I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms

>>2752294
On the offchance this isn't bait and you're not a paedophile, it's because when children are involved the power dynamics in the relationsip become extremely unhealthy to the point where consent is always going to be questionable. Children have very little autonomy, and this makes it easy for adults to get them to do whatever they want. The most obvious example is a parent essentially deciding if they want to raise a child themselves or send it to the orphanage. Not going to let me stick my weewee in your pooper, little Timmy? Then I hope you like the taste of porridge.

Another point is children aren't smart enough to make good decisions, not until they've fully mentally matured, and when they have fully mentally matured they tend to be past the age of consent anyway. An eight year old doesn't understand the implications of what you want from them. No, they don't. They just don't.

Then there's intercourse between a child and someone who's had an extremely prominent position in their life, such as a parent, guardian, or teacher. These people are responsible for steering the child's mental state throughout their life, and if you don't think that that could make things a bit fucked up then I don't know what to tell you.

All these things together basically means that children can't be in a position where they can consent, in the same way as an adult can't consent whilst on drugs. That means it's rape, and rape is, you will agree, mentally harmful.

>but 17/16/15/14/13 year olds are mature-

Yeah, and that's why in many countries children of those ages are above the age of consent. Different countries think children will have become grown at different ages. In many cases they also then attach a few years on the end to make doubly sure.

>>2752363
What's your opinion on Rind et al.?
If children can't consent and rape is always harmful how do you explain children experimenting with each other? Voluntary sexual behavior obviously exists in children.

>>2752394
It's essentially the same as two very drunk people sleeping with one another on the consent front. As for harmful... I have no idea what effect if any that behaviour has on the child in the long term, but just because the kids are doing it doesn't mean it's good for them. I have a fear of burning because I once scalded my entire right arm horribly when I was a child- me doing it voluntarily didn't make it not mentally damaging.

Children obviously all develop at different speeds, some faster than others. The AoC is just a point where you can say "all of these people have functioning brains so you can bang them". Individual assessments could I suppose be done, but they'd be complex and ultimately not necessary in any way.

>>2752432
Comparing sexuality to burning yourself seems somewhat puritanical.

>>2752294
>>2752465
Fuck off Ahmed.

>>2752432
Is a child masturbating harmful?

>>2752294
The Rind Report thoroughly disproved the idea that sexual activity is inherently harmful to children, and showed that it's at most correlated to physical and emotional abuse. No one has presented a meaningful challenge to those findings on scientific grounds (although plenty have on an emotional or political basis) in the last 20 years.

The reason people get so hung up on this is because of a vicious cycle involving legal definitions and moral judgements, the same way that we ended up in a situation where marijuana use is illegal because it's immoral and immoral because it's illegal. The way to fix it is to take a look at the original reasoning behind the creation of these laws and legal definitions (what constitutes a "minor," "consent," "abuse," etc, and establish new laws, rulings, and definitions that achieve the original intent of these laws.

>>2752497
Is there any research on harm caused not due to the sexual activity itself but due to stigma in society?
If there is it might make sense to keep it restricted since you can't get rid of the stigma.

>>2752363
>An eight year old doesn't understand the implications of what you want from them. No, they don't. They just don't.
What exactly are the implications? Risk of STIs? Pregnancy? Social stigmatization? The first can be solved with a law that requires mandatory screening for anyone engaging in sex with minors, the second isn't an issue in this case because the child won't be fertile, and the third is a social problem that's made worse by legislation.

>>2752497
But anon, isn't it enough that most sex with minors include physical and emotional abuse?
Also, saying it's not inherently harmful is very similar to saying that driving drunk isn't harmful, crashing is.

>>2752528
There's not a whole lot of research on it, but what little there is seems to imply that starting younger mediates the effects. Children who have sexual experiences at a very young age (before about 6 or 8) tend to regard it as something that's normal but private, but children who have sexual experiences later in childhood have already internalized the stigmatization and tend to see it as dirty and secret, which is where you start seeing psychological problems crop up. I don't have a specific citation for this, but I believe it was touched on in Rind, et al.

