all 31 comments

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (22 children)

I remember you. You seemed pretty reasonable at first, but then I seem to remember you descending into frank pedophilia. Correct me if I'm wrong about who you are.

The whole pedophilia thing is such an obvious psyop. The porn aspect in particular is just unnatural. Prior to about 1995, the notion that people would surreptitiously trade naked pictures of kids was just alien to most people. Then we started seeing all that Dateline / TCAP shit and the power of suggestion took hold.

Same with "sissy porn," incest porn, and all sorts of shit. Stay away from it

[–]Caamib_[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

I'm not sure if you know who I am based on your reply but I was never into real pedophilia. I consider ephebophilia normal male sexual behavior and not a disease. I was never for sex with girls younger than 12. I am sorry if you think even that is pedophilia, you were likely brainwashed in that case.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Yeah, you're exactly who I thought you were.

The whole "ephebophilia vs. pedophilia" thing is a losing argument. 90% or more of the population refers to people who are into 12-year-olds as pedophiles and talking down to us isn't going to change the tenor or conclusions of these discussions in any major way.

[–]Caamib_[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius said that in life it's important to not find yourself in the ranks of the insane. If 90 % of people said 1+1=3 would you claim that too ? I ensure you that any civilization that conquers today's America will be turbopatriarchal and rational on the age of consent thing.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I don't think it's "insane" to suggest you ought to keep your hands off of 12-year-old girls. If you want to say it can be argued both ways, or that whatever age limit one chooses is arbitrary, that's fine, but don't act like I'm telling you 1+1 is 3.

[–]Caamib_[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

A century or so ago brothels were full of 12 year -old girls. Things seemed to work just fine.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I don't think it's inherently unethical that you're attracted to 12-year-old girls. Frankly, better for you to be attracted to them than to other men.

That said, I was not ready to release my children into the world or the sexual marketplace at 12. It would have been a tragedy for them and me had they left home to marry or work independently at that age (to say nothing of entering a brothel). I still had things I wanted to teach my kids and do with them at that age.

As for the world of 100+ years ago, I'm not sure it was as different as you think. A story comes to mind. Ty Cobb's mom was married to his dad circa 1880, at the age of 12. Her father was not happy about this. She still played with dolls, it is said, and Ty was not born until years after the marriage. It's thought that Ty's future dad promised his father-in-law he'd wait for his wife to mature before consummating the marriage.

So the notion that a 12-year-old was a child was understood in the 1880s. And though they presumably "pair bonded," Ty's mom shot his dad dead with a shotgun when Ty was a teenager. We don't know if that's because she had a lecherous husband to guide her through adolescence instead of a mom and dad, but it all hints at a much more nuanced reality than you acknowledge.

Nevertheless, it seems you personally are pretty convinced that a female older than 12 would be unsuitable as your mate. I understand the concept of pair bonding and I believe in it, but I also think that most adolescent sexual experiences are too awkward, fraught, and unfulfilling to allow for pair bonding to occur.

Incels point out that women seem not to count certain sexual experiences toward their "number," and of course that's accurate and the phenomenon is female bullshit, but I think it also reflects the fact that sex - especially for women and especially when they don't reach orgasm - can be devoid of any meaning or long-term impact.

So although I'd never marry a harlot, I don't believe that a woman with some level of sexual experience has become worthless to me as a potential mate. I also think that your take on this matter is simplistic; women may be less diverse in their thought and behavior than men, but they're not so homogeneous that one couldn't find a suitable wife of 18 or (!) 20 years' age. There are even female virgins that age.

On a different note, I notice you use the phrase "age of consent." You are right about so many things, but I think you ought to take a step back and ask why the question is framed so completely around "consent."

The ethos of today holds that consent is the be-all / end-all of determining whether a given sex act is ethical. Have you examined the philosophical underpinnings of this belief?

Is "consent" in the sexual sense just a buzzword that sort of came out of nowhere ~50-100 years ago? Now we are getting close to the answer, and I sort of hinted at it in my first post here. Your thoughts on these issues are not as independent of globalist, conspiratorial manipulation as you imagine them to be.

[–]LionsMane 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So the notion that a 12-year-old was a child was understood in the 1880s.

That doesn't matter. The fact is that child marriage was legal back then because it was understood that such marriages could be beneficial to child and adult alike. In 1880, 37 states (in the USA) set the age of consent at 10 years, 10 states set an age of consent at 12 years, and Delaware had an age of consent of 7 years.

What was considered acceptable (or at least legal) before America became a feminist shithole is now considered criminal.

