[Bushido]

Let's get our definitions straight:

1. A paedophile is a man who has sex with children.
2. A man who has sex with a fertile, developed female who is legally underage is NOT a paedophile, but rather a sex offender. Age of consent laws differ from country-to-country and were a lot lower in earlier times.

For me, at least, there is a significant moral difference between the two.

If there were no laws, a lot of guys would fall into definition number two.

Men in the first category are fucked up, sick individuals who should be castrated.

[poutsara]

(07-07-2014 11:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It is basically the endgame of the elite, the final stage of world government in which capitalism and communism become indistinguishable, where corporations and banks are the state, and there is no possible distinction between citizen and consumer. The individual becomes utterly helpless, dependent on the government/corporation to meet all his needs. He has fully regressed from a free man into a slave.

This right here Scorpion, I think you have summed up a hell of a lot right there in this quote. And it goes much beyond the rest of this thread.

(07-07-2014 11:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

...capitalism and communism become indistinguishable, where corporations and banks are the state, and there is no possible distinction between citizen and consumer....

It's Animal Farm after one more slow revolution of time.

[Jukes]

Nice post everyone. The way boys masculinity are getting hit with feelings, older female teachers, and now dresses, they will be the majority of victims of pedophiles.

[Feisbook Control]

Homeschooling your children, carefully choosing your children's peer groups pre-adolescence (more difficult after adolescence, but if you've raised them well until that point, many would not want to go near the dregs of society) and not having a television set in your house would probably go a very long way to inoculating your children against all of this nonsense.

It's interesting to me that the worse society grows, the more people who send their kids to (Christian) private schools or homeschool their children. People are running away from the government system in droves. I'm surprised there hasn't been a massive movement to shut homeschooling down in America.

[richler]

There will likely be no widespread return to pre-Industrial Christianity. Not enough people actually think it's true. At the moment, religiously speaking, we are at a similar juncture to the Romans before Christianity's public adoption: we have a customary faith that is not taken seriously by most people, and a culture based upon indulgence and self-justification.

I don't think we have seen the end of the religions, though. Religion is more akin to jealousy or anger than it is to a horse-and-buggy or whatever — it's part of our makeup. The longer-lived members of this forum may well be alive to see whatever the next startling collection of claims concerning our nature might be, and they might either cheer or dread its wide adoption.

Christianity had a stronger occult core than the Roman religions. It's so strange and counter-intuitive, this story of god descending to earth and being mistreated... it was compelling. Now that capital has mainly been spent, and we are at a new juncture. What rough beast slouches etc....

[Frost]

I'm genuinely curious to see how this issue plays out. Transgender glorification is the obvious next step, but is Pedophilia after that?

The only reason it might NOT be is that opposition to "Pedophilia" is a useful cudgel for the left to bash healthy adult male attraction to young (but still adult) women. A "real man" would prefer a 45-year old with life experience over a 21-year old, you see, according to Maureen Dowd and her ilk. How will the powers that be maintain their disapproval of male preference for fertile young women, while adopting a more permissive attitude towards actual pedophiles?

Note for any enterprising social sciences grad students, now is a great time to write a paper with some clever rationalizations re: why gay pedophiles are wonderful, but older men who date college-age women are just the worst people ever.

[Libertas]

(07-08-2014 07:12 AM)Frost Wrote:  

I'm genuinely curious to see how this issue plays out. Transgender glorification is the obvious next step, but is Pedophilia after that?

The only reason it might NOT be is that opposition to "Pedophilia" is a useful cudgel for the left to bash healthy adult male attraction to young (but still adult) women. A "real man" would prefer a 45-year old with life experience over a 21-year old, you see, according to Maureen Dowd and her ilk. How will the powers that be maintain their disapproval of male preference for fertile young women, while adopting a more permissive attitude towards actual pedophiles?

Note for any enterprising social sciences grad students, now is a great time to write a paper with some clever rationalizations re: why gay pedophiles are wonderful, but older men who date college-age women are just the worst people ever.

