>>117609114 >But its a shit country so no one wants to fuck. Nah, shit countries have higher birthrates.
Japan is shit, but thats not why they dont have kids. It's just due to society giving people so much, they pass up on marriage and family. Why date and marry, when you have hentai or hookers if 2d isnt enough? Emotional needs? Clubs where people pretend to care for you, or become fake partners for money. Why spend money having a family, when you can buy booze and other vices?
Japan isnt having kids because of how advanced shit is. It can provide alternatives to having a family, that give full benefits but no negatives. It needs to be poorer and harsher if Japs need motivation to have kids.
>>117609243 While that's one side of it, it probably also has to do with the whole emotionally and socially repressed culture they have over there. And that isn't helped by the pressure cooker that is their study and working habits. They don't even have the time to pursue relationships.
>>117609346 Why would they even if they did? You have time, you spend it on /a/.
Pleny of people could be working on or looking for relationships. Plenty dont because they figure it's not worth the effort. There needs to be an incentive and clearly we think shitposting, watching anime, fapping, etc is more rewarding than a relationship.
First world countries in general are having less kids. People would rather persue other things they enjoy, than be tied down with family.
>>117609040 >normalization of paedophilia in japan? see the problem isn't Japan or islam or any culture from african or middle eastern region shit even american natives and south american natives probably don't give a fuck if girls is young or not
see the problem isn't "normalization", it's that literally the only part of the world demonizes paedophilia is the western, dominant, christian or with history and culture focus around christian moral values which glorify the family unit and thus
it's not the "other" that is wrong for liking girls, it's "us", the western former colonial empires, the so advanced countries that look down on cultural practices of rest of the world because we take our values to be superior to oh just the rest of the world. the scariest part it's not even as broad as western countries - it's a limited few agencies within western countries (feminism, catholicism etc.). look at uk, when you see the media is harping about paedophiles in the government and royalty the first thing you hear people say is "well they are just abusing their power and having sex with children is an expression of that" but do you ever hear "well these people who love children seek power in order to be able to express their sexuality without being persecuted"?
>>117609449 No suprise. 2D can be perfect, where 3D cant. 2D dosent suffer from human flaws, and can easily be changed to be whatever the creator wants. Unlike real life where you have to deal with imperfections.
>>117609499 >it's that literally the only part of the world demonizes paedophilia is the western, dominant, christian or with history and culture focus around christian moral values which glorify the family unit Christianity never mentions paedophilia.
Paedophilia is seen as a problem, because of the mental effects it can have on a kid, and the fact kids cant really consent to things they dont understand.
Try getting a better argument. Like how even if X is totally wrong. It's none of our business because our borders dont extend there.
>>117609579 >it's not the "other" that is wrong for liking [little] girls, it's "us"
>see the problem isn't "normalization", it's that literally the only part of the world demonizes paedophilia is the western, dominant, christian or with history and culture focus around christian moral values which glorify the family unit
>Glorify the family unit >The west, not the asians or island countries where you're living with your entire family not just your parents and siblings.
The fact that you are arguing against the point is an issue. People need time to mature to fully understand the consequences of their actions and 14 year olds are not capable of that kind of thought.
>>117609679 Nisio's "I wrote it for myself" doesn't mean it's not canon. It still got released and it's been a major influence on the books that came after it. He just wrote it full of incest, lolis and hardcore face-smashing action instead of how he wrote Bakemonogatari. Nise is still 100% canon
>>117609653 Most Muslim women get Brazilian waxes because pubic hair is considered dirty in Islam. This tradition dates back hundreds of years, and was common long before Western bikini waxing became popular.
>>117609642 >Christianity never mentions paedophilia. holy shit arguing with you is like pulling teeth again did I say that? I literally am writing this out again for you - "family unit" - y'know mother, father, children is that which is glorified in christianity and has been continuously been glorified and enforced through out history, tradition and practice. you can't bang someone else's daughter because that's not nice towards your neighbour and you'd have to marry her first. now look at islam, the only time I'm probably going to be able to use "patriarchal" society without sounding like a liberal retard, where the role of a father and husband is intentionally ambiguous - the father teaches a daughter and a husband taking care of his daughter in islam is a more of a combined role than a role that is separated in christianity because that's how their religious doctrine, moral systems, norms, ethics etc. etc. is passed down unto them. this kind of point can be made about a lot of other cultures.
>better argument. >Like how even if X is totally wrong. It's none of our business because our borders dont extend there. that's even worse? how are you going to even argue that in a global and an international world that is driven by markets? let's ignore it because we don't like it and deal it when we have to instead of trying to understand foreign cultures?
>>117609800 >you can't bang someone else's daughter because that's not nice towards your neighbour and you'd have to marry her first Yes. Christians invented this. No other cultures had monogamy, and a system where a man would avoid raising another mans spawn. Spoiler alert, Judaism predates Christianity by a long shot, and Jews are Jews based on the mother, to ensure the child is Jewish.
>how are you going to even argue that in a global and an international world that is driven by markets? The same way we turn a blind eye to the practicies of Chinese, Indian and Saudi industries where people are practically slaves. >instead of trying to understand foreign cultures? By pushing your views on them? Real understanding.
>>117609677 >fully understand the consequences of their actions Sex is a trivial physical activity.
Risk of STD is overall very low from one partner, and there's no reason to see the partner as a brainless moron who doesn't know that he'd infect the girl.
