CopiumX
Im a Cute Cat You are Not
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2024
- Posts
- 1,510
- Reputation
- 3,026
The Pedophile Manifesto
– by Joseph Sneep
This document shall be the definitive outline of my beliefs pertaining to pedophilia. My arguments in favor of it and my rebuttals to arguments against it. I hold to the belief that there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. By which I mean how it is defined in psychiatry. An individual aged sixteen years old or older who is attracted to another individual eleven years old or younger. In other words one who is attracted to prepubescents.
I also support minor attracted people. Those who may not be attracted to prepubescents but are attracted to those under the age of consent or societal norm. I think that it's important to define the terms here so that there are no misconceptions. I'm not using pedophile in the way that society often uses the word, that being calling a man in his twenties attracted to girls sixteen or seventeen a pedophile when they have already gone through puberty, It's also important to note that not everyone who is a pedophile acts on their attractions. Pedophile simply implies the attraction. This is important because people often use the term predator, child molester, and pedophile interchangeably. In reality these three are all different from each other. There are pedophiles who are in favor of more societal acceptance for pedophiles but do not believe that sexual access to children is moral or ever will be moral. There's a group of these individuals who call themselves 'Virtuous Pedophiles' and I take great issue with them for numerable reasons. Because I am someone who is not only in favor of normalizing pedophilic attractions but also in that the government and society at large should recognize romantic and sexual pedophilic relationships as moral and therefore not criminal.
Not only do I say that there is nothing wrong with this attraction I would say that it is even a virtue and the relationships can be just as good if not often times better than the alternative. I believe that the so-called 'Virtuous Pedophiles' (VirPed for short) who advocate normalizing their attractions but would never would dare to even think of bringing up the possibility of the idea that sexual access to children is moral are gas-lighters.
Their name itself presupposes that any individual or pedophile that disagrees with them are not virtuous people and that they are morally superior. While I agree with them that pedophilic attractions should be destigmatized, in truth I think that they are brainwashed by societies propaganda into psychological slavery. I do not wish to associate with them as they do not wish to associate with me or people who share in my beliefs.
Speaking of assumptions, In my years of experience of discussing this topic with people and arguing in favor of pedophilia many of the same arguments are brought up time and time again. Their praxis hinges on many faulty assumptions and logically inconsistent argumentation. Most notably the notion that children aren't able to give meaningful consent because their brains have not matured to the point to fully comprehend sex along with the potential risks. Underneath this veneer of moralizing however lies something more sinister. I think it's reasonable to say that many people are simply disgusted by the idea of older teenagers and adults having sexual contact with prepubescent children. So they will argue anything they can to limit it happening.
This really comes from the falsehood of 'childhood innocence', gynocentrism, and the idea that sex is only for adults. This is evident in the fact that people harass and witch-hunt those who enjoy lolicon hentai. Which is basically pornographic drawn art of young anime girls or lolis as they are called. These are mere drawings and yet people want to ban it and berate those who partake of it simply because it resembles young girls. We're talking about entirely fictional scenarios here. I think that's sufficient evidence to indicate people's true intentions when it comes to this.
To really kick this off, what constitutes a 'child' itself is rather vague and is really pretty subjective and is mostly influenced by cultural values. I would say in the Anglo-American world, that is to include other first world English speaking countries as well, eighteen is generally viewed as the age in which one reaches adulthood. This has certainly not been the case for all of history and neither for the rest of the world today.
It's important to bring this up because where you draw the line at child and adult does have significance because words have meaning. It's clear to see that the age in which someone takes up certain responsibilities can be dictated by a society, when in reality we're all individuals so everybody is ready for certain things at different times. I don't believe that there's a true one-sized fits all solution for pretty much anything. Because that's ultimately what adulthood is in the anthropological sense, the age in which one assumes a certain level of responsibility not once held. I believe everyone reaches this age at different times in their lives so maybe the way we view it should be based on individual traits or characteristics and not necessarily an age set by the state.