Yep, this comment seems to be pertinent to that:

Quote:

These scientists are just about right in that there is a tendency towards paedophilia -if that is what you want to call it- built in to human males.

Most men are instinctively drawn to courting and settling with a woman younger than themselves, and with a certain hip/waist ratio.

See, equating men seeking out fertile women is now a tendency toward pedophilia. A 40 year old wanting to bang an 18 year old is now the equivalent of that 40 year old wanting to have sex with children.

I agree that transgender glorification is the next step. However, even that's largely come to pass. If you have something bad to say about them, you're "transphobic." We aren't seeing a lot of trannies on TV yet but we will within the next five years. Guaranteed.

All this talk about religion neglects the fact that leftist progressivism is the new religion. This is what is being fervently pushed and carried out by society. We see a return to an inquisitorial like atmosphere that is stifling free society. I can't recall anyone that the mob has sought out for retaliation for being "transphobic" but it'll happen soon enough.

InternetAristocrat was right in one of those videos he made. All this degeneracy starts in academia. The Frankfurt School was in academia. If you're in college right now, young travelers, make sure to associate with other crowds. Hunker down and hang on. If academia is starting to peddle pedo acceptance, at the very least something is going to happen.

[Cr33pin]

(07-08-2014 03:37 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

Let's get our definitions straight:

1. A paedophile is a man who has sex with children.
2. A man who has sex with a fertile, developed female who is legally underage is NOT a paedophile, but rather a sex offender. Age of consent laws differ from country-to-country and were a lot lower in earlier times.

For me, at least, there is a significant moral difference between the two.

If there were no laws, a lot of guys would fall into definition number two.

Men in the first category are fucked up, sick individuals who should be castrated.

[Coldfire]

A lot of things were common in the past Slavery was common in the past but now its illegal. I think that when the bible said that there is nothing new under the sun I think it was referring to human behavior and I agree that this isn't something that is going to go away but that doesn't mean we ever have to accept it. Hell in prisons murders are more accepted that pedophiles if you go inside as a pedophile and the other inmates find out you will be in serious trouble.

[Samseau]

I'm pretty sure the average human will never accept pedophilia. We will see how far this goes. Nevertheless I'll be opposing this stuff publicly, until the grave.

[Benoit]

(07-08-2014 09:01 AM)Coldfire Wrote:  

A lot of things were common in the past Slavery was common in the past but now its illegal. I think that when the bible said that there is nothing new under the sun I think it was referring to human behavior and I agree that this isn't something that is going to go away but that doesn't mean we ever have to accept it. Hell in prisons murders are more accepted that pedophiles if you go inside as a pedophile and the other inmates find out you will be in serious trouble.

The definition of paedophilia has been continually expanded to turn normal behaviour into perversion. A sexually mature female will always be attractive to a red-blooded man.

At the same time, the definition of perversion has contracted, turning the shocking into the normal.

[scorpion]

For those who think this is unrealistic, it's important to keep in mind that the left isn't going to suddenly start advocating for fat, hairy 60 year old men to have sex with 12 year old girls.

As I said, they are going to build off of their success with homosexuality/transgenderism and the "tolerance/acceptance" movement. This means that pedophilia acceptance will begin with 16-18 year old homosexuals and transgenders. We will be told that traditional heterosexual expectations of sexuality are incompatible with the needs of "vulnerable" homosexual and transgender teenagers. They will be painted as victims of heterosexual oppression and bullying, and "intergenerational sex" (their term for pedophilia) will be sold as their right. Older lovers will be painted as mentors rather than predators.

The same arguments used for homosexuality and transgenderism will be deployed again:

"It doesn't affect you, why do you care?"

"Love is love, no matter the gender....or age."

"It's their body they should be able to do what they want."

Progressives are masters of getting a toe inside the door and then forcing their way in. Once it's legal for 16 year old homosexuals and transgenders to have sex with adults, the question will be asked: well, why not 14 year olds? Are they less human? Don't they have rights to enjoy their sexuality? And it will continue in this manner until the thing reaches its wretched end.

