/loli/ - Lolis

>>18391

>/christian/

How about no.

>>19068

An autopedophile. You're more common than you think. :3

>>19068

If i would be a qt loli, i would so tease pedos so much that they cum when they look at me.

But i would rather have a loli than be one.

I identify as a pedophile, and I understand how it can be perceived as wrong. However, I do not feel guilty as I have not done anything wrong and have no intent to.

Actually touching children or watching child porn is defined as wrong in my book.

Lolicon (non-traced) is not child porn as no child was affected in it's production.

It is also not wrong to be born with a sexual preference of any kind.

Condemning a non-violent pedophile is like condemning a non-violent homosexual.

>>19079

I actually know a couple of people with similar kinks, with some variations. I know one girl whose a huge exhibitionist and gets off on the idea of being taken advantage by several men in a public park(based off of, i understand, an experience they had as a child…), and two others, one who is trying to become a little girl(or as close as can be) in physical form for lewd purposes, and another who even goes into a "little-space" to mentally become like a young child, again with sexual purposes in mind.

Autopedophilia is more common than you think, and the idea that all childhood encounters with sex are evil abusers that leave the -victim- permanently scarred…well, its a view lacking in considerable nuance.

>>19119

I see this as the long-term solution to the pedophilia-consent problem. When we have the technology to transfer a human mind into a new body, then all those autopedophiles can pair up with conventional pedophiles and live happy lives together. It's a really long way off, but it's something to aim for with our science.

>>19155

Why would a "conventional pedophile" want a mentally ill neckbeard in the body of a loli?

>>19072

Being the little girl is a fantasy of mine too.

>>19177

>"conventional pedophile"

what does this even mean.

>>19216

>>19217

He's using "conventional" to discern between the pedophiles that want to fuck kids and the "technical" (auto)pedophiles that want to be the kid being fucked

>>19179

I'm rejecting them because they're a man, not because they're mentally ill.

I wouldn't be into dating a tranny either because it doesn't matter if their body looks somewhat feminine, they'll never be a woman.

Stop projecting onto me about literally raping kids because you seem to be the only pedo here who only cares about their bodies and nothing else.

>>19224

>you seem to be the only pedo here who only cares about their bodies and nothing else.

you do know what sexual attraction is right?

because appearance plays a large role in whether you want someone as a romantic partner or not.

>>19224

You're assuming that all autopedophiles are male. That definitely isn't the case.

lol is op just a troll?

i would like to know how many of us there are. and what our male/ female rate is and shit

>>19234

Thanks for validating my assumptions, I'm guessing all you want in a romantic partner is a fuck buddy eh?

>>19240

I'm only rejecting the male ones because no part about them will ever resemble a little girl in any way.

At least women were actually little girls at one point and have a real vagina.

If I was gay and wanted to fuck some guy in the ass while he wore girls clothes then sure I'd go for it, but that wouldn't make me a "conventional pedophile"

>>19246

>all you want in a romantic partner

>plays a large role in whether you want someone as a romantic partner

i hope you understand the difference between these sentences.

also looking at the rest of your post, you dont seem to be talking about the same thing thats been discussed for the past dozen or so posts.

Completely indifferent. They haven't wronged me, but the moment they do all hell will be loose.

>>19281

It would seem that you're just afraid. Hmm.

>>19295

It would seem that you're just a faggot. Hmm.

>>19326

On /erp/

Does any one have any suggestions on lolicon hentai? Like. videos. Im looking for ages 5-14

>>19350

Namanaka Hyaku Percent

>>19224

Whoa, get a load of this guy. If you were given an option to have sweet sex with a cute loli that acts like an actual loli, you won't give a single fuck if it is actually a guy or not. Otherwise you won't be on this board. Stop that idealistic bullshit. I bet you don't even know shit how real child is supposed to behave except your delusional fantasies anyway.

>>19183

This. Speaking of transhumanism, why even choose between loli and man, when you can be both at the same time.

>>19326

link faggot

>>19405

>Otherwise you won't be on this board

You must be confusing this board for /cuteboys/

>>19405

Except it won't act like an actual loli because its a man.

If you want to fantasize about a world where you can infuse a mans brain into a lolis body why not instead just fantasize about a world where you can fuck actual lolis?

I swear this is like those new wave of SJW faggots who try and shame straight people and call them bigotted because they don't want to fuck other men.

>>19427

I'd be very in favour of this sort of thing if I had time to do more f-list erp… >_> Been wanting to do some Age regression stuff for ah, ages too. XD

There's something infinitely appealing about turning a haughty/sultry MILF/adult woman into a little girl…

>>19420

>why not instead just fantasize about a world where you can fuck actual lolis?

I'm not talking about fantasy. I'm talking about hypothetical future technology. If you can come up with a plausible way to have kinky, bdsm sex with an actual child without risking hurting them, by all means tell us. Until then, I'll hope for the most satisfying relationship which is actually plausible.

Technically speaking I am one. That being said, I do think if you rape anyone, especially a child, you're a piece of human garbage.

But if anyone has anything they want to ask someone who actually has these attractions I'd be happy to answer them.

I'm a pedophile and I don't see why we're hated by our 2D counterparts so much.

And yes, you're the 2D counterpart to pedos, sorry but that's how it is.

>>19692

Because you shit up boards with this faggotry every fucking time. You have to bring it up constantly. You're like furries.

>>19692

The only ones hated are the ones like you trying to project your pedo onto others and trying to state it as fact.

>>19696

Did I say you like 3D?

No. You like drawn children.

>>19693

Pedos aren't the only ones who think it's pathetic how hard you try to act like loli isn't pedo in any way shape or form.

>>19702

>>19693

>>19696

They're just fucking words. You disagree on the definition of "pedo", nothing more. This debate annoys me because it's so fucking pointless yet people always get really angry when defending their side.

Find better words to use which more precisely represent reality, then you can actually try to discuss it in a civil and thoughtful way. Until then, this is less productive than arguing about waifus. At least when arguing about waifus you're posting cute pictures.

>>19702

Did I say you did? I didn't, but you are still projecting your pedo on to others who like 2D. There's the same 2-3 of you who do this in all the 3D threads, that all should be deleted, again and again. When the posting dies down you bring it up again saying the exact same thing until you get shut up yet again. Sad how you back up your claim by agreeing with SJWs.

