Debate user "More AWS-8Q Than You" about whether banging a 17-year-old makes you a pedophile

[DickMain]

• Anime pfp
• Tranny name
• New profile, immediately starts debating age of consent

I smell pedo

I stopped at 'Lily'.

If you're looking to fuck young, then I don't get how keeping your dick out of anybody under twenty is that hard for these anime pfps to understand. There's no fake legal gymnastics for you to do, you don't have to bring up hebo shit in nonsense arguments, you just have to put up with being at worst a massive creep who's technically keeping things above board. Yes, you'll be a massive creep the larger that gap is, but you don't have to invite all of this shit onto yourself doing it. I just don't get it, but then there's probably something about the fact that fucking teens is illegal that elicits some sort of thrill that I don't understand.

 

[Syzyg]

Women are all overgrown children who rely on authority figures to give them morality. For many women today these authority figures are their college professors who they parrot, or these authority figures are abstract avatars of modern politics/government whether that's some faggy marvel character or some other fictional thing
Women are not independent thinkers. They need rules and order and establishment around them. They follow rules set for them.

Were you a fan of CoachRedPill?

Think I'm wrong? You know I'm not when prostitutes wear a whores uniform specifically because it advertises that they are sexually open and available to be approached. So don't even pretend that you disagree.

Are the prostitutes you refer to in the above post also "overgrown children"?

 

[Mound Dweller]

Women are not independent thinkers. They need rules and order and establishment around them. They follow rules set for them.

This is the current GETTEM BOYS thread for pedo disposal purposes please take the gendersperging to the designated zones.
Unless you want to save us some time and tell us about your opinion regarding teenagers and what consent counts for?

 

[Toji Suzuhara]

My point was only that I can't think of anyone who wants to be with a "strong independent woman" who "don't need no man"
Is it not in the nature of masculinity to be attracted to submissiveness and receptiveness. Do men not want to lead?
So if a man "manipulates" a woman (of any age) by being nice to her, so that she will be more receptive to submitting to him what is the difference.
Women are all overgrown children who rely on authority figures to give them morality. For many women today these authority figures are their college professors who they parrot, or these authority figures are abstract avatars of modern politics/government whether that's some faggy marvel character or some other fictional thing
Women are not independent thinkers. They need rules and order and establishment around them. They follow rules set for them.

I'm only saying that the argument of "manipulation" is a bad argument regardless of the topic, because women require manipulation.

But I guess it's "politically incorrect" to say that women should learn how to cook what their men like to eat, and learn to follow the moral compass of their husbands. We all skibbity ohio rizz fr fr. Women of any age don't need to be groomed into behaving themselves. Just drink, do drugs, go clubbing, have male friends, eat hot chip, etc etc etc.

Buddy, why do you talk like a schizo?

Women are not independent thinkers. They need rules and order and establishment around them. They follow rules set for them.

We live in a society

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

So if a man "manipulates" a woman (of any age)

Women are all overgrown children

Women are not independent thinkers.

because women require manipulation.

Yep. We have here another grooming pedo who will end up on a sex offender registry. Do us all a favor and use that 12 bore mossberg mouthwash. Paint that ceiling like Kurt Cobain, buddy

 

[Temmie]

Why is it so hard for people on the internet to not stick to people 18 and older?

 

[Dilatortron3000]

I thought pedophilia was only prepubescent children

 

[Temmie]

I thought pedophilia was only prepubescent children

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

I thought pedophilia was only prepubescent children

It technically is. But there is a large window of very creepy and often illegal behavior involving older minors, and a horde of creeps who wants to "debate" and "relativise" such very unequal and disturbing sexual relationships. And that is because they are perverts trying to legitimise their creepy desires.

 

[Syzyg]

It is a particularly American (perhaps puritan influenced) view. I’ve seen plenty of 16/17 yo women that have well-developed secondary sexual characteristics, to put it in technical terms, that would rightly titillate any red-blooded heterosexual man and yet when somebody points out her age we all have to pretend that she’s actually repulsive and that no normal person could possibly be attracted to her - how silly.

Is it normal to be attracted to 16/17-year-olds? @Jarch6

 

[Jarch6]

Is it normal to be attracted to 16/17-year-olds? @Jarch6

If she’s got nice tits, a plump ass, and childbirthing hips then emphatically yes. *joker voice* and I’m tired of pretending it’s not!

 

[Mound Dweller]

I'm only saying that the arguments being made so far in this thread are bad arguments.
"It's wrong to do this because it's grooming and grooming is bad" is a bad argument if all women need to be "groomed" by men into behaving according to the standards set by men.

It's a bad argument because it says that if it's wrong to "groom" a 17 year old, it's wrong to "groom" a 20 year old, and a 25 year old and a 30 year old women.

This is a bad argument because the very same underlying principle applies to everyone, when in reality this kind of "manipulation" is how relationships work. So what is the conclusion? It's wrong to do this to 17 year olds and we need to redefine relationships entirely?

Sounds like dumb girlboss logic to me.

Leaving aside the fallacy of presuming the mental state of your prospective partner if she's physiologically immature that alone is an argument against suitability, the banana is green so to speak.
This basic physical reasoning is what underlines the moral argument against it as societies develop taboos against negative practices, that is to say eating green bananas is "bad".
This is the argument that is being made, it usually doesn't need such grounding because it goes without saying unless you're trying to weasel around it with pre-determined subversive deconstructivism. Girlboss doesn't come into very basic common sense the kind that wild animals manage is the centrepiece.

