all 30 comments

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm pro-child which means anti-pedophilia.

[–]hfxB0oyA 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Half your age plus seven is really all you need to know.

[–]ReptileBook 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You spend a lot of time thinking about sex with underage girls, don't you?

[–]Hematomato[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In truth, I spend no time thinking about it at all.

I spend a lot of time thinking about the consequences that ensue when socities believe things for no reason other than peer pressure.

And I spend a lot of time thinking about how Gen Z became the incel generation - depressed, isolated, suicidal virgins at a rate we've never seen before in history. And whether for Gen Alpha it's going to be three times worse.

And I think this is the consequence of pretending that 17 year olds are children. We've never done it before. We just started doing it. And now we have... thousands of dead young men.

Lies have consequences.

[–]ybdbdmf 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the age of consent is a holdover from the Victorian age It makes no sense evolutionarily, ppl commonly died before 30 until a few hundred years ago - wait until you're 18 for kids and when they're 12 and you're dead they're on their own? Ok

However, the age of consent as law is supremely useful to force obedience. If you let the government control your reproduction, everything else is a small ask. It also aligns with the interest of most women who didn't want to think before they were 18. Have fun early, and when you're smart enough to manipulate men into giving you all their resources, ban the competition. No they didn't spring the system overnight, but ppl know their interests, if an alteration to a law is IN their interest, and the accumulation of these changes since the Victorian era is the system we have today. Enjoy!

[–]ReptileBook 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ha. Whatever. I sure as hell wouldn't let you around my daughter.

[–]Hematomato[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's fair, but honestly, I'm way more likely to fuck your mom.

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There seem to be a lot of double standards going on. More precisely everyone acts extremely outraged and disgusted until it is someone they know and care about. The people who are the most passionate about going after pedos seem to be more interested in their own cathartic violence, only using their anti pedo outrage as an excuse to unleash on someone. If I had to guess most are victims of sexual abuse and that trauma festers inside them, so they instantly rationalize it as getting some justice. But when you really look at how they react to the details it becomes clear that no one is actually that interested in the details, or by extension justice or revenge; and especially not what is best for the kids. What they are most interested in is being violent.

Until, of course, the pedo is a fellow cop, or teacher, or a beloved coach, or a fellow jew, any version of "one of us" really.

Ultimately everyone is very interested in using it as a weapon against, and as an excuse to attack those they don't like. The media uses it to paint catholic priests as pedos, the poor accuse the rich of being pedos, feminists accuse all men, the left say it's mostly conservatives, the right says it's a left wing conspiracy.

So the conversation about pedophilia is less about pedophilia and more about who gets to indulge in their primal blood lust and against whom.

As such, any hint of restraint is a direct challenge to everyone's desires.

Which feels disgusting to say, and I can't be sure if it is because of my own blood lust or because I genuinely see the degradation of society being engineered and pedophilia normalization being a large part of that. I want to say that despite the topic being hijacked by blood thirsty narcissists, there are certainly valid reasons to be conservative and strict when creating policies on the matter. Not least of which is erring on the side of caution on a topic that is poorly fleshed out, has potentially devastating consequences, and there is a lack of scientific data to support any claims.

[–]ybdbdmf 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

how's this for scientific data the average life expectancy before 1700 was 29/30? You think you can surpress millions of years of evolution with 'society'? That is as deluded as the gender benders

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

People did not know what germs were. Doctors would handle cadavers then go make deliveries without washing. This killed a lot of women in childbirth. This also killed a lot of newborns. That kind of shit really brought down the average a lot. We will never know exactly how much of the increase in life expectancy is due to soap alone, but it could well be most of it.

[–]ybdbdmf 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

agriculture was invented 10-15 thousand years ago, before that society did not exist. Our species of human appeared 200-300k years ago, other types of human 6 million years ago. Society has had zero impact on the evolutionary forces that shaped us. At the very best, it can only shape them by pitting one evolutionary force(mainly fear, vanity, cowardice) against another.

[–]NastyWetSmear 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I think there's some false premises you're working on, and some sophistic ones as well, and I'll do my best to address them, understanding that, as you've pointed out, this is a hot button topic, so most people won't want to engage in any way.

