Dan Cilley Creates New Forum Website Allowing Discussion of Pure Virgin Females

[WanderingProtagonist]

A child under the age of consent cannot consent, unless she is married (in most states where it is legal to have sex with a minor if you are married to her). A child can consent if a parent and judge have approved the marriage, and sexual intercourse happens in a state where there is a marriage exception to statutory rape. It is legal to have sex with a minor to whom an adult is married (in most states).

No! A child cannot give consent to something they don't understand. The part that you quoted I'm referring to anyone under the age of 14. How can a child consent to sex? It's just sickening! Do you believe an animal can consent to sex if its owner gives it permission and a judge approves the act of beastiality? In both cases this is just abuse and nothing more than that.

The social convention of marriage changes nothing and is just a convenient smokescreen for people like you to justify taking a young adolescent as a kind of slave bride. I agree with something @CaptainSkelebob2 said a while ago that I thought was pretty funny. "The only gated community you belong in is prison."

Everyone is attracted to teenagers, but they are uncomfortable going there mentally. They may find it difficult to admit that they are attracted to teenagers. You are not attracted to teenagers? You weren't attracted to girls in high school?

Of course I was attracted to teenagers in high school. I was socially awkward and never acted on it though. I think a lot of guys might find teenagers attractive physically, but it's their childlike mentality which stops most normal guys. I think that's why the sexy schoolgirl outfit works for some guys, but they generally have it on a women who is fully mature. Still, I think the whole thing is pretty weird. I don't get the fascination.

Females don't have to be mentally mature in order to marry and produce babies and take care of them. Doing so is automatic--it's the most natural thing, like breathing air or drinking water when you're thirsty, or eating food when you are hungry. You are just parroting what the mainstream media says. The mainstream media wants everyone to believe that teen girls are incapable of being a good mother, that childbirth is a medical emergency, that raising children requires nearly a million dollars per child, etc. Only if a female is mentally abnormal--a sociopath or psychopath or schizophrenic or something like that--would she be unfit to be a mother. But normal, healthy girls of menstruating age won't have a problem taking care of children. What's so difficult about that? Does that require a lot of brain power? Maturity that only older females possess? Girls aren't able to take care of children? They will neglect them and let them die?

Are you a parent? Do you have any idea how much effort and responsibility goes into raising a child? You wouldn't have a f***ing clue! Adolescents do not make good parents. They're little more than children themselves. A girl should enjoy some freedom before dedicating her life to raising a child.

I've seen teen mothers pushing prams down the street with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth. They look rough as f**k and probably don't know the first thing about raising a child. And neither do you. How can someone who can barely look after themselves be responsible for looking after someone else?

All women are children anyway. Females are not really designed to navigate the outside world; they are designed to be at home and have someone else guide them (their father or husband). They cannot handle the stress of the "real world." They thrive when indoors and protected from the elements. If they have a job, it is usually indoors. They thrive when at home under the financial care and physical protection of a man (living in a safe location isolated from crime). If limited to the home environment where they don't worry about finances at all because the husband takes care of that, then females thrive. They don't have to have a fully developed frontal lobe or whatever; the man requires that in order to be competitive in the employment marketplace; the female does not require the brainpower and discipline that managing money and going to work each day requires. The female gets to stay home, and the sounds and actions of her baby automatically cause her to act to provide appropriate care for the baby.

When a man goes to work, it feels good if he applies energy and action toward the production of income (resources). In other words, when he goes out and "makes a killing" and "brings home the bacon," it makes him feel good. When a woman does the same, it doesn't make her feel good, but she rather feels a sense of resentment and sadness that she has to be the one to do that (because a man is expected to). What makes her feel good is if she is around other females and men and is accepted and feels attractive. Purely making money doesn't make women happy because it's not built into them to; that's the man's job. Women are biologically programmed to receive resources from men. When at work, women do not work hard, unless to show off and get attention so that a potential husband takes notice. They cannot just focus on the work and earn money. They always have to be around other people and talking. They hate working. At least when a man works, he is motivated to work because when he earns the money and sees that paycheck, he gets to attract females and support his family. All women are oriented toward receiving attention and resources from a man; when a female is in a social environment, what gratifies her is when men are attracted to her, and women are friendly to her and provide emotional support. The proof of this is that women do not do jobs in which people are not close by (unless they are a masculine, lesbian female). If they are working as a telephone customer service representative at home, she very probably has a child in the home with her, but again, she is working a job where she is talking to people. They are very rarely truck drivers, security guards at night, firefighters, welders, electricians, plumbers, electrical linemen, etc. They don't have passion to really get their hands dirty and earn money. They may be a nurse who works 12-hour shifts, but they only do that because it is a last resort because they are too old to attract a husband who can fully provide financially for her, so they have to work, but their job is in a hospital where they are around a lot of people, and nurse jobs are by default 12-hour shifts; they can't work shorter shifts. All females who are married and who have a husband who makes good enough money stay home; they do not work. You may see women work as waitresses, but they are single or they are a single mother, and again, they are around a lot of people. It is very unnatural for a female to work outside the home. They must be under a huge amount of stress working outside the home and not being married. They are in a state of crisis and are hoping to market themselves to a potential husband. And if they are married and working outside the home, they aren't just working for extra income--what they are doing, is hoping to find a better husband who would earn enough money that would enable them to stay home. In a lot of cases, women just don't get married unless they can find a husband who would enable them to stay home; because what's the point of being married if she has to go to work each day? The husband doesn't want her to be around other men anyway.

The female is simply a vessel through which the man produces children, and she should also be a good cook. She provides domestic comfort (as Coach Red Pill said--R.I.P. by the way). What makes a wife not good is if she is a drug addict, alcoholic, marijuana addict, adulterer, etc. If she is pure and totally focused on the husband and family, everything is good. Aging from 13 to 18 will not improve a female's ability to be a good wife and mother. It will probably have the opposite effect due to if she has had experience with other males already, whom will attempt to communicate with her and distract her, or at least will interfere with her ability to pair-bond and give her husband undivided attention.