Pregnancy is a bigger issue, if the girl is old enough to get pregnant. That is under the responsibility of the adult; akin to how we don't forbid adults from playing ball games with children because they could kick the ball so hard it'd snap the child's neck on impact, there's no reason to forbid responsible adults from making any sort of physical contact with children. Doing so is a result of the mentality that when sexuality is involved, all men turn into irresponsible predators. Of course, sadly, that actually is the case for many males, but surely not all. Moreover, it would be reduced if our culture didn't assume and thus in a way expect them to be so, and we rather taught boys and teenagers that they can live out their sexuality in sympathetic, careful ways.
Why don't you faggots try to think about it from the view of the parent. Imagine some suspicious 35 year old man going out with your adorable pure 12 year old daughter. Are you telling me you can't see a problem here? Sure, there might be a small chance that he actually loves her but 9 times out of 10 they're just there to take advantage of younger girls who don't know any better.
I hate Snake more than you could possibly know. Ever since she showed her stupid face for the first time in her God-awful arc I knew she would never have anything good to contribute, and I was absolutely god damned right. Every scene she appeared in was an agonizing fucking slog that made me want to die. Snake has no value as a character, as a girl, or as a human being.
>>117611067 >hurf durf it's pathetic Have you tried putting forth an argument?
>>117611133 >Imagine some suspicious 35 year old man going out with your adorable pure 12 year old daughter. >suspicious Why would you let your daughteru spend time with suspicious people? Are you a baka?
>>117611133 If your precious little princess is going to let Ojisan nail her then she is just as likely to let some guy her age or thereabouts do the same. Neither case is better or worse than the other in general terms.
>>117612079 >You just try to pretend it's a western only thing You seem to be confusing me with some other anon in the thread.
>huge power disparity There is a "power disparity" in absolutely every single interaction between a child and an adult. Does that mean we should isolate them? What makes sexual contact different from other kinds of contact?
>having them in a relationship with one would be completely unfair to them So parents should all abandon their children, because it's unfair that children have relationships with their parents? Obviously, I'm diverting your words; you meant a sexual relationship. So we're back to the same question: what makes sexuality different?
Can you answer that question? There's a number of different things you might say; maybe a list of different reasons. Once you explicitly enumerate them, I can address them; pretty sure nothing original will come out of you though so I'll be repeating the same arguments I've been repeating since ages, but oh well.
>>117612607 I mean a sexual relationship anon. It's unethical for there to be a huge power disparity in a sexual relationship. Romantic partners should be equal in a relationship and that is impossible when one is a child and one is an adult.
Attraction to someone who is in or past puberty would be perfectly normal in any other species and it has been normal in human society when the age of adulthood was early teens. Teenagers are no longer considered adults within most 1st world societies because it takes much longer for them to establish independence and be incorporated into their societal structures. 18 years old is an arbitrary cutoff they use because most people have gone through the entirety of their physical and mental changes from puberty by that time, it doesn't mean that 18 is when they mature it means that it accounts for all of the ones who were done with puberty at 13/14/15/16/17/18. Of course there are still some who are not done developing and even when they do it doesn't mean that they're capable of thinking of the consequences of their actions. Anyone who has had a job or gone to college can tell you that being 18+ doesn't suddenly make a person responsible, mature, or capable of thinking things through.
The actual attraction is perfectly understandable, but there's a reason for the law which doesn't really apply here because she's a cartoon
>>117613070 >>117613116 If you would see actual data, the most of the damage comes from society AND upon the discovery of such event. It is something the society always wants to deny. That people, even children that were victims, prefer to keep that to themselves - because once they let it out it will be the society around them that will turn their life to hell.
>>117612833 >It's unethical for there to be a huge power disparity in a sexual relationship. What makes that statement more valid than: >It's unethical for there to be a huge power disparity in a parent-child relationship. ?
Can you stop avoiding the question?
>>117612984 >Pedophilia is a mental disorder Depends on how you define it. As a non-exclusive pedophile with a sense for ethics, I'm neither troubled from not being able to find a partner (a cute adult will do), nor cause anyone else trouble. If I really wanted, or were an exclusive pedo, I could even fulfill those desires by, for example, traveling to a country where there's child prostitution, and finding a brothel that doesn't mistreat its girls too much. The objective harm I cause to people by taking part in that economy would be fairly minimal, and balanced out by any good deeds I would be motivated to do after getting a refreshment, so it's absolutely justified. (If you think child prostitutes in third world countries always cry and are traumatized, that's wrong; they don't seem to actively suffer in any significant way, though their freedom is probably restricted in some ways, not all customers are nice to them, etc. etc.; it's a question of the magnitude of the harm done.)
>>117613197 That's just one person, and even he hasn't shown motivation to actually harm any person. That anon who's only interested in sex with lolis might actually be less harmful to them, since he might still be overall careful with them as a basic rule (as opposed to because he *especially* cares about them), than how much a grown up person is harmful to women he only sleeps with for sex, because in that case a person is less likely to feel *general* sympathy for the for-sex-only partner. Only giving you food for thought and diverse possibilities of course -- nobody's saying child molesters and rapists don't exist. That would be absurd. It's just so that it's equally absurd and stupid that you see everything black-or-white.