1) You're correct, there's far more categories for humans than simply "Minor" and "Adult". For the purpose of this specific conversation and the laws surrounding it, and to avoid constantly having to shift, mitigate, forgive, condemn various actions based on the individual or the minute changes in age and circumstance, we create these categories and stick to them - The, somewhat arbitrary, age that we agree to be Too Young and the age we agree to be Old Enough. It isn't based on some strict definition, and it would be almost impossible for it to be so. Instead it's a handshake where society says: "We'll never know the perfect age for each individual to start doing various adult things, so we'll all just agree that it be age XX and leave it at that".

This isn't just satisfactory, it's necessary. The same as we don't modify the rule of law for every individual, but rather allow the justice system to judge them based on their individual circumstances, we need to do the same for these laws. We don't make it illegal to steal unless your Dad is dying of cancer and you need money for his treatment... But when you get to court, we expect a judge to be more lenient on someone in those circumstances. By the same token, we all know that Minor and Adult are chosen at a good guess at best for the purposes to determining an age limit on certain activities, but we expect a judge to take into account the circumstances around it.

2) True, but, again, for legal purposes, you could continue this divide forever. Pre-pubescent kids, toddlers, infants, kids currently going through puberty, people who are the right age to start puberty but haven't, people who started puberty young, people who haven't gone through puberty but are very intelligent and mature... The list could stretch forever. While it's not perfect, we accept that the legal treatment of these people needs to be general and allow the court to make their own judgements.

3) Obviously this changes from person to person, but it's the same as point 1 - We don't all believe that people who are 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 mins and 59 seconds old are mindless, drooling children who, in 1 second time, will become intelligent adults. Instead we agree that there's no single point where that's universally true, but there needs to be an agreed point for us to treat the law and the people equally. Otherwise, when people started turning 12, we'd be having yearly tests of their maturity by phycologists and doctors to see if they are adults yet, and then there would be primers on how to pass those tests going around online... It isn't viable for us to expect the world to treat every individual as an individual in this broad a sense.

4) Very few people think that, but we agree that children are ill equipped to understand these things. They don't have the experience or the understanding of the world, are still very much driven by basic wants and desires, don't have a good grasp of the future or what the world expects of them, so on, so forth. There's a reason we have to teach kids not to play with fire, or not to go out and party all night before an exam. If they were capable of understanding the harm their actions were going to bring them, it wouldn't be necessary to protect them from anything... But that simply isn't the case.

5) See above. It's not impossible any one child might know what they want, but we understand that children in general don't know what they want. They are short sighted and impulse driven. It's not just a stereotype. You might say you know a child that is mature, intelligent and knows what they want in life... But the fact will remain that, if you have 1,000 kids in a room and threw a stone, the odds are you'd hit one who doesn't. As a result, we need to create our laws and rules around the understanding of what is true typically and let the individual issues become a matter for a court or jury to determine.

6) See above. Same thing, different window dressing.

7) To give you the benefit of the doubt here, I'll assume we're talking about someone who has physically matured and is attempting to look older - make up, clothes, environment, etc. Yes, accidents can happen. If you're talking about before a person matures, I would say that's unnatural, yes, and I think most people would agree. That being said, because we don't have much choice but to pick a time when a person is considered an "Adult", we have to treat them in this way. If your point is: "Why do we punish them if we agree it can happen?" - Because we need to have this agreed age in order to create reliable laws, we have to rely, then, on the legal system to judge if the person's actions were reasonable and forgivable.

8) See above. We know they can, we accept that they can, we just acknowledge that, as a rule, the majority of them aren't mature enough to understand or control what they feel. We also agree that a mature, intelligent adult can manipulate and control these children, meaning that they can easily take someone who isn't ready, convince them they are and be heedless of the results. Is it always true? No. Is it true often enough that we have to worry about it and make laws to prevent it?... Yeah, sadly.

9) That's the same point as the two above, just a different coat of paint.

10) I'm not sure what you're saying. We agree that children can sexually assault each other, we just treat them differently under the law, as mentioned above.

