Experts estimate that 0.5% to 7% of all males are preferentially attracted to minors (Abel & Harlow, 2001; Farella, 2002; Feierman, 1990; West, 1998), although there is no solid data to support these figures. If these experts are correct, then between 600,000 and 8 million men in the U.S. are preferentially attracted to children or adolescents.
What if these 600,000 men formed "Pedobear" protection agencies? Naturally, these agencies would allow their customers to have consensual sex with minors whose parents were also customers. If there was a shortage of minors, supply would of course meet demand.
Pedobear agencies would probably agree to come to each other's aid in the event that another protection agency tried to attack them. As it would be necessary to raise a force of comparable strength, I imagine conscription would be a price their customers willingly paid; ask yourself, would you be willing to violently defend your perceived right to have consensual sex? Because the potential conscripts would live alongside customers of other protection agencies, it would be risky for an aggressive agency to use indirect air attacks. Moreover, what agency would start a conflict if they knew that in 4-6 weeks, 20, 50 or 100,000 conscripts would be flown to their doorstep? Wouldn't people prefer to spend money on their own kids, rather than pay exorbitant premiums for the sake of a hopeless conflict?
The business will fail because not many tennage girls will want 40 year old rusty cocks. Its also highly unpopular, and as you know, due to the free market, unpopular things fail.
I dont see how this is any different from prostitution in general.
Dont mind me asking, but, do you smoke weed?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
The business will fail because not many tennage girls will want 40 year old rusty cocks.
"The attraction to minors does not suddenly appear in adulthood; minor-attracted people usually become aware of their sexual feelings in late childhood or adolescence.."
This. Supply will always meet demand. The "going price" would appear to be measured in sexual favors, but money would probably be used if it wasn't stigmatized.
Initially, ostracism from other businesses and associations would be a significant deterrent against becoming a customer of a Pedobear protection agency. However, in a purely market-driven society, prostitution would prove to be a lucrative industry, and the conspicuous attitudes of the minors themselves would probably wear down much of the stigma. Market anarchy would steer the human sex drive down the slippery slope.
Ok, we have enough of these pedophile threads. To the people who seem to think sex with little children would somehow be legal in libertopia:
You have clearly never had sex with a woman. If you have ever had sex with an adult woman, you would know that unless she is really loose, you need to either have gotten her wet or use lube. Why, you ask? Because when you penetrate her vagina, it will hurt her if you haven't done either of these things. And here's a newsflash, little children are smaller than adult woman. You think that little children, preadolescent children who by definition are not interested in sex, are going to go through all that pain for something they do not even want? Or perhaps you think they will just sit patiently as you lube up?
Little children do not consent to sex. The only way you are going to have preadolescent children consent to sex is if they need to prostitute themselves in order to survive. IF YOU ARE LIVING IN A SOCIETY WHERE PREADOLESCENT CHILDREN NEED TO DO THAT, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK PASSING A LAW IS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING? If you are in a society where children have to resort to prostitution instead of charity, then passing a law will do nothing but stroke your ego.
/thread
This is way too thought out...
If you're insisting weed caused this you're wrong, if anything he needs to take some bong rips and chill out.
then passing a law will do nothing but stroke your ego.
No pun intended?
OP: Keep in mind that the word "minor", as used today, refers to both sexually immature and some sexually mature human beings. Pedophilia is traditionally defined as sexual attraction to children, i.e. only sexually immature human beings.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
lol nice catch
Ancap66: Moreover, what agency would start a conflict if they knew that in 4-6 weeks, 20, 50 or 100,000 conscripts would be flown to their doorstep?
Lol so an air-dropped pedophile conscript army?
You think that little children, preadolescent children who by definition are not interested in sex, are going to go through all that pain for something they do not even want?
