>>9614639 (pb)
So you let a law book and some arbitrary number decide on what goes and what doesn't? Rationally speaking, a girl who hits puberty is ready to mate.
Oh no, they are lovely, nubile and still very open to healthy pair bonding. I'd rather take that than some washed up broad in her 30's.
>what the fuck is wrong with you if you can relate to someone whose brain isn't fully formed yet and is probably still in high school?
Well, I'm also talking to you, aren't I?
Jokes aside; that's your argument (if that would go for one)?
I can be in the company of people all ages, so what you say really doesn't rhyme with reality.
>Their body may be capable of mating
Indeed
>but they are not emotionally ready for the stress and responsibility of childbirth and child rearing.
No, they are very capable. They just don't get support from the society they live in, which is the cause for 'not being able to take the responsibility'.
So another insult, void of any rational argumentation.
I'm really starting to think I might be right here.
>aka innocent, vulnerable, naive
Yes.
>and very easy to hurt mentally, emotionally, and physically.
If the person is evil, yes. But what if the teenager is in the hands of a loving person?
> there is an unequal power dynamic.
There always is between men and women.
>teenagers can't consent to a sexual relationship with an adult.
Sure they can.
>it is statutory rape for a reason.
Which is a generalization; not all such relationships are as bad or evil as you make them out to be.
>you're a piece of shit.
Your opinion is hot and flaming, but it's not substantiated by any rational and logical claims.
So in your mind a loving, consensual relationship = rape?
What's wrong with you.
>what the fuck are you doing here?
Well, we're here to find the truth, right? This question has been on my mind for a while and noone in this thread has been able to make a good argument against it; they just lump everything in the "IT'S RAPE" pile, which is really shortsighted.
That's it?
Great argument.
>Yuck
The fact that you can't fathom it, doesn't mean it can't happen
>Teen is being EXPLOITED.
She's not if she's being taken care off, like any good man should do for his partner.
You just aren't able to produce a good argument, which makes me the winner of this argument.
Thank you for playing.
I already shoved those arguments aside. >>9614732
And you may consider it a slide, but if you aren't able to formulate a good argument against me on an anonymous, unfiltered forum, how do you think you'll be able to form a good argument against the real bad guys in real life?
Think about that.
That's how your mind works? I pose a discussion point and you immediately assume i'm a 'CHAZ faggot'?
Anon, I am disappoint..
Finally, someone who poses real arguments.
>You don't specify if the other one having that "relationship" is a teenager also, but I suspect you are referring to an older person.
Yes, I do. Such was a more accepted custom before Feminism.
>Furthermore, persons of that age are unable to make reasonable decisions on their own because they lack life experience to gauge consequences.
This goes for many adults as well. Just look at all those people in this thread who started flaming at me without any substantiated claims
>Such are easily deceived and manipulated, and should therefore be given space to mature. Just because they have fully working adult bodies, that doesn't mean they have adult thinking.
Women seldom mentally mature beyond the mental state of a teenage girl.
>If by "love" you mean actual love in which one puts their neighbor's wellbeing above one's own
No, that's not what I mean with love. That's your definition of love.
>one would be loving that person enough to give that person space to mature so they don't make a decision they later regret and can never undo.
As I said, women seldom mentally mature past the level of a teenage girl.
>Since that doesn't seem to be the case with your question, then the other person of which you are speaking loves himself/herself more than the "teenager", seeking one's own pleasure above all else selfishly.
No, this argument is false, because it's premise was false. Wherever did I say that I would my own pleasure above hers?
>That is not "love". That's hatred to put oneself above the wellbeing of another in order to receive self-pleasure.
This would fly, based on your premise. However, the premise you pose does not apply to me.
>Genuine love will sacrifice one's own pleasures so that the other is kept inviolate when most vulnerable.
I never mentioned sex. I just started talking about that, because Anons assumed that a loving, consensual relationship means sex. Since you seem to be older and wiser than most people in here, you surely would know that a loving, consensual relationship does not always equal sex; it can be many things.
You're new here, and unfamiliar with internet lingo.
Please lurk for 2 more years before posting again;
Their sexuality starts at ~13, peaks at ~23, dwindles at ~30 and dies off at ~40.
>Traditional giving in marriage where it involved a girl matured to the point of having menstrual cycles,
How far back are we talking here? I am aware this was custom for the past 1000 years or so, but what it also custom before? Genuinly curious.
>did not involve the girl making the first move/decision on a "relationship".
Indeed. This is a byproduct of 'cutting girls loose' or w/e term you'd use for the current runarounds
>Her protective father/older relative made such decisions on her behalf. Thus, he would ensure she entered into a marriage in which her suitor was capable of providing for her.
Yes, thank you for saying this.
>The thing is, they were not only biologically mature, but also mentally and spiritually prepared for the life ahead of them.
Yes!
>Our problem today is that the next generation has been so infantilized that the age of consent should be raised to 35 or 40
Which happened by design.
>It's best to leave teens to teens, and stick to your own age bracket within a decade or two.
So because other people fuck it up for me, I have to sit by the sidelines?
That's not how I work.
>She posts a picture of a frog and thinks she's 'part of the gang'
Go back to Facebook, granny: you don't belong here.
That's because of Christianity and its imposed system of not bedding out of wedlock.
You dumb narcissist: he isn't talking about you.
>why choose a teenage girl over a woman?
I said this before: they still have healthy pairbonding abilities. That's just how it works: when a woman loves a man, she will attach himself to him. In other words, she becomes his partner. This ability to pairbond gets weaker and weaker after the woman has more partners and or ages without having a partner. That's why it's a red flag if a woman over 30 hasn't landed a partner.
>because you are more attracted to the body of a teenage girl than the body a fully grown woman.
No; I like women of all ages. Granted, I am more attracted to younger bodies, but that's logical.
>so don't pretend this has nothing to do with sex
Fair point. Sex is part of any good relationship between a man and woman.
>you fucking pervert.
You should really try to keep your opinion out of this. It weakens your claim.
>morally reprehensible and it's difficult to set aside our hatred of predators like yourself.
I find it a fascinating topic to discuss and people who get triggered by it and can't create arguments against it, are weak. This is the reason why Predators rule this earth, and you merely are left alive because they like playing with you so much.
>it's also extremely difficult explaining why adults shouldn't be in relationships with minors.
Which should lead you to the argument that it might not be so wrong that an adult is in a relationship with a minor.
>have you ever tried explaining why the sky is blue?
Yes, it's simple if you have the knowledge.
>this is a slide. you're larping
No, I was genuinly interested what /qresearch/, the big, bad, battler of evil and defender of lost children, had to say about this. So far, i'm pretty disappointed with the substance of the arguments here: it's only opinions and no facts.
Also, why did you ignore all my other points and zoned in to this?
Oh wait, I already know.. you're a woman who's hit the wall, right?
I'm not a Christian and do not let myself be lead by Christian dogma.
80% human, 20% cyborg here.
Thanks for yielding; you'd make me a good wife if you were younger.