Oh Amos Yee, I truly view him in high regard because of his defense of people like me. I do however feel the way he executes his arguments is quite poor and that he was ill prepared for the onslaught of moronic westerners attacking him. It’s funny because he said this is like what happened when he criticized Singapore and was arrested for it. People there said he deserved it. I think he felt that America was a true bastion of free speech. Oh Amos, you were very wrong and you found one of the topics that causes Americans to forget about free speech.
My post isn’t about that though, my post is going to be a response to one of the video responses to Amos. I will be doing a post about the whole situation eventually though. I chose this video because the young lady, Weebo Jones, in the video acted as if she was some kind of hero for being calm about it. Like it was so hard to be rational and she is doing Amos a favor for being calm. Then she went on and started arguing poorly yet she, of course, received nearly all positive responses and felt she was correct. So here we go:
The format will be me quoting her (or paraphrasing) putting the time the quote is from and then responding to what I quoted. Her words will be in italics and within quotes. Note that in my responses I shift from talking about her (using she/her) to directly talking to her (using you). This is because I had to stop typing for over 4 hours and shifted how I was writing the response without realizing. I just left it as is. For full context here is a link to her video, so you can decide for yourself if I am taking her out of context or manipulating her words or putting words in her mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT1GPnWYT3A
“…and so when you say consent are you talking about the “just go with the flow even if you don’t understand what’s happening” type of consent or are you talking about someone who is fully aware in full comprehension and who remains unmanipulated by the person asking them to consent because there is a difference Amos…” 1:03
I am commenting on this point right away, because she brings it up again. This is the “children can’t consent because they don’t know what is happening” response that is very popular. It is the position that views assent as invalid and that the consent must be fully informed. The problem with this is that people who use this argument do not hold nearly anything else a child does up to such a ridiculous standard, even things that are objectively dangerous and risky. Is a child fully aware of the dangers of the ocean when they swim? Are they in full comprehension? Do they have all the knowledge of tides, undertoes, marine life, what to do if they get a cramp? No, of course not. Same goes for snowboarding, driving in a car, shooting firearms. Also, sneaking “unmanipulated” in there is disingenuous. Most pedophiles and advocates for adult/child sexual relations do not support relationships that develop from manipulation. You see Weebo, this concern for a child’s consent/assent is only relevant to you when you want to use it to argue against something that you subjectively do not like. As an example, you have little concern for public schoolings mass indoctrination and stark similarities to prison. If you do, I can provide you countless examples of something you don’t care about the child’s consent or assent but they are involved in. That or you believe that their consent/assent is fine. Either one, because you may well care about a child consenting/assenting but when it comes to sexual relations you suddenly feel a child is unable to consent/assent or you have a ridiculous standard. Even then, your argument would apply to adults. I am a virgin, near or slightly past 30. I have only ever made out with two females in my life. I have never even seen a real vagina in a sexual situation involving me. I am as sexually experienced as most 10-14 year old pubescent individuals. Is it okay for me to have sexual relations with them? What about the ones that are MORE experienced than me? There are plenty.
“…yes and there is a reason for that, because more often than not those children don’t necessarily know what it is they’re getting in to…” 1:37
This relates back to my first comment. Children do things all the time where they do not necessarily know what they are getting in to. This argument, in and of itself, is no argument at all unless you logically apply it consistently. Which you obviously don’t, otherwise you would argue that children should not even exist or that to exist, is to be constantly harmed, because every single day children do things they don’t necessarily know about.
“…your argument is flawed, right from the get-go, you assume the child consenting knows exactly what it is they’re getting in to, knows the feelings, has experimented enough with themselves to know what they like, what they don’t like…” 1:45
Weebo, where is your concern for this issue in regards to every damn thing else a child does? His argument is not flawed at all and he is not assuming anything, YOU are assuming a metric ton of crap to make your argument. Amos is merely saying that considering every under 12 sexual relationship as abusive is wrong and you come through, calling that illogical, then making massive assumptions while being hypocritical and logically inconsistent. Again, if I take my 10 year old cousin shooting with me, am I abusing them because they have no idea what they are getting in to? Most children with no firearms experience have no idea how loud a firearm is. Hell most adults don’t. She has never shot a gun before, she has never experimented with them by herself. Will I be abusing her merely by taking her shooting Weebo? Now if you are an anti-gun nut, let me ask if I would be abusing her if I took her jetskiing. She has never done it and has no experience with it and does not know what she would be getting in to until she experiences it. Would I be abusing her?
From now on I will not be responding to these “they can’t consent/assent because they don’t know” arguments unless you supplement the argument with research showing the innate harm of sexual relations between a child and someone socially deemed too old. Remember that peer relations are NOT considered harmful and generally considered healthy. So you have to find a study that explains what about human biology causes a child to become harmed if the partner is socially deemed too old. Good luck.
“…that it isn’t going to cause them internal harm…” 2:05
I do not think Amos was talking about sex as in vaginal or anal sex without concern for the physical limits. I think Amos was talking about sexual relations in general. I would agree, most children under 12 would not have fun being penetrated as if they were an adult. However, there is still mutual masturbation, oral sex, digital penetration, general petting/fondling etc.
She mentions that the ages of consent were decided based on biological development. 2:45
The ages of consent were originally just general ages of majority. Sex in general was banned for anyone not married. It was not based on age. Back in the day, people did not view children as precious or special. Just young humans. There was an outcry for higher ages of “consent” because men were frequenting brothels for young prostitutes, very popular being the tweens. Now, I am not in favor of such a world, I am in favor of a sexually open world where sexual relations are had for fun and enjoyment, but the original reasons for the ages of consent were because of social morals, not any rational reason based on human biology.
“…usually, usually the first time is less than desirable…” 5:55
Yeah, because you have two inexperienced people in a sex negative society that were never allowed to learn anything besides “STDs! Pregnancy! Scary! Be ashamed!” trying to have sex with each other. It’s almost as if, an adult could help the first time so that it will be more enjoyable for the young person? If I told two young tweens to enjoy the ocean for the first time ever without allowing any prior experiences to help them, even if I let them see books or videos that showed the basics of swimming and tried to scare them of the dangers, it is likely they would not only have a bad time, but drown.
At 7:20 she concedes there might be some rare situations where sex would not be harmful to a child.
Ah so there IS hope for you Weebo. I commend your open mindedness to even admit just that.
“…where something illegal has occurred and nobody was harmed it’s okay, well then allow me to burn your house down while no one is inside…” 8:32
Really? This is your best response? Laws are not ethics. They are often loosely based on ethics but often they are based on giving power to the state and whoever is in control of the state or friends with who controls the state. Regardless, burning someone’s property down is harm because you are destroying their property. This is in no way comparable to a consensual relationship where no one is harmed and no property is destroyed.
Amos uses a screenshot of a wiki page about other cultures and their sexual values and she criticizes this evidence her provides. 9:20
You are absolutely right Weebo, this does not in any way support his argument about adult/child sexual relations. It only could be used to argue that cultures have in the past allowed or encouraged sexual relations between children and allowed children to watch adults engage in sexual relations. That’s about it, it doesn’t even attach any positive or negative results from it. Merely that it existed.
At 10:10 she said pedophiles should not be discriminated against but then compares pedophiles to kleptomaniacs, arsons and serial killers.
Pedophilia is an attraction and as of the recent DSM it is possible to be sexually attracted to children and not be considered mentally disordered. Kleptomaniacs have a compulsion, arsons have destroyed property and killers have killed. They are not analogous to pedophiles. Also please note that pedophiles will likely be involved in the lives of children you may have or not. At the least, a large amount of pedophiles never offend. Which you go on to say. Chances are you may know one now and think highly of them.
“…That children can make these decisions for themselves, at such a young age…” 12:38
You claim to have talked with people like us before but I highly doubt you have and if you did I highly doubt you listened or you talked to very few and probably with those with a limited understanding of the ideas propagated by groups like NAMBLA. You see, many of us don’t think children should just be able to decide what they can do, when they can do it, how they do it and with whom they do it. That’s why parents/guardians exist. (Begin hypothetical if society allowed such interactions) If I was a parent and I had an eight year old daughter who was in a non-sexual relationship with a mid-20s guy and she wanted to see his genitals and show hers to him and wanted to share touch or some licks, it would be up to me, as the parent, to make sure the experience and relationship stayed safe and consensual. If I even wanted to allow the relationship. Just like if he wanted to take her to a water park or local circus. She can’t just say yes. (End hypothetical) Many of us are not youth rights absolutists. Though I am very pro-youth rights, I am not and I never will argue that children should just be able to consent to whatever. I do not think a child being allowed the occasionally alcoholic drink is harmful, neither does most of Europe, but that doesn’t mean I think they should just be allowed to go to the local Pub and get shit-faced.
Around 14:10 she is talking about the study Amos posted that said around 1 in 4 males are pedophilic.
I happen to agree, it wasn’t the best study and honestly doesn’t tell us much. However, if we go by what people are saying in modern times, that men who try to get with 14-18 year old girls are pedophiles, then I would argue nearly every single straight male would be a pedophile since nearly every single straight male is attracted to pubescent and post pubescent teens (as well as adults). To be fair Weebo, you are talking about prepubescents, the actual definition of pedophilia, and I agree the number is likely much lower, closer to 3-5% which is still millions of people.
“…arousal should be taken with a grain of salt…” 14:57
Maybe a pinch of salt, but I agree. Arousal does not equate to consent, in infants and toddlers it can equate to assent. Since they are more akin to animals (non-sapient animals) and will enjoy sexual stimulation and will also expressively demonstrate discomfort as well.
“…we shouldn’t punish for thought crimes…” 15:32
Agreed, but be aware many people do not really agree with you. Understand that Amos does have legitimate complaints and you can’t just brush them off because you agree with him. Most people in our western cultures are not even as open minded as you Weebo.
“…except that the internet is forever…” 17:52
Your gripe here is with culture. Since kids who self-produce child porn are also harmed by the culture that attacks them for being sexually expressive. Women who take nudes or porn vids are attacked for being sexually expressive. The root is culture. However, I will agree that an adult who makes child porn, assuming it was legal, would be incredibly irresponsible given the current social climate. I would not want them around any kids I know. I mean, I argue similarly for those who do have consensual relations with youth. The root cause of the problem is the culture and people who feel fit to intrude on people’s private lives, but as an adult, one should be aware the of social implications and the problems the child will face down the line, even if it was consensual and mutually enjoyed at the time. It is a conundrum I will blog about one day, because blaming the victim is also not right.
“… when they have to live with the knowledge that their images are publicly available…” 18:20
Like I said above, your gripe is with culture. However, you only care about virtue signaling because if you really cared about this issue you would argue for the destigmatization of recorded sexual acts and expressive sexuality for all people. Children are recorded in compromising and embarrassing situations all the time and it is always uploaded. Why are they not harmed forever until the ends of time? Cultural norms. Pay more attention to the ones you support and the harm they cause. Amanda Todd should have laughed at the guy blackmailing her. All those girls who post nudes of themselves as tweens/teens should not face near insurmountable social hatred. We need to change our culture, part of that is, at least, embracing and celebrating child/teen sexuality. At least.
“…usually the kid has been kidnapped, abused, raped…” 18:44
Ummm source? It is illegal for people to even look at child porn so I am curious as to how you know what the content of child porn is. I know full well you are just saying that of course because it bolsters your argument.
She quotes a study that hand waves away an argument that children may appear enjoy sexual contact in child porn 19:45
So, some clearly biased researcher saying something that confirms your bias means it must be true. Do you actually think they are being intellectually honest? Where is there proof or are they just upset because they saw children enjoying sexual contact? “Oh that little girl is smiling because it is pleasurable, better make up some nonsense to explain away pleasure inducing stimuli!” Please spare me. Ironic that we are only allowed to hear or read the words of very few people. We can’t investigate for ourselves the content of child porn lest we risk YEARS IN PRISON FOR LOOKING AT PICTURES. Regardless of the intent of the viewer.
“…there is so much child porn out there and it’s not like the industry is regulating itself…” 20:43
You need to relax with comments like these because they heavily imply you do your own research. That, or you are lying because you know it is impossible for unbiased third parties to confirm or deny what you are saying because it is not legal for them to do so.
Honestly, any debate about child porn and it’s contents are moot because none of us can independently verify, I will leave people with the fact that, because of smartphones, ease of access to the internet and children nearly all having smartphones that child porn is largely becoming a self-made industry. One doesn’t need to see that to believe it based on numerous news articles about the topic. Far from the insidious industry that Weebo alludes to.
What I can argue about is making the possession of certain pictures illegal. A video of a child beating beat obviously shows harm, lack of consent, shame and terror of the child. It is legal however Weebo. What about children being killed or dead children? All legal. In the less extreme vein, children being shamed, mocked, insulted, made fun of, embarrassed, all allowed Weebo and all permanently uploaded for the world to see forever (or until an Apocalypse). Why is that allowed?
Simply, in America at least, making the possession of mere photos or videos illegal is unconstitutional. It is a victimless crime as the mere possession does not, in and of itself, create a victim.
“…the children exploited in these images must live with the permanency…” 21:14
Again, any other crime committed against a child that is recorded and spread is not illegal, so why is this any different? At least have consistency in your beliefs. Pics and vids of children getting beat or murdered are legal, a vid of a child masturbating is punishable with years of prison. It makes no sense.
“…you sick fuck…” 21:32
Oh come off it, I have already shown that you do not care about the psychological wellness of children because you only care about the one area that you have been raised to care about. You are virtue signaling. Confirming your bias. Ironically causing more psychological damage than if people would relax and stop getting so strung up about it. Weebo you are part of the problem.
“…if you had even a shred of empathy…” 22:55
You betray yourself Weebo, he has soundly defeated your argument about merely possessing child porn and instead of admitting it, you then appeal to pure emotion without even blinking. People blindly agreeing with you will not see it, but more inquisitive minds will.
The discussion about babies which takes place around 25:10 before and after
It’s funny, you ramble about development but you did not disprove Amos. Where is the harm if the baby stimulates the adult in that way? You are actually proving his point. You are showing how there is just natural responses. They grab and suck and play with. Show me the harm Weebo, show me what about it would hurt the baby or young child. Being upset about it later because you were raised to view it badly, often when you don’t even remember what happened, does not show harm with the action.
“…you have just reduced it to a yes vs no…” 28:00
I definitely agree, that he was way too simplistic in his descriptions. Many factors come into play (which is why I advocate for parent protection). Just like I wouldn’t let my kid wander into the ocean alone, I wouldn’t let them wander into sexual relations alone as well. Ironically, society has no problem with kids wandering aimlessly into sexual relations, as long as it is with a person near the same age. The other person’s experience, intent etc. don’t really matter much. Which betrays the position of the anti-adult/child sexual relation people.
“…even if only 1% of children were affected negatively… …I would still have a problem with it…” 29:48
Really? So you must have a problem with everything a child does with anyone since nothing is without risk. Honestly, a sexual relation is one of the least risky things a child can partake in and one that is immediately beneficial to both parties. Ever have an orgasm Weebo? If you have it with someone you like, it is (sadly I assume) quite awesome.
That’s about it. I hope I highlighted pretty well how Weebo Jones really didn’t have a good response to Amos, and Amos’ video itself honestly wasn’t very good, regardless of how good it made me feel.
Weebo Jones and Amos will likely never read this post but it’s whatever. If someone wants to make them aware of it they can.