Pro Age of Consent Arguments & Their Refutations

Here I’ve put together a list of all the pro age of consent arguments that puritanical feminists bandy around. I’ve also gone through each one and demonstrated why it is false. Over time I’d like to improve the strength of the refutations in this list as well as add any pro age of consent arguments that I’ve missed. So, for now, consider this a first draft – if you have anything to add please do add a comment under the article.

Imbalance Of Power Argument

Claim: It is claimed that an adult is older, stronger, more mature and ‘knows better’ whereas a child is weak, immature, and doesn’t know as much. Thus there is an ‘imbalance of power’ and so any relationship with an imbalance of power must be criminalised and punished severely.

Refutation: There is an imbalance of power in any meaningful relationship. A poor person who marries a rich person is in an ‘unbalanced’ relationship. A person who was educated at Oxbridge and marries someone who never went to university is in an ‘unbalanced’ relationship. A person who is big and marries someone who is small is in an ‘unbalanced’ relationship. The fact is we can go on and on and show that all relationships are infact an imbalance of power and thus ‘abusive’. If there is an ‘imbalance of power’ then that does not mean the ‘power’ is being abused. People should only be jailed for what they have done; not what they might do. It is ridiculous to assume otherwise and completely contrary to the rule of law.

Physical Harm Argument

This argument actually comes in two distinct parts which I’ll address separately:

– Underage intercourse is painful/causes damage argument

Several points we can make here:

1) Feminist age of consent laws cover ANY sexual activity not just intercourse. It is blatantly ridiculous to claim that groping causes physical damage. So at best this argument suggests there should be an age of consent for intercourse, however, it does not suggest there should be an age of consent for all sexual activity.

2) For older ‘children’ (a definition which is starting to creep up towards 21 in some jurisdictions) it seems highly unlikely that intercourse could be any worse than for an adult as they are already more or less their full adult size.

3) For younger ‘children’ it is improbable that they would ‘accidentally’ cause themselves horrific injuries. If they were finding an act to be painful then they would not allow it, in which case a partner continuing would be criminal. Thus, it seems inappropriate to create an age of consent for intercourse when standard laws covering ‘real’ rape, assault and actual/grievious bodily harm are more than sufficient.

– Teenage pregnancies are harmful argument

Claim: Teenage pregnancies have high mortality rates and should never be allowed.

Refutation: This is untrue. Several points to make here:

1) One study has found that mortality rates for teenagers are lower than that of over 30s. Thus this claim is only valid if you are also willing to advocate for an upper bound age of consent of 30 such that having sex with a woman over 30 will result in decades behind bars, sex offender registration and the ever lingering possibility of 21st Century gas chambers being constructed for ‘subhuman’ sex offenders.

2) The reason why female animals (including humans) go through menstruation only once they have reached a certain age would seem to be because that protects them from excessively early pregnancies. Thus, it is rare for an individual to get pregnant ‘too young’ as nature prevents this. This makes perfect sense as animals do not have a concept of an ‘age of consent’ – they just fuck when they like. This principle has also applied to humans in more liberal periods – ever heard the expression ‘old enough to bleed, old enough to breed’?

Psychological Harm Argument

Claim: Any sexual activity with anyone under the arbitrary age of consent (which may vary by jurisdiction) causes intense and pervasive harm that lasts until the end of that person’s life.

Refutation: There are several points to make here:

1) Academic studies done show this assertion to be false. In particular a highly notable meta-study is the Rind Study ‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples‘ which found that intense & pervasive harm is rare. It even found in many cases ‘children’ felt positively about their ‘sexual abuse’ experiences (with ‘sexual abuse’ being defined using the dogmatic contempory legal definition where consent is irrelevant).