[Bad Hussar]

If it hasn't been pointed out already I'll mention that the studies authors are conflating pedophilia and sex with/among people who have been through puberty but are under the legal age of consent in a particular jurisdiction. A lot of older women do this intentionally, because they are in a war with their own aging bodies and the bodies of younger woman who threaten to steal away the men they already have, or prevent other men from giving them things or experiences. But I don't think it's appropriate for an academic who wants to be taken seriously to fall into this trap. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent's, and this isn't a common affliction among either straight men or straight women. Anecdotaly more common among gay men, but this is a different argument.

Anyway, some groups among the phony left may well use this sort of thing to stir up shit for no reason because that's how they get off, but in reality not much will change. Any pedophile trying to exercise his "new rights" in real life with a child who has actual people as parents/caregivers, rather than the sate(e.g Orphanage) is going to end up dead by gunshot wound pretty soon.

[Frost]

(07-08-2014 09:17 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm pretty sure the average human will never accept pedophilia. We will see how far this goes. Nevertheless I'll be opposing this stuff publicly, until the grave.

Imagine you could shoot a documentary of a contemporary gay/transgender pride parade and teleport it back to the 1950s.

Now imagine you could sit down with the regular 1950s men and have a conversation with them after watching the documentary.

They say to you, "Wow, 2014 is crazy! What's next? Legalized pedophilia?"

You respond: "I'm pretty sure the average human will never accept pedophilia."

"Uh..."

*

The more I think about it, the more realistic it is that the next frontier of progressive sexual politics will be sanctioning pedophilia. There's a strong historical (Greek, Roman) and contemporary (Arab) precedent.

The only question is, how will it be sold?

Just spitballing here, but my guess is it starts with a re-branding of pedophiles as victims of an illness, worthy of our sympathy.

This isn't even entirely unreasonable, I have a lot of respect for a person who spends their life successfully fighting the sickness of pedophilic urges.

Next up will probably be a de facto acceptance of pedophilia in schools and organizations with young boys. Remember a few years ago when gay scout leaders were The Most Important Thing Ever for a few weeks?

Pedophilic relationships between gay men in positions of authority over young boys will increase, but anyone who notices this trend will be accused of homophobia. Much like how anyone who notices patterns re: American Blacks or European Muslims is a racist Islamophobe, anyone who speaks up against pedophilia will be dismissed as a homophobe.

Many gay teachers will be sent to prison for their crimes. The state will continue to oppose pedophilia for the sake of appearances (just as the state opposes murder/rape/burglary/etc by minorities) but the policies and social norms that contribute to them will continue.

Eventually, amid a sea of valid accusations, a gay teacher will be falsely accused of pedophilia and then cleared. This will be the biggest news story of the year and used as a cudgel to attack anyone opposed to pedophilia for a decade. The teachers name will be: Gayvon Martin.

Or (perhaps "and") we will discover in our ever-continuing enlightenment that we have been oppressing the poor betrodden Muslims living peacefully in our countries, simply trying to get by as honest, hard-working child-sex-gang-groomers, by enforcing our western-centric age of consent laws. Obviously this is a question best left to Sharia courts.

Also, some rationalization will have to be made for why 29-year olds such as myself are still filthy dirtbags for dating girls in their early 20s. This is a difficult question, but no doubt the best minds at Huffington Post and Jezebel are already on the case.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Sorry, but this is complete and utter nonsense -- in fact, the exact opposite of how things are likely to go.

Not only is the idea of "legalized pedophilia" anywhere in our future beyond ludicrous -- it is far more likely that progressives will attempt to legislate ever more draconian consent laws that establish maximum age gaps for the purpose of defining consent. So age of consent "is" 18, but it's really 21 if you're over 30, and 25 if you're over 40, things like that. That will not be easy either as such laws are blatantly unconstitutional, but it will be attempted and might succeed for a while here and there. Such proposals have already been floated in state legislatures, supported by the usual unholy alliance of feminist progressive bluestockings and conservative religious white-knights.