>>19703

Also, I should add that it's a classic example of divide-and-conquer which only benefits the people who would like to see pedophiles and lolicons imprisoned. Every moment spent arguing about the finer points of internet slang is a moment of your lives you will never get back - a moment which could have been better spent helping each other.

>>19705

>Also, I should add that it's a classic example of divide-and-conquer which only benefits the people who would like to see pedophiles and lolicons imprisoned.

>Every moment spent arguing about the finer points of internet slang is a moment of your lives you will never get back

no thats just how image boards are, full of autists that argue over nothing.

not a conspiracy, just autism.

>>19690

And here we have another internet pseudo-phychologist thinking they know all about paedophilia and sexual attractions. The only idiot here is you, who like every idiot, can't make any distinction between fictional drawings and real life. Do you know what the term for someone one is attracted to fictional/animated figures? A Schediaphile. It's your logic that is insanely stupid, even though you admitted there is a difference between 2D subject matter and the real life equivalent, even though they are distinctly different, you can't comprehend that someone might be attracted to one and not the other. You think people who like guro would like to fuck girls chopped open with their guts hanging out?

Please refer to this for more information. http://akemi-mokoto.me/2015/02/05/schediaphilia/

>>19703

Nigger, you are literally agreeing with me. I don't give a fuck about what label someone is, but it's something that always fucking happens when the 3D fags start posting. It's not even shitposting at this point. It's just pointless drivel.

>>19706

It's a result of echo-chambers. When a group of people who don't know each other well have no external threats, they will start looking for flaws within the group. It's why you see more camaraderie in pedo/loli threads on /b/ than you do here.

The worst thing you can do to an online community is isolate them from contact with people who aren't part of that community.

>>19703

If you want to fuck real kids you're a pedo, simple. Some people have a hard time separating reality and fantasy. This guy is like the idiots that think playing a video game will make you a killer. Looking at follow up posts this guy is just baiting for attention, again.

>>19713

You obviously didn't read my post, because I am not arguing for or against either side. This is a fucking retarded argument only engaged in by retards. Go lick a window.

>>19714

Never said you did, you must not have read or not comprehended my posts. The window is all yours.

>>19707

>who like every idiot, can't make any distinction between fictional drawings and real life

You are masturbating to drawn children or characters who have the body of a child. There is no way around that. It's like trying to say masturbating to Free! hentai doesn't make you gay because they're not actually male they're "just drawings".

You're so out of touch with reality that you even lack self awareness. Fuck I was even called an SJW and an anti.

>Do you know what the term for someone one is attracted to fictional/animated figures? A Schediaphile

I just looked into that term and it's a tumblr/fanfic term that has no basis in any medical or psychological literature. Meanwhile the term Lolicon is used to describe people who like 3D or 2D little girls and came from the term "Lolita Complex" which references the book Lolita.

Using made up terms to support your argument only makes you look like you have no argument.

>even though they are distinctly different

How are they different? Because they are not anatomically correct? Using that logic people who fap to 2D are asexual, right? What about people who fap to erotic literature? I mea it's just words, so it can't be pedo to read stuff about having sex with children, right? Lolita isn't hebe at all either I guess.

>you can't comprehend that someone might be attracted to one and not the other.

Please directly quote where I said this. Actually don't bother because you can't. I said you were a pedophile. That doesn't mean you have to like 3D or raping a child or whatever is convenient for your argument, it means someone who is attracted to prepubescent children.

>You think people who like guro would like to fuck girls chopped open with their guts hanging out?

And here's where you try to make "pedo" mean "person who molests children" to make it appear as if you have an argument. Every. Fucking. Time.

>>19711

Fuck off, faglord.

>>19714

>Go lick a window

Now, if you enjoy licking windows behind which are real underage girls, are you a pedo, or do you just happen to like windows with underage girls behind them which is totally the same thing?

>>19715

To clarify, I was saying you obviously didn't read my post because if you had you wouldn't be carrying on the same fucking pointless argument you have had a million times before.

I was calling you a retard for carrying on the argument, and suggesting that licking a window would be a more productive use of your time because at least it wouldn't fill you with rage.

I understand that it's difficult to ignore people saying things which you disagree with, especially if you think they're idiots, but there's no possible way for either side to win. Very few people change their opinions based on internet arguments. This is a stupid turf-war between people who should be allies while we're all surrounded in real life by people who would like to see us dead. We gain absolutely nothing from arguments like this.

>>19720

Oh I did read, but I see you still didn't comprehend any thing I said. Your attempt of using fancy sentences while looking like an idiot just hurts you more. Shown even more by your sad attempts at insults towards the wrong people since you are just talking out of your ass.

>>19716

>Please directly quote where I said this. Actually don't bother because you can't. I said you were a pedophile. That doesn't mean you have to like 3D or raping a child or whatever is convenient for your argument, it means someone who is attracted to prepubescent children.

I thought you were arguing that everyone who liked 2D must be attracted to 3D, but your entire argument fall apart with this point. Because paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, you DO have to be attracted and have sexual urges towards real children to be diagnosed by a psychologist as a paedophile. You have no authority to say anyone is a paedophile since you're not a psychologist.

But if you were to throw away the psychological definition and use your own definition of paedophilia being any sort of attraction to real/fictional young characters, then you could say that people who like lolicon are paedophiles. But this is pointless and is just semantics.

>And here's where you try to make "pedo" mean "person who molests children" to make it appear as if you have an argument. Every. Fucking. Time.

I never said anything of the sort. My point was people who fap to guro would probably be repulsed by the exact same scenario in real life.

>>19723

>you DO have to be attracted and have sexual urges towards real children

[citation needed]

Last I checked they specifically mention fantasies.

>I never said anything of the sort.

You're right, I really did read it wrong. My bad.

>My point was people who fap to guro would probably be repulsed by the exact same scenario in real life.

People who like 3D gore and people who like 2D gore both like gore. They may not like the same depictions of gore but the fact that it is gore gets them off. Same thing with loli, the focus is on underaged girls. Pedophilia (and hebephila) both focus on underaged girls as well. If it was just body types maybe you'd have an argument, but almost all loli has various aspects that are in common with real little girls such as flat chests, childlike personality, childlike proportions, underdeveloped vaginas, etc.

That's why someone like Yoko who is 14 isn't loli while someone like Tomoe who is 30 something is loli.