And here we reach the crux of it all. This quote right here demonstrates exactly what I said to @WanderingProtagonist about you. That you're a perverted little narc who just sees women as walking meat marionettes to be used and f***ed and controlled by her husband and confined to the house, penned up like cattle.

Hey, @Lucas88 doesn't this rant above remind you of these other tradcon losers who think women should be penned up like animals and have no freedom or thoughts of their own?

That isn't a mentality of someone who is looking for a loving relationship based on mutual respect and authentic love. That's just the ramblings of an incel beta male who wants to create a sexual communism which ensures women don't get a say in anything that happens to them and incels can trick them into marriage when they're young and impressionable and their brains haven't even fully developed.

I think it's disgusting personally.

I really don't care anymore about this discussion, most men don't bother to control their women anymore anyway because they don't have what it takes to lead in the first place which is why their ass is getting colonized by men from hostile cultures.
African and Muslim men don't believe in that gender equality shit that's why women don't run their societies or have any say in their laws and governance. And these aren't entirely Tradcon males either, they just come from a world where men hold power and women do not, they also see how cucked the West really is after giving women equal rights or too much of it with all of it's "Equality" and are exploiting and taking full advantage of it.

Various tribes do things differently. But that doesn't make them weak. You can't think of every relationship from a Western point of view Pixel...In some tribes women really can't do much without the man's say so, but it's part of their culture and the woman is aware of this but still does not complain and is very content with serving her husband in that manner. Look how in America Muslim women still prefer to be with their highly dominant husbands. They have the freedom to leave them to be with someone who will allow them to have a lot of freedom but do they give up on their men because of this? No, so it's obvious they find these traits attractive about their own men. Other wise they could just leave and date or marry one of the many cucked out Western white males who will just let her lead and he follows her like a puppy dog. Or he gets her to f**k some negro in front of him so he can jerk off to it and pretend how he inferior he is to him.

I mean hell I've had girls outright get upset just because I wouldn't try to control them. But these were mostly colored women, and colored women will test how dominant you are in a relationship. The only time they don't do that is when they get involved with someone who isn't the same ethnicity as they are. But I'm light skinned and partially mixed. But since my mother is black that means I'm half so I still get the shit test from black women treatment. Overall it depends on the woman but there's a reason black women get overlooked so much and it's because of their unwillingness to be easily dominated/controlled.

They love to shit test first and get combative vs just allowing you to walk into their life and have control over them, they won't make it easy unless you are a white male. I see nothing wrong with traditional relationships. I wouldn't mind having a traditional relationship either. As for Lucas, I'm sure he doesn't to much care. He doesn't even do committed relationships. either way each culture is different. In Native circles women did the nurturing and caring for the home. The men did the hunting and brought the food home for the wife to cook it. There were roles that were important in these tribes, and today some are still like this. A man doesn't have to abuse his woman, but the truth is, we can look at society today and see what giving women too much freedom has done for society....THEY f***ed IT UP with help from all the weak passive males.

As for Dancilly, -shrugs- this seems rather pointless debating back and forth about the subject at hand.
Might as well just consider it a case closed.

[MrMan]

How the f**k can a 5 year old consent to sex? If your daughter was 5 years old and got abducted by the ice cream man and he had "consensual sex" with her but the courts didn't do anything about it because she consented. How would you feel about that?

Maybe you are missing a word in your English vocabulary. This is the first Oxford Language definition that pops up for 'consent.'
"permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
"no change may be made without the consent of all the partners""

A five-year-old could very easily consent to drinking antifreeze. If you gave the child a glass of the green stuff and said it took a few gulps, but it starts to taste exactly like a green pop sickle, the child just might give full consent to drink it. That doesn't make it ethical. Legally, that consent doesn't count for much in a murder trial.

In recent decades, the word 'consent' has started to be used in a way to refer to legal consent. People say a woman can't consent to sex when she's drunk-- an issue brought on by fornicators taking over the culture and it being considered normal to hook up, mixed with some of the people being drunk for hooked up. For children, since their consent to sex doesn't count, we hear that they cannot consent.

So there are probably legal systems that align with what you are saying with the way you use consent because lawmakers are affected by the rhetoric, which isn't literally true.

Literally, if a pervert talked a little kid into sex, or drinking motor oil, or chopping off a body part, that child is 'consenting.' If you drug someone and get them to agree to something, that person is literally consenting. There are probably some legal systems that have jumped on the rhetoric and said it is considered that they cannot 'consent', but from the normal historical use of the word, they can't. The law doesn't count the consent as worth anything because it is illegal to have sex with a child or the person was not in a condition to make the decision.

Some statutory rapes are also real rapes. Some statutory rapes are just statutory rapes. The 17-year-old-girl says to her boyfriend on his 18th birthday the same thing she said the week before, "Stick it in me." In both cases, she consented. But when he turned 18, legally, that was statutory rape. In both cases, her consent did not count because she was underage. Some legal system may say she did not 'consent.' I don't know. I haven't found one. As far as I know, 'She cannot consent' is rhetoric', but I suspect it is in some legal system. And all this depends on which legal system because ages differ in different states and countries.

I was fine with the old fornication statutes where adults who had sex outside of marriage could be jailed, and adulterers, too, though I would be more in favor of the state punishing adultery and same-sex activities than fornication. And 20 years in prison, one punishment I've seen, doesn't seem particularly helpful. I don't think our whole prison system is set up in a useful way.