With all that out of the way I would like to reiterate that I don't view sex as exclusively for adults while simultaneously I believe that what is widely considered to be 'adult age' to be a misnomer. For example I would categorize any girl that has started menstruating as a young woman, not a little girl. Though the rest of society currently doesn't see it that way, For clarification of what exactly I advocate for and what needs to change is, setting the age of consent for sexual intercourse at ten years old but also younger ages of consent if the parents or guardians of the child give partial consent. Set it up like it used to be in the United States. Saying that a child's brain is not fully developed therefore they can't have sex is tantamount to saying that they shouldn't be allowed to learn anything. Sex can be introduced to children just like anything else. You wouldn't teach a small child algebra before you teach them about basic arithmetic. My point being that you have to start from somewhere and introducing sex to children is not inherently harmful. The real reason why sex with children may be “harmful” in today's society is because society treats it as something awful. They demonize those who do it and participate in it. They view the children involved as victims regardless if they gave informed consent. People will often bring up anecdotal evidence saying that they had sexual contact with someone older when they were young and had a bad experience therefore it should be illegal. This is not much different from trying a new food and finding out that you don't like it and have an allergy to it. Maybe you just didn't like it and maybe it caused some pain or discomfort in some way but after the allergies go away there's no permanent damage. Just because someone's allergic to or doesn't like a certain food doesn't mean we ban it for everyone. Another example given would be when parents sign their children up for sports or extracurricular activities the children might not be interested in it at first but might grow to enjoy it and continue doing it later in life.
Even if they didn't enjoy it, it's not reasonable to charge the parents with a crime for non-enjoyment. It's also important to note that you could always give anecdotal evidence to the contrary, it's just not the socially acceptable view of the two and if someone comes out and says they didn't mind or even enjoyed having sexual experiences with older people as a child that they are somehow mentally ill. Simply for not going along with societies biased narrative. Yes there are children that do enjoy sex with older people and there's nothing wrong with that and there is verifiable evidence to prove this. There's more people who enjoyed sexual contact from older people as children but they are afraid to speak up and be ridiculed or criticized or just have been brainwashed by society to view themselves as victims.
However, some well-known people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Dawkins to name just two, have talked about their own experiences and concluded there was no harm done to them.
By the logic of the people who put forth the argument that children can't consent because their brains are not yet fully developed would have to also say that adult women can't give meaningful consent since the brain structure of men and women are fundamentally different. Women tend to score lower than men on average on intelligence tests and women are also known to be more impulsive and emotional than men. By this reasoning I could make the argument that women can't consent and that all sex is rape. Of course that's ridiculous and so is saying that children can't give consent to sex. People often give the power imbalance as an argument which is not unlike the brain development one. In actuality you can pretty much say there's power imbalances in everything and reduce everything to exploitation. That's where I see where these arguments against pedophilia draw inspiration from Marxist theory. In Marxism the wage laborer is always exploited by the capitalist, whether they know it or not. So even if they are aware of what they contribute to a given business venture and what they will receive in return and what the business owner provides and takes it's said the wage laborer can't give meaningful consent and that any transaction with profit is exploitation.
It's a rather nonsensical idea that has parallels to the arguments used in anti-pedophile rhetoric. With that being said there may be people saying, well even if that is true that children could give consent to sex, children just aren't interested in sex and wouldn't know about it and teaching young children about sexual intercourse is a form of corruption. This basically feeds off the idea that children are innocent little angels. In reality children are human beings just like everyone else. This argument moves the goalpost because it doesn't really matter if they have an interest in it or not what matters is if it is harmful. But this argument is demonstrably false as it is a well documented fact that many young children think about sex and have sexual desires and fantasies and that it is not a form of corruption but a natural inclination to partake in a fun activity that also propagates the survival of our species. I also must address the influence that feminism and gynocentrism has had in demonizing natural male sexuality and witch-hunting men that are pedophiles. This is pertinent because what I defend in specific is sexual relations between older guys and young girls. The role feminism and feminists have played in being monumental in demonizing pedophilia and pedophiles simply cannot be overlook no matter what people say. As a matter of fact the very first bill ever proposed by a woman in the house of representatives sought to raise the age of consent for sex to twenty one years old. This was back in 1895 when the age of consent for sex in the United states was twelve years old or younger and as young as seven years old in the state of Delaware. There are many theories as to why this is. It's a pretty widely known social phenomena that women often hate other women that are more attractive then themselves because they are spiteful and jealous. Since attractiveness really goes hand in hand with age, old hags often despise young girls simply for being cute and attractive. This is seen in women's desperate attempts to always make themselves look younger than they really are by using make-up and always trying anti-aging serums.
