Does the artwork of Wilhelm Von Gloeden count as CSEM?

Yes but it’s been completely impossible for artists like him to operate in 50+ years.

I’m not saying that they should operate like him. What I am saying is that in the most strict and narrow legal sense, his work is not CSEM.

CSEM = "Child Sexual Exploitation Materials"

The “E” in CSEM, mean “exploitation”.

Were the photos consensual? If yes, then it wasn’t exploitation.

We have no way of knowing if the photos were consensual, they are over 100 years old.

Furthermore, minors cannot consent to being nude for strangers so it’s unlikely they were consensual.

More that 100 years ago, the concept of minor was different than the today’s concept of minor.

For example, the age of consent was different and people had more rights, freedoms, and responsibilities.

More freedoms? Why in the everlasting heck are you defending CP and/or child r-pe on a child protection organization forum? Is this a troll post?

When the age of consent was 12, sexual contact with a 13 years old person WASN’T considered bad. Sex with 12 years old child WAS considered bad.

Then the age of consent became 14. So, sexual contact with a 13 years old person WAS considered bad.

Do you realize how it works? Right now, according to people, sexual contact under the age of 18, is rape - while sexual contact with a person above the age of 18, is not rape. But what if we rise the age of consent?

If we rise the age of consent from 18 to 30, people will think that sex with a 29 years old person is rape, but sex with someone above the age of 30, is not rape. People will think that a 29 years old person can’t consent.

In the past, when people were cool and open-minded in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, sexual contacts with 10-12-13 years old people were allowed. And NO ONE experienced trauma. In other words, people experience trauma, because the society told them they must experience trauma if they have sex with someone older than them. This is why if a 14 years old kid have sex with another 14 years old kid, there won’t be trauma. But if the same 14 years old kid have sex with someone at the age of 30, for example, the trauma will magically come into existence. The trauma is caused not by the sex, but by the idea that if your sexual partner is older than you, then YOU MUST EXPERIENCE TRAUMA! It’s about social attitudes.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE

And i told you im >>>AGAINST<<< rape! I have never supported raoe and i will never support it. I like what Prostasia is doing in order to protect children. But at the same time, i support >>>DESTIGMATIZATION<<< of minor-attracted people. Yes, by legalizing child sex dolls, we can lower the “harm”.

Age of consent is simply a number set in law as a guideline to determine whenever a person is mature enough for being able to determine their state and situation, to give informed consent. It’s set only because we have no other way of determining that criteria.

Age of consent doesn’t determine whenever people consider sex with a person as bad. This is not how law work. Just because you set some rule in the book, doesn’t automatically make the society at large accept that something is “bad” or “good”. If that was the case, there would be no change whatsoever in the laws all over the world.

It’s the people who set laws, and the truth is, that people simply raised the age of consent getting closer to the age of 18 in response to abuse to such laws allowing lower Age of Consent. Most countries assumed that 18 is the age in which a person is well developed enough to take the full responsibility for their own lives, and the only reason why some countries didn’t set the AoC at the age of 18, is to prevent situations of prosecuting peers of a similar age under the same penalty as an adult person who has raped a baby.

To my knowledge, no country has AoC bigger than 18. It would be unreasonable to lift it above this number simply because this age is used to determine a lot more when it comes to law.

You entire reasoning is based on a strawman of an average individual. Most people hearing about a situation where a 19-year-old has sex with 17-year-old, won’t call it rape, unless one of the people was coerced or manipulated into such intercourse, regardless of the Age of Consent in given state/country. But they might say that it was illegal.

You clearly have no knowledge of ancient history. The Roman Emperor Nero, had a young boy named Sporus castrated and dressed in female clothes in order to marry him. Do you seriously believe that this young boy had not been traumatized in any way by such an event, only because “the society didn’t tell him that he should be traumatized”?

Have you ever heard the term “Child on child sexual abuse”? Because it does happen. A 14-year-old can coerce another 14-year old into sex, it would classify as rape, and it could be a traumatic experience.

Sure, not every sexual interaction has to end up in a drastic trauma that lasts the entire life and causes the person to feel enormous suffering rendering them incapable to live on a daily basis. But even minor situations do have negative effects.