>>2752542
>most sex with minors include physical and emotional abuse?
Source?
>saying it's not inherently harmful is very similar to saying that driving drunk isn't harmful, crashing is.
Not really, there is a danger to others inherent in drunk driving unless you're on a private road or something. According to the research there is no such inherent danger present in sexual activity with children; the harm is when it is paired with some other form of abuse.

>>2752566
One could also argue that removal of the stigma will be better in the long run since it could reduce the psychological harm to those children who are victims of non-voluntary sexual activity with an adult.

>>2752542
>But anon, isn't it enough that most sex with minors include physical and emotional abuse?
Physical and emotional abuse are already illegal. No one is claiming that rape should be legalized. The only requests are for legal and scientific definitions that allow for the fact that children can willingly participate in sexual activity.
>Also, saying it's not inherently harmful is very similar to saying that driving drunk isn't harmful, crashing is.
It's more like saying drinking alcohol isn't inherently harmful. There's a lot of fucked up shit you can end up doing after getting drunk (including crashing a motor vehicle among other things), but banning alcohol outright doesn't actually reduce the occurrence of those things. It's better to identify alcoholics and those with poor self awareness who don't realize how impaired they are, and enrolling them in programs to reduce the incidence of undesirable outcomes.

>>2752574
He's right. Most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by non-pedophiles due to availability rather than preference. Rape is common in these cases. I'll try and find a source for you.

>>2752590
Yes, and it also prevents psychological harm to adults as well. You don't magically lose the internalized stigma that sex is dirty on your 18th birthday, it sticks with you for a long time, and hopefully you eventually get over it.

>>2752644
>t also prevents psychological harm to adults as well
Yeah that's what I meant. A kid could be okay but then feel harmed once they grow older and learn that it was Not Okay™.

Since having sex with minors is heavily stigmatized in western societies, the people who are most likely to have sex with children are those who care less about social norms such as morality, and thus most likely to abuse the child. This gives sexual activities involving children a worse reputation than they deserve.
At the same time, western society tends to infantilize its children more than other societies, denying them any opportunity to take on adult responsibilities until they reach a relatively advanced age. In a society where children are raised to be mature enough to take on adult responsibilities by the age of 12, for instance, having sex with children of that age would be far less harmful for them than it is in our own societies.

>>2752363
omg ageist much?

>>2752660
What I meant is that a 20 year old can get stuck with the idea that sex is bad even after successfully reaching the age of legal maturity without having sex. Obviously people are going to have sex either way because it's a biological imperative, but they'll have unhealthy feelings about it.

The thing that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the difference between childhood and adulthood isn't how you act or think or feel, it's in how others perceive and treat you. Any behavior that's set as a child (such as "shit in the toilet," "obey authority figures," or "sex is bad/wrong") doesn't magically end upon reaching adulthood. So when you teach a child to be seen and not heard, you're actually teaching an provisional adult-in-training to be seen and not heard. That's something that they will take into their adult life and will take a lot of unlearning to get rid of.

Think about how stupid you were as a child. Do you honestly believe a 13 year old is even on the same wave length as a 20 year old? A 30 year old, etc? Banging someone that young is actually pathetic, paedos are literally powertripping.

File: smug-frog.jpg (52KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 499x499px

>>2752294
>History & Humanities

>>2752742
I was more intelligent at 16 than I am now at 26, though I've gained quite a bit of knowledge and perspective since those days. I'm still more intelligent than practically anyone outside the institutions where highly intelligent people tend to congregate. Am I not allowed to have heterosexual intercourse because women at my level of intelligence are practically nonexistent? The intelligence argument is so far off base, I don't even know where to begin.

>>2752294
Until you're sure, kill yourself.

>>2752785
Why?

>>2752859
Because bigots gonna bigot.

>>2752294
Well i would ask then what do you propose? Should sex with a child be completely legal at any age or is this about moving fenceposts?

>>2753071
>Should sex with a child be completely legal at any age
Is there a reason it shouldn't be, assuming the child is willing and uncoerced?

>>2753105
Well how do you describe willing. Can a 1 year old give consent. What about 4? Give a straight answer. What are is ok?

>>2752363
> if you don't think that that could make things a bit fucked up then I don't know what to tell you.