I understand the concept of pair bonding and I believe in it, but I also think that most adolescent sexual experiences are too awkward, fraught, and unfulfilling to allow for pair bonding to occur.

If child marriage didn't work, it wouldn't have been the norm in so many ancient patriarchal societies. Most virgin females of any age do not enjoy their first sexual experience regardless of whether it involves an adult man or a minor, but sex is something that they can learn to enjoy over time.

Teenage and preteen girls are no less likely to enjoy their first time with an adult man than with another teenager.

And though they presumably "pair bonded," Ty's mom shot his dad dead with a shotgun when Ty was a teenager. We don't know if that's because she had a lecherous husband to guide her through adolescence instead of a mom and dad, but it all hints at a much more nuanced reality than you acknowledge.

This means nothing except that there have always been unhappy child marriages, just like their have always been unhappy adult marriages. I suspect that child marriages have always been more successful on average than adult marriages, but I don't know for certain.

What I do know for certain is that most 20-year old women in the modern West are non-virgins and have been completely brainwashed by feminism and by the modern education system. The same is obviously not true for most 10-year olds. Most adult women have a habit of taking their bitterness and frustration out on decent men instead of on the scumbags that they sleep around with, and this makes them toxic to be around.

There is no benefit in waiting for a girl to turn 16 or 18 before dating her. As a general rule, the younger the woman/girl, the less bitter and entitled she is, and the more tolerable she is as a wife.

[–]Caamib_[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Brilliant post, but I'd like to emphasize something you're missing in the post. Only in patriarchal society do you get men dating teens. Feminists would never allow this because they want old hags to have value in the sexual marketplace. So your point about younger women being less tainted by feminism is irrelevant, as feminist societies make it extremely hard to impossible for older men to date such girls. What I'm trying to say is that in a sane society a 20 year-old woman wouldn't be poisoned by feminism. But still, why wait until 20 when you could date her when she's 15-16?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]Caamib_[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Nevertheless, it seems you personally are pretty convinced that a female older than 12 would be unsuitable as your mate.

    This is simply not true.

    On a different note, I notice you use the phrase "age of consent." You are right about so many things, but I think you ought to take a step back and ask why the question is framed so completely around "consent."

    The ethos of today holds that consent is the be-all / end-all of determining whether a given sex act is ethical. Have you examined the philosophical underpinnings of this belief?

    Is "consent" in the sexual sense just a buzzword that sort of came out of nowhere ~50-100 years ago?

    I am not sure what answer to give you. Could you clarify your question a bit?

    [–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I am not sure what answer to give you. Could you clarify your question a bit?

    In order for a sex act to be ethical, must both parties consent to it?

    If both parties consent to a sex act, is that sufficient to declare the act ethical?

    [–]Caamib_[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I can't reply without breaking SaidIt's rules, sorry. Chances are my reply would be gone and possibly me from this site as well.

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Caamib thinks parties (by that he means the female party) needn't give consent. As a man cannot (normally) be raped by a woman, it's moot for him, whether a landwhale might want to have sex with him without his consent.

    But ask him whether men should be allowed to have sex with other men without consent? After all, we see all kinds of degeneracies like Delaware's age of consent (7 years) and brothels full of 12 y.o. girls listed as something normal here. But what about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi then? Hey Caammy, you had quite effeminate looks when you were young. Would you have enjoyed some Ali or Ahmed penetrating your butthole at age 12? So?

    [–]fschmidt 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    What does this have to do with the posted article?

    [–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't engage in discussions about whether my posts are on topic. If you want to run a goddamned Scrum ceremony, go to Jira.com.

    [–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah

    [–]LionsMane 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Prior to about 1995, the notion that people would surreptitiously trade naked pictures of kids was just alien to most people.

    Lewis Carroll had a collection of nude pictures of little girls and wasn't secretive about it in the slightest. I'm not a fan of erotica of any kind, but the child variety has historically been considered much less vulgar than the adult variety.

    The whole pedophilia thing is such an obvious psyop.

    Honestly, it's not a psyop, but rather a mass hysteria. It was Freud who first came up with the theory that minors suffer psychological damage when they have sex with adults, but he later recanted it after realizing it had no substance. The discredited theory was adopted and weaponized by feminism in the 1970s, and has since been used to incite hatred against men who prefer teenage girls over aging and used-up career sluts.

    From Skeptical Inquirer (Jul-Aug 2001):

    Freud was the first to formalize a relation between CSA and psychological maladjustment. In his "seduction theory," he claimed that all adult neuroses are traceable to premature sex with an older person. He based this notion on a dozen or so patients, whom he pressured to recall seduction episodes using the same discredited techniques that would later be used in modern recovered memory therapy. He soon abandoned his theory, and it lay dormant until the women's movement of the 1970s, where it was revived by advocates and victimologists who found political and economic value in it for attacking the "patriarchy" and increasing a patient base.