It’s not the fact that someone older than you has sexual interaction with you as a kid that causes the harm, your idea that the trauma is caused only “because we live in a society” is ridiculous, and it’s the same exact rhetoric that I’ve seen pro-contact MAPs using to rationalize sexual intercourse with minors.

Seriously, no one is going around talking child sex abuse victims that “You should be traumatized now, I will cast a spell that will cause you trauma because someone older has sex with you”. There isn’t even a single person on this planet that does that. People don’t think that sexual intercourse between minors and adults causes the minor to be traumatized because “someone older had sex with them”, people have this belief because a lot of minors, who grew up, and in the past had been sexually exploited by someone had genuinely been diagnosed with all sorts of mental problems.

If an adult heterosexual male has sexual intercourse with his heterosexual wife after they both decided they will try to have a child together, then naturally, such sexual intercourse isn’t traumatic.

But if an adult heterosexual male has sexual intercourse with an unconscious woman he just met at a party, even though the female had no awareness of the act, didn’t felt anything, doesn’t remember it, and haven’t been physically harmed in any way, she still can become traumatized by such an event.

Of course, trauma is not caused by the sex itself! Trauma is caused by the circumstances the person having it has been in. Human sexual relationships and interactions aren’t as simple as just physical activity between two people. There is way more nuance and complexity to it, it’s a multilayered area of the human experience that is tightly intertwined with social aspects, biological aspects, psychological aspects, religious aspects and much more.

Instead of repeating the same statement of you not supporting child abuse, improve the rhetoric you are using, to better convey your own ideas, because for people who do not sit in your head, what you write looks like you constantly try to make a case that sexual exploitation of minors isn’t harmful in any way.

Or better said, your opinions look like you define “child rape” as “violent child rape”, believing that only signs of physical harm constitute what can be defined as rape, and by such distinction, you rationalize non-violent sexual intercourse with minors with their verbal agreement as consentual, completely ignoring the power differences between an underdeveloped minor with lacking education and life expertise and a well-developed adult with a job, home, money and better physical and cognitive abilities that can be abused to coerce and manipulate more vulnerable and naive minor into sexual situations to which they will agree, but not necessarily want, and even then, regret them in the future.

And I’m not saying that these are your beliefs, but the way you write about your opinions, looks extremely close to what pro-contact MAPs I’ve talked to believe in, and gives the same feel. Some of your points are exactly the same. And most of those individuals turned out to be troll accounts playing on peoples insecurities about this topic.

1 Like

Im not using Strawman fallacy. I have talked with a lot of anti-maps. They said that minors can’t consent. According to them, a minor is everyone under the age of consent. The age of consent is 18, so 17 is under the age of consent. They (antis) said that minors can’t consent, no matter what. They reject all facts, and prefer to believe in their anti-map dogma that is INconsistent with everything we observe in biology, psychology…

IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE

This is just one isolated case. Pederasty don’t require castration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE

You mentioned rape. I never mentioned rape. Your statement is invalid. You assume i think rape is not traumatic. I KNOW rape is traumatic. I don’t support rape / non-consensual sex.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE

I said you base your reasoning on a strawman, not that you are using strawman fallacy. You created a model of an average person that isn’t real. This is the strawman you created:

That is now how people think. People don’t assume the age of consent determines what is rape and what isn’t. Because rape has nothing to do with peoples ages. They might say, that such action was illegal because that is what Age of Consent determines - the legality of an act. But that is all there is to it.

Sure, some people might refer to such situations as rape, exaggerating it for sensational effect, but they aren’t a representation of how society at large reacts to it.

People you describe tend not to have poor reasoning skills, but their point isn’t incorrect.

Minors can’t consent, no matter what, but not because of having a number assigned to their identity. It’s because they are underdeveloped in every area of human existance.

They can verbally agree to sexual intercourse, either willingly or not. That is the ability that they have, because they are human beings. But the possibility that an underage person is able to give informed consent is extremely small, and going closer to zero the younger the person is.

Informed consent isn’t just willingness and agreement. There is a lot of factors that determine it. Naturally, most people want to have sexual intercourse, since they derive pleasure from it, and teenagers are especially biased towards it due to the development of their sexuality. But sexual intercourse has consequences and is more complex than just “a physical activity that is pleasant”. And those consequences will vary from person to person depending on their circumstances, but one thing stays, which is that minors aren’t in the position to deal with those consequences, and the age is irrelevant. There is more nuance to the topic that you seem to completely ignore because your reduced view of the sexual intercourse is conveniently supporting the beliefs you want to believe in.