Where a 5-year-old consents or not to drinking antifreeze or having sex, I believe it should be illegal for an adult to entice a child. I think the penalties of a real rape of a 17-year-old should be more severe than one that is only _statutory._ A lot of statutory rapes are not real rapes because the 17-year-old agreed or could have even been eager and seductive about it in some cases. He also didn't kidnap or carry her off anywhere, so it isn't 'rape' in the sense of the meaning of the original Latin word. But they use the word 'rape' in a special legal sense of 'statutory rape' where it is considered rape by statute, even though it was not necessarily nonconsensual. Clearly, an 18-year-old who grabs a random 17-year-old girl in an alley and destroys her hymen to satisfy his lust is doing something worse than the 18-year-old who fornicates with his willing 17-year-old girlfriend who he plans to be in love with forever.

There's a reason why these laws are in place, it's not because the government want to stop promiscuous children from procreation, its to protect them from f***ing creeps and weirdos that see children as sexual objects. The fact that the child has no idea about any of the things you mentioned such as the ethical or medical dimensions or the suffering that awaits or even the fact that they don't (or shouldn't) know what sex is is testament to the fact that they cannot give consent! Consent needs to be informed consent for it to even matter.

Duh! Look up consent in the dictionary. The new definition of the word 'consent' you are using is just made up. At best, it's a legal definition. At worst, it's rhetoric used by anti-rape activists. I agree perverts shouldn't trick kids into having sex or rape them. But lets not forget what words mean, and let's recognize when words are being redefined. It can also be a bit confusing to the kids in the situation if they are told they did not consent when they did. Telling them it's wrong for an adult to do that to them even if they agreed to it makes more sense.

Informed consent should absolutely be a law to protect children and animals from assholes who would see them as sexual objects.

I thought you said children can't consent. Now children and animals are supposed to be able to give informed consent? How do you inform the animal? I think they should execute people who have sex with animals, not because of animal rights, but because it is nasty, defiling, and perverted.

At least a 17 year old knows what she is consenting to. The two age ranges cannot be similarly compared as the mindsets are completely different!

So do you think it should be illegal if a 17-year-old, whose parents agree, to get married if she knows what she is consenting to? Whether 16, 17, or 18 is the right age, some kind of magic threshold a woman passes through, that's all arbitrary. I don't judge cultures where teens marry. I don't judge my ancestors for that. Practically, her body needs to have matured enough to have children. I think men who marry really young girls thinking they can 'control them' (and does anyone think that besides their critiques), they might be in for a big surprise. But if it works out that marrying a woman as a teen causes the relationship to be such that the man is in charge, that is an argument in favor of it, and not against it. A man can be in charge in the relationship and be a loving and caring person.

Still, as a father, I don't want some 40-year-old guy wanting to date my daughters. If they are in their 20's, and the 40-year-old is really a great guy, it's a hypothetical possibility, but not my first choice. I've got a 20-something niece in Indonesia who lived in my home when she was a baby, and my wife suggested matching her up with a man around 40. If you see a man who is single who is a moral, decent man, who just never got married, what is wrong with that? She didn't want a 'kakek'-- grandpa, preferring younger men. There are advantages to younger women marrying older men-- a calm, stable, maybe financially stable man. The older guys might just chase the younger women around for sex just the right amount without wearing them out too much when they are married, but when he gets in his 50s or 60s she might be chasing him.

I hear this women's brains developing until they are 25 stuff from feminists who don't want old wrinkly men dating teenagers (instead of them?). Don't men's brains develop until we are about 25? It seems like our bodies are the same. It's like uphill to 25, then maybe a plateau for years, or one with a slight incline, then stuff starts to gradually deteriorate, then pick up steam. If a young woman's brain is developing and she's old enough to have children and reasonably take care of a household, and marrying during the brain development time locks her into being bonded to her husband or something like that, early marriage during brain development, pre-25, could be a good thing.

No. Is this some other fantasy you just pulled right out of your ass? The development of the prefrontal cortex in the brain is neuroscience and not some evil feminist propaganda designed to stop old men banging young women. You can't just discount legitimate science just because it doesn't coincide with some delusion traditionalist prison world fantasy you Christians have.

No, I'm talking about using this as a justification for women staying single until they are old. People have been getting married before age 25 for thousands of years. If the prefrontal context is still developing, so what? If a man marrying a woman and getting her locked into certain ways as a wife, and her having children before 25 gets her locked into certain ways of thinking before 25, why would that be a bad thing? Men's brains are developing until 25. It's not just a female thing. Would you outlaw marriage or sex before 25 for men? Should this be illegal for men?

Does complete prefrontal cortex development make a woman a better girlfriend? A better date? A better wife? Does it make her better in bed? Does it make her cook better? Does it make her a better lover? Some of those answers might even be 'yes' in some cases. I suspect when were are talking about 18 versus 25, improvements are incremental.

Old women who chose career over marriage, who want men to date older women like themselves might complain about the men they like dating girls under 25, using prefrontal context development as an excuse to make people think it is immoral for men to go after girls in their early 20's. They also want everyone to think it is immoral for a man to pursue a woman if he is 'old enough to be her father' or if there is a 10 or 15 year age gap. But it's none of their business. And if we are going to embrace 18 as our arbitrary age of legal adulthood, then age shouldn't be a question, legally, when it comes to marriage after 18. People shouldn't be forced to hold off living their lives until they turn 25.

Man's back hair may not fully develop until he is in his 40's. So should men hold off marriage and sex until their 40's. Male pattern baldness may not fully develop until they are senior citizens. Women's breast-sag may not fully develop until they are senior citizens. If we had to hold of relationships because of prefrontal cortex development, why not wait for back hair, baldness, or breast-sag development, too?

In saying the above, I don't totally disagree with what you said. There is nothing wrong with someone being there to guide her through these later stages of cognitive development. Maybe not a man twice her age though. I don't see anything wrong with a ten year age gap for example.

Well, when you see couples in real life that you don't know, I hope you take an 'It's none of my business attitude." As far as morality goes, what I would be concerned with are issues like sex outside of marriage, whether one of them has been divorced, if they are close relatives, whether they love each other, whether she is willing to submit to him and respect him if she marries him, if they are of the same faith, and if her father gives her away. Other than issues like that, if an 18-year-old girl wants to marry a 60-year-old man, I wouldn't say it is immoral or should be illegal.