This argument always kills me. I think it's different certainly and the power relationship turns into a peer relationship but that's the point of parenting anyways.

Looking for good rebuttal to this

>>2752574
You know there's no god damned source. Like economics is now, we work on conjecture and the facts we're given

>>2752773
U were more intelligent at 16 than 26, this is either bait or you're autistic as shit. This has literally never been the case unless you've had brain damage. The act of being mentally stimulated doesn't mean you're more intelligent. It just means you're being challenged more

>>2753125
It's pretty easy to tell when a child isn't willing to do something, it's not like this is rocket science. Jamming objects into an infant's orifices is not the kind of thing they're going to be okay with, but kissing a baby on the crotch isn't more harmful than kissing that baby on the lips.

File: main-qimg-8d89f0a77ee7418581255022ebc1795c.jpg (102KB, 780x436px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 780x436px

>>2753151
>Intelligence only increases with age
Literally not how it works, try again. Studies tend to disagree on when intelligence generally peaks (reporting anywhere from mid teens to early 40s), but it's undeniable that intelligence does peak, and it peaks at different ages for different individuals.

>>2753152
So any age as long as the actions are not physically harmful. By this definition if someone is passed you can have sex with them as long as they never find out and have no physical damage.

>>2753190
That's not what I said and you know it. If you'd like to know more about my position on the topic feel free to ask whatever you'd like, but putting words in my mouth and making blatant strawman arguments to try to discredit me with other posters is not discussion.

>>2753226
Ok
> What ages are ok?

>If any age is ok, do you beleive that children under the age three have any ability to consent to an act and make it known to you?

> If consent doesn't matter, then why is having sex with someone passed out wrong? ( As long as no physical harm comes to them)

>>2753226
>>2753248
no answer then

>>2753183
Nobody said intelligence increases with age, only incidentally and your chart is for mental performance aka ability to think quickly -- not intelligence. Again they are connected but they aren't inclusive of each other. You're measuring neural fire velocity which, by that measure, blacks would never be more intelligent than whites or Asians. That's generally true but not always. You're generalizing the definitions of your variables

>>2752859
Not sure why you're still alive.

Please explain.

>voluntary pedophilia
Can't exist. They don't know what the fuck they are "consenting" to.

>>2753248
> What ages are ok?
Age is too arbitrary of a benchmark, especially to determine suitability for such a broad range of behaviors as "sexual activity." I wouldn't argue against an age of consent set around 2-4, but I would consider it silly, because it would be more likely to criminalize parental affection like kissing or tickling than abuse (which, once again, is already illegal even outside of a sexual context) if it were even enforced at all.

>If any age is ok, do you beleive that children under the age three have any ability to consent to an act and make it known to you?
Babies have all sorts of ways to tell you to fuck off, and they use them regularly. They also have ways of ways of making demands. I'm not going to try to write a bulletproof legal definition of the precise combination of behaviors constitutes a lack of consent on a Serbian tandem bicycling forum, but most people will recognize it when they see it.

The thing about this is that it's nearly irrelevant, because it's unenforceable. Parents have almost exclusive access to infants, and most of them aren't going to be seeking sexual gratification from their baby children, and those that do are probably going to be pretty fucked up and not going to give a shit about the law. What's the 1 year old going to do? Call the cops?

(1/2)

>>2753248
he's not intelligent enough to offer an answer that isn't contradictory in some way so i'll answer for him

> What ages are ok?
probably some point after the age at which children display the understanding that people can have different opinions. varies from child to child but seems to be around 4. please note i didnt say at that age, i said some point after. i just think that could serve as a good absolute lower limit to start the argument at, and age up from there.

this more or less answers your second query so i'll move to the third

> If consent doesn't matter, then why is having sex with someone passed out wrong? ( As long as no physical harm comes to them)
of course consent matters, other anon is an idiot that is dealing in the absolute most extreme sense of semantics. of course emotional harm is a 100% valid consideration to make.

regarding his proposition about eating out a baby, or yours about fucking a passed out person, i suppose for starters those are two different activities. even if you change it to eating out a passed out girl, there's a chance she could wake up and be emotionally harmed by the invasion of privacy, but a baby is much less likely to be emotionally affected in any way as long as nobody goes up to them later and says "oh yea your dad totally blew you as a baby, just thought id let you know". although maybe it may form sub subconscious memory of the experience that it keeps with it as it grows up, i have no clue about that and i suppose it could happen. i just think there's a very very low risk of any kind of harm in that exact specific scenario.