I get the feeling that your irrelevant and out of topic mentioning that pederasty doesn’t require castration was made by you only because you had no actual substance to refute my point.

It doesn’t matter that pederasty don’t require castration. This young boy was coerced into a situation he didn’t want to be in and had no way of refusing it because of the position Nero was holding in Rome. Do you seriously think that Sporus had any say in this relationship if we know that his genitalia was cut off?

And it’s not one isolated case, it’s one of many examples of how horrible the situation in ancient Rome was when it comes to sexual abuse. People with power were always abusing those who didn’t have it. Julius Caesar was known as “the husband of all wifes”, because he raped any women he wanted, even the ones that were married to others. Do you seriously believe all of those married women were consensually and happily doing it? Of course, they most likely were verbally agreeing to it, but only because otherwise their husbands would be beheaded.

The history of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece is full of situations like the one that I described. These weren’t “some isolated cases”. Why do you think Christianity was so hellbent on demonizing homosexuality? It’s because, at large, a male raping another male was used as a sign of dominance, and various slaves were raped by their masters for that reason.

This entire quote of yours is completely incoherent. How exactly one person mentioning rape while the other doesn’t mention rape makes an example invalid?

Because this is what you called invalid, an example that I used to make a point that sex in it of itself isn’t what determines whenever something is rape or not.

This was the statement of yours I was responding to.

This was the example I used to make my point, a comparision of two simillar scenarions that both have sex in it, but have different circumstances, which you called invalid for some reason:

And here was my point, based on this example:

So your entire counterargument:

Simply doesn’t make any sense.

Also:

I never assumed that you think rape is not traumatic, but the entire case that you’ve made was that the trauma is only caused because society forces people to feel it when they have sex with someone older. And that is simply not how trauma works.

The only way in which I referred to you directly, was my speculation, that you have an inability to express your opinions and ideas in a way, that doesn’t cause misinterpretation of what you write.

Also, the question isn’t whenever you support rape / non-consensual sex. But what you constitute as rape. It’s easy to say that you don’t support something considered bad, but then change the definition of that thing in a way, that excludes the reason why it’s bad.

This was enough. Im not going to debate with you on this topic anymore.

Of course, you won’t debate with me on this topic, because you lack any foundation to argue about.
You lack any knowledge that you could use to formulate any arguments, and instead, pretend to have a case where you clearly had none to begin with.

2 Likes

Im not going to debate with you, because you repeat same thing, without trying to understand what im saying.

When you say “minors can’t consent”, you mean people under the age of 18, but you ignore the fact that the age of consent was 13, 12 in the past, and these 12/13 years olds were accepted in the society and treated like adults. They also had opinion. They were able to work. However, today working 12 years old will be accepted as “exploitation”, even when it’s not exploitation.

I was trying to explain that the artwork of Wilhem Von Gloeden was consensual, and there is no reason to think it was not consensual. This is what i came to this topic. I simply wanted to share my opinion about the misused abbreviation “CSEM”. I explained that “E” mean “exploitation” - and then i explained the meaning of the word “exploitation”.

If you were to truly believe that I simply don’t understand what you say, then you would continue the discussion to clear up any misconception that I might have, and you wouldn’t call it a debate. I don’t repeat the same thing, each of my points is different, and to claim that I do is a dishonest aversion of my arguments.

Yes, I do mean people under the age of 18, but my point wasn’t that they can’t consent. My point was that what you consider as consent is incorrect. And that you oppose this idea only because of ignorant assumption, that everyone believes minors are incapable of making decisions and desire things, and that is simply not the case. People say that minors can’t consent, to say that minors are incapable of taking the responsibility for long-lasting effects of some of their decisions. A minor can agree to sex, but if they do, they clearly don’t have the knowledge about those effects, and their consent is not informed.

And the fact that in the past the age of consent was lower is simply irrelevant. It was changed because it wasn’t enough. In many countries where the age of consent is really low, this fact has been abused for sex tourism for ages, with many young girls, especially from poverty areas getting basically coerced into prostitution to earn money, becoming dependent on this type of earning income to sustain their families. And no, the solution to this problem isn’t to allow the prostitution of children, it’s to solve the poverty in order for people from such areas to have a choice of what they want to do in their life.

