Its also just occurred to me that any sane person would not be trusting a woman to make a judgement in that moment. Its not a discrimination thing. Right before they cut the cord, the woman has just gone through one of the most painful and stressful experiences of her entire life. Its not uncommon for it to have lasted hours or in the case of some poor few, over a day. On top of that, they also have painkillers in their system and are extremely hormonal. There is no way in hell any normal human being can make a sound judgement on anything at all immediately after that. Much less carefully consider the financial and social nuances of whether the child can be considered a burden. Consider also that they need to move fast to do all their tests and make sure the baby is as healthy as can be, and that the entire room is likely filled with strangers and generally far too loud to think.

>>7424 >it's up the each family to decide things >the state should be strong and centralized HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>7464 Both questioning your mother's actions, and respecting her for giving you a clitoral orgasm first, seeing how that is the way young girls are meant to orgasm anyway.

>>7491 And being aroused by the story

>>7478 Me again, this post was meant to be replying to >>7460 and>>7461 Anyway continuing: Cont. >>7461 >If you regularly gave a child alcohol, you'd be considered to be doing harm to a child. >In the US. In other countries, such as France, it's perfectly normal to regularly give children alcohol. Alcohol is a toxin. Adults shouldn't be having it but they're free to poison themselves. Should a child be allowed to poison themselves? If one attempts to do so, should a mother be allowed to beat that child, if we're ok with French moms giving their children a poison? I think I'm pretty comfortable with trusting mothers to own their children until age 4. There will be some bad mothers out there but those can be condemned culturally. >That's still not the same as recklessness, you can act on the desire cautiously. That's true, it's also possible for pedophilia to be destigmatized to begin with, even if it remains illegal to act on it. I'm arguing as though it's not a given that sex with a child would be made legal, though I'm not ruling it out. My position is that pedophilia should be de-stigmatized but not acted upon. I consider the action to be the reckless part to begin with, so saying "cautious pedophilia" seems to assume it's being allowed to begin with by default. I can appreciate the position of putting the onus on a court to prove harm - but I seem to be ok with some regulation for harm prevention. And I'd mark that with pubescence as the threshold for enthusiastic consent. I want to agree with you on the principle of proving harm being a matter for a prosecutor, but I consider that ineffective for harm prevention because for example someone can smoke beside me on my property, and then leave and I'd have to prove they were smoking. Principally it is ideal but I'm not totally convinced by this approach, and normies sure tend to not be. >I guess the question is over how that higher standard of caution is enforced >I'm unsure how exactly to go about it. I think this stuff being figured out would be of tremendous benefit. >A doctor or paramedic on the other hand is expected to know what they're doing and even minor negligence can be punished harshly. Should pedophiles who want to act on their desires be required to complete a kid fucking license, where they also swear some pedo oath to not harm kids, with major penalties for breaching this? >I think the only way to make that work is to assume oral/topping by default, and only apply the higher limit in the small number of cases where it can be definitively proven that the child was penetrated and not dominant. Yeah I was thinking something like that. So what do you think of: >General age of consent = Age 10 >Under 10 deemed at risk group, requiring pedo license for penetrative sex. Oral/topping by Under 10 permitted. >Pedo license requires theory test and some kind of semi-regular renewal. >You can be stopped by a cop on suspicion of pedophilic risk action the way someone might be pulled over for a vehicle registration + license check on the road. >If you don't have a license to show/aren't in the system, you receive a fine and the officer may remove the child from you if they deem you suspicious. Best I can think of so far for trying to have something that works for pedos. I am willing for the licensing restriction to scale up for ages 10/13 before wider society is comfortable with settling on allowing options for pedos. >I have no idea how you'd make any progress while simultaneously rejecting trans and bestiality folks. >They're all cool with me. I guess I am a little iffy on bestiality that isn't initiated by the animal Well, how about we throw in an animal penetrating license too? >I can't think of any practical solution without huge flaws, so ultimately it would probably end up being whatever would be easiest to get passed > I'm skipping over some parts, that generally means I don't have any disagreement or further information to add for those.

