Are we heading towards a pro-Pedophile society? Was Epstein special, or just ordinary by pimp standards? Is the age of consent too low, or too high, or neither?
AoC is an excellent example of bureaucracy vs aristocracy/community. In the past there was little need for any state enforced AoC beyond the absolute extremes because society had systems of authorities and shared cultural values that could regulate this. Fathers, family, lords, and mobs could very quickly deal with a situation while knowing all the particulars relevant to it. In the end it comes down to whether you believe we can build a society with a healthy sense of right and wrong and the ability to enforce it.
Good post S I got some things I would argue though.
I don’t think trans are peds because they spend time with children, I think it’s because they are just highly addicted to porn and alot of people who are highly addicted to porn also get into cp
I disagree that a female teacher cannot rape a child because the child can overpower her. Even though the kid might want to have sex with the teacher a kid at 13/14 isn’t in a position where he should be making a large moral decision without consultation of his parents especially on stuff like chastity which the cons are social and spiritual rather than rational. The teacher can take advantage of a child being an underdeveloped sensualist. This is bordering into what can be considered “rape” but if you don’t count this as rape I’d argue that’s it’s at least just as bad.
You mention that women finish puberty at about 15 but this isn’t true. Women typically stop experiencing sexual development 5-6 years post menarche. Assuming the girl hits puberty early (12/11), at 15 they still suffer from short luteal phases and about a 25% an-ovulation rate. In terms of sexual maturity 18 years old is actually a pretty good choice. Something I see a lot among people who argue for lowering the AOC is that 16 year olds are peak fertility because egg count always declines but egg count only really matters when below 10% of initial egg count. Really fertility peaks around 19 and stays plateaued until the 30s where it hard falls off.
Lastly the ideal law would be some formula where you input the two ages and it spits out a binary legal or illegal result but I would argue generally the more simplistic the law the better since very low iq individuals need to follow it so the hard cut of 18 doesn’t seem too irrational to me.
I really hate how opposing my parents are to getting married in your early twenties, they likely don't know/care about fertility and love. "It's not affordable! They need to date for 15 years or else their love isn't stable!". It's pretty stupid.
“It’s the people who the right is most sympathetic towards. The “I like femboys who don’t make it their whole personality” crowd. These guys clearly want boyish looking men. I mean, it’s in the name and all the aesthetics. They want a ‘boy’. Very pederastic.”
Finally, someone says it. 120mm fax machine artillery fire with this one.
Let me remind you of Anarcho-tyranny. Liberal states like California have let gay emuphiles off of their charges while condemning 19 year old boys for dating 17 year old girls. So yes, the LGBT is normalizing pedophilia to an extent
I’d argue pphiles are an infinitely easier leap to make normal for the libs than fetish stuff. Unless you mean stuff like furries are going to be deified like troons are. I’d argue fetishes are already normalized in the same vein homosexuals are, “do whatever you want in the bedroom” is already the modus operandi of the west. Just like gays you could argue pphiles have a historical precedent that a ‘toid could rationalize as justifying their existence. Or even a cultural rationale where it could be excused for certain cultures like Muslims or Indians or whatever and that they “can’t help it” or whatever.
There’s also a trend among the left of dehumanizing children, like they’re being primed for this to happen. Anti natalism and abortion advocate doctrine are the best examples of this.
I gyatt to disagree with you on the libfarts not pushing pedophilia thing. If the slippery slope won't stop soon (and I don't see a reason why it would) they are going to start openly pushing it after the whole anti-grooming hysteria dies down. They already tried this before as we all know. It fits perfectly into the trend of abandoning all self-respect and other "abstract" values in favour of hedonism, the only thing holding them back now is the idea that a child is harmed by having sex with an adult (which is true but I can see the general public doing a 180 on this when hit with enough propaganda). I don't agree with the "it's simply too evil to become accepted" argument, homosexuality and transexualism and a ton of other thing that were seen as abhorrent for most of human history are totally normalized now, it's only a question of time.