2) There exists absolutely no scientific research as to what this magical ‘age of consent’ – below which intense and pervasive psychological harm ensues – is or should be. Indeed it seems that a German 14 year old would NOT suffer ‘horrific psychological harm’ as they are over the age of consent in Germany. Yet a 17 year old in many American states WOULD suffer ‘horrific psychological harm’ as they are under the age of consent in America. There is absolutely no scientific reason for there to be a specific cutoff point for sexual activity nor is there any reason why a German should be more resilient to early sexual activity than an American. Thus this dogmatic black and white age-of-consent attitude is unhelpful and wrong. Psychological harm cannot be directly to do with whether age of consent laws are obeyed or not.

Inability to Consent Argument

Claim: Children lack the intelligence, maturity, knowledge and wisdom to consent to sex. Thus, all sex is rape.

Refutation: There are several counter arguments to make here:

1) If children are assumed to lack the ‘knowledge’ to consent to sex then they cannot learn about it in order to acquire that knowledge. What this means is that they will be far more ignorant about sexuality than yesterday’s children who engaged in it at earlier ages. What is the end result of this ideology? Ever rising ages of consent; which is exactly what we see today. We also see children becoming fatter, less confident and more insulated as a consequence of the belief that children are not ‘mature’ enough to engage in an activity. Today this even includes non-sexual things like playing at the park unsupervised which 68% of Americans think should be a crime.

2) The notion that ‘children’ lack intelligence is blatantly false. See for example research on ‘The Myth Of The Teen Brain‘. It suggests that infact intelligence may peak between 13 to 15 and that the modern concept of the ‘troubled teen’ is infact a consequence of puritanical western indoctrination.

3) Feminists will not like to hear this (do they like to hear anything I have to say?), but: Consent is not necessary. As pointed out by other MRAs like Eivind Berge – historically rape laws in some jurisdictions were much narrower and required force or serious threats for an act to constitute rape. Thus failing to obtain consent was not considered rape. Fundamentally the problem with the notion of ‘consent’ is that it is a dubiously vague concept that if applied to everything & everyone then it would have us all in prison. Afterall, does a child ‘consent’ to go to school? If a parent drags a child to school then why are they not committing a horrific crime by dragging their child to school without consent? Indeed, if children are unable to consent to anything then it follows that even a parent taking a child consensually to school is committing a heinous crime as a child cannot consent to anything. Consent-based ideology is a dangerous dogma. There is an argument for people to be able to settle grievances if someone did something to them that they did not consent to. However, it must be acknowledged that this is a grey area, some leeway must be given for the accused and the punishment must fit the magnitude of the crime – no one should go to prison for life for causing 15 seconds of discomfort via a bum-touching offence. Worse still,  the way that the ‘justice system’ can class someone as a victim when they don’t even think of themselves as a victim and then jail a man who supposedly offended ‘against’ them is especially Orwellian and shocking. This has happened in many cases such as the Jeremy Forrest case.

Adult is Selfish Argument

Claim: An adult’s sexual interest in a ‘child’ is fundamentally selfish. The adult does not care about the child only their own sexual gratification.

Dissecting the claim:

This argument really has two underlying beliefs behind it. To dispel the argument both must be refuted.

Belief #1 If something is selfish then it is immoral.

Refutation: All human behaviour is fundamentally guided by selfishness. Contrary to the apparent Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ slogan that has Christians up in arms with its lack of an altruistic ‘moral compass’ there is, infact, much to be selfishly gained from altruistic behaviour. Thus, it is entirely possible that something which is selfish can also be altruistic and therefore highly moral and beneficial to others.

Belief #2 Sexual activity is only in the adult’s interest, never in the child’s interest.

Refutation: See the “Young people can never be attracted to old people argument” below. This is essentially exactly the same argument.

Young people can never be attracted to old people argument

Refutation: There is evidence to suggest otherwise. Of course, to refute this, all we need to show is that there are cases of a young person attracted to a much older person. One particularly high profile case would be that of Jeremy Forrest where his ‘victim’ tried to defend him during his trial and still defends him now. Here’s an example of another case very similar to Jeremy Forrest’s. Or indeed a case of an even younger 11 year old girl in love with a 60 year old man. And these are just the ones who got caught!