You best believe that a majority of feminist hags think that a 45 year old dude fucking a perfectly "legal" luscious 18 year old high school senior and blowing multiple blissful loads in every precious and juicy hole, with some Optizinc, L-arginine and Cialis to enhance the experience to unbearable levels, should not only be illegal, but should be punishable by death inflicted through slow torture. And they will do all they can to make it so, as soon as they stop having multiple orgasms fantasizing about that very idea.

Finally, to imagine that modern progressivism is a movement interested in the promulgation of debauchery and sexual depravity is to completely misunderstand its nature and purposes. Far from it, it is a movement of grimly moralizing killjoys whose purpose is to make everyone and everything the same, and to kill off all the ways in which life is relished and savored, including all sensual ways. The thrust of the gay marriage movement is not to promulgate homosexual depravity -- just the opposite: it is to sell everyone on the idiotic lie that there are no differences: no differences between gays and straights, just as there are no differences between men and women; far from being a vision of a debauched free-for-all, it is a vision of a world of unspeakable dullness, where everyone recycles, "buys local", eats their organic slop and "does their share for the planet". "We are all the same inside", like that Burger King Proud Whopper intones. Gays used to actually have the energy and charge of some mild sexual depravity (I mean male fags, not that dullest of all God's creatures, the dyke); now they are just your most colorlessly stolid neighbors who are "married", walk their dogs and talk about "climate change".

As I've said before, modern fanatical progressives and modern conservative moralizers share far more in common than they differ on; one of these things is the obsession with "children" and the supposed threat to their innocence from "pedophiles", "sex traffickers", and other almost entirely imaginary monsters. Both of these movements at bottom hate all unselfconscious sensual pleasure and the idea of a man relishing and savoring something in life -- such as a young girl's body -- for its own sake and without a shred of guilt. Didn't we get the memo that such pleasures are "empty" and "meaningless" and that only by serving some "higher purpose", whether it be "saving the planet" or "restoring the patriarchy", that we can give our life that desperately sought for "meaning"? That is why the unholy alliance between progressive feminists and white-knight religious types will continue and strengthen; and far from "corrupting" us with ever more "depravity", things will proceed in the direction of ever grimmer and more joyless and frantic censoriousness and moralizing.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(07-08-2014 09:52 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

For those who think this is unrealistic, it's important to keep in mind that the left isn't going to suddenly start advocating for fat, hairy 60 year old men to have sex with 12 year old girls.

As I said, they are going to build off of their success with homosexuality/transgenderism and the "tolerance/acceptance" movement. This means that pedophilia acceptance will begin with 16-18 year old homosexuals and transgenders. We will be told that traditional heterosexual expectations of sexuality are incompatible with the needs of "vulnerable" homosexual and transgender teenagers. They will be painted as victims of heterosexual oppression and bullying, and "intergenerational sex" (their term for pedophilia) will be sold as their right. Older lovers will be painted as mentors rather than predators.

The same arguments used for homosexuality and transgenderism will be deployed again:

"It doesn't affect you, why do you care?"

"Love is love, no matter the gender....or age."

"It's their body they should be able to do what they want."

Progressives are masters of getting a toe inside the door and then forcing their way in. Once it's legal for 16 year old homosexuals and transgenders to have sex with adults, the question will be asked: well, why not 14 year olds? Are they less human? Don't they have rights to enjoy their sexuality? And it will continue in this manner until the thing reaches its wretched end.

That's exactly how it is going to go.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/...ires-light

The media sells it ever more as a "sexual orientation" and portraying them as harmless old men in cartoons and TV series:

   
Lowering the age of consent or even voting age to 15/16 might be not so bad, since it will be just a return to what has been the norm forever except for the last 80 years or so. A 16 year old bride being married to a 25-35 year old husband was no biggie anywhere in the world some 80 years ago.

But I think it will still take a good genaration to brainwash all sufficiently to accept an 8 year old being picked up by his/her 40 year-old-date.

[Sp5]

(07-08-2014 09:17 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm pretty sure the average human will never accept pedophilia. We will see how far this goes. Nevertheless I'll be opposing this stuff publicly, until the grave.