So, in essence, what you're arguing is that there's more nuance to life than we recognise in the law, and that's always true. It's why we don't simply have a computer that we input your crime and receive your punishment. We use a court system so that the law can be general to treat everyone equally, and then the outcome can be moderated by a human who understands that there's circumstances which differ from person to person. If your argument is that pedophiles don't get treated with much nuance - Hard to say you're wrong, but I totally understand why. Children are innocent, easily led, and things like this can easily ruin their growth and alter their whole lives going forward. The same way we naturally react with disgust at the murder of a child, we naturally act with disgust at the harm of a child in this way.

What it might help to argue is that there needs to be better methods of treating people who are pedophiles and agreeing on helping those who seek treatment without judgement. It's just one of those fucked up things nobody asks to happen to them, and if someone is trying to get help, good. That's what we want, right? Not for them to hide it until they act on it, but to try and fix it. It's till gross... If I found out a friend was like that, I'd still be repulsed... But that's half the issue.

[–]Hematomato[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So, you took those ten things point by point, but I feel like you only really made four different arguments, so let me just group my replies that way:

1-3) We can agree that legal fictions need to exist. But cultural fictions don't need to exist in the same way. Do we need some arbitrary age where it's okay to rent an apartment or buy a beer? Sure. Do we need to pretend that it's really any different at all whether you bought the beer this year or last year? We don't.

We can say "It's the law that if someone is under x age, any sexual relationship with an age gap of more than three years is illegal." But we don't have to tack on some cultural inanity like "because we think that's a child." If you can't tell that a 16 year old and a 6 year old are not in the same category of people, you're quite frankly either insane or playing along with the naked Emperor.

4-6) Here you say "People don't really believe those things, they're just ways of expressing legal fictions." But, yes. People do believe those things. Not people over 40, of course, but hang out on the Internet with 30 year olds and that's exactly what they believe.

7-9) What I'm saying is: when you were 15, other 15 year olds were attracted to you. And you were attracted to other 15 year olds. And most of you were thinking about those attractions all the time, and masturbating. That isn't because you were all pedophiles. It's because you were pubescent, and fertile, and very naturally attracted to each other.

And 17 year olds were naturally attracted to you, too. And we go "ehh I'll allow it." And 19 year olds were naturally attracted to you, too. And we scream "AHHHH PEDOPHILE!"

No. That's not a pedophile. It's fine to make it illegal to date you, but it's kinda not fine to pretend that anyone who could be attracted to you is a pedophile. If you're fertile, then it's biologically normal to be found attractive.

10) I'm saying that if a 19 year has sex with a 15 year old, that may be culturally wrong, or illegal, but it's biologically normal. So it should be punished as an ordinary crime, not an aberration of nature. Whereas if a 14 year old has sex with a 10 year old, that is a full-on pedophile. When we pretend that 14 year olds and 10 year olds are in the same category (they absolutely are not), we lose sight of the fact that there are a lot of pedophile minors out there. We just pretend they don't exist, and a lot of sexual abuse happens as a result. There are a shocking number of children getting raped by adolescents.

[–]gloomy_bear 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah it pisses me off when they claim a 14 yo raping a 6 yo is "child" on child abuse. Ones a full on adolescent (adolescent as in teenager aged 13-19) and the other is a literal child. It minimises the harm that has been done.

[–]gloomy_bear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also to add, when I was 6 I hardly knew anything that was at least PG-13 (although I accidentally said the f-bomb then). I also thought once both males and females turned 40, they could no longer have babies.

When I was 14, I knew rated R and PG-13 stuff, and knew what basic sex was (hetero and homo). I ironically thought a hand job was plastic surgery on your hand tho.

Like I've mentioned above, calling somebody in adolescence (as in teenagers aged 13-19, but 13-15 yo is much different than 16-19 yo, but this term coming up is coined for anyone 13-17) who rapes literal children (12 and under) "child" on child abuse is gross. Because of how much different somebody in their teenaged years are to somebody 12 and under. Consent where I live is 16, and that's why when some sick fuck rapes somebody under 16, it's separated into rape of under 16's and rape of 12 and under (literal children).

