decides to cook. You spend time with your boss and come in only to pizza rolls fresh out the microwave and she's on Facebook and Snapchat being well, a teen. Obviously, not all teenagers are the same, but teens of both genders display amazing levels of immaturity. If she costs you the raise, how is that going to affect the relationship? Maybe if you had a woman that was older and better understood the importance of impressing your boss that wouldn't have happened? If we are going to talk about teen-adult relationships, now that I understand where you stand, we got to talk about the reality. If you have a 15 year old girlfriend, she's more than likely going to be a smartphone addict and only talking to you to get back at "mean old daddy" or if we are talking about old women fuarrrking boys getting back at "mean, stupid mommy". Teens right now are often spoiled, too reliant on their social media and that is combined with their not nearly developed brain which is likely getting affected more and more by their Internet use. How the hell is that going to be stable?

>>6194 >It was posted several times and you didn't object until you realized you were in a corner. I didn't bother to address it at all until you made this big sticking point of it because it isn't relevant to the topic of consent. >If you label it a stereotype then you can disregard what I say out of hand? Pretty much yeah. You're basically trying to make a point by doing the equivalent of saying "That darkie is the one who robbed the KFC because he wanted a big bucket of Colonel Sanders' finest." That's not even worth replying to. >>6195 >Do we really need evidence that rape through manipulation and coercion are damaging things? Nobody here is disputing this, they're just disputing certain people's overly expansive definition of manipulation. >>6196 >Maybe if you had a woman that was older and better understood the importance of impressing your boss that wouldn't have happened? I wouldn't be with someone who doesn't understand that. It's not a hard concept even for a teen. Then again you could always just be a member of the self-employed master race.

>>6198 >Pretty much yeah. You're basically trying to make a point by doing the equivalent of saying "That darkie is the one who robbed the KFC because he wanted a big bucket of Colonel Sanders' finest." That's not even worth replying to. That's not even close. The topic is lowering age of consent to the mid teen region. The premise is that there is no physical difference between an 18yo and a 15yo. The difference is that non-adults have significantly less control over their lives, they don't have equal standing with an adult and can easily be manipulated into bad situations in ways that a fully independent 18yo wouldn't. My hypothesis is that the only reason people like you want to target younger teens is because they are more vulnerable and easier to manipulate than 18/19yos. Your response is >stereotypes straight out of mainstream media rhetoric. >That's not even worth replying to. I really regret taking the against side in this discussion, your general intelligence is rather low, I feel like I'm kicking a puppy. >>6196 would have been a much more intelligent person to argue with. Maybe I'll come back later and switch sides.

>>6198 >I wouldn't be with someone who doesn't understand that. It's not a hard concept even for a teen. Then again you could always just be a member of the self-employed master race In your world, sure. But in reality? No. Since we can't magically remake society to your own whims, we have to face the truth. If you were to go out right now and get a 15 year old girl who shows any interest in you, as I said, she is more than likely a product of a world that discourages punishing your child (i.e. spanking is bad, be your child's friend), where most kids are hooked up to the Internet at insanely early ages, and parents are separated from their kids more and more due to work and divorce. Even if we ignore the potential damage to a teen from the relationship, here's the question you ignored; How can an adult have a stable relationship with a teen? Especially in the current climate? It's precisely why I had that example of the bratty teen who cooked your boss pizza rolls and Snapchatting. If this happened in an adult-adult relationship, then there would be a rift no matter how short-lived. If this happened in a teen-adult relationship, then it's really bad since that teen likely has no job and might not have a way out if the relationship really goes south. Adult relationships can go sour due to money issues, but at least the adults can both go their separate ways with little issue unless kids are involved. A relationship where one has a weak work ethic or is in a totally different level maturity wise is not what I'd consider stable. Also, speaking of self-employment, being self-employed depending on the field still means talking to people, making relationships with clients and suppliers, etc. Unless you are a free lance programmer or something similar that requires little to no interaction with people and you don't need help from your family then you still have the same issue. Maybe you're a guy who flips houses and you're trying to get a good deal on some flooring and your 15 year old wife starts demanding that you get the purple carpet even though no one is going to buy the house at the planned asking price. A lot of guys in this field often take their wives and girlfriends for things like this and work together. A 15 year old would more than likely get in the way since you are going to need some help from your family. What if you finally get the carpet and she decides that Snapchat is more important than finishing up the house? Again, the teenager is fickle and often wants to do what they want, common sense be damned. I would not consider this stable. Adults in these relationships are going to be less husbands/wives or whatever and more "daddy/mommy who touches my privates".

>>6199 >The premise is that there is no physical difference between an 18yo and a 15yo. Only you have ever advocated that premise. No one else here accepts it. >The difference is that non-adults have significantly less control over their lives, they don't have equal standing with an adult and can easily be manipulated into bad situations in ways that a fully independent 18yo wouldn't. Several methods of giving teenagers more control of their lives have already been discussed, and you still haven't demonstrated that teens are any more prone to being manipulated than adults, or even what this manipulation consists of. >My hypothesis is that the only reason people like you want to target younger teens is because they are more vulnerable and easier to manipulate than 18/19yos. A hypothesis is a testable proposition that holds the potential to be refined through that testing into a scientific theory. You have no way of testing this. I see you're from the "a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night" school of science. >I really regret taking the against side in this discussion, your general intelligence is rather low, Learn what a hypothesis is before you go around saying things like this. >>6200 >How can an adult have a stable relationship with a teen? Especially in the current climate? The current climate isn't relevant to the question of consent and neither is a stable relationship. A stable relationship is what I personally would desire, but there are some who just want easy sex, and that too should be legal. Your ideas about why the relationship wouldn't be stable are based on stereotypes of teenagers. No wonder >>6199 is lauding you, you're both using stereotypes. At least you're not employing a side dish of Dunning-Kruger, though. Oh and by the way I dug up those studies that >>6188 was requesting. Took longer than I thought to grab them because arguing with people on the internet isn't my full time job. >Epstein, Robert (2010). "Adultness," Teen 2.0, 148-157. >"After reviewing the relevant scientific literature, interviewing many adults, and consulting with three other psychologists and two psychiatrists with expertise in adult development issues, we concluded that there are fourteen different skill-sets or "competencies" [love, sex, leadership, problem solving, physical abilities, verbal and math, interpersonal skills, responsibility, managing high-risk behaviors, work, education, personal care, self-management, and citizenship] that distinguish adults from non-adults. [...] For three of the competencies--love, leadership and problem solving--we did find statistically significant differences between the mean scores of teens and adults, with adults outscoring the teens. But the absolute differences were small. [...] On two other scales--work and self-management--the differences between the adult scores and teen scores were marginally significant (at the .05 level), again in the adults' favor, but the absolute differences were less than 4 percent. On the other nine scales, we found no significant differences at all between the adult and teen scores. [...] fifty five of the adults in our sample were college graduates--more than double the rate of college graduates in the United States." So according to this study, in most areas teens and adults are exactly the same, and in the other areas there's only a 4% difference. Is 4% enough to have a witch hunt of this magnitude? >Offer, D. (1987). "In defense of adolescents," Journal of the American Medical Association, 257, 3407-3408. >Mike Males describes this study: "Northwestern University psychiatrist Daniel Offer, the nation’s leading researcher on adolescents, studied 30,000 teenagers and adults from the 1960s to the 1990s. He and his colleagues found 85% to 90% of teens held attitudes and risk perceptions similar to that of their parents, were not alienated, did think about the future, were coping well with their lives, and did not display psychological disturbances. "Decision making for adults is no different than decision making among teenagers,” Offer reported in 1987 in the Journal of the American Medical Association." And according to this study with a sample size of a whopping 30 grand, there's no perceptible difference at all in 90% of cases. Are you going to restrict the rights of the 90% to protect only 10% whose parents can protect them without your help? I was trying to think of a witty scientific quote along the lines of theories coming from getting drunk here, but the only thing I can come up with is the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, so I suppose next the witch hunters will start talking about how the witches love Star Trek. Which seems to be oddly true about people who go after actual children and not just "15/16 is a child even though they have titties and ass and are mostly smarter than we are" feminist crap. I can't imagine why. Perhaps they'll go after Star Trek fans next. I suggest setting phasers to frag. Or just pulling out William Shatner's spoken word album and having it shred their ears like the ear worms in Wrath of Khan. >Adler, N.E., & Matthews, K. (1994). "Why do some people get sick and some stay well?," Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 229-259. >"However, empirical tests show that adolescents are no less rational than adults. Applications of rational models to adolescent decision-making show that adolescents are consistent in their reasoning and behavior after the salient set of beliefs is assessed (Adler et al 1990). Quadrel et al (1993) demonstrated that adolescents are no more biased in their estimates of vulnerability to adverse health outcomes than are their parents." And in this study, health decisions (i.e. potentially life-threatening decisions) are assessed and found to be the same as well. >Arisu Mizuki Maybe we should talk about Arisu. That discussion may get moved to another thread or board though. It may or may not be productive to talk about fictitious situations like the ones this thread is about.