(07-08-2014 10:42 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Sorry, but this is complete and utter nonsense -- in fact, the exact opposite of how things are likely to go.

Not only is the idea of "legalized pedophilia" anywhere in our future beyond ludicrous -- it is far more likely that progressives will attempt to legislate ever more draconian consent laws that establish maximum age gaps for the purpose of defining consent. So age of consent "is" 18, but it's really 21 if you're over 30, and 25 if you're over 40, things like that. That will not be easy either as such laws are blatantly unconstitutional, but it will be attempted and might succeed for a while here and there. Such proposals have already been floated in state legislatures, supported by the usual unholy alliance of feminist progressive bluestockings and conservative religious white-knights.

Yah, the trend in the law is towards more restrictions on sexuality with younger people, not less. A lot of states have raised their ages of consent.

I was involved in a few cases as a lawyer. I represented male victims of a male teacher in a civil suit. I also represented a guy charged with molesting his young niece and another guy caught with child porn - which happened to be naked pictures of his 12 yo stepdaughter.

People have pretty visceral reactions to these cases. Even hardened detectives and court staff get worked up. I was lucky to never have the duty to represent a defendant with public notoriety, because the defense lawyers get ripped in public too.

Advocates for pedophila go back years - as a part of work for the civil suit I went to a conference on "child rape hysteria" in which advocates for pedophila got up and spoke, because the teacher had been affiliated with some group. This was back in the early 1990s. NAMBLA goes back to the 1970s I think.

These people are odious and shameless, but hearing their voice is a cost of freedom. You don't have to listen; few do. But until they reduce the long minimum mandatory sentences for these cases (10 years for possession of child porn), the sky is not falling.

All moral considerations aside, if you just consider the power relationships, pedophila and child pornography is a powerful justification for the increase of state power over the individual. For example, many of you who travel to SE Asia may have your laptops searched and their contents examined - child molestation and pornography is a blanket justification for such searches. Electronic surveillance, facial recognition cameras, controls on men in particular (e.g. can't sit next to kids on flights) can all be justified by pedos.

Any state which wants to increase its power has to have boogymen to point at to justify that power. Terrorists are the foreign boogymen, kiddy-diddlers are the domestic boogymen, because they really ARE boogymen.

There's no percentage for The Powers That Be in catering to a tiny number of pervs by legalizing them, when they can point at those pervs as a reason to subjugate the rest of us.

(07-08-2014 05:43 AM)richler Wrote:  

There will likely be no widespread return to pre-Industrial Christianity. Not enough people actually think it's true. At the moment, religiously speaking, we are at a similar juncture to the Romans before Christianity's public adoption: we have a customary faith that is not taken seriously by most people, and a culture based upon indulgence and self-justification.

I don't think we have seen the end of the religions, though. Religion is more akin to jealousy or anger than it is to a horse-and-buggy or whatever — it's part of our makeup. The longer-lived members of this forum may well be alive to see whatever the next startling collection of claims concerning our nature might be, and they might either cheer or dread its wide adoption.

Christianity had a stronger occult core than the Roman religions. It's so strange and counter-intuitive, this story of god descending to earth and being mistreated... it was compelling. Now that capital has mainly been spent, and we are at a new juncture. What rough beast slouches etc....

Good point. New religions or modes of belief are possible. The analogy of Christianity now to what it replaced then, the old Roman rituals, is a good one. We can only hope that the "new religion" is based on reason and mercy.

[Cyr]

(07-08-2014 10:42 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Sorry, but this is complete and utter nonsense -- in fact, the exact opposite of how things are likely to go.

Not only is the idea of "legalized pedophilia" anywhere in our future beyond ludicrous -- it is far more likely that progressives will attempt to legislate ever more draconian consent laws that establish maximum age gaps for the purpose of defining consent. So age of consent "is" 18, but it's really 21 if you're over 30, and 25 if you're over 40, things like that. That will not be easy either as such laws are blatantly unconstitutional, but it will be attempted and might succeed for a while here and there. Such proposals have already been floated in state legislatures, supported by the usual unholy alliance of feminist progressive bluestockings and conservative religious white-knights.