Fuck the 403 error

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's at least partially because your points all refer back to the same process, or are the same question worded slightly differently. I hope this helps.

1) Those are legal functions. Buying beer and renting are legal process. We aren't pretending it's different, it is different, because last year you were a minor and this year you are an adult. That's the function that distinction serves - to legally allow us to create a time we can generally agree is the right time for these activities. There's no social function at play except to say that we, typically, agree to that age despite there being little to factually distinguish it or scientifically distinguish it for want of a better way to lay it out.

2) I don't really care what a small minority of people think about children's activity of capacity. It's irrelevant to this conversation and life in general. You can always find a handful of people who think some stupid bullshit. As a rule, society doesn't think these things. What we do know to be true is, as I've pointed out, while some children may be capable of making certain choices, most are not equipped to do that.

3) I don't think you're making a point at all here. Yes, sometimes children date and do things with children. Sexual activity under the age of consent is still against the law. Two kids aren't meant to be having sex. We view it the same way - it doesn't matter what a child thinks is fine for them, they aren't capable of making the choice.

We don't really go: "Eh, I'll allow it". We make it illegal and let the law decide what's worth enforcing - most of the time the assumption is: The parents will take care of the matter. They are just stupid kids.. When it's an adult, it's not fine. You should know better. If or not you find them attractive is relevant only in as much as: it doesn't matter, don't do it.

4) Biologically normal isn't really relevant here. It's biologically normal for penguins to fuck their dead and for lions to eat zebras alive. We don't base the legal system and the morality of our society by what's biologically normal.

It is punished as a normal crime. We don't have distinctions in the law for "aberrations of nature". People might find it more reprehensible, and they are right to do so, because it is, but there's not a legal category for things "Unnatural"... Otherwise we wouldn't punish murder at all.

We don't lose track of the idea of kids sexually assaulting kids. It's a serious crime and we punish it like any other. Maybe parents don't like to talk about it and try and pass it off as "Kids will be kids", but we still see it as a problem.

[–]Hematomato[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't really care what a small minority of people think about children's activity of capacity. It's irrelevant to this conversation and life in general. You can always find a handful of people who think some stupid bullshit. As a rule, society doesn't think these things.

I'm sorry, you're just not right. If you go on any website on the Internet that isn't a little backwater free-speech site, and you say "If we're being honest, of course teenagers do know the difference between right and wrong, do know exactly what they do and don't want, and do know how to consent," people will scream at you that they have undeveloped brains, that it's horrific that you think those things, and that you're obviously a pedophile. I've been there enough times to know. Millennials and Zoomers are really and truly losing sight of the fact that 16 and 6 are not the same age.

Sexual activity under the age of consent is still against the law. Two kids aren't meant to be having sex.

There's no single "the law" - there's a different law for every country and every state. What you're saying is true for California, where it's against the law for two fifteen year olds to have sex with each other. It's not true for most states, where it's perfectly legal for two fifteen year olds to have sex with each other.

Of course, since some of the biggest sites, like Reddit, are headquartered in California, people all over the world have taken to referring to California state law as "the law."

It's really only in the last fifteen years or so that anyone started thinking that teenage sex was weird and "not meant to be." In the '80s, '90s, '00s, everyone understood that teenagers were gonna fuck and there was nothing their parents, let alone the government, could really do to stop them.

We don't base the legal system and the morality of our society by what's biologically normal.

Of course we base cultural morality, at least in part, on what's biologically normal. Sure, the law itself is disconnected from both nature and morality, but the culture shouldn't be. If you refer to a normal thing, people shouldn't gasp in horror and scream "Monster! Monster!"

Which is exactly what people have begun to do if they hear of (gasp) an 19 year old, a legal adult, thinking a 17 year old is attractive. "Those are on opposite sides of the line!" they gasp, feigning shock and horror so no one will hurt them. "The slightly older one is a pedophile!"

They think that if they do anything except feign that outrage, the FBI will be knocking on their door the next morning.