>>19724

Every expert definition I've seen is strongly implying real children and real life. If you want to say that 2D attraction = paedophilia, then you find a paper by a psychologist that specifically states that even a purely 2D attraction makes someone a paedophile. You're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is upon you. But this would be as purely semantic point wouldn't it? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make anymore.

Yeah, lolis share some aspects like real little girls, but they are different in some very major aspects. Firstly the anime style aesthetic is completely different. While I like lolis, a realistic looking child is not attractive to me, in fact the opposite. Secondly, they have a very different mentality. Real children are immature, loud, smelly brats, lolis have a much more amiable personality, and more importantly, they are often very sexual. Almost every doujin I've seen, the loli enjoys or doesn't dislike sex. A real child wouldn't. I read a doujin called Geiger Counter which was realistic portrayal of a child's reaction, it didn't turn me on at all.

I think a person who likes loli and a paedophile are two very different people, and are attracted to different and varying amounts of aspects of real children. For the person who likes lolis these aspects are embodied in the loli. For paedophiles they may be attracted to aspects that only real children have. Since these are two different people, I don't think it's appropriate to lump them together with one word.

>>19732

>Every expert definition I've seen is strongly implying real children and real life.

>find a paper by a psychologist that specifically states that even a purely 2D attraction makes someone a paedophile

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Pedophile

Here's a professionaly written encylopedia article with plenty of references that specifically refers to lolicon as being a subset of pedophilia.

"Lolita syndrome or Lolita complex are terms sometimes used to refer to attraction to adolescent or older underage females."

>the burden of proof is upon you

Most people agree that lolicons are pedophiles so it's your burden.

>the anime style aesthetic is completely different

Again, Free! hentai is still gay, foot doujin is still for people with foot fetishes and loli is for pedophiles. Just because it isn't anatomically correct doesn't mean it's still not about little girls being sexualized.

>they have a very different mentality. Real children are immature, loud, smelly brats, lolis have a much more amiable personality

Women in real life are cheating whores who want your money and attention, in hentai they are faithful and courteous but in both cases they are still women. Changing it to a loli and a child are both about little girls.

>Almost every doujin I've seen, the loli enjoys or doesn't dislike sex. A real child wouldn't

Which doesn't change the fact they both focus on little girls.

>I read a doujin called Geiger Counter which was realistic portrayal of a child's reaction, it didn't turn me on at all.

That's great. If you are on this board and you call yourself a lolicon you are still masturbating to little girls, even though they're drawn.

>I think a person who likes loli and a paedophile are two very different people, and are attracted to different and varying amounts of aspects of real children.

Both are about little girls. There is no spinning that. You are masturbating to loli because lolis look and/or act like little girls. Again, the inaccurate and highly idealized depictions of the little girls in loli doesn't stop them from being little girls.

>For the person who likes lolis these aspects are embodied in the loli. For paedophiles they may be attracted to aspects that only real children have.

Like I already said, they both focus on little girls. People like loli because they depict little girls not because of some esoteric bullshit about it being a drawing or because it's anime. They wouldn't fap to any drawing or any anime picture, they fap to it because it depicts a little girl.

>>19732

I don't think Geiger counter is any more realistic than a "realistic" doujin that has sibblings having consensual sex. Geiger counter simply plays upon your expectations regarding child molestars who rape girls with knives and tape and film it, while the submossive girl sobs.

You are conflating fetishes. If you removed the knives and threats of violence you might still be able to get off to the submissive girl. I bet you can get off to Rustle's various child prostitution series - you don't think there aren't manipulative little girls out there that enjoy flirting and tempting? Think back to primary school…

>>19732

if you dont know what you are talking about, you should just stop posting.

though i do agree that pedos and lolicons are different, but they aren't that different.

>>19739

> that specifically refers to lolicon as being a subset of pedophilia

> Lolita complex […] used to refer to attraction

That's 'Lolicon' in the sense of 'paedophilia' as it is used in Japan, not 'Lolicon' as a genre name of manga. Do you even know what we're talking about?

> Most people agree that lolicons are pedophiles so it's your burden.

I'm not whom you were responding to but he's right that if you want to dismiss what he says you have to prove the contrary. Public opinion doesn't count, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum.

> Just because it isn't anatomically correct doesn't mean it's still not about little girls being sexualized.

That's correct.

> you are still masturbating to little girls, even though they're drawn

The crucial point is whether he could also fap to little girls who are not drawn. If not, he isn't really a paedophile because a real paedophile would.

> Changing it to a loli and a child are both about little girls.

> Which doesn't change the fact they both focus on little girls.

> Both are about little girls.

> Like I already said, they both focus on little girls.

You have a strong fondness for emphasizing it's all about little girls, haven't you? Has the thought come to your mind that the artistic depiction of something might not be the real thing?

> People like loli because they depict little girls not because of some esoteric bullshit about it being a drawing or because it's anime.

[Citation needed]

Or are you able to look into people's minds?

I propose we invent two new words:

tekrapre - a person who is aroused by real life children

doapre - a person who is aroused by the concept of children in general

That should resolve all arguments in this thread.

>>19782

>That's 'Lolicon' in the sense of 'paedophilia' as it is used in Japan, not 'Lolicon' as a genre name of manga. Do you even know what we're talking about?

It's called lolicon manga because it appeals to lolicons. Lolicon is a term for someone who is attracted to young girls, even in the west.

>I'm not whom you were responding to but he's right that if you want to dismiss what he says you have to prove the contrary. Public opinion doesn't count, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum.

So if I say there is a tea pot in space and you can't disprove me I MUST be right because you're the one arguing against me right? That's not how it works. Everything points toward lolicons being pedophiles. The core focus is the same, the appeals are the same and they deal with similar situations even if they are not 100% accurate to the real world (see: the definition of fiction). It's not my job to disprove an argument that has no logic behind it.

>The crucial point is whether he could also fap to little girls who are not drawn.

No, that's what you want to make it about but it's not. The fact is people who fap to 2D and people who fap to 3D are both fapping to children. Acting like 2D lovers aren't even remotely similar to 3D lovers makes no sense logically, especially when you consider the only place that double standard exists is with lolicon and shotacon. Like I said earlier someone fapping to 2D feet or 2D fags is still likely a footfag or faggot, even if they don't like 3D at all. If the porn is 3D or not doesn't change what the porn is about in in both cases here it's about children or characters that have the body of a child.