>>6201 Current climate is relevant to some degree, man. You took a study that studied people between 1960s and 1990s. Last I checked, this was before helicopter parenting really took off in the US. Even young kids were allowed to walk outside by themselves. Now a lot of kids and teens are inside a lot, also adding to the obesity problem among other issues. This is why I think it's better to focus on the current world we live it. I'm going to have to read these studies more in depth. Until then; >So according to this study, in most areas teens and adults are exactly the same, and in the other areas there's only a 4% difference. Is 4% enough to have a witch hunt of this magnitude? I don't know why you are asking me about the witch hunts when I've told you that I wish no ill will to you but I'll give you a hint about the witch hunts; it's called media amplifying the crimes of people who rape and murder kids and teens and the local communities forever changed by said sick fuarrrks. No wonder why you get stories like this; http://wgntv.com/2014/07/23/florida-man-who-beat-alleged-molester-calls-son-a-hero/ When cases like this get massive press; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_County_Child_Killer I will not say that the abuse of an innocent person (if he or she is innocent) is ever right, but we do live in a world where we are in constant fear. Are you really that shocked there is a witch hunt when there is a legit reason for it? And before you say it, both of those links dealt with younger kids but society does see those under 18 as innocent and whether one likes it or not that's why the witch hunt is there. >Are you going to restrict the rights of the 90% to protect only 10% whose parents can protect them without your help? You say that like 90% of teens are going to actually want to be with an adult, though. Also, the difference between fanbases like Star Trek or even My Little Pony is that as far as I know, we don't have decades of Trekkies or Bronies raping and killing broadcasted on the nightly news.

>>6205 >Are you really that shocked there is a witch hunt when there is a legit reason for it? And before you say it, both of those links dealt with younger kids but society does see those under 18 as innocent and whether one likes it or not that's why the witch hunt is there. American society is retarded though. If America thinks a certain thing, more often than not that's enough reason to be against it. >You say that like 90% of teens are going to actually want to be with an adult, though. A sizable chunk of them would consider it. Just look at how teenage girls go nuts over pop stars, actors and boy band members. You think they'd turn down Justin Bieber?

>>6206 >American society is retarded though. If America thinks a certain thing, more often than not that's enough reason to be against it. But that describes most nations and even small groups of people. If a group of people thinks a certain way about a certain thing, then of course that's enough of a reason to be against it. I may not agree with whatever they decide but that's how it is. That is far from unique to US culture though. Look at Germany, a nation so guilt ridden over the Holocaust that any Nazi imagery from imported media is edited, even if the media was actually extremely anti-Nazi. I think it's really stupid and would rather see people explain why the Nazis where bad to the new generations to prevent another situation like that but understandably when tragic events like the Holocaust or in the case of a lot of countries like the US and others, when you have deranged people raping and killing kids and teens, that changes the culture for generations to come. Especially in a time where crime is documented on a level that allows you to see trends over decades. Again, the first time most people in the US ever hear about people who are attracted to minors are news reports about some guy who raped and killed a minor, was attempting to sexually assault, or using their authority (like a teacher or doctor) to molest or rape the minor. It is never through a positive relationship that they've personally seen in their social circle, if they see something like that in a movie, it's either some horny boy trying to get his teacher (so a comedy) or it's a drama with a young woman as an abuse victim. The ideas and memes (in the true sense of the term) they get are basically, "Those who are attracted to minors are bad people". You know it's serious when in the 90s Sonic the Hedgehog was talking to kids about sexual harassment and assault. You can blame society and to some degree, you wouldn't be wrong. But the blame goes squarely on the messed up people who changed said society. People want to protect their kids, and they see the world as dangerous. >A sizable chunk of them would consider it. Just look at how teenage girls go nuts over pop stars, actors and boy band members. You think they'd turn down Justin Bieber? I'd say that they wouldn't turn down a shot at fame, but that isn't exclusively something that teens want.

>>6207 >Again, the first time most people in the US ever hear about people who are attracted to minors are news reports about some guy who raped and killed a minor, was attempting to sexually assault, or using their authority (like a teacher or doctor) to molest or rape the minor. Blame the media for that. The sensationalist media is 90% of our problem. If it wasn't for their agenda pushing bullsoykaf the AoC would have been lowered years ago. They don't report fairly on anything. Fortunately they've fuarrrked up so much lately that people are much less willing to believe them. >Sonic the Sexual Harassment Hedgehog Holy soykaf, that takes me back. That wouldn't make me feel so nostalgic if things that happened since the turn of the millennium had been better. Everything since then has just gotten worse, and anytime it got better was only so it could get even worse than before.

>>6208 >Blame the media for that. A big part of the blame does go on to them, but that's the point I was making for the last few posts. And the genie is out of the bottle now, because people (myself included) just don't trust a lot of people, not just those who are attracted to minors, regardless of other crimes. Recently saw a video about gay men who are bug chasers and those who even willingly give other men HIV/AIDS without telling them. And despite the fact that these sickos are clearly in the minority of gay men (and the fact I'm not gay but this level of disgusting dishonesty is present in straight relationships too) and how irrational it can be, I get nervous at the idea of sexual relationships because people are dishonest. And this fear is just worsened by every report. I generally have to stop reading the news after a point. But fear is a real thing and when it comes to children and teens, especially after some of the horrific crimes that have befallen them, people are quick to defend them. And I can't really blame them. They have a fear that's going to take at least three generations to reverse.

>>6209 This is how you get a society to fall apart. The media has put out so many scare stories that they've created a society where no one can trust anyone else. If I could change one thing about the past it would be to massively accelerate the process of getting people to stop believing the media.

>>6210 Remember it's not just the mainstream media either. In the context of adult-adult relationships, groups like certain sections of Feminism and of course, MGTOW that are discouraging relationships of all stripes. MGTOW is considered alt media since it runs counter to the expectations of men. You have entire forums of men talking at length about how women are bad and cherrypicking news stories of terrible women. The Youtube community is even worse, to be honest. I got exposed to that soykaf at an early age and it's affected me pretty badly in terms of relationships. People have some horrible agendas but, I will say that the more we look at those fears and worries objectively and with the intent of eventually curing them. Like I need to admit that my fear of a dishonest partner is a valid fear but it becomes irrational if I can't function, and I think most people are capable of this. Getting back to age of consent, if those attracted to minors are proven to not be depraved sickos with respect for the teen in question and their family, then in a perfect world, this would be fine. Keeping reality in mind, if we finally were to allow adults to date and have sex with teens, we'd be requiring permits to date minors and extensive background checks of the adults in question. And this would likely be done to either have the adult wait or for the minor to just go for a person their age and not deal with the legal tape. I guess it'd be a soft marriage of sorts where the parents or legal guardian has to sign off on it, in addition of having a dating permit and maybe depending on the state other fees or costs. Depending if certain groups have lobbied hard enough, maybe dating a minor is a cause to be registered in a registry for adults in a relationship with a minor (so that way it's different from the sex offenders registry), so if the minor goes missing, the police know the first person to ask. Maybe even have a social worker come in and just ask a few questions to the minor to make sure no abuse is happening. Maybe as time passes on, the rules will get lax and then it's not as a big deal. With things the way they are now, that's the only thing I can see if we were to allow relationships like that to happen.