>>117613499 >That anon who's only interested in sex with lolis might actually be less harmful to them I never thought I would see people more delusional than those I left behind on /pol/. Yet here we are.
>>117613499 I said this anon. For a romantic relationship to be healthy the partners have to be equal in it. If you think that adults should be some kind of fuck buddies to children, once they are past puberty, it leaves the children open to too much possible abuse.
>>117613518 But that is wrong. What you said is true in a marginal amountof cases - most of the time people are afraid of how society will treat them after it gets out. Because this modern rotten society does not actually even care who is victim and who is criminal.
>>117613590 You mean like him jumping towards the "Fucking prudes" angle when people were against him abusing kids just because he likes their body? Abuse is bad anyway. But he had the lowest, most base reason.
This thread is exactly why people want to kill pedophiles.
>>117613605 >hurf durf look at how delusional you are The thing you're feeling right now is called "cognitive dissonance" and happens when confronted with an idea that goes contrary to your whole world-view, so you just dismiss it as delusional or otherwise. Very often, that's actually a good heuristic reaction, for example against nutjob conspiracy theorists, homeopaths, etc.. However, pedophilia related arguments haven't gone mainstream, and haven't faced much scientific and critical analysis yet, so it's expected of you right now to show some actual arguments against the ones being put forth for you.
So far I didn't face a *single* person who could explain me why they think an adult-child sexual relationship would be harmful, *except* when assuming a priori that the child "wouldn't really want it" and the adult is "using the power difference" to convince the child. That is, of course, a form of circular logic: the act is deemed to be negative, and the adult deemed abusive, from the get go.
>>117613714 >For a romantic relationship to be healthy the partners have to be equal in it. So it's not possible for a very intelligent and charismatic person to have an ethical relationship with a very dumb and naive person? >If you think that adults should be some kind of fuck buddies to children, once they are past puberty, it leaves the children open to too much possible abuse. That seems like a non-sequitur. Why would a child become open to abuse after making many neutral or positive sexual experiences in childhood and adolescence? Of course, you assume that those experiences cannot possibly be neutral or positive; that they would all be negative. Why would you assume that? Negative and abusive sexual experiences of children and adolescents are no question a problem, but what makes you assume that non-negative experiences are impossible?
>>117613731 What about a say 20 year old with a stable job and career prospects wanting to be with ~12-16 year old? The age gap is minimal and said male is in some sort of position to support the girl. Where do we draw the line?
>>117613731 >This thread is exactly why people want to kill pedophiles. No, that's because they're brainless, bigoted apes, who care more about punishing some imaginary demons, than caring about the well-being of their children.
>>117613911 >So far I didn't face a *single* person who could explain me why they think an adult-child sexual relationship would be harmful, *except* when assuming a priori that the child "wouldn't really want it" and the adult is "using the power difference" to convince the child. That is, of course, a form of circular logic: the act is deemed to be negative, and the adult deemed abusive, from the get go. All those children who were molested as kids were so happy afterwards, and had no problems whatsoever. Yes, if we ignore that, then truely there is nothing harmful whatsoever.
Pedophiles are so desperate it hurts. Just kill yourself.
>>117613499 I'm not sound to be pro-pedo, but you keep saying sex means romance and that a romantic needs to be in equal footing. Now, I'm not saying that's exactly wrong when you're talking about a long term relationship, but isn't that like saying you should never play games with children because you're at an explicit advantage? I mean, is there even really something like equal footing to begin with? Because I'm sure not all adult relationships are based around their parts being completely equal, let alone if were talking about relationships outside the sexual/romantic. I mean, if I, as an adult, take a sex ed class, I'm obviously not in equal footing with a teacher, am I?
Again, I'm not trying to sound pro-pedo, but you sound like you will only take sexuality in one flavor and one flavor only.
>>117613715 >Because this modern rotten society does not actually even care who is victim and who is criminal. You know it was often even worse in pre-modern societies, right? I mean, just look at the Islamic world, or even Japan with its fixation on virginity.
>>117613911 I didn't say it would be guaranteed to be abuse, I said it's too easy for it to be open to it.
>So it's not possible for a very intelligent and charismatic person to have an ethical relationship with a very dumb and naive person?
Does the dumb person have a job? Can they support themselves? Are they free to leave the relationship at any point? If they are fully reliant on the other partner financially then it's just as bad. There is no way the second party views them as equals and that can't be a healthy relationship.
>>117613969 I am not against actually any laws or whatever consent ages or whatever. Just as well I am not trying to say pedos or any child abuse is okay.
Its just. This whole place and whole world go into rage mode about something that is barely in top 50 issues children actually have - and drag down everyone who is not even near the topic down with them.
You know I've never faced the said abuse myself. And never even considered being a part of it (regardless of what I actually want). But why do I have to feel as a victim of this situation all the time?
>>117613969 >I also notice you haven't provided one point at how practicing pedophilia is okay Actually, the burden of proof is on those saying it's not OK, since they make a claim on something "special" being the case in adult-child sexual relationships, compared to "normal" sexual relationships.
That being said, there's no shortage of scientific literature on genuine abuse and rape victims, generally none of it even considering non-abusive sexual relationships, so one is easily fooled into believing that it's proven that adult-child sexuality is always harmful. The Rind et al. study has shown that if you jumble up *all* so-called "child sexual abuse", including willing, non-willing, child, and adolescent, up to 17 years of age, then it comes out to be statistically unlinked to mental problems. They then proposed the neutral terms "adult-child sex", "adult-teenager sex", etc., which don't assume abuse. Though I don't know if they made any statistics specifically on willing *children* (say below 12).