Furries and fetish communities (not all fetishes, mainly those which have “communities”) are ripe for the position because A) they’re hedonistic but ostensibly “harmless” (just like gay people), B) they are attempting to make irrelevant one’s own nature and body in favor of this “‘sona” or some weird alternate personality (just like troons) and C) these communities have exploded due to the rise of the internet and especially exposure to the internet at young ages (which can lead to fetishes)
Polygamy/Polyamory is just sort of a general attack on the nuclear family and the institution of marriage, but it will also be co opted by incoming groups of poop people who already have a penchant for polygamy.
I have an old article on this early on my subsctack. The slippery slope will continue but not towards pedophilia, it will probably go in the direction of polygamy and furries and possibly other fetishes. Liberals don’t really show any interest in trying to normalize pedophilia and again as I discussed actually seem to be working with conservatives to try and expand the view of ”unethical relationships” to include relationships between adults with age gaps. The support for transgenders is more an expression of this “techno-Gnosticism” where libs want to ”escape” nature and the body, but through social engineering and technology rather than gnosis or anything like that
That verse of the Mishnah is not justifying having sex with 3 year olds, it’s saying if a 3 year old is raped when that kid grows up they can still be classified as a virgin
The thing about mohammed is that the age of aisha is apocryphal at best, made up by sunnis as a response to the Shias insulting Aisha as she is an incredibly controversial figure in early islam and was a supporter of the anti alid Umayyads, they called her a harlot so sunnis basically lowered her age into an incredibly unrealistic one so that she wouldnt appear this way and that she was a "virgin" (Early Islam was very similar to christianity in the veneration of Mary and sunnis call Aisha the virgin mother of all muslims the same way shias call fatima that). To add to this, if u already werent believing it because it was a hadith then the narration in itself is faulty as it was reported by Ibn Urwa whos known to be unreliable. To be honest early islam is very foggy, most of it (Excluding the koran) was written down centuries after. Imo i think aisha was probably 12 or in her early teens as her father (Abu bakr) was already pretty old and mohammed only really married her to strengthen the bond between him and her father. i also slightly disbelieve the fact you said that menarche is lower in modern societies which is true but it is not that significant as according to this study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16311040/) women 2000 years ago could enter menarche from 10-13. Also, muslims use that hadith a lot to justify pedophilia in their own cultures and they dont want to disbelieve in this thing because it doesnt matter about this specific hadith but that all hadiths are also at a risk of becoming unreliable as muslims (sunnis in particular) mainly follow a book written by an uzbek centuries after mohammed died and not his actual book the koran lmao
The hadiths havent always been so widely accepted, they were opposed heavily during the early islamic era albeit it won out in the end, though ive heard quranism is rising in Turkey. Hadiths were mainly opposed because in view of the Mutazilites (an extinct sect that was the only neutral one concerning the ali-umayyad factional issues and grounded itself on rationality) they were seen as a threat that would eventually replace the quran which is Gods words and accepted among all muslims rather than human words which had a shaky avenue to the prophet. In addition, because of the second point on how they were human they were opposed because many of them were seen as ridiculous and even blasphemous; for example: there are some hadiths out there that are very contradictory some of them depict mohammed as this green eyed ultra racist dude whilst others depict him more as an anti racist hippy who promoted race mixing (that famous hadith about the cucked dude is considered weak btw even)
Also, hadith serve more as a practical means for legal and lifestyle stuff. The quran is somewhat vague at times and compared to the hadith literature, not much concerning specific laws exist as people could interpret it through their own ways and this may conflict with a judge. Moreover, some people argue for the hadiths saying that it provides like 90% of the context for the quran and that without it how would muslims pray but muslims also have sunnah (traditions of the prophet) and ijma (general consensus amongst the islamic community), and prayer is generally practical tradition not passed via oral words , for instance the earliest hadith collection was compiled by Malik Ibn Anas (strangely enough despite him being from yemen and living his whole life in arabia he was described as tall blond and blue eyed) who founded the sect that would become the leading one in Islamic Iberia and he based a great deal of how his sect would act via the traditions of Medina (the town where Mohammed mainly lived in during his mission). Another main argument against hadiths is that no where in the quran is it stated that there would be another divine mission after mohammed until the mahdi (who is not even mentioned in the koran or any big hadith collections weirdly enough), the hadiths are not divine works and ironically enough there are hadiths that state that early caliphs forbade the spread of hadiths and how there are 7th century manuscripts of the koran but none for hadiths till at least 2 centuries after mohammed died. however, There are verses in the quran that talk about hikma (wisdom) and some hadith supporters argue that this wisdom meant the hadiths but i dont think they realize that in the hadiths themselves practiced sunnah is ranked higher than verbal hadith.
