ITT: I will be posting anthropological examples highlighting juvenile sexual patterns which differ significantly from those of the modern West.

All examples are quoted from Janssen, D. F., Growing Up Sexually. Volume I. World Reference Atlas, which is available online here:

http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/GUS_MAIN_INDEX.HTM

These examples highlight instances of pederasty, child marriage, child prostitution, incest, masturbation of infants, initiatory rites where adults have sex with adolescents, and sexual activity between juveniles and adults.

Most of these practices were once commonplace among European people at some point in history.

Trumai, Brazil

>Murphy and Quain (1955 [1966:p83-4]) reported that “there was no heterosexual activity between children, for there were no girls of appropriate age in the village. Thus, pre-pubescent sexual relations occurred between boys or between boys and men, and almost always it was the boys who were the instigators. […] The minor homosexual engagements that took place between the boys themselves were […] in the nature of play”, while no adult homosexuality was seen. “The sexual play of a young child might even include his father”; at least, one is reported to manipulate a boy in erection, without much consideration for observers.

Amahuaca, Peru

>“The Amhuaca marry at age 8 to 11, usually with men in their twenties; however, “[…] most children seem to have their first sexual experiences with siblings, and such experimentation is not considered a violation of taboos” (Huxley and Capa, 1965:p72).

Alkatcho, Colombia

>Goldman (1963:p369): “[…] coitus was thought to be required by all just pre-pubescent children to promote physical growth. Young boys were told by their older age-group, “you better catch a woman pretty soon or you won’t grow”. It was also believed that defloration was necessary to bring on the first menses in girls”.

Ariaal Rendille, Kenya

>Ariaal culture is regulated by an elaborate age-set system (Roth et al., 2001, 2002). Marriage occurs after an 11-year period of warriorhood, which starts with circumcision. Warriors and “beaded” (unmarried) girls engage in long-term sexual relationships (nkeryi), marriage does not usually follow, procreation is severely discouraged, but full intercourse is expected. “In Ariaal culture, sexual imbalances begin with the nkeryi tradition (see also Roth, 2004:p163–64, 165, 167), as very young girls (our survey includes girls as young as 10-12) are beaded to and begin sexual relationships with much older warriors. In addition, informants stated that warriors frequently have sex with their age-mates’ nkeryi, and that such sexual sharing is culturally condoned” (2001:p39; 2002:p7). The age of being beaded was lower for uneducated as opposed to educated girls. Peers, and not parents, were sources of sexological knowledge.

Bakgatla, Botswana

>“The small children of these ages (6-12), boys and girls, play together, and one of their games, called mantlwane (“little houses”) consists of erecting miniature household enclosures; then they pair off, boys and girls, in couples and celebrate mock weddings, which end with each couple going to its little enclosure and lying down together. Occasionally they both remove their loin-girdles and rub together their genitals, without of course achieving penetration. This game is played at night, when the parents can’t see them. One of my informants, a young man, told me that when he was a child of about 9 or so his older brother, together with boys and girls of his age (13-15) used to get the smaller children at night, pair off the boys and girls, make the little boys lie on top of the girls, and then shout, e tsenye! e tsenye! [encouraging the children to mimic performance of the act]”.

Atonga, Zambia

>Johnston (1897:p408, n1), a medically trained missionary informing Johnston about the “depravity prevalent among the young boys in the Atonga tribe” rated their behaviour as defying description even in “obscure Latin”. As for the opposite sex, “scarcely any girl remains a virgin after about five years of age” in nearly the whole of British Central Africa (p409, n) “except perhaps among the A-nyanja” due to officious coitus after betrothal.

!Kung, Namibia

>!Kung childhood was studied by Draper (1972); infancy was studied by Konner (1973). !Kung are known for their tolerance in child rearing matters; children of both sexes play together, and both parents take part in socialisation (Barnard, 1992:p53). Children freely play games such as “Ostrich’s Courtship”. Shostak (1976; 1981:p18-9, 30-1, 104-24) gives a rather detailed first-hand account of !Kungchildhood sex play. Sexual intercourse is shielded from the eyes of the children, but apparently not in a serious fashion. “All the women I interviewed said their childhood sex play included sexual intercourse”. Children are not prevented if such play is done away from adults, although they “do not approve” of it. The girls are “as free and unfettered as boys”. The interviewees reveal a great deal of pressure from the part of the boys, who even played within a co-wife scenario. An “old” woman is interviewed:

“That’s what an older boy does. He waits until he is with a little girl and lies down with her. He takes some saliva, rubs it on her genital, gets on top and pokes around with his semi-erection, as tough he were actually having intercourse, but he is not. Because even though young boys can get hard, they don’t really enter little girls. Nor do they yet know about ejaculation. Only when a boy is almost a young man does he start to have sex like an adult” (1981:p112).

Hawai'i

>Diamond (p433) reports:

>“Individuals of both sexes were expected to initiate and participate in coitus at puberty, although sexual activity, play, instruction, and so forth occurred much earlier. For instance, as part of exploratory play, the young investigated each other’s genitals, and young males and females might masturbate each other heterosexually or homosexually. This activity occurred without adult disapproval, and it was considered to be an introduction to adulthood. Casual intercourse before adolescence was not an uncommon experience for males (Handy and Pukui, 1958:p95) and females (Pukui, Haertig and Lee, 1972:p78)”.

>Murray (1992:p15-8), particularly drawing from Beaglehole (1967) summarises pre-contact homosexuality involving aikanes, or chiefs’ young retinues. A further treatise was offered by Morris.

Ingalik, Eskimo, Canada

>Among the Ingalik (Osgood, 1958:p217)[197] girls instruct boys “whose sex life has not properly begun”, while being instructed themselves by older boys and grown men. Also, “[a] boys and a girl who like each other may make a little grass house away from the village in the summertime. The boy sneaks back and takes one or two fish from the drying rack. This they eat for “supper”. Afterward they go to “bed” and engage in various degrees of sex play. Not infrequently, two boys and two girls will make a “house” together, thus following their parent’s pattern of two-family association. Then they will pair off for the “night”. This type of activity starts at about the age of six or seven. […] The girls generally go home earlier in the evening leaving the boys together to discuss their experiences (p228-9)”. A girl would be told by her mother that she will “have pups” if she “plays” with the boys. “Threats are not always effective, however” (p180). Children must not talk sex in mixed company (p183). Child marriage is rare, in which cases sexual intercourse would be delayed.

>>17743362 (OP)
Satanic and disgusting
Pedo faggots and degeneration/profanation
of the childhood

Gui/Gana, Namibia

>“Until the 1970’s, girls who had not had her menarche often used to have “fiances” recommended by their parents. In some cases girls lived together with their fiancés even before their menarche. Intercourse with girls before menarche is regarded just as “useless and harmless,” so it is not prohibited. In their society, it does not matter if a woman is a virgin or not. The rite for marriage was held in the process of the ritual for menarche. […] Recently, most of the women marry a few years after their menarche, so that the rite for menarche is regarded as completely separated from the one for marriage” (Imamura, 2001:p132).

Babunda, Angola

>Torday details institutional child prostitution of a rare species:

>“Virginity cannot be expected in the bride as girls are allowed to indulge freely up to the age of puberty. It is the custom of the country that about the period when the millet ripens (May) the young men of each village should club together to obtain a Mombanda. The Mombanda has to be a girl under the age of puberty, a stranger to the village, and she has to prostitute herself with all the young men in turns, but there are days when orgies take place and all the men have intercourse with her. On these special days the Mombanda’s mother provides food and palm wine for the young men; it is she who receives the payment, which consists for the term of its duration (two lunar months), of fifty “salts” per man. Not all young men contribute, as they are some who cannot afford it; only contributors enjoy the privileges, and it is “good form” to belong to this set. Not only does a fact that a girl has been a Mombanda not prejudice her chances of marriage, but it is considered a distinction; no girl can be Mombanda more than once. Should she die while she is in this position, her village is entitled to heavy damages”.

Bala, Congo

>Merriam (1971:p78) states:

>“For the Bala, autoeroticism among children is considered normal although continuation of it is thought to lead to difficulty. Boys play with their genitals “from the time they are very young”, but they cannot ejaculate “until they are 10 years old”. During the evening, when boys get together, they may masturbate (kwasa, “play”), and there is also group masturbation. Adults consider the latter shameful and break it up whenever possible. It is said that the result of persistent masturbation, whether individually or in a group, will be subsequent lack of interest in women. Little girls also masturbate, first with their fingers, and later with a dildo (kankondenkonde, pl. tunkondekkonde) made of manioc root. […] In addition to this preadolescent sex play, all young boys, it is said, spy on women when they are bathing. As a result they know something of female anatomy and the sexually connected keloid markings at an early age”.

>Boys and girls may sing obscene songs (p99). Girls and boys play love games (Torday, Joyce and Hardy, 1922:p21), choosing lovers and ridiculing those not chosen. Further, Torday and Joyce (1910:p272) note that “Il est permis à ceux qui ne sont pas mariés d’avoir des relations sexuelles et ils en ont dès un très jeune âge”. Merriam (1974:p226) stated: “Young men and women engage in heterosexual activities before marriage, and in the case of girls, often before puberty”. Intercourse is freely practised during more or less informal arrangements referred to as engagements. Boys are ready for marriage when he stops “fooling around” like a youngster, when pimples start breaking out on his forehead (“someone with pimples can’t be trusted around women”), and when his axillary hair, pubes and beard (least important) begin to grow. For girls, it would be thelarche, and not menarche [age 12]; girls are ready earlier because “girls mature faster than boys”.

Bangala, Congo

>Weeks (1910:p416) in Upper Congo: “Boys and girls from an early age until puberty have free intercourse with each other, and I believe that later there is no public condemnation if the girls are not betrothed. […] Premenstrual connection is desired by men because they like it, and also because they can indulge freely and there is no palaver, and it is not until the beginning of the periods that girls are guarded from promiscuous intercourse”. After puberty, restrictions were placed on the girl, and the act was regarded as adultery. Weeks (1909:p442) claimed there were no virgins beyond the age of five years, and after puberty. Among the Boloki “it is impossible to find a virgin above five years of age” (Weeks, 1911:p127).

Barabaig, Tanzania

>Klima (1970:p54-5):

>“Between the ages of four and six, boys and girls engage in sex play, imitating their parents, who do not take any precautions to prevent the children from witnessing their sex act. Since children sleep with the mother and observe the father visiting her, sex education starts early in a Barabaig household. Boys and girls six years of age build a small hut of sticks and grass a short distance from the kraal and engage in juvenile sex play. If they are discovered by either parent, the children will not be admonished or made to feel ashamed, although the girl will be called away to run an errand. It is a short transitional step from the sex play of children to the sexual liaisons of adolescent boys and girls”.

Eskimo, Canada

>A. Bertelsen (cited by Brusendorff and Henningsen, 1963:p34) [166] noted that, on more than one occasion, Eskimo fathers, having surprised five or six-year-olds at attempts at intercourse with little girls, assembled everyone in the settlement to feed them and celebrate “the son’s growing to be a man”. According to Bertelsen, “it is not rare for children of twelve to have sexual intercourse [while at examinations] practically no virgins of more than 16 were found” (ibid.). Von Wrangell (1839:p219-20)[167] indicated that a virgin over the age of 12 was rarely found on the Aleutian Islands (Aleut:2+,2+,2+,3,2,2;4,4).

>Due to the absence of conversational taboos in the presence of children, there was no secret for them after age 7 or 8 (Hawkes, 1916:p119; Fehlinger, 1926:p19)[168]. Kjellström (1973:p25)[169] further noted that Eskimo boys learn from free observation. The actual sex act “was included in the repertory of games to imitate the copulation between their elders, and the heterosexual contracts started already in childhood. Coitus was practiced during puberty, and sometimes even before puberty. On West Greenland it was not infrequent to have coitus as from the age of 12 years”. Speaking of the Sallumiut (Takamiut), Graburn (1969:p190-1)[170] states that traditionally, “Eskimo life was very open, and children learned all about sex from babyhood. Among boys sex activities were initiated at puberty or a little after”. The modern pattern of sexarche is estimated at age 16 or 17 for boys, and at 12 or 13 for girls.

Comanche, North America

>Linton (1945:p75)[40] states the following: “Sexual play between children began at an early age, and was carried out on quite freely as long as the two children were not brother and sister. The Comanche paid no attention to virginity; they took these childhood relations more or less for granted”. Further (p138, 156), free masturbation would decline after acquisition of the loin cloth, the children would “imitate” adult modesty. Much clandestine sex play, both heterosexual and homosexual, occurred; children would imitate adult obscenity. Children’s behaviour indicated a knowledge of the relation between copulation and conception (p138).

Crow, North America

>Some of the unilaterally male freedom is reviewed by Voget (1961:p99-100)[53]: “Sexual contests of one kind or another were conducted by Crow gangs. The erect penis would be measured against that of another claimant to determine the larger and they would divide according to clans and bet on champions who would attach a line to the penis and then drag a stone as far as possible. Like the Mohave, Crow youths would bet on ejaculation distance. A large penis was prized and preadolescents would pull on the pubic hair to stimulate growth and sometimes they would put on an irritating plant juice on the penis to make it swell. […]. Crow boys of 8 and 9 were invited by pubescent and sometimes older girls to urinate in lieu of ejaculation”.Crow Indian children would play “wife abduction” (Lowie, 1935 [1956:p38]). “In the formative years [childhood] sexual interest was left to the boys and girls, who formed their own gangs and united to play at breaking, moving and pitching camp like married couples. […] once he was six or seven a brother could no longer play with or be alone with a sister, for this would mean that he did not hold her in respect (Voget, 1964:p495).

Maori, New Zealand

>“The girl of ten years, is frequently a married woman in New Zealand, and at eleven becomes a mother […]” (Polack, 1840, II:p175). Tregear (1890:p101) stated their women wouldn’t know about the fate of their virginity, “for she had love affairs with boys from the cradle”. The custom of betrothal in infancy was by no means uncommon among the Moari folk, as it some times occurred at the conclusion of the Pure ceremony over a newly-born child (Best, 1914:p159; Rubel and Rosman, 1971:p664).

>“Maori children frequently meet in the bush for sex play” (Ford, 1945 [1964:p20]). Maori children “play together at being husband and wife at night in the Bush. Full copulation frequently occurs before puberty” (Ford and Beach, 1951:p192).

Fijians, Melanesia

>Child betrothal has already been discussed. On the Lau Islands, Fiji, “[u]p to the age of eleven or twelve no special attention is paid to the sex life of children except that the speaking tabu is enforced between brothers and sisters and parallel cousins of opposite sex. Apparently many girls as well as boys masturbate, and young mothers who are nursing babies- and hence forbidden sexual intercourse- occasionally do so also. According to the girls themselves, homosexual relationships among girls are not rare. These relationships usually begin by imitation of other girls before a girl’s first menstruation” (Thompson, 1940a:p47-8). If a girl had sexual intercourse either before or during the tattooing period of about a year (begun shortly after a girl’s first menstruation by a female who “felt the patient’s thighs to determine whether or not the girl was ready for the operation”), the operation would be more painful and the wounds would require more time to heal than otherwise (Thompson, 1940b). Since boys could not play in mixed groups, “[t]he only emotional outlets for boys of this age is in masturbation and homosexual relations with other pilos (prepuberty boys)”.

Baraguyu, Tanzania

>It is stated that “[l]ong before puberty, girls commence sexual play with men, usually unmarried warriors. In all of this, female lives do not undergo profound changes in terms of daily routine. The relations of female with males change, however, from child, to Lolita-like lover, to wife, to mother, to mother-in-law, and grandmother”. They are initiated usually before menarche, and are forbidden to conceive before marriage, which does not preclude “a wide variety of sexual play with the warriors, often much older than these girls” (Beidelman, 1980:p155). Girls leave home soon after puberty “if not before”. There is much rivalry for the sexual favours of girls among adjacent age-sets (following the ®Masai system). “For Baraguyu, age is profoundly important for both men’s and women’s sexuality, yet since men buy a womb and need not even be the actual genitors of the children they control, their sexuality may be ideologically manipulated to a considerable extent. Warriorhood serves a necessary function in distracting attention and providing vicarious, transitory rewards for those at their sexual peak who are denied formal realization of their energies”. An uncircumcised youth is not allowed to sleep with circumcised girls, while junior warriors have access to all unmarried circumcised girls (Beidelman, 1960:p273).

Cashinahua, Peru

>Kesinger (1995:p79-80) states that children learn from direct observation and via the gossip of adults. Coitus is observed frequently, “a fact that is amply demonstrated in their play, much to the amusement of the watching adults”. Children are taken by their mothers to their [mothers’] erotic adventures.