They want to spite men by raising the age of consent because they hate men and can't stand to see us happy and in loving relationships with young girls. They can't see the young girls happy either because they have what the old hags only dream of having. Raw natural youthful beauty. Gynocentrism also plays a large role in seeing men in relationships with young girls as predators and the young girls as victims. Society sees women in a similar light to children in the sense that they view them as vulnerable innocent angelic beings that can do no wrong and are deserving of protection.
This of course couldn't be further from the truth but it definitely impacts people's beliefs when it comes to the pedophilia question. I've found so many posts on various websites and forums of girls themselves admitting to have started masturbating anywhere from between five years old and twelve years old. I have found most commonly they admit to start masturbating around the age of eight or nine. So the notion that girls, no matter how young, are just pure innocent angels is a load of bologna. Sexual activity is clearly not exclusive to just adults or teenagers and there's no reason to think that this is harmful behavior other than society stigmatizing it. Now that I have dismantled the arguments put forth against pedophilia there isn't much else left but for people to say it's disgusting or illegal. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. There's plenty of things throughout history that were immoral but legal. Such is the case of slavery. It's ultimately just an appeal to authority argument. As for the idea that it's disgusting, well that's really just a matter of personal opinion and has no bearing on making something illegal or not.
There's plenty of things I personally find disgusting but ultimately it's not a personal attack on me and doesn't directly harm me so there's no sense in saying it shouldn't be allowed. Saying it's disgusting and therefore should be illegal is the equivalent of people who get irrationally upset at those who enjoy pineapple as a topping on their pizza and saying they should die. However the latter is done usually in jest but my point still stands. In addition to lowering the age of consent to ten years old, we should also decriminalize child pornography.
Ideally in a better world porn would be less prevalent because people would have their own sexual partners but I certainly don't believe it should be a criminal offense to view it. You can already find videos of mass shootings and snuff films on the internet. If people are to say viewing child pornography should be a crime for victimizing children than you should be charged with partial murder for viewing a snuff film. It's really ridiculous the more you think about it.
The only distinction between people having to view child porn in a court case against someone caught viewing child pornography is that the defendant was presumably pleasuring themselves to it while the jury was not. I won't go into further detail here about that however, perhaps another time I will explain why child porn laws often result in the opposite of the intended effect. Same thing with the sex offender registry. The sex offender registry should be abolished for being a puritanical draconian misandric state sanctioned hate list. But again, more on that another day.
That about concludes the pedophile manifesto.
I definitely could have gone into further detail in certain areas but for the sake of this being the general outline of my beliefs on pedophilia I kept to the basics. This is a manifesto, not an entire book.
The relevant links to referenced information and further reading below.
I know the time is ripe for a change and that what is needed is someone like myself who doesn't have as much to lose and isn't as afraid as others to speak truth to power and lead us back to an enlightened society and out of the ever emerging new dark age.
Shout-outs to
Pro-pedophile activists Amos Yee, Nathan Larson and Nelson Maatman.
I'd also like to shout-out all my supporters on FreeSpeechtube.org and in the incelosophere.
Special shout outs to Eivind Berge and The Savannah Ape on YouTube and to EroMod and Galileo2333 on BitChute and Special thanks to Cranium99 and EroMod again on YouTube for being long time dedicated supporters of mine.
Apologies if I missed anybody.