[Expand Post]

Cool cool, thanks for the reply =) >The majority of harm that does occur does not come from the act itself Agree, on principle. I think the licensing thing might be a good solution for the harm risk issue. >Additionally (and I'm guessing you'd agree, based on how you're focused on harm over consent), if the harm is minimal, then extremely high standards of "informed consent" no longer make sense. I'm still personally partial to puberty being the cutoff, but even though I disagree with allowing lower personally I think my offer of licensing arrangement is where I'd compromise. I'm willing to say that I may dislike pedosex but still concede to government voting in pedo licensing. I may question how other individuals drive a car or practice medicine for potential risks but if they have a license that checks out to a cop stopping them for a check by some government standard of assessing force/threat then that's much better in my view. A child, being prepubescent, still puts them in a risk group for me. >we don't worry too much about whether a child can really consent to playing sports or mountain climbing or other activities that have some chance of injury. Supervising teachers are accountable for student harm, they can have their teaching certification suspended for gross misconduct/endangerment so I think that's pretty consistent with the license idea. >I would of course love to be a loli. Cute :3 >Children are incredibly cute and adorable, but I wouldn't say that cuteness is especially arousing. It's basically just the same thing as ordinary adult attraction in just about every way, except directed primarily towards children. And without the desire for sex. Without the desire? So you're pedo-romantic?

>>7480 >All you need is one generation to grow up with it as normal Sure, that's fine > Pick any metric, and we are worse off now than any point previously, and this will not change until somebody does something. I'm more optimistic and think things are pretty good, set to get better >Have you seen what they actually do to the baby in the womb? Yep, don't mind. Personally "my body, my choice" strongly argues both for pedophilia and abortion in my view in a way I think is probably impossible to separate for me. Stay mad etc. But I don't think we need to agree on pro life/pro choice arguments though to make progress on how pedophilia is handled in society. >>7481 Just like this guy I upset, as pedophiles you're not exactly spoiled for choice on options for allies. So you may as well accept the hand extended by a hebephile who makes no moral condemnation on either pedophilia or abortion. >Do you happen to be into incest >These kind of jabs make it very difficult to not just start insulting you It was a serious and I think fair question, I was getting that vibe from the huge, self-sustaining families. >See all of human history prior to 1900 So I take it incest is not off the table >People obviously lie, we even have machines to detect it. If you mean lie detectors, I write those off as pseudoscience. Just seems like you have a particular view of how lying in modern society is problematic, so I was curious. >normies >you arent from here, are you? Yeah. Should I be saying anti's, or what? >the fact that you have assumed that harm aversion is not a very big deal to a child lover is indicative of how you see us. Yeah, you'll have to forgive me - I don't normally spend a lot of time around pedophiles, and you see a few loud edgy hurtcore types around. And try see this from my point of view: I don't really care if you individually are sincere about not wanting to harm children, because I have no way of guaranteeing it one way or another. And nevermind me, it's impossible for the average person to tell a sincere child lover apart from a child predator. That's why I'm partial to licensing pedo sex. What say you on that? >Im hesitant >Im wondering what makes you hesitate on this, since there is no reason it is not preferable to black market stuff except for emotional reasons (such as hate, for example). Because if the position of society is that it's condemned, the intention is to avoid harm even if there are violators of the law on the black market. I can acknowledge the problem of the black market as a response to total banning while also acknowledging the problem of total freedom allowing abuses to go unchecked. Normally I'd be okay with leaving it up to the free market but the very problem here is the issue of force being used against the children which I think is fair for a government to conservatively step in for. I don't need to hate you to hesitate in adopting your position if I'm finding it unsatisfying for averting harm. If anything my feeling was concern for kids making me want a better solution for managing harm. So after thinking about it more I feel validated in my hesitation, because I'd rather have pedo licensing than throwing up my hands and allowing child harmers to evade justice. The latter feels complacent to me. >I've found the hatred pedos get to be really fucked up >It hurts. I believe that. >I dont think ive ever actually met a mentally underdeveloped woman. I'm speaking anecdotally here but I think there are a lot of both men and women who have subtle impairments that are easy to overlook until you're confronted by it. I just think way too much credit is given for someone at age 21 or even 31 or 61 to be assumed to have more self-aware than a lot of 14 year olds. >My personal AoA is more in the 6-9 range >I don't like this idea people seem to have where a lover is discarded after she isn't in the ideal age range. I see nothing wrong with moving on if both parties are clear on the nature of the relationship. >I would consider polygamy

[Expand Post]

based >Everybodies wife eventually stops being attractive though, its part of getting old I imagine. Feelsbadman but then you can have a main wife for the partnership and loli mistresses in your harem for the casual sex.