>>2753366
what do you mean?

>>2753417
(2/2)
> If consent doesn't matter, then why is having sex with someone passed out wrong? ( As long as no physical harm comes to them)
I think you misunderstood me. I've been avoiding the term "consent" because it comes along with a lot of legal baggage, not because I think it's the wrong idea. I consider willingness to be the core of consent, without quibbling over arbitrary ages and exactly how much information is required to be "informed."

In this sense, a child can be considered to be willing if he or she is an active participant in the act, and willing to a lesser extent if he or she is passive/uninterested. Being frozen in fear or actively seeking to end the encounter by resisting or retreating are examples of things that would constitute unwillingness.

I'm open to discussion on where exactly on the continuum of willingness we should draw the line, but claiming that children are incapable of having a favorable opinion toward sexual activity is demonstrably false: children have to be trained not to genitally stimulate themselves or others at a rather young age.

I also think that children are harmed in general by age of consent laws, not just in the context of sexual encounters. The idea that a child has no control over their own body and is effectively a slave owned by his or her parents is, frankly, fucked up. A child's right to refuse should always be respected, and the ability to say no is something that can't meaningfully exist without the ability to say yes.

>>2753427
>he's not intelligent enough to offer an answer that isn't contradictory in some way
I'd prefer that you call out specific contradictions so I can clarify my position. I apologize if I've been less than completely clear in my responses so far.

>>2752294
I RECOGNIZE THAT QUOTE

File: richard-stallman-2.jpg (222KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1200x900px

>>2753476
FUCK FORGOT PIC

>>2753443
>A child's right to refuse should always be respected
a child's right to refuse to go to school or eat their vegetables should be respected? you're all rhetoric and zero substance.

we respect children by doing what's best for them, not coming up with excuses to fuck them

your desires are selfish. your intentions are selfish. you delude yourself to try and mask your selfishness as anything but exactly what it is, all about your desires and nothing more.

>>2753460
>i respect children
>we should pretend that children don't need to be protected and can make their own choices life whether they should drop out of school and play video games all day or not

pretending that children are capable of making the correct life choices is not respect. its a delusion fueled by your desire to have an excuse to fuck them.

thats the contradiction.

File: 1481248183332.png (443KB, 960x948px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 960x948px

>>2753481
>you'll never pick something off your foot and eat it in front of an audience of thousands

>>2753481
>"It doesn't take special talents to reproduce — even plants can do it. On the other hand, contributing to a program like Emacs takes real skill. That is really something to be proud of. It helps more people, too."
>In response to the news that a colleague would not have as much time to devote to Emacs since the birth of his daughter
kek

>>2752432
>It's essentially the same as two very drunk people sleeping with one another on the consent front.
which is still a crime in more than one US state

>The AoC is just a point where you can say "all of these people have functioning brains so you can bang them".
that's definitely not true. it's more accurate to say "this is the point that we give up on trying to protect you from your own decisions"

>>2753427
>regarding his proposition about eating out a baby
I wasn't actually euphemistically referring to cunnilingus, I was referring to an obvious act of affection that would generally be interpreted as "abuse" by the modern public afflicted by sex abuse hysteria.

>eating out a passed out girl, there's a chance she could wake up and be emotionally harmed by the invasion of privacy
I would say that this scenario lacks willingness/consent even in a situation where there is zero chance of the girl waking up, such as a persistent vegetative state.

Once again, I'm not arguing against the idea of consent, I'm arguing against the definitions that legally deny the right of consent to minors.

>>2753486
Just because a child won't eat their vegetables doesn't mean you have to cook a separate meal for them. It's up to the child to decide if they dislike vegetables more than they dislike missing a meal. It's not your place to ram food down their throats. As for school, that's a bag of snakes I'd rather not get into at the moment.

You can moralize and judge me all you want, but the fact is that I believe children are humans and entitled to the same human rights as adults. I also recognize that they are adults in training with less knowledge and experience and require guidance in some situations. I don't condone the use of violence or coercion against children except in the case of their *immediate* safety, however (feel free to tackle your kid before he steps in front of a bus, don't spank him when he doesn't finish his homework).

>>2753496
We're getting into another discussion here. I made a tangentially related post yesterday >>2749379. In the interest of keeping this thread more or less focused I'd prefer that we continue this conversation in the other, more general, thread.

>>2752294
Would you say the risk of abuse is too great? Considering that at the very least for the first decade of life and for many people beyond, children are much easier at being manipulated and forced to do things which they don't agree too. Wouldn't the risk of such outweigh the potential gain of allowing some adults to sexually get off in a more open environment. Although in all fairness it would give more mental health benefits to profiles. But still isn't the potential for abuse not worth the possible gain.

>>2753586
Verboseposter here, I'd suggest that the cost of suppressing childhood sexuality is greater than the cost of *potentially* legitimizing violent or coercive relationships (remember, these relationships would still be illegal under nonsexual abuse laws). The unfortunate fact of the matter is that most abusive people are going to be abusive regardless of the law. At least by normalizing adult/child sexual relations we're not revictimizing the victims of abuse by pervasively stigmatizing them as damaged goods.

>>2753578
>I was referring to an obvious act of affection that would generally be interpreted as "abuse" by the modern public afflicted by sex abuse hysteria.
thats fucking bs and we both know what you were talking about. kissing someones privates is not an obvious act of platonic affection. if you're doing it, you're doing it because it sexually gratifies you.
>a situation where there is zero chance of the girl waking up, such as a persistent vegetative state.
in such a case she probably is monitored such that it may be difficult to get away without someone finding out, in which case emotional harm to whoever cares for the vegetable is also a concern. in the case that you could be very sure that no one else in the world would ever find out, then it's just a matter between you and god. hope the personal guilt doesnt eat you.
> It's up to the child to decide if they dislike vegetables more than they dislike missing a meal.
this is called a hobson's choice.
>It's not your place to ram food down their throats.
that would be abuse under the circumstance you describe, but if a child literally will not eat what it is you give them then you are perfectly in your right to take them to a doctor/councilor to figure out a way to literally force them to eat. a child does not have the right to starve, you have the right literally forcefeed them with professional supervision.
>As for school, that's a bag of snakes I'd rather not get into at the moment.
because it contradicts your thoughtless remark that we should respect children's decisions full stop.
>the fact is that I believe children are humans and entitled to the same human rights as adults.
because you're an idiotic pedophile that is desperate for a justification to fuck children.
>We're getting into another discussion here.
you're a disingenuous coward that isn't interested in an honest discussion of the arguments you yourself brought up.

>>2753629
>Verboseposter here, I'd suggest that the cost of suppressing childhood sexuality
in the vast majority of cases we do not legally suppress children experimenting with each other. we suppress adults preying on their ignorance.
there are some cases where the law affects children negatively. those cases should be reviewed and reworked. none of those cases would need any reworking that involves letting you fuck children in order to fix.

>>2753669
Not every sexual interaction between adult and child is preying on them.

>>2753680
The prevailing law of the land and I disagree.

>>2753702
>it's wrong because it's illegal!

>>2753747

You consent to being jailed when you decide diddling kids is ok.

>>2753662
>kissing someones privates is not an obvious act of platonic affection. if you're doing it, you're doing it because it sexually gratifies you.
It's your opinion that touching a child's genitals is inherently exploitive, not objective fact. That's part of what I was getting at with my original comment. I'd be happy to discuss this further if it's a subject of interest to you.

>then it's just a matter between you and god.
Apparently we have different ideas of what constitutes consent. I won't say you're wrong, but I do have some "slippery slope" concerns about your definition.
>this is called a hobson's choice
Thanks, I'd forgotten the name. I try not to be overly pretentious in these discussions, though.
>a child does not have the right to starve, you have the right literally forcefeed them with professional supervision
Sure, in situations where the child's immediate well-being is in danger. I don't think refusal to eat to the point of malnourishment is a typical situation, though. I'm not saying you should disregard your child's preferences and serve them nothing but brussel sprouts "until you like it." I'm saying that you're obligated to provide food for your children, but not to make them eat. I'll also suggest that there are ways to use positive reinforcement to get your children to eat what they're served that are more effective than coercion.
>because it contradicts your thoughtless remark that we should respect children's decisions full stop.
Actually because I think it's actively harmful to children and that it shouldn't exist in anything approaching the form in which it does today. Now do you see why this is a bag of snakes?