- Joseph Sneep
October 4th, 2022
YouTube- Joseph Sneep
discord- (dm me for "joseph sneep discord)
@Sneep
(I do not support or condone anything said in this manifesto)-Copiumx
@truthhurts @AOL @noobs
– by Joseph Sneep
This document shall be the definitive outline of my beliefs pertaining to pedophilia. My arguments in favor of it and my rebuttals to arguments against it. I hold to the belief that there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. By which I mean how it is defined in psychiatry. An individual aged sixteen years old or older who is attracted to another individual eleven years old or younger. In other words one who is attracted to prepubescents.
I also support minor attracted people. Those who may not be attracted to prepubescents but are attracted to those under the age of consent or societal norm. I think that it's important to define the terms here so that there are no misconceptions. I'm not using pedophile in the way that society often uses the word, that being calling a man in his twenties attracted to girls sixteen or seventeen a pedophile when they have already gone through puberty, It's also important to note that not everyone who is a pedophile acts on their attractions. Pedophile simply implies the attraction. This is important because people often use the term predator, child molester, and pedophile interchangeably. In reality these three are all different from each other. There are pedophiles who are in favor of more societal acceptance for pedophiles but do not believe that sexual access to children is moral or ever will be moral. There's a group of these individuals who call themselves 'Virtuous Pedophiles' and I take great issue with them for numerable reasons. Because I am someone who is not only in favor of normalizing pedophilic attractions but also in that the government and society at large should recognize romantic and sexual pedophilic relationships as moral and therefore not criminal.
Not only do I say that there is nothing wrong with this attraction I would say that it is even a virtue and the relationships can be just as good if not often times better than the alternative. I believe that the so-called 'Virtuous Pedophiles' (VirPed for short) who advocate normalizing their attractions but would never would dare to even think of bringing up the possibility of the idea that sexual access to children is moral are gas-lighters.
Their name itself presupposes that any individual or pedophile that disagrees with them are not virtuous people and that they are morally superior. While I agree with them that pedophilic attractions should be destigmatized, in truth I think that they are brainwashed by societies propaganda into psychological slavery. I do not wish to associate with them as they do not wish to associate with me or people who share in my beliefs.
Speaking of assumptions, In my years of experience of discussing this topic with people and arguing in favor of pedophilia many of the same arguments are brought up time and time again. Their praxis hinges on many faulty assumptions and logically inconsistent argumentation. Most notably the notion that children aren't able to give meaningful consent because their brains have not matured to the point to fully comprehend sex along with the potential risks. Underneath this veneer of moralizing however lies something more sinister. I think it's reasonable to say that many people are simply disgusted by the idea of older teenagers and adults having sexual contact with prepubescent children. So they will argue anything they can to limit it happening.
This really comes from the falsehood of 'childhood innocence', gynocentrism, and the idea that sex is only for adults. This is evident in the fact that people harass and witch-hunt those who enjoy lolicon hentai. Which is basically pornographic drawn art of young anime girls or lolis as they are called. These are mere drawings and yet people want to ban it and berate those who partake of it simply because it resembles young girls. We're talking about entirely fictional scenarios here. I think that's sufficient evidence to indicate people's true intentions when it comes to this.
To really kick this off, what constitutes a 'child' itself is rather vague and is really pretty subjective and is mostly influenced by cultural values. I would say in the Anglo-American world, that is to include other first world English speaking countries as well, eighteen is generally viewed as the age in which one reaches adulthood. This has certainly not been the case for all of history and neither for the rest of the world today.
It's important to bring this up because where you draw the line at child and adult does have significance because words have meaning. It's clear to see that the age in which someone takes up certain responsibilities can be dictated by a society, when in reality we're all individuals so everybody is ready for certain things at different times. I don't believe that there's a true one-sized fits all solution for pretty much anything. Because that's ultimately what adulthood is in the anthropological sense, the age in which one assumes a certain level of responsibility not once held. I believe everyone reaches this age at different times in their lives so maybe the way we view it should be based on individual traits or characteristics and not necessarily an age set by the state.
