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.
@Catalpa:
I had no idea. Thank you for exposing yet another horrid aspect of that culture.
I think.
@Crip Dyke:
One issue that unfortunately comes up sometimes here is that when somebody ends up in moderation (as David said happened when this fellow ended up from a different IP address) and their comments get brought out of moderation, they still end up at the original locations in the list of comments. Which means that someone who read all the previous comments while the bad comment was still in moderation, and then only starts at the end looking for new comments, may not see the one that was let out of moderation until somebody else calls attention to it.
Can’t say for sure whether or not that happened in this case, because apparently lots of comments appeared and some disappeared while I was busy elsewhere, but it’s something to keep in mind when an early comment isn’t getting remarked on.
Just to make clear what happened w/ disappearing posts: Jack had been trying to post for several days using a different ip, all of these comments got held in moderation and never appeared. Then he started posting under his original IP and those posts went up. I deleted one or two of those.
If you ever see a post with a slur in it, let me know. I’ve set it up so that comments containing slurs get held in moderation. I let one through earlier from crip dyke because it was a reference to other people using the slur; she wasn’t using it as a slur. But I just went back and censored the word anyway.
So if any comments with slurs get through it’s because either I don’t have that slur in the filters (and I should add it) or I accidentally let a comment through without seeing the slur in it. So let me know and I will fix that.
Now that I know that’s against the community norms here, I won’t do it in the future.
Thanks for all your work, David.
Thanks for banning Jack, David! Good riddance to him.
Shame on you, David. You clearly just can’t handle Jack’s irrefutable truth bombs about how no one wore tight athletic wear 20 years ago. Coward.
@Crip Dyke
We will often just censor the slur when we want to discuss it, fyi.
@ David Futrelle,
Thanks!
I must admit I was starting to doubt my reading-comprehension, what with seeing responses to Jack’s comments but not his comments themselves… Glad he’s gone; he’d stopped being fun to piss off. What an evil jerk.
That’s a gross and clearly deliberate distortion. I specified those who successfully resist such urges.
I accept David’s judgement that my comment was inappropriate in this context, and therefore apologise for it, but I am not going to accept false accusations.
According to the comments policy, which clearly states
it doesn’t actually matter which particular subgroup of pedophiles you think are worthy of admiration. So there’s that.
Again, the consensus of the community is that pedophilia is the result of having an unexamined abusive mindset, since (among other things) the target of said urges are always weaker and unable to consent. This mindset may be difficult to confront, and the urges may be hard to control, but they are not impossible to eliminate.
In any case, I’d argue that successfully controlling your darker urges* is the bare minimum expectation to be considered a functioning member of society, as opposed to be something to be admired. Encouraged and expected, yes. Admired, not so much.
*Note: I specifically mean urges. Not thoughts, not tics, urges.
Oh good. We’re back to this.
Yeah, I’m not going to admire someone for not raping anyone. Of any age. Framing it that way implies that rape is the norm and anyone who doesn’t do it is going above and beyond.
Yep, what WWTH sums up what my issue with your statement was, KG.