>>2753669
The ideas of good touch/bad touch and stranger danger are inherently repressive. Prosecuting adults for violent/coercive abuse or kidnapping are good. Teaching children that they should be afraid of or offended by things that cannot be rationally judged to be frightening or offensive is counterproductive.

My motives aren't actually relevant here, and neither are yours. Youth sexuality is just the battleground we've happened to arrive at between my own biases and your belief in paternal ownership. There's plenty of other places we could have drawn the line given a different prompt.

>>2752363
>in the same way as an adult can't consent whilst on drugs
An adult can legally consent whilst on drugs though.

So this is the power of Humanities.

>>2754809
Let's be honest, this is a better thread than 90% of what passes for history discussion on this board.

>>2755064
No it isn't.

>>2752294
>tfw I didn't get my peepee touched by my hot grade 1-3 teachers
I blame society for this.

>>2755064
No it's even worse

>>2755064
Is it though?

>>2752294
Lets be real for a second.

The only reason it is illegal is to provide parents control to who their child partners with.

As a parent the absolute last thing you want is for your potentially naive child to be 'charmed' by a loser into a relationship.

Once matured enough (different age for different people) a person is able to make a good decision who to stay with. But until then their parents are provided a legal basis to remove any undesirable partners swiftly.

It's not emotionally damaging, however it can produce economical damage to a family.

>>2756273
>The only reason it is illegal is to provide parents control to who their child partners with.
Is that a power parents should actually have?
>It's not emotionally damaging, however it can produce economical damage to a family.
What are the economic implications, assuming harm and pregnancy aren't factors?

>>2757307
>Is that a power parents should actually have?
They should have the power to school their little shit about who to marry and who not to. If you spend 18 years growing a little faggot you fucking bet you want to make sure he won't fuck off with some loser who will probably make your child miserable in the long term and possibly worse yet, leave you with no caretakers (especially historically speaking).

>What are the economic implications, assuming harm and pregnancy aren't factors?
Economic implications are the dangers posed by some random loser, potentially of very bad economic prospects, charming your easily impressionable kid into going with them.

Why we see pedophilia as disgusting is probably evolutionary because losers that go for kids do it because they are unfit for competing for actual fertile partners. It is no wonder any parent would wish their child and ultimately their entire offspring (all future generations) be safe from any risk of letting any such people near them.

>>2757307
>Is that a power parents should actually have?
Yes, overwhelmingly yes.

>It's not emotionally damaging
Even when it's between two children of the same age, all collected data correlates early sexual activity with a hoest of negative outcomes like depression, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, lower financial outlooks, and suicide

>correlation isnt causation!!!!
I dont give a darn.

>>2757936
I think I'd like to know more about what you think constitutes a loser. In my personal interpretation, it's a term that has more to do with social ability than anything else. It's not a label that I would apply to anyone I know, but my mental image of a loser is a neckbearded shut-in that spends all his time shitposting on Siberian elephant hunting forums. I would suggest that anyone that's able to cultivate and maintain a persistent relationship with a child isn't completely socially inept. If it is indeed the case that the adult is socially incompetent, that probably means that the child is so socially isolated that he or she has no one better to interact with. Given this choice, which is worse: a potentially subpar role model, or a complete lack of affection and/or social interaction?

As for your idea that humanity biologically evolved a predisposition toward hated of pedophilia, I point to the prevalence of adult-child sexual relationships in other cultures (particularly in tribal societies and the developing world) and in other species (case in point: bonobos, our closest relatives). I'm not saying this to try to prove that it's more "right" or "natural," but to demonstrate that what you consider to be genetic is actually a relatively recent societal taboo that only reached its current level of pathological aversion within living memory. 50 years ago you could buy magazines off the shelf containing what would now be considered depictions of child sexual abuse, and no one cared.

