Hey /lit/, let's make a list of pedo/hebe writers. I'd like to read writers with my own tastes.
I start with:
>Lewis Carroll (he must be, you just need to read "Alice". There are things that normal-fags wouldn't understand or feel).
>Vladimir Nabokov (come on, we all know it)
>Edgar Allan Poe (he married his 13 year old cousin, Virginia Eliza Clemm, when he was 26, and lied about her age on the marriage certificate.)
>>Edgar Allan Poe (he married his 13 year old cousin, Virginia Eliza Clemm, when he was 26, and lied about her age on the marriage certificate.)
He wasn't really a pedo though, He was just being Southern.
I nearly cried with the end, mate.
Not him, but you should investigate about Carroll's hobbie of taking photos of little girls (also, there are new pics of nude little girls attributed to him).
Could you explain a bit more? Maybe a complete name?
Ada or Ardor too. When you like little girls, and don't care about morals, incest becomes a stupid taboo.
This thread is pedobear-approved.
I should have known this board would be full of pedos, what with all the religion nuts.
I think people with religion are really just projecting their irreconcilable paraphilias onto others by claiming universal sinfulness.
Rossetti was p based
I wonder if he went for the swinburne boipuss
more likely they just acted as wingmen and were partners in cuckoldry, fucking and cucking everywhere they went
LEWIS CARROL ISN'T A PEDOPHILE, I WROTE AN HONORS THESIS THAT INCLUDED HIM AND I SERIOUSLY LOOKED INTO THIS
The nude photos are nudes, not pornography. They were done with the permission of the parents and locked away so the girls wouldn't be embarrassed. All child nudity being pornography is anachronism. There were plenty of child nudes being painted at the time. The camera was an interesting novelty at the time, seen sort of like shitty painting. Lewis Carrol idolized children for their purity and simplicity, and so did many of his contemporaries. This is often called the "cult of innocence." Sexualizing children would be heinous to Carrol, it would foul them. Look to the Alice books, they're about a little girl navigating an absurd, defamiliarized version of adulthood with simple politeness and pleasentness.
Really look into it and don't pay attention to the BBC et al with their sensationalized view of them.
For anyone looking for pedo/hebe novels, check out The Belvedere Field. It isn't a great book (certainly not literary fiction), but it is the only proper love story between an adult man and a preteenaged girl that I've come across.It's well worth reading for the first half. Confirmation by Gianni Segre is also good.
I would agree that Salinger was a pedophile.
seems like a legit source but https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ is a documentary that's equally convincing. How would you respond to the documentaries points?
>For anyone looking for pedo/hebe novels, check out The Belvedere Field.
Thank you for the info. Does it feel realistic?
>> article on the smithsonian
>> article split over 4 pages to get dat ad revenue
>> article deliberatly hides it's evidence behind clickbait till the third page.
fuck that. How about you defend your claims yourself?
It feels a lot more realistic than Confirmation (the characters are more multidimensional (the girl in the book really does behave like a child) and real), and it has a balance of love and sex.They have sex a fair bit if I remember correctly.
I see... Any pdf link out there? English is not my first language, but I might give it a try.
Can't help you there. You could always buy it.
Garcia Marquez should be added to the list (Memories of my Melancholy Whores, Of Love and Other Demons)
Has anyone else read this? I've never seen anyone mention it before.
>I WROTE AN HONORS THESIS THAT INCLUDED HIM AND I SERIOUSLY LOOKED INTO THIS
oh wow, an honors thesis! I guess that solves everything then. World-class essayist here has clearly ended the notion permanently
m8, there's no way you found anyone to cite to back that thesis. he took pictures of girls past the age of consent which did not fall into the cult of innocence dynamic and it would have been clear to anyone in the era the 14 year old was an adult engaging in public nudity.
So... this is the current list of (possible) writers of pedo books:
Edgar Allan Poe
Hans Christian Andersen?
Anthony Nobbs (The Belvedere Field)
Bonnie Nadzam (Lamb)
André Gide (The Immoralist)
Damn, how can you live saving pics of dead kids? Do you masturbate to that?
Don't post when you don't have any knowledge of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Your view on American foreign policy is also naive as fuck. Don't bring your stupid politics into this thread please
Andersen's mostly bi forever alone, I think
Ruskin isn't a pedo, the story about pubic hair is apocryphal and he fucked a lot of whores
Add Beauvoir and Sartre, especially their letters to each other.