With all that out of the way I would like to reiterate that I don't view sex as exclusively for adults while simultaneously I believe that what is widely considered to be 'adult age' to be a misnomer. For example I would categorize any girl that has started menstruating as a young woman, not a little girl. Though the rest of society currently doesn't see it that way, For clarification of what exactly I advocate for and what needs to change is, setting the age of consent for sexual intercourse at ten years old but also younger ages of consent if the parents or guardians of the child give partial consent. Set it up like it used to be in the United States. Saying that a child's brain is not fully developed therefore they can't have sex is tantamount to saying that they shouldn't be allowed to learn anything. Sex can be introduced to children just like anything else. You wouldn't teach a small child algebra before you teach them about basic arithmetic. My point being that you have to start from somewhere and introducing sex to children is not inherently harmful. The real reason why sex with children may be “harmful” in today's society is because society treats it as something awful. They demonize those who do it and participate in it. They view the children involved as victims regardless if they gave informed consent. People will often bring up anecdotal evidence saying that they had sexual contact with someone older when they were young and had a bad experience therefore it should be illegal. This is not much different from trying a new food and finding out that you don't like it and have an allergy to it. Maybe you just didn't like it and maybe it caused some pain or discomfort in some way but after the allergies go away there's no permanent damage. Just because someone's allergic to or doesn't like a certain food doesn't mean we ban it for everyone. Another example given would be when parents sign their children up for sports or extracurricular activities the children might not be interested in it at first but might grow to enjoy it and continue doing it later in life.
Even if they didn't enjoy it, it's not reasonable to charge the parents with a crime for non-enjoyment. It's also important to note that you could always give anecdotal evidence to the contrary, it's just not the socially acceptable view of the two and if someone comes out and says they didn't mind or even enjoyed having sexual experiences with older people as a child that they are somehow mentally ill. Simply for not going along with societies biased narrative. Yes there are children that do enjoy sex with older people and there's nothing wrong with that and there is verifiable evidence to prove this. There's more people who enjoyed sexual contact from older people as children but they are afraid to speak up and be ridiculed or criticized or just have been brainwashed by society to view themselves as victims.
However, some well-known people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Dawkins to name just two, have talked about their own experiences and concluded there was no harm done to them.
By the logic of the people who put forth the argument that children can't consent because their brains are not yet fully developed would have to also say that adult women can't give meaningful consent since the brain structure of men and women are fundamentally different. Women tend to score lower than men on average on intelligence tests and women are also known to be more impulsive and emotional than men. By this reasoning I could make the argument that women can't consent and that all sex is rape. Of course that's ridiculous and so is saying that children can't give consent to sex. People often give the power imbalance as an argument which is not unlike the brain development one. In actuality you can pretty much say there's power imbalances in everything and reduce everything to exploitation. That's where I see where these arguments against pedophilia draw inspiration from Marxist theory. In Marxism the wage laborer is always exploited by the capitalist, whether they know it or not. So even if they are aware of what they contribute to a given business venture and what they will receive in return and what the business owner provides and takes it's said the wage laborer can't give meaningful consent and that any transaction with profit is exploitation.
It's a rather nonsensical idea that has parallels to the arguments used in anti-pedophile rhetoric. With that being said there may be people saying, well even if that is true that children could give consent to sex, children just aren't interested in sex and wouldn't know about it and teaching young children about sexual intercourse is a form of corruption. This basically feeds off the idea that children are innocent little angels. In reality children are human beings just like everyone else. This argument moves the goalpost because it doesn't really matter if they have an interest in it or not what matters is if it is harmful. But this argument is demonstrably false as it is a well documented fact that many young children think about sex and have sexual desires and fantasies and that it is not a form of corruption but a natural inclination to partake in a fun activity that also propagates the survival of our species. I also must address the influence that feminism and gynocentrism has had in demonizing natural male sexuality and witch-hunting men that are pedophiles. This is pertinent because what I defend in specific is sexual relations between older guys and young girls. The role feminism and feminists have played in being monumental in demonizing pedophilia and pedophiles simply cannot be overlook no matter what people say. As a matter of fact the very first bill ever proposed by a woman in the house of representatives sought to raise the age of consent for sex to twenty one years old. This was back in 1895 when the age of consent for sex in the United states was twelve years old or younger and as young as seven years old in the state of Delaware. There are many theories as to why this is. It's a pretty widely known social phenomena that women often hate other women that are more attractive then themselves because they are spiteful and jealous. Since attractiveness really goes hand in hand with age, old hags often despise young girls simply for being cute and attractive. This is seen in women's desperate attempts to always make themselves look younger than they really are by using make-up and always trying anti-aging serums.
