Update

pedophilia.md

@@ -20,8 +20,12 @@ Even though one cannot choose this orientation and even though pedophiles don't
 
 In 15th century an unofficial version of the Bible, the Wycliffe's translation, was officially declared a heretic work and its possession was forbidden under penalty of prison, torture and excommunication. That's what we still do today, just with works violating a different kind of orthodoxy. We are literally still living in the middle ages.
 
+Part of the strategy of fueling the hysteria is **strictly separating people into two groups: pedophiles and non-pedophiles** -- "evil" and "good", "us" and "them" -- to which strict age of consent and labels such as "disorder" are great helpers. While with topics such as [autism](autism.md), sexes, genders and approved sexual orientations the pseudoleft pushes the idea of a "spectrum" and "fluidity", i.e. people not simply being one or another but having individual mixes of certain attributes (which is likely correct but many times taken to misleading extremes), with pedophilia they refuse to acknowledge the same, i.e. that some people may be attracted to mature people and other people are attracted to younger people and other ones to very young people or simply all people, and that some people are attracted to younger people a lot and others just mildly, and that some people become interested in sex at 18 years of age while other ones at 15, 11 or even younger. Nature is like this, no one can in his right mind believe that biology will obey human laws and separate humans into two distinct, clearly separated groups.
+
 **Can a child consent?** Rather ask if you have good enough reason to prevent it from what it wants to do and what is natural for its healthy development. Can a child consent for going out of house? What if someone abducts it there? What if a car runs it over? Better lock it at home until it's 18 and it's no longer on you if it dies, right? Doesn't matter it will grow up to be a pale unsocialized monster with depression who never saw sunlight, only if it's physically safe and you are legally safe. People nowadays have more trouble with sex than ever before, they don't know what gender they are, they have trouble dating, stay virgins, don't have kids, commit suicides. This wasn't the case in times when this supposed "law protection" didn't exist, how can that be? It's because this "protection" is actually a curse, it makes big deal out of sex, purposefully establishes a [stigma](stigmatization.md) and prevents natural development at everyone's pace. It labels people monsters for being attracted to the wrong age group, it labels them marked for life for having been touched by someone from a different age group, it label art a work of Satan if it shows a natural human body. It prohibits the depiction of young face because someone might find it pretty. This you think is a good society? Think again then.
 
+The idea of needing consent itself is also not the best one -- yes, non-consensual sex is considered [rape](rape.md), but that's only by [shortcut thinking](shortcut_thinking.md). Everyone nowadays seems to accept without questioning that sexual behavior without consent must be prevented at all cost, but does it have to be so? It is given (at least by [our](lrs.md) standards) that physical harm to anyone is always bad -- there is no question about that -- but not all non-consensual sexual behavior ("rape") causes physical harm, most harm of what's today called "rape" is probably psychological, which stems from cultural stigmatization. If a guy squeezes a girl's breast without consent, he doesn't physically hurt her in any way, the girl is completely fine, it's just that society will tell her she was "raped" by this and should now start suffering from PTSD, she's labeled a "victim", assigned a psychiatrist, will be pumped with drugs and told she has an increased chance of committing suicide now. In a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) this would simply not be the case, mild non-consensual sexual behavior such as touching, spying, masturbation etc. might be at worst as much harmful as for example non-consensual small talk or farting in someone's presence without his approval. Again, physically harming someone is WRONG, but do we have to equate such an extreme form of rape with slapping a girl's ass? By doing so we are probably hurting the "victims" more than the "offenders". But again, this helps separate people into two groups: "raped" and "not raped", "victims" and "predators" and so on.
+
 { For example one issue (that I might have heard from someone as a first hand experience): teenagers are often sexually interested in other teenagers rather than adults, but they cannot find teenager porn on the Internet. This not only discriminates them, but forces them to seek adult porn and adult partners, and any such kind of forcing may be quite harmful, especially at the age of crucial sexual development (note that sexual interaction with an adult is not the harmful thing, harmful is forcing someone to do something else than he desires and needs). ~drummyfish }
 
 Is there evidence that children can enjoy sex? Sure, tons of it, but this evidence is literally illegal, it's called "child porn", even if it's not porn and if it's not treated as porn at all (e.g. if you just want to use it for research), you will ruin your life sometimes just by saying those words out loud. Let's repeat this: viewing, possession and sharing of this kind of evidence is illegal, and not only that, it is extremely culturally demonized, i.e. it's not the kind of "I stole a bubble gum" illegal, it's the kind of heresy, witchcraft, lynching kind of illegal, you may not officially get a death sentence but it is suggested that if angry mod kills you, the court will leave that be because it was understandable, so you can very easily get a de facto mafia style death sentence. Doesn't this perhaps remind you of some kind of medieval age?