Deleted member 6723
ㅤ
- Joined
- May 1, 2020
- Posts
- 21,089
- Reputation
- 55,196
There should be no age of consent. If a man wants to fuck his newborn fresh out of the womb, it should be his right. The laws on age of consent should be abolished for multiple reasons.
(1) Who is “ready” or “mature” enough for sex is arbitrary and subjective. The argument for age of consent laws is that children are not ready for sex or too “immature” to consent. The problem with this logic is that the age cutoff for consent is very arbitrary and the maturity of a child cannot be objectively measured. Who are we to say that someone who is 17 year old and 364 days is “too immature” for sex but then one day later on their 18th birthday, *BAM* all of the sudden they are grown up and mature and ready enough for sex? It could also be possible for someone younger to be more mature than that 17 year old as well.
(2) Age of consent laws have led to unfair prosecutions in victimless crimes. So if a 14 year old boy sends a dick pic to his 14 year old girlfriend, he could get charged with “child pornography” and become a registered sex offender. This logically does not make any sense because both parties are consenting and their is no harm being done. Even if you are a normie who sees adult/child relationships as “exploitive”, it would not make sense under this scenario since both parties are the same age. But because feminism makes it seem as if all men are demons, of course it’s usually men who get punished for having sex with women with equal power/advantages. This is why it’s men who get thrown in prison when a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman as well.
Technically, you can argue that there is an imbalance of power between an adult and a child, but you can also use that argument between male/female relationships since men are physically stronger than women and women have more social power. Relationships between rich/poor people also have an imbalance. In general, almost all relationships involve an imbalance of power one way or another and could be seen as exploitive in some way. Age is no different.
If an adult were to have sex with a child, I believe that it shouldn’t be classified as exploitation. Exploitation is only if you have nothing to gain from it. If someone learns what sex is and agrees to it, it’s fair game regardless of age and there’s no reason why it should be deemed exploitive since both are getting something out of it (pleasure).
(3) A human right is the pursuit of happiness (including sex). To make a minimum age requirement to participate in sex is to deny the right to the pursuit of happiness. This is a form of age discrimination and therefore ageist. If there was a law where people of certain races/sexualities are not allow to have sex, society will complain about how “racist” or “homophobic” it is. If the argument for being pro-homosexual is that homosexuals don’t choose their sexuality, the same should be extended to pedophiles. A lot of liberals believe that children should be allowed to get a sex change because
because it would make transgender children happier if they are able to live as the opposite sex. In that case, why not extend the same right to have sex? Children will surely be happier if they can engage in these types of pleasures.
(4) Females are naturally meant to be property and are not deserving of the same human rights as men, so even if abolishing the age of consent will lead to “child rape” against females, there is no reason why there should be anti-rape laws to protect females in the first place. Patriarchy is the natural order and it is men’s nature to put females in their place (even through rape). It is female nature to be three holes to please men and serve men. Anti-pedophile legislation is rooted in the feminist idea that females need to be protected by “predatory men”. Feminists claim that females are equal to men and should be treated as such, but at the same time need to be protected and coddled from the evil oppressive men! Sorry miss, but you cannot have it both ways. The fact that still females need special protection in a world where females have already achieved equality and in fact, now have more privileges than men shows that females are not equal to men. They are still more vulnerable biologically (due to being weaker), despite having more legal and societal power. Because of this, females do not deserve to have the same rights as men or be regarded as human. They are an inferior species who are meant to be the property of men. If they are property, then men can do whatever they want with them, including rape. @Leucosticte has already mentioned why both men and women will be happier in a patriarchal society and I agree (The sexes can't get together anymore, the way society is set up). Feminist dominance in society has made men full of rage (which leads to school shootings and mass murders) since they are expected to suppress their true nature and get punished if they don’t act like women. They are also expected to suppress their natural desire to have sex with young prime females (due to AOC laws) which also builds up into violence. It also made females unhappy because they now have to work hard like men and are not able to be put in their place by a man and live a relaxing life of staying home and looking after babies in the first place. Many females also have rape fantasies but are now stuck with mainly soycucked men in their dating pool, so they just go for the small percentages of dominant Chads while most men are excluded and will die alone or have to settle with leftovers who are 30+ year old single moms who have been gangbanged by 50+ men.
