Age of Consent
#1
I've found that discussions of this is one of the more devisive topics on the online right. I think on some level we all know it to be an arbitrary line, as depending on where in the 1st World you're sitting right now, the numbers vary from 13 to 18, but all discussion of where the exact "line" falls is always a shitfest. 99% of normies immediately react with disgust at the very concept of discussing AoC. "SHE WAS 17 YEARS 11 MONTHS 364 DAYS OLD YOU SICK FUCK" meme ad nauseum. This sentiment is mirrored on the right as well, partially because normiecons believe that pushing back on drag queen story hour is a "winning issue", and this trickles down into conflating homosexual child predation with teenage marriage. The other end of the spectrum on our internet is of course the cunny right. I'm not sure how much academic credence I give either side in this matter.
#2
there's a thread in the vitality section entitled '"pedophilia"' which may interest you.
#3
Subversive moron libtards are right to suggest that the issue we should be concerned with is power. And then they run off in completely moronic directions from here. We cannot perfectly equalise power and it would be stupid to try. But we can accurately read where everybody stands and from there recognise sources of harm or undesirable phenomena, and then determine to what extent these are natural and to what extent they are created by our current standards and behaviours. 

There's obviously a chasm between the standards and values our laws were written under and those everybody holds now. But we also don't agree with each other now.

I personally believe that we get the most socially just outcomes by allowing people to act in their own interests, and that those under the age of 18 are the most oppressed in our society. Basically completely disarmed, taken for granted their thoughts are worthless and not to be respected, their lives need to be controlled. It's been pointed out before that youth are most likely to be sexually exploited within communitarian institutions of control, which are entirely contrived things which we inflict upon them. I believe that free youth (as free as they can be) would be safer youth. Both from direct predation and the more questionable borderline social predation.

You may have noticed I'm not really talking about age of consent laws above, that's because I don't really consider them necessary. I believe that the kinds of abuses those laws exist to prevent would be best controlled if we straightened out our social pressures. We should ask ourselves "why do we need age of consent laws?". In every undesirable scenario where they could apply the situation itself could be avoided by some kind of social change. I think the libtard and conservative mania for age of consent law is that they allow them to avoid these discussions. "If the magic number were a year or two higher or lower everything would be fixed, please do not question our presuppositions."
#4
We've all seen the meme comparing japanese (notorious pedo culture) and american (notoriously loudly against pedos culture) rates of child sex abuse. Japanese culture seems predominated by idealized and anti-real depictions of sexuality, while the American seems more dominated by emotional and physical content in its dirty extremes - though obviously there are japs who want to see girls beaten until they piss themselves, and American Amarnites of discerning tastes. There seems like there's a similar cultural split between the different kinds of cunnyenjoyers. I've known people who are primarily into more idealized drawn depictions (think Eva-girls minus the bpd) and seem generally uninterested in the abuse of real children. Usually they're into other fucked up fetishes like gore or piss, but hyper aware of their fetishes' meaning and interact with the fetishes primarily as signifiers rather than sensory inputs. They also seem chronically lonely and disconnected from the rhythms of life, similar to Amarnites. The ones who fall into this group sometimes break the age of consent, at least in its spirit, but usually engage with the 15-18 crowd because they have a desire for companionship and abstract fetishes, neither of which a child can truly interact with. Often lean somewhat homosexual or with an interest in trannies because of an awareness that women can't be true equals. Generally less likely to be abusive, and will often fulfill caregiver roles. Sometimes a good influence on the child, depending on the individual.

The other seems to be the less-functional and more sensation-seeking. The kind who assumes everyone looks at new and exciting fetishes for the next thrill. The type of person who discovers porn and is watching maximally authentic videos of women being tortured five years later. They often see pedophilia as the next frontier for degeneracy and want the age of the child as low as possible to maximize the thrill. Universally a bad influence.

Laws and social practices should be aimed at this second group first and foremost, as they're more dangerous on average. Should also be mediated by status. If someone's diddling your son/daughter, they'd better at least furnish the child with knowledge, experience, and connections. All the positive examples I've seen (though they're always cagey about the exact ages and dates involved) have been postgrads or political writers.

The typology aspect seems complicated by the fact that any space appealing to the first, abstract, type will often have members of the second, material, type. It's somewhat simplified by the fact that the inverse is never true, but their tells are usually pretty subtle overall when they're hiding among abstract-leaning lolicons. "Homosexual" because the sexes aren't very physically distinct at such ages.