A more comprehensive examination of young people in love with older people was done in the book “Positive Memories” by T.Rivas – it is available to read online here. It documents (with sources) some 118 cases of adult-child relationships remembered positively by the younger party.

Children Are Innocent Argument

Claim: Children are innocent thus they should not be subjected to sexual activity.

Refutation: There are two underlying problems with this argument:

1) What exactly is ‘innocence’? What does it mean and why should anyone care? This vague and unclear concept called ‘childhood innocence’ seems to have begun emerging around the 18th century. This wikipedia article on the history of childhood gives more insight. Fundamentally though there appears to be nothing particularly scientific about the concept of ‘childhood innocence’ – it is largely based on somewhat arbitrary ideological & philosophical underpinnings which can be changed. Indeed, given that this dogmatic ideology now sees millions of men incarcerated for sexual offences across the world it makes perfect sense to think about throwing it away in favour of something more sensible.

2) The underlying idea of a child being ‘innocent’ sexually seems to be based around a puritan notion that sex is ‘sinful’ and thus as children are innocent they should not engage in it. For any open-minded person this is of course nonsense – if we assume sex is indeed sinful then all adults should be roasted in hell not just the ones convicted of ‘paedophilia’.

‘Paedophilia’ is universally reviled in all cultures and throughout history argument

Refutation: This is false. What is today called ‘paedophilia’ was historically accepted. The age of consent used to be far lower in every country in the world. In Britain the age of consent was 12 until the feminists raised it in 1861. In Spain the age of consent was 12 until as late as 1999. In the USA – now the most paedohysterical country in the world – the American ages of consent were vastly lower with one state, Delaware, having an age of consent of 7 possibly up to as late as the 1960s. Right across Europe child porn was legally sold in porn shops in the 1970s, for example, the Danish company Color Climax made child porn – not just of adolescents but even preteens, see the wikipedia article about them here.

Paedophilia is abnormal so there must be something wrong with it argument

Refutation: This is simply untrue. Studies show that 1 in 5 men are in fact strongly attracted to children 13 and under. That is not to say that the remaining 4 out of 5 men are not attracted to children 13 and under, it’s just that they have a preference for older children or adults. I wouldn’t be surprised though if 50% of men turn out to be preferentially attracted to 16 year olds.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Pro Age of Consent Arguments & Their Refutations

  1. patrick says:

    I just want to add a few points…I think a prostitute whose slept with 10,000 men can be innocent,cos innocence is a subjective state of mind.Also regarding AOC laws and their variations
    like Germany 14,America 18 etc…you can apply another subjective word that also has shades of grey…GROOMING!

  2. Opus says:

    You will want to correct the first spelling of here (hear) at 3.

    The post-christian moral view is that everything is permissible provided both parties consent; thus my defence to eating you is that you consented even though you died (this happened, I believe, in Germany a few years back – though our Spanner case equally well makes the point). The problem with consent as the litmus test of behaviour is that it is also the rule of self-centered atomised behaviour – and frequently (as with homosexuality) by any historical standard genuinely morally repugnant. ‘If it feels good do it’ is thus the watchword; to restrain oneself is to be self-repressive and inauthentic. This conflicts with our natural desire to protect (and indeed overprotect) children, and thus the modern liberal is in an impossible bind for the reasons that you clearly elucidate above. The modern liberal then (aided by the man-hating feminists – middle-aged women no longer sexually attractive though usually politically powerful and financially well-to-do) sees the solution to the problem to be the adoption of Lockean blank-slatism (though not in relation to her pet-projects) and of course to blame men.

    Before the permissive society was unleashed, men and women married young and stayed married and women raised families. This has been whittled down to a rotating polyandry where the successful female is frankly no more nor less than a corporate-whore and with the notches and abortions (carefully concealed) to match.