>>117614070 >All those children who were molested as kids were so happy afterwards, and had no problems whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Clancy#The_Trauma_Myth http://www.mhamic.org/sources/sandfort.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light etc.
Try to bring forth some actual argumentation.
>>117614099 I think you quoted the wrong person in the top part of your post.
>>117614157 If they cared, they would be open-minded. Fine, let's say they have good intentions, but are just too fucking stupid.
>>117614187 >Does the dumb person have a job? Can they support themselves? Let's say no. >Are they free to leave the relationship at any point? Assuming the intelligent person is not an utter asshole, he should continue helping the person even if they stop being in a relationship and start sleeping in separate beds, no? Maybe that can't go on forever though. In that case there's a difficult situation, and the dumb person might decide to "submit" themselves to the intelligent one for the sake of being sustained, and the intelligent person would probably agree to that, since the alternative would be to dump the person onto the streets. We've quite swayed off the topic. TL;DR: use common sense and assume people to have some basic decency and empathy; if you assume everyone to be an abusive asshole to begin with, that won't do any good. >If they are fully reliant on the other partner financially then it's just as bad. Why should it be bad so long as they're fine with each other? As explained above, it only starts getting *difficult* when they don't *want* to be together any more, and even in that case it can be a better choice to stick to the "powerful" person, or do you think people should throw themselves out into the streets to follow some abstract ideal of independence? Of course, again, we swayed way off the topic of adult-child relationships. In the case of a child relying entirely on an adult but not wanting it anymore, the adult could, I suppose, transfer the child to some child care center, assuming they're good and can raise the child equally well. >There is no way the second party views them as equals and that can't be a healthy relationship. Again, there's some materialism and chase of an abstract ideal of independence here. If two people love each other, but only one is able to sustain their lives, and agrees to do so, then what's bad with that? Yes, I'm actually a commie.
>>117614588 This is not about financial independence by itself, though your point about it >even in that case it can be a better choice to stick to the "powerful" person shows the exact problems inherit in that relationship.
This is about being able to view your partner as your equal. You can't have a healthy relationship if you don't have that.
>>117614719 Not even once when I was in relations have I thought/considered equality. Relationships are about respect, consideration, compromises, caring. Not equality. Equality is the word feminists fight with.
>>117614719 >>even in that case it can be a better choice to stick to the "powerful" person >shows the exact problems inherit in that relationship. I don't see a problem. Are you saying the person should go live on the streets? (As I said previously, this is actually assuming a somewhat cynical world-view where the "powerful" person wouldn't care about the person without "gaining" anything from them. Again, we assume an asshole to begin with. And even then it can be a smarter strategic choice to stick to the "powerful asshole," but that's way off the points I'm actually making anyway.)
>This is about being able to view your partner as your equal. You can't have a healthy relationship if you don't have that. What does "view your partner as your equal" mean? You talk in overly abstract terms which seem to lack any concrete meaning. Have we established that there's nothing wrong with a financially powerful and a financially powerless pair of people to live together? If so, what other "power difference" remains that makes the relationship wrong?
All the girls in my class were either fucking, or got fucked by that time. But not me. I was the loser who played counterstrike and starcraft up to early morning. What I'm trying to say is most of us in this thread are purer than girls that age, so nothing wrong with wanting to fuck one.
>>117609499 Nigger. You're blowing this out of proportion. No one is a pedophile for liking under aged 2D girls. If you have to write these huge posts about it you can be sure that there is something else going on. Real kids can't consent. 2D doesn't have to. Simple.
>>117610685 And you don't think there's a problem with that? It's not about social constructs or morality or any bullshit like that, the human brain is not physically capable of handling shit like that at such a young age, nor are they ever really capable of being decent, responsible parents. Of course there are exceptions, but that's like saying some 14 year olds are capable of college-level calculus, you can't count on that shit because the brain doesn't fully develop until you're in your twenties. Hell, most people don't even grasp the concept of consequential thinking until they've done their stint as a retarded teenager and moved on to bigger things. There's a reason why kids that young shouldn't be boning eachother like jackrabbits, and it's not because of Christian values, societal expectations, or the big bad super evil Catholic church boogeyman. It's because everyone at that age is a fucking shithead who shouldn't be bringing more kids into this world, because if they do they're going to end up being every bit as retarded as their irresponsible, insufficiently educated parents. That shit is not fucking ok, we have enough idiots as it is.
>>117615398 >Hell, most people don't even grasp the concept of consequential thinking until they've done their stint as a retarded teenager and moved on to bigger things.
This. You constantly look back and think something like "I was so fucking retarded back then" You understand things a lot better as you go on. Experience is everything and while that doesn't necessarily require a certain age it will most likely boil down to that.
>>117615204 Of course, if the financially powerful person is an asinine asshole who would dump the person on the street if not for gain, OR too dumb to notice that the weak person is forcing themselves into the relationship for the sake of getting continued financial support, then it will be a bad relationship. The former is assuming the guy to be an asshole to begin with, and *still* possibly better for the weak person than to live on the street, though it would be a lot better if people weren't assholes, obviously. The latter is a situation the weak person brings upon themselves and the powerful one sadly doesn't notice, so is not at any fault. AND both cases barely have anything to do with an adult-child relationship, where the adult would be expected to be very benevolent towards the child, AND smart enough to notice any problems the child is hiding, so...
