Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,453
- 18,326
- 2,415
Professor Stephen Kershnar everyone
Full interview of the bastard in case the morons on the left will claim that it is a tiktok video and will only attack the fact that it is a tiktok video and not what the idiot is advocating.
For those that won't watch them. Here is what he advocates:
The following are some points from the video. Please feel free to correct my points.
Is adult-child sex harmful? Well, evolution prepares the body to have sex around 12 years old so maybe itās not so harmful.
Children are coerced all the time. For example, parents make a kid go to his sisterās ballet recital. So is coercion bad?
How do we know that a child who is a willing participant in sex isnāt getting something(I think he means positive) from the experience?
Exploitation doesnāt necessarily mean that something is wrong.
He claims he doesnāt engage in child-adult sex so he is the one able to make the argument more effectively. (ed: I say āCheck his computerā¦)
He doesnāt think something should be criminalized just because it has a bad outcome. I think he used the āfast food is bad for youā argument. But it shouldnāt be criminalized.
The European age of consent is 12- 13 years old.
The culture itself makes children feel victimized if they had sex, even as willing participants. The child feels bad if they enjoyed the encounter.
He brought up the argument that a 23-year-old man shouldnāt be criminalized for having sex with a 16-year-old person. They discussed the Romeo and Juliet laws and felt they should be extended. This means an 18-year-old man wouldnāt be punished for having sex with a 17-year-old girl.
Maybe the age of consent should be 14. The high age of consent in the US is ridiculous.
There should be no criminal penalties for an adult having sex with a prepubescent child. (I hope I didnāt get this wrong since it was a throwaway comment in the stream.)
Full interview of the bastard in case the morons on the left will claim that it is a tiktok video and will only attack the fact that it is a tiktok video and not what the idiot is advocating.
For those that won't watch them. Here is what he advocates:
The following are some points from the video. Please feel free to correct my points.
Is adult-child sex harmful? Well, evolution prepares the body to have sex around 12 years old so maybe itās not so harmful.
Children are coerced all the time. For example, parents make a kid go to his sisterās ballet recital. So is coercion bad?
How do we know that a child who is a willing participant in sex isnāt getting something(I think he means positive) from the experience?
Exploitation doesnāt necessarily mean that something is wrong.
He claims he doesnāt engage in child-adult sex so he is the one able to make the argument more effectively. (ed: I say āCheck his computerā¦)
He doesnāt think something should be criminalized just because it has a bad outcome. I think he used the āfast food is bad for youā argument. But it shouldnāt be criminalized.
The European age of consent is 12- 13 years old.
The culture itself makes children feel victimized if they had sex, even as willing participants. The child feels bad if they enjoyed the encounter.
He brought up the argument that a 23-year-old man shouldnāt be criminalized for having sex with a 16-year-old person. They discussed the Romeo and Juliet laws and felt they should be extended. This means an 18-year-old man wouldnāt be punished for having sex with a 17-year-old girl.
Maybe the age of consent should be 14. The high age of consent in the US is ridiculous.
There should be no criminal penalties for an adult having sex with a prepubescent child. (I hope I didnāt get this wrong since it was a throwaway comment in the stream.)