Age of consent as a concept doesn't make sense in the United States anyways. There are a monumental number of loopholes due to the 50^2 possible interactions + states who have populations from clan based regions like Scotland, who want the adjacent laws to be lax in one area or another. If you're willing to move across state lines multiple times, you can become legally married to a 14 year old and distribute child pornography of your underage spouse as long as it doesn't leave the state of California. One of the more mortifying moments I've had was a discord tranny explaining this to me in dms before promptly showing up on Kiwifarms. They were very intense. Type 2.
#5
Laws don’t really exist in America. They just put you in prison for doing stuff the government doesn’t like. I don’t doubt that that loophole is real but you would get the same outcome as sovereign citizens not paying their taxes because they revoked their birth certificate under maritime law.
#6
You guys are actually pedophiles? I thought the cunnyposting was ironic
#7
(12-20-2022, 02:49 PM)Guest Wrote: You guys are actually pedophiles? I thought the cunnyposting was ironic

Assuming your not just being sly whenever someone comes onto this shocking realization I consider it stranger than the men being gawked at in realization that some people can apparently see long stretches of posting the same cimages same ideas with no intent at all for any comedy or even a edgy in-joke signifier as ironic. I am starting to think irony now is moving onto a even further conceptual shift as just being shorthand for "I get too uncomfortable with the idea this is not a joke so I will deem it ironic so its ok for me."
#8
To be fair there are plenty of people who (perhaps unconsciously) "run interference" for the obvious sincerity of certain forms of extremely outre posting by feinting at the conceptual shorthand you summarize, because they want to be part of the group still but think "cunnyposting" is "actually" gross
#9
(12-20-2022, 03:02 AM)parsifal Wrote: there's a thread in the vitality section entitled '"pedophilia"' which may interest you.

I see that, having skimmed it I assumed the pedophilia thread was more about the act of being a pedophile, whereas I wanted to talk about attitudes around it. If this thread is deemed redundant then by all means mods can delete it.

(12-20-2022, 03:19 AM)anthony Wrote: We cannot perfectly equalise power and it would be stupid to try.

That's the name of the game though, isn't it? If we give the left/normies the benefit of the doubt that there's some overarching conspiracy they ascribe to (instead of what's much more likely true, that they're just gay retards), its to flatten all natural power in favor of grand egalitarianism.

(12-20-2022, 03:19 AM)anthony Wrote: I personally believe that we get the most socially just outcomes by allowing people to act in their own interests, and that those under the age of 18 are the most oppressed in our society. Basically completely disarmed, taken for granted their thoughts are worthless and not to be respected, their lives need to be controlled. It's been pointed out before that youth are most likely to be sexually exploited within communitarian institutions of control, which are entirely contrived things which we inflict upon them. I believe that free youth (as free as they can be) would be safer youth. Both from direct predation and the more questionable borderline social predation.

The idea that the youth should just be let free is one of the attitudes that led to free love in the 1960s. While it seems a romantic idea that the young be allowed to flourish, I feel as though most teens squander their freedom and express it as running away from home to go take dick at a music festival. Though, now that I write it out, it does seem like this is more a symptom of the how the youth was raised up to that point; when young men left for university in the 1900s, they fought each other with sabers, in the 60s they smoked weed and protested for blacks. Maybe it was the blossoming entitlement culture boomers were raised in that caused the free love movement, but if they're simply the product of their environment, then the youth of today definitely have more problems to contend with if we're to assume they can be trusted to make sexual decisions themselves.
A big problem with modern AoC is the quality of both the adult and the "child". I feel like this is why age of consent law was so much more informal in the past, because the female's sexuality was controlled by her father, who exchanged his wardship of her directly to her husband. If the Age of Consent law were abolished tomorrow, how many teens would engage in productive lifelong and fertile relationships and how many would just continue to sleep around like the whores-in-training they were already being raised to be?
#10
(12-20-2022, 10:22 PM)Datacop Wrote: The idea that the youth should just be let free is one of the attitudes that led to free love in the 1960s. While it seems a romantic idea that the young be allowed to flourish, I feel as though most teens squander their freedom and express it as running away from home to go take dick at a music festival. Though, now that I write it out, it does seem like this is more a symptom of the how the youth was raised up to that point; when young men left for university in the 1900s, they fought each other with sabers, in the 60s they smoked weed and protested for blacks. Maybe it was the blossoming entitlement culture boomers were raised in that caused the free love movement, but if they're simply the product of their environment, then the youth of today definitely have more problems to contend with if we're to assume they can be trusted to make sexual decisions themselves.