On the other hand, as an issue of wisdom, why would an 18-year-old girl want to marry a grandpa. He'd be an old father, and average life expectancy is lower than the date the child would be expected to graduate school. Why would a young person want to kiss someone wrinkly. What about sexual mismatch. A 20-year-old with a 40 year old? There could be a mismatch of sexual drives in 20 years. The age of the children issue is there, but it is less. If he's 30 or 35 and she's 20-- these other issues may be less, and he might still look young for her. The age gap may put him in a situation where he has a lot more power in the relationship if he isn't a simp. If he's good to her, him having more power can be a big plus, both for him, and for her, IMO. Women say they want power, but then don't respect men they can push around, even the ornery feminists.

A young man marrying an older woman? I don't think it should be illegal, and I do not think it is immoral except for issues mentioned above. I do wonder why a man would want to give up years of tight pretty skin, etc. on a woman, but maybe he fell in love with the 30-year-old and wants that particular one. The negative side is if there is a dynamic where she is in charge or tries to mother him. That's not good for a marriage relationship.

I'd say for me personally that 20 is the absolute youngest I would go for. Any younger than that would just do my f***ing crust in.

I don't know how old you are. But you are talking about a girl now whose prefrontal cortex is not developed. The PREFRONTAL CORTEX! Are you against science, man!

[Pixel--Dude]

How the f**k can a 5 year old consent to sex? If your daughter was 5 years old and got abducted by the ice cream man and he had "consensual sex" with her but the courts didn't do anything about it because she consented. How would you feel about that?

Maybe you are missing a word in your English vocabulary. This is the first Oxford Language definition that pops up for 'consent.'
"permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
"no change may be made without the consent of all the partners""

A five-year-old could very easily consent to drinking antifreeze. If you gave the child a glass of the green stuff and said it took a few gulps, but it starts to taste exactly like a green pop sickle, the child just might give full consent to drink it. That doesn't make it ethical. Legally, that consent doesn't count for much in a murder trial.

In recent decades, the word 'consent' has started to be used in a way to refer to legal consent. People say a woman can't consent to sex when she's drunk-- an issue brought on by fornicators taking over the culture and it being considered normal to hook up, mixed with some of the people being drunk for hooked up. For children, since their consent to sex doesn't count, we hear that they cannot consent.

So there are probably legal systems that align with what you are saying with the way you use consent because lawmakers are affected by the rhetoric, which isn't literally true.

Literally, if a pervert talked a little kid into sex, or drinking motor oil, or chopping off a body part, that child is 'consenting.' If you drug someone and get them to agree to something, that person is literally consenting. There are probably some legal systems that have jumped on the rhetoric and said it is considered that they cannot 'consent', but from the normal historical use of the word, they can't. The law doesn't count the consent as worth anything because it is illegal to have sex with a child or the person was not in a condition to make the decision.

Some statutory rapes are also real rapes. Some statutory rapes are just statutory rapes. The 17-year-old-girl says to her boyfriend on his 18th birthday the same thing she said the week before, "Stick it in me." In both cases, she consented. But when he turned 18, legally, that was statutory rape. In both cases, her consent did not count because she was underage. Some legal system may say she did not 'consent.' I don't know. I haven't found one. As far as I know, 'She cannot consent' is rhetoric', but I suspect it is in some legal system. And all this depends on which legal system because ages differ in different states and countries.

I was fine with the old fornication statutes where adults who had sex outside of marriage could be jailed, and adulterers, too, though I would be more in favor of the state punishing adultery and same-sex activities than fornication. And 20 years in prison, one punishment I've seen, doesn't seem particularly helpful. I don't think our whole prison system is set up in a useful way.

Where a 5-year-old consents or not to drinking antifreeze or having sex, I believe it should be illegal for an adult to entice a child. I think the penalties of a real rape of a 17-year-old should be more severe than one that is only _statutory._ A lot of statutory rapes are not real rapes because the 17-year-old agreed or could have even been eager and seductive about it in some cases. He also didn't kidnap or carry her off anywhere, so it isn't 'rape' in the sense of the meaning of the original Latin word. But they use the word 'rape' in a special legal sense of 'statutory rape' where it is considered rape by statute, even though it was not necessarily nonconsensual. Clearly, an 18-year-old who grabs a random 17-year-old girl in an alley and destroys her hymen to satisfy his lust is doing something worse than the 18-year-old who fornicates with his willing 17-year-old girlfriend who he plans to be in love with forever.

There's a reason why these laws are in place, it's not because the government want to stop promiscuous children from procreation, its to protect them from f***ing creeps and weirdos that see children as sexual objects. The fact that the child has no idea about any of the things you mentioned such as the ethical or medical dimensions or the suffering that awaits or even the fact that they don't (or shouldn't) know what sex is is testament to the fact that they cannot give consent! Consent needs to be informed consent for it to even matter.

Duh! Look up consent in the dictionary. The new definition of the word 'consent' you are using is just made up. At best, it's a legal definition. At worst, it's rhetoric used by anti-rape activists. I agree perverts shouldn't trick kids into having sex or rape them. But lets not forget what words mean, and let's recognize when words are being redefined. It can also be a bit confusing to the kids in the situation if they are told they did not consent when they did. Telling them it's wrong for an adult to do that to them even if they agreed to it makes more sense.

Informed consent should absolutely be a law to protect children and animals from assholes who would see them as sexual objects.

I thought you said children can't consent. Now children and animals are supposed to be able to give informed consent? How do you inform the animal? I think they should execute people who have sex with animals, not because of animal rights, but because it is nasty, defiling, and perverted.

At least a 17 year old knows what she is consenting to. The two age ranges cannot be similarly compared as the mindsets are completely different!