If you cant appreciate the beauty of children then I would say that's a personal problem, pedo or not you should see the attraction.
i'd rather have repressed pedos tearing themselves apart internally rather than ones that trot it out in the open on /lit/ and act like there's nothing wrong with it.
so for once, yeah I'd say this board needs fucking jesus.
You are way off the mark with your post here. Besides the physical attraction (little girls are more aesthetically appealing than women), I find their personalities much more attractive too. It is their innocence and joy for life that makes them partly so appealing. Women are boring.
They're children, you realize that right? Their personalities haven't even formed yet, and if you fuck them you do irreparable damage to their psyche. It's a pretty heinous fucking crime.
>All these moralfags
Mods, ban anyone who thinks that we should censor everything before 1980s female writers, they're trying to kill literature. Thnx
Ausonius swung both ways but mostly towards teenagers
>Collige, virgo, rosas, dum flos novus et nova pubes
>et memor esto aevum sic properare tuum.
Srsly though, no Wilde? He was tried for corruption of a minor ffs
Ginsberg joined NAMBLA
Burroughs and Byron fucked a lot of boy pussy but that was kind of the feature of a lot of grand tours so we might as well say The Greeks/Flaubert
I never argued in favor of having sex with children. I am primarily attracted to little girls; I find them sexy and beautiful but that doesn't mean I would have sex with one (unless there was a situation where she was perfectly willing). In fact I am in favor of keeping sexual relations between adults and children legal. There is certainly nothing heinous about posting innocent pictures of cute little girls on this board and discussing what is purely fantasy.
>doesn't want a thread about fucking children in literature on a literature board
>thinks this wouldn't censor important parts of canon
you're retarded and illiterate so who you want to fuck is irrelevant because you should be sterilized for the sake of future library patrons
it's impossible for them to be perfectly willing, because they don't understand what the act is, how it will fuck them up in life. If a banker said he was going to give a 9 year old a million dollar loan with 20% interest, would it be okay because the 9 year old was "perfectly willing"?
sure, it's not termed, the kid doesn't have to pay back the interest ever, legally speaking. kid would be dumb financially speaking to not take that, it's practically a gift with a better tax profile. guess you don't read much
Not him, but... how many kids you've met? It all depends of the education that they receive. Out there are lovely kids, with more common sense than lots of adults. Kids that respect you if you treat them with the same respect they deserve. But what do you expect when you expose them 24/7 to political correctness, Disney serials, and the contempt of adults who fear to hurt their underage "property"...?
Kids aren't stupid, as many people believe. They're just less experienced (they have had less obstacles in their lifes). And despite of this, they have their own criterion. Don't judge kids for their adolescent phase (all these hormones transform them in a different person).
Believe me when I say that kids under 10 have sexual interests. It's in our nature. I don't mind how long you guys try to deny it.
your analogy would still be retarded because the point is it doesn't invoke any law which would protect the lender. seriously, get an of age advocate to read and sign any legal documentation for you until your reading level improves. also, leave
Children are interested in and can enjoy sex just like adults. The trauma from consensual relationships with children comes from the stigma attached to it; children are taught that if they have that experience that it's wrong and they've been used, regardless how they felt about it at the time. It's entirely possible that a child could have a consensual relationship with an adult man, but it would have to be one with mutual affection and trust on the child's part. I wouldn't advocate using a child for sexual gratification. I am only interested in having a romantic-sexual relationship with a little girl. But I realize that is unlikely, and most likely pure fantasy.
>Believe me when I say that kids under 10 have sexual interests. It's in our nature. I don't mind how long you guys try to deny it.
Then how did I not have any sexual interests until puberty? (Inb4 freud-tier psychoanalysis)
>And they respect being treated well because they are yet to understand facades, back stabbing, intentions, their moods are yet to be complex and accordingly act to what is done to them.
I can't agree with that. Of course they understand things like back stabbing. They can do that, they can lie... It's related to what I said before about education. If their parents lie and cheat, that's what they learn. Also, the most aggresive kids i've met are those who have problems with their parents.
What I said is not a rule. Depends on a lot of facts. If you're interested, I started developing sexual feelings around 7yo.
What does the end of your post even mean?