    [–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah no.

    I know a teacher friend who had a colleague caught coming in the country with hundreds of child porn photos in a suitcase.

    Child porn trading definitely happened before the internet.

    It was just less common because boys weren't searching out extreme material and giving themselves a fetish for kids like they are at the moment.

    [–]raven9 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Adult male sex with post pubescent females aged 13-18 is always going to be a contentious issue because although society has deemed it a crime, it is probably biologically normal. That is not to say I believe people should do that today. Obviously civilization as we know it requires behavior modification.

    [–]chottohen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I am agreeing with you. Twenty thousand years ago young women that age needed the protection of a mature male and his survival skillz. Nowadays, with a pistol in her purse, she can be with whomever she pleases.

    [–]fschmidt 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Sadly humanity has become too stupid to understand articles like this. At this point I think the only worth doing is to try to organize the few remaining non-morons into a separate gene pool.

    [–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    If nothing else, this gave me something very interesting to read today at lunch. Very interesting. Thanks.

    [–]Caamib_[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks. Let me know what you think about the article when you read the entirety of it.

    [–]johndoyle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    WUBBALUBBADUBDUBBBBBBB

    [–]greybeard 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Seduction is inherently worthless. Being “sexy” alone doesn’t mean anything. In many societies throughout history extreme obesity was a status symbol. Being attractive means nothing on its own.

    So you assume that "sexyness" is hardcoded, but general attractiveness is arbitrary (besides what other women find attractive)

    Of course, Argentina and Mexico are different, the difference being that Argentina became promiscuous about a hundred years ago while Mexico had been promiscuous far longer.

    This section could've used some sources. This is a compelling theory and would explain very much but I'm not historically literate enough to confirm it. (edit: I see you are coming back to this later in the article with some more examples)

    When it comes to economy competition usually increases the quality and decreases the price. But competition among men for women destroys trust, which makes men stab each other in the back and become scumbags. It's probably very hard to get good data on this since pre- and post omega societies would be so radically different so you can't just check for a correlation between promiscuity and wealth.

    Great quote. Energy wasted on unnecessary competition besides giving results that better your environment is wasted.

    I'm now 25% and so far it's an interesting read. It's a bit confusing that you redefined alpha,beta,omega, but after a bit of accustomization it's no problem. One question: Is this the essence of neoreactionary thinking? That things right now are not perfect, and that in some periods in the past they were better? I can't really find a good definition online except by people who already dislike reactionaries.

    [–]greybeard 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Also, to /u/fschmidt : Is this part of your framework when you talk about that you can get incels wives? That it is an omega-culture and that some incels could be higher status in other (co-alpha or alpha) cultures?

    [–]fschmidt 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes, but archive.org is down (another modern software turd) so I can't get the context.

    [–]Caamib_[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    So you assume that "sexyness" is hardcoded, but general attractiveness is arbitrary (besides what other women find attractive)

    I wrote that text 8 years ago so I am not sure when certain words were used but I don't think I used "sexyness" much. If I did I probably used it as almost synonymous to "attractive". Right now I believe some traits are naturally sexy to a point in that they were almost universally attractive ( things like muscles or height) but nowhere near to a point these modern incels (post 2016 incels) believe them to be. In other words, these traits were attractive in most societies in the past and today but not exclusively so.

    This section could've used some sources. This is a compelling theory and would explain very much but I'm not historically literate enough to confirm it.

    As far as I can remember, that post described Mexico as more sexually loose than Argentina based on the fact that Argentina was 4th in GDP of countries in 1930, while Mexico was always a backwater.

    One question: Is this the essence of neoreactionary thinking? That things right now are not perfect, and that in some periods in the past they were better?

    I haven't read all of neoreactionary writings but, yes, the essence of our thinking is that things were better before and are bad now. This doesn't mean there was ever a perfect time/society. Also, one thing people always talk about erroneously is that they mention the level of technology in describing best societies. This is wrong. The level of technology in a society doesn't mean that some society is automatically more successful. For example, of course that Europe in 1500 AD had less developed technology than Europe in 2020 AD but that doesn't automatically mean it was more vital and successful in 2020 AD. Technology being developed took a lot of time and effort and today's world is living on borrowed time from better times when such technology could develop.

    Sorry for the late reply. Tell me if you read the entire article and do you have some opinions or questions?