Is there any way you meant to connect this back to adult-child relationships? Otherwise, it seems like we've established that any adult-child relationship would be fine so long as the adult is not "evil" to begin with.
>>117615398 Right, it would be great if teenagers were encouraged to spend time with *responsible* adults, instead of fucking around with equally clueless shitheads. Other than that, pump money into some seriously good sex-ed at school.
>>117615681 Then you don't know pedophiles. http://www.virped.org/
>>117615593 They're not. Look back at yourself. I know that I thought I was hot shit and later on I realized that I was stupid as fuck and didn't know anything. I also thought it was incredibly late for me to fuck my girl friend with 13. The truth is that most people don't fuck anyone with 13.
>>117615729 The pedophiles that I spend everyday with aren't benevolent and I can promise you that they're pedophiles. I've also read parts of their guides that explain that it's okay to introduce your child or a child to sex at any age. Toddlers aren't even too young for these sick faggots.
>>117615835 After Araragi is killed by Gaen. Araragi goes to hell and find Hachikuji. He's able to free himself out of hell and pull Hachikuji back to the real world with him. Upon getting back, Gaen makes Hachikuji the new Snake God by explaining the slugs are snails that don't have shells and that slugs are basically snakes or some shit like that. By becoming God, she no longer has to worry about the darkness coming after her.
>>117615602 And I know you're a whiny little 14 year old faggot, but they aren't 100% effective. >B-but the chances of that are... No. Fuck the chances and fuck you. Everyone having that kind of thinking is the reason why this shit continues to be a problem. If kids are utilizing those means, then why is this still such a prevalent issue? It isn't because of a lack of education, it's because young people are morons who choose not to use them, or do and fail thanks to the margin of error, thus creating the issue at hand. Pull your head out of your ass and try to look at the bigger picture. Kids shouldn't be fucking.
>>117615945 You belong to the group of even larger morons, who are arguing virginity as effective means of avoiding pregnancies. The only reason to even defend this retarded idea is because of jesusfuckers who want to promote purity. Pursuing this idea will actually raise teenage pregnancy ideas and play into the hands of the jesusfuckers. Just kill yourself already.
>>117615975 No, I probably dealt with over 100 pedophiles. These people are sick and so easy to spot. It's really disgusting. So it's not like one of them were bad. They are all bad. The things they do to children and force them to do. Something I've always wondered is how so many of them are spreading STDs to children. I've seen that more than once and it was usually the father raping the child. Disgusting.
>I've read guides here about how to rape women, so heterosexuals must be evil. Have you or are you just making that shit up? Not only that, but I bet the guide didn't reinforce the idea that the woman wanted it.
>>117615787 >I just said that the relationship doesn't have to be abusive for it to not be healthy. >Power disparity in a relationship is never good, that's what the problem is. Again, you speak abstract mumbo jumbo that doesn't hold up on closer analysis. You're speaking dogma, not explaining any real problems.
>That is why adult/child relationships are bad, even if there is benevolence from both parties it's not a good relationship. You have yet to provide literally a single reason for this claim.
>>117615801 Stop spending time on places like HTTC then? By the way, some toddlers masturbate on their own accord, but whatever.
>>117615945 >If kids are utilizing those means They're not. >It isn't because of a lack of education It is. >it's because young people are morons I.e. not educated well. >Kids shouldn't be fucking. We see how well teaching them that works in the USA, UK, and other countries. Encouraging a kid to practice safe sex will work a lot better than encouraging them to stop practicing sex, for utterly obvious reasons. They want to have sex. (Talking about teenagers.)
Abstinence works in some cultures actually, but those tend to be overall very backwards and extremely limiting on girls.
>>117615801 You realise the faggot you are arguing with is a pedophile right? Obviously he is the same predatory asshole you are talking about. So with that in mind, why the hell do you think he will do anything other than insist pedo's are benevolent and misunderstood victims?
It makes things easier for him if people dont view him as a threatening figure who will hurt kids. So obviously he is going to deny everything you say, because admitting it is counterproductive for him. Why are you even bothering with him?
>>117616125 I need to kill time before work and I can't tear down pedophiles there like I can do here. It's kind of an outlet with dealing with these people. How do you expect to be nice and fair to these people on a daily basis? I've placed a fairly good mask on at work because it gets me everything I need, but it's tiring.
The only solace I can take is that if they keep up with their ways, I'll probably meet them.
>>117616179 I guess underworld or whatever the use is a more appropriate term.
>>117616113 >I don't know what HTTC is. Should have been obvious. Listen to people who know what they're talking about.
>>117616125 >normalfags being mad and delusional Tell me more about those pedophile boogeymen who claim that every child rapist is actually a benevolent child lover. Are they related to our Reptilian Overlords and the Illuminati as well?
>>117616216 >>117616301 Stop acting more retarded than you are. I can tell from ten miles that what the anon meant is "telling kids to remain virgins won't work."
>>117616150 Sure as hell doesn't seem that way from where I'm standing. Seems like every drug addict and high school dropout I know (which is quite a few thanks to my shitty high school and equally shitty neighborhood) has a couple of little bastards running around while they sit around staring at a tv or trying to figure out a way to get shitfaced at the bar and come back to find their kids still alive. It's not a pretty sight.