>>6212 People shouldn't have jump through all these ridiculous hoops. Did they hire the Vogons to run these background checks? That said, for the right girl it's still worth it even though it's bullsoykaf.

>>6215 >have jump through I'm tired and I need to go to bed. I'd probably sleep better if there was an adoring qt3.14 teen girlfriend sleeping next to me. Unfortunately murrika is a terrible place run by feudal corporate assholes who want more people in private prisons and populated with people who hate fun, beauty, and freedom and constantly try to ban everything that offends them. It's worth noting that these overly restrictive laws are part of the reason for the MGTOW stuff and YouTube cancer. It's been my experience that there are guys who only start admitting to themselves that they really, really like teenage girls when they try to date adult women and have horrible experiences with vile, sociopathic cunts, so they're looking for an alternative which they perceive as nicer. Teenagers can be cunts too, but a lot of guys seem to think the chance of encountering that is lower when dealing with teens.

People below 18 in particular are quite easy to manipulate which is part of why the age of consent even does exist. If it was legal for a 40 year old man to sleep with a 12 year old they would constantly be trying to manipulate girls into it with things like wealth, alcohol and gifts even in country's with higher ages of consent this happens but it's illegal, to make it legal will encourage more people to try. As for the act itself, many people will claim that it causes no harm but this is not true. Girls who sleep with older men at such ages don't grow up to lead a normal life even if they did it voluntarily. It scars them for life, generally either they reach the conclusion that all men are pigs and so never have any involvement with them again or all men are pigs but I accept that and I am going to use that so they end up living in a traler park with kids from 8 different fathers.

>>6220 >People below 18 in particular are quite easy to manipulate which is part of why the age of consent even does exist. Why 18? What algorithm did you use to come up with this number? Keep in mind the AoC is different everywhere. >As for the act itself, many people will claim that it causes no harm but this is not true. Girls who sleep with older men at such ages don't grow up to lead a normal life even if they did it voluntarily. It scars them for life, generally either they reach the conclusion that all men are pigs and so never have any involvement with them again or all men are pigs but I accept that and I am going to use that so they end up living in a traler park with kids from 8 different fathers. Not only has this been addressed earlier in the thread, it's such a biased, stereotype-based treatment of the issue it sounds like it could have come straight from a mainstream news report. You have literally no evidence for even a single word of this. 0/10 make an effort next time.

>>6225 Not that anon but... >Why 18? What algorithm did you use to come up with this number? Why not? Nobody has a perfect algorithm. This is a fine approximation. >You have literally no evidence for even a single word of this Plenty of evidence in the Rind study which had been posted in this thread. I swear the people who bring it up didn't even bother to read it.

>>6225 18 is just a rough average of when most people will finish school and become financially independent and stuff. Even 18 years olds are still immature but they generally have an income and can drive, younger girls are often manipulated by older guys because they can drive and have an income. Girls under 18 are also not seen as adults but want to be so they like to do dumb things that they think makes them mature, like sleeping with older men. This is a very long thread so I have not seen it. You've no evidence to go against this 0/10 make an effort next time.

>>6226 >Why not? Nobody has a perfect algorithm. This is a fine approximation. Because it goes against biology and freedom, and because not only do you not have a perfect algorithm, you don't appear to have ANY algorithm. >Plenty of evidence in the Rind study which had been posted in this thread. Really? Let's examine that claim. >>6220 posted that girls who sleep with older men when they're under 18 will, without exception, either become raging man haters or grow up to live in a trailer park. According to the Rind study, bad outcomes can certainly happen, but not to any greater extent than adult-on-adult relationships. If there's even one counterexample, the claim that it'll always turn out badly is disproven. A weaker claim that it'll turn out badly the majority of the time also hasn't been proven. You didn't read the study either. You skimmed the study for something that would superficially "prove" your point without taking into account the fact that nobody, including Rind, ever denied that bad outcomes were possible. I guess to someone who has a mindset of security over freedom, any possible risk is too much, so even one example of it going badly is enough to ban the whole thing. In that case, you might as well ban all relationships.

>>6227 >younger girls are often manipulated by older guys because they can drive and have an income. Already discussed. Economic egalitarianism can mitigate this. >Girls under 18 are also not seen as adults but want to be so they like to do dumb things that they think makes them mature, like sleeping with older men. People of all ages do this all the time. It's nothing to ban something over. >You've no evidence to go against this Learn how burden of proof works. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. How did someone who doesn't understand such a basic concept as burden of proof even find Lainchan? Lurk for 3 years before posting again.

>>6228 >not to any greater extent than adult-on-adult relationships Nope. Not even close. >A weaker claim that it'll turn out badly the majority of the time also hasn't been proven. Right there in the meta-study. > I guess to someone who has a mindset of security over freedom Everybody in their right mind has this attitude towards children.

>>6230 So now you're actually getting so desperate that you're going as far as to lie about what's written in a study posted in the thread for everyone to see, not to even mention the other studies posted here that prove you're full of it. >Everybody in their right mind has this attitude towards children. Only insufferable busybodies have this "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN" attitude towards anything. Nobody wants or needs your protection.

>>6231 When I've a bit more time I'll go over the numbers properly. They aren't good. >Children don't need protection Absurd.

>>6215 >>6217 Well, if we were going to allow things like that, then with the current climate and everyone's interest to protect kids and teens, that's the only way it would ever happen in my opinion. Even if you were to sway the minds of the masses by talking about how you prefer the youthfulness of a sweet 16 year old and how much better your life would be, there would have to be regulations in place much like how teens and kids under 16 have to get a work permit and deal with serious restrictions to get a job all because of child labor laws. Hell, minors can actually get married to each other but it has to be approved by the parents if I remember the law correctly. You may not like these laws, but they are in place to protect minors from abusive employers or some kids wanting to play house with the state's involvement. But in reality, you'd never be able to convince the masses. Yes, the media has a play in how we see adults who are attracted to minors but you and people like you aren't helping either. While >>6220 might have gone a little far in saying that a lot of these girls will grow up to be man hating women or just trailer trash or hood rats with a ton of babies but the general idea is still the same as one post I made at >>6196. I think I can make a pretty solid argument now about this. As I said, we can't change our culture overnight. If you are a man in his 30s or 40s, then unless you are some NEET living off welfare, you likely are making enough money to live off of and have decent transportation whether public or personal. Maybe you aren't a predator but if a predator adult sees a minor in a place where they can rebel against a parent or older sibling and in a culture where sex education is spotty, I can see older women for example luring teenage boys or even little boys by promising them money, rides to places, etc and using that minor's desire to get something that their parents won't let them. >Hey, Johnny, I see your mom won't let you get GTA, if you go on a date with me, I'll buy you the game!! >Hey, Sally, did your dad say you couldn't go to the concert? Hop in and we can have some fun!! Just say you're going to study or something I'm sure there are going to be many adults that are honest and not abusive, even helpful and willing to meet the parents, etc. but most teens don't seem prepared and no amount of flippant fixes like "just give teens guns" or "let's change society so teens are economically equal to adults" is going to change that. When you make comments like "I want a qt3.14 teen gf, so maybe I can sleep better" or "vile sociopathic cunts" in reference to adult women or "15 year olds have softer skin compared to 18 year olds" it makes your case sound less like a proper sexual orientation like homosexual or heterosexual and more of a fetish/coping mechanism like feet or getting a waifu. I'm never going to deny that teen girls for example are adorable, I saw a really nice girl going to the old pizza joint. I liked her mom more but that's definitely more of a fetish thing or maybe it's because at 25 I'm not exactly ancient yet either but point is, she was just cute. Not really sexy or anything, just cute. I'd bang the soykaf out of the mom though. I wouldn't feel right using my age and the wealth I have gotten so far just to get some girl like that. Maybe if she was 18-20 sure but not some kid who was likely 14-16 and is still in high school. Because it'd be really easy to sway a teen like that. I'm not saying that you are some predator but your language and attitude is going to scream, "predator who couldn't get a woman normally" to some people. And that WILL hurt your cause.