    The two taboos against sexual behaviour concerned Incest and Homosexuality; they are ingrained in us, although defeatable and were perfectly adequate for humans. To concentrate on Incest: sex with ones offspring was and remains anathema – the stronger of the two taboos. The promiscuous society (largely caused by allowing women – aided by the pill, the microwave, the washing-machine and the computer – to pursue their sexual and hypergamous instincts) brought some men into contact with often highly sexualised and nubile teenagers to whom they were biologically strangers. No one else was or is likely to come into contact with these teenagers (other than their teachers – and of course the now persecuted disc jockeys and once sexually-attractive singers).

    To a large extent the state have, by pandering to and caving into every female demand, brought about the very state of affairs they seek to eradicate.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Thanks for the note about the typo – fixed it 🙂

      Maybe I’m tired but I didn’t full grasp everything in your post. Were you saying selfish behaviour conflicts with a human desire to protect children? I think what I was trying to say though is that selfish desires can align very altruistically – so selfishness does not, necessarily, conflict with a desire to protect children.

  3. Opus says:

    My comment was fairly densely written and your incomprehension is thus my failure and not your lack of understanding. I agree with you that selfish behaviour can indeed align with the altruistic; a view with which (President) John Adams would entirely have concurred. I think the point I was trying to make is that using consent as the Litmus Test (a comparatively new idea more or less contemporary with the hippies) runs into all sorts of problems and is not the one and only test of morality – indeed it would once have been seen as the sign of moral turpitude and hedonistic indulgence. The liberal elite are thus inconsistent in their use of consent, for certain things they do not like are clearly done with full consent; to take one example, a thirteen year old girl can consent to have her own child (in the womb) killed but she cannot consent to having had the sexual intercourse which led to the pregnancy. One has to invoke theoretical epicycles of some intricacy to make that idea even faintly plausible; likewise your example of the child consenting or otherwise as to attending school – an example I can relate to as a once most reluctant school attendee – not that my mother had any sympathy for my five year old reluctance, and marched me straight back to school. Should I now see myself as abused, my life ruined and my bank account deserving of a large payment of compensation (which amazingly) will make me entirely whole again – and on no other evidence than my assertion.

    Does that help? You list is excellent and demolishes a lot of the sophistry that these days passes for correct thinking.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Yes that makes more sense now, thanks for the clarification. You make a good point. Consent has basically become, for the elites, a kind of “pick ‘n’ mix” bag of sweets. They can choose the ones they like and leave the ones they don’t.

  4. Opus says:

    Yes that is it and just re-reading through the list of the liberal attitudes which you demolish so well one can see that they are all post-facto justifications of the desires and frustrations of wall-banging women which all amount to a tacit admission of envy that menopausal women are no longer able to garner male desire; that men naturally prefer younger more fertile flesh and are often indeed attractive to and actively courted by the younger female and that the aphrodisiac of male power is the equivalent of female beauty. In short their arguments – thoroughly bad ones at that – are sophistry; an attempt to overturn nature, to bring about a Utopia where they (and not their daughters) are sexually desirable.

    Is not Snow White the fairy-tale which mocks such delusions (‘mirror mirror on the wall’).

    • MikeeUSA says:

      >Is not Snow White the fairy-tale which mocks such delusions (‘mirror mirror on the wall’).

      Wasn’t Snow White around 7 in the original work?

      Yep: (1812 edition)
      Now Snow-White grew up, and when she was seven years old, she was so
      beautiful, that she surpassed even the queen herself. Now when the queen
      asked her mirror:

      Mirror, mirror, on the wall,

      Women will never ever give this up. Their governments will never ever give this up. Their police forces (armies) will never ever give this up.

      They will never allow us to pursue happiness.
      They want and they have us as slaves.