>>7494 >Just like this guy I upset, as pedophiles you're not exactly spoiled for choice on options for allies. Better to stand alone than with scum

>>7494 >think things are pretty good So you're retarded

>>7279 >legalizing sex with children isn't the logical first step towards solving humanity's current problems Don't be so sure.

Good thread. I'm glad this community has anons like you guys in it

>>7494 >I think things are pretty good So you are retarded? >my body, my choice is a strong argument for abortion I'll bet money you have said the phrase "fetuses are parasites" at some point in your life >large families imply incest >people from the past imply incest yeah, so a retard who also doesnt know anything about history >lie detectors are pseudoscience astrology and healing crystals and aura reading are pseudo science. lie detectors are actual machines that literally measure indicators that you are lying, usually in combination with someone trained to spot signs that are not measured by the machine. You can train yourself to fool a lie detector, because it mostly measures your heart rate, but there are still very few people who are capable of fooling someone trained to spot a lie. Its not pseudoscience, and you are a moron for thinking it is. >what should I be saying instead of normies you should lurk for 1000 years before you post, and you shouldnt ask to be spoonfed like a mental invalid, you absolute normalnigger >I have no way of guarenteeing it one way or the other You have no guarantee that any person you walk past in the street wont put a knife in your back. You have no guarantee you wont die horribly in a car accident next time you drive. You have no guarantee of anything, at all. This is a retarded statement. Here is a similar one: "I have no guarantee that the cashier knows how to open the cash register". >Allowing abuses to go unchecked It doesnt do this though, because operating within the law means you have to follow regulations set by society. Did abuses go unchecked when prohibition ended? Did abuses go unchecked during any other time anything else was legalized? What about when weed was legalized? How about when porn became a massive billion dollar industry? There is no precedent for what you are saying AT ALL. You are hiding behind a facade of reasonableness. >I see nothing wrong with moving on Pickup culture is bad and this is not just about sex. People get older and as they do they stop being as attractive. This is not cause to divorce your spouse for a newer model and people who do this are despicable. Casual sex is part of what is destroying current society. Sex is not bad, its a beautiful and wonderful thing that shouldn't be shunned based on the words of a desert dweller 4000 years ago, but it also shouldnt be a flippant, entirely material affair. "Pleasures of the flesh" means doing it only because it feels good, and not because you love the other person. I hope you find God, because it really sounds like you are one hell of a lost sheep. Most people are these days though, its a shame that even churches are full of liars, false preachers, etc.

>>7583 >but it also shouldnt be a flippant, entirely material affair. That's subjective. The degree to which somebody engages with others through sex is a spectrum. There is no objective point when it becomes "flippant".

>>7585 You can play that semantic game with many other things too, but it doesnt change the fact that porn and not porn are different things. The fact that the english language is too limited to express the exact point at which it becomes bad, or even that there is no singular point, does not change the fact that the difference exists and is relevant.

>>7588 In my view something only becomes "bad" when it violates the consent of others. A slut whore consenting to fuck 200 men is not bad, an anxious virginal girl being taken advantage of by just one man, who she didn't really want to have sex with, is very bad. It's consent that matters. Don't like sluts? Then don't talk with sluts. You can not legislate whores out of existence.

>>7591 Consent is a spectrum. Something can always be more consensual.

>>7592 Autism is a spectrum too

>>7593 haha, you're so fucking funny. I bet you impress all the 13 year olds with your sick humor.

