Teen sex


why age of concent above 13 is dysgenic
A homo sapiens superior(or more desirable) female shall have sex early, it will allow her to pair bond and have sex early.

Finding a suitable mate and establishing a suitable relationship with that particular male will take time and it will involve sex, thus a homo sapiens superior female shall have sex before she is able to get pragnant. Females can typically get pragnant about a year after menarche and thus the age of concent shall not be higher than 13.

AoC laws males it harder for females to have early sex and marriage with desirable males since they tend to choose females they can fuck more safely (especially when it comes tl children), this is especially harmful when AoC is above 13 & the punishment for "statutory" rape is harsh.

A high AoC simply pushes horny teens in the hands of incels and actual pedophiles.

The age of consent should be 13 or lower for sex, if she is below the age of consent you first need to marry her. She also has to be physically ready for it.

Marriage should be allowed at 7 with the approval of the child, legal mother, legal father, between 9 and 14 the approval of 2 of these 3 parties will be required. At 15 you should legally be an adult.

We may want an opt-in system so girls can register they are ready for sex, we may also want a system where consent is registered digitally.

This does not apply to relationship that are sexually initiated when both are below 15.

This does not apply to the care of babies such as breastfeeding and bathing.


Experiencing sex at early age
Sex is essential for a good life, experiencing it early will generally result in a better life. If the vagina is too immature she can still have other forms of sex not involving penetration.


Thus you have an interest in making sure you will experience the pleasures of sex early in the upcoming lives on earth.


Fucking teens/children

Males are naturally attracted to young fertile females. Unfortunatily laws & societal conditioning prevents males from having fun fucking very young females.

due to sociatal conditioning a many males(including me) are not confortable fucking the 13 year old above.

The breasts of a female grows during pregnancy, by making her pregnant at an early age you will make her more sexually attractive. Her breasts might initially be smaller than ideal, the solution is to fuck raw in the pussy making her pregnant.


The emotional reaction
A lot of people react emotionally when it comes to children/teens having sex early, especially if they know the child. Parents are often overprotective of their kids and try to shield them from the world thinking it would be somehow good for them. The negative emotional reaction can only occur in people who find out about it, ignorance is a bliss.

For some reason people do not feel any bad for all the innocent males(and to a lesser extent females) being jailed due to the sex-hysteria.

The solution to this sex hysteria is not trying to cater to this phobia (it will only make it worse), people will simply need to get desensitized to it similar to how people get desensitized to 'bad' things happening in the world & stop caring.


Lie: Teenage girls do not have enough mental maturity to consent to a grown male.

This statement is assuming 3 things:

1. Maximum mental maturity is required to give simple consent to sex.
2. A difference in mental maturity between the man and the woman will almost always lead in the man emotionally manipulating her.
3. Adult women are somehow more mentally mature (in their sexual choices) than teen girls.

Let me first debunk the main argument. The psychologists who have this opinion are just basing it off pure knowledge (Fed to them), instead of actual studies.

In his book, Teen 2.0: Saving Our Children and Families from the Torment of Adolescence (148-147), Robert Epstein writes:

“After reviewing the relevant scientific literature, interviewing many adults, and consulting with three other psychologists and two psychiatrists with expertise in adult development issues, we concluded that there are fourteen different skill-sets or "competencies" [love, sex, leadership, problem solving, physical abilities, verbal and math, interpersonal skills, responsibility, managing high-risk behaviors, work, education, personal care, self-management, and citizenship] that distinguish adults from non-adults... For three of the competencies--love, leadership and problem solving--we did find statistically significant differences between the mean scores of teens and adults, with adults outscoring the teens. But the absolute differences were small... On two other scales--work and self-management--the differences between the adult scores and teen scores were marginally significant (at the .05 level), again in the adults' favor, but the absolute differences were less than 4 percent. On the other nine scales, we found no significant differences at all between the adult and teen scores... fifty five of the adults in our sample were college graduates--more than double the rate of college graduates in the United States."

In an article published by Scientific American, he states:

“And long-standing studies of intelligence, perceptual abilities and memory function show that teens are in many instances far superior to adults. Visual acuity, for example, peaks around the time of puberty. “Incidental memory”—the kind of memory that occurs automatically, without any mnemonic effort, peaks at about age 12 and declines through life... In the 1940s pioneering intelligence researchers J. C. Raven and David Wechsler, relying on radically different kinds of intelligence tests, each showed that raw scores on intelligence tests peak between ages 13 and 15 and decline after that throughout life... And whereas brain size is not necessarily a good indication of processing ability, it is notable that recent scanning data collected by Eric Courchesne and his colleagues at the University of California, San Diego, show that brain volume peaks at about age 14."