You best believe that a majority of feminist hags think that a 45 year old dude fucking a perfectly "legal" luscious 18 year old high school senior and blowing multiple blissful loads in every precious and juicy hole, with some Optizinc, L-arginine and Cialis to enhance the experience to unbearable levels, should not only be illegal, but should be punishable by death inflicted through slow torture. And they will do all they can to make it so, as soon as they stop having multiple orgasms fantasizing about that very idea.

Finally, to imagine that modern progressivism is a movement interested in the promulgation of debauchery and sexual depravity is to completely misunderstand its nature and purposes. Far from it, it is a movement of grimly moralizing killjoys whose purpose is to make everyone and everything the same, and to kill off all the ways in which life is relished and savored, including all sensual ways. The thrust of the gay marriage movement is not to promulgate homosexual depravity -- just the opposite: it is to sell everyone on the idiotic lie that there are no differences: no differences between gays and straights, just as there are no differences between men and women; far from being a vision of a debauched free-for-all, it is a vision of a world of unspeakable dullness, where everyone recycles, "buys local", eats their organic slop and "does their share for the planet". "We are all the same inside", like that Burger King Proud Whopper intones. Gays used to actually have the energy and charge of some mild sexual depravity (I mean male fags, not that dullest of all God's creatures, the dyke); now they are just your most colorlessly stolid neighbors who are "married", walk their dogs and talk about "climate change".

As I've said before, modern fanatical progressives and modern conservative moralizers share far more in common than they differ on; one of these things is the obsession with "children" and the supposed threat to their innocence from "pedophiles", "sex traffickers", and other almost entirely imaginary monsters. Both of these movements at bottom hate all unselfconscious sensual pleasure and the idea of a man relishing and savoring something in life -- such as a young girl's body -- for its own sake and without a shred of guilt. Didn't we get the memo that such pleasures are "empty" and "meaningless" and that only by serving some "higher purpose", whether it be "saving the planet" or "restoring the patriarchy", that we can give our life that desperately sought for "meaning"? That is why the unholy alliance between progressive feminists and white-knight religious types will continue and strengthen; and far from "corrupting" us with ever more "depravity", things will proceed in the direction of ever grimmer and more joyless and frantic censoriousness and moralizing.

Yes I agree with Lizard. There is a girl in my class who is 18 and is dating a 31 year old guy. One of my friends, (who is very smart and is going to Oxford next year, but is in lockstep with progressive opinion), remarked that "I feel like that should be illegal", and most people agreed with him. This is in the Uk where the age of consent is 16, not 18.
The trend is towards moralising and preventing sexual relations among young people, rather than encouraging it.

[Bad Hussar]

(07-08-2014 11:41 AM)Cyr Wrote:  

...

Yes I agree with Lizard. There is a girl in my class who is 18 and is dating a 31 year old guy. One of my friends, (who is very smart and is going to Oxford next year, but is in lockstep with progressive opinion), remarked that "I feel like that should be illegal", and most people agreed with him. This is in the Uk where the age of consent is 16, not 18.
The trend is towards moralising and preventing sexual relations among young people, rather than encouraging it.

People say all sorts of shit. IRL it's best to almost ignore what they say and just act as if they didn't say it. With things like this it's obvious they don't actually believe them They're just saying what they imagine is "in" at the moment. I'm an older guy, and can assure you what girls say and what they do as far as age differences are concerned are two different things.

Your Oxford bound "smart" friend may be just that in terms of IQ, but if he isn't able to hold and express an opinion at odds with the imaginary consensus then his IQ is barely worth shit. He will not be able to make the most of it. Both historically and biologically there is nothing "wrong" or cr***y about May-December relationships. In real life today an older man (or cougar, for that matter if we're going to be PC), will have to really take care of themselves physically, but being involved with someone much younger is no big deal. But then BOTH my grandfathers were at least 20 years older than my grandmothers so maybe I have a skewed view of things.

[scorpion]

(07-08-2014 10:42 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Sorry, but this is complete and utter nonsense -- in fact, the exact opposite of how things are likely to go.