You pedos should all move to Alabama. Apparently your kind are not only welcome there but you can serve in public office rather open about your sexuality. There's probably some Arab states where your views on child/adult relationships are shared. ...not sure how these places measure up in every single other aspect of life though.

>>6232 Read the post again. People do need protection, but nobody needs YOUR protection. If anything, minors who chafe at your paternalistic bullsoykaf need protection FROM you. >>6233 >When you make comments like "I want a qt3.14 teen gf, so maybe I can sleep better" or "vile sociopathic cunts" in reference to adult women or "15 year olds have softer skin compared to 18 year olds" it makes your case sound less like a proper sexual orientation like homosexual or heterosexual and more of a fetish/coping mechanism like feet or getting a waifu. Soft, smooth skin is what guys are nearly universally attracted to though. If that's a fetish you might as well call sex in general a fetish. And if there weren't serious problems with the behavior of adult women we wouldn't have all this MGTOW stuff. >I wouldn't feel right using my age and the wealth I have gotten so far just to get some girl like that. So use your personality instead. If someone wants to date you because you bought them stuff, they're whores no matter how old they are. >>6234 I've seen a lot of you people try to pretend that religious nutjob locations are the only ones who disagree with you. Fact is, I don't have to move to an Islamic theocratic soykafhole to bang teen girls. I could go to Europe, or South America, or nearly any Asian country and do that while having a comparable living standard to the US if not better. Of course, the point is that I shouldn't have to. But that makes you really mad, doesn't it? The idea that a country doesn't have to be some bombed out backwards desert to not give a fuarrrk about your retarded moral panic must really chap your ass.

Why would a 15-year old girl with smooth skin want to have relationships with some old neet glitterboy who wanks to loli doujins if there are lots of cool 16 yo boys with smooth skin around her? I mean, why instead of lowering age of consent (which may be dangerous, since teens are experiencing puberty at older age these days and this will progress further), humanity starts dealing with aging effects of human body. Why would you need 16 year-olds if 40 year-olds look exactly the same, for example?

>>6237 >some old neet glitterboy My god, can you people go one fuarrrking post without character attacks? People like different things. Teenage girls in particular often like developed men.

>>6236 >The idea that a country doesn't have to be some bombed out backwards desert to not give a fuarrrk about your retarded moral panic must really chap your ass. This is disingenuous. I'm guessing you just scanned a list of country vs age of consent and let your confirmation bias do the rest. Most countries with aoc under 18 have additional restrictions to protect persons under 18. You either need to be close to the age of the person (i.e. not 15 years older), or have parental approval or there is a much lower burden of proof for rape. To be fair, these kinds of restrictions are addressing the very issues that people have been raising in this thread about why the aoc shouldn't be lowered so they don't really support your position. The only countries that treat little girls as free for all sex objects are infact bombed out backwards desert soykafholes. Sorry.

>>6236 >People do need protection, but nobody needs YOUR protection What? This makes no sense. When did this becomes about me personally? You've just ran out of retorts and are stabbing in the dark here. Also, I do happen to look after children so yeah they do need MY protection. >>6239 Yep. Skim something and let confirmation bias do the rest is basically this guys M.O. Imagine thinking Europeans don't hate pedos. Or that the Rind study says "it's totally fine lol." "A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." It's been more than a month now and this thread has just gone round in circles.

>>6236 The point is, if you sound like you are shunning adult women but then raising up teenaged girls as somehow better, that's going to sound like some coping thing to a lot of people. And what's stopping someone from just asking, "Aren't those teens going to grow up into those vile cunts?" with the implication that you hate women. >So use your personality instead. If someone wants to date you because you bought them stuff, they're whores no matter how old they are. But I'm a 25 year old man with a house and a lot of other cool things. Any woman I talk to no matter how old is going to find out once I invite her over. I have a pretty massive advantage over say a boy in high school, even if I keep it a secret for a while. And while the teen girl I saw at the pizza joint was really nice looking, she's just too young for me. But that's a subjective taste sort of thing, plus I can find a lot of girls my age and a little bit younger that still have that youthful cuteness I like. >>6239 >Most countries with aoc under 18 have additional restrictions to protect persons under 18. You either need to be close to the age of the person (i.e. not 15 years older), or have parental approval or there is a much lower burden of proof for rape. Which countries? I tried to find this info, but if that's true then my suggestion that we would need some serious regulation of a lowered age of consent wasn't that far off.

>>6241 Pretty much every country where it's <18. For instance Germany and Canada both have laws saying it's illegal if they're under 18 and it's considered exploitative.

>>6242 https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/canada >Canada statutory rape law is violated when an individual has consensual sexual intercourse with a person under age 16. There are two close in age exemptions. One allows a minor aged 12 or 13 to consent to sexual congress with an individual less then two years older. The other allows 14 and 16 year olds to consent to partners less than 5 years older. The age of consent is raised to 18 when the older party is in a position of trust or authority over the other, the younger party is in a relationship of dependency with the owner, or if the relationship is exploitative. Every act of anal intercourse is criminalized with the exemptions for married couples or 2 people over age 18. The exemptions become invalid if a third person is present of if the act does not take place in private. Okay, so the info was pretty much in my face.

>>6239 >To be fair, these kinds of restrictions are addressing the very issues that people have been raising in this thread about why the aoc shouldn't be lowered so they don't really support your position. These issues have been addressed already. >>6240 >Yep. Skim something and let confirmation bias do the rest is basically this guys M.O. Pure projection. >Imagine thinking Europeans don't hate pedos. Again with misusing the word pedo. >Or that the Rind study says "it's totally fine lol." That's exactly what it says. If even one case is okay, then it's okay in general. Of course, for busybody assholes that isn't the case. They think if even one case could result in harm that's enough reason for a blanket ban. >"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." It's been more than a month now and this thread has just gone round in circles. You people calling anyone else fanatics? Your lack of self awareness is beyond belief. Our side has produced logic and evidence while your side has relied exclusively on strawmen and ad hominem such as "a girl who makes a decision I don't approve of is 100% guaranteed to grow up to live in a trailer park". You've even gone so far as to try to distort the meaning of a study which is quite clearly against you. Reasoning with you is impossible because you've decided you have the right to tell someone else what to do with their personal lives, which is exactly what religious nutjobs do. You, however, are desperately trying to project your religious fanatic mindset onto our pro-science perspective. It's almost comical how sophisticated you think yourself compared to how uninformed you actually are, but rational people see through you. >>6241 >The point is, if you sound like you are shunning adult women but then raising up teenaged girls as somehow better, that's going to sound like some coping thing to a lot of people. Those people are idiots. >And what's stopping someone from just asking, "Aren't those teens going to grow up into those vile cunts?" with the implication that you hate women. They won't necessarily grow up into that. They grew into that largely because of feminism enabling it. >>6242 >and it's considered exploitative What's their legal definition of exploitation, then?

>>6244 >That's exactly what it says. Ahahaha. No. It says there should be more detailed classifications and that it affects men and women differently. We have had so much bullsoykaf about the Rind study in this thread. It's insane. Just reading through I saw things like "One of the major points of Rind is that he thought they should be thrown out as well." This is just made up. Rind says nothing of the sort in his study. Quite the opposite in fact. His study, being a meta-study, is entirely based on the validity of those studies. If you throw them out you have to throw his out as well. It's not even confirmation bias. It's just totally invented. >If even one case is okay, then it's okay in general. So you think drunk driving should be legal? What about firing a gun into a crowd of people? I might not hit anyone. This hardline, "if it's even possible that it would be ok it should be legal," is crazy. You're advocating it because it works for the pet issue on which you are a fanatic, not because it's a principle you adhere to. >our pro-science perspective You have one study that doesn't even go half as far as you seem to think it does and isn't really that relevant to the subject anyway. Rind even talks about this in the study (Are you really sure you've read the whole thing?) and says it's unsuitable for use in making moral or legal policy descisions. >What's their legal definition of exploitation, then? I don't think you know much about law either. It's done on a case by case basis.