I’m going to include a long article that literally debunks the common, pseudoscientific talking points of these feminists.

“Northwestern University psychiatrist Daniel Offer, the nation’s leading researcher on adolescents, studied 30,000 teenagers and adults from the 1960s to the 1990s. He and his colleagues found 85% to 90% of teens held attitudes and risk perceptions similar to that of their parents, were not alienated, did think about the future, were coping well with their lives, and did not display psychological disturbances. “Decision making for adults is no different than decision making among teenagers,” Offer reported in 1987 in the Journal of the American Medical Association."


The first two assumptions I listed at the beginning of this section are basically interconnected. The feminists are assuming that, despite all this evidence against their logic, teen girls who seek grown Chads actually are not acting according to their real desires (due to supposed mental immaturity when compared to adult women). There’s always a form of “manipulation” apparently taking place.

Now we all know that modern teen girls are usually near post pubescent or post pubescent. In the blackpill community, a girl at that stage will always seek out Chad, if the society she lives in is sexually free, regardless of her mental maturity condition. Sexual maturity is always a bigger and more accurate indication.

Let me give you a report made by the police for example, regarding grown men who had sex with (mostly) 13-15 year old women they met online.

“Only 5% of offenders tried to deceive victims about being older adults. Only 21% lied about their sexual motives, and most of these deceptions involved insincere promises of love and romance. Few offenders used force (5%) or coercion (16%) or abduction (3%) to sexually abuse their victims. Only 5% of offenders tried to deceive victims about being older adults. Only 21% lied about their sexual motives, and most of these deceptions involved insincere promises of love and romance. Few offenders used force (5%) or coercion (16%) or abduction (3%) to sexually abuse their victims. The research also suggests that it may be misleading to categorize offenders in such cases as strangers, because victims and offenders had typically communicated, both online and by telephone, for more than one month prior to meeting in person. The authors also recommend training for law enforcement since some of the targeted youth may not initially see themselves as victims and may require sensitive interviewing in order to cooperate with investigators.”


Lmao. So they’re basically trying to brainwash the JBs into thinking that they were somehow taken advantage of.

A feminist, old hag “victimologist” (Rosalind Prober) once said,

“Young people often argue with you that what they're doing is what they want to do and the person on the Internet is really their boyfriend, they weren't sexually exploited and they wanted to raise their shirts and show their breasts over the Internet," Prober said. "It takes a lot of debriefing and deprogramming to get those children to view themselves as victims, which they truly are, a compliant victim.”

These feminists are basically COPING. They know that if sex with JBs were to be legalized, they would have to compete very hard with them. This is why they create these pseudoscientific arguments.

Some people may say that JBs might have a bit lower standards than older women (i.e. while they seek Chad, they’ll easily go for even sub6 males).

This is a fairly debatable topic. I believe it has to do with the fact that they haven’t been completely exposed to Chad and don’t know of their high sexual market value completely. This is why if we were to reduce age of consent laws, we must establish a system that stops sexual freedom, because you’ll never know what really happens. They might go for the 20 year old Chads in numbers.

Regarding the third assumption...

If adult women were truly more mentally mature (when it comes to their sexual decisions) in comparison to teen girls, then why on earth do they seem “easily manipulated” in these abusive relationships (with Chads)? Why are there so many false rape allegations/sex regrets, mainly after the woman displays foolish behavior and gets drunk? The behavior of adult women does not seem to indicate that they are way above teen girls. It seems that the mental maturity of both are relatively equal.

Another argument the feminists use has to do with “power disparity.”

The presence of a natural power gap (by age alone) does not necessarily mean that it will be utilized or abused. The feminists are basically making yet another misandrist assumption, based on the “evilness” and “predatory instincts” of adult male sexuality.

These people are all for parents using methods to assert a disparity in power on their children by the way. But God forbid this takes place during a sexual relationship. God forbid a teen girl learns life experiences (and discipline) from a grown male through this age gap.

Another argument has to do with the fact that teen girls aren’t ready to be mothers.

This only has to do with the social situation we are in. Teen girls aren’t getting prepared to be young mothers. They’re being sent to school to learn trigonometry instead. The ridiculous behavior of modern dads is absolutely staggering. Instead of sending their daughters off to marriage with a grown (and stable) male, they instead encourage them to ride the cock carousel with other teen men (promiscuity). This is your current feminist culture, gentlemen.

Furthermore, it has been found that women actually mentally mature way earlier than men https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...mature-quicker-than-boys-scientists-find.html

This might explain why adult femoids seem to have a relatively similar mental maturity state to teen femoids. Most of the “maturity” has probably been already done when they’re children.



In most regions, the age distribution of maternal mortality follows a J-shaped curve, with a slightly increased risk of death in adolescents as compared to women between 20 and 24 years old

In addition, adolescents in some countries were found to be at lower risk of death than women in their early 20s and even than women in all other age groups

In contrast to the overall results, the MMR for 15-19 year-olds in Tanzania was the same as for women aged 20-24, and much lower than for women aged 25 and over, indicating that there is no excess risk of maternal death associated with adolescent pregnancy.
To the cognitive profiles of the children of adolescent mothers,


When no other factors are taken into account, children of teenage mothers have significantly higher odds of placement in certain special education classes and significantly higher occurrence of milder education problems, but when maternal education, marital status, poverty level, and race are controlled, the detrimental effects disappear and even some protective effects are observed. Hence, the increased risk for educational problems and disabilities among children of teenage mothers is attributed not to the effect of young age but to the confounding influences of associated sociodemographic factors. In contrast to teen age, older maternal age has an adverse effect on a child's educational outcome regardless of whether other factors are controlled for or not.
To fertility levels over age,


"Adolescent Medicine: A handbook for primary care"

Female sexual development:

Full fertility is usually reached within 2 years of menarche, between 14 and 15 years of age on average.

But many of the initial cycles are associated with failure of ovulation of a mature egg and so the periods may be irregular for a year or so and fertility is low for about one to two years before full reproductive competence is reached
I mean they just have an entirely separate reality that can only be described as ontologically distinct (described shortly), and which is constrained to the delusional imaginations of the believers in it and the themed collections of fiction materials of their establishment of religion.



Refuting Arguments for AoC > 13
Here I’ve put together a list of all the pro age of consent arguments that puritanical feminists bandy around. I’ve also gone through each one and demonstrated why it is false. Over time I’d like to improve the strength of the refutations in this list as well as add any pro age of consent arguments that I’ve missed. So, for now, consider this a first draft – if you have anything to add please do add a comment under the article.

Imbalance Of Power Argument

Claim: It is claimed that an adult is older, stronger, more mature and ‘knows better’ whereas a child is weak, immature, and doesn’t know as much. Thus there is an ‘imbalance of power’ and so any relationship with an imbalance of power must be criminalised and punished severely.

Refutation: There is an imbalance of power in any meaningful relationship. A poor person who marries a rich person is in an ‘unbalanced’ relationship. A person who was educated at Oxbridge and marries someone who never went to university is in an ‘unbalanced’ relationship. A person who is big and marries someone who is small is in an ‘unbalanced’ relationship. The fact is we can go on and on and show that all relationships are infact an imbalance of power and thus ‘abusive’. If there is an ‘imbalance of power’ then that does not mean the ‘power’ is being abused. People should only be jailed for what they have done; not what they might do. It is ridiculous to assume otherwise and completely contrary to the rule of law.

Physical Harm Argument

This argument actually comes in two distinct parts which I’ll address separately:

– Underage intercourse is painful/causes damage argument

Several points we can make here:

1) Feminist age of consent laws cover ANY sexual activity not just intercourse. It is blatantly ridiculous to claim that groping causes physical damage. So at best this argument suggests there should be an age of consent for intercourse, however, it does not suggest there should be an age of consent for all sexual activity.

2) For older ‘children’ (a definition which is starting to creep up towards 21 in some jurisdictions) it seems highly unlikely that intercourse could be any worse than for an adult as they are already more or less their full adult size.

3) For younger ‘children’ it is improbable that they would ‘accidentally’ cause themselves horrific injuries. If they were finding an act to be painful then they would not allow it, in which case a partner continuing would be criminal. Thus, it seems inappropriate to create an age of consent for intercourse when standard laws covering ‘real’ rape, assault and actual/grievious bodily harm are more than sufficient.

– Teenage pregnancies are harmful argument

Claim: Teenage pregnancies have high mortality rates and should never be allowed.

Refutation: This is untrue. Several points to make here:

1) One study has found that mortality rates for teenagers are lower than that of over 30s. Thus this claim is only valid if you are also willing to advocate for an upper bound age of consent of 30 such that having sex with a woman over 30 will result in decades behind bars, sex offender registration and the ever lingering possibility of 21st Century gas chambers being constructed for ‘subhuman’ sex offenders.

2) The reason why female animals (including humans) go through menstruation only once they have reached a certain age would seem to be because that protects them from excessively early pregnancies. Thus, it is rare for an individual to get pregnant ‘too young’ as nature prevents this. This makes perfect sense as animals do not have a concept of an ‘age of consent’ – they just fuck when they like. This principle has also applied to humans in more liberal periods – ever heard the expression ‘old enough to bleed, old enough to breed’?

Psychological Harm Argument

Claim: Any sexual activity with anyone under the arbitrary age of consent (which may vary by jurisdiction) causes intense and pervasive harm that lasts until the end of that person’s life.

Refutation: There are several points to make here:

1) Academic studies done show this assertion to be false. In particular a highly notable meta-study is the Rind Study ‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples‘ which found that intense & pervasive harm is rare. It even found in many cases ‘children’ felt positively about their ‘sexual abuse’ experiences (with ‘sexual abuse’ being defined using the dogmatic contempory legal definition where consent is irrelevant).

2) There exists absolutely no scientific research as to what this magical ‘age of consent’ – below which intense and pervasive psychological harm ensues – is or should be. Indeed it seems that a German 14 year old would NOT suffer ‘horrific psychological harm’ as they are over the age of consent in Germany. Yet a 17 year old in many American states WOULD suffer ‘horrific psychological harm’ as they are under the age of consent in America. There is absolutely no scientific reason for there to be a specific cutoff point for sexual activity nor is there any reason why a German should be more resilient to early sexual activity than an American. Thus this dogmatic black and white age-of-consent attitude is unhelpful and wrong. Psychological harm cannot be directly to do with whether age of consent laws are obeyed or not.

Inability to Consent Argument

Claim: Children lack the intelligence, maturity, knowledge and wisdom to consent to sex. Thus, all sex is rape.

Refutation: There are several counter arguments to make here:

1) If children are assumed to lack the ‘knowledge’ to consent to sex then they cannot learn about it in order to acquire that knowledge. What this means is that they will be far more ignorant about sexuality than yesterday’s children who engaged in it at earlier ages. What is the end result of this ideology? Ever rising ages of consent; which is exactly what we see today. We also see children becoming fatter, less confident and more insulated as a consequence of the belief that children are not ‘mature’ enough to engage in an activity. Today this even includes non-sexual things like playing at the park unsupervised which 68% of Americans think should be a crime.

2) The notion that ‘children’ lack intelligence is blatantly false. See for example research on ‘The Myth Of The Teen Brain‘. It suggests that infact intelligence may peak between 13 to 15 and that the modern concept of the ‘troubled teen’ is infact a consequence of puritanical western indoctrination.

3) Feminists will not like to hear this (do they like to hear anything I have to say?), but: Consent is not necessary. As pointed out by other MRAs like Eivind Berge – historically rape laws in some jurisdictions were much narrower and required force or serious threats for an act to constitute rape. Thus failing to obtain consent was not considered rape. Fundamentally the problem with the notion of ‘consent’ is that it is a dubiously vague concept that if applied to everything & everyone then it would have us all in prison. Afterall, does a child ‘consent’ to go to school? If a parent drags a child to school then why are they not committing a horrific crime by dragging their child to school without consent? Indeed, if children are unable to consent to anything then it follows that even a parent taking a child consensually to school is committing a heinous crime as a child cannot consent to anything. Consent-based ideology is a dangerous dogma. There is an argument for people to be able to settle grievances if someone did something to them that they did not consent to. However, it must be acknowledged that this is a grey area, some leeway must be given for the accused and the punishment must fit the magnitude of the crime – no one should go to prison for life for causing 15 seconds of discomfort via a bum-touching offence. Worse still, the way that the ‘justice system’ can class someone as a victim when they don’t even think of themselves as a victim and then jail a man who supposedly offended ‘against’ them is especially Orwellian and shocking. This has happened in many cases such as the Jeremy Forrest case.

Adult is Selfish Argument

Claim: An adult’s sexual interest in a ‘child’ is fundamentally selfish. The adult does not care about the child only their own sexual gratification.

Dissecting the claim:

This argument really has two underlying beliefs behind it. To dispel the argument both must be refuted.

Belief #1 If something is selfish then it is immoral.

Refutation: All human behaviour is fundamentally guided by selfishness. Contrary to the apparent Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ slogan that has Christians up in arms with its lack of an altruistic ‘moral compass’ there is, infact, much to be selfishly gained from altruistic behaviour. Thus, it is entirely possible that something which is selfish can also be altruistic and therefore highly moral and beneficial to others.

Belief #2 Sexual activity is only in the adult’s interest, never in the child’s interest.

Refutation: See the “Young people can never be attracted to old people argument” below. This is essentially exactly the same argument.

Young people can never be attracted to old people argument

Refutation: There is evidence to suggest otherwise. Of course, to refute this, all we need to show is that there are cases of a young person attracted to a much older person. One particularly high profile case would be that of Jeremy Forrest where his ‘victim’ tried to defend him during his trial and still defends him now. Here’s an example of another case very similar to Jeremy Forrest’s. Or indeed a case of an even younger 11 year old girl in love with a 60 year old man. And these are just the ones who got caught!

A more comprehensive examination of young people in love with older people was done in the book “Positive Memories” by T.Rivas – it is available to read online here. It documents (with sources) some 118 cases of adult-child relationships remembered positively by the younger party.

Children Are Innocent Argument

Claim: Children are innocent thus they should not be subjected to sexual activity.

Refutation: There are two underlying problems with this argument:

1) What exactly is ‘innocence’? What does it mean and why should anyone care? This vague and unclear concept called ‘childhood innocence’ seems to have begun emerging around the 18th century. This wikipedia article on the history of childhood gives more insight. Fundamentally though there appears to be nothing particularly scientific about the concept of ‘childhood innocence’ – it is largely based on somewhat arbitrary ideological & philosophical underpinnings which can be changed. Indeed, given that this dogmatic ideology now sees millions of men incarcerated for sexual offences across the world it makes perfect sense to think about throwing it away in favour of something more sensible.

2) The underlying idea of a child being ‘innocent’ sexually seems to be based around a puritan notion that sex is ‘sinful’ and thus as children are innocent they should not engage in it. For any open-minded person this is of course nonsense – if we assume sex is indeed sinful then all adults should be roasted in hell not just the ones convicted of ‘paedophilia’.

‘Paedophilia’ is universally reviled in all cultures and throughout history argument

Refutation: This is false. What is today called ‘paedophilia’ was historically accepted. The age of consent used to be far lower in every country in the world. In Britain the age of consent was 12 until the feminists raised it in 1861. In Spain the age of consent was 12 until as late as 1999. In the USA – now the most paedohysterical country in the world – the American ages of consent were vastly lower with one state, Delaware, having an age of consent of 7 possibly up to as late as the 1960s. Right across Europe child porn was legally sold in porn shops in the 1970s, for example, the Danish company Color Climax made child porn – not just of adolescents but even preteens, see the wikipedia article about them here.

Paedophilia is abnormal so there must be something wrong with it argument

Refutation: This is simply untrue. Studies show that 1 in 5 men are in fact strongly attracted to children 13 and under. That is not to say that the remaining 4 out of 5 men are not attracted to children 13 and under, it’s just that they have a preference for older children or adults. I wouldn’t be surprised though if 50% of men turn out to be preferentially attracted to 16 year olds.
Yes, a femoid who has sex early and pair bonds could be less misandrist and less likely to be overly prudish to sub8 men.

Fucking teens/children
Males are naturally attracted to young fertile females. Unfortunatily laws & societal conditioning prevents males from having fun fucking very young females.

due to sociatal conditioning a many males(including me) are not confortable fucking the 13 year old above.

The breasts of a female grows during pregnancy, by making her pregnant at an early age you will make her more sexually attractive. Her breasts might initially be smaller than ideal, the solution is to fuck raw in the pussy making her pregnant.
Those colored contacts are insane.


Yes, a female who has sex early and pair bonds could be less misandrist and less likely to be overly prudish to sub8 men.
If she doesn't fullfill her biological desire to sex she will just end up with mental issues, thus the value of female virginity decreases quickly as she ages and may even end up as a negative past 25.


Children could still have sexual fun with other children before puberty and since they cannot get pregnant it's fine if the male also is young.

But once they become fertile older males are more suitable since they are capable of supporting a child.

Thus the AoC shouldn't be set higher than 13.

The power parents have over their children need to be limited. We need a more powerful government to keep parents in their place.

You should be considered adult at 15 but your parents should still be obligated to support you to at least 18.

We also need far better government support for young parents, we need more teen pregnancies.


parental and government consent
If they are too young to make decisions for themselves the government or parents will have to make decisions for them.

We already allow children to engage in activities that could be viewed as sexual
-letting them shower nude with strangers.

There is no logical reason not to allow the same or similar things in the context of child marriage.


Should the age of consent depend on the sexual activity?

Different sexual activities have different consequences. Being fucked in your pussy or anus is very different from just sucking a dick or touching a dick/breast with your hands.

It is especially important to protect the reproductive organs of girls and thus we may want to completely ban vaginal sex before puberty.

If you have married a child you will be obligated to take care of her or him and this includes not having sex with her if she isn't physically ready for that type of sex. Thus you may be limited to just sexual touching if she is really young.

The consequences will depend on the societal attitudes towards the activity in question, we do let children shower with other children of the same sex currently and this is viewed as normal.


About child porn
Any sexual material by anyone below 18 is currently viewed as childporn, thus it's not even legal to take nude photos of your yourself at 17. The question is;

How far should we go in changing these laws?

feminist said:
Do you want to remove the age of consent laws for teen boys as well? Like if some 40 year old men want to gangbang a 13 year old boy, film it and publish it, that’s ok with you?
If we just look at what would be best for the boy the answer is no we shouldn't allow porn to be made featuring boys that young.

But porn made will make a lot of other individuals happy and thus society as a whole probably benefit from the production and widespread distribution of teen porn.


Active member
Law is just a group of thugs enforcing their mentality on others. Retarded laws are like puzzles you just go arround them or let them hurt the tards that made them.

Like illegalizing prostitutes. You can simply
Escortcel abroad for way cheaper and let your countrys foids and their kids starve.
Or get an onahole.

Like marriage laws, dont get married.

Like you can burn money on restaurants or learn how to cook.

The last thing i would want to do is argue sense into them blue pilled idiots.
Where there is stupidity one should exploit not argue.

I used to argue why do schools teach worthless shit like literature bible and their version of history and trigonometry,

All along i should have just dropped out to study beneficial fun stuff


Unfortunatily it's not always possible to cirvumvent retarded laws. In some cases you end up having to break some BS law and just hope nothing will happen.

There have been discussions about making it illegal to travel to another country to buy sex where it's legal.

One option is just to leave permanently but there isn't any good country to migrate to.


Proposed child-porn laws
1. You can consent to the distribution of porn where you are in at 17
2. You can exchange nudes directly with people below 17.
3. Sexual photos and videos from war is allowed.
4. All animated porn is allowed.


The reddit post that got me banned

The age of consent is the age where a teen alone can decide to have sex and her parents should not be able to stop that.

13 is a decent compromise since sufficiently many girls have the mental abilities required to make these devisions at that age.

Before 13 we should require marriage first and there will still be limitations, she has to be physically ready for it.
The main advantage with allowing child-marriage is that it saves parents time, they can give up their 11 year old daughter or 9 year old boy to a male and focus on something else, it might not actually be a good thing for the children but still probably better than the alternatives.
Its only biologically natural to be attracted to younger foids, when they are naturally cute and smooth, amd still can express jenuine emotions. At those ages she can pairbond with a skillfull man for his skills and not for stupid thing like status and smoking. Actually as foids age they grow dumber. On what basis do normies base the foolish assumption that foids can make better decisions with age?!!! The more they age the more they squander money and focus on careers and gossip


Ideal marriage age
The cost of raising a child is somewhat proportional to how long you need to actually take care of said child. Thus early marriages allowed for higher fertility rate since raising children becomes cheaper.

You do however run into issues with too early marriages, most people will not want to have sex with young children and their is currently a social stigma against anything close to pedophilia. In addition sex may be harmful if it's had to early depending on the sexual activity in question.

Even if we did allow child-marriages with parental approval it probably wouldn't be too common on a developed country, especially not now when since most parents would be totally against it.


About pedophilia
Fucking a girl before she has had her first period is unlikely to result in pregnancy and you will put yourself in legal danger just by trying to seduce her. Thus even if you may enjoy fucking an 9 year old girl you probably shouldn't do it since it may cause you to end up in jail.

Even if it were legal it would still be better to have sex with an older female more likely to get pregnant from a Darwinian perspective. The main advantage with seducing young girls is that it allows you to pair-bond early increasing the probability of you making her pregnant later. It does not need to be full sex, just something she can enjoy at that age.

Unfortunately a lot of individuals (neurological pedophiles) are only attracted to children that hasn't underwent puberty, it is indeed really bad to be a pedophile since you will be hated due to your sexual orientation and likely to end up in jail.