Also I don't see how we are disagreeing on anything here. I have already said I'm in favor of keeping child sex illegal.
cruel picture. I was listening to jazz. stared at her with such a vague expression. felt like a distant dream, of some world not this. god im sad
but why isn't this thread deleted already?
Often the argument against distribution CP is a fundamentally anti-capitalist one where distribution of existing cheese pizza necessitates more demand for it but I know many of you guys are staunch communists here so what is the ideal policy on CP in your vision of a communist utopia?
Before the illegalisation headed by the USA, CP was like any other pornography. There is a market, and people paid for it. Nobody made a big deal.
It's similar to what happens with strong religions countries. Porn is forbidden "because it's bad and wrong", and you can't discuss that, because you'll become a bad person in the eyes of the society.
>but you overestimate highly on how much they can know being such little age.
Maybe it's you who underestimate them. Not having the proper tools (words) doesn't mean that they don't think/feel it.
Out there are scientific studies that prove that there's no real problem with kids having sex with adults, but if you talk about it, you'll be fucked and exiled. What do you expect of our times, when Nobel prizes must retract their own words because the truth can "offend" stupid people?
Well I think having a market for it is wrong but in a centrally controlled economic system maybe it is best to let previously produced stuff be watched to prevent more serious things from happening
I had to google to find what "snek" is. Apparently it is a reddit meme.
My point was that child sex is not wrong because it is harmful, it is harmful because it is wrong. I agree there is good reason for the stigma; children's innocence should be protected, and part of that innocence is ignorance of sex.
Unconventionally attractive but I'm pretty fond of that picture.
I never said I wanted this thread on the board you fucking cuck. I said I have a problem with people fucking children. You bitch about reading comprehension when you have none, fucking kill yourself.
>children's innocence should be protected
For us, "innocence" is wonderful, and something to save. But honestly, it's just unexperience combined with expression incapacity. Is this kind of behaviour (innocence protection) so applauded nowadays, what hurt kids.
How do I know this? Once I've been a kid.
>I said I have a problem with people fucking children.
The problem is yours. Let the others live in peace.
I don't know why you think your friends are more relevant than literature, but I do like how you're using their supposed pain to try to win an argument on a literature board. One of us :D
Wait, I just realized I mistyped that last post. It was supposed to say "I never said I didn't waant this thread on the board you fucking cuck. I said I have a problem with people fucking children. You bitch about reading comprehension when you have none, fucking kill yourself."
Sorry for the confusion, but I'd still like it if you promptly blew your brains out you smug pile of human garbage.
>The existing literature on the long-term sequelae of child sexual abuse is reviewed. The evidence suggests that sexual abuse is an important problem with serious long-term sequelae; but the specific effects of sexual abuse, independent of force, threat of force, or such family variables as parental psychopathology, are still to be clarified. Adult women with a history of childhood sexual abuse show greater evidence of sexual disturbance or dysfunction, homosexual experiences in adolescence or adulthood, depression, and are more likely than nonabused women to be revictimized. Anxiety, fear, and suicidal ideas and behavior have also been associated with a history of childhood sexual abuse but force and threat of force may be a necessary concomitant. As yet, there is insufficient evidence to confirm a relation between a history of childhood sexual abuse and a postsexual abuse syndrome and multiple or borderline personality disorder. Male victims of child sexual abuse show disturbed adult sexual functioning. The relation between age of onset of abuse and outcome is still equivocal. Greater long-term harm is associated with abuse involving a father or stepfather and abuse involving penetration. Longer duration is associated with greater impact, and the use of force or threat of force is associated with greater harm.
Stop fucking pretending that children aren't hurt by this shit you fucking moron.
>telling rape victims to blow their brains out because rape victims you're friends with are important
>on a literature board
>while getting the quote chain wrong
now i think you're three kinds of dangerous idiot. the one that's relevant is that you think any of this opinion piece is about books. hell, i've been raped and i can still tell you're not here to talk about literature, maybe it didn't scramble my brains enough for this to be a fair exchange. not getting raped obviously did you some damage
>Longer duration is associated with greater impact, and the use of force or threat of force is associated with greater harm.
You're talking about rape, mate. I'm talking about consensual relationships.
lmao were on 4chan what do you expect, take your silly fantasies elsewhere, i'd say the same to them but atleast they arent talking about curb stomping people. thread shoulda been removed.
This thread would have probably be dead by now if not for moralfag outcry. fucking moralfags
>In fact I am in favor of keeping sexual relations between adults and children legal.