The "teens" of the 60s you're talking about weren't free. They were reacting to their lack of freedom. If you're basically a processed slave clockwork orange style promiscuous sex, drug abuse, etc, they're empowering gestures. But let's say you're basically free to pursue your own self interest 14 onwards, what's the appeal of these things? They just become really fucking stupid ideas. Sure people can still do them. But if society takes its fingers off the scales then the natural consequences of these actions will flow and people will start reacting and acting rationally in their own interests rather than reacting to what's done to them. State control of life creates deranged behaviour by forcing weird and deranged outcomes of certain behaviours with its influence and resources.

I don't propose freeing our youth right now in the sense of basically just dropping them loose. I think that we need to understand that first worlders are basically crippled and sold up the river, and our project is restoration now. And if your issue is trusting them to make "sexual decisions themselves", you may have noticed, they're already making these decisions. The situation is anarcho tyrannical. They're simultaneously not trusted and completely without protection or imposed order and insulated from natural consequences of their actions as hard as possible. Anything would beat this.

Quote:A big problem with modern AoC is the quality of both the adult and the "child". I feel like this is why age of consent law was so much more informal in the past, because the female's sexuality was controlled by her father, who exchanged his wardship of her directly to her husband. If the Age of Consent law were abolished tomorrow, how many teens would engage in productive lifelong and fertile relationships and how many would just continue to sleep around like the whores-in-training they were already being raised to be?

As I may have already said, the laws are a non-issue and non-factor in all of these behaviours.
#11
It's my opinion/experience that the youth have immense potential, the existence of which is denied by our society. However they do not have the wisdom or "maturity" to tap into that by themselves.

The problem is that teens are often influenced by other teens, and other teens are rarely more mature than they are. This is created by the "grade" system in schools. Teens should learn with adults so they are pulled up to the level of the adults. Ideally, older "specialists" would help the youth with their interests, guiding them and enabling them. This is not new in the least, in fact it was somewhat the norm for millennia.

Now, regarding sexual relations, those are some of the things that few youth are actually enlightened on the nature and purpose of. Illicit relationships between teens should be discouraged, however arranged marriages are ok and should be done if necessary. I say this as a teenager myself.
#12
The laws are basically fine as they are. There's almost always exceptions if two people are close in age, etc. Obviously laws haven't caught up to newer technologies but I doubt more than a handful of very unlucky kids have ever been arrested for swapping nudes (HINT: don't fuck a police officer's daughter).

Though it provokes a much harsher reaction among people (especially on the right - who are currently obsessed with pedophilia for one reason or another) this whole conversation is basically just a re-iteration of Philosophy 101 classroom discussions about "why shouldn't cannibalism be legal?" or "what if the dead person consented to have their body defiled?"

Much like those topics one's answer has much less to do with whether they're interested in screwing 17 year olds but rather how much they enjoy playing Devil's Advocate.
#13
How can you not see how these laws are detrimental to society?

Quote:Much like those topics one's answer has much less to do with whether they're interested in screwing 17 year olds but rather how much they enjoy playing Devil's Advocate.

Women are attractive between the ages of 14 and 20. Men who care about the future have a vested interest in screwing teenagers. It's called reproduction. Go back to the normie forum.
#14
Once you reach a certain age the only thoughts you have about teenage girls tend to have much more to do with finding obnoxious to one degree or another.

The type of men you want reproducing aren't the ones who want to have kids with high schoolers. And the type of women you want having kids aren't the ones getting knocked up before they can drive.

Take a quick peak at the demographics behind teenage pregnancy in the United States and tell me with a straight face that's what you want the future to be.
#15
You are just being slippery and saying the typical copes.

Quote:Once you reach a certain age the only thoughts you have about teenage girls tend to have much more to do with finding obnoxious to one degree or another.

They are more fertile, much more likely to be virgins, and potentially less mindjacked by feminism. The number of women in their mid-20s you would want to have kids with is tiny. Good luck.

Quote:The type of men you want reproducing aren't the ones who want to have kids with high schoolers. And the type of women you want having kids aren't the ones getting knocked up before they can drive.

This is not an argument.

Quote:Take a quick peak at the demographics behind teenage pregnancy in the United States

This is an argument, but for my position, not yours.
#16
(12-23-2022, 09:08 PM)calico Wrote: Once you reach a certain age the only thoughts you have about teenage girls tend to have much more to do with finding obnoxious to one degree or another.