>>6245 >His study, being a meta-study, is entirely based on the validity of those studies. If you throw them out you have to throw his out as well. That's not how meta-studies work. Meta-studies are intended precisely to assess the validity of the studies in question. His conclusion is that they aren't valid. >So you think drunk driving should be legal? What about firing a gun into a crowd of people? Both of those things are terrible comparisons because sex between an adult and a teen carries no possibility of causing fatalities, absent STDs which don't discriminate by age. For you to even think that those two things are appropriate analogies shows that you've had your head filled so full of American media propaganda you've lost all grip on reality. But as long as we're talking about that, let's turn this around. Seeing as this is a cyberpunk site, let's talk a bit more about a point raised earlier in this thread, specifically how the overprotective sentiment displayed by many Americans who identify as progressive or left-wing on the age of consent issue clashes with their approach to other issues. You only have to take a trip over to /sec/ to see how people on this site feel about such things as internet censorship and government surveillance. The justification used by the people who support those things is that they're necessary to prevent danger. People here don't accept that reasoning, but when it comes to AoC some of them do a complete 180 and adopt the exact same "it's for your protection" line of thought as the surveillance advocates. That's not very cyberpunk of you. >Rind even talks about this in the study (Are you really sure you've read the whole thing?) and says it's unsuitable for use in making moral or legal policy descisions. If his study is unsuitable for use, then theirs are literal toilet paper. >It's done on a case by case basis. This is open to abuse. It's probably still better than the US system though, because at least the possibility of freedom exists.

>>6246 >Meta-studies are intended precisely to assess the validity of the studies in question. His conclusion is that they aren't valid. That makes no sense. If that were the case then the most he could say is that they were invalid. You can't draw any conclusions from invalid studies but you've made out that the Rind study concludes it's harmless. Which is it? Either way you clearly don't have a clue how this works and are just making stuff up to fit your agenda. (Pro-tip: he doesn't think they're invalid, or even disagree with them. He just suggests better classifications). >no possibility of causing fatalities Oh right so it's only when there's a possibility of death that people who aren't "busybody assholes" hold these views? Why didn't you say? Oh right because you hadn't actually considered it because you don't have any logical consistency to your arguments because you're just pulling stuff out of your ass to fit the conclusion you wanted all along. >Not very cyberpunk Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. >If his study is unsuitable for use, then theirs are literal toilet paper. That's the point of Rind's argument. Any study is unsuitable. Just admit it. You haven't actually read it have you?

>>6237 > lots of cool 16 yo boys with smooth skin around her From a somewhat younger woman I dated once: "younger dudes are lame in the sack". Girls, some girls, prefer older men for a variety of reasons just like there's 20 year old guys who wank to MILFs. Some girls feel special just because a mature, older man pays them attention so there's that too.

>>6248 >You can't draw any conclusions from invalid studies but you've made out that the Rind study concludes it's harmless. He proves that the case against it is lacking. The default position in the event of any claim not being proven true is to assume that it's false because the burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. >Oh right so it's only when there's a possibility of death that people who aren't "busybody assholes" hold these views? Why didn't you say? Oh right because you hadn't actually considered it because you don't have any logical consistency to your arguments because you're just pulling stuff out of your ass to fit the conclusion you wanted all along. The point which clearly flew over your head is that drunk driving and firing guns into a crowd have a far larger chance of doing some form of harm than adult/teen sex and that's why they're not comparable at all. You're just trying to make it exclusively about the possibility of death, which I knew you would because you lot are sadly predictable. >Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Wow, what an artful and well-thought-out rebuttal. You should go show it to /sec/ so they can start advocating for internet surveillance because after all, someone might get hurt without it. On another note, I guess we should talk about what just happened in Alabama as well - or possibly what's still happening in Alabama given Roy Moore's refusal to concede the very close election against Doug Jones. I'm not a Republican and I disagree with most of Moore's platform, but even from the perspective of someone who doesn't share my views on AoC, the allegations against Moore were always shaky and people should be concerned about the media tipping elections through slander campaigns. Of course the system as a whole is completely rigged anyway, so no matter who's actually in office they'll do what the wealthy elites tell them. Regardless, I thought this was interesting: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/alabama-lawyer-blasts-last-minute-court-ruling-allowing-destruction-digital-voting-records-amid-hacking-fears/ https://archive.is/7OywJ

>>6254 > the burden of proof is on those making a positive claim Not how burden of proof works at all. I could just as easily say you're making a positive claim when you say it's safe. You're the one going against the status quo. It's on you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) here. Look under "holder of the burden". Again you don't have a clue what you're talking about so you pulled some soykaf about "positive claims" out your ass. You just make stuff up and it's getting tiring. >The point which clearly flew over your head is that drunk driving and firing guns into a crowd have a far larger chance of doing some form of harm than adult/teen sex Nah. Drunk driving is probably safer. Also you did say "If even one case is okay, then it's okay in general." Directly saying that the higher chance doesn't matter. Which is it? Either way you clearly haven't thought this through.

>>6256 The burden of proof isn't dependent on who the social status quo favors. By your logic, people 500 years ago should have assumed the Earth was flat and that creationism was real because Watson and Crick hadn't yet discovered genes. You don't know what the hell you're talking about and you're projecting your own ass-pulling tendencies, as exemplified by the part of your post that I'm covering next. >Nah. Drunk driving is probably safer. Jesus, just when I thought you couldn't get any more audacious in the baselessness of your claims, you go and top yourself somehow. I can't even begin to imagine how you could possibly think you have any justification for that. Even Nazis and antifa aren't as stupid as what you just said. Your mind is warped beyond recognition. I'll remind you again that countries all over the world allow adult/teen sex and don't experience any of the problems you claim make it more dangerous than drunk driving, and unless you can show me evidence that most countries have additional laws like Canada (which has gone so far as to ban drawn depictions of a minor engaged in sexual activity, so it's not a good example), I'm going to assume you're full of soykaf in that regard as you are in every other. >Also you did say "If even one case is okay, then it's okay in general." Handling weapons is completely different from sexuality. A car and a gun are both deadly weapons. Should we start classifying sex organs as weapons? That seems to be the direction you want to go in. If you truly believe your laughable claim that drunk driving is safer than adults having sex with teens, that's the direction you're logically required to go in. Should there be a sex license? Oh wait, if we did that there would have to be a test, and if we implemented a sex test teenagers would have the opportunity to take it and prove that they're mature enough, thus destroying your theory.