>“Prepubescent boys frequently gave me explicit descriptions of sexual activity they observed while play hunting in the areas frequented by lovers. Both boys and girls are enjoined from having sex before they have completed the month-long initiation rites, which are held at roughly five-year intervals, when the initiates are between nine and thirteen years old. My data indicate that they behave as expected. Most girls marry shortly after initiation and begin having sexual intercourse well before their first menses. Boys frequently are taught the techniques of seduction and sexual intercourse by older women of the kin class xanu, including older brother’s wife, father’s father’s brother’s wife, and father’s mother. They become sexually active as soon as their hunting skills permit them to compete for lovers with adult male hunters, but they are frequently warned to limit their sexual activity until they are older lest it inhibit both their physical growth and the development of their skills as hunters. I never witnessed any masturbatory or other sexual play as described by Jacques Lizot (1985) for the Yanomami. Although the Cashinahua have terms (actually descriptive phrases) for male and female masturbation, terms they say they borrowed from the neighbouring Marinahua, they insist that such practices are unnecessary because sexual partners are readily available”.

Batak, Indonesia

>Referring to unpublished data, Money and Ehrhardt (1973/1996:p130; Money, 1977:p229-30) relate that these Batak are known for a “homosexual phase” from about 9 to 19, the time they spend in either an all-male communal house, or with an old widow. This is so while “[i]n late childhood, it is not decent for children to stay sleeping in their parent’s single-roomed house”. The boys practice “primarily mutual masturbation of penis held against penis, maybe anal intercourse, but never fellatio. All members of the group may become one member’s partner, in rotation. Relationships are not necessarily unobserved, but they are always in pairs, not in larger groups”.

>Premarital intercourse was a free product (Wilken, 1889:p439-40, op.cit., and refs.).

Hill Saoras, India

>Elwin (1955) stated that premarital sex life was rather free. “Saora marriage, which takes place rather early, at sixteen or seventeen for the boys, fifteen or sixteen for the girls, does not initiate its partners into sexual experience, either generally or with one another (p54 , see also p565-6). There is no dormitory, and marriages are arranged but this is sometimes “prevented” by the young.

>In one village (Ladde in 1950), a number of “remarkably goodlooking young boys “practised pederasty in which the “older boys held the younger in their arms, fondled them and performed a number of pantomimes in which they graphically imitated the sex act. But it was always the normal act, and the fact that they did it publicly amid ribald shouts of applause shows that they were entirely innocent of any fear of taboo” (p518).

Plateau Kaluli, Papua New Guinea

>“Homosexual intercourse for boys […] took place in everyday life […] whenever a boy reached the age of about ten or eleven”. Schieffelin (1982/1998:p162-3, 177-9) received the following impression, from oral history:

>“The growth of young boys who were around the age of puberty was encouraged specifically by pederastic homosexual intercourse [of boys] with some of the bachelors. Kaluli believe that girls attain full maturity as women by natural growth but that boys cannot do so without being given a “boost”, as it were, by the semen of older men. This pederasty was considered a major male secret vis-à-vis the women, and it was generally regarded with embarrassment and lascivious humor among the men themselves. Homosexual intercourse for boys also took place in everyday life beyond the bau a [a major ritual abandoned at the time of writing] context whenever a boy reached the age of about ten or eleven. At that time a father would choose a suitable partner to inseminate him, and the two would meet privately in the forest or a garden house for intercourse over a period of months or years. Less frequently a boy might choose his own inseminator, although this was risky: if the man was a witch, his semen would the boy into one too. In the bau a, the boys were inseminated “openly” (that is, they were inseminated by their homosexual partner after lights out in the close, crowded, smoky darkness of the bau a while the rest of the exhausted hunters were thought to be asleep). A few bachelors came to the bau a specifically to act as inseminators, and fathers sometimes assigned their sons to one or the other of them. Other lads chose their own inseminators from among the older bachelors (or bachelors chose them) and formed specific liaisons for a while. Side by side with the serious business of hunters, pederastic intercourse was a marked feature of the bau a which men chuckled over self-consciously in reminiscence”.

Dobe Ju, Botswana

>Lee (1993:p90-1) quotes a 50-year-old woman on her childhood experiences, probably characteristic of the Dobe Ju:

>“When a child sleeps beside his mother, in front, and his father sleeps behind and makes love to her, the child watches. Perhaps this is the way the child learns [….]. Then, when he and the other children are playing, if he is a little boy he takes his younger sister and pretends to have sex with her. As he grows, he lives in the bush and continues to play, now with other children, and they have sex with each other and play and play and play […]. Some days I went with them. Sometimes I refused to play, other times I agreed. The little boys entered into the play huts where we were playing and then they lay down with us. My boyfriend came to see me and we lived like that and played. We would lie down together and they would have sex with us”.

Copper Inuit, Canada

>De Coccola and King (1986:p85)[191] described the intergenerational transmission of Copper Inuit sexual mores taking place continuous from infancy:

>“Normally little Eskimo girls are first shown by their parents how to submit sexually to those little boys to whom they have been promised and to whom they will be married at puberty or sooner. If the young females do not yield their bodies to the advances of their affianced, or if they prove unreceptive, the adults will urge them on with words of encouragement and by suggestive movements. Or else they will poke fun at the beginners and tease them, all the while roaring with laughter [Briggs[192]“ was explained that “[When we [Inuit] tell the puppy to bite the little boy’s penis off], we aren’t trying to make [him] afraid, we’re celebrating his maleness”; “We tell children their genitals are bad in order to make them feel a little bit careful” […]”.]. Most children were introduced to such sexual games when they were still taking milk from their mothers’ breasts. Their parents and neighbors had manipulated their intimate parts as far back as they could remember. It was nothing new to them, and they seemed to enjoy these experiments. Visiting their young friends was another opportune occasion for the children to fondle one another, to excite their sexual desires, and to caricature the physical raptures of their parents with cries of “It’s wonderful!” ”.

>McElroy (1977, II:p268)[193] gives some observations on Inuit childhood: among these, “Girls try to do the same [urinating off the cliff], holding their clitoris up and arching their back, laughing at their lack of success”. Jeness (1922)[194] stated:

>>17743405
>“Whatever the causes may be sexual immorality is certainly very rife amongst them, and as certainly disregarded as a matter of no importance. Even the children are doubtfully pure. A married man deliberately mishandled a little girl in the presence of other people, and his action met with no condemnation. The relatives would doubtless interfere if the children were subject to any annoyance, but as long as no trouble arises no one takes any notice. I never knew of any girl being a mother before she is married, for the simple reason that girls always marry about puberty”.

Aztec, Central America

>Duarte Barbosa observed defloration of 10-year-old Indian girls by the lingam (phallus) in the beginning of the 16th century in southern Dekhan.

>Aztec children played marriage from age five (Madsen, 1960:p86). “Most girls were married (cohabiting) well before the age of puberty” (McCaa, 2003). Girls among the ancient Aztec (Nahua) married before age 15, and in many cases before 12 (McCaa, 1997; cf. 1996, 1994): “Children became adults upon marriage, and most children above the age of 10 years were married (or widowed, separated or abandoned)”. Females married very young, according to the narrative evidence from the Book of Tributes (Cline, 1993:p31-2). Quantitative analysis of these data places the average for females below the age of thirteen, and that for males above age nineteen (McCaa, 1996:p18-27). It was hypothesized that infant marriage was institutional possibly in defense of a high mortality rate.

Alorese, Indonesia

>DuBois (1944, [1960, I:p69-70]) on the Alorese: “The masturbation that little boys pursue so casually and freely during early childhood seems to disappear after the acquisition of a loincloth. At least it is no longer observed, and adults say that “children forget about it”. […] Sex play during this period is frowned upon by adults, but it undoubtedly occurs, both in heterosexual and homosexual forms. […] It is said that if [homosexual] behavior comes to the attention of any adult the children are scolded. […] Play groups of boys often join groups of girls in field houses for several days at a time. Adults are usually suspicious of such alliances and are inclined to warn the girls against the boys. These play groups usually imitate adult relationships. This may at times take the form of attempted intercourse, performed either secretly in pairs of within a group of age-mates. As one informant puts it, “Children hear their mothers and fathers having intercourse. Then they say to each other, “Our parents do this, so let us also” “[…]. Such behavior is not approved by adults, but when reported or discovered it is likely to be shrugged off as mere play”. Parents, and children, may masturbate infants to quiet them (DuBois, 1944:p37; DuBois, 1945 [1956:p131, 148]). Early childhood masturbation (penile manipulation) is public (1944:p45). Nicolspeyer (1940:57) agrees that virginity is a virtue, but only in theory.

Kaingangs, Brazil

>Jules Henry reports materno-infantile masturbation in the Kaingángs. Allegedly, the adults introduce the children in their vita sexualis. Despite the fact that “little children of two and three are told jocularly to copulate with one another”, and “[b]abies are jokingly told to copulate with people anywhere from ten to twenty times their age, and a man sixty-five years old will call a toddler of three “my co-husband” (etc.), “[...] I never saw or heard of intercourse among children. Jokes about the love affairs of children among themselves are never made by the adults nor by the children. The children receive so much satisfaction from adults it is hard to see why they should bother with one another. [...] Children lie like cats absorbing the delicious stroking of adults”. Thus, the child’s wandering “often culminate in the sexual experience to which the grown-ups are eager to introduce the child, and he is generally enjoyed first by a person much older than he. Some married men have nicknames that bear a humorous reference to their experience in trying to deflower young girls. […] The growing child’s sexual experience is primarily humorous, often illicit, administered by adults and apt to be violent in the case of girls”.


Baiga, India

>Elwin (1939) noted that, apart from playing Houses (with coital implications), Baiga children, who are believed to be born with “a complete equipment of phallic knowledge”, improvise games such as “Cow and Bull, Horse and Mare, Cock and Hen, Pig and Sow, and play them with a wealth of realistic detail which reveals considerable physiological knowledge”; all this, of course, in the privacy of the jungle. “[Children’s] sexual consciousness is developed very early. […] Even when [parents] see their children indulging in erotic play, they simply laugh tolerantly. “Sometimes we say, “Why do it now? Wait a little”. But the children grow excited, so what should they do?”.

Aymara, Colombia

>Tschopik (1951:p167)writes: “Owing to sleeping arrangements within the Aymara household, children are, moreover, aware of adult sexuality from early childhood, and it is not surprising in view of the lax attitudes towards sexual behavior that they themselves should experiment freely as soon as they are so inclined. As a consequence, both boys and girls have had first-hand experience and are thoroughly familiar with sex long before they have reached puberty. It seems unnecessary, therefore, to point out that in this society no importance whatever is attached to virginity”.

>“The sex play of young children is viewed by adults with tolerant amusement, and masturbation, though ridiculed, is not actively disapproved, with the result that informants recall having practiced it with no apparent feelings of guilt or shame. Attempts at heterosexual activity on the part of children are, generally speaking, ignored, and if noted tend to evoke amusement or mild ridicule on the part of adults”. […] “As adolescence approaches, girls are often admonished by their mothers not to have “too many” love affairs, but maternal advice in regard to affairs of the heart is customarily elastic and vague. In few instances do illegitimate children constitute a bar to the marriageability of their unwed mothers. Boys are merely warned not to make girls pregnant, lest they become involved with some undesirable and unscrupulous woman who might have serious matrimonial intentions. Evidence furnished by life histories indicates that in not a few instances girls or women take the initiative in making sexual advances, and, indeed, it is the opinion of some Aymara that women are more ardent than men” (p167a-b).

Balinese, Indonesia

>Karsch-Haack (1911:p210), Zwaan and Jacobs speak of a form of boy prostitution (vide supra).

>A child in Bali “knows facts about which an adolescent in the West is totally ignorant, and we knew of children under five who could make erotic jokes” (Covarrubias, 1937 [1938:p132-3]). They also smoked. Even contemporarily, “as there is no code of behavior separating children from adults, the child is treated as an equal. Birth, sex, and death are discussed openly and presented ceremoniously as sacred passages of life. Nothing is hidden from the child”.

>Bateson and Mead (1942:p130-1) give the following (illustrated) account on Balinese genital manipulation of the baby.

>“This takes several forms; commonly the mother grasps the penis and gives it a quick tug while letting it slip through the fingers, as if “pulling it off”. In other cases, the mother passes her hand repeatedly upward over the pubes and abdomen in such a way that the penis pressed upward by each passage of the hand; or she may ruffle the penis upward by repeated little flicks, using almost the exact gesture that a man uses when he ruffles up the hackle feathers of his fighting cock to make it angry […]. These behaviors are all play; they are not motivated by the desire to quiet the child, but by the desire to see the child respond”.

Lepcha, India

>Gorer (1967) gives a detailed account of Lepcha childhood sexuality. The Lepcha ignore puberty and have no word for it (p315). Female sexual maturing is attributed to copulation, or, in the rare case of a virgin menarche, to the visit of a supernatural Kandoo moong, a sign of good luck. “The majority of women, however, depend on the intervention of a man; the physical signs will start whenever a girl experiences copulation, and there is therefore no stigma attached to grown men forcing little girls of nine or ten, and this occurs occasionally”. A child should know who be his num-neu-zong, that is, those people with whom all sexual contact is prohibited, by the time he is nine or ten (p153). There is “no formally marked beginning of sexual life […]. Some men make a distinction between pre-puberty and post-puberty sexual activity, but this distinction is personal and not cultural. Most men, when talking of their past lives, emphasise what was their first “real” sexual experience; but some place this first experience very early, at the age of eleven or twelve. I think the operative distinction in the mind of the Lepcha is whether the sexual adventure formed part of a play, or was undertaken seriously for its own sake” (p316). Children’s play of marriage “always end in simulated copulation; if the “bride” is another boy, the children tie their penises together. From about the age of ten children at marriage feasts and similar gatherings are likely sort themselves into pairs and attempt copulation; there is also a certain amount of mutual masturbation among boys.

>>17743421
>[…] Adult Lepchas consider such sex-play extremely funny, though very childish; far from being disapproving of the children, they are more likely to egg them on” (p310). In the name of legalised adultery, boys have their first “real” experience and training with an older married woman, usually an older brother’s wife (p161, 326). Betrothal and marriage start at age 8 (girls) and 12 (boys); at the time of writing, most girls were betrothed before, or at, pubescence.

Marquesans, French Polynesia

>Suggs (1966:p51-2): “Marchand (1797:p109) noted eight-year-old girls indulging in public intercourse and other unnatural acts. (One girl was held by four old women when she would not submit.) Lisiansky (1814:p67) stated that “age was no test of innocence” for the Marquesan girls who had sexual relations with his crew. Some, who he believed were not more than ten years old, “rivalled their mothers in the wantonness of their mothers and the arts of allurement”. The same was noted by Von Krusentern (1813, I:p116, quoted by Danielsson, 1954 [1956:p88]). Waitz (1872:p124) remarked that, among older women, an eight-year-old girl “offered herself” to the ethnographers. Handy (1923:p93) points out that in aboriginal times, presuperincision was practiced earlier than at the time of writing, suggesting an earlier coital license in that era.

>Even as late as 1989, Oliver (p592, 593) mentions that coitus is practised in childhood, and that actual insertion occurs at age seven to nine.

>Apparently without more recent data, Bolin (1997), reviews on French Polynesia:

>>17743423
>“The cultural practices of Marquesans and Pukapukans not only allowed open sex play among children but [...] provided children clandestine opportunities to observe adult sexual behavior due to sleeping arrangements. According to Oliver (1974) on Tahiti, coital simulation became actual penetration as soon as young boys were physiologically able. The Tahitians found children’s imitation of copulation humorous. Other evidence suggests that young girls may have engaged in copulation before age 10 (Gregersen 1983). […] Suggs (1966:p25) comments that in traditional Marquesan society, girls may have had their first coital experience by age 10 […]. Oliver’s (1981) ethnography includes in-depth discussion of infancy, childhood, and other life-course stages in Tahiti (see the chapter on “Passing Through Life,” p342-400). In this regard, he notes that children played in mixed-gender groups until 13 or 14 years old. The Tahitian attitudes to children playing at copulation was one of amusement (1981:p366). However, as children approached the age of 11, adult parental attitudes shifted in regard to young females but not males. Oliver points out that parents objected to girls engaging in sex prior to marriage, an ideal that coexisted with an open and sex-positive attitude”.

And that concludes the examples I'm going to highlight for this thread. Pic rel. has more information on cross-cultural and historical instances of pederasty in specific.