>You have a strong fondness for emphasizing it's all about little girls, haven't you?

Yes because you keep trying to say lolicon material and 3D are not related and that a lolicon is not a pedophile. I have to keep repeating myself over and over because the answer to all the arguments is the same shit.

>Has the thought come to your mind that the artistic depiction of something might not be the real thing?

Like I said maybe 3 or 4 times now, just because it's fictional, not 100% anatomically correct and/or not 100% realistic the focus is on sexual experiences involving a child or a character that has the body of a child. There's no way around that. See >>19718

>[Citation needed]

Pretty much every definition of lolicon, even the bastardized western definition.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say lolicon isn't about little girls? People even use the term "loli" to describe 3D little girls, even on halfchan.

I don't know who you are trying to convince but I really doubt anyone is buying that.

>>19807

In the long term, yes it is.

Right now neither is possible. Even if a child consented to kinky sex, it would be extremely dangerous to engage in it because of society's views. The child could potentially consent to it and enjoy it, but years later when they learn about how society views adult-child-intercourse they will be faced with horrible guilt and internal conflict. If a child therapist gets involved earlier, the psychological damage is likely to be even greater. I'd be taking a huge gamble with someone's entire life, and I would not trust myself to be able to adequately explain the risk to them.

In short, I could not justify the risk of any intimate relationship with a child in our current society. As far as I'm concerned, it's as "impossible" as human consciousness transfer.

logical thinkers don't have morals dumbass.

>>19808

>implying it's not going to be significantly easier to just have virtual reality where you can sex up ideal perfect lolis, or beautiful real-looking girls, as is your preference, with AI matrixes that make them act exactly like real girls, so that you could get off in a way that is functionally indistinguishable from living out your wildest fantasies in reality than it would be to transplant a man's mind into a loli body.

>>19809

yes they do retard.

http://www.younow.com/EmilyRose340

Girl in yoga pants taking gymnastics requests!!

>>19810

I'm not sure which would be easier to be honest. AI would certainly be an entirely satisfying alternative. The difficult bit would be either creating sufficiently realistic robot bodies or creating a sufficiently realistic virtual reality.

people need to learn how to tell apart between reality and fantasy.its like saying i enjoy reading rape genre manga so im a rapist for having that fetish

>>19820

You don't have to commit any crimes to be a pedophile so that analogy is pretty bad.

>>19825

>http://

>not https

pls

>>19825

What is this community about? Hating child abusers?

>>19828

You realize most sites dont' have HTTPS, right?

>>19818

The idea we already had, the movie AI by Steven Spielberg.

>>19824

You don't have to commit any crime to be a paedophile, but you do have to commit a crime to be identified as such. That is, if you don't make it public voluntarily, which is not a good idea in our current society.

>>19809

>>19813

Logical thinkers don't adhere to morals without at least questioning them, that doesn't mean they don't have any. E.g. Immanuel Kant did a great deal of work concerning logic and morals and came to an utterly logical conclusion how to find fitting morals: "Handle so, dass die Maxime deines Willens jederzeit zugleich als Prinzip einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung gelten könne." – "Act in such a way that the maxim of your will could at any time be used as the principle of a universal legislation." Or, for the plebs: Do as you would be done by.

>>19830

>You don't have to commit any crime to be a paedophile, but you do have to commit a crime to be identified as such.

Not even the person you were responding to but you just contradicted yourself.

>>19795

> It's called lolicon manga because it appeals to lolicons. Lolicon is a term for someone who is attracted to young girls, even in the west.

Just because a word can have several meanings, that doesn't mean it has all of them at the same time. E.g. when I say I have taken concrete evidence to the court I don't usually mean there's now a bunch of building material in the courtroom. Or, the proof being sound doesn't mean there's water in my maths books.

> So if I say there is a tea pot in space and you can't disprove me I MUST be right because you're the one arguing against me right?

No, but it doesn't mean I'm rigth either. If none of us can prove their point, we cannot draw any conclusion. That is, if you claim 'people who like lolicon manga are paedophiles' you have to prove your point. If you can't it cannot be considered true, nor can be the opposite (unless it's proven itself). That's how logic works, my friend, I can't help it.

> see: the definition of fiction

?

> The fact is people who fap to 2D and people who fap to 3D are both fapping to children.

And someone who's playing Counter Strike is killing people, right? Man, are you really unable to distinguish between reality and fiction? Would you automatically call a Counter Strike gamer a violence-addicted sociopath?

> I have to keep repeating myself over and over because the answer to all the arguments is the same shit.

Ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam ? You don't have to repeat yourself if you're right. The fact that you seem to see a need for repeating yourself shows me that you don't really feel confident about your position.

> Like I said maybe 3 or 4 times now, just because it's fictional, not 100% anatomically correct and/or not 100% realistic the focus is on sexual experiences involving a child or a character that has the body of a child. There's no way around that.

So where do you draw the line? How much deviation from a child's body has to be there in order to not be considered a 'character that has the body of a child' anymore? You don't really see where your querulent logic is leading to, do you?

> Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say lolicon isn't about little girls?

No, I'm trying to say that something being about little girls doesn't necessarily mean it is about real little girls, and even less that it's about paedophilia. If you'd ever kept yourself busy with Lolicon's origins, subject matter, and fan base, you'd have seen that it's much more about cuteness (and children happen to be cute) than sexualization or fucking children. Of course there are exceptions, but talking about the exceptions doesn't get us anywhere.

>>19832

Why? I don't see that. Maybe you've misunderstood my sentence?

>>19820

And you need to learn to distinguish between thinking something would be enjoyable

>Hey, wouldn't it be fun to rob a bank and become a millionaire

and actually doing that thing

>OPEN THE FUCKING SAFE OR I BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT

If you can't distinguish between those things, you have problems.

>>17013

Lets assume this is the definition OP means, if thats the case it's a definite no.

Being attracted to a particular type of person has nothing to do with whether or not you will try to rape or molest them.

>Being a rapist does

>>19835

You don't have to commit a crime to be identified as a pedophile either…

I'm a pedophile, and I haven't committed any crimes.

There, see?

>>19861

> I'm a pedophile, and I haven't committed any crimes.