Posting pictures of children in a sexualizing context is, in fact, heinous.
If you, plural, actually cared for children, as individuals, or as an idealized group, you would use your "mature" knowledge and experience to nurture and protect them.
Rather than creating the typical pornographic objectified stereotype of the mindless, adoring, incarnation of your own desirability and gratification.
Get your head out of your ass.
Actually, several books by Nabokov do make them literary. You being enraged isn't going to eradicate a rich history of pederasty from Western Canon. Go be pissed off about reality elsewhere.
Most of Nabokov's works contain literary descriptions of hebephilic fantasies. What the fuck are you talking about? Nabokov's practically the definition of literary in those fantasy scenes.
m8 it's like you're having a seizure or something. Nabokov is intentionally, painstakingly literary to make it not make it simple pornography. Saying that Nabokov isn't "literary" or serious is more wrong than fucking children. You're wrong and you can learn to deal with it; it's part of growing up.
Because clearly I was claiming Nabokov wasn't literary, as opposed to you being obviously incapable of reading him?
But hey, if you can't parse a two-sentence post, he's clearly in good company.
Kid, have you ever thought the reason you need to prove so badly you're so against pedophilia existing anywhere in literature despite a whole list of examples might point to something slightly off about your personality? I mean, besides being emotionally retarded around Lolita's age.
>half the thread is "moralfags" bitching
You hypocritical voyeurists are worse than the fucking pedophiles, and could use some self awareness. You nigs act like this shit is shocking.
>The mature reader is not only the ablest of irresistible child-fuckers, he is the glorious vanquisher of even the least worthy imaginary foe.
I thought you were discussing actual literature, with arguments and insights, since, as you know me so well, from a mere couple of sentences, you must have some actual insight into Nabokov to share with us all?
Rather than just being sick and in denial.
In Islam, it is said that Mohammed was told wait to write by God, and since Mohammed couldn't read or write he told his most trusted followers/friends what to write and they just wrote it down. That's why he's the Prophet known as the 'Messenger', all he did was deliver messages from God to the humans, no magical supernatural shit like Jesus and Moses.
Well, yeah. I've never heard of an author who couldn't read or write, so if Mohammed couldn't read or write then he isn't the author of the Quran. In fact, no human is the author of the Quran, god is. So yeah.
>In their study “A Meta-Analytic Review of Findings from National Samples on Psychological Correlates of Child Sexual Abuse,” Rind and Tromovitch (1998) came to the following conclusion:
> “CSA [child sexual abuse ] is not associated with pervasive harm and that harm, when it occurs, is not typically intense.”
>This peer reviewed article appeared in the most prestigious psychological journal in the US.
/lit/ I need your help.
there is this book, but I don't remember the title...
was written by a anglophone woman in late 1800, start 1900.
protagonist is a man, that with a ship has to reach his girlfriend/future wife.
almost all the story is placed on the ship
during the travel he found a young bully girl that with her gang
he falls for the bully and is uncertain, at the end of the jurney, if go to his loyal girlfriend or run away with younger girl
>mfw I see my uni library has a translated copy
You could use some self awareness when on a literature board you try to claim that Nabokov isn't writing literary hebe fantasies. You'll get called out on that shit based on literary theory and nobody will care about your moral posturing.
The insight is that if you want to claim that Nabokov isn't literary, you'll look like you're below the reading level required for his prose.
OP here. I add the Wikipedia info of the section called "Pedophilia in literature". IT's not about pedo writers, but about pedo related literary works.
>The 120 Days of Sodom (Marquis de Sade)
>Acid Row (Minette Walters)
>Avoidance (Michael Lowenthal)
>Demons (Fyodor Dostoyevsky)
>Dream Children (A. N. Wilson)
>The End of Alice (A. M. Homes)
>Gravity's Rainbow (Thomas Pynchon)
>The Great Mirror of Male Love (Ihara Saikaku)
>Hannibal (Thomas Harris)
>Hogg (Samuel R. Delany)
>International Journal of Greek Love
>Justine (Marquis de Sade)
>Little Children (Tom Perrotta)
>Lolita (Vladimir Nabokov)
>Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons (Tom O'Carroll)
>Paedophilia: The Radical Case (Tom O'Carroll)
>Tampa (Alissa Nutting)
>Teardrops on My Drum (Jack Robinson)
>post innocuous thread tangentially related to literature
>post thread where pedos can share their spank banks and get huffy about others having the audacity to think fucking little girls is wrong
>234 replies, 67 posters
I hate this site so fucking much.