And this is another example of you clearly not understanding what consent means. The laws forbid child workers not because people believe that children are incapable of work, but because children can be easily coerced or convinced to do work for low or no money, while they should spend time socializing with their peers and learning in peace, to become a well-developed adult. These laws exist as a precaution to avoid abuse of minors for the purposes of physical labour, which in places like China, is a thing, and it was thought in other places of the world, which has caused many nations to create such laws.

That is the common theme in your ideas, you ignore that laws had reasons behind their introduction, and instead fall back on baseless speculation, that these laws are only a result of irrational social constructs, which is simply not how human psychology work.

And you are saying this for what purpose exactly? I never addressed your initial response to this thread. I only referenced the contents of your posts further in your activity.

My mistake. Sorry.

If you are a 17.5 years old (6 months younger), will you be less mature than a 18 years old person?

Im trying to understand what do you mean.

Do you mean that until the last second of the 18th birthday all people are not mature, but after the last second, they become mature? Imagine we are talking about a person who is born is the 2000s. His/her birthday will be on this date: date: 31.12.2018 / clock: 00:00. So, in 23:59, he/she won’t be mature, but in 00:00, he/she will be mature?

This is what the world need more sex-ed.

Don’t use “prostitution”. This word is carrying stigma. Use “sex work”.

Sex work is happeniing even when it’s illegal. If you want to fix the “abuse”, then you have to fix poverty.

Even if the age of consent is 375689376537563975623 years, “abuse” can still happen. And if the place is poor, the police will be paid to not investigate the case. There are places in which if someone is killed, if you pay money to police, the police will “forget” the case. Even if the place is rich, police can still be paid. And since today people are lovers of money, lovers of themselves, forget about justice.

You have to understand that laws can’t change the world. What can change the world is adding education. By “education”, i mean real education that will give you real knowledge about your body and the world you live in.

Also, i got the feeling you are trying to say that sex work is never a choice? Is this what yu are trying to say? :face_with_monocle: :face_with_monocle: :face_with_monocle: :face_with_monocle:

NOTE - using words such as “friends”, “peers”, “socializing”, in 21st century, is meaningless.

Everyone, regardless the age, can be forced to work for low money. If you want children to be allowed to work, so they can be economically INDEPENDENT, then we need laws that will protect children at their workplaces. These are anti-discrimination laws.

A lot of people are treated by double standards. A lot of grown adults are working for low money. For example, if you are ILLEGAL immigrant, you might work for 200 dollars, while other people are receiving 800 dollars for the same job you do. This is because you have no documents, so you can’t put your signature to be LEGAL worker. LEGAL wokers are protected by law, so they can’t be discriminated.

The reason why children might be paid low, is because there is no law to ensure children will be paid the same amount of money as adults.

When the children is economically dependent to parents, isn’t this control? So, even when children don’t work, they are still controlled and forced to do things they might don’t like.

People are using “CSEM” for everything they see if the thng involves someone under the age of consent. For example, if a 15 years old person posts sexually suggestive (NOT NUDE) photo on social media >>>>>>>CONSENSUALLY<<<<<<<, this will be viewed as “CSEM”. As i said, “E” stands for exploitation. But in this case, there was no exploitation.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE!

Of course not, but again, almost everyone understands it. There is a moral panic going right now, which is why some individuals become paranoid about the topic of pedophilia and behave like crazy, exaggerating things and saying things that are nonsensical with the more reasonable individuals being simply afraid to question them (but they do exist, and they are a majority of people) out of fear of being labelled a pedophile.

But just because there are idiots who behave like deranged lunatics, doesn’t mean all the things in regards to the topic of pedophilia are rendered wrong, because of them. Especially considering, that these laws were created by people who are no longer with us on this planet, and they were created for a reason that was present back then. Not every rule is correct one, but it’s important to understand what reasons were behind their creation, to reevaluate whenever they are still present in our current society.