So do you think it should be illegal if a 17-year-old, whose parents agree, to get married if she knows what she is consenting to? Whether 16, 17, or 18 is the right age, some kind of magic threshold a woman passes through, that's all arbitrary. I don't judge cultures where teens marry. I don't judge my ancestors for that. Practically, her body needs to have matured enough to have children. I think men who marry really young girls thinking they can 'control them' (and does anyone think that besides their critiques), they might be in for a big surprise. But if it works out that marrying a woman as a teen causes the relationship to be such that the man is in charge, that is an argument in favor of it, and not against it. A man can be in charge in the relationship and be a loving and caring person.

Still, as a father, I don't want some 40-year-old guy wanting to date my daughters. If they are in their 20's, and the 40-year-old is really a great guy, it's a hypothetical possibility, but not my first choice. I've got a 20-something niece in Indonesia who lived in my home when she was a baby, and my wife suggested matching her up with a man around 40. If you see a man who is single who is a moral, decent man, who just never got married, what is wrong with that? She didn't want a 'kakek'-- grandpa, preferring younger men. There are advantages to younger women marrying older men-- a calm, stable, maybe financially stable man. The older guys might just chase the younger women around for sex just the right amount without wearing them out too much when they are married, but when he gets in his 50s or 60s she might be chasing him.

I hear this women's brains developing until they are 25 stuff from feminists who don't want old wrinkly men dating teenagers (instead of them?). Don't men's brains develop until we are about 25? It seems like our bodies are the same. It's like uphill to 25, then maybe a plateau for years, or one with a slight incline, then stuff starts to gradually deteriorate, then pick up steam. If a young woman's brain is developing and she's old enough to have children and reasonably take care of a household, and marrying during the brain development time locks her into being bonded to her husband or something like that, early marriage during brain development, pre-25, could be a good thing.

No. Is this some other fantasy you just pulled right out of your ass? The development of the prefrontal cortex in the brain is neuroscience and not some evil feminist propaganda designed to stop old men banging young women. You can't just discount legitimate science just because it doesn't coincide with some delusion traditionalist prison world fantasy you Christians have.

No, I'm talking about using this as a justification for women staying single until they are old. People have been getting married before age 25 for thousands of years. If the prefrontal context is still developing, so what? If a man marrying a woman and getting her locked into certain ways as a wife, and her having children before 25 gets her locked into certain ways of thinking before 25, why would that be a bad thing? Men's brains are developing until 25. It's not just a female thing. Would you outlaw marriage or sex before 25 for men? Should this be illegal for men?

Does complete prefrontal cortex development make a woman a better girlfriend? A better date? A better wife? Does it make her better in bed? Does it make her cook better? Does it make her a better lover? Some of those answers might even be 'yes' in some cases. I suspect when were are talking about 18 versus 25, improvements are incremental.

Old women who chose career over marriage, who want men to date older women like themselves might complain about the men they like dating girls under 25, using prefrontal context development as an excuse to make people think it is immoral for men to go after girls in their early 20's. They also want everyone to think it is immoral for a man to pursue a woman if he is 'old enough to be her father' or if there is a 10 or 15 year age gap. But it's none of their business. And if we are going to embrace 18 as our arbitrary age of legal adulthood, then age shouldn't be a question, legally, when it comes to marriage after 18. People shouldn't be forced to hold off living their lives until they turn 25.

Man's back hair may not fully develop until he is in his 40's. So should men hold off marriage and sex until their 40's. Male pattern baldness may not fully develop until they are senior citizens. Women's breast-sag may not fully develop until they are senior citizens. If we had to hold of relationships because of prefrontal cortex development, why not wait for back hair, baldness, or breast-sag development, too?

In saying the above, I don't totally disagree with what you said. There is nothing wrong with someone being there to guide her through these later stages of cognitive development. Maybe not a man twice her age though. I don't see anything wrong with a ten year age gap for example.

Well, when you see couples in real life that you don't know, I hope you take an 'It's none of my business attitude." As far as morality goes, what I would be concerned with are issues like sex outside of marriage, whether one of them has been divorced, if they are close relatives, whether they love each other, whether she is willing to submit to him and respect him if she marries him, if they are of the same faith, and if her father gives her away. Other than issues like that, if an 18-year-old girl wants to marry a 60-year-old man, I wouldn't say it is immoral or should be illegal.

On the other hand, as an issue of wisdom, why would an 18-year-old girl want to marry a grandpa. He'd be an old father, and average life expectancy is lower than the date the child would be expected to graduate school. Why would a young person want to kiss someone wrinkly. What about sexual mismatch. A 20-year-old with a 40 year old? There could be a mismatch of sexual drives in 20 years. The age of the children issue is there, but it is less. If he's 30 or 35 and she's 20-- these other issues may be less, and he might still look young for her. The age gap may put him in a situation where he has a lot more power in the relationship if he isn't a simp. If he's good to her, him having more power can be a big plus, both for him, and for her, IMO. Women say they want power, but then don't respect men they can push around, even the ornery feminists.

A young man marrying an older woman? I don't think it should be illegal, and I do not think it is immoral except for issues mentioned above. I do wonder why a man would want to give up years of tight pretty skin, etc. on a woman, but maybe he fell in love with the 30-year-old and wants that particular one. The negative side is if there is a dynamic where she is in charge or tries to mother him. That's not good for a marriage relationship.

I'd say for me personally that 20 is the absolute youngest I would go for. Any younger than that would just do my f***ing crust in.

I don't know how old you are. But you are talking about a girl now whose prefrontal cortex is not developed. The PREFRONTAL CORTEX! Are you against science, man!

I don't know what you're exactly arguing for here. After reading this it seems that we agree on most things discussed with regard to this topic, but you wanted to write a novella on the definition of the word consent.

