>>936116355
>we don't hold anything else in life to such ridiculous standards
We do. We don't allow people to drink and drive if their alcohol content is above a certain limit.
But there are people who can handle it well, and others that can drive drunk better than sober. But we apply the standard to all equally even though they're not equally affected in their capabilities.
>we then suppose is that the sex itself causes the trauma and the harm, which it does not
It does. The act itself can cause trauma even in a social vacuum, although of course it's much more likely to cause trauma in a society that feeds into the idea.
However, let's say it's 100% social and 0% non-social.
So? We already live in the society that we live in. Society is not gonna change, except to become MORE protective of children, even if we did agree that said efforts of protection are misguided.
In that case, our agreement would be this: we agree that it's unfair.
...
So?
Yeah, if we agreed about that the result would be a big fat "so what?"
"Unfair, poor paedos can't enjoy sex with minors even though there would be nothing with if if not for the rules themselves. But so what?"
Life is unfair, reality is what it is, you cannot change society in the direction you want even if you're correct that the trauma is 100% socially fed, and those who complain about that and feel victimized are all radical lefties.
Face reality as it is. You're not a victim.
You're not a victim for wanting to fug kids after being born in a society that doesn't allow it, in the same way that trannies aren't victims for having been born in a body which they don't like and then discovering that their transition is merely social (and limited even at that), and I'm not a victim for having been born poor and having to work hard in a society where some kids are born rich by no merit of their own. Those are just fact of reality.
Accept the facts, enjoy fictional lolis.