Overall, i think the main adaptation was that since the islamic empire stretched from the Pyrenees to the indus and that it was minority arab, the muslims needed some firm laws that they could derive without having to know classical arabic and interpret the quran. I dont think hadiths are all that bad i mean theyre the same as Pauls teachings and the talmud but muslims seem to include a lot of pointless hadith (the verbal ones) i still think that if i were a muslim id not entirely reject the hadith as it provides context for a book written 1400 years ago and would rather follow the traditions of the people like how Malik Ibn Anas went about it as there are some really absurd loony toons like tales u can read from some of mohammeds early biographers or verbal hadith compilers in general.
> Moreover, some people argue for the hadiths saying that it provides like 90% of the context for the quran and that without it how would muslims pray but muslims also have sunnah (traditions of the prophet) and ijma (general consensus amongst the islamic community), and prayer is generally practical tradition not passed via oral words
Yes, certainly. Islam is arguably no more "backwards" than Judaism, and yet Jews are a very innovative group. You could have an advanced society with most religions and even most political ideologies so long as you have a bright enough, conscientious enough population, and a relatively small number of "natural lumpens"
You cannot imagine how strange it was for me to get a notification just titled “Pedophilia”
April fools!
She was just 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes old YOU EFFIN' CHUD...
Now, if she was a 28 year old used-up & run-through hag, things would be different...
AoC is an excellent example of bureaucracy vs aristocracy/community. In the past there was little need for any state enforced AoC beyond the absolute extremes because society had systems of authorities and shared cultural values that could regulate this. Fathers, family, lords, and mobs could very quickly deal with a situation while knowing all the particulars relevant to it. In the end it comes down to whether you believe we can build a society with a healthy sense of right and wrong and the ability to enforce it.
AoC is a politician
That IQ graph💀💀 it's over for Yaqubians
Good post S I got some things I would argue though.
I don’t think trans are peds because they spend time with children, I think it’s because they are just highly addicted to porn and alot of people who are highly addicted to porn also get into cp
I disagree that a female teacher cannot rape a child because the child can overpower her. Even though the kid might want to have sex with the teacher a kid at 13/14 isn’t in a position where he should be making a large moral decision without consultation of his parents especially on stuff like chastity which the cons are social and spiritual rather than rational. The teacher can take advantage of a child being an underdeveloped sensualist. This is bordering into what can be considered “rape” but if you don’t count this as rape I’d argue that’s it’s at least just as bad.
You mention that women finish puberty at about 15 but this isn’t true. Women typically stop experiencing sexual development 5-6 years post menarche. Assuming the girl hits puberty early (12/11), at 15 they still suffer from short luteal phases and about a 25% an-ovulation rate. In terms of sexual maturity 18 years old is actually a pretty good choice. Something I see a lot among people who argue for lowering the AOC is that 16 year olds are peak fertility because egg count always declines but egg count only really matters when below 10% of initial egg count. Really fertility peaks around 19 and stays plateaued until the 30s where it hard falls off.
Lastly the ideal law would be some formula where you input the two ages and it spits out a binary legal or illegal result but I would argue generally the more simplistic the law the better since very low iq individuals need to follow it so the hard cut of 18 doesn’t seem too irrational to me.
I really hate how opposing my parents are to getting married in your early twenties, they likely don't know/care about fertility and love. "It's not affordable! They need to date for 15 years or else their love isn't stable!". It's pretty stupid.
-Listen to parents
-Date woman for 14 years
-Doesn't work out
-Now 34 years old with nothing to show for it
Your parents are brain dead :(
Actually, they said 300 years, but I made it sound moar realistic
“It’s the people who the right is most sympathetic towards. The “I like femboys who don’t make it their whole personality” crowd. These guys clearly want boyish looking men. I mean, it’s in the name and all the aesthetics. They want a ‘boy’. Very pederastic.”
Finally, someone says it. 120mm fax machine artillery fire with this one.
