07-06-2022, 06:31 AM
the topic of pedophilia is evergreen in political discourse, yet never fruitful. a lot of people have strong feelings about the subject, and most discussions involve two sides who can't agree on facts talking past each other. hopefully, by clarifying the presuppositions, we can prevent ourselves from becoming confused by our own polemics.
there are 3 different elements muddling discussions: the biological, the legal, and the conceptual.
the biological is the most straightforward, a girl is sexually mature after menarche. however, those who remember the thread on age of menarche will know it varies quite wildly--these days it is often in the single digits. talk of "she's 17 you sick fuck" is rightly ridiculed on this premise, but we should not lose sight of the fact this is a poor state of affairs. in a world of high metabolism, an individual of exceptional breeding might have her menarche as late as her early 20s.
though there was a time when the law reflected common sense, what we have now is an arbitrary number which defines the "age of consent." this is most often appealed to by leftists, who think this number is universally 18. of course, it is not, and in the civilized world it ranges between 14 and 18. even within america it differs between the states and is 16 in a considerable portion of the country. it is worth nothing that this age limit defines 'statutory rape' not pedophilia.
while a straightforward definition for "pedophilia" might be "sexual attraction to prepubescent children" this is not always how it's used. often feminists will use it to mean "male attraction to youth," making every mentally healthy man on earth a pedophile, which they do indeed assert. another common leftist definition is "sexual attraction to minors" which elevates the object of attraction's legal status over the biological. additionally, there are the terms "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia" which can influence the working definition of "pedophilia" by their inclusion or exclusion.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1543312815506735105
remember this headline? the overwhelming reaction was "children should be allowed abortions," but how could a child get an abortion if children can't get pregnant? because biological maturity and legal majority have drifted so far apart, an instinctual revulsion towards sexual acts with the sexually immature has turned into an excuse to kill the child of a sexually mature woman (and the father apparently, according to some very bright quote-tweeters).
if it was as simple as adopting the stance "menarche = adult" there would be no need for this thread, but that is not how our polemics have evolved. our present collective stance is "pedophilia is good" because we have adopted the subversive conceptual framing of our enemies. the reason this has happened is that it is a much stronger argument to post a pedophile gigachad with a harem of lolis, than it is to say "technically it's ephebophilia" because the latter cedes moral authority to the opponent. therefore i only ask that next time this topic comes up, you keep in mind what conceptual frame you adopt, and why you are doing so.
there are 3 different elements muddling discussions: the biological, the legal, and the conceptual.
the biological is the most straightforward, a girl is sexually mature after menarche. however, those who remember the thread on age of menarche will know it varies quite wildly--these days it is often in the single digits. talk of "she's 17 you sick fuck" is rightly ridiculed on this premise, but we should not lose sight of the fact this is a poor state of affairs. in a world of high metabolism, an individual of exceptional breeding might have her menarche as late as her early 20s.
though there was a time when the law reflected common sense, what we have now is an arbitrary number which defines the "age of consent." this is most often appealed to by leftists, who think this number is universally 18. of course, it is not, and in the civilized world it ranges between 14 and 18. even within america it differs between the states and is 16 in a considerable portion of the country. it is worth nothing that this age limit defines 'statutory rape' not pedophilia.
while a straightforward definition for "pedophilia" might be "sexual attraction to prepubescent children" this is not always how it's used. often feminists will use it to mean "male attraction to youth," making every mentally healthy man on earth a pedophile, which they do indeed assert. another common leftist definition is "sexual attraction to minors" which elevates the object of attraction's legal status over the biological. additionally, there are the terms "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia" which can influence the working definition of "pedophilia" by their inclusion or exclusion.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1543312815506735105
remember this headline? the overwhelming reaction was "children should be allowed abortions," but how could a child get an abortion if children can't get pregnant? because biological maturity and legal majority have drifted so far apart, an instinctual revulsion towards sexual acts with the sexually immature has turned into an excuse to kill the child of a sexually mature woman (and the father apparently, according to some very bright quote-tweeters).
if it was as simple as adopting the stance "menarche = adult" there would be no need for this thread, but that is not how our polemics have evolved. our present collective stance is "pedophilia is good" because we have adopted the subversive conceptual framing of our enemies. the reason this has happened is that it is a much stronger argument to post a pedophile gigachad with a harem of lolis, than it is to say "technically it's ephebophilia" because the latter cedes moral authority to the opponent. therefore i only ask that next time this topic comes up, you keep in mind what conceptual frame you adopt, and why you are doing so.
![[Image: Jougo9-It-400x400.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/ThHB9kj/Jougo9-It-400x400.jpg)