Yes, a man pursuing sexual relationships with children is wrong. Abhorrently wrong. My point is that a child at the age of 5 for example, who is under the care of a responsible adult, cannot consent to sexual relationships with an adult man in the same way a dog cannot consent to sexual relationships with an adult. In both cases there is a one sided aspect to it where the other side is getting abused. It's really that simple. We can argue the semantics of the definition of consent and informed consent all you want, but I'd like to give you just enough credit to believe you know what I'm talking about. Both these instances are wrong on every level. It's pretty much universally agreed that this is f***ed up behaviour and should be punishable by a bullet in the head for the abuser in the situation.

A 17 year old is different. She's slightly more adult as she's entered adolescence. We could even argue that girls as young as 14 are biologically physically developed and this is probably why the legal age of consent in some countries is as young as 14. Personally, I don't think it should be. I think young adolescents are more children than adults at that age. Especially if we're talking about mental development.

So we agree on men pursuing children is as sick as men pursuing dogs, right? We also agree, as fathers that we wouldn't want a man in his 40s dating our 18 year old daughters, right? I can say that I agree that most legal ages of consent are arbitrary, but arguably for good reason.

As for your last sanctimonious asshole response I would counter that by saying that firstly I never said that men shouldn't have sex with a woman until she's 25. I merely pointed out that 25 is the age that the prefrontal cortex has fully developed and matured. I said that the youngest woman I would date would be 20 years old because Unlike yourself, who is clearly a senile old man who only sees things in black and white, I see the nuances in things. Mental development is also a spectrum with the least cognitive development (childhood) moving to full development (adulthood 25 years old). Obviously different people will mature faster than others, but at age 14 MOST if not ALL females are still mentally children, or closer to children than adulthood. At age 20 it is the opposite way around. A woman will be more mature and this is what makes her better wife and mother material.

[88jose88]

A man being with a teenage girl who is physically mature enough to have children if he rightly married her with her father's permission and treats her well is not perverted like a man having sex with another man, including men who have fake vaginas.

quoted,so the authorities can see this and take the right actions regarding you.You're sick dude.

consensual sex between two adults is not nearly the same as having sex with a child.

I'm actually shocked and disappointed so many people are on this pedo's side,people are showing their true colors.@Pixel--Dude even wished him a good luck with his pedo forum,and he's a moderator lol

this place deserves to die.

What the hell are you getting hysterical about? So f***ing what if I wished him good luck with his site. What does that prove?

This place deserves to die? What do you mean by that? If you don't like it here then you know where the door is.

I apologize,brother.

please forgive me.

[Pixel--Dude]

A man being with a teenage girl who is physically mature enough to have children if he rightly married her with her father's permission and treats her well is not perverted like a man having sex with another man, including men who have fake vaginas.

quoted,so the authorities can see this and take the right actions regarding you.You're sick dude.

consensual sex between two adults is not nearly the same as having sex with a child.

I'm actually shocked and disappointed so many people are on this pedo's side,people are showing their true colors.@Pixel--Dude even wished him a good luck with his pedo forum,and he's a moderator lol

this place deserves to die.

What the hell are you getting hysterical about? So f***ing what if I wished him good luck with his site. What does that prove?

This place deserves to die? What do you mean by that? If you don't like it here then you know where the door is.

I apologize,brother.

please forgive me.

Don't worry. No apology necessary. I didn't take it personally. Heat of the moment and all that.

[MrMan]

Pixel-Dude,

I posted that after you got on my case for saying kids, etc. can consent. Literally they can. The law doesn't accept it as worth anything because they are kids. Can dogs consent? I don't speak dog. But if they could, it's nasty to do that kind of junk and illegal. Is it worse than sex with kids? It depends. I'd say that's worse than sex with a 16 or 17-year-old human of the opposite sex who isn't married, betrothed, or engaged. Sex with little kids is just plain sick, not to mention cruel. I honestly don't see the attraction to a little girl that doesn't even look like a woman. If she looks like a young woman, I get the attraction on a biological level.

If a woman is stuck at some childish stage of development for life, at some age, she's got to be legal to get married and have sex. I'd imagine a slow woman could get horny and want to make babies just like a college-educated woman, so why deprive her of that because she isn't too bright? I hear people who do drugs can get stuck at the age of maturity where they started the drug use. Some people seem to stay immature for life.

[publicduende]

Pixel-Dude,

I posted that after you got on my case for saying kids, etc. can consent. Literally they can. The law doesn't accept it as worth anything because they are kids. Can dogs consent? I don't speak dog. But if they could, it's nasty to do that kind of junk and illegal. Is it worse than sex with kids? It depends. I'd say that's worse than sex with a 26 or 17-year-old human of the opposite sex who isn't married, betrothed, or engaged. Sex with little kids is just plain sick, not to mention cruel. I honestly don't see the attraction to a little girl that doesn't even look like a woman. If she looks like a young woman, I get the attraction on a biological level.

If a woman is stuck at some childish stage of development for life, at some age, she's got to be legal to get married and have sex. I'd imagine a slow woman could get horny and want to make babies just like a college-educated woman, so why deprive her of that because she isn't too bright? I hear people who do drugs can get stuck at the age of maturity where they started the drug use. Some people seem to stay immature for life.

From a sexual development POV, a kid stops being a kid at around 16. This is why the age of consent is 16 in most countries. Speaking about mental development, as opposed of physical development, the situation can vary greatly. This is why governments tend to err on the safe side and consider a 16-yo girl a pure victim of a much older man's sexual attentions even if she actually possesses enough maturity and judgment to enter that sexual relationships fully consensually.

[CaptainSkelebob2]

I agree with you, fella. This dancilley comes on here talking about underaged girls and posting his creepy stalker videos. What does this fuckwit expect to happen??? He deserves all the mobbing he gets, thats what I say fellas. I know happierabroad is full of nutters and social rejects but we can really do without this repulsive jimmy saville knockoff. I say ban this pedo motherf***er.