Let me remind you of Anarcho-tyranny. Liberal states like California have let gay emuphiles off of their charges while condemning 19 year old boys for dating 17 year old girls. So yes, the LGBT is normalizing pedophilia to an extent
Sectionalism gets the Riggspill
What are you even doing on substack
I had a bunch of things I was writing but I got distracted by my vacation with my gf and never finished them
Fakecel
I never claimed to be incel, just a misogynist. I got and continue to get pussy, only recently getting a gf. Youre not a real riggstorian
I have failed you, committing seppukku immediately
I’d argue pphiles are an infinitely easier leap to make normal for the libs than fetish stuff. Unless you mean stuff like furries are going to be deified like troons are. I’d argue fetishes are already normalized in the same vein homosexuals are, “do whatever you want in the bedroom” is already the modus operandi of the west. Just like gays you could argue pphiles have a historical precedent that a ‘toid could rationalize as justifying their existence. Or even a cultural rationale where it could be excused for certain cultures like Muslims or Indians or whatever and that they “can’t help it” or whatever.
There’s also a trend among the left of dehumanizing children, like they’re being primed for this to happen. Anti natalism and abortion advocate doctrine are the best examples of this.
I gyatt to disagree with you on the libfarts not pushing pedophilia thing. If the slippery slope won't stop soon (and I don't see a reason why it would) they are going to start openly pushing it after the whole anti-grooming hysteria dies down. They already tried this before as we all know. It fits perfectly into the trend of abandoning all self-respect and other "abstract" values in favour of hedonism, the only thing holding them back now is the idea that a child is harmed by having sex with an adult (which is true but I can see the general public doing a 180 on this when hit with enough propaganda). I don't agree with the "it's simply too evil to become accepted" argument, homosexuality and transexualism and a ton of other thing that were seen as abhorrent for most of human history are totally normalized now, it's only a question of time.
Furries and fetish communities (not all fetishes, mainly those which have “communities”) are ripe for the position because A) they’re hedonistic but ostensibly “harmless” (just like gay people), B) they are attempting to make irrelevant one’s own nature and body in favor of this “‘sona” or some weird alternate personality (just like troons) and C) these communities have exploded due to the rise of the internet and especially exposure to the internet at young ages (which can lead to fetishes)
Polygamy/Polyamory is just sort of a general attack on the nuclear family and the institution of marriage, but it will also be co opted by incoming groups of poop people who already have a penchant for polygamy.
I have an old article on this early on my subsctack. The slippery slope will continue but not towards pedophilia, it will probably go in the direction of polygamy and furries and possibly other fetishes. Liberals don’t really show any interest in trying to normalize pedophilia and again as I discussed actually seem to be working with conservatives to try and expand the view of ”unethical relationships” to include relationships between adults with age gaps. The support for transgenders is more an expression of this “techno-Gnosticism” where libs want to ”escape” nature and the body, but through social engineering and technology rather than gnosis or anything like that
Comparing the Muslims with Jews is also an odd match, obviously with Mishnah Niddah 5:4, etc.
I hate the amorality of these people!
That verse of the Mishnah is not justifying having sex with 3 year olds, it’s saying if a 3 year old is raped when that kid grows up they can still be classified as a virgin
I hate muslims so much
people want higher aoc bc they have an evil and using idea of sex (they dont know this)
Than*
The thing about mohammed is that the age of aisha is apocryphal at best, made up by sunnis as a response to the Shias insulting Aisha as she is an incredibly controversial figure in early islam and was a supporter of the anti alid Umayyads, they called her a harlot so sunnis basically lowered her age into an incredibly unrealistic one so that she wouldnt appear this way and that she was a "virgin" (Early Islam was very similar to christianity in the veneration of Mary and sunnis call Aisha the virgin mother of all muslims the same way shias call fatima that). To add to this, if u already werent believing it because it was a hadith then the narration in itself is faulty as it was reported by Ibn Urwa whos known to be unreliable. To be honest early islam is very foggy, most of it (Excluding the koran) was written down centuries after. Imo i think aisha was probably 12 or in her early teens as her father (Abu bakr) was already pretty old and mohammed only really married her to strengthen the bond between him and her father. i also slightly disbelieve the fact you said that menarche is lower in modern societies which is true but it is not that significant as according to this study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16311040/) women 2000 years ago could enter menarche from 10-13. Also, muslims use that hadith a lot to justify pedophilia in their own cultures and they dont want to disbelieve in this thing because it doesnt matter about this specific hadith but that all hadiths are also at a risk of becoming unreliable as muslims (sunnis in particular) mainly follow a book written by an uzbek centuries after mohammed died and not his actual book the koran lmao