...

Your myopic focus on feminist shaming of older men with younger women is blinding you to the overall arc of the progressive attack on traditional sexuality. The reality is that older men with younger women actually IS traditional sexuality - hence why it's being attacked. Historically it was perfectly normal for a 30 year old man to marry a 16 or 18 year old woman. But that's not pedophilia, nor is it the danger I'm talking about.

The danger is that pedophilia (specifically homosexual pedophilia) will become to be regarded as a sexual orientation and that children will be indoctrinated by progressive public schools to regard attention from pedophiles as normal and healthy. If you honestly think this is impossible then you are simply not recognizing the rapid expansion of decadent progressive sexual morality. For example, it was literally only a few years that President Obama himself was an opponent of homosexual marriage. Transgenders were universally mocked and used as joke fodder until very recently. Decades ago homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness. Your grandfather would have found the idea of homosexual marriage and transgender acceptance of toddlers to be an impossibility, and yet here we are. We underestimate the ability of these people to inflict cultural destruction at our peril.

To be honest, I find your constant equation of progressives and traditionalists as moralizers to be puzzling. The two are diametrically opposed and yet you continually lump them into the same category. One seeks to tear down and the other to defend.

Quote:

The thrust of the gay marriage movement is not to promulgate homosexual depravity -- just the opposite: it is to sell everyone on the idiotic lie that there are no differences: no differences between gays and straights, just as there are no differences between men and women; far from being a vision of a debauched free-for-all, it is a vision of a world of unspeakable dullness, where everyone recycles, "buys local", eats their organic slop and "does their share for the planet".

This is just misses the point completely. Your problem seems to be that you are taking the progressive talking points at face value rather than reading between the lines and looking at the underlying motivations. Of course progressives sell homosexual marriage as an issue of equality. What the fuck do you expect them to say? That they are out to destroy the foundation of the family and subvert Western civilization? That's like expecting a gold digging wife to tell her husband she had an exit plan in place to take him to the cleaners by their second date.

But in some sense, yes, progressives want a society of total equality, a society of no differences. The problem is that means they want to drag everyone down to their degraded level, rather than build themselves up. This is why they seek to destroy everything which is excellent and beautiful, and why they are the enemies of all tradition.

[Bad Hussar]

(07-08-2014 12:09 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

...

Your myopic focus on feminist shaming of older men with younger women is blinding you to the overall arc of the progressive attack on traditional sexuality. The reality is that older men with younger women actually IS traditional sexuality - hence why it's being attacked. Historically it was perfectly normal for a 30 year old man to marry a 16 or 18 year old woman. But that's not pedophilia, nor is it the danger I'm talking about.

The danger is that pedophilia (specifically homosexual pedophilia) will become to be regarded as a sexual orientation and that children will be indoctrinated by progressive public schools to regard attention from pedophiles as normal and healthy. If you honestly think this is impossible then you are simply not recognizing the rapid expansion of decadent progressive sexual morality. For example, it was literally only a few years that President Obama himself was an opponent of homosexual marriage. Transgenders were universally mocked and used as joke fodder until very recently. Decades ago homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness. Your grandfather would have found the idea of homosexual marriage and transgender acceptance of toddlers to be an impossibility, and yet here we are. We underestimate the ability of these people to inflict cultural destruction at our peril.

...

This has been tried in the UK (Pedophile Information Exchange), and in the US (I think Allen Ginsburg was involved) as well. I think back in the 60's/70's. In the UK there are some existing politicians and such who were involved back then, but now hide this fact because the press on both the left and right would crucify them for it.

Like I said above, outside of state institutions like orphanages any pedophile who tries to exercise his "rights" will soon be removed from society by means of gunshot wounds. Certainly in a country like the US.

[runsonmagic]

I watched the documentary "Are All Men Pedophiles?" recently, and recommend it. The distinction made in that film is that most men are attracted to women past puberty, regardless of age of consent laws, and through most of recorded history sex between teenager and marrying in your teens was common. We have artificially extended adolescence and our age of consent laws are different that our history and biology.

I have to question if men will ever be legally allowed to have sex with teenagers, because that would destroy the sexual market. Can you imagine if a short haired thirty five year old woman had to compete with a bubbly sixteen year old for sexual attention? With all her poor teenage judgement? The sisterhood would fall apart really quickly.

It seems like these "academics" are exclusively focused on gay men wanting younger partners, when really all men want younger partners. The old have always preyed on the young. The opposition they face is the hatred our society has in general towards male sexuality. Oddly being gay is the only thing that triggers sympathy.

As Esther Vilar said, it is the weaker creature who has the real power in a relationship, because they can elicit sympathy. No one cares about the problems of men for the same reason no one wants to hear a rich man's problems. Of course, they don't see the hell men go through before reaching the age of majority and are likely to enact laws like that would allow older sexual predators to do more harm to younger men.

Remember, sixty years ago homosexuality was in the DSM as a mental disorder. Now you can lose your job if you say gays can't marry. A lot can change in sixty years.

I'd also recommend the documentary "Chicken Hawk" which follows NAMBLA activists. They sound a LOT like gay activists... but the mental problems are clear. They speak social justice.

I wouldn't not be surprised if we later cite this thread as a prophetic moment of the manosphere.

This issue brings up all the contradictions of modern thinking on sexuality. Can society can continue to demonize male sexuality and allow gay male sexuality to be fully unleashed? It doesn't threaten the female imperative to have older men prey on teenage boys, but it does open the door for the same men approaching teenage girls in the name of equality. That would threaten things.

There's still room to decline. Find your tribe and be ready when the old system falls to replace it with a new one.

[JJ Roberts]

[TravelerKai]

Some of the guys here are letting what Scorpion wrote fly way over their heads. Plenty of you have forgotten about one of the gay's largest targets on their agenda list. Legal adoption and Surrogate mother/fathering. If they are allowed to do this on a larger scale they will use these kids to recruit them into becoming gay. They have already started doing this in some places. What is the best way to turn someone gay? Get them while they are small and young! I have personally seen a little boy walking like a sissy in a store because his mother was gay with a butch dyke partner. Kids do not know any better! They are sexualizing these kids earlier than they should be. Gender confusion the whole thing. Go ask some honest CPS/case workers about the shit they see on a day to day basis concerning this and they might tell you some fucked up stories.

These people have no intentions of raising any of them neutral and definitely not naturally. These people want to recruit. That is basically pedophile activity. Who is going to stop them? By the time courts get involved it is kinda too late for social workers to do anything about it. Even they are split about it because most of them are bleeding heart liberals. Go ask some Christian ones in a bigger city and see if they will tell you the truth about it. Eventually more than half of those newly done gay marriages will start showing the festering sores they were hiding behind closed doors. This is nothing about "adult consent" or anything like that. I say re-read it very carefully. The first time I read it, the main point had nothing to do with age of consent being lowered.

[Truth Teller]

(07-08-2014 05:43 AM)richler Wrote:  

There will likely be no widespread return to pre-Industrial Christianity. Not enough people actually think it's true. At the moment, religiously speaking, we are at a similar juncture to the Romans before Christianity's public adoption: we have a customary faith that is not taken seriously by most people, and a culture based upon indulgence and self-justification.

I don't think we have seen the end of the religions, though. Religion is more akin to jealousy or anger than it is to a horse-and-buggy or whatever — it's part of our makeup. The longer-lived members of this forum may well be alive to see whatever the next startling collection of claims concerning our nature might be, and they might either cheer or dread its wide adoption.

History, yet again, repeats itself. I've likened the decline of the West to the decline of the Roman Empire many times on this board. I highly suggest that everybody here read Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It's truly terrifying how similar it is.

Western culture, held up by the welfare state and increasing Cultural Marxism, is not sustainable. The West will collapse, and much like with the Romans, an age of chaos will emerge. Yet again, some institution (it may be organized religion again) will keep knowledge and prevent everything from being lost. It's closer than most people think.