But then you're in the case "make it public voluntarily" which I've ruled out exactly because of that. Read >>19830 again and more thoroughly than you did last time if you don't believe I did. There was no contradiction in my post; however, if your imagination is insufficient for adding a little detail you maybe need to see this more clearly, let me add it for you: "to be identified as such by others" (should be obvious as I was using the passive voice).

>>19843

> And you need to learn to distinguish between thinking something would be enjoyable and actually doing that thing

That's exactly what >>19820 said, so what are you trying to tell us?

>>19849

> Being attracted to a particular type of person has nothing to do with whether or not you will try to rape or molest them.

This.

>>19862

If all you're going to say is "it takes a crime to be identified as a pedo except when it doesn't" then why bother saying anything at all?

>>19869

Making something public and not committing a crime is semantically equal? No, sir, certainly not. You can indeed make something public and by doing so commit a crime (see Mr. Snowden). And I'm sure you can think of an example situation for any combination. Thus, substituting "when it doesn't" for "when you make it public voluntarily" isn't semantically sound, i.e. changes the meaning. You really have a poor grasp of logic, haven't you?

>>19862

You seem to be generalising all pedophiles as evil terrible people and then saying "but if you don't want me to think you're an evil terrible person you can just not admit to being a pedophile."

That doesn't work, and will not reduce the incidence of depression/suicide.

>>19863

>That's exactly what >>19820 said, so what are you trying to tell us?

No. He implied that loli porn is fine but being attracted to actual kids is wrong.

I was pointing out that he was still conflating fantasy and reality, by endorsing the concept of thought-crime.

>>19912

I wonder if you would get arrested for that or not.

Woman have it much easier when it comes to those kind of laws.

>>19916

I've heard news stories of kids under 12 being arrested and made sex offenders for having a naked picture of themselves on their phones in the U.S

>>19918

a story i heard, was about some underage couple sharing nude pics with eachother,

and only the male was put on sex offender list.

>>19877

> You seem to be generalising all pedophiles as evil terrible people

No, I'm not and I'm sorry if it sounded like that.

> "but if you don't want me to think you're an evil terrible person you can just not admit to being a pedophile."

No, you must have gotten me wrong. I was basically trying to say that there are two ways of being identified as a paedophile: Committing a crime (and getting caught of course) and making it public voluntarily (could be without committing a crime). That has nothing to do with being an evil or terrible person or not being such a person.

> That doesn't work, and will not reduce the incidence of depression/suicide.

There's really something you must have gotten terribly wrong. I don't even understand what this is supposed to have to do with my post… I'm sorry.

>>19878

> He implied that loli porn is fine but being attracted to actual kids is wrong.

And you're implying that's not true or how do I have to understand this? Regardless of whether being attracted to actual kids is wrong, I don't see any reason why loli porn shouldn't be fine.

> I was pointing out that he was still conflating fantasy and reality, by endorsing the concept of thought-crime.

But if I understood that correctly, he said that you have to distinguish between committing a crime inside your thoughts – which must not be punishable, as thoughts are free – and committing a crime in the real world – which is punishable. So he was actually saying that you must not conflate fantasy and reality; I don't understand why this should be interpreted as that he himself is conflating fantasy and reality, but maybe you would be so kind as to explain?

>>20276

At least one of us, probably me, has completely misinterpreted the other's intentions. Let me restate my position clearly:

Lolicon is obviously fine because it's fictional.

Pedophilia - that is the sexual attraction to children - is obviously fine because it's purely in someone's mind.

Consensual sex with a minor is indirectly unethical in the same way that leaving them unattended with a chainsaw, a stick of dynamite, and a bucket of heroin would be.

Non-consensual sex with a minor is grossly unethical for obvious reasons.

Living as a pedophile, regardless of how or why one might get "caught", is one of the most painful and soul-crushing experiences possible in a modern first world country. It eats away at your hopes and your dreams and your optimism, leaving only hatred and apathy. You remember being carefree and happy, but there's no way to feel like that again.

>>20278

>You remember being carefree and happy, but there's no way to feel like that again

Drink booze.

There was once a time when gay people were seen to be just as bad as Pedophiles and molesters. In the future NAMBLA will be as legit as LGBA. That's just the way it goes.

>>20278 its not painful or soul crushing when youre not a fucking pussy, example: i feel fine

I am against pedophiles in general. They belong in prison or a mental hospital. That said loli is not pedophilia. Nor is it real.

>>20413

What if a pedo hasn't done anything?

What if he suffers, because he can't do anything to it?

Also the prison or mental hospital sounds very much like when gayness was still a mental ilness.

>>20413

You just need to be sexually attracted to children to be a pedophile. They don't need to be real children.

>>20422

Nice contradiction, retard. It takes about 3 brain cells to realize a drawing is not a child.

>>20429

It doesn't have to be a living child, René. Being a pedophile means you are sexually attracted to the concept of children.

>>20433

The same gut always defaults back the thought crime logic for his arguments. You are right, after all this time he still uses the same fallacies so his mind will never change.

>>20437

Pedophilia isn't a crime.

>>20440

It's not. But his logic of fantasy directly reflecting reality is the same type of logic thought crime idiots use.

>>20443

Pedophilia can be purely fantasy.

>>20422

>>20432

>>20437

They just need time, trying to tell them who they are just isn't going to work.

I remember when I first found out about loli, I convinced myself I had no interest in them in real life for the longest time.

If you had tried to convince me otherwise I would've jumped through the same hoops these guys do in order to rationalize to myself that I wasn't like that.

It took a few years for me to finally come to terms with it and it was on my own without someone trying to force me to see the truth.

People just shut down when you try to tell them things like that, especially when their morality hinges on the them thinking its okay to fap to kids as long as they're just drawings.

>>20444

Of course it can, that's the best way for those who are pedos. That still does not affect loli or those who like it.

>>20455

My comment is for the retards holding loli as real children and make everyone a pedo just because you like both. Stop projecting your pedo, although if you could stop so easy you would have stopped doing so long ago instad of repaating the same shit over and over.

>>16960

i do not think it is bad.

A pedophile is merely one who has a sexual attraction to a child.

A pedophile is attracted to a child or children because of something inside of them. Though people will argue about it it is not bad or good, it is simply what is.