The age of 18 is set as a guideline that we set simply because we have no better way of determining whenever a person was able to make a conscious and well-informed decision for the sexual practice, a decision that they won’t later regret, and whenever they are in a position where they can take responsibility that comes with such relationships. Sex isn’t just a physical activity performed for pleasure, there are consequences, positive and negative ones, but they’re always are some effects of it. What if a person becomes pregnant, what if a person had STD they haven’t told their partner about, what if the person wanted to be in short term relationship, but the second grew attached. There are thousands of such reasons, and minors are rarely well equipped to deal with them. There is also a lot of abusive people, who would exploit the fact that minors don’t have any money, no ability to have a decent job, that they don’t have experience and knowledge etc. And it’s impossible to distinct whenever a given person is a predator or not. It’s also a problem among the adults, but with adults, the difference is that an adult in a relationship with such predator, still is able to have full autonomy over themselves. They can react to abusive situations incorrect way. They can move out and live on their own. There is an enormous amount of problems that occur when you think about allowing adults to have relationships of these kinds with minors, and the rules that are set in place are set to prevent them. Because the alternative, meaning, that a minor won’t be allowed to have sex until they are 16/17/18, depending on the laws in given state/country, isn’t simply harmful. Such a person will eventually be able to have sexual relationships of their desires, they simply have to wait a couple of years. Same with alcohol, with a car license, with a job etc.

Truth is, many 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds, 20-year-olds are no different than 15-year-olds. And you will perhaps find some teenagers that are more mature for their age. But our inability to distinguish whenever a given person is suited for such activities, with the potential of abuse, and the fact, that it takes time and effort for a person to become mature, meaning the majority of people will not be suited for a long time, made us decide, that it’s better to establish such protections for minors.

When a choice is between creating a huge risk for many children to be abused, just so adults who find them attractive can feel sexual pleasure, and disallowing adults who find children attractive to have sexual interactions with them, but eliminating the risk for many children to be abused, then the answer is simple. This, of course, sucks for the people who genuinely are predominantly or exclusively attracted to minors, which is why I find alternative outlets as a good course of action, but the truth is, that we simply will always prioritize the safety of children over unnecessary pleasures of adults, that can be satisfied with alternative means (sex dolls, masturbation, art).

You cannot simply focus on stupid people, assume their logic is incorrect, and instead of justifying criticizing them, attack the values they try to defend instead because they were never having any control over those rules. Just because they don’t understand why things are like they are in our world today, doesn’t give you an allowance to be just as ignorant as them.

Not more, but better sexual education is always a good idea, but I wasn’t talking only about the raw knowledge of the topics of sexuality. Once again, human sexual relationships aren’t separated from the rest of human experience. There are biological factors, emotional factors, spiritual (for some) factors, psychological factors, social factors and much more. And you cannot really teach people the theory of it all expecting them to perform well. It takes time for people to learn about these things from practice. This is why teenagers date each other and fail miserably at doing so, remembering for the rest of their lives the embarrsing moments from their past.

Sex work is a term used for consensual sexual services. I used prostitution for a reason.

Are you even reading what I write? Because you quoted the response to an argument I predicted you will make.

Of course, but the legal system requires law in order to be able to even try to prevent and counteract such an abuse. Without the age of consent, law enforcement wouldn’t be able to do anything, and there would be no disincentive for sexual predators to exploit minors, if they were to knew, that no law can be used against them. This is the purpose of the existence of the law.

Your following argument of police being corrupt isn’t a justification to abolish the law, it’s an observation that new measures should be implemented to fix the police.

You are failing at using the argument of education instead of prosecution. Yes, education is the way to solve most of the problems. Like substance abuse. But education won’t solve the problem of tax evasion. Being educated won’t protect you from being raped. While it’s important for people to be educated to avoid unnecessary problems, the justice system is also required to deal in situations where education wasn’t enough. Just because laws can’t change the world, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have any justice system, it’s a ridiculous proposition.

I see there is a pattern between your usage of strawman fallacy and emojis. No, I never even implied that sex work is never a choice. I stated a fact that in some countries with poverty young children are selling their bodies because there is no other source of income in their families.

I can do the same, and claim, “Well, I got the feeling that you are trying to say that child prostitution is always consensual”. But it’s such a dishonest and manipulative tactic that I would be to disgusted to use.

There is a difference, between an educated adult, with many paths of career, choosing sex work as their line of work, and a starving child, with sick elders in the family, living in a country that only offers them working selling sexual services, and no other support they could rely on to support their families. Don’t conflate these two, because it’s seriously horrible for you to mix consensual sex workers with such abuse of living humans.