They want to spite men by raising the age of consent because they hate men and can't stand to see us happy and in loving relationships with young girls. They can't see the young girls happy either because they have what the old hags only dream of having. Raw natural youthful beauty. Gynocentrism also plays a large role in seeing men in relationships with young girls as predators and the young girls as victims. Society sees women in a similar light to children in the sense that they view them as vulnerable innocent angelic beings that can do no wrong and are deserving of protection.
This of course couldn't be further from the truth but it definitely impacts people's beliefs when it comes to the pedophilia question. I've found so many posts on various websites and forums of girls themselves admitting to have started masturbating anywhere from between five years old and twelve years old. I have found most commonly they admit to start masturbating around the age of eight or nine. So the notion that girls, no matter how young, are just pure innocent angels is a load of bologna. Sexual activity is clearly not exclusive to just adults or teenagers and there's no reason to think that this is harmful behavior other than society stigmatizing it. Now that I have dismantled the arguments put forth against pedophilia there isn't much else left but for people to say it's disgusting or illegal. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. There's plenty of things throughout history that were immoral but legal. Such is the case of slavery. It's ultimately just an appeal to authority argument. As for the idea that it's disgusting, well that's really just a matter of personal opinion and has no bearing on making something illegal or not.
There's plenty of things I personally find disgusting but ultimately it's not a personal attack on me and doesn't directly harm me so there's no sense in saying it shouldn't be allowed. Saying it's disgusting and therefore should be illegal is the equivalent of people who get irrationally upset at those who enjoy pineapple as a topping on their pizza and saying they should die. However the latter is done usually in jest but my point still stands. In addition to lowering the age of consent to ten years old, we should also decriminalize child pornography.
Ideally in a better world porn would be less prevalent because people would have their own sexual partners but I certainly don't believe it should be a criminal offense to view it. You can already find videos of mass shootings and snuff films on the internet. If people are to say viewing child pornography should be a crime for victimizing children than you should be charged with partial murder for viewing a snuff film. It's really ridiculous the more you think about it.
The only distinction between people having to view child porn in a court case against someone caught viewing child pornography is that the defendant was presumably pleasuring themselves to it while the jury was not. I won't go into further detail here about that however, perhaps another time I will explain why child porn laws often result in the opposite of the intended effect. Same thing with the sex offender registry. The sex offender registry should be abolished for being a puritanical draconian misandric state sanctioned hate list. But again, more on that another day.
That about concludes the pedophile manifesto.
I definitely could have gone into further detail in certain areas but for the sake of this being the general outline of my beliefs on pedophilia I kept to the basics. This is a manifesto, not an entire book.
The relevant links to referenced information and further reading below.
I know the time is ripe for a change and that what is needed is someone like myself who doesn't have as much to lose and isn't as afraid as others to speak truth to power and lead us back to an enlightened society and out of the ever emerging new dark age.
Shout-outs to
Pro-pedophile activists Amos Yee, Nathan Larson and Nelson Maatman.
I'd also like to shout-out all my supporters on FreeSpeechtube.org and in the incelosophere.
Special shout outs to Eivind Berge and The Savannah Ape on YouTube and to EroMod and Galileo2333 on BitChute and Special thanks to Cranium99 and EroMod again on YouTube for being long time dedicated supporters of mine.
Apologies if I missed anybody.
- Joseph Sneep
October 4th, 2022
YouTube- Joseph Sneep
discord- (dm me for "joseph sneep discord)
@Sneep
(I do not support or condone anything said in this manifesto)-Copiumx
@truthhurts @AOL @noobs