 

[Syzyg]

We're not talking about physically immature children, the title of the thread is about 17+ year olds. 17+ year olds are not physically immature. They're physically post-pubescent.

The title doesn't include a + after 17

We're still not talking about prepubescent children, we're talking about adults, or young adults.

At what age, in general, does someone become a young adult?

 

[Mound Dweller]

We're not talking about physically immature children, the title of the thread is about 17+ year olds. 17+ year olds are not physically immature. They're physically post-pubescent.
As some people have said in this thread, the frontal lobe doesn't stop developing until 25. So what, should we make it illegal for anyone under the age of 25 to vote? To marry? To get jobs? To pick their college degree without parental consent? Nonsense.

Yes, it's bad to eat green bananas, and it's wrong to rape toddlers. But that's not the subject of the thread.

We're still not talking about prepubescent children, we're talking about adults, or young adults.

I mean if it were up to me nobody would be voting but that's a whole other topic, and you can drop the whataboutisms because I am in fact lynching negroes (spiritually).
You advocate for wife husbandry then? That's very Richard III. It was looked down upon in Shakespeare's time for the same reason today and for good reason, unchivalrous on the face of it. Again; morally based on the whole green banana thing but stretched to be a balance of power matter. As the ideal relationship is/was seen as one of partnership (inherently without an inferior) the grooming aspect is seen as abominable.

 

[Mound Dweller]

And yet the consequences of an unrestricted female gender without authority or oversight, without submission to the church, or her father, or her husband has yielded nothing but welfare queens, girl-boss instagram shenanigans, fag enablism, participation trophies, a retarded education system, terminal empathy in politics, and feminine social values which have created all of the social problems we see today.
HR departments. DEI quotas. An emphasis on social sciences. Equality Olympics. Etc etc etc.

Men and women are not equal, and the relationships between them cannot be equal. This was known in the bible, Christ is the head of the church, just as the husband is the head of the household, as the wife submits to her husband and follows him, so does the husband submit to Christ and follows him.

We can pretend men and women want the same things and can therefore be equal partners but this is only pretend. Women do not want what men want in a spouse and men do not want what women want in a spouse. All one needs to do is look at the sorts of things women find attractive in men to see the kinds of relationships they want, and it's not "equality"

Bruh I'm disregarding the gendersperging because what I'm contending here is the age gap stuff, I'll pick at the partnership aspect:
A relationship is on the face of it always transactional because it's a reciprocal thing, in a position for which I presume you advocate for with the wife-husbandry this would be horribly unbalanced and therefore immoral, the morality of which is based upon the greenness of fruit.
How do you reconcile my (objectively correct) line of thought with your own ability to be righteous?

 

[Osmosis Jones]

it should be legal to taser pedophiles whenever they say anything

 

[Ass to Ass]

This meme succinctly describes my position on the subject.


In more detail: is AWS right that banging 17-year olds isn't pedophilia? Sure, he's technically right: it's hebephilia/ephebophilia. But my point is, there's really no difference when you get to the heart of the matter. It's all the same, all equally abhorrent. It has nothing to do with appearance, sexual characteristics, any of it. It has to do with maturity. Whether your victim is 5-years old or 17-years old doesn't matter. If you have sex with a child, it's a highly egregious crime and perhaps the worst crime there is. Period.

For those of you trying to contend otherwise, teens under 18 are still children. Please stop with the false dichotomy, it looks really bad.

Spoiler: Associated sperging

There's no good reason to set the age of consent under 18. If you not mature enough to own a gun, drink, sign contracts, live on your own, serve your country, etc., how the fuck are you somehow mature enough to have sex? It's nonsensical for us as a society to say a child can't get married but can have sex. Neither should be allowed. You are either an adult and able to consent, or a child and unable to consent. There is no difference or middle-ground, even in minutiae.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

I can’t understand why perverts wanna hang out with young girls anyway. Teenage girls are pretty fucking insufferable and whiny. And stupid.

 

[Mound Dweller]

Even children can cook, and sweep up a house. A woman needs far fewer skills to reciprocate what her husband provides. A man works, "brings home the bacon" and a women maintains his home, raises his children, and makes herself sexually available to him.
Do you need to be 21 to figure out how to bake a cake? Mop a floor? Change a diaper?

This is more gendersperging dude, if you h8 wahmen there's a whole 1000 page thread for it.
What I want from you are philosophical musings on the virtue of misbalanced relationships damnit not a tract on the natural state of vagina havers.
On the subject of capability; you justify the imbalanced nature of wife-husbandry with the female presumed lack of ability to find equilibrium otherwise and therefore subjugation is inherently justified by it's own inevitability?

 

[Ass to Ass]

I can’t understand why perverts wanna hang out with young girls anyway. Teenage girls are pretty fucking insufferable and whiny. And stupid.

any female born after 1993 can’t cook… all they know is mcdonald’s , charge they phone, twerk, be bisexual , eat hot chip & lie

Okay, jokes aside, teen girls are insanely annoying and don't know shit about how the world works. They're the kind of girl that thinks height and political beliefs matter in choosing which guys are worth a relationship. I don't understand how anyone could possibly be interested in that. I personally can't go for a girl who isn't at least old enough to drink.

Dudes who poach in the teen girl range really don't understand the difference between a girl and a woman. I suspect they don't care because their minds are driven by impure intentions.