>>6258 >The burden of proof isn't dependent on who the social status quo favors Yes it is. There's no better way. This "positive claim" stuff is a complete ass pull. Like I say, I could equally say you're making a positive claim by saying it's safe. All of this is right there in the article I linked but, as usual, you're blindly ignoring the facts in favour of made up crap to try to justify your position. You didn't even bother to read a two paragraph link I put right in front of you just like you didn't bother to read the Rind study. Also, let's not gloss over this point. By your own argument you have no scientific evidence (just "invalid studies") and as we can see from the article I posted the burden of proof is firmly on you. Scientifically, you don't have a leg to stand on. >the baselessness of your claims In 2015 there were ~111 million incidents of drunk driving of which 290, 000 resulted in injury (fatal or otherwise). Giving us about a 0.26% chance of an accident. Compare that with suicide among child abuse victim numbers (3.8%). That's >10 fold riskier and that's with a favourable comparison for you. If I did fatal drunk driving accidents only (0.01%), which seems a more reasonable comparison to suicide, it's ~38,000% more dangerous. Once again, instead of doing two minutes of research, you've just gone and made a fool of yourself. You don't bother to fact check or even just stop and think about what you're saying. You have your conclusion (whaaa whaaa it's not fair that they won't let me take massive risks with children) and you just make stuff up to fit it. >That seems to be the direction you want to go in You don't really get how this works do you? I just want to show that you're an inconsistent opportunist who's claims to logical or scientific backing are utterly baseless. On that note I think I'm done. You shot yourself in the foot with the "invalid studies" bit and while you're happy to say "if even one case is ok it's ok in general" you've backpedal like mad when I pointed out this should apply equally to drunk driving. You have nothing, scientific or principled. Sources: https://www.madd.org/statistics/ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/194504

Just accept that you're a pedophile, anon. You have a childlike mindset because you're unintelligent and because your childhood was the peak of your pathetic existence, so you're attracted to women with childlike features. There is no biological reason to mate with a tiny girl. You're just bringing more deformed manlets into the world. Inferior short genes are meant to die out.

>>6259 >Yes it is. There's no better way. Right here we get back to your side claiming that morality is subjective. Here you're telling us that morality is whatever society decides it is, even if it's objectively wrong. No further arguments are necessary because this amounts to a concession. You've explicitly thrown out logic in favor of your feelings, so no rational debate can be had with you. >and as we can see from the article I posted the burden of proof is firmly on you. The article is wrong and Wikipedia is feminist-run garbage with zero credibility. Next time try not citing an article from a site that explicitly bans our position because they can't refute it. I mean seriously? Citing fuarrrking Wikipedia would get you laughed out of even the sham of an academic community that the US has. >Compare that with suicide among child abuse victim numbers (3.8%) You can only achieve this figure by using the feminists' incredibly expansive definition of child abuse and by ignoring other factors that may have led to suicide. This distortion of statistics is on par with the feminists' "1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted at college" nonsense. Rind addressed all of this in his study. >You don't bother to fact check or even just stop and think about what you're saying. Projection. You didn't stop to think about what your security over freedom mindset implied for other issues. You still haven't addressed how internet surveillance would be affected if people here shared your mentality from this issue on that one. You still haven't addressed whether or not we should have licenses for sex as we do for driving and gun use. You still haven't addressed the idea of a sex test for such a license, which stands a very good chance of proving you wrong, likely because you'd prefer that such testing not take place. The only way your pseudo-moralistic posturing can retain its credibility is if no one is ever allowed to examine it in detail. >and you just make stuff up to fit it. You mean like your "child abuse" figure? You're nothing but a pretentious pseudointellectual lackwit with delusions of moral superiority. >>6260 >You have a childlike mindset because you're unintelligent Pot, meet kettle. >>6151 Add "any girl who disagrees with my witch hunt lives in a trailer park" and "sex is literally more dangerous than a lethal weapon that you have to be certified to operate, but only if the participants have an age gap that triggers me between them" to this list. Sad thing is, this thread is actually one of the better ones about this topic on the greater internet. There have been more people than usual from both sides who've been willing to focus on the details of the issue instead of just hurling insults, but there's still an awful lot of stupidity here. I don't think either side of this debate is completely free of it, but those two statements are beyond the pale and would sway anyone who isn't a total ideologue against them.

>>6261 >There have been more people than usual from both sides who've been willing to focus on the details of the issue instead of just hurling insults I'm gonna be frank, Teen-anon, I just got tired of not getting anywhere with you and decided to just hear you out. I personally don't find teens attractive, but that shouldn't stop me from listening to your side. While I disagree with you on the morality issue, because I do think that there is no such thing as objective morals as everyone's morals much like taste are very different. You made me question my held beliefs, and I had a lot of fun thinking about a different society from my own and how it contrasts to how it is now. I've took some time to think about my statements about how I would parent any kids I might have as well. I made some really strong statements for a situation I may never be in. Since I came into this discussion from the view of a man who wants to be a father, I would be better to start my kids young and teach them to be decent judges of character for any relationship. Because on the off chance that the age of consent is ever lowered in the US, my kids should know if some shady person is trying to harm them or exploit them. But... that's just being a standard parent... so I guess nothing special?

>>6263 Teen-anon may not be a proper name for me because I'm not the only person in this thread opposing the status quo. >>6250 isn't me, among others. I've probably been the most vociferous in my dissent, though. >You made me question my held beliefs, and I had a lot of fun thinking about a different society from my own and how it contrasts to how it is now. I wish I could say this kind of thing was fun. I'd have a lot more fun if I didn't have to live with the possibility of being murdered simply for believing differently. America is a deeply repressive, totalitarian country and you don't even need to go as far as /sec/ to see that. >Because on the off chance that the age of consent is ever lowered in the US, my kids should know if some shady person is trying to harm them or exploit them. But... that's just being a standard parent... so I guess nothing special? I may have spoken out of turn earlier when I said you were unfit to be a father. The worst parents are the ones who can never admit fault, or even fallibility. My own parents were like that and, along with the boomers fuarrrking up the entire economy and society in general, is why I don't have a lot of respect for parents anymore. George Carlin was one of the few in popular culture who was willing to admit that some parents deserve respect, but most don't. Maybe you can be one of the ones who do. This is of course assuming that you're not >>6259 or >>6260, because there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Seems like poor Lain screws up everything she tries to do for Arisu, doesn't it?

>>6260 https://youtu.be/2uhxrPhVO8Y

>>6267 Well, I slowed using the term pedophile as the discussion went on. If you only want the age of consent lowered to say 15, then pedophiles are out of the discussion. Little kids in elementary school are safe from being sexualized by adults at least in terms of the law in this scenario. Which is why, >>6260 is a bad post. I'm actually a little shocked that this post is still here since it's not really adding to the discussion. It's an oversimplification of one concern people have, too insulting, and it reads too much like your standard bait. The other guy (>>6259) isn't me either. >America is a deeply repressive, totalitarian country and you don't even need to go as far as /sec/ to see that. I have to respectfully disagree here, I personally don't consider America to be all that bad, but I'll put my chips on the table and say that I also have places like the Middle East, North Korea, and Russia in my head as I say that. Places where political or social dissent actually means death or torture. But then again, the average joe is part of the problem in the US. We've had a history of attacking people for being different. I think Islam is a horrible religion (like most religions to be fair) but I would never attack a Muslim or otherwise mistreat them. But many in America do. There are too many groups that get mistreated both in the past and present, most carried out by everyday people. So I do understand that worry about getting killed. As far as parenting is concerned, I was raised by my baby boomer grandparents and my gen x single mother. My grandfather to this day thinks he is always right and knows what is best, always yearning for the "good old days" and complaining about how my generation doesn't do anything but we don't do anything because our parents never let us do anything. We were just shoved in front of a tv or game console while mom and dad just work their asses off just to maintain a basic standard of living. Now those of my generation who do have kids just throw the ever addicting smartphone into little kid's hands because that's what the past generation did to us. I hear, "kids aren't kids anymore" and I always shoot back, "Well, parents aren't parents anymore". I'll stop because I've already ranted about this in this thread, but I can relate to that too.

>>6267 >I wish I could say this kind of thing was fun. I'd have a lot more fun if I didn't have to live with the possibility of being murdered simply for believing differently. This sounds like something you tell yourself so you can feel important. Like some kind of attention seeking wannabe gangster. No one is going to kill you for banging a teen, expect possibly her father. It's actual pedophiles that society goes crazy over. >America is a deeply repressive, totalitarian country All forms of government are repressive and totalitarian to some degree. America is definitely better at hiding it than most countries, with their "democracy" and "land of freedom" memes. I still think you need some perspective though. It might not be the best but of all the countries in the world, America is definitely not the worst place you could have been born. Frankly you come off like a whiny bitch. For someone who seems to be so passionate about this you are surprisingly soykaf at making a point. If you actually made an effort to listen to what other people are saying, like how >>6274 did for you, instead of just flat out denying everything, then you might actually be able to change someone's mind.