If you are found to be a pedophile in Canada or the United States you could face jail time if you possess child porn of any kind, if you do not face jail or when you get out you face a curfew, limited freedom, probable monitoring of online activity, tracking bracelet, registered as a sex offender. If you spend time in jail it will be the worst of jail time you could have. Your material if any is destroyed if they find it all. You would have scheduled and random visits from law enforcement when you got out.

You cannot risk going to a therapist, priest, pastor, family, or friends to talk. You might as well be turning yourself in to the police.

They destroy the material you have because they want to destroy the fetish entirely but even if they managed to destroy all material everywhere they cannot stop people from having the urges. You may very well hate yourself if you grow up in places like Canada and the United States for a very long time, because you hear about how your society thinks it's evil, sick, twisted, etc growing up and you cannot risk seeking anyone to talk to. If you are lucky you will be able to accept yourself and figure out how to control and satisfy the urges safely.

A weird thing in the midst of this is that human-beings have a God of lust named Eros who appears in the form of a naked boy. We have Cupid who makes people fall in love, he is a baby in a diaper with a bow and love arrows. We have pictures of nude children with wings we call fairies and more. We have protected literature from famous authors.

Many who live with this control it. They fantasize, write and/or read stories, look at images, create images.

Stuff that is fake, drawn art, digitally created video is called lolicon when it features girls and shotacon when it features boys. There are videos, visual novels/hentai games, images, comics, stories. Many control their urges with this. It harms nobody as no real children are used and it satisfies the urges. But even this has to be hidden from those you know in the physical world. You cannot risk trusting them, ever.

>>20493

continued

If the people so determined to destroy all lolicon/shotacon material succeed what do they think will happen?

Do they think these fetishes will just die out?

Because the urges would still be there, you would still have people who are attracted to children.

It would put children in even more danger to not have these people sate their desires in a perfectly harmless way.

>>20493

thats some lyrical gold right here.

do you write poesie?

also spot on

>>20413

I am against white people in general. They belong in prison or a mental hospital. That said, trans-racial people are not white.

>>20493

Eros and Cupid are the same god.

>>20278

> Lolicon is obviously fine because it's fictional.

No objection from my side so far.

> Pedophilia - that is the sexual attraction to children - is obviously fine because it's purely in someone's mind.

No objection to this either. Of course depends on staying purely inside someone's mind.

> Consensual sex with a minor is indirectly unethical in the same way that leaving them unattended with a chainsaw, a stick of dynamite, and a bucket of heroin would be.

Interestingly, no-one of the usual faggots has raised his voice against this so far. I'd have expected that; there are some people who (in an absolutely predictable manner) always fulminate about anything the least implying consensual sex with a minor shouldn't be entirely OK. Not me, by the way; I understand what you're trying to tell me and I even agree with it, although I'm not sure whether your example really is about something being unethical or just (well, "just") about something being unwarrantably dangerous. So, no objection from my side here either.

> Non-consensual sex with a minor is grossly unethical for obvious reasons.

Yes.

> Living as a pedophile, regardless of how or why one might get "caught", is one of the most painful and soul-crushing experiences possible in a modern first world country.

My point about how you could have your "coming-out" was just to illustrate some people who are constantly on rants about paedophilia being (or not being) a crime tend to ignore there's a reason why public opinion often equates paedophilia with child abuse: That most paedophiles who are identified as such could only be identified because they committed a certain type of crime. And for an obligatory paedophile, the lack of possibility to relieve his urges is probably very painful or "soul-crushing", so no objection from my side here either, but I don't think whether you live in a first-world or third-world country is relevant for the ethical implications you pointed out above.

>>20519

But the two different names stand for different concepts of affection.

>>20516

What are "trans-racial people"? Ice bears like Michael Jackson?

>>20493

> You cannot risk going to a therapist, priest, pastor, family, or friends to talk.

Isn't there such a thing as medical confidentiality (or an equivalent counterpart for priests allowed to shrive people) in North America?

>>20585

Yes but there are many doom and gloom "everyone is out to get non offending pedos" people who truly believe that you will be thrown in jail of you talk to them. This has been brought up alread in this thread.

>>20583

No, Romans and Greeks just have different names for the same pantheon, like Jupiter and Zeus or Dionysus and Bacchus.

>>20590

But the god the Greeks called Eros the Romans called Amor. Cupido is just another name for the same god, but if I remember correctly, the Greek used to employ four main concepts of "love" while the Romans didn't (as we don't today). But these were usually not personified as gods, so I was probably just mistaken.

>>20585

If a therapist has reason to believe that you pose any danger to children they are legally obligated to report it.

By Catholic law any priest caught breaking the seal of confession faces automatic excommunication and risks his very soul. He is supposed to give up his life rather than any of the secrets of confession that he carries. Absolution for this crime can only be given by the pope himself.

However some priests will break the seal if the crime is severe enough. Some courts have also ruled that the seal cannot be a reason for priests not to tell.

The irony is the Catholic order of priests understands the urges as well as anyone could.

>>20639

Correction

*By Catholic law any priest caught breaking the seal of confession faces automatic excommunication. He risks his very soul by breaking the seal.*

Priests must be the biggest hypocrites on Earth.

>>20640

Unless they are in a country with 'mandatory reporting' of sexual abuse laws.

>US/Canada/most of EU

>>20882

Don't know about Canada and EU, wouldn't surprise me since loli is illegal there, but not true for the US. The thought police haven't taken power here yet.

>>20897

Don't know about Canada either, but whether it holds for the EU is, in my opinion, at least questionable. The thought police haven't taken power there either, at least not in the courtrooms where lolicon has been dragged into focus lately. There are of course European countries where cp laws are rather strict (GB, cough), but then there are countries like Sweden where even the chief of police says prosecuting lolicon is misleading bullshit. I'm currently too lazy to look it up, but there was a case some time ago where the Swedish supreme court found a manga expert who'd been herding lolicon not guilty. In fact Scandinavia, the German-speaking parts, and the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) countries are rather liberal and freedom-of-speech-defending in general. Don't know about southern Europe though; it's hard to keep track of any developments there currently.

>>22459

I can say this America thinks it can be the world's police. Sorry NO that's the U.N.'s job. It (America) has no power/say in another countries jurisdiction it can go choke for all I care.

>>22544

You are clear, the only thing that stops it is the increase in life expectancy. Beyond the basis of it being evil and rapey are the same idiots who watched reefer madness. Just cause they show something "crazy" without truth or testing it are the problem. They don't know what good it can do for society as a whole by accepting it.