Due to what reason exactly? Since all of those words are still in constant use and no one sees a problem in it? Also, I find it funny that you began criticizing my choice of words as the only line of defence.

This still doesn’t explain, how your previous response quote, had anything to do with what I said. I never talked to you about the topic of this thread. So your opinions about the topic of this thread are irrelevant to our conversation.

Just because abuse can happen regardless of laws, doesn’t mean these laws should be eliminated. Seriously, what is your point? What kind of job do you think an uneducated 12 year old can do? Manual labour and cleaning? Do you really think there are enough work places for all the children to have such an opportunity? Do you even try to evaluate the ideas you propose? How do you think it would go? With kids spending 7 hours a day in school, educating themselves so they can have a decent job, how much hours do you think a kid could work after that? How much money they could generate? Do you seriously think, that such a child, could rent a house, pay taxes, buy food?

Seriously, an average person works 8 hours per day to survive. Rarely they have anything left from their paycheck for anything else. And you expect children, to work 8 hours a day, and study 7 hours added to that, meaning 15 hours of effort, leaving them with only 9 hours for sleep, eating, fun, socializing and much more activities necessary for healthy development, simply so a couple of adults can have sex with them?

You aren’t just ridiculous, you are downright sadistic. You do support child abuse, and it’s not a conclusion based on anything taken out of context.

The moral panic you are talking about is echo from the 1970s, when the anti-porn movement began to spread misinformation. Since religion is in decline ( :smiley: ), the moral panic is in decline too. The last NGOs and grassroots are still around, but their political power is decreasing. Soon their voices will no longer be heard. I can’t wait for the day when i will open Twitter, and i will no longer see “PEDOOOOSSSSSS”, "SSSAVVVVVEEEEE THE CHILDREEEEEENNNN, "“PORN HARMSSSSSSSSSSS”, “HUMAN TRAFFIIIIIICKIIIINGGGGG”. These people just spread misinformation, over-simplified, hyper-scandalised ideas of what human trafficking is, which harms the real victims of human trafficking.

There are 2 major groups, backed up mega churches and people who are sex fascists. They are in decline. Religion is in decline. Im very happy. We need more 10 years, and what i want to happen will happen.

The Big Day for all MAPs in the world, is coming!

You said that in the past when these laws were created, reason was used. This is not true. In the past, there was no reason, but religious beliefs. Almost all laws were based on religious beliefs. Even today, there are still executions for talking against god. See some islamic states. In the past, the whole world was like these islamic states today.

An adult isn’t necessary mature. I don’t accept your concept of maturity. If you want people to be mature, then educate them.

You can be 30 years old, and if you don’t have knowledge and experience, you won’t be able to give informed consent.

There are contraceptives. STDs can be prevented by condoms.

STDs, such as HIV, wont exist after the new medical revolution that is coming. Also, did you know that you have have HIV, and to have sex without condom, and you wont give HIV to your partner? The modern therapy reduces the HIV virus in the body, so you can have sex without condom, and you wont give/get HIV. You don’t need to say your HIV status to your partned, IF, ONLY IF, you use the therapy.

Don’t talk about STds, because these diseases are no longer the beasts from the past you probably have head of. Today, they are no longer scary. Of course, it is not good idea to spread them.

This can happen to grown people too.

There are a lot of abusive parents that will use the fact children are economically dependent to abuse them. This is why i said children need to be allowed to work, and protected by the anti-discrimination work laws. Don’t you remember what i said earlier?
The kind of abuse you are talking about is happening TO GROWN PEOPLE too.

But these stupid people are spreading stupid ideas that poisons the minds of other people.

Then say non-consensual sex work. You have to use political correctness. Thanks, sir.

The law of consent can’t protect anyone.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE!

When asked why they oppose age of consent laws, they said this:

"Age-of-consent laws are those which say that if you are under a certain age, then what you say doesn’t matter. We believe young people would be much better protected by laws – and social attitudes – that take their opinions, feelings and decisions into consideration. We have never proposed specific laws, but in general we advocate changes in society and the law to include greater respect and consideration for children and youth – not merely in the abstract, but in each individual case. We reject the cookie-cutter approach often used by authorities, moralists, and legislators who presume to know what someone wants without asking them, and who claim to know what is best for every person without having met them. Individualism – the belief that each person is important and deserving of respect – is one of the core founding values of North American society. We advocate for a society that lives up to this ideal, as it applies to people of all ages."