Sex is an umbrella term for a variety of physical interactions with varying degrees of risk. Most people think children can consent to cuddling, but not laissez-faire cuddling. The idea that there is a right or wrong way to cuddle someone, or that certain parts of your body are shameful are superstitions. Imagine an alternate reality with only one variable change: society believes a person's elbows are their private parts. Like a horror movie, society would re-enact the same line of reasoning, and manufacture the exact same number of 'victims' of consensual touching. There is nothing extraordinary about the location of flesh on the human body, except within a cultural context.
It's not healthy for someone not beyond puberty to receive vaginal penetration. Is that the extent of your definition of the term "sexually immature"?
Ancap66:It's not healthy for someone not beyond puberty to receive vaginal penetration. Is that the extent of your definition of the term "sexually immature"?
What do you mean by "beyond puberty"? As I understand it, puberty itself is the point at which a typical human being becomes sexually mature (i.e. capable of reproduction). The development of secondary sexual characteristics is meant to signal sexual maturity to others.
With that said, I'm sure you'll agree that sexual activity requires prior consent from everyone involved in order for it to be legitimate. Illegitimate sexual activity is typically called "rape". How many children (i.e. sexually immature human beings) do you think actually consent to sexual activity? Keep in mind that consenting to something requires understanding the intention(s) of the other person(s) involved.
How many children (i.e. sexually immature human beings) do you think actually consent to sexual activity? Keep in mind that consenting to something requires understanding the intention(s) of the other person(s) involved.
You're blurring reproductive capacity with the capacity to consent to physical stimulation in areas of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings. The intention behind the latter is worthy of one word; pleasure.
How many children do you think consent to pain in contact sports such as boxing and wrestling? It is logical to be more concerned about roughhousing, which is less consensual and more painful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW2KpuSLLHo).
Furthermore, criminalizing any consensual activity interferes with supply and demand and generates worse outcomes, whereas open competition increases pleasure and reduces pain. For example, relationships would be more likely to develop in tolerant communities and social networks where children are immunized against negative social mentalities.
gotlucky:Little children do not consent to sex.
I think what the OP is thinking is that the children don't have to. Because the parents control the child, they will consent for him, according to the OP.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
Thats terrible. It would be really unpopular, and if anything, no one would do that to their child.
Would it be rape if entity x forced y to have sex with z?
At least one study found that the most attractive age for females faces is 17. Ephebophilia is the norm and it's closer to 100% than 7% that fit into that category
The Texas Trigger: I think what the OP is thinking is that the children don't have to. Because the parents control the child, they will consent for him, according to the OP.
Ancap66: Naturally, these agencies would allow their customers to have consensual sex with minors whose parents were also customers.
Naturally, these agencies would allow their customers to have consensual sex with minors whose parents were also customers.
TTT, that does not appear to be what he said. Besides, parental consent does not mean that they can just decide whatever they want regarding their children. If a parent consents to beating his kid senseless, that makes it okay? After all, the parent consented for the child.
I don't think that's your position, but like I said, little children do not consent to sex. You might get children who are very near adolescence consent to sex regarding prostitution. But like I said earlier, if a society is so far gone that children have to turn to prostitution instead of charity in order to survive, passing a law would only be for the ego of the lawmakers.
gotlucky:TTT, that does not appear to be what he said. Besides, parental consent does not mean that they can just decide whatever they want regarding their children.
I was not saying that parental consent would justify it. I think I just misunderstood the OP. I thought that was what he was trying to infer.
Yeah, I didn't think that was what you were getting at. As for the OP, he may have been getting at that, that parents could give consent for a 3 year old to have sex, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one.
from what i read it seemed the op suggested parents owning children and selling them as sex slaves. i could be wrong.
posts also seemed to compare child rape to any physical sport.
that can fit right there with a murder protection agency and murder for hire clubs.
Ancap66:You're blurring reproductive capacity with the capacity to consent to physical stimulation in areas of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings. The intention behind the latter is worthy of one word; pleasure.
I'm only blurring those two things to the extent that they tend to be blurred in the real world. From what I understand, human beings don't develop sex drives until puberty, which coincides with sexual maturity. My point was simply that I think very few children actually consent to sexual activity.