      • holocaust21 says:

        Wow I didn’t know Snow White was 7! That’s some fantastic information to bash the feminazis with, especially as she was kissed by a prince (oh sorry “sexually assaulted”). This page gives a more detailed analysis as to what age she was:

        Bastards at Walt Disney made her look a lot older. What a lying radical feminist “entertainment” company. To be honest I’ve never liked Disney as they always created these very PC “child friendly” animations. But now I really hate them. In contrast Japanese animations are WAY better as they aren’t PC at all. There is literally nothing too taboo for Japanese anime, including paedophilia.

  5. MikeeUSA says:

    The entire world is under woman’s control.

    Men will be slaves, prisoners, and banned from marrying female children until after the first world-wide nuclear holocaust.

    All grown-women around the world support how things are now as it is in their (financial and otherwise) interest. They are not going to let their fortuitous position go. Men have zero conventional answer.

    • holocaust21 says:

      The best we can do is to bash them. I’ve noticed the political world is actually relatively small and there aren’t all that many thought leaders, most are followers (either following blindly or feminism gives women a good chance to vent their petty frustrations on men).

      So my job is to incite others to take my own or similar views forward whether in the form of other blogs, posting comments on the internet, discussing them with friends or direct real life activism. I think the idea is to get as many people to have heard the message as possible. I think maybe the stages are:

      1) Primary aim is not to get people to agree but to get them to have to accept that some people hold these views. However “reprehensible” they find them.

      2) Next step is to let them know that a reasonable number of people hold these views i.e. that it is a movement rather than lunatics. I suspect this is achieved when many people have heard the same view from two or more different people. This is done by pumping the message out. The more the message is pumped out then the more likely the issue is to be discussed and the more likely someone else will agree (or partly agree) in a conversation. And the more likely others will be incited to broader activism.

      3) At this point the mob is compromised. The mob will know themselves that the enemy is too great in numbers to just “target” and defeat. They may even be cautious and fear us. The objective then is to form a broader coalition, to turn the tables, start targetting politicians who pass feminist laws or policies. Publically vilify and oust them to show our power.

      4) Publically show up cases of state injustice (e.g. men jailed for consensual sex etc). Vilify politicians or public figures who are seen to have done nothing to prevent it. Force them to change the law.

      5) Win.

  6. lol says:

    Lol because all of this is so outlandish, it is not even worth worrying about. Reading these delusions is great for a laugh for those of us with a dark sense of humor. If anything the age of consent will rise again; stigmas against child porn and adult sexual with children will become stronger; and less people thinking like this.

    Civils Rights for your kind will never happen.

    • holocaust21 says:

      What a twisted comment. I take you’re a virgin then otherwise the age of consent will eventually catch up with you and turn you into a paedophile!

      • lol says:

        Loving your persona and your assumptions about me. I’ll play.
        Virginity and sexual control is such a lost virtue……

        I actually plan on marrying and growing old with my partner, instead of trying to have sex with little girls. I am guessing you do not spend time around real men in your everyday life. You really believe that the average father wants his daughters being used up by immature, nasty, delusional men by 12? That he wants her married at 4 to a sick pedo who will throw her away one she starts her peroid? Oh please explain, I am going to enjoy it!

        Your move.

      • holocaust21 says:

        “by 12”!? WTF. Most of what we’re arguing here is that it’s entirely normal to fuck teenage girls not prepubescent children. Though I don’t believe prepubescent children are harmed by kissing or touching. You have completely misrepresented my arguments which is to be expected from a sick bastard with your paedohysterical worldview.

        And in any case I’m pretty sure most men who are attracted to younger girls don’t just “throw them away” when they get older, for a variety of reasons.

      • lol says:

        “Most of what we’re arguing here is that it’s entirely normal to fuck teenage girls not prepubescent children”

        Adnormal and unhealthy for adults. As a teen yes, but not as an older man. Why are 18+ women gross to you? Why do you feel entitlement to teenage girls? They don’t owe you sex prevert. Leave them alone. Pathetic men like yourself waste their lives trying to convince sane people they should be able to fuck their underage girls. FYI 18/19 are teens too but I guess they are too old for you.