When asked how can society best protect vulnerable people, they said this:

The claim is made that age-of-consent laws protect the vulnerable. In practice, they give undue power to those who already have power – police and prosecutors – while removing power from some of society’s most vulnerable populations – notably, gay youth. We believe that vulnerable people are better served by giving them more choices, not fewer. Children and youth can be made less vulnerable by giving them more options. Those who need to escape abusive family members or other abusive situations need more options than we as a society currently provide them with. Those who live in poverty, those who face racial, religious, and sexual prejudice – all need more options, not fewer.

I wont give link, because it might be against the rules. You can go to their site and see the FAQ.

AGAIN: JUST BECAUSE I SHOW INFORMATION FROM NAMBLA, IT DOESNT MEAN I SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE. THEY DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE EITHER.

Due to what reasons? Is it hard to see that all kinds of social interactions are down with 71% since 20 years. If you need source, i will provide it but it will take time.

I simply explained you what most people thing the “E” in “CSEM”, mean.

There is always solution. Why arent children paid for the fact they study things they don’t want to study? Why arent the paid that they have to get up early, when they don’t want to, and to go to school, when clearly they dont want?

IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE!

Moral panic is escalating, this is why there is Q Anon now.

With people like you, it will never end.

People still won’t allow you to have sex with children. And the religion isn’t at this stong of a decline to cease existence in the next 10 years. There are also additional factors that play role in this fact, like declining birth rates. But once again, you have a delusion that only religious people are against allowing you to have sex with children, while it’s everyone that is against you having sex with minors.

There are two major groups, a tribalistic generalization of your number one, and the tribalistic generalization of yours number two. You don’t live in reality, you instead keep insisting the fantasy world of yours has become the reality.

Ah yes, the conspiracy theory, that everything in this world is controlled by religion, people made all decisions without any reasoning or thinking whatsoever, because apparently, the Bible has all the answers, especially how to operate an airplane or a tank during WWII. Let me guess, you hate jews too? The basis of your counterargument is as follows: “I don’t like religion, so it must be religions fault”. And you refuse to acknowledge that the laws we have today have been established because there were reasons why they have been established because this way you would have to realize that your ideology that rationalises exploitation of children is wrong.

Did you even read what I wrote? This is the entire point, the age of consent is a guideline because people of various ages don’t necessarily have to be mature. Your disagreement is to actually agree that I’m correct.

Yes, exactly. Or you can be a 30-year-old who is drunk an unconscious, and you won’t able to give an informed consent. Congratulations, you are finally realizing what consent is!

Are you even reading what I wrote? I was talking about the context of the past, the reason why in the past the sex-negativity has occurred. There were no contraceptives in the 15th century! This is why abstinence was the only protection, and this was the reason why religions have promoted it. This was the reason for laws regarding marriage and adultery we have today, this is the reason why polygamy is illegal today. This is your proof, that yes, these laws are based on reason because even religious doctrine is based on reason. Your inability or much rather, unwillingness to understand that is your flaw, not the flaw of the rules.

And even today, with the contraceptives, we still have a lot of people who have STDs. It’s not a magical solution that has completely eliminated the problem, it only increases protection, reduces risk, doesn’t eliminate it.

Yes, that was my point. And adults can handle such situations pretty well, because they have experience and social skills to handle such situations in a mature way. Again, you confirm my point by pretending that you debunk it.

YES BUT CHILDREN AND GROWN-UPS ARE IN DIFFERENT POSITIONS. ADULTS ARE FULLY DEVELOPED, THEY CAN HANDLE DIFFICULT SITAUTIONS, MINORS DON’T.

Your piece of garbage argument, that the problems of abusive parents should be solved by making children work and study 15 hours a day is fucked up! Are you able to understand that? It’s a sadistic proposition you make only because it rationalizes the idea of adults having sex with children. This is how far you went, forcing children to work 15 hours a day so you can fuck them. You are supporting child abuse. No matter how many times you copy and paste your stupid slogan, it won’t change the fact, that you are morally corrupt psychopath that is willing to abuse children and sees no problem with it because he prioritizes his own sexual gratification over the wellbeing of other people! You are exactly the very thing antis accuse MAPs of being.

