Debunking anti C arguments

[G@yWad43]

8. Sex is putting your penis in a hole over and over. Sex is sucking a penis like a popsicle. Sex is sitting and letting someone suck your penis. What about this is so complex that kids cant understand it?

Already responded to this. Sex has much more meaning than that in a social sense.

-And my argument is that it shouldn't, and this over emphasis on sex socially comes from western anti sex Puritan talking points, further proven by the fact that the cultures that make the biggest deal out of AMSC and PIM are virginity idolizing cultures of the west, and most non western countries either didn't have an age of consent or a low age of consent until America and its allies “fixed” them.

Taking communion and eat a potato chip amount to the same action physically. They are very different acts socially.

-They are different acts socially if your a christian, which supports my above argument.

Even on a purely physical level you're ignoring the hormonal cocktail that comes from sexual arousal and orgasm.

-And your ignoring the hormonal cocktail that comes from physically extortion and the adrenaline rush when your body is playing sports. Or the hormonal cocktail watching a scary movie. Or the hormonal cocktail of eating and digesting food. Hormonal cockatils are part of being human.

Having sex with someone can drastically change how you feel about them due to those hormones.

-Doing literally anything with anybody can drastically change how you feel because humans run on hormones.

9. What if an adult forces literally anything ever on a kid? What's so special about sex that it should lead to prison or death but everything else gets a free pass? How come full youth autonomy without any chance of adult manipulation or force only really matters when it comes to base pleasures like sex or alcohol, but when it comes to punishments its fully okay to put a kid in timeout, ground them, suspend them, or even send them to prison, despite the high change of manipulation or force? Besides, what if an adult forces a kid to drive when the kid isnt ready, which could lead to trauma around cars and even death. Should we ban driving for minors? What if an adult forces a kid to go biking, which could lead to trauma or even a life ending accident? Can kids consent to bikes? Do kids even understand how bikes work or the consequences of not looking both ways before biking across the street?(permanent paralysis or death). What if an adult forces or manipulates a kid to play football, which could lead to lifelong trauma or permanent brain injury? Should sports be considered child abuse? None of these skills are technically necessary and all involve the adults' pleasure and gratification. Walking isn't necessary, we have wheelchairs, but disgusting child abusers force innocent babies to walk before they are physically developed enough or mature enough to understand the concept of walking. Why Is no one advocating for the woodchipper for these cruel, walking obsessed monsters?

It's not just CSA that is traumatic. Sexual abuse generally is traumatic and as a society we're getting better at listening to victims and ensure justice is properly meted. All your cute arguments about non-sexual acts ignore that sexual abuse is a problem. Rape culture is a problem. And it's a unique problem compared to other kinds of violence and abuse.

-I never argued that sexual abuse wasn't traumatic. Unless you think even mutually agreed upon and willing sexual encounters between someone above the age of majority and someone below the age of consent are intrinsically traumatic, which I am arguing against. Yes sexual abuse is a problem, just like physical abuse is a problem, we have a child beating culture, as evidenced by half of Americans using some form of corporal punishment on their kids, which is why we should ban all non essential physical contact, even hugging, to protect from potential victims

10. So we should stop making sex shameful and be more open about sex with kids, glad that we agree.

Perhaps, but that needs to be achieved before we even consider legalization.

-How is it possible to not make sex shameful if they are indoctrinated from childhood that sex is shameful? Thats impossible to achieve before one is legalized.

11. Just like how science proved that women are intellectually inferior. Just like how the science proved that black people are intellectually infeiror. Just like how the science proven that women enjoying sex was due to brainwashing and mental illness. Just like how the science proved that black people wanting freedom from slavery was a mental illness. Just like how science proved that homosexuality was harmful and a mental illness. Time and time again the science always prooves that minority groups wanting freedom and autonomy is wrong and that sex is evil. Maybe we should just get to the root of all these problems and just make sex illegal outside of marriage and procreation, and make sure that the government gives no one any legal freedom to make their own choices with their own lives and bodies. Then we can guarantee zero harm and consequences for the citizens own good! Besides, can anyone really freely consent to anything?(Bonus point, science also proves that intellectual and physical/emotional development begins to decline in age, can the elderly even consent to sex? What if they forget what consent is? Maybe we can compromise and make the age of consent 25-40, to protect from any potential risk and harm)

It seems like there’s this fantastical, puritan, sinless ideal of children and childhood, the child is not a person with their own wills and desires, but an asexual creature that blindly obeys its masters with no wishes of its own, a paradigm of sin free existence, begging to have its innocence corrupted from constant lurking devils in dirty white vans saying “free candy”, and once it is subjugated to that corruption, the pure and innocent virgin creature is ruined forever, and forced into a fate far worse than death. At least that's what the average hysterical 20 year old on tiktok tells me, lol.

It seems like the driving force for anti c views is that sex is an inherently disgusting and impure act, with nothing valuable to offer a person outside of either procreation or control. In anti c views, sex is not a pleasurable bonding activity or a fun and helpful skill to develop, it is a dirty and carefully crafted control tactic, forced by outside corrupters onto innocent and pure virgins. Something to be weaponized, something to be contractual, its not just an act anymore, its a philosophy, a philosophy so intense and complicated that it demands to be negotiated via governmental contracts. Its no longer getting your dick sucked, its getting your SOUL sucked.

This is a strawman of anti-c arguments. But if you don't think the science can be trusted, why do pro-c people rely so heavily on Rind, etc?

-please quote exactly where in my paragraphs I used Rind?

Child development is obvious from both a common sense and scientific point of view, though.
Trauma and adverse life outcomes being higher in victims of CSA is statistically proven.

-Just like trauma and adverse life affects in victims of interacial relationships and homosexuality was statistaically proven. Just like how the trauma and adverse life expiernces of childhood onanism were stastically proven. This is just common sense, race mixing and sodomy should be banned and all children who masturbate need therapy for their trauma /j

Pedophilia as an illness is disputed.

-No its not, at least not outside of our community and a few fringe scientists


The pro-c seems to think "even if one child would enjoy AMSC it should be legal for everyone". Anti-c people would rather protect the 90% of minors that aren't interested, even if that restricts the 10%.

-And what do neutural Cs argue? That everything should stay the exact same and their should be zero social progress? This is why people dont like centrist fence sitters.(No offense tho)

It's just like speeding laws. Some people can drive safely at 70 mph in residential areas. Most can't so we set the limit at 25. Over 18 most of the risk disappears. Over 18 is just safer for more people.

-What magical physical or emotional change happens overnight when the clock strikes 12 on your 18th birthday that makes you suddenly capable of handling sex? I wasnt aware that we lived in a Cinderella movie. And if you argue that the change is social then you agree with me.

[G@yWad43]

I’m not anti-c or even neutral-c. I’m optimistic about the capabilities of youth and support gradual, progressive reform.

I just felt your arguments weren’t dealing with the best arguments an anti-c could field. So I pointed out some of the weaker points. Your rebuttals help to strengthen your initial position, and seeing a robust argument involving both sides can hopefully help others draw their own conclusions, too.

-I appreciate your rebuttals, it did give me a chance to strengthen some holes.

But I’m not going to reply again. I agree with you on overall direction (though differ on a few specifics).

-Cheers mate! and no hard feelings if I came off aggressive

[Brain O'Conner]

I like this post. This a very constructive conversation where we as a community criticizes each others points to make them stronger. There aren't a lot of communities that I know of that do that.