>>17743362 (OP)
Sexual bonding is just like any other kind of bonding. If the child says yes to it, it’s morally neutral.

Advocates who are against the sexuality of children and who advocate for statutory rape laws rely on skewed research that stems from experimental groups where the willing “victims” were involved in cases where they were caught and were taught how to feel about the sexual encounter via court ordered shrink sessions.


There are islands today with no age of consent. There are whole societies that exist. Any child who grows up in a sex positive environment where sex is not seen as evil, grows up being fine with it.

If a child grows up in a society having done something that their culture says is fucked up, of course that can get to their psyche. Puritans know this and would rather have it that way than have young people have sexual autonomy over their body. The real child abusers are the ones who are raising children to think human anatomy and sexuality are evil for religious sake, they are the real abusers.

>>17743476

>>17743476
Any refutation of you comes primarily from a condemnation of hedonistic indulgence. This is what sexuality, when not pursued for procreative purposes, fundamentally is. You can contort yourself into ever more obscene rhetorical positions but I argue you would not feel the need to do so if you did not understand on some level that what you want is deleterious and a rejection of life. You could likely dedicate your entire life to studying a certain species of tree and never run out of new discoveries to behold the grandeur of this world we live it. You wouldn't have to justify this desire to know more about the trees to anyone beyond the simple phrase, "It interests me". Funnily enough the ever greater lengths you go to to justify your perversions proves that you have deep insecurity about its expression.

I predict a cope and then maybe a seethe with a disjoint probability P(C) = .5, P(S) = .5 | P(C then S) = .25

>>17743362 (OP)
The purpose of these threads that you constantly make is to justify pedophilia, you barely try to hide that fact even in your first post with the line.

>Most of these practices were once commonplace among European people at some point in history.

You make the fallacious assumption that seeing these behaviors in prior or underdeveloped human cultures somehow justifies them today. That is simply not how the world works.

>>17743640
Lower beings like species of fish and insects might only engage in sexual practices for reproductive reasons, but virtually no human societies to have ever existed engaged in sexual practices purely for reproductive reasons. Only a handful of irrelevant chud philosophers who died alone think that it should even be an ideal to be upheld.

There are plenty of non-reproductive reasons for two people to engage in sexual practices besides the pursuit of hedonic pleasure. The most obvious being the creation and strengthening of emotional bonds between two persons. Even Aristotle mentions this as a positive aspect of a non-reproductive, pederastic relationship.

The only real reason to delay marriage and discourage promiscuity is to control who people reproduce with, and this goal is best achieved by marrying girls off as young as possible and doesn't preclude the practice of pederasty. Which is why aristocrats have traditionally married their daughters off as young as possible.

You are a dysgenic simp who worships infertile 300lb women. You think a man in his 20s having a sexual relationship with a 19 year old women traumatizes the woman. A society comprised of people who held your views would go extinct. You are basically one step away from becoming a Shaker. This is the Judeo-Christian mindset.

>>17743728
>The most obvious being the creation and strengthening of emotional bonds between two persons.
This can be achieved through nonsexual means, nice reddit spacing btw.
>and doesn't preclude the practice of pederasty
Pederasty is sexual promiscuity, it is done for the purposes of sexual gratification.
>Even Aristotle mentions this as a positive aspect of a non-reproductive, pederastic relationship.
I am not sure why I should be moved by a 2300 year old man whose students would go on to condemn pederasty
>You are a dysgenic simp who worships infertile 300lb women. You think a man in his 20s having a sexual relationship with a 19 year old women traumatizes the woman.
Not quite sure where you got this from, it does prove my point that you understand you desires are deleterious and so feel attacked when this is pointed out to you in a very nonthreatening manner.

>>17743674
If you think reading about anthropological examples of adult-child sex justifies pedophilia, that is a conclusion which you have reached yourself.

This is an interesting topic which is hardly discussed anywhere, not even on the internet. There is a vast wealth of resources pertaining to it, of which some have been posted in this thread, which hardly see the light of day. It is a highly controversial topic, which has the constant attention of society and the media, yet honest discussions, even in a historical and anthropological context, rarely take place. It's surprising how little people discuss child sexuality, being that people are absolutely obsessed with pedophilia.

Child sexuality and everything relating to it is a blind-spot which even academics refuse to discuss.

We understand the reality of White supremacy here. We know that the lesser races partake in practices, i.e. cannibalism, which are so below the grade of the White man that we must go into prehistory to find examples of the ancestors of Europeans partaking in the widespread practice of.

However, most of the sexual practices listed in this thread were practiced by Europeans in recorded history. These practices can not simply be shrugged off in the same way.

>You make the fallacious assumption that seeing these behaviors in prior or underdeveloped human cultures somehow justifies them today.
This is projection. Nowhere was this argument stated or hinted at.

It does help to refute the following fallacies which are commonly held to be undeniable truths which can not even be questioned in the modern West, however:

Children are asexual and do not wish to engage in sexual activities with other children or with adults.

Sexual activity involving children is universally viewed as repellent (in the same way that sexual activity between two men is).

Sexual activity between adults and children invariably causes trauma to the child and decreases their ability to function in life.

>>17743728
Brief correction, I assumed you meant that pederastic desire was precluded from promiscuity. You in fact argue that we should encourage promiscuity as the only reason to discourage this is to control who reproduces. I offer a counter: promiscuity is negative for the same reason pederasty is. It supposes that life is not enough, that the world has nothing of significant interest and thus we should turn inwards in to an orgiastic feast of bacchanalia . Maybe you would accuse me of misrepresenting your point? I argue that this attitude of misanthropy spreads, it is only countered by teaching people that there is more to life than the mere pursuit of temporary pleasure.

>>17743750
>It does help to refute the following fallacies which are commonly held to be undeniable truths which can not even be questioned in the modern West, however:
>Children are asexual and do not wish to engage in sexual activities with other children or with adults.
>Sexual activity involving children is universally viewed as repellent (in the same way that sexual activity between two men is).
>Sexual activity between adults and children invariably causes trauma to the child and decreases their ability to function in life.
So you are attempting to justify pedophilia? Despite denying that was your purpose a few sentences earlier.

>>17743743
>This can be achieved through nonsexual means
Irrelevant to the argument. You claimed "This is what sexuality, when not pursued for procreative purposes, fundamentally is". My response was to that.

>nice reddit spacing btw.
Not what Reddit spacing means, newfriend.

>>17743750
>We understand the reality of White supremacy here. We know that the lesser races partake in practices, i.e. cannibalism, which are so below the grade of the White man that we must go into prehistory to find examples of the ancestors of Europeans partaking in the widespread practice of.
>However, most of the sexual practices listed in this thread were practiced by Europeans in recorded history. These practices can not simply be shrugged off in the same way.
They can though, European cultures condemned these practices far into antiquity.

>>17743751
>You in fact argue that we should encourage promiscuity as the only reason to discourage this is to control who reproduces.
No I didn't. Learn how to read.

>>17743752
Is that a justification of pedophilia? Do you believe that these anthropological examples do not refute those commonly held beliefs?

>>17743756
Many of these sexual practices were commonplace in advanced European cultures, up until the late nineteenth century.

>>17743753
>Irrelevant to the argument. You claimed "This is what sexuality, when not pursued for procreative purposes, fundamentally is". My response was to that.
If it can be achieved through non-sexual means, distinctly heightening the duration and amiability of said relationships, then why bother with the obscene route? What purpose does it serve other than to feed into deleterious impulses that exist within the human consciousness?
>Not what Reddit spacing means, newfriend.
Yes it is, lurk moar.

>>17743759
Some did, sure, I do not doubt that. But we get refutations of pederasty and pedophilia stretching back into Archaic Greece. Do you deny the existence of these condemnations?

>>17743758
You said:
>The only real reason to delay marriage and discourage promiscuity is to control who people reproduce with
This implies that you wish to encourage promiscuity, maybe you wish to pull up the ladder behind you and encourage it only in cases of homosexual man-child relationships, but you are nonetheless encouraging it. You evident anger has showed me that we've reached the cope phase.

>>17743765
seethe phase*

>>17743758
Yes it is an implied justification of pedophilia, anthropological examples do not refute universally nor does their acceptance really matter.

Reminder: Hitler had to deal with these people too, here are his thoughts on the matter.

>>17743750
Mucho texto.
You know him to be saying the truth. Also, wanting to have sex with boys makes you gay, no matter what the Romans or the Greeks called it.

>>17743760
You claimed sexual practices in the absence of a reproductive goal are only performed for hedonistic reasons. You condemned adult-child sex on these grounds.

I argued that there are non-hedonistic reasons to engage in sexual practices, besides reproduction, which if valid, would negate your condemnation.

>Yes it is, lurk moar.
It isn't. It's what post-2016 newfags think Reddit spacing is.

>>17743763
Do you deny that advanced European cultures, at the height of their development, engaged in child marriage, adult-child sex, adult-adolescent sex, child prostitution, and pederasty? Why would they partake in such practices if they were obviously wrong? It is irrelevant if there existed condemnations of these practices during their times, or even if they eventually stopped these practices, there is always a diversity of opinion regarding any practice in almost every society. They would have never openly engaged in clearly morally repugnant practices such as cannibalism, which was always viewed as wrong.

>>17743765
>This implies that you wish to encourage promiscuity
No it doesn't.

>>17743769
>anthropological examples do not refute universally
Yes they do. If a universal claim is contradicted by even a single anthropological example, it is refuted.

>>17743781
Hitler had Rohm assassinated because he believed he was planning a coup against him. Hitler was one of the only people to defend Rohm after he had been exposed as a homosexual. Hitler had an interest in teenage girls which would be considered "pedophilic" today.

>>17743787
OP will go silent and wait for someone to stumble across this thread so he can disagree with people who are less equipped to recognize his distinctly Jewish tactics.

>With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate.

>>17743750
>It's surprising how little people discuss child sexuality
Is it? What part of that is surprising to you?

>>17743794
>You claimed sexual practices in the absence of a reproductive goal are only performed for hedonistic reasons. You condemned adult-child sex on these grounds. I argued that there are non-hedonistic reasons to engage in sexual practices, besides reproduction, which if valid, would negate your condemnation.
If it can be achieved through non-sexual means, why bother with sexuality? The obvious answer is that it is for the base gratification of, in your case, the perverted homosexual aging man.
>It isn't. It's what post-2016 newfags think Reddit spacing is.
Only a redditor would think 4chan changed in 2016, in reality it was lost almost as early as 2012.

>>17743750
>We understand the reality of White supremacy here. We know that the lesser races partake in practices
My sides just reached alpha centuri
>>17743752
To be fair, he did not deny that was intent. He merely asserted he was not pushing that agenda prior to this post.

>>17743794
>Hitler had Rohm assassinated because he believed he was planning a coup against him. Hitler was one of the only people to defend Rohm after he had been exposed as a homosexual. Hitler had an interest in teenage girls which would be considered "pedophilic" today.

What Hitler's desires were is of litter concern to me, he argued that your kind (the homosexual) should be exterminated. He followed through to the best of his abilities. I believe we should continue this policy.

>>17743794
on that same basis their acceptance doesn't really matter either.

>>17743794
The height of European development was Puritan England, crimes like prostitution and sodomy were rightly punished there the latter with death as God commanded.

>>17743794
>Do you deny that advanced European cultures, at the height of their development, engaged in child marriage, adult-child sex, adult-adolescent sex, child prostitution, and pederasty? Why would they partake in such practices if they were obviously wrong? It is irrelevant if there existed condemnations of these practices during their times, or even if they eventually stopped these practices, there is always a diversity of opinion regarding any practice in almost every society. They would have never openly engaged in clearly morally repugnant practices such as cannibalism, which was always viewed as wrong.

They partook quite heavily in murder, rape and theft of all sorts. We do not use the behavior of a general society to set moral standards for obvious reasons. Are you retarded?

>>17743799
Every post this worm makes has an agenda.

>>17743809
Not him, but I have a question that always burns in my mind whenever this counter-argument is presented. A non-retarded version of your argument (considering murder, rape and theft have been highly illegal in literally every single society) is when people use the example of slavery. Antis will correctly point out slavery was common practice, often legal, and frequently considered morally acceptable. However, they never failed to acknowledge it was slavery. They never claimed they were actually best buddies. On the other hand they were quite ignorant of the modern feminist belief that adult-child sex is inherently non-consensual and believed these relationships to be honest loving marriages just as modern pedophiles also do. How is this possible if it was obviously rape as modern antis believe?

>>17743816
>Not him
>the modern feminist belief that adult-child sex is inherently non-consensual

don't make me laugh

pedo-fag BTFO'd in under 50 posts, they beat my record.

>>17743763
I deny that.
>>17743823
Ok. Can you answer my question now?

>>17743839
As someone said above, if you need to lean on slavery to create an ethical basis for your argument, you have already lost.

>>17743848
That's a strawman. OP did not do this, I certainly did not do this. You have serious reading comprehension issues if you think I was saying slavery in any way creates an ethical basis for anything
>>17743850
Are you actually retarded? Have you clocked in at a brisk IQ?

I clearly severely overestimated your intelligence so I will try to condescend.

I was responding to the argument of >>17743809. I was NOT making a point in a vacuum. The reason I changed his analogies to slavery was to do what redditors call "steelmanning". Were I to respond to his actual argument, I would do so with a hand-waive dismissal as all of his analogies are universally criminal and condemned, unlike adult-child sex. The same argument but with slavery instead at least has the advantage of appearing to be coherent. My point with regard to slavery was not that it was justified or somehow justifies adult-child sex but that it was a very different case, therefore raising a disanalogy and defeating the argument.

>>17743867
You just did that, you pointed out slavery as a gotchya of sorts. Slavery is an entire separate issue, make a new thread if you want to discuss that so bad.

>>17743867
I just came here, and you are talking about overestimating my intelligence. Nigga you just started talking to me.

>The reason I changed his analogies to slavery was to do what redditors call "steelmanning"

Ok so you are a redditor?

>unlike adult-child sex

As >>17743823 pointed out, we all know you are OP. Just kill yourself man, you got BTFO'd and so started to act like you are someone else.

>>17743880
Ok so you can't answer the question.

>>17743885
On an entirely different subject largely unrelated to the topic, yeah. Start another thread if you really aren't OP, I'm sure you have a wealth of sources!

>>17743889
You switched to obvious, embarrassing trolling which I accept as a concession. This is what capitulation looks like.
>>17743883
How bout you, can you answer the question?

>>17743892
Wir nicht kapitulieren, juden

>>17743895
This board is English-language only, ma'am.

>>17743899
You admit your jewish heritage then?

>>17743867
There's no point arguing with people who can't comprehend your posts, follow along with arguments or understand analogy. Could you imagine reading your own post and not being able to follow along with the obvious argument? I can easily follow along. This other retard thinks you're just bringing up slavery for no reason whatsoever. He isn't even trolling you. Absolutely mind boggling. We can not understand life from that other anon's perspective because we are not brown like he is.

Truly, it is situations such as this that force us to appreciate our White privilege.

>>17744035
>Any refutation of you comes primarily from a condemnation of hedonistic indulgence. This is what sexuality, when not pursued for procreative purposes, fundamentally is. You can contort yourself into ever more obscene rhetorical positions but I argue you would not feel the need to do so if you did not understand on some level that what you want is deleterious and a rejection of life. You could likely dedicate your entire life to studying a certain species of tree and never run out of new discoveries to behold the grandeur of this world we live it. You wouldn't have to justify this desire to know more about the trees to anyone beyond the simple phrase, "It interests me". Funnily enough the ever greater lengths you go to to justify your perversions proves that you have deep insecurity about its expression.
>I predict a cope and then maybe a seethe with a disjoint probability P(C) = .5, P(S) = .5 | P(C then S) = .25

by the way this pedofaggot mocked the ability of us sane individuals to shut him down. Look how silent he goes, Point and laugh at one of the

>great /his/ posters

Laugh at this retarded obsessed feminist faggot who thinks an adult man dating a 19 year old will traumatize them.

The "power imbalance" this feminist thinks a 25 year old man will use to traumatize an innocent 19 year old child is the exact same reason he thinks children are traumatized by sex with adults.

Alright. I read the excerps posted. There are some apalling practices, however some of them left me thinking. Particularly the one from the Balinese of Indonesia, how there is no distinction between children and adults. That alone sounds reasonable (and honestly seems to be a requisite for pedosexual relationships), but I wonder if there is no exception, and what effect this has on education.
In my experience, teachers become something like adoptive parents. I wonder what kind of relationship these people develop under their circumstances.
Also, is there any society where marriage is within the same age group?