[–]NastyWetSmear 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sorry, you're just not right. If you go on any website on the Internet that isn't a little backwater free-speech site, and you say "If we're being honest, of course teenagers do know the difference between right and wrong, do know exactly what they do and don't want, and do know how to consent," people will scream at you that they have undeveloped brains, that it's horrific that you think those things, and that you're obviously a pedophile. I've been there enough times to know. Millennials and Zoomers are really and truly losing sight of the fact that 16 and 6 are not the same age.

You are mistaking Reddit and other online communities for what the world at large understands. I'm sorry, you're just not right. What you'll find is that online communities where people are anonymous and thrive on popular opinion differ greatly from the real world, where you sit down with a person and say something and they are looking you in the eye and hearing your words.

Even in the online communities, there's a difference between the knee-jerk reaction to the implication of pedophilia and the rush to be the most virtuous one to decry it... And the actual understandings of the facts of adolescents. Everyone might be in a rush to say the right thing, but even these performative people understand that there's a difference between: "We don't permit sexual interaction with children" and "Children don't do anything sexual in their room with the door closed"... And, hopefully, you understand the difference as well, and how that difference is expressed much more firmly when it comes from adults and children, as opposed to children on their own or children and other children.

There's no single "the law" - there's a different law for every country and every state. What you're saying is true for California, where it's against the law for two fifteen year olds to have sex with each other. It's not true for most states, where it's perfectly legal for two fifteen year olds to have sex with each other.

That's not really relevant. All that does it show that, in some places, the law differs. In those places they have different laws, and that can be because of different beliefs, different needs... In some places laws just linger unchanged despite everyone knowing they should be. There are some places it's legal to have normal, penetrative sex with an animal, but illegal to have anal sex with them. Do you think that's because they all sat down and agreed that some animal is okay, so long as it's Christian? Or do you think maybe it's a lingering law they didn't feel the need to change?

The point is, there are laws against children sexually molesting other children in a lot of places, because we typically agree children shouldn't be involved in those activities. In places where there aren't, it's likely not a result of people all agreeing kids should be able to have sex with other kids and that's normal and healthy - It's likely due to a feeling that parents should be handling those responsibilities without further damaging the child's growth by getting them caught in the legal system.

Of course we base cultural morality, at least in part, on what's biologically normal.

Only in part, and as I pointed out, that makes it irrelevant to the argument. Murder is natural. Cannibalism is natural. Rape is natural. We don't base our laws on what is natural - we might take aspects of it, but it's pointless to argue that because something occurs in nature it shouldn't be illegal.

Also, you keep mentioning culture and society. I can't help you there - having sex with children is repugnant and repulsive. That's just how people find it. You can argue it shouldn't be, if you're so inclined, but that's like the people on Reddit arguing that we should all be okay having sex with transexuals, regardless of their actual sex. They can say it all they like and demand you agree, but normal people in the street will never be okay with it.

Anyway, I understand your overall point - Like I said, nobody is under the impression that at the stroke of midnight on your 18th birthday, you are instantly blessed by an angel to be able to have sex, drive, drink and get a tattoo. It's an age we all kind of shrugged and said: "Seems about right" to. Some people will be mature, intelligent 17 year old people, some people will be immature, unprepared 20 year olds. You have to draw a line in the sand, otherwise you would be constantly renegotiating the process every day and no two people would ever feel safe entering a relationship until they had grey hair. I hope you enjoyed the conversation we had - you're always free to debate the topic and shouldn't feel attacked for doing so. Understand that it disgusts most people, and we live in a cynical age of victimhood and accusation... And not many people want to get philosophical about when it's okay to screw over a beer... So it's not likely you'll find many chances to talk about it, sorry.

Good luck!

[–]Musky 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I get jailbait can be smoking hot, but teenage girls don't have a whole lot to offer a grown man besides their bodies. What are you going to talk about, how her day at high school was?

Most people aren't down with their daughters becoming a sex toy for an older man.

[–]Hematomato[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sacrificing your sons for the sake of your daughters is definitely all the rage in a fourth-wave feminist society.