There should be a psychological test to determine level of maturity and ability to consent. If you pass you get a "consent license" and can legally consent to sex regardless of age. I've met 12 year olds with more maturity than many 19 year olds.

>>6274 >I have to respectfully disagree here, I personally don't consider America to be all that bad, but I'll put my chips on the table and say that I also have places like the Middle East, North Korea, and Russia in my head as I say that. Places where political or social dissent actually means death or torture. The US has some of the worst prisons in the world, without even going into Guantanamo Bay and other such sites. Going into people being killed for political dissent would take this thread too far off topic because there are a lot of cases to work through, but half the time an important political figure or witness in the trial of such a figure "commits suicide" it's just a cover story. The only reason this isn't seen for what it is by more people is that, as >>6276 says, America is better at hiding it. >There are too many groups that get mistreated both in the past and present, most carried out by everyday people. So I do understand that worry about getting killed. normal people are retarded, film at eleven. Honestly, I don't think there's been any liberation struggle in history, from civil rights to gay rights to women's suffrage, that the average person didn't vehemently oppose at the time. normal people really need to be called out on that. >>6276 >No one is going to kill you for banging a teen, expect possibly her father. It's actual pedophiles that society goes crazy over. You should tell that to Roy Moore and his voters who may have just gotten cheated out of an election. That's inconclusive at this time but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Keep in mind that he denied the allegations against him and is by no means publicly advocating for us. Not that I have any great love for Roy Moore or the Republicans, but the point still stands. Granted he hasn't yet been killed by someone from feminist Twitter, but if you read their other posts about how they feel about the subject (and often about white males in general) you get the sense that it's only a matter of time before one of them makes the attempt. Even in the absence of a murder attempt, the fact remains that the mere allegation was enough to sink him, if only just. Imagine the situation that would result if it were to be proven. >All forms of government are repressive and totalitarian to some degree. There's certainly a case to be made for that, but that's for another thread. >Frankly you come off like a whiny bitch. rude to be honest fam

>collapse of the old lainchan wut fill me in

>>6279 That guy svcked for a lot of reasons anyway. Americans need to get over their notions of party loyalty and actually start voting for people on their own merits.

>>6279 >half the time an important political figure or witness in the trial of such a figure "commits suicide" it's just a cover story. The only reason this isn't seen for what it is by more people is that, as >>6276 says, America is better at hiding it. Okay, but America really isn't the worst place to be at, especially for the everyman. It's not the best place ever, I'm sure there are places that are way better but considering that a lot of places in the Middle East kill gays because their holy books told them gays are bad or parts in Europe where apparently saying the wrong thing on Facebook means you should be arrested, and all of that, I'd rather be here. It's not much of an argument, I just love my home.

>>6279 >You should tell that to Roy Moore He hasn't been killed for his beliefs. so there goes your whole argument. Also, he's a politician. Politicians are supposed to be kicked out of politics if voters don't agree with his ideas. That's the whole point. You are not a politician and nothing bad has happened to you except people being mean to you online. >killed by someone from feminist Twitter, I'm sure you get a lot of agro online (being as autistic and ineloquent as you are) but in real life no one if actually going to kill you for liking teenage girls. Pedo? Yes. Teens? Not a chance. You should quit it with your delusional fantasies. >Imagine the situation that would result if it were to be proven. >Imagine Because he's not the only person to ever bang a teen. If you have to "imagine" what "might" happen then clearly what has *actually happened* doesn't support your case does it?

>>6282 >parts in Europe where apparently saying the wrong thing on Facebook means you should be arrested Coming soon to an America near you. >>6283 >He hasn't been killed for his beliefs. He also hasn't endorsed our beliefs.

>>6284 Anyways, I want you to weigh in on this. I came across this because I'm pretty obsessed with cults and their leaders. I know this isn't all people who want the age of consent lowered but I just wanted your insight nevertheless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs How do we prevent situations like this if the age of consent is legally lowered? Things like this is kinda why I was thinking we would have to have some regulations. But in this case, this is a religious man acting in how he believes his god/holy book said he should. This example tip toes on the rights of religious groups.

>>6283 >>6284 The whole roy moore thing was retarded beyond what I thought possible, you had hardcore conservatives saying "he swore on the bible that he dindt do it, and jesus would not let him lie if he swore on the bible" my expectations for humanity are always going lower and lower

>>6286 The one and only time I was ever in Utah, for about four hours, was right after his arrest. They were showing it on TV in the airport and at least one person around me pulled out their phone to call someone and tell them. It was a big friggin' deal. Besides the abuse of girls, they also had a surplus of boys in their community which is what happens when men get to marry more than one woman so they just let the extra boys loose in the desert, to die or whatever. Completely fcked situation in every possible sense.

>>6286 IMO polygamy should be permissible. The problem with this is that you can easily get a King Solomon situation where a rich man gets all the wives and nobody else gets anything. Economic changes are the solution to that. As for cults though, that's a different beast. In order to prevent cult behavior, you need a deep understanding of the psychological reasons why people form or join cults. You also need to understand the political aspects of it. For my part, I think the Chris Hansen types act like a cult in many ways. Cultists often become devoted to the cult to the exclusion of everything else because they're looking for something to fill a void in their lives. The witch hunters have made it clear that they're willing to give up or take away any freedom for their witch hunt, even if it hurts them in the process. That's a lot like a guy yelling Allahu Akbar with a bomb strapped to his chest. I'm sure you can think of other cult-like behaviors that American society accepts. >>6287 There will always be dumber soykaf than what you just saw.

>>6290 Well, my interest in cults first stemmed from seeing the utter destruction that cults like People's Temple created. This topic would be a very fun topic for another thread, and I'm really tempted to make one, to be honest. But, at first I thought that one could defend themselves as you said by learning about why people join cults. In fact, along with other issues in my life, made me feel like a strong family unit is important to combat cult behavior, among other behavior as well like gangs, etc. But as I read the insane amount of diversity of cults, their leaders, and the people who follow them, I think everyone on this planet is capable of following a cult leader to the grave and a smaller section of the population are cult leaders in the making. I just think it's like romance, some people just haven't met the right person yet. And that right person would separate you from your child or brother or anything else for that matter. No amount of rationality can save people from the cult mindset, and it's beyond our American borders too. It's a human problem, at least in my view. But in the end, a cult has a great amount of power to abuse since it's not uncommon for cult leaders to use their religious beliefs, which to be fair, are just as legitimate as any of the established faiths even if it's something as stupid as a religion around something like Gadget Hackwrench or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to justify their abuse of teens and kids, and not just sexually either. Considering the fact that America was founded for religious freedom, having regulations would step on those freedoms. But then again, the really messed up people don't care about the law. Also, as a random note, searching "Gadget Cult" into your favorite search engine's image search also spits out Apple products and the rare Windows Phone, whenever the image isn't Chip n Dale related. I chuckled.

>>6291 >Considering the fact that America was founded for religious freedom The Puritans didn't want freedom, though. They were the progenitors of all American sexual repression including these hyper-fascist AoC laws. >But as I read the insane amount of diversity of cults, their leaders, and the people who follow them, I think everyone on this planet is capable of following a cult leader to the grave and a smaller section of the population are cult leaders in the making. I just think it's like romance, some people just haven't met the right person yet. And that right person would separate you from your child or brother or anything else for that matter. Maybe you should start a thread about this, because you're describing every one of history's greatest madmen and murderers.

>>6295 If you are interested, I made a thread in /hum/ about my interest in cults and the cults I find interesting. I'm busy for the Christmas holiday, so that thread might be kinda slow but I'd love your input in that thread dude.

you dont have sex with a kid because when your kid has a kid he will be half child and annoying

bump

>>5694 A happening in my extended family where a guy was isolated by his girlfriend/wife and psychologically abused brought to my attention a sect called "the family" or "the children of god" which the abusive woman was a member of. You can google it, basically it was a sect that mixed christianity with the 60's "free love" message and they trained kids to have sex with adults by having sex out in the open and "playing at sex". The survivors of this approach found it psychologically abusive and there's books written by them, as well as a survivor's organization at www.exfamily.org where you can find testimonies and stuff. And that's why we need age of consent laws.

