/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Political discussion of ideology, history, and [current] events

Posting mode: Reply

Drawing x size canvas

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Logs can be found here: https://endchan.xyz/logs.js

Expand All Images

Reforming the taboo on child sexuality Anonymous 04/20/2017 (Thu) 05:19:45 Id: 0fd17b [Preview] No. 39399
The cause of our draconion penal laws and loss of privacy on the internet is largely because boomers from Puritan cultures wanted to protect "childhood innocence." This is a fallacy, and children have sexuality which is natural and not harmful, and repressing it as we have done continues to do more harm than good.

Okay, let's save time and agree there are abusive relationships that we want to prevent. The current law in most countries still criminalizes minors of similar ages from having sex, or young adults from fucking people they grew up with. This is stupid, and the ad-hoc application of Romeo and Juliette laws does not adequately address the problem. The problem at its heart is a Victorian/Puritan mentality that has infected the rest of the developed world at the expense of efficiency and happiness for all.

Correct me if any of you know better, but the first law in the world to officially criminalize child pornography was in the US in 1977. (This law criminalize producers of the material, and subsequent laws soon criminalized mere possession of it.) Of course, there were the retarded Cornstock Laws of 1873 a hundred years before that, but those prohibited abortion aids and "obscene books" and left the details up to the (Christian) locals. The 1873 law was a joke because there wasn't any attempt at standardization, and the advent of the erotic novelty that is pornography and greater awareness of child exploration (child labor laws doesn't even exist yet) forced society to confront the law's assumptions. Thereafter, law enforcement agencies and district attorneys have greatly boosted their popularity by putting sex offenders to death while presenting themselves as defenders; it's a profitable field for prosecutors and it feeds the ego so they are not disposed to change the status-quo.

Now for the main thrust of my argument: I fail to see how minors (or children) having sexual relations is inherently a negative thing. This assumption, or at least undue fear of the risks faced by the child is the basis of our global laws. The few studies commonly cited suck (they are full of cultural biases, or are misinterpreted to test for variables the researchers weren't looking for), and it's hard to get objective studies because of the taboo and ostrachization of both pedos and minors who have experienced sex (and are quasi-shamed and cast as victims or survivors.) Nevertheless, at least one study of suggested early sexual experiences positively correlates with later satisfaction in life-and I could look up the study if this interests anyone.)

Anonymous 04/20/2017 (Thu) 05:21:22 Id: 0fd17b [Preview] No. 39400 del
(Continued 2/2)
"Think of the children!" Goes the refrain every single time someone is about to say something emotional rather than rational. It isn't easy to question our assumptions when the overwhelming desire is to protect the next generation. The key word is protect, which is an emotional word, and we have to question whether we are actually protecting them. There are children that want to have sex, and with all of the modern sex toys, penetration is not mandatory. It's conceivable a partner could actually care for a kid while having sex. His life wouldn't be much different from that of another kid doing chores, or scratching an adult's back, except for the continued arbitrary and oppressive sex-shaming born of a Victorian/Puritan fear of sin and an absolute sense of morality. Maybe pedos would make better parents than sending kids to the money-mills that are orphanages or foster-homes.

We have some ancient precedents. There were homosexual teachers that paired with young boys in Greece, (Socrates was tempted), and in the Tale of Genji the main character raised a girl to be his future wife. I don't know enough about the time to say whether Socrate's students or that fictional wife were better off, but these kinds of examples absolutely must be considered to have an informed debate.

The labeling of those who experience sex as "victims" or "rapists" or "exploiters" in common language creates a double-think optics problem that precludes thinking about positive examples. We often heap too much attention on how Stockholm's Syndrome could happen, but sex might make parents more loyal to their kids while preparing the kids to have mature relationships when they receive useful real experience once they leave the nest and fall in love, or what have you. (Too much infantization and pampering weakens kids and sets them back in life, or turns them into sexually-repressed feminist cunts who wouldn't know how to get laid if they tried when they're 30.)

