Why do some guys, even on here, defend teenage girls?

[FrothySolutions]

Once again, how does a 30 year old man "control" a girl in a way a fellow teenage boy cannot. "Life experience" is the term used constantly, but how exactly does "life experience" help him "control her" in a way a teenage boy cannot. Anyone has the ability to "manipulate" anyone, kids actually manipulate their parents in many cases.

They could also get pregnant with a teenage guy, so even if the older man screws their life up, the teenager could've done bad things to her as well.

Lastly, pedophilia involves prebubescent girls, not teenage girls.

30 year olds are smarter and have more resources. It's bad for anyone to manipulate anyone, but it's easier for an adult to manipulate a child. Might as well ask "How does an adult manipulate a kindergartener in a way a fellow kindergartener cannot?"

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

30 year olds are smarter and have more resources. It's bad for anyone to manipulate anyone, but it's easier for an adult to manipulate a child. Might as well ask "How does an adult manipulate a kindergartener in a way a fellow kindergartener cannot?"

A kindergartener is too young to have sex and probably cannot physically handle penetration

A 16 year old knows what sex is as well as STDs and condoms

also, a 30 year old with autism can be manipulated by someone his age so should he never date another 30 year old? Also women are attracted to resources and might date older men for that reason

 

[Deleted member 23682]

30 year olds are smarter and have more resources. It's bad for anyone to manipulate anyone, but it's easier for an adult to manipulate a child. Might as well ask "How does an adult manipulate a kindergartener in a way a fellow kindergartener cannot?"

A kindergartener is too young to have sex and probably cannot physically handle penetration

A 16 year old knows what sex is as well as STDs and condoms

also, a 30 year old with autism can be manipulated by someone his age so should he never date another 30 year old? Also women are attracted to resources and might date older men for that reason

high IQ. Using the kindergardener argument is stupid as shit. We're talking about teenage girls

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

high IQ. Using the kindergardener argument is stupid as shit. We're talking about teenage girls

Exactly. People say that teenage girls have innocence but they don’t. Teenagers smoke, drink, have sex, watch porn and R rated movies how the fuck do they have innocence?

 

[Deleted member 22531]

I’ve never seen them defended here

 

[FrothySolutions]

A kindergartener is too young to have sex and probably cannot physically handle penetration

A 16 year old knows what sex is as well as STDs and condoms

also, a 30 year old with autism can be manipulated by someone his age so should he never date another 30 year old? Also women are attracted to resources and might date older men for that reason

high IQ. Using the kindergardener argument is stupid as shit. We're talking about teenage girls

We're talking about manipulation, not just sex. Whether one mind or status has an advantage over another when it comes to manipulation. An adult is smarter and more powerful than a kindergartener. And an adult is smarter and more powerful than a teenager.

But even if we were just talking about sex, you don't have to penetrate someone to molest them. Very small children get molested because adults convince them that it's okay.

And no, no one should manipulate anyone. But we know that a teenager and an adult are not on the same level. We can't evaluate every autist and hand them out a "This person has no right to consent" card.

 

[Deleted member 24160]

Exactly. People say that teenage girls have innocence but they don’t. Teenagers smoke, drink, have sex, watch porn and R rated movies how the fuck do they have innocence?

There is a difference between why teen girls and teen guys do those things though. Girls do it for fun while guys do it to keep from hanging themself.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

We're talking about manipulation, not just sex. Whether one mind or status has an advantage over another when it comes to manipulation. An adult is smarter and more powerful than a kindergartener. And an adult is smarter and more powerful than a teenager.

But even if we were just talking about sex, you don't have to penetrate someone to molest them. Very small children get molested because adults convince them that it's okay.

And no, no one should manipulate anyone. But we know that a teenager and an adult are not on the same level. We can't evaluate every autist and hand them out a "This person has no right to consent" card.

just because a guy is more mature than someone doesn't mean they have a 100% chance of manipulating someone.

 

[Deleted member 24160]

We're talking about manipulation, not just sex. Whether one mind or status has an advantage over another when it comes to manipulation. An adult is smarter and more powerful than a kindergartener. And an adult is smarter and more powerful than a teenager.

But even if we were just talking about sex, you don't have to penetrate someone to molest them. Very small children get molested because adults convince them that it's okay.

And no, no one should manipulate anyone. But we know that a teenager and an adult are not on the same level. We can't evaluate every autist and hand them out a "This person has no right to consent" card.

Those girls I mentioned made the first move. You can say that the guys should have said no but the girl still made the first offer.

 

[ThirdWorldcel]

There is a difference between why teen girls and teen guys do those things though. Girls do it for fun while guys do it to keep from hanging themself.

Teen guys who do that are either able to do so or they're coping with vidya, foodies and this forum.

 

[Deleted member 24160]

just because a guy is more mature than someone doesn't mean they have a 100% chance of manipulating someone.

Seriously try getting your average 23 guy to hit on a teen girl successfully.

 

[ThirdWorldcel]

Seriously try getting your average 23 guy to hit on a teen girl successfully.

Lots of older guys are conviced to do fucked up shit

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Seriously try getting your average 23 guy to hit on a teen girl successfully.

most of them won't do it because they don't wanna be called a pedophile

 

[Deleted member 24160]

most of them won't do it because they don't wanna be called a pedophile

I meant it as try getting a average looking adult guy to actually hook up with a teen girl. Only chads can do that.

 

[FrothySolutions]

just because a guy is more mature than someone doesn't mean they have a 100% chance of manipulating someone.

In the sense that a bigger and stronger opponent doesn't have a 100% chance of winning a fistfight against a smaller and weaker opponent. The power difference is still there.

Those girls I mentioned made the first move. You can say that the guys should have said no but the girl still made the first offer.

Yeah, that's exactly what I would say. If a child makes the first move towards doing something stupid, it's their older and smarter parent's job to say "Hey don't do that, you don't know any better so I, your parent, who does know better, must stop you regardless of what you want."

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

In the sense that a bigger and stronger opponent doesn't have a 100% chance of winning a fistfight against a smaller and weaker opponent. The power difference is still there.



Yeah, that's exactly what I would say. If a child makes the first move towards doing something stupid, it's their older and smarter parent's job to say "Hey don't do that, you don't know any better so I, your parent, who does know better, must stop you regardless of what you want."

you see that analogy doesn't work. two people in a fistfight are always intending to beat each other up regardless of who wins. a guy dating a 16 year old girl doesn't have a 100% chance of intending to harm her or overpower her. having more power doesn't automatically mean you're manipulating them. manipulate means to use them for an advantage, dating someone with less experience than you doesn't mean you're intending to use them for an advantage

 

[BlkPillPres]

Babies don't know or care that the stove is hot, they'll still touch it because they like the glow. So you do you recognize that a baby is too young to understand the full ramifications of touching a stove? Or do you say "You stupid baby! You shouldn't have touched that stove! Now you have to live with your ruined hand!"

As clueless as babies are about the ramifications of touching a stove, so are teenage girls about the ramifications of hooking up with adult men. It's just a thing they aren't mature enough to know yet.

Your argument here would only make sense if the baby would both try to touch a rusty beaten down hot stove and a brand new hot stove, but in the case of women relative to this analogy, they only touch brand new stoves, so it clearly has nothing to do with how hot the stove is for teenage girls, its the quality of the stove, your analogy doesn't work because unlike a baby, a teenage girl is very selective, you can't have a dick go inside you BY CHOICE (not rape) and then play the invalid, it doesn't work that way, if they are old enough to "want dick" then they are old enough to comprehend any ramifications, they just don't give a fuck

You could maybe make an argument in the past, but we live in the internet age, sex ed is a normal thing in school these days too, so they don't have the excuse of not knowing what sex and contraception is

Am I really surprised you of all people are defending teenage girls, everytime I think of "blue pilled user" you are literally the first person to come to mind

In the sense that a bigger and stronger opponent doesn't have a 100% chance of winning a fistfight against a smaller and weaker opponent. The power difference is still there.

Dude stop making analogies, your analogies are complete shit, you can't formulate a logical argument to save your life, your analogy only makes sense if the smaller opponent enjoys being punched in the face and wants to get punched, and for some reason its the bigger opponents responsibility not to give the smaller opponent what they want when its mutually beneficial

These guys aren't using high level mind tricks to "confuse" teenage girls into fucking them, no trickery is required, the teenage girls want to fuck, they want to fuck, there is no trick or manipulation, just a reality you aren't comfortable with

IRONICALLY THERE'S MORE MANIPULATION BETWEEN ADULTS IN DATING, A GUY GOING TO A BAR AND PURPOSEFULLY PLYING A WOMAN WITH DRINKS SO SHE'LL BE MORE LIKELY TO FUCK HIM IS MANIPULATION (AND THAT'S THE NORM IN DATING)

 

[FrothySolutions]

you see that analogy doesn't work. two people in a fistfight are always intending to beat each other up regardless of who wins. a guy dating a 16 year old girl doesn't have a 100% chance of intending to harm her or overpower her. having more power doesn't automatically mean you're manipulating them. manipulate means to use them for an advantage, dating someone with less experience than you doesn't mean you're intending to use them for an advantage

That is itself manipulation. No matter how little harm you mean, to put a teenager into an adult life like that does them harm. They're not supposed to do it. So you, with your power, convince them to do it anyway. Or enable them to make this stupid decision. This stupid decision to not have an age-appropriate life.

Your argument here would only make sense if the baby would both try to touch a rusty beaten down hot stove and a brand new hot stove, but in the case of women relative to this analogy, they only touch brand new stoves, so it clearly has nothing to do with how hot the stove is for teenage girls, its the quality of the stove, your analogy doesn't work because unlike a baby, a teenage girl is very selective, you can't have a dick go inside you BY CHOICE (not rape) and then play the invalid, it doesn't work that way, if they are old enough to "want dick" then they are old enough to comprehend any ramifications, they just don't give a fuck

You could maybe make an argument in the past, but we live in the internet age, sex ed is a normal thing in school these days too, so they don't have the excuse of not knowing what sex and contraception is

Am I really surprised you of all people are defending teenage girls, everytime I think of "blue pilled user" you are literally the first person to come to mind


Dude stop making analogies, your analogies are complete shit, you can't formulate a logical argument to save your life, your analogy only makes sense if the smaller opponent enjoys being punched in the face and wants to get punched, and for some reason its the bigger opponents responsibility not to give the smaller opponent what they want when its mutually beneficial

These guys aren't using high level mind tricks to "confuse" teenage girls into fucking them, no trickery is required, the teenage girls want to fuck, they want to fuck, there is no trick or manipulation, just a reality you aren't comfortable with

IRONICALLY THERE'S MORE MANIPULATION BETWEEN ADULTS IN DATING, A GUY GOING TO A BAR AND PURPOSEFULLY PLYING A WOMAN WITH DRINKS SO SHE'LL BE MORE LIKELY TO FUCK HIM IS MANIPULATION (AND THAT'S THE NORM IN DATING)

You're not getting it.

It's not about whether or not the stove is attractive or not. Touching a stove is always wrong. This isn't a discussion about whether or not babies are biased towards glowier stoves. This is about whether or not it's bad for a baby to touch a stove. Or a teenager to enter into an inappropriate relationship. And why babies touch stoves anyway, and why teenagers enter into these relationships anyway. Because kids are stupid. And so it's up to adults to steer them right, and not enable them to make bad decisions.

And the fighter analogy is about whether or not a bigger/stronger person has a power advantage over a smaller/weaker person. That's all. And they do. Now, does that bigger/stronger person have an obligation to not pick on people smaller than them? Yes. Because we're not actually talking about fights. We're talking about adults picking on teenagers for their sexual/romantic needs. Adults have an obligation to not do that, regardless of how much these smaller and weaker teenagers are like "Come on, let me have it."

 

[BlkPillPres]

That is itself manipulation. No matter how little harm you mean, to put a teenager into an adult life like that does them harm

Who decided that decision is an "adult" decision

It's not about whether or not the stove is attractive or not. Touching a stove is always wrong.

Who decided that, if you were born in an earlier era you wouldn't even think this, all morality is abitrary, and age of consent is the greatest example of that

You said I don't get it, but its you that don't get it, because you literally are unable to comprehend abstract concepts, or think about anything abstractly, your morals and rules are simply what you were born into, in the natural world, the world outside of human thoughts and concepts, there is no "age of consent", there is no "adulthood", and its very ironic that humans try to supersede nature to state when it is a girl can have sex when nature has decided she can get pregnant

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

That is itself manipulation. No matter how little harm you mean, to put a teenager into an adult life like that does them harm. They're not supposed to do it. So you, with your power, convince them to do it anyway. Or enable them to make this stupid decision. This stupid decision to not have an age-appropriate life.



You're not getting it.

It's not about whether or not the stove is attractive or not. Touching a stove is always wrong. This isn't a discussion about whether or not babies are biased towards glowier stoves. This is about whether or not it's bad for a baby to touch a stove. Or a teenager to enter into an inappropriate relationship. And why babies touch stoves anyway, and why teenagers enter into these relationships anyway. Because kids are stupid. And so it's up to adults to steer them right, and not enable them to make bad decisions.

And the fighter analogy is about whether or not a bigger/stronger person has a power advantage over a smaller/weaker person. That's all. And they do. Now, does that bigger/stronger person have an obligation to not pick on people smaller than them? Yes. Because we're not actually talking about fights. We're talking about adults picking on teenagers for their sexual/romantic needs. Adults have an obligation to not do that, regardless of how much these smaller and weaker teenagers are like "Come on, let me have it."

what adult life is a teen entering exactly? how is a relationship and sex "adult life" when teenagers have relationships and adult lives all the time? you aren't pointing out how the nature of the age gap is harmful. and how is our power convincing the teen to enter the relationship? it isn't. all we do is meet them, and decide to date. how is the young adult's power getting the teen to say "yes" by just simply asking the teen out? it doesn't make sense. name one harmful thing that can happen if a 16 year old dated some 20-25 year old, and also the trauma is only because of society's reaction to the age gap. how is the adult's power what made the teen say yes when the teen is more likely to say yes to someone their own age? maybe the teen just feels like dating the adult and they don't wanna date the adult because "muh immaturity", it's because they are attracted to the adult. if they didn't find the adult attractive, they'd prolly reject the adult

 

[FrothySolutions]

Who decided that decision is an "adult" decision



Who decided that, if you were born in an earlier era you wouldn't even think this, all morality is abitrary, and age of consent is the greatest example of that

You said I don't get it, but its you that don't get it, because you literally are unable to comprehend abstract concepts, or think about anything abstractly, your morals and rules are simply what you were born into, in the natural world, the world outside of human thoughts and concepts, there is no "age of consent", there is no "adulthood", and its very ironic that humans try to superseded nature to state when it is a girl can have sex when nature has decided she can get pregnant

We in our current wisdom decided what's appropriate for kids and what isn't. Yes, hundreds of years ago what was appropriate for who was different. But we always had some kind of standard. Therefore, the best standard we can come up with in our present state of understanding, will always be necessary. You can't just say "Well once upon a time 13 year olds could do this, therefore anyone can do anything to anyone regardless of age." Younger people haven't been around long enough to be as wise as older people. And decisions should be made when you achieve wisdom. How much wisdom is needed? Right now the belief is that you should be an adult before you have sex.

 

[BlkPillPres]

We in our current wisdom decided what's appropriate for kids and what isn't. Yes, hundreds of years ago what was appropriate for who was different. But we always had some kind of standard.

Every future generation thinks its wiser than the last when it comes to morals, is hypergamy moral?, is rampant female promiscuity moral?, because those things are considered morally good today and completely acceptable, so if our current wisdom as a society is so infalliable, I guess you must agree with the current relationship dynamics between men and women, or do you just conveniently get to decide for everyone else which aspects of modern wisdom are right and wrong

Therefore, the best standard we can come up with in our present state of understanding, will always be necessary. You can't just say "Well once upon a time 13 year olds could do this, therefore anyone can do anything to anyone regardless of age." Younger people haven't been around long enough to be as wise as older people

Alright by that logic if its illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, it should also be illegal for that 16 year old to have sex with another 16 year old

You see there's no logic to age of consent at all and you know that full well, you literally have no argument

What the hell is this, "shrodinger's consent", a teen magically gains and loses the ability to consent to sex based on the age of the partner

Notice we don't apply this ridiculous logic to alcohol, its illegal for an adult to give a young teen alcohol, and its illegal for a teen to drink alcohol and that teen can face legal punishment in some form, but when it comes to sex it gets flipped upside down, and that's only because sex is still a sensitive issue for humans, it has nothing to do with morality, if it did THE MORAL CODE WOULD BE CONSISTENT LIKE IT IS WITH ALCOHOL (ALCOHOL + TEEN = BAD)

And decisions should be made when you achieve wisdom. How much wisdom is needed? Right now the belief is that you should be an adult before you have sex.

No right now the belief is that you should be a teen to have sex with teens but that teen arbitrarily loses the ability to consent if its an adult, they go from DTF to diapers and the drop of a coin based on the age of the guy approaching them, there are no logical arguments to defend this, only emotional ones

I'll immediately agree with age of consent laws once they become consistent, but as of now its nothing but purposeful gatekeeping of low quality males from high quality "breeding stock", its about keep the "losers" who couldn't get a cute young teen in their teen days from getting married to a young teen later

Society is always trying to keep low tier males "in their place" as perpetual losers, whether this is intentional or not makes no difference to me at all, the end result is the same, that is the end result of the current age of consent laws, a group of teen chads can gangbang a guy's daughter but that guy in his 30's with a house and stable job better dear not approach that girl and try to court her for marriage, that's just degenerate

You gave me an idea for a thread though

 

[FrothySolutions]

what adult life is a teen entering exactly? how is a relationship and sex "adult life" when teenagers have relationships and adult lives all the time? you aren't pointing out how the nature of the age gap is harmful. and how is our power convincing the teen to enter the relationship? it isn't. all we do is meet them, and decide to date. how is the young adult's power getting the teen to say "yes" by just simply asking the teen out? it doesn't make sense. name one harmful thing that can happen if a 16 year old dated some 20-25 year old, and also the trauma is only because of society's reaction to the age gap. how is the adult's power what made the teen say yes when the teen is more likely to say yes to someone their own age? maybe the teen just feels like dating the adult and they don't wanna date the adult because "muh immaturity", it's because they are attracted to the adult. if they didn't find the adult attractive, they'd prolly reject the adult

Again, age gap = power gap. You have the power to enable stupid kids to do bad things, or convince other stupid kids that bad things are good.

And stupid kids do lots of stupid things. They drink, smoke, fuck, and take on responsibilities that can't manage. Just because other kids are doing those things doesn't mean they should be doing those things.

Every future generation thinks its wiser than the last when it comes to morals, is hypergamy moral?, is rampant female promiscuity moral?, because those things are considered morally good today and completely acceptable, so if our current wisdom as a society is so infalliable, I guess you must agree with the current relationship dynamics between men and women, or do you just conveniently get to decide for everyone else which aspects of modern wisdom are right and wrong

If you have a challenge to today's standards, by all means raise it. But every standard throughout history asks the question "When is the appropriate age to do this thing that only people of a certain age should do?" So if you're challenging that, you have to supply some kind of benchmark age.

Alright by that logic if its illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, it should also be illegal for that 16 year old to have sex with another 16 year old

You see there's no logic to age of consent at all and you know that full well, you literally have no argument

What the hell is this, "shrodinger's consent", a teen magically gains and loses the ability to consent to sex based on the age of the partner

Notice we don't apply this ridiculous logic to alcohol, its illegal for an adult to give a young teen alcohol, and its illegal for a teen to drink alcohol and that teen can face legal punishment in some form, but when it comes to sex it gets flipped upside down, and that's only because sex is still a sensitive issue for humans, it has nothing to do with morality, if it did THE MORAL CODE WOULD BE CONSISTENT LIKE IT IS WITH ALCOHOL (ALCOHOL + TEEN = BAD)

It's bad for any teenager to have sex, but in order to punish a sex crime you need to have a victim and a perpetrator. Two kids having sex is bad, but they're both equally stupid. So you can't punish one over the other.

And in cases of kids possessing alcohol or other illicit substances, we also punish the perpetrator. We hold the shitty parents responsible. We hold the fly-by-night convenience store responsible. The person with the power is always punished.

 

[BlkPillPres]

It's bad for any teenager to have sex, but in order to punish a sex crime you need to have a victim and a perpetrator. Two kids having sex is bad, but they're both equally stupid. So you can't punish one over the other.

So if those same two children kill someone do they get the same pass as not knowing any better?

No they don't because since sex is a sensitive issue we make up ridiculous rules so we feel comfortable about it, if we were talking murder here you wouldn't be arguing - "they're too young and stupid to know what they're doing", they'd have to get some kind of legal punishment

You see as a society we label MURDER as something CLEAR CUT and SIMPLE, because were comfortable with physical violence and death as a species, that's just a fact, its the reason why porn on tv would be seen as weird but I can purchase multiple MMA channels to watch guys beat eachother to a pulp or enjoy violent movies, things get censored, banned, and blocked off when it comes to sex because SEX is something we label as NO CLEAR CUT and COMPLICATED, because sex makes everyone uncomfortable

That's the reality

Its nothing but double standard BS and you know it, special pleading, how can one be competent enough to know that killing is bad yet doing something that they were literally born to do is something they aren't old enough to get yet, that doesn't make sense, its complete nonsense, like the whole "you have to be 21 to drink" law, a 18 year old can be sent to war but he's not old enough to drive?

Too young to drink but old enough die?

Competent enough to know murder is bad, but completely incompetent when it comes to sex?

A lot of these laws don't make any sense

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Again, age gap = power gap. You have the power to enable stupid kids to do bad things, or convince other stupid kids that bad things are good.

And stupid kids do lots of stupid things. They drink, smoke, fuck, and take on responsibilities that can't manage. Just because other kids are doing those things doesn't mean they should be doing those things.



If you have a challenge to today's standards, by all means raise it. But every standard throughout history asks the question "When is the appropriate age to do this thing that only people of a certain age should do?" So if you're challenging that, you have to supply some kind of benchmark age.



It's bad for any teenager to have sex, but in order to punish a sex crime you need to have a victim and a perpetrator. Two kids having sex is bad, but they're both equally stupid. So you can't punish one over the other.

And in cases of kids possessing alcohol or other illicit substances, we also punish the perpetrator. We hold the shitty parents responsible. We hold the fly-by-night convenience store responsible. The person with the power is always punished.

power gap doesn't mean anyone is going to get harmed. i'm a 22 year old guy with autism, i could date a 23 year old woman with tons of expeirnece and that would be a power gap doesn't make it a bad relationship. and no your power doesn't enable them to do things. how does asking them out enable them to do something? all they need to do is say yes or no, and many times they say no. being older doesn't increase the odds of them saying yes in fact it decreases it. many people date someone with more expeirnece than them for protection, which is why women used to date older men before age gaps became taboo

 

[FrothySolutions]

So if those same two children kill someone do they get the same pass as not knowing any better?

No they don't because since sex is a sensitive issue we make up ridiculous rules so we feel comfortable about it, if we were talking murder here you wouldn't be arguing - "they're too young and stupid to know what they're doing", they'd have to get some kind of legal punishment

Its nothing but double standard BS and you know it, special pleading, how can one be competent enough to know that killing is bad yet doing something that they were literally born to do is something they aren't old enough to get yet, that doesn't make sense, its complete nonsense, like the whole "you have to be 21 to drink" law, a 18 year old can be sent to war but he's not old enough to drive?

Too young to drink but old enough die?

Competent enough to know murder is bad, but completely incompetent when it comes to sex?

A lot of these laws don't make any sense

You could try to argue that a murderer doesn't know any better, that's a valid legal defense. It's just that it rarely works because any baby with a brain is supposed to know you're not supposed to kill people. Yes, even a child who can be manipulated into sex should know that murder is wrong. But if a child is manipulated into murder? Yeah that kid will likely see less jail time. Or no jail time, depending on how deep their manipulator went to force them to kill. The person with power always, ALWAYS faces punishment.

power gap doesn't mean anyone is going to get harmed. i'm a 22 year old guy with autism, i could date a 23 year old woman with tons of expeirnece and that would be a power gap doesn't make it a bad relationship. and no your power doesn't enable them to do things. how does asking them out enable them to do something? all they need to do is say yes or no, and many times they say no. being older doesn't increase the odds of them saying yes in fact it decreases it. many people date someone with more expeirnece than them for protection, which is why women used to date older men before age gaps became taboo

You asked why an age gap was bad. An age gap means a power gap. And a power gap is bad when someone powerful uses their power to get a weaker person to do something they shouldn't.

And if you ask them out, you enable them to enter in to an adult relationship with you. That's a bad thing. Adult relationships aren't for kids. And it's your responsibility as the smarter and more capable adult to not take advantage of the comparatively stupider kid who doesn't know any better.

 

[ihaveno1]

JFL @ defending foids on an incel forum

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

You could try to argue that a murderer doesn't know any better, that's a valid legal defense. It's just that it rarely works because any baby with a brain is supposed to know you're not supposed to kill people. Yes, even a child who can be manipulated into sex should know that murder is wrong. But if a child is manipulated into murder? Yeah that kid will likely see less jail time. Or no jail time, depending on how deep their manipulator went to force them to kill. The person with power always, ALWAYS faces punishment.



You asked why an age gap was bad. An age gap means a power gap. And a power gap is bad when someone powerful uses their power to get a weaker person to do something they shouldn't.

And if you ask them out, you enable them to enter in to an adult relationship with you. That's a bad thing. Adult relationships aren't for kids. And it's your responsibility as the smarter and more capable adult to not take advantage of the comparatively stupider kid who doesn't know any better.

again you're saying teens shouldn't date young adults because the adult is getting the teen to get something they shouldn't do. that argument is illogical because you're saying "if you date a teen, you're getting them to do something they shouldn't do, which is dating an adult. and they shouldn't do it because if you date them you're getting them do something they shouldn't do". how does that make sense. they shouldn't date you because if you date them, you're getting them to do something they shouldn't do? that's just saying "they shouldn't do it because they shouldn't do it". you explained why they shouldn't do it by saying "because they shouldn't do it". also, what is an adult relationship? all that is is a relationship with an adult? how is dating a 16 year old when you're like 24 a bad thing? also a 16 year old biologically is an adult (or a late adolescent) depending on whether they finished puberty or not. why is it bad for a 16 year old date a 23/24 year old or something? all you do is go to places with them, kiss them or have sex. what natural consequences would that cause. the trauma is clearly because of society's reaction to the crime, so what are consequences NATURALLY caused by the age gap. i know a guy whose great grandparents married in 1934 he was 22 she was 16 and they remained together.

 

[BlkPillPres]

You could try to argue that a murderer doesn't know any better, that's a valid legal defense. It's just that it rarely works because any baby with a brain is supposed to know you're not supposed to kill people

Again, you are proving my point that you can't think about anything abstractly, what do you mean by "supposed to know", there is no such thing, in the natural world murder is normal, you are thinking about everything within the framework of human society, within the framework of everything you were raised to believe

Why is murder, something circumstantial and we have no drive to do something you should "just know" not to do

But sex, which is something essential to human existence and we do have a drive to do it, is just somehow "secret knowledge" you don't gain till the magical age of 18, like come on dude

Yes, even a child who can be manipulated into sex should know that murder is wrong

You have zero self awareness, your arguments are logically flawed, you don't even realize that right now you are presupposing your position in the very arguments you are stating your position, look at the language you are using, "manipulated"

How come if that same teen has sex with another teen you don't use the same word (manipulation) even though you'd argue their levels of competence hasn't changed?

Did they both "manipulate" eachother, or does manipulation stop being part of the picture the moment their ages are similar, it doesn't make sense, lets say I have a 16 year old Chad highschool jock and a 16 year old ex-fat girl who is part of the glee club or some other unpopular club, he is only now trying to have sex with her because she's no longer fat, he's had girls in the past, he knows what to say and he's in a position of high status, how is that any different than a man in his late 20's approaching the girl, I'd argue teen chad has more influence of that girl that the man in her 20's, he's more important within her "sphere of influence" as he is "popular" in her small little world of highschool

At the same time though, she just wants to fuck him because he's popular, or fuck the guy in his 20's because he's good look and/or can buy her things, why is "manipulation" even an issue, when manipulation is inherent to every interaction

We all want something, and we all leverage other peoples wants, use certain words, leave out details, etc in various aspects of our lives to get what we want, how come when manipulation relates to sex now its taboo, but we can do it with every other fucking thing in life and we act like its normal?

Like I said before and I'll keep saying, sex is just a sensitive issue, so we create arbitrary rules around it

You see as a society we label MURDER as something CLEAR CUT and SIMPLE, because were comfortable with physical violence and death as a species, that's just a fact, its the reason why porn on tv would be seen as weird but I can purchase multiple MMA channels to watch guys beat eachother to a pulp or enjoy violent movies, things get censored, banned, and blocked off when it comes to sex because SEX is something we label as NO CLEAR CUT and COMPLICATED, because sex makes everyone uncomfortable

you explained why they shouldn't do it by saying "because they shouldn't do it"

@FrothySolutions

I hope that two people pointing this out will bring you some kind of selfawareness

He's pointing out something even I did in my last reply:

You have zero self awareness, your arguments are logically flawed, you don't even realize that right now you are presupposing your position in the very arguments you are stating your position, look at the language you are using, "manipulated"

In a lot of your arguments, you seem to argue that you are right because you are right, you self affirm the validity of your arguments within the arguments themselves, you don't actually provide any rationale as to why you are right, you simply affirm that you are right because you say so or because "that's how it is", that's not an argument

Its scary how you aren't even aware that you are doing this, arguments like this are inherently fallacious

When you use words like "manipulation" in such a manner in the very argument in which we are trying to contest whether manipulation takes place, is shows that you aren't even arguing in good faith, you are merely affirming from the start that its manipulation

 

[FrothySolutions]

again you're saying teens shouldn't date young adults because the adult is getting the teen to get something they shouldn't do. that argument is illogical because you're saying "if you date a teen, you're getting them to do something they shouldn't do, which is dating an adult. and they shouldn't do it because if you date them you're getting them do something they shouldn't do". how does that make sense. they shouldn't date you because if you date them, you're getting them to do something they shouldn't do? that's just saying "they shouldn't do it because they shouldn't do it". you explained why they shouldn't do it by saying "because they shouldn't do it". also, what is an adult relationship? all that is is a relationship with an adult? how is dating a 16 year old when you're like 24 a bad thing? also a 16 year old biologically is an adult (or a late adolescent) depending on whether they finished puberty or not. why is it bad for a 16 year old date a 23/24 year old or something? all you do is go to places with them, kiss them or have sex. what natural consequences would that cause. the trauma is clearly because of society's reaction to the crime, so what are consequences NATURALLY caused by the age gap. i know a guy whose great grandparents married in 1934 he was 22 she was 16 and they remained together.

The thing the teenager shouldn't be doing is having an adult relationship. Doing the things adults do when they date. Whether they do that with an adult, or another teenager, is wrong. But when it's with an adult, you have a case of an adult influencing a teenager to get them to do things they shouldn't do. Teenagers shouldn't fuck or drink or smoke or any of that other adult stuff.

Again, you are proving my point that you can't think about anything abstractly, what do you mean by "supposed to know", there is no such thing, in the natural world murder is normal, you are thinking about everything within the framework of human society, within the framework of everything you were raised to believe

Why is murder, something circumstantial and we have no drive to do something you should "just know" not to do

But sex, which is something essential to human existence and we do have a drive to do it, is just somehow "secret knowledge" you don't gain till the magical age of 18, like come on dude

You've probably heard me say this before, but we aren't animals. We're sapient humans capable of moral and ethical decisions. If we were animals we would have a drive to murder. But because we're above instinct, we don't. And so we can be above the instinct to fuck.

You have zero self awareness, your arguments are logically flawed, you don't even realize that right now you are presupposing your position in the very arguments you are stating your position, look at the language you are using, "manipulated"

How come if that same teen has sex with another teen you don't use the same word (manipulation) even though you'd argue their levels of competence hasn't changed?

Did they both "manipulate" eachother, or does manipulation stop being part of the picture the moment their ages are similar, it doesn't make sense, lets say I have a 16 year old Chad highschool jock and a 16 year old ex-fat girl who is part of the glee club or some other unpopular club, he is only now trying to have sex with her because she's no longer fat, he's had girls in the past, he knows what to say and he's in a position of high status, how is that any different than a man in his late 20's approaching the girl, I'd argue teen chad has more influence of that girl that the man in her 20's, he's more important within her "sphere of influence" as he is "popular" in her small little world of highschool

At the same time though, she just wants to fuck him because he's popular, or fuck the guy in his 20's because he's good look and/or can buy her things, why is "manipulation" even an issue, when manipulation is inherent to every interaction

We all want something, and we all leverage other peoples wants, use certain words, leave out details, etc in various aspects of our lives to get what we want, how come when manipulation relates to sex now its taboo, but we can do it with every other fucking thing in life and we act like its normal?

Like I said before and I'll keep saying, sex is just a sensitive issue, so we create arbitrary rules around it

You see as a society we label MURDER as something CLEAR CUT and SIMPLE, because were comfortable with physical violence and death as a species, that's just a fact, its the reason why porn on tv would be seen as weird but I can purchase multiple MMA channels to watch guys beat eachother to a pulp or enjoy violent movies, things get censored, banned, and blocked off when it comes to sex because SEX is something we label as NO CLEAR CUT and COMPLICATED, because sex makes everyone uncomfortable

I never said kids couldn't manipulate other kids. But an adult always has more power and control than a child. That's why it's always manipulation when an adult uses their power and control to enable a kid to do the things they shouldn't do.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

The thing the teenager shouldn't be doing is having an adult relationship. Doing the things adults do when they date. Whether they do that with an adult, or another teenager, is wrong. But when it's with an adult, you have a case of an adult influencing a teenager to get them to do things they shouldn't do. Teenagers shouldn't fuck or drink or smoke or any of that other adult stuff.



You've probably heard me say this before, but we aren't animals. We're sapient humans capable of moral and ethical decisions. If we were animals we would have a drive to murder. But because we're above instinct, we don't. And so we can be above the instinct to fuck.



I never said kids couldn't manipulate other kids. But an adult always has more power and control than a child. That's why it's always manipulation when an adult uses their power and control to enable a kid to do the things they shouldn't do.

if a teen can drive, they can fuck

 

[FrothySolutions]

if a teen can drive, they can fuck

Driving isn't for adults, at least not in America. Driving is for teenagers.

 

[BlkPillPres]

@FrothySolutions
Do you know what is the most ridiculous example of how age of consent laws make no sense:

If a TEEN has sex with an ADULT its illegal just for the ADULT

If a TEEN has sex with a TEEN its completely legal for both TEENS

However if both TEENS filmed themselves having sex and released the video they can both be charged as ADULTS for distribution of child pornography



Come on dude, you can't seriously argue that age of consent laws are valid, they are logically flawed to the core, its completely abitrary

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Driving isn't for adults, at least not in America. Driving is for teenagers.

Learning the rules of the road is harder than learning sex Ed

 

[BlkPillPres]

Driving isn't for adults, at least not in America. Driving is for teenagers.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Learning the rules of the road is harder than learning sex Ed

It's not about learning how to have sex, it's about being responsible for that kind of adult decision.

@FrothySolutions
Do you know what is the most ridiculous example of how age of consent laws make no sense:

If a TEEN has sex with an ADULT its illegal just for the ADULT

If a TEEN has sex with a TEEN its completely legal for both TEENS

However if both TEENS filmed themselves having sex and released the video they can both be charged as ADULTS for distribution of child pornography



Come on dude, you can't seriously argue that age of consent laws are valid, they are logically flawed to the core, its completely abitrary

You can't punish two kids, because which one of them is the rapist? You can only punish a sex crime if you have an aggressor.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

It's not about learning how to have sex, it's about being responsible for that kind of adult decision.



You can't punish two kids, because which one of them is the rapist? You can only punish a sex crime if you have an aggressor.

and teens ARE responsible for it. they make just as many bad decisions as a 21 year old does

 

[BlkPillPres]

You can't punish two kids, because which one of them is the rapist? You can only punish a sex crime if you have an aggressor.

1. Wrong this is a common thing in law already, teens can be charged as adults for releasing images of a sexual nature of themselves, it does happen

2. If having an aggressor was necessary then like I said before, two teens drinking alcohol would not face any legal trouble, as there is no aggressor, but they can both still be charged

Age of consent laws have no logical consistency, because:

1. Sex is a sensitive issue to humans

2. Society doesn't want low tier males having access to young, beautiful and virile women because that upsets the current balance, society's needs a healthy stock of betas to pass off onto all the women that get off of the cock carousel and are old and used up

If were all busy chasing younger women when they are younger and have less options, then we'd more likely be married to them and have control over them in their later years

Also keeping young women away from older men keeps society from becoming more patriarchal, which again threatens the status quo

 

[FrothySolutions]

and teens ARE responsible for it. they make just as many bad decisions as a 21 year old does

Responsible, as in, are they mentally capable of handling it? Like a sane and well-adjusted adult would?

1. Wrong this is a common thing in law already, teens can be charged as adults for releasing images of a sexual nature of themselves it does happen

2. If having an aggressor was necessary then like I said before, two teens drinking alcohol would not face any legal trouble, as there is no aggressor, but they can both still be charged

Age of consent laws have no logical consistency, because:

1. Sex is a sensitive issue to humans

2. Society doesn't want low tier males having access to young, beautiful and virile women because that upsets the current balance, society's needs a healthy stock of betas to pass off onto all the women that get off of the cock carousel and are old and used up

If were all bust chasing younger women when they are younger and have less options, then we'd more likely be married to them and have control over them in their later years

Also keeping young women away from older men keeps society from becoming more patriarchal, which again threatens the status quo

Punish two kids for having sex, I mean. That's the sex crime. But you can only charge one of them with rape if you can pick out an aggressor.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Responsible, as in, are they mentally capable of handling it? Like a sane and well-adjusted adult would?



Punish two kids for having sex, I mean. That's the sex crime. But you can only charge one of them with rape if you can pick out an aggressor.

exactly

 

[FrothySolutions]

exactly

Exactly what? Children are as mature and capable as adults? Maybe shitty adults, maybe irresponsible adults, but that's not what a teenager should grow up to be. We have these rules about what is and isn't appropriate for kids so that healthy kids grow up to be healthy adults. Mature, responsible, not fucked up adults.

 

[IncelKing]

@BlkPillPres dont waste your time/energy on trying to convince @FrothySolutions he seems like a weak beta submissive male (very likely a soyboy) or a foid.

"He" is completely bluepilled, hence "his" arguments are lacking in logic, objectivity, rationale and introspection because these qualities are inherent only to the blackpill whereas the bluepill is based on delusion.

Im surprised this massive pussy is allowed to stay on this forum and pollute it with his bluepilled nonsense whilst actual blackpilled users (like yourself) get warnings for being "edgy". JFL at this forum.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Exactly what? Children are as mature and capable as adults? Maybe shitty adults, maybe irresponsible adults, but that's not what a teenager should grow up to be. We have these rules about what is and isn't appropriate for kids so that healthy kids grow up to be healthy adults. Mature, responsible, not fucked up adults.

a 16 year old isn't a child. they're either late adolescents or adults depending on whether or not they finished puberty. they tend to be on either the 4th or 5th tanner stage in puberty. a child would be a five year old. also young adults in their early mid 20s aren't that different from teens and are in fact just as immature as a 16 year old is

 

[BlkPillPres]

Punish two kids for having sex, I mean. That's the sex crime. But you can only charge one of them with rape if you can pick out an aggressor.

JFL do you see how that makes no sense though, to punish them merely because its been recorded, but when they do the same very act with no record its perfectly legal and not a "sex crime"

You are just non-nonchalantly trying to glance over this like - "yeah, that's the sex crime but only one of them can get a rape charge"

LITERALLY ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS AND SENTIMENTS CAN LITERALLY BE SUMMED UP AS

"I exist in this current era, these are the laws of this era, I agree with them and agree that they are valid because I have been told they are valid, they are right because they are right"

On that note why do you think anything you have to say is valid, you do realize any woman can have that same sentiment you have and that invalidates any argument you have against hypergamy - "well that's how it works today so I'm right, the end"

You are literally trying to pass off - "yeah its a sex crime now because a camera is involved" like its a reasonable argument, no, I'm not going to let you try and slide this through lol

You are literally proving how abitrary the law is, if merely taping the event renders it legal or illegal

a 16 year old isn't a child. they're either late adolescents or adults depending on whether or not they finished puberty. they tend to be on either the 4th or 5th tanner stage in puberty. a child would be a five year old. also young adults in their early mid 20s aren't that different from teens and are in fact just as immature as a 16 year old is

This dude is literally like a robot, he has no self awareness at all, nth level NPC, its like he can only conceptualize things based on the era he exists in, the fact that 16 year olds have fought in wars in the years before has never even popped into his head, he just goes by the modern concept of "child" and accepts it, because he was indoctrinated to think it, and he questions literally nothing, 16 year olds were starting families in the past, the concept of being a "child" is rather new, in fact the term "adolescent" is very new, terms like teen, teenager, adolescence, etc were coined and popularized in the 1930's or so

 

[FrothySolutions]

a 16 year old isn't a child. they're either late adolescents or adults depending on whether or not they finished puberty. they tend to be on either the 4th or 5th tanner stage in puberty. a child would be a five year old. also young adults in their early mid 20s aren't that different from teens and are in fact just as immature as a 16 year old is

If that's your argument, then it doesn't mean 16 year olds are capable of handling adult life. It means those in their mid-20s aren't, and we should RAISE the age of consent. And consider those in their mid-20s to still be too immature to be held in adult esteem.

JFL do you see how that makes no sense though, to punish them merely because its been recorded, but when they do the same very act with no record its perfectly legal and not a "sex crime"

You are just non-nonchalantly trying to glance over this like - "yeah, that's the sex crime but only one of them can get a rape charge"

Distributing the porn is a different crime. Sex with a kid is one crime, rape. Distributing the footage isn't rape, but it is producing child pornography. And an aggressor can be named there. The person behind the sale of the porn.

LITERALLY ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS AND SENTIMENTS CAN LITERALLY BE SUMMED UP AS

"I exist in this current era, these are the laws of this era, I agree with them and agree that they are valid because I have been told they are valid, they are right because they are right"

On that note why do you think anything you have to say is valid, you do realize any woman can have that same sentiment you have and that invalidates any argument you have against hypergamy - "well that's how it works today so I'm right, the end"

You are literally trying to pass off - "yeah its a sex crime now because a camera is involved" like its a reasonable argument, no, I'm not going to let you try and slide this through lol

You are literally proving how abitrary the law is, if merely taping the event renders it legal or illegal

It's not the sex that's illegal, it's the material that's illegal. If you picked up some kids for passing around a sex tape of some teenagers, you couldn't try them for rape. The event being taped doesn't change the legality of the event itself. It's about the materials.

And you forget that I said "If you disagree with our current standards, feel free to argue for some new ones, but bear in mind throughout history we have always established that there are things that are not for kids, and that there's a benchmark for when you are old enough to do those things. You'd basically have to argue for when the new benchmark should be."

Like your "16 year olds fought in wars once upon a time when we believed in different standards." That's what we did then. We don't do that anymore. But maybe we'll do something different in the future? Feel free to make your case for what the future should be like. But bear in mind, today, and back then, and all throughout history, regardless of what the age was, we always held this standard: Not everyone can fight in a war, they have to wait until whatever we decide is "old enough."

 

[SMPcel]

Halo effect

 

[BlkPillPres]

Halo effect

You wish, there are just always blue pilled cucks in existence, no halo effect is even required

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

If that's your argument, then it doesn't mean 16 year olds are capable of handling adult life. It means those in their mid-20s aren't, and we should RAISE the age of consent. And consider those in their mid-20s to still be too immature to be held in adult esteem.



Distributing the porn is a different crime. Sex with a kid is one crime, rape. Distributing the footage isn't rape, but it is producing child pornography. And an aggressor can be named there. The person behind the sale of the porn.



It's not the sex that's illegal, it's the material that's illegal. If you picked up some kids for passing around a sex tape of some teenagers, you couldn't try them for rape. The event being taped doesn't change the legality of the event itself. It's about the materials.

And you forget that I said "If you disagree with our current standards, feel free to argue for some new ones, but bear in mind throughout history we have always established that there are things that are not for kids, and that there's a benchmark for when you are old enough to do those things. You'd basically have to argue for when the new benchmark should be."

Like your "16 year olds fought in wars once upon a time when we believed in different standards." That's what we did then. We don't do that anymore. But maybe we'll do something different in the future? Feel free to make your case for what the future should be like. But bear in mind, today, and back then, and all throughout history, regardless of what the age was, we always held this standard: Not everyone can fight in a war, they have to wait until whatever we decide is "old enough."

If you’re old enough to know the rules of the road you’re old enough to have sex. Full stop. 16 year olds easily can handle driving

 

[FrothySolutions]

If you’re old enough to know the rules of the road you’re old enough to have sex. Full stop. 16 year olds easily can handle driving

Driving is an activity. Sex means you need to own all of the byproducts of sex. You need to be mentally mature enough for the relationship, whether it be committed or not. You need to be able to handle potential child rearing.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Driving is an activity. Sex means you need to own all of the byproducts of sex. You need to be mentally mature enough for the relationship, whether it be committed or not. You need to be able to handle potential child rearing.

Not all people who have sex get pregnant. Condoms and oral sex prevent it. Same with birth control. Also, understanding the rules of the road is harder than understanding relationships and sex. If a 16/17 year old dated a 23 Year old. All they do is have sex, go out to places and hang out, how is that difficult to handle? If they’re genuinely in love, why we should assume he’s going to do something violent to her?