You don't want your daughters to lose their virtue, so you teach your sons that they're all children who shouldn't ever be thinking about sex - until the day they turn 18, when they'd better have it all mastered or they can expect to face severe condemnation and mockery.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–]gloomy_bear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    This is somewhat legal where I live. 16 & 17 yos can marry with parents permission and 18 & 19 yos can marry due to being age of majority. I'd say that's still a bit young to marry tbh. At 16-19, you still have a lot of your life ahead of you. I think 20's and 30's is a good age. 25-35 is when you start settling down more, which is why I think it's a good age for marriage.

    Fuck the 403 error

    [–]IMissPorn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Attraction to prepubescent children is a mental disorder called pedophilia. It is very dangerous, and pedophiles must never be allowed to be in the presence of children.

    Not sure if I agree with the italic part to be honest. Obviously some pedophiles are that dangerous, but we don't know how common pedophilia actually is, which makes judging the danger difficult too. Kinda like how in the early days of Covid-19 there were claims of death rates of over 1%, but it turned out that was badly skewed by mild to moderate cases going unnoticed. I suspect pedophilia is like that too, though it is of course, very hard to know.

    For the rest of your comment, yeah. Some people take the minor/adult distinction way too seriously and seemingly treat it as a fact instead of an imperfect but useful legal concept.

    [–]Diamondd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    a version of Wordle in which the player must guess 4 different words at the same time- quordle

    [–]BanditMcFuklebuck 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I used to **** my girlfriend every day when we were both under 18. She even gave me some racy polaroids once, which would be considered the "nudes" of that era. Should we turn ourselves in, all these decades later?

    [–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Lets assume I have a daughter and what you say has some grounds in reality. I'll take everything you say but also add everything that comes with the responsability of what you said:

    • If I want to have a bethrothal of my daughter to an older man, I have to assume he will live and strive to be the best husband possible to her. If she does not like him, its not an impediment, but a complication.

    • If men want to have sexual relations with recent postpubescent women, it should be for its natural drive; procreation. If its only for the modern life of whoring around, then you are only asking for more degeneracy and for it to be more rampant for more people.

    • Last but not least, if my daughter is knocked up or loses her virginity to a man who does not want to commit marrying her, then I have to correct my mistake of not being vigilant enough with her to kill the motherfucker. Death penalty for robbing my daughter of her most sacred treasure, or commit to the marriage. Simple.

    Add these three, and despite a bumpy decade or so, things will reverse to a better state.

    [–]Hematomato[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    But let's assume you have a 17 year old son. And society says to him: you are a child. You should not be thinking about sex. For you to have sex is not the natural way of things.

    And then he turns 18 and society says to him: you are now a man. You can date. But you'd better to make any mistakes. Or we'll fucking shame you. Maybe even arrest you. So I hope you picked up some experience during those 17 years of being a sexless little boy.

    So he says: you know, I'm probably good alone with my video games. But it turns out he isn't good alone with his video games. So when he's 20, he eats the business end of a pistol.

    See, we're all so eager to protect our daughters, but no one has the faintest interest in protecting our sons.

    Maybe - just maybe - it would have been better not to pretend he was a little kid and not to deny his emergent sexuality.

    [–]ReptileBook 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    It's practically unheard of nowadays for teenagers to not be allowed to date (though to be honest, it's probably a great idea). Why do you have a weird fixation on the sexuality of minors? All adults have gone through puberty and been teenagers, I don't think there's this widespread perception that you're conjuring up, that they're innocent little flowers. That said, young people absolutely should be protected from predatory older people, which is why social stigma exists for age inappropriate relationships.

    [–]Hematomato[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    It's practically unheard of nowadays for teenagers to not be allowed to date

    I don't think you're living in the present.

    In the '90s, teenagers dated and a little over half of them had sex with each other.

    In the '20s, most teenagers have never even been to an unchaperoned party, let alone tried to date anyone.

    [–]ReptileBook 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Yeah, cause they've been raised on the internet, social media, porn and screens in general. You're barking up the wrong tree.

    [–]Hematomato[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes, it's so very easy to say "Internet = incel."

    But the Internet isn't the only new thing. Also new is the idea that 17 year olds are children.

    And that seems to be a lot more closely related to "incel" than "computers are networked now."