Are you mentally well? “Poisons minds” how exactly? How words can poison a human mind? Still, you discredit the validity of law by cherrypicking nutjobs who don’t understand them as your arguement. It doesn’t work. You don’t make any feasible or sound case against those laws, you only show your bias, rationalizations and ignorance.

Natural morality has nothing to do with what I said. You are using a philosophical concept to rationalize your objectively harmful decisions without even understanding it.

Then say child rape, for any sexual interaction with a minor performed by an adult. You have to use political correctness. Thanks, sir.

Seriously, you are in no position to dictate which words I will use.

But it’s required for the law enforcement to be even able to protect someone. Just because the text in a book doesn’t do anything, it doesn’t mean it’s not used for actual behaviour that does the protection. You try hard to play stupid illogical games to insist on being right in this long-debunked stupid ideas of yours.

Let me play your game:

IMPORTANT NOTE: IF MICHAEL45 SAYS " IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE!" THAT MEANS THAT HE SUPPORTS CHILD ABUSE, BUT HE SIMPLY DOESN’T BELIEVE THERE IS ANYTHING ABUSIVE ABOUT RAPING A CHILD

You see, I made an important note, so it must be true. You are a child rape supporter now. And that is an objective fact. These are the rules of the game that you have been playing.

BUT THAT IS FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION, AND JUST BECAUSE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS ARE DOWN DUE TO LOCKDOWN DOESN’T MEAN WE NO LONGER USE WORDS LIKFE PEERS OR FRIENDS. THIS IS NOT HOW LANGUAGE WORKS.

And I simply explained, that I don’t care, because I never was responding to you about the point you were making in regards to what CSEM means. So you bringing this information to our conversation, had never any point, you did it without any reason.

Because you see, the world and the economy, doesn’t magically adjust itself to your sexual fantasies. It’s really a simple concept to understand.

IMPORTANT NOTE: IF MICHAEL45 SAYS “IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE!” THAT MEANS THAT HE SUPPORTS CHILD ABUSE, BUT HE SIMPLY DOESN’T BELIEVE THERE IS ANYTHING ABUSIVE ABOUT RAPING A CHILD

Isn’t QAnon psyop?

It’s not escalating. It was escalating during 2016-2020, because the protectionists and Donald Trump wanted to fight global human trafficking, so they talked a lot about that. But now the globalists and Joe are not interested in such practices. During Joe’s presidency, you won’t hear about fighting human trafficking.

QAnon was just a temporary thing. It ended. It ended, you won’t hear it anymore.

I dont want to have sex with children. Yes, there won’t be religion in 10 years. Or if it’s still around, it will be heavely restricted, and religious people highly hated and prosecuted. This will happen thanks to leftism. The liberal radicalization is already happening. It’s matter of time until it explodes.

Just because i want religion to be banned or restricted, doesnt mean i hate religious people. Religious people are not guilty for their brain condition. They are just brainwashed.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE!

Are you even living in the same universe? Couple of days ago the Capitol in the US was stormed by a group composed out of Trump Supporters and Q Anon followers. They believed it’s a revolution.

Donald Trump never acknowledged Q Anon. All he said is that he heard they are against pedophila, that is all there was to it.

And Just because Joe Biden is now the president, doesn’t change anything about all the people who talk about the conspiracy theories similar to that of Q Anon.

The moral panic is clear, with all the dramas, panic about Cuties, Q Anon followers organizing to capture the Capitol, people accusing each other of being pedophiles. The moral panic didn’t go anywhere just because a year has ended.

Great, so now you went full totalitarian, and want to prosecute religious people just like China does.

You clearly has displayed a lot of hatered towards evangelical groups. Groups composed out of people. You aren’t rebeling against religion as a concept, you hate religious people, you said multiple times that you want to restrict their freedom.

Yeah, sure, you want me to believe that your constant push to convince me that you can have consensual sex with minors and that constant rationalization and finding “simple solutions” to all the inconvenient facts that come with the legalization of relationships between adults and minors, are done just because you genuinely hate to see pedophiles being treated poorly.

Even pedophiles on this forum are against what you preach. So sorry, I don’t buy the lie, that you don’t want to have sex with children, because allowing such relationships was so far the core of your entire argumentation about the age of consent.