>>17744072
Where exactly does he say this? I've read every post in this thread and you just pulled it directly out of your ass it seems.

>>17744925
I don't make any distinction between adults and children for sexual purposes because that's the biblical way to approach it.

>>17745119
Without any prompting the pagan pedophile injects Christianity into the discussion. How incredibly funny.

>>17745227
I'm not a pagan, I'm a Christian.

>>17745062
He said it in another thread >>17738598

>>17745488
That was 100% written by a roastie.

>>17745488
Yeah you are just misrepresenting, he isn't condemning age gaps, in fact he is encouraging them in your case. Also he never alleges that it is unhealthy for a 25 year old man and a 19 year old woman to form a sexual relationships. If we were to extrapolate the position from calm rationality and not deep insecurity, it would be pretty safe to assume that any 40-50 something with a specific interest in 19 year old men may have some deeper issues. For reference I think all homosexuality is an abomination, but feel much more disturbed when I see older men deliberately searching for young boys. I do not believe myself to be alone in this.

>>17745543
>Also he never alleges that it is unhealthy for a 25 year old man and a 19 year old woman to form a sexual relationships
Yeah you did, roastie. Stop trying to backtrack.

>>17744035
>a degenerate hedonist throws in the towel when is off-topic bait is rejected

>>17745549
Where in the post does he say that?

>>17745550
I'm >>17743816
You don't need to be a hedonist to support the restoration of pure love between men and girls.
>>17745552
You said "You'll likely even still inflict the same psychological damage on them depending on your age".

>>17745552
>There are also plenty of retarded 18-19 year old kids who want an older man/women
>I have no idea why you need to break the law in order to get your rocks off when you can have the power imbalance and lead role that you so desire with someone who is of legal age
>You'll likely even still inflict the same psychological damage on them depending on your age, which I'm sure is part of the whole appeal for you.
Also, the fact that you assume someone posting on 4chan is in their 40s-50s, when the majority of the posters here are in their teens or twenties, implies that you are not only a roastie, but an old, walled, eggless, 40-something year old roastie hag. Aren't there other websites for people like you to post on?

>>17745558
You just posted three lines of him telling you how to cum without being subjected to the ire of society at large. The fuck? This sounds like condemning to you, wow >>17743640 really was right, you have a serious persecution complex.

>>17745566
Imagine being such an effete subhuman that you live in fear of "society's ire". I will do as I please, slave.

>>17745557
Love between adult and child is most purely represented in non-sexual pedagogical/parental/protective relationships, these are often cited these as some of the most beneficial relationships a child can have. When the adult receives sexual gratification from the child, however, it is a form of hedonistic lust. This is especially the case if the child is a boy or not capable of reproduction. You could edge in an argument that girls should be married off as soon as they are able to have children, but that would require the structure of the nuclear family to change and have women leave the house around 12-13, I personally think they are better suited to be protected by their fathers during this period.

>>17745570
>When the adult receives sexual gratification from the child
*When both participants in the relationship receive sexual gratification.

>it is a form of hedonistic lust
Why?

>>17745569
You won't though, you will do everything in secret, your fantasies -- should they ever be made manifest -- will almost certainly land you in prison short of living in such a shit hole that no crimes are punished, and you will always live in fear that you might be caught. You could just sleep with 18 year olds and avoid this, but my guess is you feel an inclination towards those much younger. This, as has been established before, is merely degenerate and hedonistic behavior.

>>17745570
>Love between adult and child is most purely represented in non-sexual pedagogical/parental/protective relationships, these are often cited these as some of the most beneficial relationships a child can have
There is nothing impure about sexual, romantic relationships.
>When the adult receives sexual gratification from the child
You say this as if the child does not also receive sexual gratification from the adult. In a healthy relationship, both people give and take from each other.
>it is a form of hedonistic lust
Experiencing pleasure does not make you a hedonist. You're retarded.

>>17745574
How can feeling an inclination be hedonism?
>>17745570
Also I believe there's nothing wrong with it if the girl is 3 or 4.

>>17745571
Sex done for means other than procreation rejects life is lust. Sex only exists for the purpose of creating more life and when it is done without that as the final goal it is misanthropic. You seek sex with children because you either are too ignorant or too stupid to comprehend the beauty of the world which surrounds you.

>>17745577
>Sex only exists for the purpose of creating more life and when it is done without that as the final goal it is misanthropic.
No, I reject this claim. This is a misanthropic and fundamentally Jewish worldview.

>>17745577
People who aren't incels/men with wives and children don't believe sex is immoral unless strictly done for the sole purpose of procreation

>>17745577
Sex is part of the beauty of the world btw

>>17745577
Let's say I have a 20 year old wife, and I have sex with her, not to create a baby but because she is my wife. Is this evil hedonism?

>>17745575
Sexual/romantic relationships are fundamentally impure, regardless of which understanding of the metaphysical you choose, chasteness is always a virtue. Likewise in the cases where sexuality is praiseworthy it is so because of its fertility and the creation of new life. Experiencing pleasure does not make you a hedonist when your pleasure is found in base desires, however, that is hedonism.

>>17745582
Nobody is perfect, none of us, some are worse off though -- such as yourself.

>>17745586
>Sexual/romantic relationships are fundamentally impure
OK, so any moment not spent contemplating the glory of Mary in the monastery is impure

>>17745585
Sort of, a lesser species of it, but still hedonistic. Let me reframe this -- you see your male dog attempting to fuck a pillow, do you tell him to stop? Or do you lift this behavior up as a praiseworthy example of epicurean thought? Now imagine him doing that to a cat, do you similarly praise the dog for doing so, or condemn it for being contrary to his nature?

>>17745593
>having sex with your wife is hedonism
Holy shit

>>17745595
Pure virtue is an unobtainable state for many different reasons, this is one example, you can still fuck your wife without a condom btw.

>>17745597
No, it's an example that you're an insane tradcath incel. You're a death cultist, your opinion is disqualified.

>>17745592
You can do plenty of things which are not sexual and not base yet still incredibly fun. I personally enjoy nature yet I feel no desire to have sex with the trees as I walk through them, strange!

>>17745601
I am beginning to sense some seethe, all of this because I told you fucking boys was bad in not so few words. Regardless of whether or not I am catholic you are still a pedophile, worshipping a misanthropic desire for the desolation of innocence.

>>17745602
I just wish this conversation had more visibility, honestly. I'm guessing you've also spent every moment of your life since you turned 13 locked away inside because you seem quite oblivious to the fact you would be perceived as insane by any normal human being. You're so mentally damaged that you believe sex with one's wife is "misanthropic hedonism", while also despite this pretense of extreme purism, thinking anyone who isn't a similar death cultist must want to fuck trees.
>>17745607
>Regardless of whether or not
No, there is no "whether or not" here. You are transparently a nutty tradcath who thinks whithering away in some monastic hole is the peak of human existence

>>17743362 (OP)
>Most of these practices were once commonplace among European people at some point in history.

Most of these practices are commonplace in Europe TODAY. But instead of adults letting children be they make them feel like they did something horrible, that's how they get traumatized and develop complexes and mental illness.

>>17745619
Sex with your wife isn't misanthropic, and if it is, it is significantly less so than sex with a young boy. The beginnings of impurity =/= the height of excess. The peak of human existence is not one mode or one behavior, rather it is the state in which you are most able to appreciate the beauty of the world through higher virtues of consciousness. I spent some time in my early twenties raising animals on a ranch out in Montana, I remember how from about January until July we would have one or two homebred foals, the mares would filter in to maternity stalls, give birth, and then eventually be turned out to pasture with their babies. There were many moments during my time there were I felt in awe of the beauty that surrounded me, even the coldest mornings were strangely beautiful and calm. That I would say is the "peak" of human existence for me, maybe I will find a new one. I rank sex as fundamentally subordinate to that.

>>17745642
>It's actually YOUR fault the child I raped has C-PTSD you stupid CHUD, why don't you just ACCEPT that an aging homosexual NEEDS children!

Something being partook of for pleasure for its own sake does not make it wrong. This appreciation of beauty is a defining trait of the Aryan. The world is replete with mercantile/slave races, such as Indians, Asians, and Jews, who show a fundamental inability to appreciate beauty for its own sake. To these people, every action must have a pragmatic, transactional reason behind it. This is why they never developed high culture, or produced significant scientific and artistic innovation.

Believing that sex in-of-itself is wrong is a Jewish point of view which is not native to the Aryan, it is a worldview which the Jew has forced upon the White man through a thousand years of Christian indoctrination.

Art is appreciated for purely hedonic reasons. You can try to rationalize it and pretend otherwise, but ultimately, that is what it is.

You can argue there are benefits to the creation and appreciation of art, beyond the mere appreciation of art in-of-itself, but this also applies to non-reproductive sex. For example, sex facilitates the creation and strengthening of interpersonal bonds, and allows prospective mates to test genetic fitness.

If you reduce these non-hedonic benefits to ultimately being for the purposes of reproduction, in a sort of vulgar Darwinism, you collapse your argument, because every human action can be reduced to such. Or like a good Christian, will you conclude that we should just all give up, die, and go to heaven?

These non-hedonic benefits to sexual activity were brought up earlier in the thread, which you didn't refute.

The fact that you think sexual activity isn't necessary to bring about these aforementioned benefits is irrelevant, because you are still making the same argument: that it is virtuous to abstain from sexual activity when not engaged in for reproductive reasons.

The fact that you worship a dead Jew on a stick is an indictment on your diseased, demented mind. Christianity is an apocalyptic, life-denying, Jewish death cult.

>>17745653
What mechanism would cause a child to develop trauma from consensual sex?

>>17745655
>Something being partook of for pleasure for its own sake does not make it wrong. This appreciation of beauty is a defining trait of the Aryan.
It is, when it is done in a non-sexual fashion
>Art is appreciated for purely hedonic reasons.
No? Appreciating art "hedonistically" as we use the term here would only really apply to pornography, the purpose of Art is to make you think or impress an author's/creator's mind onto you. What the purpose of Art is, however, is an impossibly deep topic and somewhat obfuscates your point about boy-fucking so I understand why you went there.
>sex facilitates the creation and strengthening of interpersonal bonds
this can be achieved non-sexually, in fact it is usually more expedient to do so in a non-sexual manner
>If you reduce these non-hedonic benefits to ultimately being for the purposes of reproduction
The emphasis on reproduction only applies to sexuality
>These non-hedonic benefits to sexual activity were brought up earlier in the thread, which you didn't refute.
All of this can be achieved more consistently and more reliably through non-sexual means.
>The fact that you worship a dead Jew on a stick is an indictment on your diseased, demented mind. Christianity is an apocalyptic, life-denying, Jewish death cult.
And here comes to violent seethe

>>17745662

>Major factors that affect both the pathology and response to treatment include the type and severity of the sexual act, its frequency, the age at which it occurred, and the child's family of origin. Roland C. Summit, a medical doctor, defined the different stages the victims of child sexual abuse go through, called child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. He suggested that children who are victims of sexual abuse display a range of symptoms that include secrecy, helplessness, entrapment, accommodation, delayed and conflicted disclosure and recantation.[129]

>>17745679
>directly copied irrelevant text from shitkepedia
What mechanism would cause a child to develop trauma from consensual sex?

>>17745655
There is intrinsically nothing that sex can offer which other methods cannot in terms of the growth of a child. The only thing it makes the child "better" at is having sex with adults. It is self contained and deleterious.

>>17745683
>Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, may cause notable changes in brain functioning and development.[81][82] Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"[83] Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects;[84] Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood;[85] Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse;[86] and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children.[87]

>>17745683
>Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system.[86] Teicher et al. (1993)[84]

>Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample. Because the abused subjects' verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short-term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse.[89]

>>17745683
>Because child sexual abuse often occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse,[71][non-primary source needed] some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse.[25][54][72][73] In a 1998 review of related literature, Martin and Fleming state "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects."[74] Other studies have found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[10][25][54]

>>17745687
It makes the child a happier child and a better wife.
>>17745689
>>17745692
>sexual abuse
Not relevant, we're looking for information on consensual sex. What mechanism would cause a child to develop trauma from consensual sex?

>>17745683
Kendler et al. (2000) found that most of the relationship between severe forms of child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology in their sample could not be explained by family discord, because the effect size of this association decreased only slightly after they controlled for possible confounding variables. Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology; the CSA-exposed subjects had a consistently higher risk for psychopathologic disorders than their CSA non-exposed twins.[54]

>>17745696
All sexual contact between adults and children is medically classified as rape/abuse, regardless of how that makes you feel that is the simple fact.

>>17745700
That's how it's classified, that's not reality. When it is classified that way as a justification for the belief adult-child sex is abusive or harmful like this mindless drone >>17745698 is doing, it is an instance of logically fallacious circular reasoning.

>>17745696
It turns the child into a more pliable sex slave, correct. Glad you finally admitted that.

>>17745687
Here's a thought: why not leave people alone? I think it's deleterious for you to interfere with children's lives and harm their well-being by destroying the people they love in their name because you think you should get to tell other people how to live their lives

>>17745707
Again with your deranged conception of a marriage as misanthropic hedonism

>>17745662
Just like in the other thread, he will deny that consensual adult-child sex exists, or if it does exist, it is too infrequent to matter. He spams irrelevant, poorly conducted studies with methodological flaws (they are all studies on self identified rape victims recruited from criminal/psychiatric samples) and refuses to admit that there are any issues with this approach:

>>17726366

He claims adult-child sex is inherently non-consensual, in spite of these anthropological examples where we can clearly read that these relationships are consensual, and that there is nothing inherent to adult-child sex which makes children indisposed to these relationships, unlike the victimologist feminist claim, and in spite of surveys in modern Western countries that show that the majority of adult-child sex is considered consensual by the child participant.

>>17745674
And just like in the other thread, you define your personal positions as axiomatic, not providing any argument to support them. You make an arbitrary distinction between the hedonic appreciation of sex and other human endeavours, without reason, and refuse to address any criticism of this position. You continue to argue a position which you know has been refuted, your claim is that it is not virtuous to engage in sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes, not that it is prudent to avoid sexual activity when there are better alternatives to bring about benefit.

When someone brings up a refutation of your point, you hand-wave it away by implying the matter of the refutation is too difficult to understand.

Give up. You can't even properly argue this strongly held position of yours.

>>17745687
All benefits of sexual activity that apply to adults, besides reproduction, apply to children.

>>17745700
And here we go, the argument from authority begins.

>>17745707
And the seething cope begins.

>>17745705
The Kendler study established a direct causal relationship between CSA and psychopathological issues directly, CSA is classified as such in part because of studies like this. In all cases of sexual contact between children and adults these effects were observed and a strong casual relationship could be developed between the sexual contact and later pathologies. CSA will likely never be known by another name again given we now have this data, but again, it is just the terminology for sexual contact between adults and children. In that sense it is value-neutral.

>>17745716
It is not an argument from authority, this is just how the contact is classified in terms of research. I am not making any argument here, the anon pointed out that this mentions only CSA, but CSA is the only term which exists to describe it currently in modern parlance.

>>17745716
I provided an argument right here, not sure what you are talking about in terms of some other thread.

>Any refutation of you comes primarily from a condemnation of hedonistic indulgence. This is what sexuality, when not pursued for procreative purposes, fundamentally is. You can contort yourself into ever more obscene rhetorical positions but I argue you would not feel the need to do so if you did not understand on some level that what you want is deleterious and a rejection of life. You could likely dedicate your entire life to studying a certain species of tree and never run out of new discoveries to behold the grandeur of this world we live it. You wouldn't have to justify this desire to know more about the trees to anyone beyond the simple phrase, "It interests me". Funnily enough the ever greater lengths you go to to justify your perversions proves that you have deep insecurity about its expression.

It seems you are the one unwilling to engage with my arguments.

>>17745716
>your claim is that it is not virtuous to engage in sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes, not that it is prudent to avoid sexual activity when there are better alternatives to bring about benefit.

You repeated yourself here, maybe that was an error? Is virtuosity not also prudent?

holy shit is pedo-anon gonna get btfo'd twice in one thread

>>17745716
He wasn't citing studies at all, he was citing shitkipedia
>>17745717
>The Kendler study established a direct causal relationship between CSA and psychopathological issues directly, CSA is classified as such in part because of studies like this
Really, can we see this incredible study? How did they ensure every participant only had consensual sex with adults? How did they ensure trauma did not have a different cause from the consensual sexual acts?
>CSA will likely never be known by another name again given we now have this data
Let's be clear here: there is no study which makes the finding that adult-child sex is harmful unless it either directly confounded its own data by making no distinction from child sexual abuse, or indirectly confounded it by failing to control for other causes of mental trauma. And you do not care; the only interest you have in it to conceit yourself in your prejudice and make yourself feel justified to proudly declare yourself on the right side of history like some kind of transmonster. But it really makes no difference to you one way or the other what research does or does not exist because you are a bigot motivated by cultural prejudice.
>>17745717
>>17745723
This is the really pernicious part and obviously it *is* an appeal to authority but this is deliberate malicious deception. There is obviously nothing "value neutral" about this circular reasoning, it is the direct expression of your bigotry against pedophiles and adult-child sex. It is strictly incorrect and utterly false to call consensual sex "abuse" and there is no power in all creation which will change that, and you are plum-fucking retarded if you think we'll accept your declaration of victory just because you said so.

>>17745750
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481660

Here is the study which resolves for you confounding

>>17745723
>>17745729
>>17745739
And now he just starts trolling by pretending not to comprehend my post, which I take as an admission of defeat.

>>17745750
It's the word we use to describe sexual contact between children and adults. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's feelings about the matter when a study mentions CSA, that is just what they call it.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/da.10077

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/206025

Here are some more studies btw

>>17745750
>but it really makes no difference to you one way or the other what research does or does not exist because you are a bigot motivated by cultural prejudice.

You should realize I take this as a deep compliment of both myself and my culture.

>>17745756
Wir nicht kapitulieren, juden

>>17745753
>Before you were 16, did any adult, or any other person older than yourself, involve you in any unwanted incidents
This study falls under the 1st type of directly confounding by inclusion of sexual assault. If anything this excludes consensual contact, which might make it relevant to child sexual abuse but irrelevant to adult-child sex.
>>17745758
>It's the word we use to describe sexual contact between children and adults
And you are wrong
>It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's feelings
That's false, in this case it has to do with your feelings.
>that is just what they call it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9670820/
This study concluded the construct of child sexual abuse was illegitimate since the associated activities do not cause harm, and recommend replacing it with the constructs of adult-child sex and adult-adolescent sex unless the act was non-consensual.

>>17745769
Yes the Rind study has been refuted many times over, is the ground really gonna be trod over again?

>The population selected by Rind et al. consisted entirely of college students. The authors of this article, Whittenburg et al., compared the results of that population to existing research from a national sample and found statistically significant differences in findings across four of six types of child sexual abuse analyzed by Rind et al. and by these authors. The effects of the removal of clinical and legal cases from the Rind et al. research sample, the unavailability of independent judging for the selection of the meta-analytical interrater, the use of Pearson coefficient r to determine relationships, and the use of a nonparametric statistic to test the homogeneity of variance among the samples on the resulting statistical analysis was also presented. Whittenburg et al. identify their most important methodological question as the use of a single information source, the victim’s self-report of effects, in a cross-sectional analytical approach. The authors conclude that Rind et al. utilized flawed methodology and failed to take into account relevant scientific literature in formulating the meta-analytic review. 2 tables, 4 notes, 35 references

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/critical-appraisal-1998-meta-analytic-review-child-sexual-abuse

>>17745769
I didn't read that particular study through, here is a full text of a meta analysis which further demonstrates a causal connection
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7015702/

>>17745781
Note, every argument this anon made against the Rind study was thoroughly refuted already in this thread: >>17726366

And after being debunked, he finally let slip his true beliefs, and stated that he believes consensual sexual relations between adults, which involve an age gap, produce the same type of harm (due to a "power imbalance") that he claims adult-child sexual relationships do: >>17744072

Utterly embarrassing. A true feminist zealot.

>>17745781
>Yes the Rind study has been refuted many times over
No. It has been coped and seethed about, but it has never been refuted. It has been replicated multiple times and is now well-established among the experts in this field. The particular objection you just found on google was responded to by the study authors at the time of publication, over 25 years ago, but what this highlights is your own irrationality because you can't even criticize it yourself. You're starting with your conclusion then running off to whatever cheap studies you can find (probably without reading them) to attach a veneer of authority to your irrational bigotry.

By the way, what mechanism would cause a child to develop trauma from consensual sex?
>>17745797
I don't believe you've read any of them.

>>17745798
1. They were not refuted
2. That assertion was never made
3. You are a pedophile kike

>But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them.

>>17745812
He's right though.

>>17745812
Funny that you accuse me of being a Jew while fervently defending an explicitly Jewish, feminist form of pseudoscience.

>>17745804
The ones I ripped from wikipedia I didn't read, the Whittenburg one I have read in full. By the way do you have any ability to refute what was said in it?
>It has been replicated multiple times
It has been replicated once by an unbiased third party, they found that its methodology was flawed
>and is now well-established among the experts in this field
it's been rejected hundreds of times, all cope and seethe I suppose?
>You're starting with your conclusion then running off to whatever cheap studies you can find
The conclusion is agreed upon almost universally at the very highest echelons of psychiatric research. Even pedo-anon wasn't so stupid as to reject that fundamental truth, he just called them Jews.
>To attach a veneer of authority to your irrational bigotry
And I'm sure your reasoning is not at all subject to the an irrational bias towards fucking children. Surely you know more than the people who have dedicated their lives studying this phenomenon!
>By the way, what mechanism would cause a child to develop trauma from consensual sex?
Limbic system

>Limbic system
He's gone full retard.

>>17745835
conveniently ignored the rest of that post, didn't you?

>>17745826
The Aryan spirit recognizes the mutilation and rape of boys as an abomination. It is fundamental to their nature to reject homosexuality in all it permutations.

>>17745831
>I have read in full.
I don't believe you have, I think it's very transparent that all of your spam was derived from a google search of "child sexual abuse study" then pasting as many links as you could because surely nobody's gonna read every single one and call you on every single one right?
>once by an unbiased third party
Oh ok, so all the other times were just biased because they didn't confirm your bias got it
>it's been rejected hundreds of times, all cope and seethe I suppose?
Yes.
>The conclusion is agreed upon almost universally at the very highest echelons of psychiatric research
So your circular reasoning is justified because an authority figure agrees with you? Do you have any non-fallacious arguments?
>And I'm sure your reasoning is not at all subject to the an irrational bias towards fucking children.
I like the way you don't even deny it but no, it isn't. I used to believe all the things you did and I hated myself. I was only able to achieve self-acceptance after I realized none of it was true, I have no interest in abusing children, I only want to have consensual sex with children.
>Surely you know more than the people who have dedicated their lives studying this phenomenon!
Those people who share your irrational prejudice you mean? Yeah
>Limbic system
No really. Since you've totally read all these studies and they solve it so well and you understand it perfectly, it should be really easy for you to answer the question. What mechanism would cause a child to develop trauma from consensual sex?

For that matter, if there is EVEN ONE STUDY that substantiates your prejudice you should be able to find me one (and only one) that does all of the following. Replying with more than will be taken as capitulation since you will be gish-galloping.
1. Excludes non-consensual sexual contacts
2. Excludes alternative causes of mental trauma
3. Finds a relationship between adult-child sex and mental trauma
I await seeing you triumph over this challenge!

>>17745820
Hitler was right, he always will be.

>>17745867
>I don't believe you have, I think it's very transparent that all of your spam was derived from a google search of "child sexual abuse study" then pasting as many links as you could because surely nobody's gonna read every single one and call you on every single one right?
Nope, I have read it, maybe you should.
>Oh ok, so all the other times were just biased because they didn't confirm your bias got it
There was only one study that replicated Rind 98, third party and non-biased were qualifiers
>So your circular reasoning is justified because an authority figure agrees with you? Do you have any non-fallacious arguments?
Given your lack of statistical expertise in identifying casual relationships, I'll go with their conclusions as opposed to yours.
>Those people who share your irrational prejudice you mean? Yeah
Irrational? Did you ignore all the data provided?


>Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system.[86] Teicher et al. (1993)[84] used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected

>>17745867
>1. Excludes non-consensual sexual contacts
All contact between adults and children is assumed to be non-consensual in research.
>2. Excludes alternative causes of mental trauma
Plenty of the studies I mentioned above solve for this, I will post one again

>Because child sexual abuse often occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse,[71][non-primary source needed] some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse.[25][54][72][73] In a 1998 review of related literature, Martin and Fleming state "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects."[74] Other studies have found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[10][25][54]


>3. Finds a relationship between adult-child sex and mental trauma
see above

>Rind has never been refuted!
>How do you know CSA has negative health impacts?
>No that evidence doesn't count because it uses a term I find personally offensive despite describing exactly what I'm talking about.
But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them.

>>17745875
>I have read it
Nah I don't think you did.
>Given your lack of statistical expertise in identifying casual relationships, I'll go with their conclusions as opposed to yours.
So that is a "no", then?
>Irrational?
Entirely
>>17745877
>All contact between adults and children is assumed to be non-consensual in research.
Then all that research is illogical and invalid since they confound their data and engage in the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Of course it isn't necessary for the studies to be illogical, as we already have the example of Rind et al. which does not do this, however those studies all have the downside of failing to produce the desires result. Which means NOT EVEN ONE study supports your beliefs!
Why do you choose to hold irrational beliefs? Does it trouble you to know your worldview is logically indefensible?

>>17745883
>describing exactly what I'm talking about
I'm talking about consensual relationships, show me that evidence I'm still waiting to see it.

>>17745895
>Then all that research is illogical and invalid since they confound their data and engage in the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.
I don't think you understand what I am saying, the research examines the impacts independently of consent being established, because in their eyes there is not sufficient enough evidence to conclude that sexual contact between adults and a child can be consensual. You all ignore this fact, clinging to Rind if you address it all, despite ignoring every refutation of him.

>>17745895
>however those studies all have the downside of failing to produce the desires result. Which means NOT EVEN ONE study supports your beliefs!
Statistically speaking, consensual sexual contact between an adult and child does not exist
>Why do you choose to hold irrational beliefs? Does it trouble you to know your worldview is logically indefensible?
My worldview is entirely supported by academia, this isn't a silver bullet however, that would be my personal revulsion towards this species of non-reproductive sex.

>>17745903
>the research examines the impacts independently of consent being established
Then all that research is illogical and invalid since they confound their data and engage in the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Of course it isn't necessary for the studies to be illogical, as we already have the example of Rind et al. which does not do this, however those studies all have the downside of failing to produce the desires result. Which means NOT EVEN ONE study supports your beliefs!
>in their eyes there is not sufficient enough evidence to conclude that sexual contact between adults and a child can be consensual
That's incorrect, it's because they're bigoted against pedophiles in the very same way you are.
>clinging to Rind if you address it all
I want you to understand that I will not cite any study to argue children can consent. I cite Rind because it proves consensual adult-child sex is harmless, however, the fact the behavior was consensual precedes the empirical investigation. When you or anyone talks about "evidence children can consent" it is a category error because this question is rational and a priori, and you yourselves already agree with us. The word "consent" means simple agreement, or to give simple agreement. If you offer me a sandwich, I am said to consent if I answer affirmatively. Antis implicitly acknowledge children's ability to consent in every other aspect of their lives, by asking them questions such as "what kind of cereal do you want?" or "do you want ice cream?" Such interaction logically presupposes that the child possesses human agency and therefore the ability to give or withhold consent to various things. So whether or not adult-child sexual contact was actually consensual can be determined definitively by simple application of the law of identity, in other words: when the child gives consent, it is consensual adult-child sex. This is identical to how we determine if adult-adult sex was consensual.

>>17745912
>Statistically speaking, consensual sexual contact between an adult and child does not exist
There is abundant statistical research which studies this very thing. You live in your own world.
>My worldview is entirely supported by academia
This is entirely specious reasoning, if you were not an irrational buffoon you would not even think to say this. However, it's much worse than that because it's actually irrelevant. If the false authority suddenly switched to my side you would not go with them (despite being a total coward). You would say academia has been subverted by kikes or something because they no longer serve the function of confirmation bias for you. I find this is consistently the psychological basis for appeal to authority, nobody actually buys that shit, they just use it as window dressing for their own feelings which is the actual sole basis of their beliefs. There is nothing which could not be justified under the same method, you could decide earth is flat and you would be equally justified for that belief, and that is why you are irrational.

>>17745918
>Then all that research is illogical and invalid since they confound their data and engage in the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Of course it isn't necessary for the studies to be illogical, as we already have the example of Rind et al. which does not do this, however those studies all have the downside of failing to produce the desires result. Which means NOT EVEN ONE study supports your beliefs!
They do not confound data or engage in circular reasoning, consent being established between children and adults when it comes to sexual contact is non-existent or unusual statistically speaking. There are not enough cases where the children do consent in order for it to be meaningfully included in any meta-analysis.
>That's incorrect, it's because they're bigoted against pedophiles in the very same way you are.
No one is "bigoted" against pedophiles, it has just be shown statistically that your behavior is deleterious and causes harm.
>I want you to understand that I will not cite any study to argue children can consent.
Good then please kill yourself and stop wasting everyone else's time.

>>17745936
>There is abundant statistical research which studies this very thing. You live in your own world.
No there isn't, otherwise the entirety of academia would not use the word CSA independently of each other.
>This is entirely specious reasoning, if you were not an irrational buffoon you would not even think to say this.

What I said actually convinces me:

>this isn't a silver bullet however, that would be my personal revulsion towards this species of non-reproductive sex.

>>17745997
>>17745998
I accept your concession.

>What is CSA

>Sexual abuse of children involves forcing or enticing a child or young person to take part in sexual activities, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening.

>The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears consensual. Child sexual exploitation does not always involve physical contact, it can also occur through the use of technology.

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/interim/nature-effects-child-sexual-abuse/what-is-child-sexual-abuse.html

>>17746004
Wir nicht kapitulieren, juden

Look at >>17746010 for even more evidence

>>17746011
Evidence of your clinical retardation

>>17746004
>Perpetrators can manipulate and groom children to gain their trust and compliance over time. This can involve the giving of gifts, providing alcohol or drugs, or using compliments and flattery to make them feel special and wanted.

>>17746004
>The Inquiry has been told that children can feel as though they ‘owe’ the perpetrator for the presents and attention they have received. Some have told the Inquiry that they mistook the sexual abuse they suffered for love because they had little experience of warm and loving relationships. Tragically, some victims and survivors said that they believed the sexual abuse was their fault.

>>17746004
If sexual abuse of a child has even a 1 in 6 chance of causing the severe maladies observed in the literature then could it really be considered worth it. If your answer is yes, then do you often play Russian roulette?

>>17746019
Victims of anti-pedophilia.

>>17746013
>Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse cope and respond to abuse in different ways, and their response can change over time.[6] For some, the psychological harm can be at least as severe ‒ and at times more enduring ‒ than the physical injuries sustained during the sexual abuse.

>Around the time of sexual abuse, children can experience a range of emotions, including fear, sadness, anger, guilt, self-blame and confusion.[7], [8] Victims and survivors can feel humiliated or self-conscious, and will often not feel equipped or able to talk about what has happened.

>>17746027
Ma'am, I have no interest in the sexual abuse of children. I'm only interested in consensual adult-child sex.

>>17746029
>Supportive and positive responses from families, friends, caregivers and professionals have been found to help recovery.[13] Participants in the online consultation indicated the importance of being believed and respected when accessing support. However, when a victim and survivor discloses the child sexual abuse they suffered and receives a lack of support, this can increase feelings of guilt and shame and deter them from seeking support in the future.

>>17746031
>The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears consensual. Child sexual exploitation does not always involve physical contact

>>17743387
The crow sound like "old my beer" people.

>>17746034
I take spamming a fucking wikipedia article to mean you feel deeply emotionally unsettled and you're trying to assure yourself you really are the good guy

>>17746038
This isn't a wikipedia article, as I posted previously, it is an Independent Inquiry on CSA

>https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/interim/nature-effects-child-sexual-abuse/what-is-child-sexual-abuse.html

>>17746038
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/about-us.html

to see a data spread of their timeline and research findings

>The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears consensual

>>17746046
Your poison is young boys, which the ogre in your photo hates more than you do. I send you one of the most comprehensively sourced documents I can find and you still reject it, unreal nigga.

>>17746042
Keep looking for authority figures eventually you'll find one that makes you right

>>17746049
>Your poison is young boys
No it isn't
>I send you one of the most comprehensively sourced documents I can find and you still reject it
You are incapable of rational thought you fucking retard. You lost the argument. You can try scrolling up and reading my posts again to see why your day tuh isn't worthy to wipe my ass, or you can just come up with a 4th excuse for why they confound with rape. This is why voting should be abolished.

>>17746053
All of them agree with me, and have the data to back it up. I don't really find that too compelling, however, usually I find that if my intuition is enough and I intuitively reject the abuse of children as an abomination.

>>17746065
Sorry forgot to add transphobia is intuitively an abomination too im trans!

>>17746064
Everyone knows you are OP, but please do illuminate us on why you would so passionately defend a homosexual pedophile?

>>17746071
Where did I defend OP?

>>17746069
This the cheapest tactic I think I have ever seen you use.

>>17746078
The only reason to interact with you at this point is to bully you

>>17746076
So what species of pedophile are you? I would hope the women are at least of reproductive age but then you would have no cause to disagree with me.

>>17746081
No, your mom is past that age.

>>17746080
Just please kill yourself man, it's the computer, you aren't gonna get revenge on the kids who called you a faggot on the playground. You are impotent and you know this to be the case, same as you were then.

>>17746088
nta but you lost.

>>17746088
You sound mad.

>Pseudoscientific claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have played a central role in the history of scientific racism. The first tests showing differences in IQ scores between different population groups in the United States were those of United States Army recruits in World War I. In the 1920s, groups of eugenics lobbyists argued that these results demonstrated that African Americans and certain immigrant groups were of inferior intellect to Anglo-Saxon white people, and that this was due to innate biological differences. In turn, they used such beliefs to justify policies of racial segregation. However, other studies soon appeared, contesting these conclusions and arguing that the Army tests had not adequately controlled for environmental factors, such as socioeconomic and educational inequality between the groups.

>Later observations of phenomena such as the Flynn effect and disparities in access to prenatal care highlighted ways in which environmental factors affect group IQ differences. In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds.

Welp, that settles it folks. The experts said it was true so I guess it is.

>>17746130
Niggers are obviously more retarded than white people, just like raping children is obviously wrong. In the latter case the data supports the obvious conclusion, in the former it denies it. It's almost like you are creating a false equivalency.

>>17746145
No, the science is settled.

>>17746145
It's not rape when the child gives consent.

>>17746148
Science is meaningless alone, just as intuition is meaningless alone. Intuition and science indicates something.

>>17746151
A child can consent to eating an entire bag of sweets every day for dinner, do we let them?

>>17746153
No.

>>17746153
Most thoughtful anti-pedo argument ever presented.

>>17743362 (OP)
These examples debunk feminism and prove that there is nothing inherently wrong with child sex.

>>17746145
>just like raping children is obviously wrong
nobody in this thread ever said raping children wasn't wrong

>>17748229
All sexual contact between children and adults in non-consensual. If you feel sexual desire towards a child and act upon this you are raping a child. Likewise if you consume child pornography you are consuming content that depicts (almost assuredly) the rape of a child.

>>17748229
The whole purpose of the age of consent debate isn't really to accommodate a guy in his twenties dating a 17 year old, they exhibit fairly normal patterns of sexual attraction, and have Romeo and Juliet clauses which prevent their prosecution. These debates occur for people aiming at the much lower end the age spectrum, usually and especially gay guys looking at the much lower end. If you were a 20-30 year old man who liked women that looked young you can just get jacked and cruise college towns to find your preference. Alternatively you could become a sugar daddy or just an accomplished guy that has something to offer women which their peers at age 18 do not, this is quite common and even if it makes women a little mad, it's much more preferable to the alternative. Given that we already have the Romeo and Juliet clauses which solve for the normal people, the discussion which remains around lowering the age of consent it is an attempt to bring it down somewhere between 10 and 14, sometimes as low as 7 or 8. This is done pretty much exclusively for gay men that like little boys and adult men that like pre-pubescent women, even if you have more "nuanced" opinions on the matter, these are the people you are aligning yourself with if you entertain the pretty strict revision they desire. The question then becomes why do they desire children that are so young? The usual answer is that the Children are less able to say no, sometimes its the particular lack of secondary sexual characteristics, but that itself is a permutation of an attraction to weakness and pliability.

>>17748652
I should also include this crowd has many misandrists and hags among it. A lot of older women who particularly hate men love raping little boys, they also love "teaching" young women about sex in illustrative fashions that involve their sexual gratification. This thread seems mostly to be dedicated to homosexual pedophilia, which in its historical examples, often included unwilling child partners, reflecting that even a broad societal acceptance where it did exist did not guarantee a Child's consent. We moved on from this behavior precisely because most normal people do not have this desire and we now know that it is harmful.

>>17748624
When the child says yes, that is consent.

>>17748663
A child lacks agency over almost every other part of their life. Why would we ascribe them agency when it comes to sex but still set their bedtime? It is non-sensical.

>>17748672
You attribute agency to them when you offer to buy them ice cream.

>>17748680
You don't though, that's you making the decision for them. And it's ice cream, not sexual activity.

>>17748719
So if she says "no", you will force ice cream on her?
>And it's ice cream, not sexual activity
It's agency.

>>17748729
If a child asks me for a fifth of vodka, I am going to say no, if a Child asks me for ice cream, I will probably say yes assuming their parents are ok with it.

>>17748752
Very interesting that you completely moved the goalposts there.

>>17748752
If you can't distinguish a difference between giving a child an ice cream and having sex with them then I really don't think it's me moving the goalposts.

>>17748766
f you can't distinguish a difference between giving a child an ice cream and having sex with them then I really don't think it's me moving the goalposts.

replied to the wrong person

>>17748777
>can't distinguish between a child engaging in a harmless act and a child imbibing a noxious substance

>>17748785
Hm, what is so bad about Alcohol? Does it maybe effect a child's development? Maybe effecting certain hemispheres of the brain that are under developed in children?

>>17748795
>muh sex is traumatic and causes your brain to be malformed pseudoscience

>>17748796
I think someone is mad they walked themselves into a very obvious trap.

>>17748785
>>17748796
I mean alcohol is poisonous yes, but it is primarily toxic to the liver and the damage is only really witnessed after sustained and continued abuse, a shot of vodka is theoretically fairly harmless. Why, given this information, might we still conclude that its not a good idea to give a child access to alcohol? Is it because maybe they lack the ability to fully understand what alcohol is and the impacts it has on them? Is it because they lack the executive functioning to better insulate themselves from its addictive nature and abuse? Is it because there is in fact something which can harm the child inherent to the behavior of drinking, even if it occurs through pathways you might not fully comprehend?

>>17748813
Isn't it strange to refute this though? We have a wealth of historical examples of children drinking alcohol! You must hate all the aryan cultures which had children drink alcohol if you don't think it is a good idea! In fact that only reason you could be against children drinking alcohol is if you are some sort of crypto-jew!

>>17748819
Well actually the historical examples we do have of children drinking alcohol come from societies without an advanced understanding of Germ theory or plentiful and safe drinking water. It is kind of a bad idea to use them as examples given that when safe drinking water was available it was usually preferred.

>>17748824
No! You are just a Jew that hates my """aryan""" traditions. For example: look at all these backward nigger cultures on islands or in the jungle: they all consume fermented beverages as it is the only way to guarantee that what they are drinking is safe. They are truly enlightened savages and you are just some jew that relies on PSEUDOSCIENCE and appeals to authority. Oh boy its 4pm time for my daily 5th of vodka that I've been drinking since I was 5 years old.

>>17748773
You're moving the goalposts some more there buddy, but it's funny how you people will make this faux objection then say things like this >>17746153
>>17748813
>Is it because maybe they lack the ability to fully understand what alcohol is and the impacts it has on them?
No. You just crammed that in there with a shoehorn to try and make it somehow relevant. If you believed children could understand the consequences of drinking alcohol, would you be just fine with supposedly causing them permanent liver damage? We don't let children do lots of things, none of which are because of some pretense that they can't consent to doing it, let alone the incredible absurdity that this lack of consent is the source of the negative consequences. Of course, there are great negative consequences to non-consensual sex, but this would not be relevant when considering consensual sex.

>>17748800
Are you going to post another biased, poorly conducted study on self-identified victims of rape, largely from dysgenic, disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom are addicted to drugs, who were subjected to brain scans which show some marginal difference compared to some control group, and draw a non-nonsensical causal relation between these observed brain differences and some sexual event that happened in the participants' childhood, which the authors of the study usually themselves doubt the veracity of, and which is highly disputed in the literature, which you continually bring up because you think mentioning brain studies gives verisimilitude to your shallow arguments?

>>17748813
>Why, given this information, might we still conclude that its not a good idea to give a child access to alcohol?
Young children don't even want to drink alcohol, they are repelled by it.

I'm not particularly concerned with withholding alcohol from children. Even if given the exact same opportunity to access alcohol, children would still have much lower rates of alcohol consumption than adults. Adults are far more susceptible to the negative effects of alcohol and addiction in general than children are. Most children won't even drink coffee.

Nothing about your post establishes that sex is something we should withhold children's right to participate in, regardless of one's opinion on alcohol consumption.

>>17743362 (OP)
wow browns are degenerate pedos

>>17748833
>No. You just crammed that in there with a shoehorn to try and make it somehow relevant. If you believed children could understand the consequences of drinking alcohol, would you be just fine with supposedly causing them permanent liver damage?

If you knew children could understand the consequences of sexual contact with an adult, would you be just fine with supposedly causing them permanent neuro-biological damage.

(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5810166/)

>>17748844
There is no evidence consensual adult-child sex has any negative consequences.

>>17748834
>Are you going to post another biased, poorly conducted study on self-identified victims of rape, largely from dysgenic, disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom are addicted to drugs, who were subjected to brain scans which show some marginal difference compared to some control group.

So you concede that in large enough sample size studies, people who identify themselves as victims of CSA, exhibit statistically significant differences in brain functioning?

>>17748852
Define CSA

>>17748844
Yep. Here we go, another irrelevant, poorly conducted, pseudoscientific study, which could have been written by ChatGPT, published by a bunch of subhuman jeets (Amresh K Shrivastava, Sagar B Karia, Sushma S Sonavane, Avinash A De Sousa) that don't even understand basic philosophy of science, making a bunch of conclusions which their own data does not support.

>>17748852
>in large enough sample size studies, people who identify themselves as victims of CSA, exhibit statistically significant differences in brain functioning?
This wouldn't establish a causal relationship if true. This also wouldn't establish a relationship between adult-child sex and differences in brain functioning.

>>17748834
>Young children don't even want to drink alcohol, they are repelled by it.
>I'm not particularly concerned with withholding alcohol from children. Even if given the exact same opportunity to access alcohol, children would still have much lower rates of alcohol consumption than adults. Adults are far more susceptible to the negative effects of alcohol and addiction in general than children are. Most children won't even drink coffee.
>Nothing about your post establishes that sex is something we should withhold children's right to participate in, regardless of one's opinion on alcohol consumption.

Have you ever considered that most children also do not desire sex? Almost all cases of children finding themselves in a sexual relationship with an adult involves the child being groomed in some fashion. You even conceded this earlier in the thread with the post >>17745696. Given their decreased capacity to identify and reject manipulation through things like gift-giving they often find themselves coerced into sex. The dark reality is that in cases where the child later identifies the behavior as abuse, they blame themselves, meaning that the cases where children do not identify the contact as abuse -- they have been primed with the assumption that sexual/romantic relationships are fundamentally transactional. This is harmful.

>>17748862
>Child sexual abuse (CSA), also called child molestation, is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation.[1][2] Forms of child sexual abuse include engaging in sexual activities with a child (whether by asking or pressuring, or by other means), indecent exposure, child grooming, and child sexual exploitation,[3][4][5] such as using a child to produce child pornography.[1][6]

>>17748866
>Yep. Here we go, another irrelevant, poorly conducted, pseudoscientific study, which could have been written by ChatGPT

It was written in 2003, by several people who all had advanced degrees in psychology.

>>17748866
>This also wouldn't establish a relationship between adult-child sex and differences in brain functioning.

The only way a subject is disqualified from a study like this is if they do not report sexual contact with an adult regardless of whether or not they feel that they consented. The definition of CSA is as such that includes all sexual contact between adults and children.

>>17748866
Here is a study with all white authors. You will find that regardless of the race/religion/sex of the authors, they all concur that sex with children is bad.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/da.10077

>>17748872
>Have you ever considered that most children also do not desire sex?
If, for the sake of argument, that were true it would have no bearing on this conversation.
>Almost all cases of children finding themselves in a sexual relationship with an adult involves the child being groomed in some fashion.
Grooming isn't real. The spooky scary grooming you conceive of isn't real, where the evil pedophile mind controls the innocent child. Seduction may be real, but it is also normal human behavior.
>You even conceded this earlier in the thread with the post
He didn't make that post and it concedes nothing of the kind.
>Given their decreased capacity to identify and reject manipulation through things like gift-giving they often find themselves coerced into sex
That is not coercion. Coercion is the use of threats. Now, I am completely unconcerned with the origin of the child's consent so long as it is authentic. Nor do I buy for a moment we are plagued by pedophiles using gifts simply to somehow trick children into giving them sex. This conception of the pedophile as a malicious monster is simply a product of your bigotry and an example of the wider harm it causes as this in particular has caused the cultural trend where men are terrified to be nice or friendly with children for fear of the consequences of doing so. Make no mistake, you personally contribute to making the world a worse place.
>The dark reality is that in cases where the child later identifies the behavior as abuse, they blame themselves
Of course they do, you have made them believe they did something wrong. Why would they blame themselves for something which was not their choice at all? They blame themselves precisely because they did freely choose to participate in the relationship, and then you and the rest of the antis convinced them what they chose to participate in is the worst evil in the world.

>>17748876
Ok, then I deny any study has shown a correlation between it and brain function.
>>17748883
Hence the study is worthless.
>>17748891
What about the authors of Rind et al.?

>>17748872
>Have you ever considered that most children also do not desire sex?
A significant proportion of pre-pubescent children desire sex, and virtually all post-pubescent individuals (most people consider those in the early stages of puberty to be children) do. These excerpts in the OP provide countless examples of pre-pubescent children desiring and engaging in sexual activity.

The majority of Kinsey's interviewees report first experiencing orgasm before puberty. Regarding homosexual activity in specific, roughly half of his both adult and child interviewees report having at least one homosexual experience in childhood.
>About half of the older males (48%), and nearer two-third (60%) of the boys who were pre-adolescent at the time they contributed their histories, recall homosexual activity in their pre-adolescent years. The mean age of the first homosexual contact is about nine years, two and a half months (9.21 years)

>You even conceded this earlier in the thread
Not my post, and he isn't even making the claim you say he is.

>Given their decreased capacity to identify and reject manipulation through things like gift-giving they often find themselves coerced into sex
This is more applicable to women than to boys.

The rest of your post is just conjecture without evidence, which I reject.

>>17748879
>advanced degrees in psychology.
In India.

>>17748883
Including victims of rape and abuse in the same samples as consenting participants in sexual relationships biases the samples.

Regardless, the majority of participants in studies which recruit from clinical and psychiatric settings self-identify as victims of abuse. When actual representative samples are used, the same results are not present.

>>17748891
Study on victims of child abuse, which makes no statements regarding brain function.

>>17748866
The scientific community considers you to be a child-rapist. The larger population similarly considers you to be as such -- in most cases entirely independent of what the science has concluded. The only group that does not feel the same way are people who share your same proclivity towards children. Are you sure you aren't suffering from an "institutional" bias.

>>17748908
The scientific community considers you to be a racist, and antisemite, and a transphobe. The larger population similarly considers you to be as such -- in most cases entirely independent of what the science has concluded. The only group that does not feel the same way are people who share your same proclivity towards children. Are you sure you aren't suffering from an "institutional" bias.

>>17748908
Yeah

>>17748908
>the establishment condemns you
>doesn't that make you think you have an institutional bias?
Do you have any studies which explain the cause of your personal brain damage?

>>17748903
Kinsey, the same person who published a study that everyone was in fact gay whether they realized it or not? Also the age which a child has their first orgasm does not indicate and independent desire for sexual contact with an adult. That is an insane transposition.
>This is more applicable to women than to boys.
Just because it is more applicable does not mean that a young boy's defenses are meaningfully more developed than young girl's. 3 cm is taller than 2cm, not meaningfully so though.
>Hence the study is worthless
>What about the authors of Rind et al.?
Any study which disagrees with your world view is useless? Rind was rejected by his peers but his results aren't useless nor do I attempt to discredit him on the basis that he is gay man.
>In India.
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/da.10077) Here is a study from Ontario in 2003, prior to the mass migration Canada experienced.
>Including victims of rape and abuse in the same samples as consenting participants in sexual relationships biases the samples. Regardless, the majority of participants in studies which recruit from clinical and psychiatric settings self-identify as victims of abuse. When actual representative samples are used, the same results are not present.
Rind didn't use a representative sample though, he rejected anyone from the sample if they reported that the experience was not consensual and categorically if they had criminal or clinical issues. This is actually less representative of a sample than those which include all victims of CSA.

>>17748909
Well those three things are good, child-rape is not. You can just admit that you are a child rapist, I think it would be better for your mental health. You twist yourself into pretzels trying to defend the indefensible.

>>17748918
>Any study which disagrees with your world view is useless?
No you're confused, that's your position. This study is worthless because it directly confounds its data.
>Rind was rejected by his peers
No he wasn't, you retard.
>results aren't useless
They aren't? Great, you finally conceded that point, now how do you cope with the way it completely refutes your worldview?
>nor do I attempt to discredit him on the basis that he is gay man.
Do you believe Rind is the only author of the Rind study?
>Rind didn't use a representative sample though, he rejected anyone from the sample if they reported that the experience was not consensual
This is literally a pre-condition of the sample being representative, any study which fails to do so is methodologically unsound and biased.
I also point out Rind et al. is a metaanalysis. I'm increasingly suspicious you don't know what that means, it means that while we refer to it as a single study it is in essence a number of studies which used proper controls and subsequently failed to produce your desired results.
>>17748922
It is not rape when the child gives consent.

>>17748918
>Also the age which a child has their first orgasm does not indicate and independent desire for sexual contact with an adult
Getting desperate, are we Schlomo? That was a response to your claim that children do not desire sex. I did not propose that children experiencing orgasm is proof that they desire sex with adults (although many of them do). Also, the Kinsey study shows that even in a culture which is highly opposed to child sexuality and homosexuality, most little boys still do gay stuff with other boys. The desire is that strong.

>Just because it is more applicable does not mean that a young boy's defenses
Little boys are more mentally mature than adult women. Adult women are permanently stuck in the mindset of a toddler. Regardless, I don't believe this has any bearing on whether or not it is wrong to have sex with women or children. Just because women are retarded and easily manipulable, doesn't mean men shouldn't have sex with them. Same for little girls. Husbands know what is best for their wives.

>Rind didn't use a representative sample though, he rejected anyone from the sample if they reported that the experience was not consensual
No he didn't. Stop lying. The samples in his studies are comprised of those who report CSA. He uses representative samples (college, national probability samples) of those who report CSA which contradict the results of studies that use purely clinical and psychiatric samples.

Roughly 50% of adults in the United States have college experience, and reported rates of CSA in the college population, 14% for males and 27% for females, are as high as in national probability samples. Meaning that college samples are representative.

>>17748922
>Well those three things are good, child-rape is not.
I agree that child rape is not good. Good thing I'm defending the noble, honourable, and righteous Aryan tradition of man/boy love and not child rape, such as what the Bible promotes, which I find to be abhorrent.

>>17748931
He was refuted by his peers and widely attacked/condemned for this findings, this is pointless to argue. You can say that you disagree with the attacks but to deny their existence is stupid.
>They aren't? Great, you finally conceded that point, now how do you cope with the way it completely refutes your worldview?
His results aren't useless for those in the field, his conclusions are, for both his field and anyone's world view. This is demonstrated by all the rigorous academic refutations of his work.
>Do you believe Rind is the only author of the Rind study?
It was him and Tomovitch (sp?) I believe, either way my point was that it doesn't really matter what demographics the author's belong too, all of them but Rind agree that sexual contact with children is rape.
>This is literally a pre-condition of the sample being representative, any study which fails to do so is methodologically unsound and biased. I also point out Rind et al. is a meta-analysis. I'm increasingly suspicious you don't know what that means, it means that while we refer to it as a single study it is in essence a number of studies which used proper controls and subsequently failed to produce your desired results.
A meta analysis yes, he selected data from multiple other studies, excluding those didn't meet the standards mentioned above. This makes his sample less representative of the total population of CSA victims, that is the chief issue with his study among a laundry list of other issues pointed out by Whittenburg.
>It is not rape when the child gives consent.
Medically speaking, a child cannot give consent to sexual contact, especially with an adult.

>Medically speaking, a child cannot give consent to sexual contact
He's gone full basedence worshiping retard.

>>17748954
>Getting desperate, are we Schlomo? That was a response to your claim that children do not desire sex. I did not propose that children experiencing orgasm is proof that they desire sex with adults (although many of them do). Also, the Kinsey study shows that even in a culture which is highly opposed to child sexuality and homosexuality, most little boys still do gay stuff with other boys. The desire is that strong.
Yeah a study which examines the age of the first orgasm and little boys messing around with each other is not conclusive evidence to assume any proportion of children desire sex with an adult. There is no casual relationship established in the Kinsey study or others of this, and where it would be seen, the subjects would be victims of coercion first.
>Little boys are more mentally mature than adult women. Adult women are permanently stuck in the mindset of a toddler.
They are less mentally mature than adult men, who almost routinely reject sexual contact with other adult men. I think gay men make up something like 1% of the population, less maybe. If you'll allow me to extrapolate you desire to have sex with young boys because most adult men who aren't turbo faggots will refuse to have sex with you, and younger boys are easier to convince to have sex given that they are less emotionally mature than their adult counterparts. You desire the weakness of a young mind to force your will upon as you are denied this expression in relationships where the subject party would recognize your manipulation.

>>17748954
>No he didn't. Stop lying. The samples in his studies are comprised of those who report CSA. He uses representative samples
He selected for cases where the subject did not state that contact was unwanted and also rejected those with any clinical or legal history. Therapy was just as common if not more common than college was, so basically he rejected anyone who even realized something bad had happened to them. This makes his data worse for obvious reasons, if the goal is to transpose the findings onto CSA as a whole.

>>17748958
>He's gone full basedence worshiping retard.
You lean on science when it agrees with you and disagree with it when it does not support you. This is hypocritical.

>>17748813
>>17748819
>>17748824
>>17748829
Holy shit my sides are in Orbit

>>17748963
>Yeah a study which examines the age of the first orgasm and little boys messing around with each other is not conclusive evidence to assume any proportion of children desire sex with an adult
Never claimed it did. Your talmudry was not successful.

>the rest of your post
No, I just think that little boys are sexy. I did when I was a boy as well. That is all. Has nothing to do with your Judeo-Feminist theory about power dynamics. Pedophiles exist. Deal with it.

>>17748967
>He selected for cases where the subject did not state that contact was unwanted and also rejected those with any clinical or legal history.
No he didn't, retard. Thanks for confirming that you haven't even read the abstract of the study which you are pretending to argue against the merits of, which is odd, being that you've spent the last couple of days pretending to be arguing against the conclusions of the study.

>>17748971
I'm not making absurd claims such as that children "medically" can not consent to sex because I'm not a """science""" worshiping bugman who believes that medical science can make ethical statements. I might use empirical evidence from the medical sciences to support ethical statements, but I do not claim that medical science alone can make these statements. You have to be a soi guzzling bugman Redditor in a marvel t-shirt to do something like that.

>>17748954
Wretched sodomite.
>>17748956
>You can say that you disagree with the attacks but to deny their existence is stupid.
I deny your claim the study was "rejected by his peers", retard
>His results aren't useless for those in the field
His results are that there is no correlation between adult-child sex and harm, what is your cope for that?
>all of them but Rind agree that sexual contact with children is rape
No, that is a lie that has been repeatedly refuted in this thread. What is the plan here? Tell the same lie over and over again and hope you'll catch someone unawares? Or does it give you a sense of comfort to repeat this lie to yourself? You directly contradict yourself exactly one sentence earlier when you acknowledge Rind was not the sole author, and one sentence later when you admit
>A meta analysis yes, he selected data from multiple other studies
Which would be impossible if he was the only one to acknowledge the ability of children to consent. And again, this appeal to authority is meaningless. Empirical research does not nor could it be what determines the ability of children to consent, this is a simple application of the law of identity as I explained earlier and you dutifully ignored.

(cont.)

>>17748956
Pay very close attention to this point: the Rind study *is not* on the subject of whether children can consent. This is taken for granted. The Rind study's finding is that there is no correlation between consensual adult-child sex and mental trauma. If your predetermined conclusion that children can't consent (which you desperately, *desperately* wish were true) had any merit, neither the Rind study nor its finding could exist as there would be no consensual sex to study nor would controlling for this make any difference in the results. It is *necessary* to confound the data in order to produce your desired conclusion.

The authors themselves pointed this out in their response to the objection you found on google about their sample, if your belief about the widespread harmfulness of adult-child sex were true it would not matter if the subjects were college students or serial killers, significantly increased mental harm would necessarily be present. In other words if your worldview were not bankrupt cherrypicking these results would be impossible, because these people would not exist. It would be like cherrypicking leprechauns and space aliens.
>a child cannot give consent to sexual contact, especially with an adult.
They can say yes.

>>17745488
>after I went to bed he still tried accusing me of being the other anon
lmao

no way that colonialists would author stories of taboo amongst natives in order to justify forced conversion and moral superiority.

>>17749001
Amazing how neither the anti nor the pedocel can spend a few minutes to read the abstract of a study which they are willing to spend hours arguing about.

The conclusion of the Rind study is that the following commonly held beliefs are unfounded regarding CSA:

>(a) it is likely to cause harm, (b) most children or adolescents who experience it will be affected, (c) this harm will typically be severe or intense, and (d) CSA will have an equivalently negative impact on both boys and girls.

Rind argues that other studies make these conclusions because they use biased convenience samples, as opposed to community samples.

The majority of the studies Rind meta-analyzed used a definition of CSA which includes any form of sexual contact between an adult and a minor, only 20% of the studies restricted it to unwanted sexual experiences only.

The variable relating to consent, level of consent, used as a moderator in the analysis was willing and unwanted sex vs. unwanted sex only, there was no pure consent vs. non-consent moderator.

In the discussion, he questions the validity of the child sexual abuse construct:

>An important reason why the assumed properties of CSA failed to withstand empirical scrutiny in the current review is that the construct of CSA, as commonly conceptualized by researchers, is of questionable scientific validity. Overinclusive definitions of abuse that encompass both willing sexual experiences accompanied by positive reactions and coerced sexual experiences with negative reactions produce poor predictive validity. To achieve better scientific validity, a more thoughtful approach is needed by researchers when labeling and categorizing events that have heretofore been defined sociolegally as CSA

The main takeaway from the study is that sexual experiences between adults and children, even unwanted ones, are not likely to result in long term psychological harm in the general population. Not that consensual adult-child sex is harmless.

>>17749257
>In the discussion, he questions the validity of the child sexual abuse construct
What do they proceed to say, sir? What is proposed as "a more thoughtful approach"? Is it not that the construct be replaced with those of adult-child sex and adult-adolescent sex with child sexual abuse retained in unwilling cases, perhaps because they realized the fact their findings do in fact suggest
>consensual adult-child sex is harmless

>A bunch of primitive tribesmen who never discovered anything beyond the pointed stick and the grass hut were also sexual degenerates
What's the point you're trying to make, OP?

>>17749257
>>17749281
I was going through it again (because I have read it before) and found the parts which vindicate me
>The foregoing discussion does not imply that the construct CSA should be abandoned, but only that it should be used less indiscriminately to achieve better scientific validity. Its use is more scientifically valid when early sexual episodes are unwanted and experienced negatively--a combination commonly reported, for example, in father-daughter incest.In general, findings from the current review suggest that sociolegal definitions of CSA have more scientific validity in the case of female children and adolescents than for male children and adolescents, given the higher rate of unwanted negative experiences for women. Nevertheless, as Long and Jackson (1993) argued, because some women perceive their early experiences as positive, do not label themselves as victims, and do not show evidence of psychological impairment, it is important for researchers to be cautious in defining abuse for both men and women in attempts to validly examine the antecedents and effects of these experiences.

>>17749257
>>17749281
>>17749313
>One possible approach to a scientific definition, consistent with findings in the current review and with suggestions offered by Constantine (1981), is to focus on the young person's perception of his or her willingness to participate and his or her reactions to the experience. A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term. If a young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it, then child sexual abuse, a term that implies harm to the individual, would be valid. Moreover, the term child should be restricted to nonadolescent children (Ames & Hous- ton, 1990). Adolescents are different from children in that they are more likely to have sexual interests, to know whether they want a particular sexual encounter, and to resist an encounter that they do not want. Furthermore, unlike adult-child sex, adult-adolescent sex has been commonplace cross-culturally and historically, often in socially sanctioned forms, and may fall within the "normal" range of human sexual behaviors (Bullough, 1990; Greenberg, 1988; Okami, 1994). A willing encounter between an adolescent and an adult with positive reactions on the part of the adolescent would then be labeled scientifically as adult-adolescent sex, while an unwanted encounter with negative reactions would be labeled adolescent sexual abuse.

QED

>>17749281
>>17749313
>>17749316
>The Rind study's finding is that there is no correlation between consensual adult-child sex and mental trauma.
>neither the Rind study nor its finding could exist as there would be no consensual sex to study nor would controlling for this make any difference in the results
The conclusion that consensual adult-child sex is harmless was not made in the study. This conclusion could not possibly be made by the study because they did not have access to samples which specify whether consent was present, nor did they use a pure willing vs. non willing moderator in the analysis.

>The sample-level effect sizes were regressed on the three variables that were coded for each sample: level of contact (0 = both noncontact and contact sex, 1 = contact sex only), level of consent (0 = willing and unwanted sex, 1 = unwanted sexonly), and gender (0 = male, 1 —female).
>Finally, it was expected that unwanted sex would be associated with larger effect sizes; hence, level of consent was examined as a moderator. Results from this analysis regarding level of consent and level of contact are likely to be conservative (i.e., their relationship with the effect sizes may be underestimated) because the first level of each variable overlaps with the second level (e.g., willing and unwanted sex overlaps with unwanted sex only).

Suggestions made in the conclusion of a study are not equivalent to the findings of the study, and nowhere in the study, including the conclusion, was the claim made that consensual adult-child sex is harmless. The discussion part of any scientific study is irrelevant to the findings of the study. You are misrepresenting the study in the opposite direction of the anti, because just like him, you haven't actually read it (which would take 30 minutes).

>>17749302
Here >>17743750

>>17749323
>The conclusion that consensual adult-child sex is harmless was not made in the study
You are splitting hairs in the most obvious way to save face. Logically speaking, the finding that consensual adult-child sex is harmless was made in the study because what the words mean was found.
>Suggestions made in the conclusion of a study are not equivalent to the findings of the study
Perhaps you should pay more attention to my posts because you would notice I did not merely quote this suggestion, but also this part >>17749313 where they clarify that their finding of low scientific validity for the construct of CSA in consensual cases does not extend to non-consensual cases. Furthermore, the suggestion they do make is in their own words "consistent with findings in the current review". Do you disagree with this statement and feel their proposal is unwarranted by the study?
>You are misrepresenting the study in the opposite direction of the anti, because just like him, you haven't actually read it (which would take 30 minutes).
You haven't actually read what I wrote which would take 30 seconds because if you did you would realize I have read this study in the past.

>>17749347
>You are splitting hairs in the most obvious way to save face.
No I'm not. You were making a very specific claim about the findings of the study which was untrue. It isn't pedantic at all, you are being too cavalier with your words. That the study concluded that consensual adult-child sex was harmless is a far cry from the actual conclusions of the study.

>Logically speaking, the finding that consensual adult-child sex is harmless was made in the study because what the words mean was found.
Logically speaking, the finding that consensual adult-child sex is harmless could not possibly be made by the study for reasons already explained.

>where they clarify that their finding of low scientific validity for the construct of CSA in consensual cases does not extend to non-consensual cases
>Do you disagree with this statement and feel their proposal is unwarranted by the study?
Irrelevant to your claim that the study concluded that consensual adult-child sex was harmless.

>if you did you would realize I have read this study in the past.
Which is all the more embarrassing, because you apparently didn't comprehend any of what you were reading. I might be a wretched sodomite, but at least I don't read through a 47 page study without realizing I don't understand anything I'm reading.

>>17749364
>You were making a very specific claim
What is that specific claim? I'd like to know since you've been reduced to solely complaining about my exact wording, so please tell me what I mean by my words. It's transparent that you're trying to save face, if only with yourself, and based on the end of your post maybe a little petty revenge too.
>Which is all the more embarrassing
No, what's embarrassing is whatever this is. Cope.

>>17749372
>complaining about my exact wording
It's not your "exact wording", you made the following statement:
>The Rind study's finding is that there is no correlation between consensual adult-child sex and mental trauma. If your predetermined conclusion that children can't consent (which you desperately, *desperately* wish were true) had any merit, neither the Rind study nor its finding could exist as there would be no consensual sex to study nor would controlling for this make any difference in the results.

Which is untrue, and radically different to the actual conclusions of the study.

>>17749378
>It's not your "exact wording"
It's not? It isn't my exact wording? Wow, I'm learning all sorts of exciting new things about the English language right now. Why did you paste the words
>consensual adult-child sex is harmless
3 different times in that post while not complaining about anything else I said? Why didn't you explain to me what my specific claim was? Why are you continuing to try to argue with me about this? Are you an idiot?

>>17749387
It isn't your exact wording, as in, I'm not pedantically critiquing the wording of your post, but the claim itself, which is wholly unsubstantiated. Your claim, which I already posted, is that the Rind study concluded that consensual adult-child sex is harmless.

>>17749395
That claim, as I demonstrated with proof, is true. You are an idiot.

>>17749399
How does a study which does not compare consenting with non-consenting children in sexual relationships conclude that consensual adult-child sex is harmless? That is outside the scope of the meta-analysis.

>>17749410
>The foregoing discussion does not imply that the construct CSA should be abandoned, but only that it should be used less indiscriminately to achieve better scientific validity. Its use is more scientifically valid when early sexual episodes are unwanted and experienced negatively
What do these words mean?

>>17749416
It doesn't matter what the authors write in the conclusion. That has no relevance to the findings of their study.

Even if the authors claimed in the discussion that consensual adult-child sex was harmless, yet their findings contradicted that statement, I would not conclude that their study found consensual adult-child sex to be harmless.

Regardless, in that statement, the authors are not stating CSA to be scientifically invalid in the case of wanted, or positively experienced sexual episodes. Nowhere in the paper is the claim made that consensual adult-child sex is harmless. That claim is outside the scope of the study.

>>17749433
>It doesn't matter what the authors write in the conclusion. That has no relevance to the findings of their study.
Yes, in your desire to show me up and your faggot love of drama, you were forced to take the exact same cope as the anti, that the authors were completely incorrect about their findings. I don't happen to agree with this, I believe they were correct.

Now I'm disregarding the rest of your post because it isn't what I asked for which is an explanation of what the words mean. I asked because the authors say the construct of CSA is merely used too indiscriminately and scientifically valid in cases of unwanted sex, in the context of challenging the scientific validity of the construct of CSA and recommending it be replaced with scientifically valid constructs on the basis of the child's consent, which means it's obvious and logically necessary that the times they're talking about where it's scientifically invalid are the times when the child is willing (in other words, the Rind study found consensual adult-child sex is harmless). You realized this, which is why you dodged my question and attacked the validity of their conclusion instead now shut the fuck up dumbass.

We should try sex segregated boarding schools where students are explicitly allowed to do gay stuff with one another. There would be a lot of potential positive social effects that would make it worth doing in its own right. But it would also provide a lot of insights into the true nature of sexuality and sexual development. And since there would be no adults involved, there'd be nothing to complain about.

>>17749456
>that the authors were completely incorrect about their findings
But they never claimed anywhere in the paper that consensual adult-child sex was harmless. They never claimed that their study concluded that consensual adult-child sex was harmless. Their study, because of its limitations, could not possibly conclude that adult-child sex was harmless. Their study did not conclude that adult-child sex was harmless. Regardless, the authors' conclusion is irrelevant to the findings of the study (although they are in concurrence with what I am saying).

>which means it's obvious and logically necessary that the times they're talking about where it's scientifically invalid are the times when the child is willing
No it isn't. That's not what logical necessity entails. Logical necessity refers to a very specific thing.

If the authors had claimed, for example, "CSA is only scientifically valid in cases of unwanted sex", then it would be logically necessary that the authors did not believe CSA to be scientifically valid in cases of wanted sex. But they didn't, they claimed the CSA construct was *more* scientifically valid in regards to unwanted sexual events, which does not imply they believe the CSA construct to be invalid in cases of wanted sex.

>Its use is more scientifically valid when early sexual episodes are unwanted and experienced negatively--a combination commonly reported, for example, in father-daughter incest. In general, findings from the current review suggest that sociolegal definitions of CSA have more scientific validity in the case of female children and adolescents than for male children and adolescents, given the higher rate of unwanted negative experiences for women.

And no, this is not pedantic nit-picking. You are making incorrect inferences which have to be refuted thoroughly.

>>17749491
>We should try sex segregated boarding schools where students are explicitly allowed to do gay stuff with one another.
Already happened in English public schools. Homosexuality was rife, boys had sexual relations with each other, older students would have pederastic relations with younger students (they called it "fagging"), and all the schoolteachers were pederasts themselves. It produced the greatest men in world history, the Victorians, only paralleled by the ancient Greeks (who also practiced pederasty), that propelled humanity to the greatest heights ever known.

Male love truly is the key to reaching excellence, which is why the Jew suppresses its purest expression in the form of pederasty.

>>17749492
You were refuted and reduced to arguing the Rind study is wrong. Rind et al. unequivocally concluded consensual adult-child sex is harmless and you are stupid for claiming otherwise. However, that doesn't matter right now. That stopped mattering as soon as this tangent began. What matters is that you chose to derail your own thread and undermine your own arguments, and have CONTINUED to do so even after meeting resistance and refutation. What is wrong with you, monkey? What is your major malfunction? Is it that the monkeypox has reached your brain? Frankly, this has led me to believe you are unqualified to be advocating this and it's best if you just go back to eating crayons.

>>17749500
I know about the British boarding schools. But even in those it was still pretty much always against the rules and was also happening in the context of a very homophobic society. I'm talking about taking it a step further by stripping away as much of the taboo as possible.
Also, great taste in pics. That's one of my favorites.

>>17749506
>Rind et al. unequivocally concluded consensual adult-child sex is harmless and you are stupid for claiming otherwise.
It didn't conclude that consensual adult-child sex is harmless. You didn't understand the study. Maybe reading studies isn't for you.

>What matters is that you chose to derail your own thread and undermine your own arguments
I have never even argued that consensual adult-child sex is harmless. I don't even believe that consensual sex between adults is harmless. There are many harms which can come from consensual sex, for example, a White woman might consent to having sex with a Negroid, and produce a mixed-race baby, which I would consider harmful not only to the White woman, but to the monstrosity and to society at large.

I don't believe that consensual adult-child sex is likely to be harmful, a claim supported by the Rind study. I make sure not to misrepresent the findings of studies I cite, such as by claiming the Rind study proves that adult-child sex is harmless, as it undermines my argument and weakens my credibility. Perhaps, however, a well-poisoning, girl-grabbing kike might enter this thread to purposefully misrepresent the study in a vain attempt to undermine my arguments, which I would be diligent in correcting.

>>17749510
>But even in those it was still pretty much always against the rules and was also happening in the context of a very homophobic society
And it still produced the greatest men in world history. Sadly, anything even similar to the British boarding schools is unlikely to exist again any time soon. Perhaps in a more enlightened future society...

And thanks, I found the pic on /cm/, which I only found out about yesterday. Before that, the only image I had of boys kissing was pic rel. In all my years on 4chan, I had no clue there was a board where people posted cartoon images of little boys.

>>17749548
>which I only found out about yesterday
Oh wow, when I saw some of your previous threads I assumed you were from there. It's my favorite board.
>Sadly, anything even similar to the British boarding schools is unlikely to exist again any time soon.
I think there's a good chance it will happen by accident as a result of people trying to address boys' performance in school and mental health issues. There's already a pretty strong and growing sentiment that the current education system is failing to meet boys' needs. And usually one of the first ways people try to fix things is by going back to something that worked before.

btw OP, if you don't already know there's tons of cute boy pics on pixiv. If you're American you'll have to change your location to somewhere else (most people just pick Japan) to see everything. Most Japanese artists primarily post on twitter nowadays, but I think finding stuff there is annoying.

>>17750133
I don't even like cartoon boys that much. I only like a few pictures. Most of it is highly estrogenic, which explains why the Japanese are the ones creating most of it, as they are an emasculated bug race. In general, tranime is to be avoided.

Even visiting /cm/ to find a couple pictures was a bit much for me.

>>17750587
>he doesn't like shota
If you haven't heard of him already, you might like the works of Pierre Joubert. They're still drawings, but not anime.

>>17750678
I know him. It's a shame most of the art of boys being produce nowadays is tranime. Boys used to be a very popular subject in Western art.

AoC has no reason to be higher than 14

>>17743362 (OP)
>>17743476

Thanks for bringing this topic up. The knee jerk reaction that I always encounter when I or another person points to this and the past is basically:

>"So what? Slavery and genocide was the norm too, are you saying that's okay?"

What the puritan doesn't seem to realize when they make that counter, is that unless they want to argue how sex is akin to being whipped in chains, all they are engaging in is a red herring. Bringing up totally different things that have nothing to do with the issue to distract from the central point, that there is nothing inherently traumatizing about seeing a pair of genitals.

1. Your assertion is that children are traumatized by seeing genitals that aren't there own.

2. There is clear evidence that children have sexuality and there are who've grown up not feeling the way you assert they feel.

Nobody has ever offered a step by step explanation for why having sex under an arbitrary age is akin to slavery or being a frontline soldier in ww1. They always seem to just make that big leap and hope people accept it.(And they call it "rape" to make themselves sound more convincing for people who aren't aware of their doublespeak lingo).

Calling them "groomed" and engaging in hysterical random whataboutisms about slavery doesn't support anything about what you were trying to assert just moments before.

>>17750780
judging by this thread and degeneracy levels, the anglo puritan age of consent of 18 is correct

Can I report this anon to the FBI? If someone spams this board with historical cherry picking to normalize fucking little boys he no doubt has CP on his computer.

Sheriff Chitwood if you could bag another neckbeard that would be great!

>>17751268
>when reading purely descriptive anthropological examples of sexual practices from other cultures makes you so upset you want to call the FBI
why are sharts like this?

>>17751256
It’s 16 in england though.

>>17751280
Nobody spams a Japanese water beetle enthusiast website with daily threads about the history of boy molesting unless they have a ulterior motive
Nice try

>>17743362 (OP)
I've only read the first post in this tread. Is this for homosexuals? Do homosexuals support heterosexual child marriage? This is the only thing I want to know from you.

If a man is attracted to a young fertile woman, this is natural.
If a man is attracted to a young man, how is it natural? What for? Are you even real homos or just hetero copers?

>>17751268
>sees harmless anon breaking no laws
>wants to report him to people that help real, powerful sex traffickers rape and murder children
Your intentions are way more dubious than OP's.

>>17751634
See
>>17751381


>whatabout da glowies!
Whataboutism is peak third world cope. Are you from russia?

>>17751595
How is it unnatural for men to be attracted to cute boys though? Plenty of men throughout history have felt this way, such as Socrates, Plato, and Shakespeare. The average man is probably more attracted to a cute boy than a 40 year old hag. I would argue it's unnatural for a man not to be attracted to boys.

The conclusion to be drawn from the scientific, historical, and anthropological evidence is that pederasty is actually beneficial, which is why so many societies have practiced it. I haven't seen any good counterarguments against it. It increases social cohesion, it facilitates male bonding, and all of the proposed negative consequences presented so far have been refuted.

People shouldn't be so close-minded when it comes to a topic like this, because they're actually shooting themselves in the foot by rejecting all the positive benefits that accompany these types of relationships. Society would be much better off if there was rational age of consent reform. Everyone except a handful of bitter old hags would benefit from it.

>>17751751
Because boys look like women. You like women and coping.

>>17743797
The lack of a general concensus over how and and what age should people learn about sexuality is concerning.
Pedophilia, porn adiction, divorce and infidelity, mental problems, etc. many problems in current day come down to a very lackluster sexual education. Children need to learn as they are in an age in which they form the notion of themselves and the world around them.
I am pretty much a puritan. reading and writing on this text, even trying to be as distant as i can, makes me feel unconfortable. But it needs to be talked. Maybe not by anons of all people, but someone.

>>17751751
>>17752398
I am heterosexual and I can tell you that boys do not look like women and I have never found them remotely attractive. Not boys and not trannies, not even Hunter Schaefer.

>>17752780
Not even Bjorn Andersen?

>>17752398
>>17752780
>The inclination of the two sexes for each other declares itself very early; but after all that has been said of the African woman, and those of the southern part of Asia, this propensity is much stronger in man than in woman. Agreeably to the universal law of nature in all creatures, it is ever the male who makes the first advances. The young males of our species brought up together, coming to feel that play which nature begins to unfold to them, in the want of the natural object of their instinct, betake themselves to a resemblance of such objects.

>It is nothing uncommon for a boy by the beauty of his complexion, and the mild sparkle of his eyes for two or three years, to have the look of a pretty girl: now the love of such a boy arises from a mistake in nature; the female sex is honoured in our fondness for what partakes of her beauties, and when such resemblance is withered by age, the mistake is at an end.

- Voltaire on Socratic Love, in his Philosophical Dictionary

Almost all men like cute boys. Some just appreciate them more than others. Only the lowliest, most bestial of men, such as Negros, who are obsessed with massive sheboon asses, do not feel attraction for true beauty. They are slaves to their basal, animalistic urge to reproduce, and nothing more. They do not possess the level of mentation to appreciate beauty. They are driven only by instinct; like an insect driven by pheromones, their behaviour precedes high cognition.

>>17753405
This entire post is extremely based.

>>17745655
>Something being partook of for pleasure for its own sake does not make it wrong. This appreciation of beauty is a defining trait of the Aryan. The world is replete with mercantile/slave races, such as Indians, Asians, and Jews, who show a fundamental inability to appreciate beauty for its own sake. To these people, every action must have a pragmatic, transactional reason behind it. This is why they never developed high culture, or produced significant scientific and artistic innovation.
this kind of anlaysis on different races stops making sense if you think about it for more than 2 seconds

>>17743362 (OP)
Brown rapist subhumans do brown rapist subhuman shit to the surprise of absolutely no one

>>17755197
White people did this as well though.

>>17743362 (OP)
>Ctrl+F: Jew
>22 results found
Lmfao. O B S E S S E D

>>17756102
>Jews responsible for criminalizing pederasty in Europe through Christianity
>Jews responsible for fostering the feminism which raised the age of consent to 16
>Jews responsible for continuing the same feminism which worsens pedo-hysteria
>Jews responsible for fomenting pedo-hysteria in the first place, so that pedophiles replace a trope traditionally occupied by Jews in folklore (see the English folk song Sir Hugh; in traditional European folklore, the child-grabbing pervert wasn't a pedophile, but a kike)
>Jews promote a perverse, transgressive form of homosexuality through the LGBTQQIP2SAA+ movement
>Jewish academics censor the history of pederasty in ancient European societies by pretending it was adult-adult homosexuality
>Jews responsible for platforming and creating anti-pedo propaganda like HTCAP
>Jews responsible for creating black propaganda like NAMBLA to associate the noble Aryan tradition of pederasty with transgression and perversion
>Jews responsible for creating the pseudoscientific theory that adult-child sex causes psychological harm (Sigmund Freud's seduction theory), almost all early names in "child sexual abuse" literature are Jewish (Judith Reisman, Judith Lewis Herman, Lawrence Pazder, etc.)
>Jews rape children and generate controversy against "pedophiles", even though the child rape is being done by Jews
>Jews use ridiculous age of consent laws and CP laws to plant illegal material on dissidents and to blackmail politicians (Epstein)
>Jews responsible ZOG which enforces global age of consent laws under military threat
>Jews responsible for propaganda campaigns against White teenage pregnancy with the intention of accelerating White genocide

Yes, the Jews are our misfortune. Doesn't take a genius to recognize that the Jews are the reason why White men are not free to love boys. Once we remove them from our society, the age of consent will disappear overnight, and there will be a renaissance of boy-love.

>>17751268
>gets arrested for filing a false police report
Many such cases

>>17756754
>a call to investigate a suspicious person is the same as a false police report
Anon is retarded. Many such cases!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIBxx_ijpO4
Video of the average pederast

>>17757552
Antis receive all their information from Jewish TV programmes. Alexander the Great was a pederast.

>>17757552
Statue of the average pederast.

>>17757640
n-no that isn't real, all pedos are fat, old, and unkempt like in the jewish tv programme... hadrian wasn't really a pederast he just had a completely innocent relationship with that unrelated 12 year old boy that he brought with him to rome and then deified when he died...

>>17757626
I’m a hebephile I just miss geoffrey leonard memes desu. The gay ones do seem a lot more unhinged on average, what the hell is that little jump he does?

>>17753405
Girls look more like women than boys do.
Boys look more like men than girls do.
>>17757552
>13 and 16
>Not gay