It’s PLEDGE DRIVE time again! WHTM is ad free and entirely dependent on folks like you for its continued existence. If you can afford it, please DONATE HERE NOW! Thanks!
By David Futrelle
Homophobes and transphobes do so love their slippery slope arguments.
If you give rights to gay people, or trans people, they claim, its only a few short steps to accepting pedophiles as a legitimate “lifestyle choice.” Then it’s on to cats marrying dogs and people marrying toasters.
Trouble is, more than a few of the “traditionalist” types who yell the loudest about the imaginary SJW push to normalize pedophilia also think that it’s perfectly normal — if not God’s will — for adult men to marry girls in their early teens.
In their minds, “real” pedophilia is a Satanic evil, but “hebephilia” and “ephebophilia” — sexual attraction to adolescents — is basically what God and nature intended.
Now some of these galaxy-brained “jailbait” obsessives have even begun to argue that the only way to fight “real” pedophilia is to set the age of consent at puberty and give men like them free reign.
In a thread on “Red Pill sexuality” on the Holla Forums, one jailbait theorist called Nathaniel Butler argues that age of consent laws should only protect pre-pubescent children.
“The true red pill is simple,” he writes.
Only heterosexuality should be legal and it should be full heterosexuality not the current restricted heterosexuality.
Nothing good could possibly follow an assertion like that.
That means it should be heterosexuality as God/nature intended so that the age of consent law should … simply be [that] pre-pubescent=illegal and people should not only be allowed to have sex from the start of puberty but they should also be allowed to get married then if they want too.
Later in the discussion, one Levi Torres (who sounds suspiciously like a socjkpuppet of Mr. Butler) went a bit further.
Agreeing with another commenter who suggested that “pedophilia [will be] the next big thing pushed by the left,” Torres suggested that age of consent laws set at age 16 or higher actually help pedophiles because they allegedly confuse the public into lumping the bad pephoophiles in with the (allegedly) good hebephiles and ephebophiles like him.
The left, Torres claims, has
already successfully blue-pilled … too many people into believing a false definition of paedophilia. The REAL SCIENTIFIC definition of paedophilia is sexual attraction to PRE-PUBESCENT CHILDREN, not sexual attraction to young adults under an unnatural government-created [Age of Consent].
Dude, as I’m sure you’re well aware, girls typically hit puberty between the ages of 11 and 14, if not younger. These are not “young adults.” They are still children.
The reason they’ve got people to believe the false definition is so that they can create so many repressed heterosexuals who believe that they’re actually paedophiles so will eventually support the legalisation of paedophilia.
I’ll let Leslie Jones respond for me here:
Torres continues:
The way to stop paedophilia being legalised is to change the [age of consent] to pre-pubescent=illegal and red-pill everyone on the FACT that only those attracted to pre-pubescent children are paedophiles and that all other heterosexuals are normal.
Being attracted to girls under 16 but not pre-pubescent is 100% normal and is the natural way of things and had been regarded as such since the first humans up until quite recently.
Dude, that’s enough computer for you today, you piece of shit.
If you need me I’ll be here quietly banging my head on my desk.
I don’t even know how to respond to this
Move over.
Thats right. It shouldn’t be based on whether a child has the mental development and emotional maturity to consent to sex. It should be based on whether you find her sexually attractive or not. It doesn’t matter if she’s not legally deemed mature enough to live on her own without the protection of a guardian. As long as she’s barely developing breasts, she totally has the mental and emotional capacity to consent to having sex with creepy adult men. So if she does “willingly” have sex with old men, they weren’t taking advantage of her. It was her own decision and she should take responsibility for it.
Oh, let’s let forget the blatant assumption that all men are closet pedophiles. Guh, I feel so grossed out.
I wonder if he would have a problem if we turned this around and addressed it to women:
Considering that I’m watching Leaving Neverland, about the abuse committed by Michael Jackson right now, I’m finding pro child abuse shit even less amusing than usual. Just disgusting.
If a female’s brain is too developed (and full brain development typically occurs after sex organs and other parts mature), she may not be attracted to these doods! If they command her to have sex with them, she m,m,might turn them down! Or tell them to pound sand! Waaa!
It’s not always the physical attributes of these young teens the creeps find attractive, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. What the creeps like are the underdeveloped critical thinking abilities and ease of manipulation these children possess. Of course, they’ll whatabout with, “but teen girls are *very* mature these days; juveniles are charged as adults in crimes, etc.”
Thanks, Dave, for keeping an eye on these disgusting folk for society’s sake.
I’ve had a few clients who were pedophiles, and all bar one’s interest in underage children was due to children being easier to manipulate and dominate than adults.
Which is probably why you hear large parts of the manosphere advocating treating women as children.
I don’t think it’s your head that needs banging.
