Politics

Law and Pedo Hysteria

AAnonymous •
Full comments are visible to logged-in members only. Sign up or Log in
To promote free expression on this controversial topic, this thread is anonymous. All replies are marked anonymous instead of using member names.

From Heretical Insights:

Why pedo hunting is the government’s fault

Richard Hanania argues that pedo hysteria originates in attempts to eliminate power differences between partners, and that the long-term goal is the elimination of age-gap relationships more broadly, not just those involving minors. He is probably correct. However, I believe that the root of the issue lies in law and how it is interpreted. Ironically, then, my conclusion is quite similar to his about the origin of woke business practices—it all begins with legislation and its misinterpretation

I don’t buy this. Man is no slave to law. He can simply change that which does not suite him. The real issue is that people really do think that 17 year olds are too stupid to consent to sex.

I think they think this more than before for a mixture of reasons. The first is that people are all-around dumber. This means 17 year olds today know less than 17 year olds 50 years ago. The second is that young marriage is looked down upon and rare. 100 years ago, a 28 year old man courting a 17 year old probably wanted to marry her forever. A favorite example of this is that of Will and Ariel Durant:

She met her future husband when she was a student at Ferrer Modern School in New York City. He was then a teacher at the school, but resigned his post to marry Ariel. At the time of the wedding, on October 31, 1913, Ariel was 15 and Will Durant was nearly 28 years old.[3] The wedding took place at New York City Hall, to which she roller-skated from her family’s home in Harlem. The couple had one daughter, Ethel Benvenuta Durant (1919–1986)[2] and adopted a son, Louis Richard “Lipschultz” Durant (1917–2008) who was the son of Ariel’s sister Flora Kaufman Lipschultz and her former husband, Joseph Bernard Lipschultz (divorced 1928).[citation needed] Louis had lived in Will and Ariel’s home with his mother, Flora, when he was quite young (1920 Census).

Ariel Durant legally changed her first name to Ariel after the character from Shakespeare’s The Tempest,…

Replies (3)

AAnonymous •
#18

I think that 99% of people are just incapable of reasoning so they are slaves to slogans. Their mind process goes something like this:

“the age of consent is 17–>having sex with a 16 year old makes you a rapist”

“people are minors until age 18–>people are children until age 18–>being attracted to a 17 year old makes you a pedophile”

They do not consider that having an age of consent that only applies to consenting to sex with adults makes no sense, or that the age of majority in a country has nothing to do with biology. They do not understand what the words they are saying mean, they just parrot phrases. “she’s just a child,” etc.

I doubt that a drop in intelligence has much to do with this, since the age of consent has been basically the same since the early 20th century. It became 16 in Virginia in 1924 (18 today), for example, and Texas’ became 18 around the same time, which is actually higher than it is today (17). And age of majority, which is probably much more related to intelligence than age of consent (since it means you’re able to sign documents, dispose of land, etc.), has declined or stayed the same over the last few centuries.

I think in general there is a push for less power imbalance, hence why prid pro quo sex is treated as rape instead of prostitution, why in general it is basically illegal to date coworkers, and why people attack age gap relationships between adults, not only between adults and minors. This makes sense, since the belief that rape = (sex + power imbalance) is the only way to justify having age of consent laws that apply only to minors dating adults. And, yes, I think the age of consent is largely used to cover up women’s whoredom (if a 17 year old seduces a 22 year old and has sex with him, she’s a rape victim, not a whore), but 1) like I said, the age of consent has not changed much in the last century, and 2) this would still be because of people’s interpretations of the law–being a whore is not illegal today, so the only reason that age of consent law would cover the daughter’s deviancy is because people get their views from it.

To summarize: obviously there is some anti male component, whoredom component, etc., but I think without laws and how people interpret them, this would not be much of an issue. I know people who unironically believe that a 17.99 year old cannot have consensual sex with a 18.0 year old. They call sex between a 20 year old and a 16 year old rape because the government falsely calls it rape, and attraction by a 20 year old to a 16 year old pedophilia, because they think that minor means child, and that childhood refers to biological development. The foundation of the pedo hysteria is just bad law and bad legal understanding. These are not serious people, as you yourself have noticed. They are just pitchfork wielding peasants

AAnonymous • • reply to #18
#19

I think that 99% of people are just incapable of reasoning so they are slaves to slogans

It’s more like the bottom half that are that dumb. Midwits can compare slogans on vibes and even utter new ones on occasions.

Still, you have to explain why that slogan, why now, why take it so seriously? Why isn’t the age of majority 16 instead of 18? I think Scotland made it so somewhat recently. Why not in the United States?

People have become more radical about the age of 18 mattering in the US, I think that’s for reasons exogenous to it being the age of majority since the 1960s. It’s circular to claim otherwise.

ike I said, the age of consent has not changed much in the last century,

It’s probably risen a year or two on average, at least. A century ago it was 12 to 16 globally, now it’s 14 to 18. It seems to be the worst in the most dysgenically collapsed areas, like the Anglosphere.

The foundation of the pedo hysteria is just bad law and bad legal understanding. These are not serious people, as you yourself have noticed. They are just pitchfork wielding peasants

It’s definitely stupid people who are passionate about this topic, but I think that’s because they genuinely are retarded at the age of 17 and they also treat each other like shit in romantic relationships. Not because they’re legal scholars when it comes to the age of majority, the age of consent in Florida and California, and US federal sex laws, but not when it comes to a majority of state laws, and age of consent laws outside of the US. You have to explain why the 18 idea is so appealing to them instead of a different true meme which is that 16 is the mode age of consent globally.

AAnonymous • • reply to #19
#135

Oldsters weapon against youngsters + global general lowerance of IQ + feminism= ‘’no a rich hansome 25 man can’t have a 17 years old wife, that’s paedo and power abuse, even if woman actually prefer older higher status and heigh males than of theirs ignore it, pointing out such fact is misoginistic and incelist so pretend this isn’t the true or you’re going to pay in a way or another’'

Post a Reply

Log in to reply.