So... OP here. This is a very basic version of what I have in mind. With some collaboration, we'll make it bigger, guys.
Nabokov also has an early novella The Enchanter
pedo panics and get caughtStill straight.
Lewis Carroll doesn't have kid fucking in the books so I don't know if that matters.
Other suggestions in thread which have kiddie fucking, with good and bad endings for them:
^mix of straight and gay and not all are fiction
^straight and gay, from 15 y/o perspective
^straight female adult male child
Beauvoir's L'invitee (gay, based on their relationship with two sisters) or Sartre and Beauvoir's letters
Should we consider Fanny Hill or other education of a prostitute books?
>Lost Girls is a graphic novel depicting the sexually explicit adventures of three important female fictional characters of the late 19th and early 20th century: Alice from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, Dorothy Gale from L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz, and Wendy Darling from J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan. They meet as adults in 1913 and describe and share some of their erotic adventures with each other. The story is written by Alan Moore and drawn by Melinda Gebbie.
m8, I'm not even pedo, I'm just not retarded enough to think that a lot of writers weren't deviants. You're here to judge people not books- heaven knows why when they're all anons-, but the judgment of canon is that pedo shit is legit. Get over it.
Reality check - most of the people on here you would call "pedos" have never done anything illegal, don't distribute illegal material, and would never touch an underage girl in an inappropriate manner.
It's most of his books because he spent his life mourning the peasant loli he fell in love with at his estate in Russia. Nabokov is renowned on this board as the grandfather of greentext because of his succinct and scathing reviews of canon, and, outside of 4chan, one of the greatest reviewers of canon. I'm unconvinced you know how to tie your shoes, velcroboy.
nabakov is fucking reddit-tier and faggy hipsters like you only read it because "omg it's supposed to be literature but it's about a guy who wants to fuck a 12 year old! scandaloussssssss"
ive been reading for pleasure since i was a kid you stupid faggot but keep trying to die on a hill for le literary pedo man because writing prettily about a repugnant subject = IT'S OKAY NOW, MORALITY IS JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT ANYWAYS
but wouldn't my death just spread my pedo books out to more people? you're really not thinking this through. some innocent will wind up with all kinds of sexual content from sade to nabokov. think of the children.
le literary pedo man because writing prettily about a repugnant subject = IT'S OKAY NOW, MORALITY IS JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT ANYWAYS
you really missed the point of nabokov if you think he believed in that shit. you are one mad and dumb nigger
haha that's so epic how you're characterizing me as a hysterical soccer mom for not wanting a bunch of greasy degenerate cunts like you swapping pics of children obviously meant to be sexually appealing on a literature board, esp when said literature board will delete and ban infinitely more tame shit in a hot second but let garbage like this go on unabated
i really don't mind pushing this thread to bump limit if you can keep your sperger /pol/tard shit going. i haven't posted any pics in the thread, i might as well blame you for posting those pics. you're confusing politics for literature when you come out with shit like
>e you swapping pics of children obviously meant to be sexually appealing on a literature board, esp when said literature board will delete and ban infinitely more tame shit
that shit gets banned because, like all of your posts in this thread, it's not related to literature.
then you're too retarded to understand an internet literature board *and* nabokov. don't worry, it was already obvious
This is correct
Rind et al demonstrated that sexual contact with a child does not result in trauma or psychological damage ipso facto. Rather, it was the presence or absence of coercion which determined whether there was any lasting negative effects.
The social stigma associated with such contact it is twofold:
1. It is traditionally abhorred by parents because it destroys the girl's marriage prospects
2. More recently, feminism has imposed its spurious interpretation of reality in such a way that all intercourse is exploitative, much as, in the last century, Marxism held that all employment is exploitative
No, it's because you're making a political argument not a literary one. Your literary arguments thus far have been retardo tier like trying to minimize Nabokov's impact on canon. You argue more from politics than literature but it doesn't matter your politics are retarded because talking about them if they weren't retarded would still be against the rules.
>...and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved
In other words, the harm to a child is greater if they are forced, or physically tormented. What a surprise.
This is the same with rapes. Clearly non-consensual sex between married couples is not as harmful as sexual assaults.
