What is the childlove movement actually proposing?

From Red Pill Libertarian
Jump to: navigation, search

When people think of "pedophile activism" they imagine that it's a bunch of men who want to put their penises up kid's butts, ripping open their delicate anuses.

I'm thinking, in most of the situations in which the sex is painful or physically harmful, the kid probably isn't consenting, so changing the law to recognize the ability of kids to consent to sex won't have any impact on those situations. People may say, for rhetorical purposes, "Pedophile activists want to legalize rape," but they should at least be intellectually honest enough to admit, even NAMBLA has never called for legalizing that kind of rape. If someone argues to a court, "The kid consented to my shoving my dick in her butt, to the point that she required surgery," that probably won't be believed.

What pedophile activists have in mind consists more of blowjobs, cunnilingus, etc. I don't see how that stuff is as big a deal. Doesn't pretty much everyone acknowledge that oral sex is less of a big deal than anal or vaginal sex? Consider the ratio of people who will give oral sex, to people who will give anal or vaginal sex, especially early in a relationship, or when the relationship is not as serious. Oral sex is considered only third base; anal or vaginal would be a home run. If it's stuff like handjobs, that's second base at best.

Basically, all adult pedophiles want to do with kids, is the same stuff that kids do with one another! Little kids usually aren't putting their dicks up one another's butts either; it mostly oral and stuff like that.

It's similar to how, if as a believer in patriarchy, I advocate legalizing marital rape and spousal physical discipline, that actually doesn't do much to change relations between the sexes. Wives can still stubbornly say "No!" and refuse to cooperate and what is their husband going to do? Just because he's allowed to rape doesn't mean he's allowed to injure her, so what can he really threaten her with, that current law doesn't already allow him to threaten her with.

E.g., he already can say, "If you don't open your legs, I'm dumping you," which is arguably a more serious threat than a spanking. The only purpose of legalizing rape and spanking is so that, if she enjoys his raping and spanking her, she can't later say, "I didn't consent to that" and play the victim after the relationship unravels. (Yes, I know one might say, "It's not rape if she's willing," but willingness is subjective and can be backward-rationalized away as having never existed in her mind.)

Yet, if she's mentally healthy (which he should've screened her to be sure of), she's ordinarily not going to leave him unless he's a weak man (i.e. the kind of man she would find unattractive) anyway, so all he has to do to avoid being accused, is not be weak. Weak men will always get screwed over, regardless of what the law says; the only question is whether their screwing over will be justified by a bunch of feminist victimspeak, or by a patriarchal belief that might makes right and that the most dominant men should win. Regardless of the philosophical framework, the result is the same.

Similarly, what is it that makes little kids rat on their adult sexual partners? If the adult has prepared them to resist interrogation, why should they succumb, unless there has been a breakdown in the relationship? Or maybe the boy was unscrupulous, and wanted to get revenge for some underhanded reason. Therefore, maybe it's time to stigmatize unscrupulous boys who retroactively withdraw their consent.