Copium
Not so Well-known Member
- Mar 3, 2024
- 178
- 216
The Pedophile Manifesto
– by Joseph Sneep
This document shall be the definitive outline of my beliefs pertaining to pedophilia. My arguments in favor of it and my rebuttals to arguments against it. I hold to the belief that there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. By which I mean how it is defined in psychiatry. An individual aged sixteen years old or older who is attracted to another individual eleven years old or younger. In other words one who is attracted to prepubescents.
I also support minor attracted people. Those who may not be attracted to prepubescents but are attracted to those under the age of consent or societal norm. I think that it's important to define the terms here so that there are no misconceptions. I'm not using pedophile in the way that society often uses the word, that being calling a man in his twenties attracted to girls sixteen or seventeen a pedophile when they have already gone through puberty, It's also important to note that not everyone who is a pedophile acts on their attractions. Pedophile simply implies the attraction. This is important because people often use the term predator, child molester, and pedophile interchangeably. In reality these three are all different from each other. There are pedophiles who are in favor of more societal acceptance for pedophiles but do not believe that sexual access to children is moral or ever will be moral. There's a group of these individuals who call themselves 'Virtuous Pedophiles' and I take great issue with them for numerable reasons. Because I am someone who is not only in favor of normalizing pedophilic attractions but also in that the government and society at large should recognize romantic and sexual pedophilic relationships as moral and therefore not criminal.
Not only do I say that there is nothing wrong with this attraction I would say that it is even a virtue and the relationships can be just as good if not often times better than the alternative. I believe that the so-called 'Virtuous Pedophiles' (VirPed for short) who advocate normalizing their attractions but would never would dare to even think of bringing up the possibility of the idea that sexual access to children is moral are gas-lighters.
Their name itself presupposes that any individual or pedophile that disagrees with them are not virtuous people and that they are morally superior. While I agree with them that pedophilic attractions should be destigmatized, in truth I think that they are brainwashed by societies propaganda into psychological slavery. I do not wish to associate with them as they do not wish to associate with me or people who share in my beliefs.
Speaking of assumptions, In my years of experience of discussing this topic with people and arguing in favor of pedophilia many of the same arguments are brought up time and time again. Their praxis hinges on many faulty assumptions and logically inconsistent argumentation. Most notably the notion that children aren't able to give meaningful consent because their brains have not matured to the point to fully comprehend sex along with the potential risks. Underneath this veneer of moralizing however lies something more sinister. I think it's reasonable to say that many people are simply disgusted by the idea of older teenagers and adults having sexual contact with prepubescent children. So they will argue anything they can to limit it happening.
This really comes from the falsehood of 'childhood innocence', gynocentrism, and the idea that sex is only for adults. This is evident in the fact that people harass and witch-hunt those who enjoy lolicon hentai. Which is basically pornographic drawn art of young anime girls or lolis as they are called. These are mere drawings and yet people want to ban it and berate those who partake of it simply because it resembles young girls. We're talking about entirely fictional scenarios here. I think that's sufficient evidence to indicate people's true intentions when it comes to this.
To really kick this off, what constitutes a 'child' itself is rather vague and is really pretty subjective and is mostly influenced by cultural values. I would say in the Anglo-American world, that is to include other first world English speaking countries as well, eighteen is generally viewed as the age in which one reaches adulthood. This has certainly not been the case for all of history and neither for the rest of the world today.
It's important to bring this up because where you draw the line at child and adult does have significance because words have meaning. It's clear to see that the age in which someone takes up certain responsibilities can be dictated by a society, when in reality we're all individuals so everybody is ready for certain things at different times. I don't believe that there's a true one-sized fits all solution for pretty much anything. Because that's ultimately what adulthood is in the anthropological sense, the age in which one assumes a certain level of responsibility not once held. I believe everyone reaches this age at different times in their lives so maybe the way we view it should be based on individual traits or characteristics and not necessarily an age set by the state.
With all that out of the way I would like to reiterate that I don't view sex as exclusively for adults while simultaneously I believe that what is widely considered to be 'adult age' to be a misnomer. For example I would categorize any girl that has started menstruating as a young woman, not a little girl. Though the rest of society currently doesn't see it that way, For clarification of what exactly I advocate for and what needs to change is, setting the age of consent for sexual intercourse at ten years old but also younger ages of consent if the parents or guardians of the child give partial consent. Set it up like it used to be in the United States. Saying that a child's brain is not fully developed therefore they can't have sex is tantamount to saying that they shouldn't be allowed to learn anything. Sex can be introduced to children just like anything else. You wouldn't teach a small child algebra before you teach them about basic arithmetic. My point being that you have to start from somewhere and introducing sex to children is not inherently harmful. The real reason why sex with children may be “harmful” in today's society is because society treats it as something awful. They demonize those who do it and participate in it. They view the children involved as victims regardless if they gave informed consent. People will often bring up anecdotal evidence saying that they had sexual contact with someone older when they were young and had a bad experience therefore it should be illegal. This is not much different from trying a new food and finding out that you don't like it and have an allergy to it. Maybe you just didn't like it and maybe it caused some pain or discomfort in some way but after the allergies go away there's no permanent damage. Just because someone's allergic to or doesn't like a certain food doesn't mean we ban it for everyone. Another example given would be when parents sign their children up for sports or extracurricular activities the children might not be interested in it at first but might grow to enjoy it and continue doing it later in life.