        “Though I don’t believe prepubescent children are harmed by kissing or touching.”

        What you believe is not important, especially since you have no understanding or concern for the well-being of children. You approve of people watching them get raped on camera despite their feelings. You clearly have women and think raping little girls will make you feel like a man.

         You can show love without being sexually abusive to a child. Look it up.

        “You have completely misrepresented my arguments which is to be expected from a sick bastard with your paedohysterical worldview.”

        No men like you make people distrust real men like me. You preach men wanting to fuck and use children. I saw your comments on reddit. You think men should fuck 10 year old girls. You make people distrust men like me with our kids. I have never wanted to fuck a child. No father or man I know personally wants to fuck kids. We are disgusted by your kind. We would kill any creature like you for trying anything with out girls. Glad I own guns and protect my daughters from your kind.

        “And in any case I’m pretty sure most men who are attracted to younger girls don’t just “throw them away” when they get older, for a variety of reasons.”

        False, they do. I have researched your kind to watch out for you in real life. Your kind brags about having many lgf, getting a new one because one is “granny” even though she is 14 or younger, saying that prime is under 18, hides his intentions (of leaving when he gets bored) from the girl  giving them STDs/STIs thinking adult women are ugly and the list goes on.  Your kind has proven to be sciopaths that use and abuse girls until they are stopped.

        Your kind makes my job as a man harder because we have to constantly show we are not like you nasty, sick freaks. We also have to protect our daughters/nieces/etc from you.

        Like I said before none of this matters. You are a depressed, dumb, delusional fool. Your ideas will never be accepted nor tolerated in mainstream society. You can blame feminists but plenty of men and anti feminists would never accept this.

        Please continue your madness so you can be mocked by me and other real men/decent humans. I want to read your pathetic response aloud to them.

      • holocaust21 says:

        Given that 1) you have sent death threats to me under multiple different usernames and that 2) you insist on posting long ranting falsehoods about me I wouldn’t normally give you a platform to spout your vitriol. However, one thing you said stood out and I think it’s worth repeating:

        “Your kind makes my job as a man harder because we have to constantly show we are not like you nasty, sick freaks. We also have to protect our daughters/nieces/etc from you.”

        Your attitude is what we would call “closet paedophilia”, “paedocracy” or plain old “white knighting”. It is the act of you vilifying other men as paedophiles, and cosying up to the feminists in an attempt to save yourself from their wrath. I’m afraid it’s not going to work. We are angry. We are pissed off. And yes, we will happily see you thrown under the bus and placed on the sex offender register when you have “false” child molestation allegations made against you. Because you deserve it for being such an intolerant, closed minded, hypocritical prick. If you don’t want to be placed on the sex offender register then you should join us or endure your fate.

        Now to address some of your lies:

        “Adnormal and unhealthy for adults. As a teen yes, but not as an older man. Why are 18+ women gross to you? Why do you feel entitlement to teenage girls? They don’t owe you sex prevert. Leave them alone. Pathetic men like yourself waste their lives trying to convince sane people they should be able to fuck their underage girls. FYI 18/19 are teens too but I guess they are too old for you. ”

        Never said 18+ women are gross to me. I think most men would agree that 18/19 are very hot, but so are 15/16. You have a delusional view of the “exclusive paedophile” – that is just an obscure aberration. You should note this is not a “paedophile site”. This is a men’s rights/libertarian site.

        “Like I said before none of this matters. You are a depressed, dumb, delusional fool. Your ideas will never be accepted nor tolerated in mainstream society. You can blame feminists but plenty of men and anti feminists would never accept this. ”

        As discussed in this very article – but due to your lack of IQ you obviously didn’t read it – what you call “paedophilia” was accepted in most historical societies, it has only become theoretically criminal in the last 1.5 centuries and in practice it has only been seriously criminal for the last 13 years.

        As for the rest of your delusional tripe claiming I enjoy rape and want to pump and dump I’m afraid it’s so libellous and blatantly false it doesn’t even deserve an answer.

  7. Darren Wheatspoon says:

    Blame the feminazi-dominated education and medical professions where they claim a 17-year-old WOMAN is a “baby”, but when the naughty female teachers fucks the harem of 12-year-old male students, the feminazis and manginas praise the students as “the students were lucky”.

    The neo-Victorian feminazi agenda is spreading in the Caribbean. The American and Canadian-based feminazis parading as “child rights” groups are creating petitions to force governments in the Caribbean and South America to increase their MINIMUM age of consent to 18.
    Look one here:

    “25 mars 2016 — Guyana has the second highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the Caribbean and South America, with an estimated 97 teenage girls between the ages of 15-19 out of 1000 becoming pregnant each year.”

    What a crock of shit..What will increasing the age of consent to 18 do “to prevent teenage pregnancies”? Notice how they claim that 18 and 19 year old adult women who get pregnant are considered children?

    Pardon my language, but what the fucking rassclat is with these feminists from overseas attempting to jack up the age of consent? I’m guessing from this that if a person aged 18 has consensual sex with a 16 or 17-year-old, the 18-year-old will have to surrender his privacy and rights in court to defend such a consensual relationship. That is so fucked up to destroy people’s lives like that over some feminist cause.

    The NGO “The Caribbean Voice” is based in the Bronx, NY, USA so I’m so fucking pissed off that some Anglo-Victorian agenda is seeping through the Diaspora ethnic communities.

    However, once enough consenting teens end up in jail in the Caribbean for going under 18, the crime rate will skyrocket when they are released from prison. Many of these Caribbean countries don’t have welfare, food stamps or a police state to confiscate men’s hard earned wealth to pay for those social programs, so these new victims of pedohysteria will likely have to rob and kill just to survive.

    Fucking American and Canadian feminists. I hope they end up as the first victims of robbery, rather than the innocent civilians, in the future crime wave that they will cause on our countries.

  8. Alan Vaughn says:

    Has that brainless fucking paedophile calling himself ‘lol’ come back yet with any classic paedocritical retorts after your last reply to him?
    My God that blatant paedo has some issues! What an aspie to come on here and try to make out he ISN’T one.
    LOL! 😀

    • holocaust21 says:

      Seemed to be a user trying to spam me under multiple usernames. I ended up blocking him as he was spamming me with so much abuse and vitriol that if I was a feminist woman he’d be arrested!

      So the short answer is yes. Just nothing rational!

  9. MenAreSickeningCowards says:

    It is OVER! MEN fucking DISGUST me as they are all CUCKS before women. SICK!

    I HATE men as they are COWARDS!

  10. mapscienceblog says:

    It’s interesting. In chimps, our closest relatives, the females transfer into a different troop at about 10 years old and start fucking all the males there and it doesn’t seem to do them any psychological damage. The human equivalent would be a girl about 12 fucking all the men in the village LOL.

    • mandy jones says:

      Female chimps don’t have babies until around 13 or 14. That’s the human equivalent of 20 something women. And my comment below.

      • Alan Yawn the tasmanian tiger says:

        FEMINIST LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Anuseed says:

        >Female chimps don’t have babies until around 13 or 14.

        I know. I said they start having sex about 10. Mating usually begins a bit before the onset of female fertility. Chimps start puberty about 8, start mating about 10, but don’t become fertile until about 13. Humans start puberty about 10 and if we followed the same pattern we’d expect the females to start mating about 12 and become fertile about 16.

        I recently read a book about the Ache tribe that mentioned the girls would usually start fucking about 12 and would have fucked several men by the time they had their first period at about 14. The onset of fertility would have then been about 16-17. (It’s a common misconception that menarche marks the beginning of fertility. Girls don’t typically become able to conceive until 2-3 after menarche.)