>>22544

>People don't decide their own sexuality, as the LGBT community would say. I think you're born a pedophile,

When it comes to abnormal sexualities,

only a few people are actually born that way.

Most are made that way as a result of their life experiences.

And some people can choose if they have a wide range of interests.

I love how homosexual propaganda likes to leave out that second one which is most common.

>>22547

What evidence do you have to support those claims?

>>22550

This is a vastly easier problem than the question of whether a god exists.

The obvious way to answer it is by measuring the neural development of a few million humans at the resolution of individual neurons, then throwing that data into a supercomputer many orders of magnitude more powerful than anything which currently exists and using simulations and powerful AI to figure out exactly what patterns in the brain give rise to what we would call sexual attraction and how they develop. None of the technology to do that exists yet, but chances are it will within 1000 years.

Also, I don't think that's even the question which people care about. People care about the answer to the much easier question of whether sexual attraction is a conscious choice or whether it's something which people couldn't change if their life depended on it. Despite decades of attempts to "cure" homosexuals with coercion and torture, none have ever been confirmed to have succeeded. That is all the evidence I need to say that sexuality is immutable, whether it's decided by genetics or environment.

>>22548

>>22547

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h5pI7KASjU

just ask the faggots themselves

>>22562

>some gays were abused as children

>HAHA THAT PROVES ALL GAYS CHOOSE TO BE GAY

Great logic there /pol/. You've really convinced me.

Just like spanking children this is one much overdramatized issue just to get attention. Even many pedos would never live out their sexuality in the open but instead rely on images like lolicon hentai here which hurts no one.

Those few examples they always bring aren't common but exceptions. When I was young even doctors said to give young boys a jerking so the foreskin would not grow to the glans for example. Those attention seekers would see this as rape. If thats so then every loving parent who kissed his/her child in an unapropriate spot just for finding it cute needs to be injailed imediately!

If you ask me, its those people who tell 'this is wrong' who really damage a childs mind. There are documentations about the issue and A LOT of so called victims were perfectly fine with what happened until all others started dramatizing it.

Since ancient times this is one kind of sexuality fixed not to mankind alone. Its natural if both profit from it.

What people are afraid of are extremes…assholes who abduct children, fuck them and kill them. Thats just sick in the head. Those attention seekers use this fear to get what they want and thats the major problem here.

Guess it was the same with homosexuals in the earlier past.

>>22552

> measuring the neural development of a few million humans at the resolution of individual neurons, then throwing that data into a supercomputer […] and using simulations and powerful AI to figure out exactly what patterns in the brain give rise to what we would call sexual attraction and how they develop

Ambitious idea, but I'm not sure how reliable and/or valid this would be, namely for two reasons:

First, construction of 'powerful AI' requires a quite vast amount of knowledge regarding how the human mind (and therefore, maybe, brain) works, so if you use such an AI to find out how the human brain works (specifically, with the ulterior motive of finding out how the human mind works), your results might be flawed because it's based on assumptions whose justification depends on the results they're supposed to yield.

Second, I'm not sure whether knowing 'patterns in the brain' would really help understand what's going on there, i.e. in a human's mind. Is 'there's a lot of activation of a certain kind in your hypothalamus, that's why you're gay' really auch a helpful explanation? It might be better than no explanation at all, but reducing aspects of the human mind, including sexuality, to brain activation schemes reduces a cumbersome, hard-to-deal-with psychological problem to a cumbersome, hard-to-deal-with physiological problem. It also renders you unable to see it as a matter of social interaction but forces you to treat it as a purely technical issue.

> I don't think that's even the question which people care about.

True.

> sexuality is immutable, whether it's decided by genetics or environment

The problem is, if sexuality is decided by environment, it's not immutable – it might change if the environment changes.

>>22554

> I believe the pedos who would never harm children vastly outnumber those who do

It would be really nice if there were any statistics about this. I don't think there are any though; if only because 'who would never harm children' is hard to verify or disprove.

>>22578

You admit yourself that this would only work in a small country. In that respect, it's exactly like democracy, which some of the French Revolution philosophers (was it Rousseau?) considered to only work if the community is small enough (that's why he would have preferred breaking France up into tiny pieces). Indeed, countries like the USA, China, Russia, or India are very likely to be just far too big for democracy to work properly – just because their populations aren't homogeneous enough so that finding a policy the majority accepts is easily possible. The US's solution for this problem is to offer just two alternatives (Rebublican vs. Democrat), one of which has to gain an absolute majority. (I know that's a considerable simplification.) China's solution is not to use democracy at all. And we all know that democracy isn't really working in Russia or India.

To get back to your post, the reason why age limits are so handily useful is exactly that they conveniently simplify everything. Whether or not they are entirely arbitrary, testing against a threshold is much easier than testing against a property as diffusely-defined as readiness for something, and if the age limit is set somewhat comprehensible or near the property's actual reaching age expectancy, you're not going to encounter major (or frequent) problems with that.

>>22459

>It's funny jow America thinks the rest of the world must follow their laws. America especially loves these extradition treaties, and practicing american law on their turf or abroad.

I think what's even funnier is the situational ethics involved.

If this was some random guy who raped a 13 year old and fled the country, most of these celebrities would be calling for his head. But because he's considered a great artist, he gets a pass. For child rape (and, at least according to her side of the story, it was rape, with her being given drugs and saying no repeatedly… he says it was consentual).

It makes me wonder if we should just skip the pretense and give a "license to kiddy fuck" as a reward for great achievements, to encourage greatness. Every Oscar comes with a "get out of jail free card" for sex crimes. Use it on a loli, use it to fuck a horse in the town square, your option. And not just for the arts… Create millions of jobs in the US? You get to have a loli harem. It's only fair. They can be chosen from the kids of your employees, who wouldn't be able to support them otherwise!

Of course, it's not JUST greatness, it's friendship, too. Mia Farrow supports Polanski, but accuses her ex Woody Allen (arguably more famous as a genius) of molesting, because she likes Polanski and not Allen. So people are willing ti give a pass for child molestation if you're a genius and you're their friend. Sometimes only one or the other is enough, but it's not a guarantee.

>>22595

thats pretty much how it already is. they just arent THAT open about it.

its pretty easy to figure out which ones have that kind of protection and which ones dont.