Why do Muslims even bother with the Hadith stuff. Why don’t Muslims just follow the Quran? Christians don’t pay a lot of attention to apocrypha
The hadiths havent always been so widely accepted, they were opposed heavily during the early islamic era albeit it won out in the end, though ive heard quranism is rising in Turkey. Hadiths were mainly opposed because in view of the Mutazilites (an extinct sect that was the only neutral one concerning the ali-umayyad factional issues and grounded itself on rationality) they were seen as a threat that would eventually replace the quran which is Gods words and accepted among all muslims rather than human words which had a shaky avenue to the prophet. In addition, because of the second point on how they were human they were opposed because many of them were seen as ridiculous and even blasphemous; for example: there are some hadiths out there that are very contradictory some of them depict mohammed as this green eyed ultra racist dude whilst others depict him more as an anti racist hippy who promoted race mixing (that famous hadith about the cucked dude is considered weak btw even)
Also, hadith serve more as a practical means for legal and lifestyle stuff. The quran is somewhat vague at times and compared to the hadith literature, not much concerning specific laws exist as people could interpret it through their own ways and this may conflict with a judge. Moreover, some people argue for the hadiths saying that it provides like 90% of the context for the quran and that without it how would muslims pray but muslims also have sunnah (traditions of the prophet) and ijma (general consensus amongst the islamic community), and prayer is generally practical tradition not passed via oral words , for instance the earliest hadith collection was compiled by Malik Ibn Anas (strangely enough despite him being from yemen and living his whole life in arabia he was described as tall blond and blue eyed) who founded the sect that would become the leading one in Islamic Iberia and he based a great deal of how his sect would act via the traditions of Medina (the town where Mohammed mainly lived in during his mission). Another main argument against hadiths is that no where in the quran is it stated that there would be another divine mission after mohammed until the mahdi (who is not even mentioned in the koran or any big hadith collections weirdly enough), the hadiths are not divine works and ironically enough there are hadiths that state that early caliphs forbade the spread of hadiths and how there are 7th century manuscripts of the koran but none for hadiths till at least 2 centuries after mohammed died. however, There are verses in the quran that talk about hikma (wisdom) and some hadith supporters argue that this wisdom meant the hadiths but i dont think they realize that in the hadiths themselves practiced sunnah is ranked higher than verbal hadith.
Overall, i think the main adaptation was that since the islamic empire stretched from the Pyrenees to the indus and that it was minority arab, the muslims needed some firm laws that they could derive without having to know classical arabic and interpret the quran. I dont think hadiths are all that bad i mean theyre the same as Pauls teachings and the talmud but muslims seem to include a lot of pointless hadith (the verbal ones) i still think that if i were a muslim id not entirely reject the hadith as it provides context for a book written 1400 years ago and would rather follow the traditions of the people like how Malik Ibn Anas went about it as there are some really absurd loony toons like tales u can read from some of mohammeds early biographers or verbal hadith compilers in general.
> Moreover, some people argue for the hadiths saying that it provides like 90% of the context for the quran and that without it how would muslims pray but muslims also have sunnah (traditions of the prophet) and ijma (general consensus amongst the islamic community), and prayer is generally practical tradition not passed via oral words
So basically, the Talmud for Muslims.
To be honest if all of the Islamic world adhered to Quaranism I would have very very few problems with Islam.
The Islamic Golden age had some cringe theology but also you know was kinda cool. Very sad the pedophiles won out in the end.
The “Islamic Golden Age” was more of a Perso-Andalusian Golden Age. Arabs did only a small fraction of the innovation.
That's sort of goes without saying lol, but you're right in your clarification
Regardless, it was Muslims doing innovation, which proves that the religion isn't a total kneecap to technological and societal progress.
Yes, certainly. Islam is arguably no more "backwards" than Judaism, and yet Jews are a very innovative group. You could have an advanced society with most religions and even most political ideologies so long as you have a bright enough, conscientious enough population, and a relatively small number of "natural lumpens"