I hope I never become too dickless to appreciate a hot young woman.
#17
Age of consent laws are appropriate as they are, if you take their reason for being at face value. In America, by the time you can consent, you are typically already able to drive and get a job, which is a pretty basic standard for determining if someone is independent enough to comprehend and weather the consequences of sex. Now, if for whatever reason, you don't believe that partners in a relationship should necessarily be independent in order to date/marry, then you probably have some reason for opposing these laws in some way to meet your social engineering sensibilities. I personally have no interest in lording over someone who is inferior to me.
#18
(12-27-2022, 02:27 PM)Corvid Wrote: by the time you can consent, you are typically already able to drive and get a job, which is a pretty basic standard for determining if someone is independent enough to comprehend and weather the consequences of sex.

To feign ignorance, what is it about driving / having a job that makes it an indication of one's ability to weigh the "consequences of sex"?
#19
(12-27-2022, 02:27 PM)Corvid Wrote: Age of consent laws are appropriate as they are, if you take their reason for being at face value. In America, by the time you can consent, you are typically already able to drive and get a job, which is a pretty basic standard for determining if someone is independent enough to comprehend and weather the consequences of sex.

Why is it higher than 16 in many states then? I also second Datacop's question about this.

(12-27-2022, 02:27 PM)Corvid Wrote: Now, if for whatever reason, you don't believe that partners in a relationship should necessarily be independent in order to date/marry, then you probably have some reason for opposing these laws in some way to meet your social engineering sensibilities.

Firstly, I care about personally reproducing and having a young and attractive wife and I want the same thing for my friends, clansmen, and Amarnite comrades, and I wouldn't want the government to throw any of these fellows in prison for trying to do so (if you are not some sort of anarchist or libertarian you are a traitor plain and simple because of other reasons like this; thinking your comrades should be subservient to endless resentful and nonsensical laws of the value-destroying parasite known as the state at gunpoint). And I also care about the white race as a whole surviving and thriving. Throwing all of that in the trash because "women shouldn't be exploited" is just thinly veiled communism.

Secondly, this is just victim blaming. Young girls have shitty and miserable lives because of ZOG and because of their abusive worthless parents, not because of some adult male who is, at worst, take their virginity and leave them, which is bad, but nothing compared to the sins committed by the girls' parents and the government. A teenage male is much more likely to do this than an older man. AF cutlists and WN feminists have no problem a young guy doing this (actually much more exploitative and rapepful because the two are forced into cortisol public school zoo together), which reveals they don't care about any actual harm done and are just tipping the scales of the sexual market to appease feminists, aging women, leftists, and other people with grievances. And this ignores the much more likely upside that an adult male saves her from hell on earth and they have a happy and healthy family.
#20
(12-27-2022, 06:01 PM)Datacop Wrote: To feign ignorance, what is it about driving / having a job that makes it an indication of one's ability to weigh the "consequences of sex"?

These don't signify emotional maturity in their own right, but as a general rule (which is what any age of consent is by default) if you can do both of those things then you're capable of supporting a family on your own without being a dependent. At least, that's how I'd approach it. For the record, men used to be able to support families alone earlier in adolescence than they do now. (Post-)industrial economies spend more years educating and training than traditional domestic-centered economies do. I think it'd be reasonable to say that the Roman 14 year old male had an equivalent grasp on his own life trajectory as a 16-18 year old male in Current Year.

(12-27-2022, 06:58 PM)BillyONare Wrote: Why is it higher than 16 in many states then? I also second Datacop's question about this.

State's rights, I suppose.

(12-27-2022, 06:58 PM)BillyONare Wrote: Secondly, this is just victim blaming. Young girls have shitty and miserable lives because of ZOG and because of their abusive worthless parents, not because of some adult male who is, at worst, take their virginity and leave them, which is bad, but nothing compared to the sins committed by the girls' parents and the government. A teenage male is much more likely to do this than an older man. AF cutlists and WN feminists have no problem a young guy doing this (actually much more exploitative and rapepful because the two are forced into cortisol public school zoo together), which reveals they don't care about any actual harm done and are just tipping the scales of the sexual market to appease feminists, aging women, leftists, and other people with grievances. And this ignores the much more likely upside that an adult male saves her from hell on earth and they have a happy and healthy family.

I don't see why an older man would be any less likely to pump-and-dump a younger woman than a peer if we're assuming everything else remains constant. It just goes back to my point that there needs to be a serious revision of sexual ethics. If you want to get the ball rolling on Wholesome Ethical Marriages again then you need epistemic and political power to reinforce a new standard, rather than just changing one law. I don't mean to come across as a moralfag, just commenting on what I perceive to be a factual.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)