Nearly all children seem to enjoy video cameras, acting, exhibition, and modeling, much more so than adults, and they might enjoy the attention. By any case, it's a living anyone of them could do with a webcam, and frequently independently do, and yet they're often criminalized by the law if they send nude selfies to their boyfriends (who must register as sex offenders if a concerned monkey gets involved.) Younger people also don't see very ugly older people as particularly ugly, until they get older, and this includes people we call creepers. I see no reason not to allow modeling; if the state wanted to legalize it, they could relate it and create a trust fund to prevent exploitation and demand that for all profits go to the minor upon becoming an adult. Pedos would still like produce it for free, just as student artists hire models to paint from life.

Here is what I predict: Just as prohibition failed, and the war on drugs failed and marijuana legalization is spreading, sooner or later a generation is going to realize that not only does our criminalization cause more problems, but this vice isn't as harmful as we thought. Such is the precedent, and I'm open enough to argue the contrary point of view until people start considering all of the relevant opposing evidence, and then make rational arguments.

Instead we have pedophile Lynch mobs in the UK, US, and worldwide-Google them, pedos are the ones who are most denied the right to defend themselves legally, verbally, or rationally. If SJWS actually cared about justice they would switch sides (rather than flogging the dead horses that are the lgbt and "women," who have already obtained the power to defend themselves.)

Anonymous 04/20/2017 (Thu) 10:03:05 Id: d2a8a9 [Preview] No. 39413 del
Your argument is basically
>prohibition failed
>war on drugs failed
>weed laws are failing
>why not let children fuck since sooner or later that's going to fail too?
You act as if the previous three failing isn't a problem. Instead of letting it all fail so it can further enable a degenerate society, why not stand against it? You're pretty much saying "it's gonna happen eventually so give up and don't fight."

Anonymous 04/20/2017 (Thu) 10:24:19 Id: 9ea728 [Preview] No. 39417 del
This. There are much better arguments for a low AoC than "fuck it, kids gonna fugg anyway :DDDD"
For instance, traditional marriages starting as young as 13 and typically being aged 14-17, Romania having an AoC of 15, and many US states having AoC's as low as 15. Maybe OP should have compared rape / molestation incidents across states with high AoC vs states with low AoC and try and find a pattern, maybe he could have also compared rural vs. urban rates of the same things.

But no, he went full 'le spooks :DDDDDD :DD:DDDD' and made a shit-tier >>>/leftypol/ thread.

Anonymous 04/20/2017 (Thu) 19:33:29 Id: 1eddbb [Preview] No. 39459 del
Probably OP too, but the rest of you definitely aren't seeing the core of the problem. Autistic hang-up on "childhood innocence" is the default destructor of childhood innocence, because age 18 is treated like both the starting line and the deadline to having grown up, and adults of various interests play with children's lives either enforcing it as one or as he other.

Children aren't innocent, the concept is just idealistic waffle set to treat "the innocent" as human bargaining chips. Children are capable of handling anything an adult can, just not all children all things because each child internalizes each skill at their own random order, that only a competent parent has even the chance to tune up on and know what to teach next. Because of societal taboos (made by adults who themselves lack mental fortitude and aren't capable of handling the issue, let alone children) sex becomes a thing a person needs most of her adult skills to be involved with, and that's the current reality children face due to incompetence of current adults. Every age of man faces the onus to reach further than they were set up for, and that's unfair but it has always been as unfair.

If there's a magic bullet to kill this issue, it would be to identify inept people and treat them at the mental level of a child that they actually are on. This group must then be forced through any sort of gamut to fire test their capability to enter adult society by the age where that is feasible, and actually hold them to that standard after they do, which currently is not the case with the decided legal age of maturity. The deadline must be decided and sticked with, and pampering of kids must stop so that they know they're on the clock to mature into adulthood. If that's possible by the age of 18, then 18 is a good age to set it. If it's too pressuring, it must be set higher. Ideally, teaching methods should become as expedient and painless as possible, and that's the key to unlock a sexually developed child's opportunities any earlier than they are now without that resulting in statistically inevitable develpmental problems from being pushed to adulthood before readiness. I don't believe the current bottleneck is in sexuality, but responsibility, and the narrative of "children are over-sexualized" is describing the most salacious symptom as the problem and does nothing but ruin things further. In it's inverse, calling for "allowing" children to have sex is itself just a self-serving attempt to also focus on and offshoot while refusing to solve the underlying problem, even if it isn't even real pedophiles but edgelord fedora-autists thinking they can streamline lawmaking because they have all the answers.