>>117616080 If you've dealt with over 100 pedophiles in real life, it obviously must be in the context of the justice system, i.e., your sample is convicted criminals. It could not be more biased. Additionally, most of the people in prison for molesting children are opportunists with a sexual preference for adults, i.e., not even true pedophiles.
>Have you or are you just making that shit up? Not only that, but I bet the guide didn't reinforce the idea that the woman wanted it.
I've seen at least two posted on 4chan. Not to mention that glorifying rape is very common around here. But it doesn't matter. You can't blame an entire group for a guide written by one person.
Must have something to do with my real-subjects education, but I have hard time of following some of the people (mostly "normals") here. I always though it should be "basis" -> "theory" -> "discussion" -> "conclusion". And I keep trying to reply to "personal experience" -> "unrelated claim" ones.
I just wan't people to stop making such a big issue out of this. There are far more serious things that need attention.
>>117616562 >Not to mention that glorifying rape is very common around here. That's because a majority of the site is filled with underage b&, trolls, and social rejects. Most of it is people spouting shit to spout shit.
Besides, even though it may be in the context of the justice system it doesn't matter. Most pedophiles are destined to go to the criminal justice system in a 1st world country. It's always a matter of time and the government is getting better and better at taking them down. Even deep web is less and less safe from Law Enforcement.
>Opportunists with a sexual preference for adults. No, they're not.
>>117616348 I've not seen the smallest bit of factual basis for your shitty arguments other than what you believe might be true because you believe it. Go buy a mirror if you want to argue with a retard.
>>117616257 >The only solace I can take is that if they keep up with their ways, I'll probably meet them. No offense m8, but I'm guessing you're a cop. While you may indeed meet them, the prison system is a bit of a joke, so all in all I doubt they feel all that repentant. Now if prison officers didnt have to protect inmates from eachother, and prisoners werent being given more and more luxery because of human rights. Then maybe I could see them being a little more remorseful. Ofc I also believe people only regret getting caught, rarely do they regret their actual actions unless on drugs or accidental.
>>117616348 Nice try moving the goalposts. Huge difference between saying people should remain virgins, and people remaining virgins.
>>117616428 >I can tell from ten miles that what the anon meant is "telling kids to remain virgins won't work." No shit. Dosent change the fact not having sex is the best way to avoid pregnancy.
>>117616515 >In Japanese mythology, children who die before their parents can't cross the Sanzu river so they make pile of stones which demons knock over
>You die before rooking after us when we ord! You go to herr for dishonouring famiry. It's ike babyboomers started their own religion.
>>117616809 My view on pedophiles has changed since I was younger. I no longer believe they can change and I don't believe a pedophile is even a bit remorseful other than the fact they got caught. I enjoy how you called them prison officers, it would imply that you're European or at the very least not American since that term is never used here. For the most part, correctional officers are supposed to protect inmates from each other, but that doesn't really happen. It's really easy to sneak right past a correctional officer to beat a pedophile up or sometimes they just do it in front of the officer and not give a fuck. No officer is going to give his life to save a pedophile. It's just not ever going to happen. It's just not worth it.
I believe pedophiles are sick and they feed into each other and that's a dangerous part of keeping many pedophiles in prison together. They reinforce their bullshit ideas just like the deepweb and other internet groups. It's important to show that not everyone on 4chan is tolerant because this place can easily be overrun with pedophiles. They flock to each other because they make them feel it's okay and that the children really want it. I mean, they're sluts anyway, right? That ideology is dangerous. Pedophiles are very dangerous in groups and the internet probably accounts for a high rise in pedophiles.
>>117616809 >Dosent change the fact not having sex is the best way to avoid pregnancy. When they actually follow that, sure. The point is that kids don't.
>>117616980 >No True Scotsman That's not an NTS; it's the observation that many child molesters don't meet the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia. I.e., they molest children because it's easy prey, not because they find them more attractive than adults.
>>117616562 >If you've dealt with over 100 pedophiles in real life, it obviously must be in the context of the justice system, i.e., your sample is convicted criminals. Could be Tor/.onion too.
>>117617039 I am indeed not American. >>117617165 >it's the observation that many child molesters don't meet the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia. I.e., they molest children because it's easy prey, not because they find them more attractive than adults. So compared to a person who works dealing with these criminals. How does your own anecdotal evidence compare? How do you know the motives of the criminals you claim to be seperate from?
>>117617117 It makes sense though. The internet reinforces ideas that would normally be disregarded. For example: Furries. Do you think the rise of furries would not have happened if the internet didn't start connecting people? I don't think I have the comic saved, but it shows a stupid picture of a guy and a flow chart. One pointed to a life of no internet and he became a businessman while the other pointed to a life with the internet and he became a cat man. There's some truth in that joke. People wouldn't have become so open.
>>117617165 I don't know what it is. A pedophile site then?
>>117617139 Joke around enough about a topic and then people will think you're no longer joking.
>>117617209 People who've committed sex crimes with children and people who store child pronography on their computers.
>>117617277 No anecdotes here. You can literally type "pedophiles and child molesters" into Google Scholar and get studies explaining you their difference. Non-molester pedos usually get caught due to CP, and are apparently a different demographic than molesters.