That study is a joke, and doesn't prove a damn thing.
"The authors stated their goal was to determine whether CSA caused pervasive, significant psychological harm for both males and females, controversially concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive, that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved"
>concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive
>and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on OTHER FACTORS such as the degree of coercion or force involved"
i.e. such sexual contact is not inherently traumatic
>I proudly haven't read starter chart authors
lel, why would I kill myself when I have illiterates like you to laugh at? It's a survey of sexual mores around the hysteria epidemic in Loudon, which makes an argument that the invention of corridors is the only thing which made children stop seeing sex regularly. It also describes the different childhood sexualities of monarchy and lower classes at the time, noting that like sexologists contemporary to its writing, these children seemed to have little trauma arising from unimpeded sexual contact.
you're bad at making assumptions and a complete sperger. stop making assumptions and derailing threads about literature into discussions of your fantasies about other anons and mods.
i dont want this thread on this board. how the fuck is that political you absolute fucking retard?
>defending fucking kids
you lost before you started m8
heh yeah dude why would anyone ever vehemently defend their right to fuck a child? nigga you're skirting the fucking autism singularity with your posts itt
Back in ye olde college days, my best friend told she had first time sex at 13 with a 24something year old dude at a camping concert thingy, as a one night encounter. She had nothing but good things to say about the ordeal, which made me less strictly opinionated on the matter. Some kids are dumb, other kids mature faster as individuals. She was a smart girl.
So the lesson here is, dont rape kids, but fuck the ones that want to be fucked.
>i dont want this thread on this board. how the fuck is that political you absolute fucking retard?
because you're trying to force your politics and world view not just on the board, but on literary canon.
I've been trying to have a literary discussion but it's clear you're more interested in being angry at people for reading different books to you, and claiming books you don't read must be shit even though everyone else in literary history says no.
you're trying to find someone who is defending fucking kids outside of literature so here >>>/b/ knock yourself out, we'll keep Nin and Nabokov in canon, tyvm
>I've been trying to have a literary discussion but it's clear you're more interested in being angry at people for reading different books to you
No I'm not you faggot. Read whatever book you want, I don't give a shit, but don't act like that's your only agenda because it isn't you fucking pedo.
It's literally an anecdote, mate. That's not saying it's not true, and no offense to your tough tomboy friend, I'm fine with her fucking whoever she likes, but you can't generalise from that one case. Most 13 year olds are stupid kids who are in no way capable of making any serious decision. Which is why we don't let them vote, or drive, or work.
I'm not a pedophile, I was merely curious about your argument about everything ethics and aesthetics, mate. That was my first post in this thread.
No need to get your panties in a twist.
>>being a pedoshit
>>not having a foundation in the greeks
>lmao why am i not surprised
m9 they invented pederasty as a feature of education. what the fuck are you smoking? wilde used them as a defense of his pedoshit after completing a double first in them, your shit's all retarded to make this argument
>wow all this shame for the kids who turn hypersexual like lolita after being abused
Look at this faggot pedo acting like he actually cares about children getting abused.
Fuck off you subhuman piece of shit.
The insight is that even the dumbest semi-literate person can read "literature" without getting anything of what makes it literary, which is why this thread is flooded with surface readers reading Nabokov simply as pornography in an attempt to validate their own illness.
If this thread was intended as having anything to do with literature, rather than simply being an attempt to create a list of pornography and a sense of validation for oh-so-valiant and insightful anonymous pedo's, I am sure the level of posting would be at least slightly above the "hurr durr you dumb kid".
I didnt mean to generalise anything, but exceptions do exist, and that makes me uncomfortable aswell. People dont like to hear about the odd ones out on this topic. That said i wouldnt let 18 year old myself vote.
you stupid fucking pedoshit if you actually knew anything about the greeks and didnt just parrot what supports your disgusting fucking paraphilia you'd know Socrates and Plato believed that beauty and the good are just different facets of the divine
>be a 13 year old girl
>want the D
>nobody will give it to me because muh morals muh prison time
There are no moral facts whatever, only moral interpretations
This is the worst discussion I've seen in some time, and I visit this site everyday. Not even because I'm disturbed by pedos but nobody's saying anything substantial at all.
Guess it's a sensitive subject. Now can we please talk about literature again, even if it's books about kiddyfucking?