Even if abolishing the age of consent will mean legalizing rape, it is justified for this reason. Getting rid of feminism, re-establishing patriarchy, and legalizing rape (including child rape) will increase the overall happiness for everyone. Even females who have been raped may grow to enjoy it. When men are no longer expected to suppress their sexual tendencies, they would be less likely to blow up and commit violence (even sexual violence).
(5) The age of consent laws also go against biology. In many US states, the AOC is 18, but females usually start their period younger (around 9-14 years old). Menstruation is mother nature’s way of telling females that their bodies are now ready to carry a baby. The youngest female to have a period and carry a child was 4 years old! When females get older, their fertility declines, and they have to hurry up to find a mate to have babies with before it’s too late. Expecting prime fertile females to wait 9 years to reproduce when their ability to reproduce will decline over time is simply cruel. Even if a female is young and hasn’t started her period yet, sex can be a valuable way to teach her how to please her mate when the time comes.
Remember, females are biologically programmed to please men with her 3 holes, bear children for men, and to serve men. The earlier you train them (including sexually), the easier it is to turn them into a good lover, wife, and mother for her future husband. The lack of quality females who are marriage material today is why there’s a meme that Gen-Z men say “females born after 1993 can’t cook, clean....they just charge they phone, eat hot chip, and lie”. Another way that the age of consent laws goes against biology is that it ignores the fact that men are biologically inclined to be attracted to younger females, not older ones since younger females have stronger, more fertile bodies and are therefore more ideal for making babies. Younger pregnant females are also less likely to give birth to babies with birth defects and tend to carry healthier babies as well, so it’s only natural for a man to prefer a younger female to have babies with. A female who waited until adulthood will have to rush through the baby making process to avoid declining in fertility or increasing her chances of carrying a defective child.
lmao i copied this back in sept 6 2020 from rapey.org
(1) Who is “ready” or “mature” enough for sex is arbitrary and subjective. The argument for age of consent laws is that children are not ready for sex or too “immature” to consent. The problem with this logic is that the age cutoff for consent is very arbitrary and the maturity of a child cannot be objectively measured. Who are we to say that someone who is 17 year old and 364 days is “too immature” for sex but then one day later on their 18th birthday, *BAM* all of the sudden they are grown up and mature and ready enough for sex? It could also be possible for someone younger to be more mature than that 17 year old as well.
(2) Age of consent laws have led to unfair prosecutions in victimless crimes. So if a 14 year old boy sends a dick pic to his 14 year old girlfriend, he could get charged with “child pornography” and become a registered sex offender. This logically does not make any sense because both parties are consenting and their is no harm being done. Even if you are a normie who sees adult/child relationships as “exploitive”, it would not make sense under this scenario since both parties are the same age. But because feminism makes it seem as if all men are demons, of course it’s usually men who get punished for having sex with women with equal power/advantages. This is why it’s men who get thrown in prison when a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman as well.
Technically, you can argue that there is an imbalance of power between an adult and a child, but you can also use that argument between male/female relationships since men are physically stronger than women and women have more social power. Relationships between rich/poor people also have an imbalance. In general, almost all relationships involve an imbalance of power one way or another and could be seen as exploitive in some way. Age is no different.
If an adult were to have sex with a child, I believe that it shouldn’t be classified as exploitation. Exploitation is only if you have nothing to gain from it. If someone learns what sex is and agrees to it, it’s fair game regardless of age and there’s no reason why it should be deemed exploitive since both are getting something out of it (pleasure).