>>2758095
>all collected data correlates early sexual activity with a hoest of negative outcomes like depression, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, lower financial outlooks, and suicide
The Rind report suggests otherwise, so clearly it's not *all* collected data. I'd like to know specifically which studies you're referring to here.

>>2758184
>I would suggest that anyone that's able to cultivate and maintain a persistent relationship with a child isn't completely socially inept
So only someone who is "completely socially inept to the point of not even being able to cultivate and maintain a relationship with a child" is loser to you?

Let me make it simpler; what would the standard be if we were talking about your child?

Would you want some dodgy awkward and financially unreliable person taking your kid?

Or would you feel visceral hatred towards someone doing it secretly to your daughter? Secretly, because they know that if you ever caught a wind of what's happening, you'd butcher them.

>a potentially subpar role model, or a complete lack of affection and/or social interaction?
I'm not sure I understand where that dichotomy came from. Elaborate a bit.

And yes I am well aware that child marriages and whatnot have been the norm. However I still believe a hatred for someone trying to impress your daughter is evolutionary.

Maybe I was wrong to equate it merely with hatred for pedophilia. Maybe it is merely hatred for 'being cheated on', comparable to someone cheating with your wife, but instead with your future via potentially stealing your offspring and caretaker. Men who would engage in cheating with someone elses wife would, logically speaking, be those that couldn't attract a good enough female for themselves. So a hatred for them is not only a hatred for someone trying to steal what is yours, but also a hatred towards those that are inferior and underhanded.

Maybe this would explain why we hate pedophiles - we view them as any other cheaters who aren't good enough to face us and defeat us for the female, or who could face us and get our acceptance for marrying our daughter. So, being aware of their inferiority, they do it in secrecy.

Tl;dr: maybe we just hate cheating rats

>>2758184
>>2758337
I'm tired and making not the most sense, but I still think I have a point of sorts.

Anyway I'm off to bed but before that: I don't think there are all that many elephants in Siberia.

>>2758337
>So only someone who is "completely socially inept to the point of not even being able to cultivate and maintain a relationship with a child" is loser to you?
I just don't see the incentive for a child to willingly invest in a relationship with a loser, except if (a) that's practically the only human interaction the child receives, or (b) your definition of "loser" is just "anybody I (meaning you, the parent) don't like," which seems extraordinarily arbitrary. That's why I asked for a definition of what you consider to be a loser.

>Let me make it simpler; what would the standard be if we were talking about your child?
I have a very different outlook on parenting from you. I can answer if you're actually interested, but I'm pretty sure this question was rhetorical.

>Would you want some dodgy awkward and financially unreliable person taking your kid?
I'm not sure what you mean by "taking." Is this a euphemism? I'm also not sure what that person's financial situation has to do with anything.

>Or would you feel visceral hatred towards someone doing it secretly to your daughter? Secretly, because they know that if you ever caught a wind of what's happening, you'd butcher them.
I wouldn't, because I respect children as people with the right to make their own decisions regarding the company they keep. If I had specific concerns about this individual I'd bring them up to my daughter, but abide by her decision unless I thought there was a grave danger of immediate harm.

>>2758337
Oops, missed a couple:
>I'm not sure I understand where that dichotomy came from. Elaborate a bit.
If your daughter is so starved for attention that she's willing to put up with the scum of the earth just so someone will listen to her or play with her, is it ethical to tell him to fuck off?

>Maybe it is merely hatred for 'being cheated on', comparable to someone cheating with your wife, but instead with your future via potentially stealing your offspring and caretaker.
I find it both interesting and telling that this all boils down to jealousy. The problem here isn't that she's making bad choices, it's that you're offended someone would steal your property.
>>2758353
>I don't think there are all that many elephants in Siberia.
He says as he posts on a Southwestern Bulgarian flute eating discussion board.

>>2752479
this

>>2752773
Your right, the intelligence argument implies that for example gifted people can only fuck other gifted people. Vice versa could a gifted 14 year old only bang older people and no people at his age, because this would be considered abuse. Intelligence argument is invalid.

>>2761264
*invalid on it's own