>>117617215 Not everyone in prison is horrible, you know? Some people are actually remorseful for their crimes and want to better their lives. Please don't think all inmates are bad people. Some people make mistakes and the such.
>You can't imprison people who haven't committed a crime. It's only a matter of time before they commit a crime. It's either going to be downloading CP or sexual abuse.
>This study, for instance, found that only 35% of child molesters had a sexual preference for children. And yet you're just saying that all the people in prison aren't "true pedophiles" when their investigation reports argue. Not everyone is there because they had nonconsensual sex.
They're not. Pedophilia just like any other is a sexual orientation. The problem is that their group of interest are little kids that can't consent. Should you be punished for taking advantage of kids? Yes. But there is a difference between fantasy and reality. Not everyone acts up on their desire. People have rape fetishes as well. Should a guy that owns a gun and sometimes fantasises about killing Pedophiles be imprisoned?
>>117617297 Pedophile activism existed before the internet. They used to cooperate with the homos, until being gay turned from something sick and dangerous to being politically correct and even desirable.
Where do you see a rise of pedophiles? Do you think the higher availability of CP creates more pedophiles than 20 years ago? Do you think pedophilia is more accepted today than 20 years ago?
>People who've committed sex crimes with children and people who store child pronography on their computers.
You don't even know the medical definition of the word. Yet you claim to know everything about the topic. This makes you an idiot.
>>117617527 Don't get me wrong, if they can somehow avoid CP and actually doing stuff to a child then it's fine. The problem is the internet and other pedophiles start to reinforce bad behavior. This is why a lot of them get jammed up even though they never had a plan of touching a child.
>>117617606 >And how many people that were called pedos just in this thread qualify? According to Kevin-kun, it depends on the laws of your country. If you have loli, then you are a pedophile in the UK, but not in the USA.
>>117617460 >It's only a matter of time before they commit a crime. It's either going to be downloading CP or sexual abuse.
An assertion with zero evidence can be ignored.
>And yet you're just saying that all the people in prison aren't "true pedophiles" when their investigation reports argue.
No, I said that most child molesters aren't pedophiles, which is exactly what that study confirms. Pedophilia is a sexual preference for children, in case you didn't know.
>>117617559 I didn't insist that at all. Sex with children is wrong. All I'm arguing is that you can have a deviant sexuality and still be a good person. Most people are capable of controlling their sexual desires.
>>117617540 A pedophile acting high and mighty is great. I love the people like you. The ones who believe they have the power and their word is law. It really gets me going. It's like I have a fetish for justice or something. Justice is so cool, you know?
Yes, I think the higher availability creates more pedophiles and child molesters because they THRIVE on positive reinforcement and that's what these groups give. It's just the same thing as any other fringe group such as furries or other weird thing. Give someone enough positive reinforcement and you get them to do things they wouldn't normally do.
So yes, I believe the internet and larger groups have attracted more people who would have hid it or tried to solve their issue instead of being reinforced with the idea that it's fine to touch children and that CP doesn't hurt anyone.
>Pedophile a person who is sexually attracted to children.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
>>117617794 So if you have sexual preference towards children and then have sex with a child, does that not make you a pedophile?
>>117617724 It's not the consent to sex that we're talking about. Fucking a child is rape. Simple. Kids can't consent because they don't understand the magnitude of their decision. Hell they can't even make this decision. It's literally the adult that is taking advantage.
You need to take a step back and re think this because no one else but people on 4chan are going to listen to this without flipping their shit.
>>117617984 This is why they thrive here. It's because there are pedophiles on here that don't flip their shit.
They get confident and comfortable to openly talk about their desires. This is where pedophiles become dangerous. It's like the creeper threads on /b/ and /r9k/. By the end of it some email has been shared at least once.
It's amazing how comfortable people feel on 4chan.
>>117618086 you know, any sane person, with his own brain and viewpoints would flip their shit on any place that is now considered "normal". People let others tell them what to think, people let others tell them how to react. And always refer to "muh laws" like its a literal divine commandment, and not written by the same clueless and stupid people.
>>117618270 >And always refer to "muh laws" like its a literal divine commandment, and not written by the same clueless and stupid people. It still boggles my mind that people don't understand that many laws are written by society to decide how society should act and they're not always written by one guy who has a hard on for seeing buses stop at railroad crossings.
>>117618405 The lewd laws would be the only way around it and the Comic Book Defense League or whatever the stupid shit was called was willing to fight for the guy but he decided to plead guilty instead. Eventually it's going to be called unconstitutional.
The biggest reason that it doesn't come up much is due to the fact that a majority of people arrested have some kind of real CP and they just charge them with that.
>>117618375 > many Not all. That's the problem. In my country, for example (EU btw) pedo (or any rapist for that matter) can practically go free if the victim refuses to retell in all the details the whole happening in front of the whole court. And it didn't happen just once.
>>117617901 >A pedophile acting high and mighty is great. I love the people like you. The ones who believe they have the power and their word is law. It really gets me going. It's like I have a fetish for justice or something. Justice is so cool, you know? You're projecting like mad. I mean, most of the thread you've been posting like the almighty enlightener who isn't afraid to speak the truth, even when faced with all these evil pedos! All while derailing the thread and enjoying the attention. You're such a faggot.
I don't know whether your theory of positive enforcement is worth anything, but the number of child molestations went down in the last years, even though the internet got more popular. I'm pretty sure these poor families where child abuse is more common aren't more likely to hang out on pedo elite boards (or whatever the fuck exists on the internet) either.