When people backpack and tour other countries, they record their adventures, does that make them a stalker because they have people on their video they recorded? They don't get these people's permission to do it either. When I've seen him recording his videos to me it's no different from all the other videos I see on youtube of people recording themselves out in public. You have videos of people who record themselves doing pranks on unexpecting people sometimes even scare attempts. But people find these videos funny instead of accusing the person of stalking or being creepy. Sure Dan makes it easier for people to punch him like a bag because of his looks and some of his interest. "I know happier abroad is full of nutters and social rejects." Exactly, you are one of them. After all no normal healthy minded man I know talks about f***ing trans people while acting like just because some of them removed their dicks, it still passes as "hetero-sex" with them. You gay ass hypocrite. You f**k confused men that believe they are women. Nothing normal about that. Sure I thought about pursuing them myself but not the ones that cut it off. Regardless I wouldn't have been calling myself a full blown hetero male knowing that I wouldn't be. The ones removing their dicks doesn't make it any less gay. You're still gay.

Fella, have you even seen this fruitloops video? He literally talks about stalking those girls as he's doing it!!! Its clear that he's just a f***ing creep who makes those girls feel uncomfortable with his autistic comments and creepy stalker shit. I cant believe some people are defending that shit.

And no, fella. Being attracted to feminine ladyboys doesn't make me gay. The ladyboys I like look like feminine models and have pussies. I like them because they look more feminine than women. Gays are attracted to cock. So I'm not f***ing gay, fella.

Besides. You cant talk. I remember you writing something on here about you using transgender dating sites to date transgenders. If I'm a homo for liking ladyboys then so are you fella!!! Mwaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaa!!! At least I'm man enough to be honest with myself about what I like.

That's exactly what I said. I admitted that I pursued them, the only difference between me and you is that I'm not a closet gay pretending to be straight about it "at least I'm honest about it" no you aren't, if you were honest you would admit that you are still pursuing men who live as women, it's not that confusing. "Oh it's because they don't have cocks!" You're still pursuing a male, them removing their dicks doesn't mean they are automatically women. That's just liberal bullshit. Dick or no dick, they are biologically men, therefore you having sex with them means you f***ed a male. I pursued transsexuals when I was desperate and couldn't meet actual women, and while I know they call themselves "trans-Women" I still stand by the fact that they are males and not real women no matter how hard they want to persuade people into believing it. Just like those Female to Male trans people who claim to be men and then get pregnant while trying to sell the idea "Oh look see how men can really get pregnant?" No the f**k they can't, that's still a goddamn woman.

And no I'm not defending Dan at all, I was just explaining how some people record what they do in public often times involving them recording others. I honestly never even paid Dan that much attention so I don't remember him saying he stalks women or whatever. He has incel like traits except not all incels do what he's doing.

Fella, the fact that you even persued trannies with dicks on dating websites means that you like them. You can talk about desperation all you want. Fact is your attracted to chicks with dicks. That means your far gayer than me, fella. Ive never gone on a transgender dating website looking up chicks with dicks. But you have!!! Your the f***ing homo, fella! You cant f***ing deny it!!!!!!! But I only like postop ladyboys with pussies because they're art. No, they don't have dicks. They have pussies. So I'm not f***ing gay, fella. But you obviously are!!!!!!!!!!

[CaptainSkelebob2]

And no, fella. Being attracted to feminine ladyboys doesn't make me gay. The ladyboys I like look like feminine models and have pussies. I like them because they look more feminine than women.

'Than women' is a subtle admission that these men are not women. You call them 'boys' when you call them 'ladyboys'. Have any of these boys you've been with been underage? Did you use the back hole all the other gay dudes used pre-op on some of these fellas?

Fella, why the f**k do you always want to talk about other men's back holes??? Why does your preverted mind always think those things??? Like I always explain I only like postop ladyboys with pussies because they're the height of feminine beauty but you always want to talk about men's arseholes, you f***ing repressed homo!!!!!

[MrMan]

'Than women' is a subtle admission that these men are not women. You call them 'boys' when you call them 'ladyboys'. Have any of these boys you've been with been underage? Did you use the back hole all the other gay dudes used pre-op on some of these fellas?

Fella, why the f**k do you always want to talk about other men's back holes??? Why does your preverted mind always think those things??? Like I always explain I only like postop ladyboys with pussies because they're the height of feminine beauty but you always want to talk about men's arseholes, you f***ing repressed homo!!!!!
[/quote][/quote]

I've been on my work computer and didn't want to post on and respond to such a vile accusation.

I think there is a paradigm of freakiness. Clearly, sticking one's thing in a woman's backside is less freaky than sticking it in any part of a male. I'm not that freaky. I've never stuck it in the other hole. Pooh...making hemorrhoids.... no need for that.

But it is a well-known fact, or at least a stereotype among straight men, that a lot of men who are into homosexuality like men's butts. I heard some of them claim they do other stuff and not that. But I notice you didn't deny it either. You just tried to turn it around and accuse me.

So I'll ask you point blank, do you do anal sex with these biological males with fake vaginas? What about oral? I'd think chances are slim that if a gay man gets his parts chopped up to look like a girl's, that's he hasn't been having gay sex with other men first with his body parts before going that far with his fantasy. (Maybe there is an exception for the brainwashed kids these days.) So you'd probably be sticking your part where other gay men had put their part. And if they've been having gay post-op sex with their gay fake vagina, then other gay men had been in that, too.

If us straight men ask you about it, that doesn't mean we like this junk you are into. You just keep posting about this perversion constantly, but insisting you aren't gay, then talk about having sex with boys (as in ladyboys), then insisting you aren't gay. You keep bringing it up. You should admit to yourself what you are.

[WanderingProtagonist]

'Than women' is a subtle admission that these men are not women. You call them 'boys' when you call them 'ladyboys'. Have any of these boys you've been with been underage? Did you use the back hole all the other gay dudes used pre-op on some of these fellas?

Fella, why the f**k do you always want to talk about other men's back holes??? Why does your preverted mind always think those things??? Like I always explain I only like postop ladyboys with pussies because they're the height of feminine beauty but you always want to talk about men's arseholes, you f***ing repressed homo!!!!!