Ancap66:How many children do you think consent to pain in contact sports such as boxing and wrestling? It is logical to be more concerned about roughhousing, which is less consensual and more painful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW2KpuSLLHo).
There are typically rather formal rules of conduct governing boxing and wrestling matches. Children engaging in those sports would be presumed to understand what they've gotten into and thus consented to pain they'd receive in accordance with the rules of conduct. "Roughhousing" tends to have informal rules of conduct of a similar sort.
Ancap66:Furthermore, criminalizing any consensual activity interferes with supply and demand and generates worse outcomes, whereas open competition increases pleasure and reduces pain. For example, relationships would be more likely to develop in tolerant communities and social networks where children are immunized against negative social mentalities.
On the one hand, many (if not most) children - especially young children - don't understand the point behind adult sexual behavior. That's why pedophiles apparently present sexual activity to children as though it's just a game for them to play. On the other hand, most children apparently just don't want to engage in that kind of behavior. Since I think they're self-owners, I think they have the right to refuse any invitations or enticements of that sort. Anyone who then coerces them to engage in that behavior anyway is IMO guilty of sexual assault, if not outright rape.
Strictly speaking, when a human achieves the capacity to act, it is by definition a self-owner. At this point, all arguments for preventing his action are arguments for slavery, so the idea that it can be "for his own good" is incoherent. Someone in this thread has a very relevant signature, about how preventing people from making mistakes results in immature people. Its not by accident that we are capable of learning early, nor is it an accident that we are capable of self-driven action. It's important to note also that sexual processes are not limited to a reproductive realm. Humans are perfectly capable of experiencing sexual pleasure through multiple orgasms long before puberty, and the male is capable of becoming erect, and the female is capable of bein penetrated. Finally, I would add that social norms--especially morals--play the function of preventing competition for power, and this is tied in with the fact that preventing people from making mistakes leads to immature people. The sooner a person is allowed to learn from thee actions, the more mature society will be and the less centralized the power structure will be. Let people negotiate and experience negotiations an consequences from the first person perspective in the name o humanity. There is no coherent argument for slavery.
I originally intended this thread to be about protection agencies catering exclusively to the niche market of minor-attracted adults. If you think sexual activity between adults and children is always rape, there is still the quagmire of children being raised by minor-attracted adults with their own protection agencies. Other protection agencies cannot be expected to fund a prolonged conflict to protect people who are not even paying customers.
From what I understand, human beings don't develop sex drives until puberty, which coincides with sexual maturity.
This is what the perverts at the Baby Center have to say: (http://www.babycenter.com/0_masturbation_11558.bc)
That said, toddlers masturbate because it feels good, and the good feelings can be as pleasurable for her as they are for adults. "A toddler may masturbate herself to orgasm," says Zweiback [nurse practitioner and family consultant] "complete with panting, red face, and a big sigh at the end. But it's absolutely not something to be worried about."
It would be a notable exception if the legalization of consensual sex with minors didn't result in the spontaneous establishment of formal and informal rules of conduct.
On the one hand, many (if not most) children - especially young children - don't understand the point behind adult sexual behavior. That's why pedophiles apparently present sexual activity to children as though it's just a game for them to play.
Adults usually treat sexual activity as though it is a game they play. Why shouldn't they? It would be a naturalistic fallacy to presume that the point behind adult sexual behavior ought to be reproduction. In practice, the intended point is usually to induce pleasure. In an open and legal environment, relationships would be more likely to develop in communities and social networks where children are more knowledgable about sex.
On the other hand, most children apparently just don't want to engage in that kind of behavior.
Testimony: Expressed Childhood Sexuality (http://newgon.com/wiki/Testimony:_Expressed_childhood_sexuality)
IMO money makes the world go round.
Since I think they're self-owners, I think they have the right to refuse any invitations or enticements of that sort. Anyone who then coerces them to engage in that behavior anyway is IMO guilty of sexual assault, if not outright rape.
...and vice versa.