>>117617901 >So if you have sexual preference towards children and then have sex with a child, does that not make you a pedophile?
Yes, some of the abusers in prison are pedophiles. Most are not. My original point was that you're judging all pedophiles based on a hugely biased sample of criminals, most of whom aren't even actual pedophiles.
>>117618467 >any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to success, interest, or any desired end >benefit; gain; profit >superiority or ascendancy >a position of superiority If I'm feeling horny and fuck an adult woman, it's clearly favourable for me. So, having sex at all is rape?
>>117618414 you develop into a mature human during puberty (or sexual maturity for other animals), after that your body is considered mature. Further growth and decay of the body does not change it in any significant way.
>>117618675 >The important thing is that you shouldn't be able to get imprisoned for having images of under aged 2D girls. This i can agree with. Becuase no matter what, it's a cartoon. It dosent exist, so I see no issue with how it's used. Especially since I murder things in videogames.
>>117618544 That's complicated. It's not really something I want to get into, but I see the reasoning behind the law being written that way. However, that's similar in America. It's the 6th Amendment.
>>117618548 Truthfully, all crimes have been going down in the last few years. Don't get me wrong, CP could be beneficial in the sense that it could actually lead a person away from first person sexual abuse due to the fact they won't need to make their own and they'll have their own outlet. Doesn't mean they aren't contributing to child abuse, but it does mean they aren't actively added to it.
>>117618604 Yeah, but your brain doesn't stop developing until you're in your 20s so how do I know you're not making correct decisions when it comes to sex.
>>117618675 No, they really don't. The cases are probably less than 10 and can easily be fought in court. The problem is these people usually have real CP to and that's what gets them fucked.
>>117618422 when humans couldn't get away with sitting on their asses all day and had to work to survive you were considered adult at age 15, now that our life expectancy had grown far past 50 we somehow though we should raise the bar. This is by no means logical
>>117618828 >Yeah, but your brain doesn't stop developing until you're in your 20s so how do I know you're not making correct decisions when it comes to sex.
You have absolutely not idea what happens when the brain develops huh? You don't magically gain better judgement or insight, it does nothing for any of the concepts of society. Those are all learned behaviour patterns that you can teach and understand long before your brain has physically matured.
>>117618828 > 6th amendment So having a child to retell in details (for the n'th time already) now in front of a whole crowd of unknown people the most traumatizing happening of his life is okay?
> crimes going down Child related crimes going down? Are we on the same planet?
>20s Refer to biology please. Parts about when and why it is considered best to... lets say, reproduce.
> usually That a looooooooong stretch. You know if you happened to refresh /b/ two times while in between there was a pedo image on front, it was saved to your pc even if you did not see it. And once it happens second time it can already be considered purposeful and punishable.
>>117618872 >Adult means old enough to have kids >Get proven wrong >W-well we shouldnt change from how things were Said the man posting on the itnernet, in a home with running water, a heating system and a fridge/freezer full of food he didnt forage for and kill himself.
Why arent you still eating raw meat? It's not logical to suddenly change after discovering fire. We should also bring back cannibalism and rape.
>>117619127 Cells in your body die all they time, but they are replaced. As time progresses this process becomes more and more faulty. There is also no "dying of old age", no human has ever died of old age, your body just grows to weak to handle minor infections etc.
>>117619459 >My point is that there's a part where the mother's mortality decrease compared to other ages.
I'd say that only women aged about 15-35 should be allowed to have sex. Mothers over the age of 35 require c-sections more commonly than younger women, and the chance of complications for both the mother and the baby increase dramatically. After all, contraception is never 100% safe, which means we should be able to outlaw certain practices like having sex for pleasure in certain risky groups.
>>117619333 Then you should realise most of the people here started watching anime when they were 14-16 and missed their chance to have sex with girls cause they are spending too much time watching anime and being the "nerd"? If they are in their mid twenties, then I don't see anything wrong with talking about loli on this board. You fucker did all kinds of shit with your underaged girlfriend and now you are spoiling the fun for others? Talk about hypocrisy. >>117620160 Once again, look at all those pictures of sexually attractive girls you are posting. Hypocrisy at it’s finest.
>>117620500 >>Then you should realise most of the people here started watching anime when they were 14-16 Projecting. >He didnt grow up with gundam wing, DBZ, Yugioh, Pokemon, CCS, Sailor Moon, etc. 21 btw.
>>117617984 >Fucking a child is rape. Not any more than fucking a woman is rape. >Kids can't consent Yes they can. >they don't understand the magnitude of their decision It has no magnitude. Children don't get pregnant. STDs are a special case where the responsibility is on the adult. When the child is old enough to get pregnant, that too is under the responsibility of the adult, akin to how an adult is under responsibility of not breaking a child's bones while playing a game of ball.
>>117620744 >>117620590 I am just saying most people watch anime when they are young and therefore like young and cute lolis.
>I'm not. You need to read these posts again. You're confusing quite a few things. If I am confused it is because a thread about Nadeko was suddenly filled with the words "pedophilia" , etc, from the 10th post or so.
>>117620567 Implying a someone who never watched anime won't give you funny looks and call the party van if he/she sees your folder full of schoolgirls with the classic "backpack" and swimsuits.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.