>>8538 Honestly you guys need to realize that it is literally one dude arguing age of consent on lainchan, and he has revealed himself a pedo about half a dozen times. He doesn't even deny it, and he sock puppets himself all over the place. I hope he's a troll, but I think he just likes cheese pizza. Also sage.(Off topic discussion)

Is this about a pedo? No pedos allowed imo. Go make your own club. And hopefully die.(You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

>>8544 What about non offending pedos? They should die as well? Nice one you hysterical idiot.(Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.)

>>8549 >non offending pedos Pedos cannot reproduce except by harming and traumatizing children. Therefore, "non offending pedos" will be mostly gone soon after "offending pedos" are removed from society. At least that's my theory. Of course, there will be some pedos popping up here and there due to bad genetics, which also must be removed. >>8539 >Everyone who disagrees with me is a same user >reddit spacing >can't sage(You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

>>8538 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p0-iLcx4es This is the little kid from The Family's paedophilia propaganda. He stabbed one of the women to death then shot himself. So much for their take on happy, healthy, open, consenting sex with five year olds. Irregardless of his individual case, sexualising a toddler is a terrible idea. You have a hard enough task convincing a child that age not to bully other children or take their toys, how are you going to explain to them what rape is? Sesame Street doesn't exactly cover the concept of consent. You couldn't let a kid with sexual needs, a sex drive and experience, and no self-control, play unsupervised with other children, every time Jr. got a boner he'd knock over another kid and hump them.

>>8538 >And that's why we need age of consent laws. Very few people in here are arguing with this statement. The ones who want the law changed don't want it entirely removed because that's just not reasonable. There has to be something in place to stop abuse, but they're saying it's just too strict. People in here having a kneejerk reaction should at least read what the actual opinions of the posters are before throwing around insults. Also holy soykaf, bumping a thread that's over half a year old.

>>8552 >bumping a thread that's over half a year old This is lainchan, that's perfectly acceptable.

Why does this soykaf have to be on lainchan too? Even 8chan had the fuarrrking brains to tell the pedos to take a hike. And 8chan is really dumb. So what does that make lainchan? I'm sick of seeing this soykaf everywhere now and pedos constantly derailing threads.(Do not whine and cry about 8chan, lainchan.jp, "quality", "invasions", "newfags", mods, bans, or kalyx outside of /q/.)

>>8550 >Pedos cannot reproduce except by harming and traumatizing children. Good luck getting prepubescent children (what pedos like) pregnant! Pedos who aren't exclusive (they like both children and adults) can reproduce, and I am sure exclusive pedos are able to get into situations where they adopt or foster a child.

>>8556 There are still tons of people on 8chan who think the American laws are wrong and excessive. The thread derailment they do can get annoying, but that doesn't seem to be what you're really concerned about. You sound like you're just mad that someone you don't like is getting to speak.

>>8563 >Good luck getting prepubescent children (what pedos like) pregnant! That wasn't what anon meant. Anon meant that the children the pedos fuarrrk with will grow up and become pedophiles themselves due to trauma they experienced while being diddled. In this way, the blight that is pedophilia is spread, even though prepubescent children can't get pregnant.

>>8568 >the children the pedos fuarrrk with will grow up and become pedophiles themselves due to trauma they experienced Do you have any evidence supporting this? If this is the case then why are most pedos men and most kids that get diddled girls? If this was the case shouldn't those even out over time?

>>8550 >Pedos cannot reproduce except by harming and traumatizing children. Therefore, "non offending pedos" will be mostly gone soon after "offending pedos" are removed from society. At least that's my theory. Children can't get pregnant, so if pedophilia is genetic then obviously it's the non-offending pedos who are reproducing. Logic is hard. >>8539 >Everyone who disagrees with me is a same user It is only 1 guy who keeps posting about this subject on Lainchan. He derails any thread he can on /hum/. The dude has an IQ of about 3, that's why these discussions are such low quality. >reddit spacing There's no such thing. Formatting is to help people read your post, not to pledge allegiance to some circlejrking ingroup.

>>8571 >children can't get pregnant... see >>8568 >it is only 1 guy sure, everyone who disagrees with you is the same user, amirite >there's no such thing as reddit spacing yes there is >>8570 >Do you have any evidence supporting this? no, maybe ask the guy who actually made the statement >most pedos men and most kids that get diddled girls a certain percentage of pedos are users. In fact, due to the phenomenon you pointed out, I would expect that a disproportionate number of pedos are users since they couldn't "reproduce" otherwise. But I'm just extrapolating off other anon's statements and don't have any direct evidence.(You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

>>8568 That's blatantly wrong because of what >>8570 said. Most offenders are male and most victims are female. I think everybody starts out as a pedo. When you're 10 you're obviously attracted to other 10 year olds. Normal people grow and the people they're attracted to follows. Except pedos, they remain attracted to kids even though they're not a kid anymore. That's more or less the theory laid out by Lolita. This whole puritan moral panic approach to pedophilia is harmful for everybody. Admitting you're a pedophile in Western society is literal suicide so most of them suppress it and can't get help and they end up living across the street from schools and soykaf without anyone knowing. If pedophilia was socially accepted as a mental illness without consequences like jail or lynchmobs then we could keep an eye on them and better protect children. But sadly protecting children isn't the point for most people.

>>8573 >That's blatantly wrong See the attached cap, which comes from wikipedia. >If pedophilia was socially accepted as a mental illness without consequences >we could keep an eye on them People don't like eyes to be kept on them, in general. If they had a true moral conscience, they would refrain from living close to children and instead just masturbate to mental fantasies/2d loli/whatever. As such, what you're proposing is useless. Pedophiles who promote pedophilia or molest children should be castrated, which solves the problem easily and permanently (although in the current political climate, various """ethics""" groups would obstruct justice).

>>8572 > >there's no such thing as reddit spacing > yes there is > no u Your own concept of formatting leaves much to be desired. Believe it or not, there are people old enough to have learned how to use a computer before reddit existed. "Reddit spacing" makes you sound about 12, which is ironic given the subject matter. Are you in fact the one getting raped and not the one perpetrating? Some kind of Stockholm Syndrome maybe?(Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.)

>>8572 >sure, everyone who disagrees with you is the same user, amirite I didn't express an opinion one way or another on the topic, I'm just telling you that it's only a single person who keeps posting about this age of consent stuff. >>>/hum/7824 >>>/hum/7068 Same incoherent arguments. Same cognitive biases/logically fallacies. Same autistic crying when the threads fall apart. >>8574 >See the attached cap, which comes from wikipedia. How does this prove anything except you are wrong? >While not causes of pedophilia themselves, childhood abuse by adults or comorbid psychiatric illnesses—such as personality disorders and substance abuse—are risk factors for acting on pedophilic urges >Pedophiles who promote pedophilia or molest children should be castrated, which solves the problem easily and permanently If molestation causes pedophiles (which is doesn't), but if it did, how does castrating pedos *after* they've done the molesting solve the problem? You must be trolling or intoxicated or a nigger or something, it's not possible for human being to be this mentally deficient.

>>8578 I think... I mean, just a WILD GUESS here... the pro-castration argument might be based on the idea that it will prevent recidivism.

>>8578 castration (removal of the testicles) prevents most or all testosterone from being produced, which turns the pedo into a soyboy with no sexual drive. also good job, half your argument was "Ur stupid xDD"

>>8566 fuarrrk off and kill yourself you fuarrrking insufferable degenerate.(Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.)

I just want to spit my opinion here even if it has already been said. Nothing about any age is necessarily right for sex. I think the most objective law is when they can speak, so they can tell you yes/no/tell you to stop.