>>7597 butthurt

>>7597 Thanks bro

If our society agrees that children are able to make decisions regarding their health then sexual activity should also be included. Especially with the advent of sure, safe abortion the long term effects of sex are much much smaller than the effects of gender reassignment surgery. Yet one is okay and one is not

>>7676 >Implying those children are choosing genital mutilation and inevitable suicide and not being pushed into it by their psychotic virtue signalling parents Abortion is fucked too, contraceptives exist and are mostly effective and if they don't work and the baby won't be born with dozens of defects and live only a year - just have the fucking baby and let someone adopt if that's what it takes. I agree children can consent and the logical inconsistencies across the board here are so staggeringly retarded and divorced from a universal value system that it only makes antis look even more retarded than usual when they advocate against children being able to consent, but child sexuality is not a fucked up product of amorality like these other two and is wholly benign if the child consents.

>>7676 It's very simple: Don't cut children. This includes: >Baby dicks >Abortions >Unnecessary surgery Thats all you have to do. If you are wondering whether what you are doing is okay or not, think to yourself "am I cutting a child?" and if the answer to that question is yes you are doing a bad thing

>>7679 If at any point you have the desire to mutilate children, just kill yourself instead. If everyone followed that simple rule it'd be a better world. It would also finally put a stop to anti-jew white supremacist rhetoric.

>>7583 >you have said the phrase "fetuses are parasites" You'd have to pay me first for clocking you on your incest fetish though Even if you want to say it's a human, I don't mind. Humans have been property throughout history, with slavery being recognized by God in the Bible. If you want to appeal to what humans have done throughout history to justify incest, I can do the same to justify children as property. >lie detectors are actual machines that literally measure indicators that you are lying If lie detectors were actually reliable, they'd be much more popular because it would save so much time in so many criminal investigations. It's pseudo science because your heart rate (as well as sweat) does go up when lying but the same symptoms are triggered by traumatic recollection. If a mother saw her child murdered and was accused of it, she could very well have the same physical reaction whether she was lying or distressed by recollection of what she witnessed. 'Lie' detectors are detecting a correlation, not the causation. Having an 80% success rate just isn't good enough to count as evidence, especially since results one day can be different on another day. Someone can easily be falsely accused by admitting a lie detector as evidence, and practically it's only used as a trap for a consenting suspect to risk incriminating themselves. No lawyer would advise a client to undergo a lie detector test unless the client insisted under the false belief the machine was reliable. You are totally gullible and probably sheltered if you believe lie detectors are some gold standard of evidence. Machines exist for detecting ghosts by correlating "electromagnetic disturbances" to spirits. But there's no reliable connection and the evidence relies on testimony -again, correlation is not causation. >You have no guarantee of anything, at all. >You are hiding behind a facade of reasonableness. The only way you win "haha prove the harm!" is by simultaneously allowing a shitload of stuff that triggers you like abortion, open relationships and prostitution. I'm more okay with that world than you are. I'm looking for a better argument because the utopian babyfuck theocracy you want to rely on for punishing things you don't like is not exactly an easy sell. >you should lurk for 1000 years before you post or maybe you could, idk save time and be helpful for the discussion >People get older and as they do they stop being as attractive. This is not cause to divorce your spouse for a newer model and people who do this are despicable. If there's no value besides the attraction, then it's the right thing to do. Nothing wrong with remaining married and having mistresses or fuckbois either. >its a shame that even churches are full of liars, false preachers, etc. Well, good luck with convincing all those religious leaders before me why it's cool to fuck a 4 year old. I'm still not able to get past the hebephilia/pubescence acceptance/tolerance position over to full-blown pedophilia. >>7676 I think arguing on the basis of hormone therapy is the better way to go. Along with vaccine consent. But even then you'll get hebe long before pedo.

>>9703 You are arguing with a months old post. Who is this for?

No, everyone on here is literally just scum of this earth and don't need to be breeding.

>>9721 Sorry to tell you buddy. That's basically impossible to prevent.

Congratulations on being more open minded than most people, but you still fall into common double standards and irrational thinking.

No. It's disgusting. Fantasizing to art is fine though, as long as you keep it to yourself.

>>10618 Putting your dick inside a man's shit and worm-filled anus is disgusting. Doesn't stop you from doing it though.

>>10635 No Anon, you've got it all wrong. He's the bitch

K

>>10635 >Putting your dick inside a man's shit and worm-filled anus is disgusting Are you implying you would like it if it was clean? Sounds pretty gay

>>7280 Nah he has a point. Just ne you don't like.