This is the argument I’ve heard from Fundamentalist LDS-types who want permission to marry a string of 13-16 year olds as soon as they’re physically capable of conceiving them. Tom Green in particular cites this argument as essentially “natural law” (gag) that once the female body is prepared to conceive, then she’s old enough to marry, and that this has been how it’s been for 95% of human history. Ignoring, of course, the fact that the average age of the onset of menstruation has dropped from 16-17 in the 19th century to 9-11 in the latter half of the 20th century, thanks to better nutrition and other environmental factors, possibly hormones in the food supply amongst other things.
Historically, there were very young women married off, but it was considered unusual and cruel to have sex with the child brides until they were around 15 or 16. Margaret Beaufort, mother of the eventual Henry VII, was married and pregnant at 13, and it was seen as utterly horrific and most contemporaries acknowledged that it damaged her for the rest of her life. She only had her one child, never got pregnant again, and this was chalked up to being wedded and bedded far, far too young — and that the Tudor family was too aggressive to have her wealth and their dynasty secured, so they abused her for their own ends. People got this in the 15th century. Red Pillers are a great argument against the idea that society naturally improves and moves forward.
It’s also worth noting that age of consent laws were also developed, especially in the States, to have a means to prosecute child abuse and molestation when there weren’t really many laws surrounding child abuse at all. These laws were originally written to make sure men like these doorknobs couldn’t abuse young women. Weird how that was a thing and is still a thing…
@weirwoodtreehugger:
Admittedy I didn’t fully follow it at the time it was happening, but I had the impression that Michael Jackson was occasionally inappropriate due to a combination of stupidity and a childish mindset, not a pedophile who engaged in child molesting. That’s still enough of a reason to keep him away from kids, though probably not enough of one for criminal punishment. Is the version I heard whitewashed? Or is the “MJ’s a pedo” version the opposite of whitewashed? Or is it a conflicting mess, where the truth will never be known?
I’ve just read a summary of Leaving Neverland. Based on testimony from victims, it really was far, far worse than was reported in the press.
CONTENT WARNING: SEXUAL ABUSE VERY MUCH IN EFFECT HERE
https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/leaving-neverland-michael-jackson-allegations.html
Those men are really sick. I wish the FBI would get wind of this and investigate them. I know that won’t happen, but I wish it would.
Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame has advocating marrying women as young as possible, before they get too uppity. He apparently thinks around 15 years old is old enough.
@Chunky Spaghetti Sauce:
Ummm, where are you getting this consent thing?
Permit me to rephrase this in actual entitled, sexist-jerkface language:
the same bullshit that make a woman responsible for a man’s rape-boner if she wears a skirt or some particularly fetching eye shadow makes a girl responsible for a
hebephile’spedophile’s rape-boner if she, well, exists.Consent never enters into it.
CN: Child abuse
I do remember at that time there was testimony from a victim about the way his genitalia looked that did make the press. But there was eventually a sort of collective amnesia about everything once the court battle ended.
I remember before the allegations went public I was weirded out by his love of hanging out with boys. I was a kid myself at the time, but I could see it and feel it. I was not surprised at all when the allegations did come out and I’ve always believed it was true.
It’s a little weird to me that so many people believe he’s innocent. The red flags were strong.
Let’s not forget the other horrifically offensive argument from our new pal:
Sorry dude, but while homosexuality is illegal in way too many countries, LGBTQ people will continue to demand equal rights. They’re never going to live in shame again, especially not when assholes like you believe that grown men exploiting vulnerable kids is somehow morally superior to relationships between consenting adults of the same gender.
tim gueguen
That it such a tell about their mental & emotional confidence as adults and men. But that self-awareness go right over their heads.
I figure that if they think a girl is mature and responsible enough to “use” their dick, she is mature and responsible enough to “use” their credit cars and automobiles. No?
The idea that historically women/girls married in their teens is complete bullshit.
Yes, royals married off their children young to secure alliances or property before the child could die in one of the many possible ways which are now preventable.
But this was not true for most people.
For example, the average age a marriage in 1619 (in Europe) was 23 for women and 26 for men. It held basically constant at those numbers through the 1950’s when it dropped to 20 (for women) and 24 (for men). Today (in North America) it is 27 for women and 29 for men.
It has never been the norm for teenagers to routinely get married.
The bit about his genitals wasn’t really reported in my country, but I agree about the collective amnesia. And we see the same thing happening with R. Kelly, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, etc.
@WWTH:
The brain bleach must have been flying off the shelves the moment the 24/7 news cycle had finally moved on.
@doethreetwoone:
Not in the so-called “Western European marriage pattern”, at least:
But outside of that pattern, marrying off recently post-pubescent girls to men in their twenties or older was widely practiced.
Leave God and Nature out of this, you disgusting bucket of bloody snot. Girls don’t want you, and neither do grown-ass women. There’s yer red pill, motherfucker.
Also (with all the warnings), girls as young as 3 are being married off for food right now in Yemen.
I do not for an instant believe that this sort of fuckery is limited to Islam, either.
And I really, REALLY don’t want to know what cultural shifts a famine will bring to North America, if it comes to that.