To add, age of consent is just a legal technicality, a non-issue. Law enforcement exists to cover the possibilty that systems simply fail, it's inherently illogical and short-term rule of force. Without elements that could be considered "unjust" it would be unnecessary to begin with.

Anonymous 04/21/2017 (Fri) 00:15:12 Id: 70f594 [Preview] No. 39467 del
>child sexuality

Stopped reading there. Take your barbaric values to Salon or NYT, faggot.

Anonymous 04/21/2017 (Fri) 00:22:02 Id: 03a523 [Preview] No. 39468 del
(580.68 KB 762x464 ebin.png)
>stop fucking kids

Anonymous 04/23/2017 (Sun) 20:23:41 Id: e27e09 [Preview] No. 39676 del
Came here to post this kys op.

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 03:09:42 Id: 7a9996 [Preview] No. 39771 del
> i wait until muh virgin daughter turns 27 and then i decide she will marry her cousin

>im a stinky christicuck muh kike on a stick autistic jew sect sect vaalueee

you are a christian: chrisitans are not white and you are therefore invalid.
take your masochistic kike on the stick and fuck off back to judea

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 03:36:19 Id: 68e088 [Preview] No. 39774 del
This thread needs to set a definition of 'child'
17 is legal to date in my state, 30 minutes north they're a 'child'
six is fairly universally considered a child - 13, not so much. When speaking of "child sexuality" which sort of "child" are you referring to?

Kids under 12 should not receive any sort of exposure to sex that doesn't happen naturally(ie seeing some other kid's dick at a beach) imo

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 04:10:25 Id: 83bab4 [Preview] No. 39776 del
(621.62 KB 274x204 goawayjude.gif)
Never read such a more retarded thread, but i'll pretend the dogshit you spouted out of your rotten soul of yours is true, and tell you this Puritan ideology is not ready to die, ever.

Submit, or be reported and jailed.

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 07:21:57 Id: 7a9996 [Preview] No. 39781 del
a girl is ready for sex if she starts growing hair and gets kinky
and thats usually around 12 years of age.

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 08:59:13 Id: 972f6d [Preview] No. 39789 del
(468.66 KB 480x474 Donald Trump Voter 4.png)

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 10:09:21 Id: 7a9996 [Preview] No. 39798 del
(40.05 KB 308x320 asfawfawfwfw.jpg)
(59.16 KB 640x480 dageagsg.jpg)
(67.55 KB 1200x630 hhh.jpg)
dooonald trump has no time for your autistic daughters, he is busy with his own

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 14:49:06 Id: 950a23 [Preview] No. 39816 del
>trumptard pedo shill argues with McZog potato nigger spammer

I'll just sit back and laugh

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 16:22:28 Id: 23bace [Preview] No. 39817 del
People started fucking earlier way back when because infant mortality rates were higher, people didn't live as long, and they needed labor for farmwork. None of that is the case anymore. You can wait until she's 18.

Well, you can give your 12-year-old daughter away then .

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 18:28:31 Id: 1596ca [Preview] No. 39822 del
>A father having a loving relationship with his daughter is wrong and immoral

t. Anglofags

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 19:23:12 Id: 7a9996 [Preview] No. 39824 del
(293.86 KB 720x681 sdgsdgegsdggeg.jpg)
>muh morality
if trump wants to have a healthy relationship with his daughter he should do. its his daughter and not yours.
i know that kind of moralfags like you.
you tell poor people to donate money to a jew hanging from a stick and when no ones looking you molest young boys

Anonymous 04/25/2017 (Tue) 23:31:06 Id: 34ce58 [Preview] No. 39839 del

Anonymous 04/26/2017 (Wed) 01:30:00 Id: 7a9996 [Preview] No. 39852 del
niggers dont work, are stupid and criminal and fail by ruining every place they go

you have more money than niggers
by your concept of logic we will transmit your and your familys money and send it to niggers.

you can live without money until you are 50

Anonymous 04/26/2017 (Wed) 01:59:05 Id: 7a9996 [Preview] No. 39854 del
(114.49 KB 553x380 sdgsdg.png)
>muh daughter needs 2 (((college degrees))) and labor experience until she turn 36, now she is ready for her first sex and only child.

what your daughter really needs is a penis

Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply