Impure intentions definitely hits the nail on the head. There really isn’t any justifiable reason to try to fuck kids or lower the AoC because normal well adjusted people don’t even want to associate with children let alone have any sort of relationship with them.
In my case? No.
Right. Look remember a few years ago when they trialed out "Minor Attracted Person?" We all jumped on it because, rightly, because it felt like them trying to dilute or minimize what was actually going on? Yet now people are using the term Pedophile in a manner consistent with that term. We're also running in to "People are basically children under 25" and "Any significant age gap" is basically pedophilia. Keeping in mind that the Progressive Left both wants to normalize raping children and loves to control language and shift definitions, it bothers me when I see people I like and agree start using language in a way that indicates they may have unconsciously accepted the progtard's narrative framework. It's the Stonetoss meme about Dems being the real transphobes.
Alright thank you for establishing your reasoning. Now please explain why it is if at all the line is at 18 under your train of thought because I don't see it.
I hear you and I agree to a point. Mostly when I notice the whole frontal cortex argument coming up, it’s meant to be as a reference and framework for how aging and mental development works, yet every single time it ends up getting strawmanned into “this teetotaler wants the AoC to be 55.” It’s something I find pedos and their defenders don’t really understand or even care about and how it relates back to society and AoC and why it is what it is. Pedophiles themselves have grown this strawman argument to epic proportions in order to serve their own agenda. What sounds crazier, lowering the AoC to 17 or raising it to 25? If they make it sound like you’re an insane person with maladjusted views it makes theirs look only slightly out of line.
You sound like the sexpest version of Captain Save A Hoe.
So you're in favour of sex with children who aren't children because they're post pubescent so long as they look old enough because they're gonna grow up to be whores anyway.
Explain "people like me." I've made no arguments about the age of consent one way or the other, I have no problem with it being 18, I don't think adults should be fucking around with adolescents.
Trying to split hairs when people know what is meant by pedophile. Pedophile, child fucker, child rapist… I don’t see any dilution by the people rightly calling a spade a spade. Unless you mean to say that pedos themselves are co opting this term.
Sorry, don’t take it so personally. Let’s say I meant “when people say things like this.” Sorry mate, didn’t mean anything by it. I just get all worked up about the newspeak.
It's not really newspeak. These are terms which have existed for a while now to delineate different but obviously related paraphilias. Pedophilia just hits the hardest and is the only one that's well-known, so it's just become a catch-all term.
I think it's more of expanding what's considered "Children" into greyer and greyer areas. Normalizing sexual relationships between adults and prepubescent children has been a core part of leftist progressivism since the 60s. Expand what's considered a child or a minor to more ridiculous degrees, lets say you're basically a pedo for wanting to bang a 24 year old because her brain's not fully developed. Over use the term to rob it of it's core meaning "If fucking a 24 year old is the same as a 14 year old is the same as a 4 year old, and a 24 is okay, what's the harm as long as all parties consent?" That kind of thing. Sounds stupid, but look at how the progtards have redefined things like rape to include shit like power differentials and retroactively revoked consent. Progtards love making language fuzzy and it's always to their benefit and if they can get you to use it as they define it, they get to control the narrative, the Motte and Bailey thing.
It's fine, I think people are just reading into my views things that aren't there. I'm arguing the opposite of newspeak, I'm autistically screeching about using a term properly. Outside of the range of "Romeo and Juilet" laws, I don't think adults having relationships with minors is a good thing, or particularly acceptable. There's edge cases, sure, maybe Cormac McCarthy's was one, don't know, but you don't build laws, culture, and tradition around those.
That’s a weird way to admit that you cannot fathom relationships which are non-transactional. Such a person in turn cannot fathom love, and are not to be trusted.
Thanks. This helps. I’d also like to know what you make of my previous notion that much of the discourse over the “chuds want AoC to be 25” is strawman arguments coming from the “wrong side” of the field. I don’t believe anyone whose opinion matters actually thinks this (except for outliers) and I think both sides of the argument get lost in the semantics when we bring up brain development. I do think pedophiles/orbiters intentionally bring this up to make regular people appear more maligned than even pedophiles are, as a few edge cases of encounters with a 17 year old (whom we all accept is probably sexually active anyway) is, in many ways, easier to reason with and justify than raising to 25.
I say it is, because the basis of validity for sexual relations is completion of puberty/tanner stage whatever yes? People younger than 16 complete puberty all the time thanks to the chemicals in the water turning the frogs gay but you of course wouldn't sexually relate to them... why? I don't see the basis in your reasoning for why, is there one?
You’re absolutely conflating any sort of benefit from any interaction with a transactional nature. If your criteria for a transaction is that something is given and something of equal value is returned, pretty much every particle interaction in the universe becomes a transaction.
You're just dodging the argument here but okay at least you're not a complete degenerate, you absolutely do not understand women though, I highly recommend the woman hate thread if you want to sperg about the true place for the inferior gendersex.
Unfortunately your definitions probably won’t allow for a concise explanation of what that looks like or why it’s different from a purely transactional relationship. Concisely, non-transactional relationships involve doing something for the goodness or growth of someone else selflessly. Selfless does not mean you gain nothing, it means you gave something and gaining back was not your objective or prerogative, and that your heart and your will lie in a place of good conscience and a desire for others to do well for the sake of doing well.
I think the AoC to 25 thing isn't quite a strawman, but I do think it's mostly a Gen Z thing or an aging Millennial woman thing. I think your average person would see it as silly or insane, but I've seen it popping up with Left leaning people I know who should know better. Tik tok thing, but if the Powers That Be didn't think they could use it, it wouldn't have gained traction. It's dumb, because as I understood it over a decade ago, the last few years of brain development are just the long term risk processing part. Why men at 24 will do dumb shit and at 26 wonder what they were thinking. Not you're still literally a child, but Social Media retards hear about a thing and misrepresent it. It just turned up in my circles with some Millennials I know who I thought were smarter than that.