(3) A human right is the pursuit of happiness (including sex). To make a minimum age requirement to participate in sex is to deny the right to the pursuit of happiness. This is a form of age discrimination and therefore ageist. If there was a law where people of certain races/sexualities are not allow to have sex, society will complain about how “racist” or “homophobic” it is. If the argument for being pro-homosexual is that homosexuals don’t choose their sexuality, the same should be extended to pedophiles. A lot of liberals believe that children should be allowed to get a sex change because
because it would make transgender children happier if they are able to live as the opposite sex. In that case, why not extend the same right to have sex? Children will surely be happier if they can engage in these types of pleasures.
(4) Females are naturally meant to be property and are not deserving of the same human rights as men, so even if abolishing the age of consent will lead to “child rape” against females, there is no reason why there should be anti-rape laws to protect females in the first place. Patriarchy is the natural order and it is men’s nature to put females in their place (even through rape). It is female nature to be three holes to please men and serve men. Anti-pedophile legislation is rooted in the feminist idea that females need to be protected by “predatory men”. Feminists claim that females are equal to men and should be treated as such, but at the same time need to be protected and coddled from the evil oppressive men! Sorry miss, but you cannot have it both ways. The fact that still females need special protection in a world where females have already achieved equality and in fact, now have more privileges than men shows that females are not equal to men. They are still more vulnerable biologically (due to being weaker), despite having more legal and societal power. Because of this, females do not deserve to have the same rights as men or be regarded as human. They are an inferior species who are meant to be the property of men. If they are property, then men can do whatever they want with them, including rape. @Leucosticte has already mentioned why both men and women will be happier in a patriarchal society and I agree (The sexes can't get together anymore, the way society is set up). Feminist dominance in society has made men full of rage (which leads to school shootings and mass murders) since they are expected to suppress their true nature and get punished if they don’t act like women. They are also expected to suppress their natural desire to have sex with young prime females (due to AOC laws) which also builds up into violence. It also made females unhappy because they now have to work hard like men and are not able to be put in their place by a man and live a relaxing life of staying home and looking after babies in the first place. Many females also have rape fantasies but are now stuck with mainly soycucked men in their dating pool, so they just go for the small percentages of dominant Chads while most men are excluded and will die alone or have to settle with leftovers who are 30+ year old single moms who have been gangbanged by 50+ men.
Even if abolishing the age of consent will mean legalizing rape, it is justified for this reason. Getting rid of feminism, re-establishing patriarchy, and legalizing rape (including child rape) will increase the overall happiness for everyone. Even females who have been raped may grow to enjoy it. When men are no longer expected to suppress their sexual tendencies, they would be less likely to blow up and commit violence (even sexual violence).
(5) The age of consent laws also go against biology. In many US states, the AOC is 18, but females usually start their period younger (around 9-14 years old). Menstruation is mother nature’s way of telling females that their bodies are now ready to carry a baby. The youngest female to have a period and carry a child was 4 years old! When females get older, their fertility declines, and they have to hurry up to find a mate to have babies with before it’s too late. Expecting prime fertile females to wait 9 years to reproduce when their ability to reproduce will decline over time is simply cruel. Even if a female is young and hasn’t started her period yet, sex can be a valuable way to teach her how to please her mate when the time comes.
Remember, females are biologically programmed to please men with her 3 holes, bear children for men, and to serve men. The earlier you train them (including sexually), the easier it is to turn them into a good lover, wife, and mother for her future husband. The lack of quality females who are marriage material today is why there’s a meme that Gen-Z men say “females born after 1993 can’t cook, clean....they just charge they phone, eat hot chip, and lie”. Another way that the age of consent laws goes against biology is that it ignores the fact that men are biologically inclined to be attracted to younger females, not older ones since younger females have stronger, more fertile bodies and are therefore more ideal for making babies. Younger pregnant females are also less likely to give birth to babies with birth defects and tend to carry healthier babies as well, so it’s only natural for a man to prefer a younger female to have babies with. A female who waited until adulthood will have to rush through the baby making process to avoid declining in fertility or increasing her chances of carrying a defective child.
lmao i copied this back in sept 6 2020 from rapey.org
Last edited:
