Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Venting Grouping sexual attraction towards sexually developed teenagers and pedophilia together is so fucking retarded.

Mainländer

Mainländer

Songwritercel
★★★★★
Joined
May 2, 2018
Posts
38,284
Today on my bus going home I met my ex boss with his family. He has two daughters, one is like 6 and the other one is still a baby. I chatted with everyone, I was happy to see them after a fairly long time.

I noticed how I felt 0 sexual attraction towards his 6 yo daughter, even though she's kinda cute (he's himself a high tier normie). You can see that kids that age are still very silly and pretty much everything they do is merely copying what they see others doing in a still rudimentary way. My boss said something as a joke to tease her and blinked his eye to me so that I knew it was him teasing her. She proceed to say something alike and also blink her eye, with some difficulty, in that typical childish manner. I would never fuck a girl like that, even if we were the last people on Earth. I'd wait to do it.

It's completely and utterly retarded to say that wanting to stick your penis in a small child like her is the same as wanting to do it with some sexually developed girl who is already fertile and can bear your child. Nowadays, very likely already sexually active as well. "Oh but she can only do it if it's a guy her age". That's some bullshit, arbitrary shit pulled straight out of some crazy feminist's ass. God/nature made it so teenage girls can get pregnant, no matter if the guy who has sex with them is 14 or 40. Deal with it.

You could argue that usually, people will have relationships with someone around their age. Yeah,ok, but that's not a rule. It's the same with friendships, really. Most of your friends will probably be around your age, but some won't. Most of my friends are 31, 29, around my age. But I have friends around 40, just as I have some who are around 14 or 18. There are some advantages to an older man dating a younger girl; if she gets pregnant, he'll statistically be more capable of supporting the child. Not to mention older people are more responsible in general, so the chances of her getting pregnant without it being planned are smaller in general with an older guy.

On a related note, I was looking at old pictures of myself the other day. I saw a picture of me when I was myself around 6. I was standing in front of my house's gate. I went there to check the height and I was as tall as my navel is now. Looking at another pic of me when I was around 14, I was already pretty much the same height as I am now. Everybody knows that when you're young, one year is already tons of difference in terms of maturity, physical development, etc. So why do people keep treating being naturally attracted to sexually developed young girls as if it were the same as being a pedophile who wants to fuck toddlers or something? It's truly retarded, I don't get it at all.
 
Last edited:
I respect your attempts I've trying to explain NH how being attracted to teenage women is normal but I think it's ultimately useless.
Normies don't listen,they just react with repulsion and dismiss your arguments.
 
I dont think anyone genuinelly believes the two are the same thing, they group it together as a psychological tool to enforce societal norms
 
I dont think anyone genuinelly believes the two are the same thing, they group it together as a psychological tool to enforce societal norms
IT talks as if they were the same thing. Maybe quantitatively different, but qualitatively, the same.

Actually, not only IT, all feminists and cucks and even some normies do it.
 
I see your point, but in our present culture the least-worst-case scenario is meritocracy. AKA everybody, male and female, must complete a childhood of celibacy in order to earn the entitlement to a spouse.
 
I see your point, but in our present culture the least-worst-case scenario is meritocracy. AKA everybody, male and female, must complete a childhood of celibacy in order to earn the entitlement to a spouse.
Could you explain that better?
 
It honestly sounds like you're trying to convince yourself so you can assure yourself you arent wrong, and honestly you shouldn't need to. If you see a well developed young girl, and your body responds, I dont see how that's your fault, or how it makes you fucked in the head.

Makes you wonder how many men out there are in denial, taking a holier than thou moral approach, when they themselves deep down feel the same way.

Then you have people who make memes like this
As if none of the girls are well developed and sexually attractive.


All the while jacking off to the shit themselves. My point is. You only have one life, as long as you arent raping anyone or trying to have sex with an infant, do you.
 
Could you explain that better?
Foids shouldn't be able to get away with getting out of studying and working by getting married earlier than men.
 
Today on my bus going home I met my ex boss with his family. He has two daughters, one is like 6 and the other one is still a baby. I chatted with everyone, I was happy to see them after a fairly long time.

I noticed how I felt 0 sexual attraction towards his 6 yo daughter, even though she's kinda cute (he's himself a high tier normie). You can see that kids that age are still very silly and pretty much everything they do is merely copying what they see others doing in a still rudimentary way. My boss said something as a joke to tease her and blinked his eye to me so that I knew it was him teasing her. She proceed to say something alike and also blink her eye, with some difficulty, in that typical childish manner. I would never fuck a girl like that, even if we were the last people on Earth. I'd wait to do it.

It's completely and utterly retarded to say that wanting to stick your penis in a small child like her is the same as wanting to do it with some sexually developed girl who is already fertile and can bear your child. Nowadays, very likely already sexually active as well. "Oh but she can only do it if it's a guy her age". That's some bullshit, arbitrary shit pulled straight out of some crazy feminist's ass. God/nature made it so teenage girls can get pregnant, no matter if the guy who has sex with them is 14 or 40. Deal with it.

You could argue that usually, people will have relationships with someone around their age. Yeah,ok, but that's not a rule. It's the same with friendships, really. Most of your friends will probably be around your age, but some won't. Most of my friends are 31, 29, around my age. But I have friends around 40, just as I have some who are around 14 or 18. There are some advantages to an older man dating a younger girl; if she gets pregnant, he'll statistically be more capable of supporting the child. Not to mention older people are more responsible in general, so the chances of her getting pregnant without it being planned are smaller in general with an older guy.

On a related note, I was looking at old pictures of myself the other day. I saw a picture of me when I was myself around 6. I was standing in front of my house's gate. I went there to check the height and I was as tall as my navel is now. Looking at another pic of me when I was around 14, I was already pretty much the same height as I am now. Everybody knows that when you're young, one year is already tons of difference in terms of maturity, physical development, etc. So why do people keep treating being naturally attracted to sexually developed young girls as if it were the same as being a pedophile who wants to fuck toddlers or something? It's truly retarded, I don't get it at all.

Yeah, even online the real pedos that try to meme prepubertal girls as being hot or something are exceedingly rare.

It's a cruel thing, this weird desire that you get for late teenage women when you hit your 30s, just when society has made just about sure that you're shackled to the shitty women your age.
That's all it is really, just a social construct (a real one) to make sure used up old women aren't left behind, and that successful and productive men are shackled to them so that the state doesn't have to provide for them.
This is heinous especially given that the state could easily provide for those shitty old women if it wasn't corrupt, but it's so money hungry nowadays that it will look for any possible excuse, meme, or underhanded law to somehow shackle a productive man to an undesireable woman and make sure she is paid for one way or another.
 
It honestly sounds like you're trying to convince yourself so you can assure yourself you arent wrong, and honestly you shouldn't need to. If you see a well developed young girl, and your body responds, I dont see how that's your fault, or how it makes you fucked in the head.

Makes you wonder how many men out there are in denial, taking a holier than thou moral approach, when they themselves deep down feel the same way.

Then you have people who make memes like this
As if none of the girls are well developed and sexually attractive.


All the while jacking off to the shit themselves. My point is. You only have one life, as long as you arent raping anyone or trying to have sex with an infant, do you.
I just feel like posting about it constantly because the bulk of people who have those absurd ideas, which are passed as sacrosanct, obvious, universal truths, is so immense that I want to use the space I have to constantly against them. If one cuck revised his values because of this post, it was already good enough. Also I like to vent my thoughts.

Foids shouldn't be able to get away with getting out of studying and working by getting married earlier than men.
I think foids shouldn't get much education beyond literacy and basic math unless they're clearly intellectually blessed, so much that it would justify jeopardizing their gender role (motherhood and household tasks) to put them to study and work instead.
 
The age of consent should be 15
 
Today on my bus going home I met my ex boss with his family. He has two daughters, one is like 6 and the other one is still a baby. I chatted with everyone, I was happy to see them after a fairly long time.

I noticed how I felt 0 sexual attraction towards his 6 yo daughter, even though she's kinda cute (he's himself a high tier normie). You can see that kids that age are still very silly and pretty much everything they do is merely copying what they see others doing in a still rudimentary way. My boss said something as a joke to tease her and blinked his eye to me so that I knew it was him teasing her. She proceed to say something alike and also blink her eye, with some difficulty, in that typical childish manner. I would never fuck a girl like that, even if we were the last people on Earth. I'd wait to do it.

It's completely and utterly retarded to say that wanting to stick your penis in a small child like her is the same as wanting to do it with some sexually developed girl who is already fertile and can bear your child. Nowadays, very likely already sexually active as well. "Oh but she can only do it if it's a guy her age". That's some bullshit, arbitrary shit pulled straight out of some crazy feminist's ass. God/nature made it so teenage girls can get pregnant, no matter if the guy who has sex with them is 14 or 40. Deal with it.

You could argue that usually, people will have relationships with someone around their age. Yeah,ok, but that's not a rule. It's the same with friendships, really. Most of your friends will probably be around your age, but some won't. Most of my friends are 31, 29, around my age. But I have friends around 40, just as I have some who are around 14 or 18. There are some advantages to an older man dating a younger girl; if she gets pregnant, he'll statistically be more capable of supporting the child. Not to mention older people are more responsible in general, so the chances of her getting pregnant without it being planned are smaller in general with an older guy.

On a related note, I was looking at old pictures of myself the other day. I saw a picture of me when I was myself around 6. I was standing in front of my house's gate. I went there to check the height and I was as tall as my navel is now. Looking at another pic of me when I was around 14, I was already pretty much the same height as I am now. Everybody knows that when you're young, one year is already tons of difference in terms of maturity, physical development, etc. So why do people keep treating being naturally attracted to sexually developed young girls as if it were the same as being a pedophile who wants to fuck toddlers or something? It's truly retarded, I don't get it at all.
Well written thought-out post man ngl!
Feminists just want to demonize you into finding their old hag ass attractive.
 
"17 year old child"
Downloadfile
 
It's actually an interesting basis for qualifying the disparity between the TPN and DMN, for there is a quantitative metric of penile blood volume as a proxy to arousal (empirical measure), and then the subjective metric of purported arousal induced by the "stimulus" (moral truth). It certainly is a great example of the existence of two forms of "truth."


In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’ and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10 years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).


A new study of Bulgarian men has replicated a previous 2013 experiment on British men. In both studies, the same photographs of adolescent girls (Tanner stages 3-4) were shown to one group of men labelled as age 14-15, and a different set of men labelled as age 16-17. Subjects reported more sexual attraction when the photographs were labelled as 16-17. The researchers conclude:

[T]he consistent finding that the same photographs of younger females, but with different age labels, were assigned significantly different levels of attractiveness suggests that cognitive factors beyond biologically driven sexual attraction were involved in making these ratings. In all the three samples, apparently younger girls were rated as less attractive than older girls despite being the same photographs. We hypothesize that this difference reflects some self-censoring mechanism involved in making such judgments. This may involve a form of comparison between participants’ own sexual attraction to the individual girl and the likely social norms surrounding this judgment.

This finding has now been replicated across four samples, including one that is yet to be reported.


Conventional

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations.
The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.[7][8][9]


Finally, we have demonstrated that attention to engaging social stimuli not only activates the DMN but also deactivates the TPN. In a subsequent study[30] it was shown that this pattern of DMN activation and TPN deactivation was present for humanizing depictions of individuals, whereas dehumanizing depictions, which are associated with decreased moral concern, either involved decreased activity in the DMN or increased activity in the TPN. Taken together, these findings suggest that we are neurologically constrained from simultaneously exercising moral concern and analytic thinking.


"These findings," Friedman continued, "are consistent with the philosophical view, espoused by (Immanuel) Kant, according to which there are two distinct types of truth: empirical and moral."

It's really actually useful for this reason, for it serves as a great foundation for numerous experiments. Particularly useful with concurrent fMRI, which seems possible.


An important class of physiological noise correction methods relies on recording, concurrently with the fMRI acquisition, external cardiac and respiratory signals by means of appropriate sensors, usually a plethysmograph and a respiratory belt, respectively.

We can already predict that the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal of the brain will increase in the DMN if the age is socioculturally "sensitive"; conversely, there will not be such "toggling" from the TPN into the DMN if the age isn't socioculturally sensitive. That is, indeed, what those researchers suggested, but they didn't use the term "conventional moral truth," rather saying:


We hypothesize that this difference reflects some self-censoring mechanism involved in making such judgments. This may involve a form of comparison between participants’ own sexual attraction to the individual girl and the likely social norms surrounding this judgment.

however, this is an expression of conventional moral reasoning;


Conventional

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations.

I would be interested in coupling it with something like the following;


Perceptual experience consists of an enormous number of possible states. Previous fMRI studies have predicted a perceptual state by classifying brain activity into prespecified categories.

except with it being as the previous ones, with a database of millions of images and then reading the brain waves and matching the nearest image to what is held in the person's visual memory, as opposed to trying to from scratch reconstruct their visual memory. It is actually easier to do it without needing to reconstruct from scratch, and I believe is all that is required. I would use for the database the same images that are presented to them for attractiveness assessment; however, I would have them modified to make the girl artificially look older or younger as compared to how she looked in the picture they were shown.

That addition to the experiment will allow to see if there is actually an arousal difference based on the purported age, or whether the age only varies the purported attractiveness without actually causing an arousal difference. The existent experiment can't clarify whether an actual arousal difference is present based on the age, so it is ambiguous whether the males are actually less aroused based on the purported age. They could actually honestly be reporting their lessened arousal, with their arousal being contingent on the purported age; otherwise, they could have equivalent arousal -- as empirically quantified -- independent of the purported age, with the age simply modifying their purported arousal.

If their actual arousal varies based on the purported age, rather than just their purported arousal, then there are two things I would be interested in. The first is whether the toggling of BOLD signal from the TPN to DMN would be influencing anything; however, ignoring that, I would then be particularly interested in seeing the visual memory reading technique results, to see if the lower purported age is causing them to reference an internal image instead of the external reality. Almost certainly it causes the BOLD signal of the brain to be such that it would indicate this as a possibility, for the DMN is the brain region that accesses internal imagery, whereas the TPN is the region that accesses the external environment.

platonic_cave.jpg



activity in the DMN is strongly associated with mental imagery that is not directly tied to current perception (“stimulus-independent thought”), which is also a central feature of dreams.


IPC and VLPFC belong to the ventral attentional network that supports attentional filtering and reorienting towards the environment (Corbetta et al., 2008), and is anti-correlated with the preACC/DMN, involved in self- referential processes ( Fox and Raichle, 2007).

That would explain any actual arousal discrepancy as well; such males would be having arousal responses to an internal image, rather than to the "stimulus" in the external environment. And the memory reading technique should be able to see that a younger image is matched to upon them being asked to recall the "stimulus," but dependent entirely on the purported age, with them matching to the actually presented image in cases where the age is not socioculturally sensitive. I predict that this would be the case; however, I'm not entirely sure.

Another similar experiment that interests me is to see the fMRI of soldiers (or similar) having been wounded such that they lost their penises but (for example) preserved their testicles, to be able to see the way that arousal causes the male brain to change activation patterns without the additional influence of the (sometimes quite significant) blood volume discrepancy caused by erection, which I imagine is going to be in counterposition with the brain (given that oxygenated blood is a valuable and highly demanded resource). Maintaining erection requires filling something up with oxygenated blood that would otherwise be available to other things. I'd like to see how arousal changes fMRI in males separately from the hemodynamic influence of erection competing for oxygenated blood. Then, to take the set of fMRIs from this group of wounded males, and to juxtapose them with another set of fMRIs taken from a group of normal males, so be able to narrow in on the brain regions that have hemodynamic competition with erection. For I predict there will be an anticorrelation, just as there is between the TPN and the DMN.


A prominent feature of the human brain's global architecture is the anticorrelation of default-mode vs. task-positive systems. Here,we show that administration of an NMDA glutamate receptor antagonist, ketamine, disrupted the reciprocal relationship between these systems in terms of task-dependent activation and connectivity during performance of delayed working memory. Furthermore, the degree of this disruption predicted task performance and transiently evoked symptoms characteristic of schizophrenia.


The baculum (also penis bone, penile bone, or os penis, or os priapi[1]) is a bone found in the penis of many placental mammals. It is absent in the human penis, but present in the penises of other primates, such as the gorilla and chimpanzee.[2][3]

I know there are other proposed causes of the vestigialization of the baculum in human males; for example, as an honest signal of cardiovascular fitness. However, I would propose a hemodynamic competition for oxygenated blood causing diminished BOLD signal (activation) in brain regions responsible for things such as impulse control, leading to increased sexual aggressiveness and such things, with this being evolutionarily beneficial, especially in the ancestral environment. With intact baculum there is less need for blood displacement; ergo less competition for oxygenated blood; ergo greater impulse control; ergo less evolutionary benefit to be had in some environments. This could be experimentally tested as previously described.

Following from that, it also would potentially allow for detecting drugs that could be useful for some people in reducing their probability of sexual offending, if the drugs can be shown to increase the oxygen reservoir in those hypothetical brain regions in competition with erection for oxygenated blood. There is a caveat though, that increasing oxygenated blood in the brain may cause increased alcohol intoxication, which would have the opposite effect potentially, but it is hard to guess such things without experimental data.

Several pharmaceutical agents are known to exert an effect on cerebral oxygen metabolism and reservoir, including caffeine:

Mapping the pharmacological modulation of brain oxygen metabolism: The effects of caffeine on absolute CMRO2 measured using dual calibrated fMRI.

[...]

We observed significant differences between caffeine and placebo on average across grey matter, with OEF showing an increase of 15.6% (SEM±4.9%, p<0.05) with caffeine, while CBF and CMRO2 showed differences of -30.4% (SEM±1.6%, p<0.01) and -18.6% (SEM±2.9%, p<0.01) respectively with caffeine administration. The reduction in oxygen metabolism found is somehow unexpected, but consistent with a hypothesis of decreased energetic demand, supported by previous electrophysiological studies reporting reductions in spectral power with EEG.

Noopept and the racetams are known to effect this as well; however, I wasn't easily able to find a citation for that, and just went with the first one I could. After doing the previous experiment regarding the males with intact or missing penises though, one could identify the specific brain regions of interest to specifically modulate the oxygen reservoir and metabolism of, with the aim of counterposing any competition with erection for oxygenated blood.

I wonder if any research has already been done on if caffeine has an effect on sexual behaviors. The issue is that I am interested in it separate from alcohol or other such things. And really I am interested not in caffeine per se, but just use it as the first pharmaceutical agent I could find a citation for regarding having an effect on cerebral oxygenation.
 
Every man finds post-pubescent teen girls attractive. Many teen girls could pass as a 23 year old. Foids in their 20s can often pass as teens.
If I found a 21 year old attractive and she looked like a little kid, it’s normal but finding a 17 year old who looks 25 attractive is weird? How does that make sense. Most men find teens hot but most never will admit it
 
Why? No incel should care about the age of consent
I want to at least be able to try. But what would really be good was minimal age of prostitution matching AoC and minimal age to offer girls money for sex and romantic stuff as well.
 
The age of consent should be what science supports it as being. Anything else is just selfish political self interest, or religious and based on ancient teachings. The Christian age of consent is actually 12 or so, depending on exactly who you ask, but it is based on the age of Mary when she was impregnated, even though it was an immaculate conception, for it signaled that God believed it an appropriate age for pregnancy; in Islam I believe it is 9 because that was the age of Muhammad's youngest wife. However, nearly no Christians actually believe 12 ought to be the age of consent,


Vatican City raises age of consent from 12 to 18 following scandals

and only the most orthodox Islamic scholars believe 9 ought to be,


Turkey's highest religious body suggests children as young as nine could marry under Islamic law'The Turkish Civil Code clearly states that adulthood begins at the age of 18. Early marriages violate children's rights, women's rights, human rights'

However, I am not one to argue vehemently regarding this matter. I personally think science ought to be adhered to, but it isn't something that I would fight or even argue regarding, other than for stating that I believe science ought to be adhered to. Things are complicated by culture influencing what is indicated by science. Science actually does indicate that the culture finding sex at a certain age inappropriate can cause people of arbitrary ages to be harmed, so science can't be interpreted separately from culture to some extent because of that.

However, in the long run, which could be quite a long time away, the age of consent should ultimately reach the minimum age that science indicates is appropriate. It just is that science will not indicate a given age appropriate in a given culture until the culture finds that age appropriate, for science indicates that the culture not thinking an age is appropriate will cause harm by sexual activity in many cases, so science can't actually escape from the influence of culture regarding that matter, until there is a culture that is fully committed to science.

The current age of consent in much of the world is ultimately based on a -- most likely -- fraudulent tabloid publication called "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon,"


"The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon" was a series of highly controversial newspaper articles on child prostitution that appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette in July 1885.
Written by the crusading editor W. T. Stead, the series was a tour de force of Victorian journalism. With sensational crossheads, such as "The Violation of Virgins" and "Strapping Girls Down", the Maiden Tribute threw respectable Victorians into a state of moral panic, and achieved, as a consequence, the implementation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, which raised the age of consent for girls from 13 to 16, and also re-criminalised homosexual acts.


"It's now clear [anti-trafficking groups] used fake data to deceive the media and lie to Congress," the story charges. "And it was all done to score free publicity and a wealth of public funding."

What's the meat behind those claims? The story details how the Women's Funding Network commissioned a study from a political consulting group run by Beth Schapiro, which devised a totally unscientific method for determining how many online classified ads depicted children. It entailed having a group of adults guess, by looking at a picture in an ad, how old the person depicted was, and then doing it again over time to fuel the charge of explosive growth. Experts interviewed by City Pages point out that this is ridiculous from a methodological point of view — among the many criticisms, there's no way of knowing how old someone is from a picture, there's no way of knowing when the picture was taken, and there's no way of knowing if the picture is even of someone behind the advertised service.

The study, which was funded with public money, was subsequently uncritically picked up nationwide in headlines trumpeting a massive rise in the trafficking of children.

Prior to that it was 13 (for one year only I believe), after being raised one year by feminist campaigners. Prior to that it was 12, and ultimately based on keeping the Christian age of consent when transferring to a secular form of government.
 
Last edited:
The age of consent should be what science supports it as being. Anything else is just selfish political self interest, or religious and based on ancient teachings. The Christian age of consent is actually 12 or so, depending on exactly who you ask, but it is based on the age of Mary when she was impregnated, even though it was an immaculate conception, for it signaled that God believed it an appropriate age for pregnancy; in Islam I believe it is 9 because that was the age of Muhammad's youngest wife. However, nearly no Christians actually believe 12 ought to be the age of consent,




and only the most orthodox Islamic scholars believe 9 ought to be,




However, I am not one to argue vehemently regarding this matter. I personally think science ought to be adhered to, but it isn't something that I would fight or even argue regarding, other than for stating that I believe science ought to be adhered to. Things are complicated by culture influencing what is indicated by science. Science actually does indicate that the culture finding sex at a certain age inappropriate can cause people of arbitrary ages to be harmed, so science can't be interpreted separately from culture to some extent because of that.

However, in the long run, which could be quite a long time away, the age of consent should ultimately reach the minimum age that science indicates is appropriate. It just is that science will not indicate a given age appropriate in a given culture until the culture finds that age appropriate, for science indicates that the culture not thinking an age is appropriate will cause harm by sexual activity in many cases, so science can't actually escape from the influence of culture regarding that matter, until there is a culture that is fully committed to science.

The current age of consent in much of the world is ultimately based on a -- most likely -- fraudulent tabloid publication called "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon,"







Prior to that it was 13 (for one year only I believe), after being raised one year by feminist campaigners. Prior to that it was 12, and ultimately based on keeping the Christian age of consent when transferring to a secular form of government.
The social purity movement and Christian feminists of the late 1800s raised the age of consent higher in USA
 
The social purity movement and Christian feminists of the late 1800s raised the age of consent higher in USA

They did so ultimately in response to the Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon, and it was in the early 20th century in USA.


At the end of 19th century, moral reformers drew the age of consent into campaigns against prostitution. Revelations of child prostitution were central to those campaigns, a situation that resulted, reformers argued, from men taking advantage of the innocence of girls just over the age of consent. W. T. Stead's series of articles entitled, "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon," published in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, was the most sensational and influential of these exposés.

The outcry it provoked pushed British legislators to raise the age of consent to 16 years, and stirred reformers in the U.S, such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the British Empire, and Europe to push for similar legislation. By 1920, Anglo-American legislators had responded by increasing the age of consent to 16 years, and even as high as 18 years.

The history of the age of consent, for much of the world, is roughly:

1a. Mary was impregnated at this age
1b. Muhammad's youngest wife was this age

2. Secular law copied existent religious law (whatever that means, by the way).

3. Feminists got it raised by ~1 year

4. The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon got it raised by ~3 - ~5 years

That is roughly the history of the age of consent in the world, even though it manifested a bit differently in different places, which accounts for the discrepancies, with it being 9-21 throughout the world today.
 
Last edited:
They did so ultimately in response to the Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon, and it was in the early 20th century in USA.




The history of the age of consent, for much of the world, is roughly:

1a. Mary was impregnated at this age
1b. Muhammad's youngest wife was this age

2. Secular law copied existent religious law (whatever that means, by the way).

3. Feminists got it raised by ~1 year

4. The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon got it raised by ~3 - ~5 years

That is roughly the history of the age of consent in the world, even though it manifested a bit differently in different places, which accounts for the discrepancies, with it being 9-21 throughout the world today.
also the age of consent was raised from 10 to 12 in India in the early 1890s because of a 10/11 year old girl who was raped to death by her 30-35 year old husband. later on, India raised it to 16 because of women groups complaining about early pregnancy. now india has it at 18.
 
So you’re saying aoc should be determined by god and not a feminist law maker.
 
normies are just braindead

"hebephile/ephebophile is just pedo with a dictionary huehuehuehuehue"

doesn't even work as an insult since you're just pointing out that more accurate terminology is being used
 
YOU JUST CANT HANDLE A REEEL WAAAMYN SWEETIE!
 
The idea that -18s can only be abused but 18+s cannot be abused is retarded. The idea that a kind, hardworking 26-year-old virgin man wedding a sweet, virgin 16-year-woman in a loving marriage that produces 6 children and lasts until his death 50 years later after which point said grateful woman places flowers on his grave ever sunday after church until her own death in the presence of her gathered great-grandchildren is morally wrong shows how western civilization is doomed.
 
also the age of consent was raised from 10 to 12 in India in the early 1890s because of a 10/11 year old girl who was raped to death by her 30-35 year old husband. later on, India raised it to 16 because of women groups complaining about early pregnancy. now india has it at 18.
As if there is a cause effect relationship there. Like if the 1890s foid had been 21 she would have been safe from a a clearly evil husband.
 
The idea that -18s can only be abused but 18+s cannot be abused is retarded. The idea that a kind, hardworking 26-year-old virgin man wedding a sweet, virgin 16-year-woman in a loving marriage that produces 6 children and lasts until his death 50 years later after which point said grateful woman places flowers on his grave ever sunday after church until her own death in the presence of her gathered great-grandchildren is morally wrong shows how western civilization is doomed.
i remember reading about a 22 year old man named Charlie Johns who married a 9 year old girl named Eunice Winstead back in early 1937. The whole nation was horrified but the married couple stayed together for the rest of life and had several children together, the first being born when Eunice was 14/15. Eunice was never damaged by the marriage and after Charlie died, she still missed him and loved him and had happy memories of him.
 
Normies will never understand the difference between a child and a young adult capable of consent. To them a 17 year old on december 31st 1 minute before their birthday makes them a baby
 
In my opinion, brides should at least have reached puberty. That was the historical norm. The whole thing with marriages to literal biological kids was mostly a rain check type thing among the elites.
 
there is a quantitative metric of penile blood volume as a proxy to arousal (empirical measure), and then the subjective metric of purported arousal induced by the "stimulus" (moral truth). It certainly is a great example of the existence of two forms of "truth."
Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’ and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10 years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age,
Rage posted a chart at https://incels.is/threads/atomic-jb...-females-potentially-sexually-arousing.72391/ and it looks like there were responses to males of all ages.

The_structure_of_erotic_preference_in_the_nondeviant_male_1970.png

5/11 for child
6/16 for adolescent
2/10 for adult
by the looks of it.

So to clarify for readers, when it says "were not aroused", it is referring to the "majority of the men" (since all of these fell below 24, the 50% threshold of 48) rather than saying none reacted to men, in case anyone read it that way.

A simple "yes/no" evaluation of erection also seems oversimplified. Some boners are full-mast and other boners are partial chubbies or mere twitches.

I don't know what minimum requirement existed to count as a "yes" or if it was set appropriately.

But wherever it was set, it seems like an incomplete answer to lump in full-mast reactions with partial-stiffy reactions.

Rather than "number of positive reactions" I think a much more interesting statistic would be instead of the data being a sum of 1s (yes) and 0s (no) that the data collected should be a % representing the immensity of the erection (full boner being 100%, resting state being 0%) and then average out the %s to see an average % reaction to these groups.
 
Your post is being monitored by atleast 5 different law enforcement agencies right as we speak. I knew two girls who were having sex with different boys in soviet era panel building stairways at the age of 12 in Europe btw.

Personally I think the set age of 16 is as low as it should go, anything else doesnt make me feel right. Especially if I were a father to a daughter. At that age they are simply being taken advantage of. If they are taking part in sexual acts under that they belong in Juvenille detention facility. Even under 18 is degenerate.
 
Last edited:
It honestly sounds like you're trying to convince yourself so you can assure yourself you arent wrong, and honestly you shouldn't need to. If you see a well developed young girl, and your body responds, I dont see how that's your fault, or how it makes you fucked in the head.

Makes you wonder how many men out there are in denial, taking a holier than thou moral approach, when they themselves deep down feel the same way.

Then you have people who make memes like this
As if none of the girls are well developed and sexually attractive.


All the while jacking off to the shit themselves. My point is. You only have one life, as long as you arent raping anyone or trying to have sex with an infant, do you.
Ochaco is best girl btw
 
I think the set age of 16 is as low as it should go,
anything else doesnt make me feel right.
Especially if I were a father to a daughter.
At that age they are simply being taken advantage of.
JFL thinking any sex a 15yo foid has can only be her being taken advantage of.

I would say in most of those situations they are the ones in control leading things forward and benefitting for their own goals.
 
It's useless talking about which is bad and which isn't, pedophilia is just a feminist meme and that word doesn't match the meaning it has been assigned by cucks and feminists
 
Rage posted a chart at https://incels.is/threads/atomic-jb...-females-potentially-sexually-arousing.72391/ and it looks like there were responses to males of all ages.

The_structure_of_erotic_preference_in_the_nondeviant_male_1970.png

5/11 for child
6/16 for adolescent
2/10 for adult
by the looks of it.

So to clarify for readers, when it says "were not aroused", it is referring to the "majority of the men" (since all of these fell below 24, the 50% threshold of 48) rather than saying none reacted to men, in case anyone read it that way.

A simple "yes/no" evaluation of erection also seems oversimplified. Some boners are full-mast and other boners are partial chubbies or mere twitches.

I don't know what minimum requirement existed to count as a "yes" or if it was set appropriately.

But wherever it was set, it seems like an incomplete answer to lump in full-mast reactions with partial-stiffy reactions.

Rather than "number of positive reactions" I think a much more interesting statistic would be instead of the data being a sum of 1s (yes) and 0s (no) that the data collected should be a % representing the immensity of the erection (full boner being 100%, resting state being 0%) and then average out the %s to see an average % reaction to these groups.
Any erection response is sexual arousal. Men found adolescents nearly just as attractive as adults
 
There's a huge difference between "it twitched" arousal and "full mast" arousal is my point.

Even if we got the exact same number of responses for 2 groups, it wouldn't necessarily mean it's the same DEGREE of response.

That's like saying "we tested 10 men, all 10 men were scared by a spider and all 10 men were scared by a group of masked men aiming guns at them".

Just because all were scared in both cases wouldn't mean the same degree of fear, so you wouldn't use this to conclude that men are equally afraid of spiders and masked men with guns.
 

Similar threads

IncelGolem
Replies
15
Views
476
leafblown
leafblown
wasted12years
Replies
18
Views
454
screwthefbi
screwthefbi
OwariDa
Replies
96
Views
2K
lazy_gamer_423
lazy_gamer_423

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top