We know it might disturb you already, you don't have to let everyone know how much morally better you are. Just hide the thread or something, or report it if you want to.
>surface readers of nabokov
No, that's the dude who tried to tell everyone that Nabokov didn't make it literature. You're assuming that pedos can't tell he's an unreliable narrator, when that's what they rely on people to treat children as. Lolita
doesn't end wellit would be hard to see it as not a "chasing the dragon of the first high" book even within the opening and the tragedy implicit in that. You're not a competent enough reader to get that it's not being cited as pornography but literary itt, and that literary works are supposed to be emotionally manipulative. You're not going to convince me through your accusing others that you understood the unreliable narrator in Lolita or you could get over your hang ups to see his more reliable narrator in The Enchanter ends as most moral tales would have him end. You're throwing out flames like you could hold a discussion of this literature any other way, and you patently can't. We get it, you'd like to tell pedo's they're wrong. The problem is that is not what this board or thread is for, and no matter how much you cry for the opportunity to flaunt you basic normality, it's not going to make that literature. Take it from someone who doesn't believe fucking kids is a good thing either, you're actually just someone who likes to tell people to kill themselves, not someone who likes literature or is especially moral. You just sound angry and don't care if you fire that anger at nonpedos either.
What? I didn't say anything about that, are you baiting? I just want the thread to be about lit and not everyone sharing their irrelevant moral views. I didn't even say which view I agree with.
I was referring to how many times you have told people to kill themselves and decided they must be a pedo for knowing shit about literature. If you get your rocks off telling people to kill themselves or making false accusations of pedophilia, no, I don't think you're much better than a rapist.
>i just want my obvious pedophile watercooler thread to be about literature heh
>all moral statements itt are irrelevant, except for when they argue that sex with a child is not traumatic
subjectivists eat a dick
>no, I don't think you're much better than a rapist
>tfw you've been baited the whole time
the fact that you think I need to post rigorous empirical proofs for why this thread is repulsive IS the argument you absolute. fucking. retard.
you're so cucked by muh standards of internet argumentation you've lost the forest for the trees.
>>tfw you've been baited the whole time
oh no, however will i get over the fact you're still illiterate. seven more pages to go, bud, let's see if you can unpretend your illiterate sociopathic tendencies.
except when it's about why fucking kids isn't actually that bad trust me you guise right you stupid fuck?
no, it's that you have demonstrated no literary knowledge whatsoever and been proud of not reading books. that and being generally so mad you didn't even bother to copy paste all those "kill yourself"s led me to the angry and ill read conclusion, as its so well evidenced itt
Anyone from the other night on? This thread has really gone to shit.
>badgering one guy to call him angry like 5 posts down from some sick fuck posting his kiddie spank bank again
>why would you think im a pedo anon?
stupid faggot. have i mentioned you should kill yourself today?
>lol you're so fucking autistic i think i just blacked out and alphabetized my pantry
are you sure that's not just the rage blackout from keeping at this? it seems like the kind of thing someone was doing to regain a semblance of control
you telling people to kill themselves and accusing them of pedophilia if they object. it sounds all kinds of angry, and you fire it at innocent people because you'd prefer to claim they're rapists than accept any other possibility, like you being a very angry person
he doesn't hate pedos, he doesn't mind if he tells victims to kill themselves, he just likes telling people to kill themselves. why not let him do that where he won't have to bother to make it book related as everyone keeps insisting he does here.
Sure, One Hundred Years fits the criteria too I think. Post the updated chart and I'll save it.
Add it to the chart, why not? Will you post the updated one in a new thread?
since this has been deleted
Add the Patricia Duncker book The Deadly Space Between it's an incest book, but it's got graphic older man/young teen sex in it too before that
Do we get a gay chart too? If not, Colette's first novel, Claudine at School should go in the straight one even though it's bisexual.
New thread deleted. Hail speech freedom!
I add a new chart.
not so for chart making threads. tbh if spammers had stayed out of this one, it'd prob be one thread total to make the chart and be done with it. now it's three threads, two of which got deleted. which brings us no closer to being done.
the problem is that mods are taking spammers who want progress on the chart stopped entirely word that it's worth deleting. it's not, because editing this shit out of canon is just going to be called bowdlerization by anyone familiar with canon. it'd be like if we started taking /pol/'s view we should edit holocaust survivor's memoirs, it's just not going to work.