– by Joseph Sneep
This document shall be the definitive outline of my beliefs pertaining to pedophilia. My arguments in favor of it and my rebuttals to arguments against it. I hold to the belief that there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. By which I mean how it is defined in psychiatry. An individual aged sixteen years old or older who is attracted to another individual eleven years old or younger. In other words one who is attracted to prepubescents.
I also support minor attracted people. Those who may not be attracted to prepubescents but are attracted to those under the age of consent or societal norm. I think that it's important to define the terms here so that there are no misconceptions. I'm not using pedophile in the way that society often uses the word, that being calling a man in his twenties attracted to girls sixteen or seventeen a pedophile when they have already gone through puberty, It's also important to note that not everyone who is a pedophile acts on their attractions. Pedophile simply implies the attraction. This is important because people often use the term predator, child molester, and pedophile interchangeably. In reality these three are all different from each other. There are pedophiles who are in favor of more societal acceptance for pedophiles but do not believe that sexual access to children is moral or ever will be moral. There's a group of these individuals who call themselves 'Virtuous Pedophiles' and I take great issue with them for numerable reasons. Because I am someone who is not only in favor of normalizing pedophilic attractions but also in that the government and society at large should recognize romantic and sexual pedophilic relationships as moral and therefore not criminal.
Not only do I say that there is nothing wrong with this attraction I would say that it is even a virtue and the relationships can be just as good if not often times better than the alternative. I believe that the so-called 'Virtuous Pedophiles' (VirPed for short) who advocate normalizing their attractions but would never would dare to even think of bringing up the possibility of the idea that sexual access to children is moral are gas-lighters.
Their name itself presupposes that any individual or pedophile that disagrees with them are not virtuous people and that they are morally superior. While I agree with them that pedophilic attractions should be destigmatized, in truth I think that they are brainwashed by societies propaganda into psychological slavery. I do not wish to associate with them as they do not wish to associate with me or people who share in my beliefs.
Speaking of assumptions, In my years of experience of discussing this topic with people and arguing in favor of pedophilia many of the same arguments are brought up time and time again. Their praxis hinges on many faulty assumptions and logically inconsistent argumentation. Most notably the notion that children aren't able to give meaningful consent because their brains have not matured to the point to fully comprehend sex along with the potential risks. Underneath this veneer of moralizing however lies something more sinister. I think it's reasonable to say that many people are simply disgusted by the idea of older teenagers and adults having sexual contact with prepubescent children. So they will argue anything they can to limit it happening.
This really comes from the falsehood of 'childhood innocence', gynocentrism, and the idea that sex is only for adults. This is evident in the fact that people harass and witch-hunt those who enjoy lolicon hentai. Which is basically pornographic drawn art of young anime girls or lolis as they are called. These are mere drawings and yet people want to ban it and berate those who partake of it simply because it resembles young girls. We're talking about entirely fictional scenarios here. I think that's sufficient evidence to indicate people's true intentions when it comes to this.
To really kick this off, what constitutes a 'child' itself is rather vague and is really pretty subjective and is mostly influenced by cultural values. I would say in the Anglo-American world, that is to include other first world English speaking countries as well, eighteen is generally viewed as the age in which one reaches adulthood. This has certainly not been the case for all of history and neither for the rest of the world today.
It's important to bring this up because where you draw the line at child and adult does have significance because words have meaning. It's clear to see that the age in which someone takes up certain responsibilities can be dictated by a society, when in reality we're all individuals so everybody is ready for certain things at different times. I don't believe that there's a true one-sized fits all solution for pretty much anything. Because that's ultimately what adulthood is in the anthropological sense, the age in which one assumes a certain level of responsibility not once held. I believe everyone reaches this age at different times in their lives so maybe the way we view it should be based on individual traits or characteristics and not necessarily an age set by the state.
With all that out of the way I would like to reiterate that I don't view sex as exclusively for adults while simultaneously I believe that what is widely considered to be 'adult age' to be a misnomer. For example I would categorize any girl that has started menstruating as a young woman, not a little girl. Though the rest of society currently doesn't see it that way, For clarification of what exactly I advocate for and what needs to change is, setting the age of consent for sexual intercourse at ten years old but also younger ages of consent if the parents or guardians of the child give partial consent. Set it up like it used to be in the United States. Saying that a child's brain is not fully developed therefore they can't have sex is tantamount to saying that they shouldn't be allowed to learn anything. Sex can be introduced to children just like anything else. You wouldn't teach a small child algebra before you teach them about basic arithmetic. My point being that you have to start from somewhere and introducing sex to children is not inherently harmful. The real reason why sex with children may be “harmful” in today's society is because society treats it as something awful. They demonize those who do it and participate in it. They view the children involved as victims regardless if they gave informed consent. People will often bring up anecdotal evidence saying that they had sexual contact with someone older when they were young and had a bad experience therefore it should be illegal. This is not much different from trying a new food and finding out that you don't like it and have an allergy to it. Maybe you just didn't like it and maybe it caused some pain or discomfort in some way but after the allergies go away there's no permanent damage. Just because someone's allergic to or doesn't like a certain food doesn't mean we ban it for everyone. Another example given would be when parents sign their children up for sports or extracurricular activities the children might not be interested in it at first but might grow to enjoy it and continue doing it later in life.