      • Anuseed says:

        >Chimps start puberty about 8
        >Humans start puberty about 10

        I’m talking specifically about the females here.

      • Anuseed says:

        Olsen Twins at 14. In prehistoric times they would have fucked several men by now.

      • Anuseed says:

        >… the girls would usually start fucking about 12…The onset of fertility would have then been about 16-17.

        Interestingly, in the book Lolita lost her virginity at 12 but she didn’t actually get pregnant until 17 and I don’t think this is any accident. Nabokov studied zoology and read anthropology so he probably knew how the human mating system worked.

      • Anuseed. says:

        Ages of menarche and first birth among South American foragers. Averages ~13 and ~18 respectively.

  11. mandy jones says:

    Or maybe the human equivalent is 17-20. Chimps want to bang on adults only-

    • Anuseed says:

      Clancy’s a dumbass.

    • Anuseed says:

      Kramer’s statistics only show that it would be maladaptive for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years and that’s why it rarely happens. They don’t tell us anything about the reproductive success of the men who acquired pubescent girls as wives. It’s common practice in primitive societies for men to marry pubescent girls so we know the strategy works and I don’t understand why people are trying to argue it’s maladaptive.

      According to the Binford anthropological dataset the typical age girls in hunter-gatherer societies are married off is about 14. This strongly suggests that about 14 is the optimal age, biologically speaking. Not the best age for a girl to start reproducing, no, the best age for a man to acquire her as a wife. She wouldn’t typically start reproducing until several years later, that’s the whole point. The best age to acquire a girl as a wife is just before she reaches reproductive age so all of her fertile years still lie ahead of her and she’ll be able to start having offspring soon.

    • Anuseed says:

      In the Pume tribe most girls are married off by the age of 14 and the men start fucking them about 12. They’re trying to use statistics from this tribe as evidence that hebephilia is maladaptive? Oh LOL! The Pume are a perfect example of how adaptive hebephilia can be.

    • Willhem says:

      This is like the very same kind of nonsense people who use non human animals as chimpanzees to argue that aberrations like eating meat in humans is natural.

      Listen and repeat with us:

      Humans are not chimpanzees.
      Humans are not chimpanzees.
      Humans are not chimpanzees.
      Humans are not chimpanzees.

      Bonobos are the most near human and fuck with prepubescent children.
      Bonobos are the most near human and fuck with prepubescent children.
      Bonobos are the most near human and fuck with prepubescent children.
      Bonobos are the most near human and fuck with prepubescent children.

  12. Willhem says:

    “Olsen Twins at 14. In prehistoric times they would have fucked several men by now.”

    LOL. 14 years old were fucking men until 50 years ago. They are fucking men in better countries right now. Prehistoric times? LOL.

    “Interestingly, in the book Lolita lost her virginity at 12 but she didn’t actually get pregnant until 17 and I don’t think this is any accident. Nabokov studied zoology and read anthropology so he probably knew how the human mating system worked.”

    Nabokov was a literaly inept and a degenerate addict of adults unable to understand why humans are only truly attracted to adolescents.

    You are very obsessed with pregnancies at 17, it should be your lucky number.

    Try to justify the attraction and sex with adolescent girls because they are fertile, because we are designed to procreate with them while the people you want to convince accept homosexuality as the most normal thing of humanity while it is the most unnatural thing ever seen, and that they are incapable of procreating and according to nature we should only feel disgust for the same sex, so who do you really want to convince?

    This riff-raff either self-proclaimed feminists or the rest of humanity are just patriarchal scum who want those under 18 as their property, stop the nonsense of “raise your best point” to these people, they only want minors as their property and this trash propaganda is just that, trash propaganda.

    They are just like those nasty people who send pictures of chimpanzees and apes eating meat to justify that humans are meat-eaters, this stupidity makes me sick.

  13. Pingback: Pro Age of Consent Arguments & Their Refutations (Holocaust21) | Male Sexualism Archive

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.