[/quote]

I've been on my work computer and didn't want to post on and respond to such a vile accusation.

I think there is a paradigm of freakiness. Clearly, sticking one's thing in a woman's backside is less freaky than sticking it in any part of a male. I'm not that freaky. I've never stuck it in the other hole. Pooh...making hemorrhoids.... no need for that.

But it is a well-known fact, or at least a stereotype among straight men, that a lot of men who are into homosexuality like men's butts. I heard some of them claim they do other stuff and not that. But I notice you didn't deny it either. You just tried to turn it around and accuse me.

So I'll ask you point blank, do you do anal sex with these biological males with fake vaginas? What about oral? I'd think chances are slim that if a gay man gets his parts chopped up to look like a girl's, that's he hasn't been having gay sex with other men first with his body parts before going that far with his fantasy. (Maybe there is an exception for the brainwashed kids these days.) So you'd probably be sticking your part where other gay men had put their part. And if they've been having gay post-op sex with their gay fake vagina, then other gay men had been in that, too.

If us straight men ask you about it, that doesn't mean we like this junk you are into. You just keep posting about this perversion constantly, but insisting you aren't gay, then talk about having sex with boys (as in ladyboys), then insisting you aren't gay. You keep bringing it up. You should admit to yourself what you are.
[/quote]

Captain is retarded, stupid, and full of shit. Don't waste time debating this crap with him. He f***s males pretending to be women, and have the nerve to call others homosexuals. He's gay himself. Too stupid to realize that he's still having sex with biological males like them removing their dicks erase the fact they are still men

[WanderingProtagonist]

Pixel-Dude,

I posted that after you got on my case for saying kids, etc. can consent. Literally they can. The law doesn't accept it as worth anything because they are kids. Can dogs consent? I don't speak dog. But if they could, it's nasty to do that kind of junk and illegal. Is it worse than sex with kids? It depends. I'd say that's worse than sex with a 26 or 17-year-old human of the opposite sex who isn't married, betrothed, or engaged. Sex with little kids is just plain sick, not to mention cruel. I honestly don't see the attraction to a little girl that doesn't even look like a woman. If she looks like a young woman, I get the attraction on a biological level.

If a woman is stuck at some childish stage of development for life, at some age, she's got to be legal to get married and have sex. I'd imagine a slow woman could get horny and want to make babies just like a college-educated woman, so why deprive her of that because she isn't too bright? I hear people who do drugs can get stuck at the age of maturity where they started the drug use. Some people seem to stay immature for life.

From a sexual development POV, a kid stops being a kid at around 16. This is why the age of consent is 16 in most countries. Speaking about mental development, as opposed of physical development, the situation can vary greatly. This is why governments tend to err on the safe side and consider a 16-yo girl a pure victim of a much older man's sexual attentions even if she actually possesses enough maturity and judgment to enter that sexual relationships fully consensually.

The Government just want to have control over females, that's why as they become adults they still want the authority to control and rule over them and keep them in the constant mental state of early childhood like development. That makes it even easier to keep them in line, plus financing their lives, handing over more rights and privileges to them which is why men always lose custody battles in court, etc. Men have to out right compete with the f***ing federal government and you can't out Alpha the damn Feds.

[MarcosZeitola]

Captain is retarded, stupid, and full of shit. Don't waste time debating this crap with him. He f***s males pretending to be women, and have the nerve to call others homosexuals. He's gay himself. Too stupid to realize that he's still having sex with biological males like them removing their dicks erase the fact they are still men

The only thing he f***s is his hand, and our time by making us believe he's a die-hard tranny lover. He knows gay shit riles people up almost as much as Jew shit does. His next troll account is probably going to be a gay Israeli crossdresser, for good measure.

[WanderingProtagonist]

Captain is retarded, stupid, and full of shit. Don't waste time debating this crap with him. He f***s males pretending to be women, and have the nerve to call others homosexuals. He's gay himself. Too stupid to realize that he's still having sex with biological males like them removing their dicks erase the fact they are still men

The only thing he f***s is his hand, and our time by making us believe he's a die-hard tranny lover. He knows gay shit riles people up almost as much as Jew shit does. His next troll account is probably going to be a gay Israeli crossdresser, for good measure.

Yeah, I mean I went for trans years ago when it was all or nothing but I wasn't denying that they weren't males still.

[publicduende]

The Government just want to have control over females, that's why as they become adults they still want the authority to control and rule over them and keep them in the constant mental state of early childhood like development. That makes it even easier to keep them in line, plus financing their lives, handing over more rights and privileges to them which is why men always lose custody battles in court, etc. Men have to out right compete with the f***ing federal government and you can't out Alpha the damn Feds.

Like I said, governments like to err on the safe side when it comes to protecting children's rights.

A 16-yo girl a century or two ago was probably already a mom of two, worn out by her duties with bringing up the kids, cooking, keeping the house tidy and helping her husband with the farm or family business. One could say she started her sexual activity at 13 or 14. It is also true that she would start her entire adult life at around the same age. She would probably be dead by her late 40s, if lucky.

Kids of today have it infinitely easier. All they have in their minds, at that age, is to play games and look good for their next crush. For girls, even if their physical development is fully completed by that age, their mental maturity is way lower than a child of 200 years ago. That's why there are laws in place, to protect them. Ironically, no laws protect them from having sex and even getting knocked up by some same-age douchebag. Two kids fooling around are doing it "as a life learning experience".

If you replace one kid with one adult, the adult is immediately assumed to be taking advantage of the kid for their own personal enjoyment. I think there is logic in this: a kid knows no better, an adult does, or should, at least.

That Big Government, or Big Justice, tends to give women more privileges than men when it comes to family courts, that is true in most countries and is sad. There are some associations of divorced fathers who try to turn the tables around, or at least sensitise the public about the problem. Not sure what's moving, and how fast.