Some people get their careers ruined over a single comment,

and others can kill a couple of people without any consequence.

(for example that one actor that did a hit&run and killed an entire family and only got charged with "reckless driving" and a fine)

>>22590

>First, construction of 'powerful AI' requires a quite vast amount of knowledge regarding how the human mind (and therefore, maybe, brain) works

Not necessarily. Trial and error can significantly supplement our limited understanding and allow us to create an AI without fully understanding it. Human minds were created entirely by trial and error, after all.

>Second, I'm not sure whether knowing 'patterns in the brain' would really help understand what's going on there…

The only scientific approach is to treat it as a purely technical issue and analyse the underlying biology of the human mind. Anything less isn't science - it's just vague suggestions with no evidence or predictive capability. The human mind is inherently complex, and it's stupid to hope that we can simplify our model of it while still producing accurate predictions.

> if sexuality is decided by environment, it's not immutable – it might change if the environment changes.

There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. In fact, all the evidence suggests that once set, it is immutable.

Sorry to say, but as long as the request explicitly comes from the child, as long as the adult is a mentor, meaning places the child's safety, learning and pleasure ahead of his own desire, as long as there is strictly no pressure of any kind, sex with a child is fine.

Sexuality has no rule whatsoever aside from pleasure and respect. Pedophilia is a pseudo-diagnosis and everybody is a pedophile if you scratch at the right place and the right depth. As usual, the most rabid are the ones that are the most threatened by their barely unconscious demons.

There are rapists among pedophiles but there are also rapists among heterosexual, homosexuals, bisexuals and so on.

>>22671

The only ethical problem with the situation you described is that if anyone else ever learns of what happened, then the child will be pretty much forced to feel traumatised by the event. They will be given therapy, and if the child tries to say that it wasn't that bad, it will be taken as further evidence that they need therapy.

Here's an analogy:

>You know that there are heavily armed police who patrol the streets every day. >You know they like to shoot first and ask questions later.

>Is it ethical to let your child play outside with a realistic looking toy gun?

>>22644

> And I get why what I suggested in the latter post will never happen in a real country, I even tried to make that clear in the post ("in a small country", "huge drain on public resources", etc). It was just pointless ranting about a dream world, I guess.

I wouldn't call it pointless, but you have to keep in mind it is a dream world.

>>22665

> Not necessarily. Trial and error can significantly supplement our limited understanding and allow us to create an AI without fully understanding it.

Yes, you're right. However, that bottom-up phenomenological approach doesn't, you mention that youself, allow us to (fully) understand it. Therefore, I think it's questionable whether results yielded by such an AI are actually reliable. Just consider the judge that comes to a decision and, asked how, answers, 'I've learned that' or 'I've been trained that way' or 'by trial and error'.

> Human minds were created entirely by trial and error, after all.

Well, maybe what I was going on about wasn't a question of big data analysis but rather a question of what kind of AI we want in general. If it comes out of a huge trial-and-error process, we have a powerful AI but no clue how it works, i.e. we're as unknowing as we are concerning our own brain. Being able to create something without knowing how it works can be dangerous, like when people ferment fruits go get wine and die from methanol intoxication.

> The only scientific approach is to treat it as a purely technical issue and analyse the underlying biology of the human mind.

There is no underlying biology of the human mind. The human mind is an abstract concept of information manipulation. Maybe you're talking about the biology of the human brain, that's a different issue. Of course the human brain is the hardware the human mind runs on and its structure determines what the mind does. That, however, doesn't make analysis of the brain's structure the only scientific approach to finding out how the human mind works.

> Anything less isn't science - it's just vague suggestions with no evidence or predictive capability.

Psychology doesn't care about the structure of the human brain, and it doesn't treat things like paedophilia as an entirely technical issue. Yet it's more than vague suggestions. Done correctly – and I know it's often done not correctly – psychology may yield evidence and does have predictive capability. Only a probabilistic capability of course, but that's true for quantum theory, too.

> The human mind is inherently complex, and it's stupid to hope that we can simplify our model of it while still producing accurate predictions.

I didn't say – and wouldn't say – that there's a simple(r) model of the human mind. But maybe the brain isn't the only valid model. And I said that the 'brain model' of the mind might yield explanations that transfer from a level we don't really understand to a level we don't really understand. Explaining what the mind does by explaining what the brain does could ultimately become absurd, if to explain why the brain does what it does you have to reduce it to a state of mind which you then have to explain, i.e. to explain why the brain does something you have to explain why the mind does something.

> There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. In fact, all the evidence suggests that once set, it is immutable.

Then it isn't decided by the environment. Or, then it's not worth assuming it's decided by the environment. If something doesn't change when what you suppose it depends on changes, assuming a causal connection doesn't make much sense. I know what you mean – there is some point in time when your mind says 'That's it, now I set my owner's sexuality' and does this based on how environmental conditions are then, but I think it's rather a process of setting, and during that process, sexuality does change. And as I know our brain never gets static or immutable, I would claim that everything in the mind (as long as it is driven by the brain) is mutable either, including sexuality. If it isn't set beyond mind and brain by your genes.

>>16960

Hi there, OP. I'm relatively new to /loli/ and 8chan in general. Came here cause I need somewhere to go when nothing's happening on /a/ in 4chan.

I share pretty much the same view as you. I don't condone the actual molestation of children, but I have nothing against pedophilia, as long as one does not act on their sexual urges and actually go about touching little girls, especially if it's against their will, and especially if it's against the law in your country, which I assume it is. I firmly believe you can be into whatever the fuck you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. If you're simply fantasizing then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Stick to 2-D and you're all good in my book.

>>16960

With pedophilia as it's actually defined, meaning an attraction to children? Nothing, other than it leads to difficulties finding ethical ways to get off.

With pedophilia as it's defined by idiots who don't know what words mean, aka child molestation? That depends on the age of the "child." Age of consent laws are flawed, but I don't know if there is a way to improve them easily. You don't go from being unready to fuck one day and ready to fuck the next. There's a lot of gray area and whether it's ethically justifiable depends on a lot of factors. But there is an actual ethical question there, where there isn't if you're just asking whether actual pedophilia is unethical (it's blatantly not).

For context, I am the former and I use loli more or less as a way to get off without doing something that's at the very least illegal and definitely questionable ethically. It has worked and I haven't done anything illegal in that sense as long as I've been alive.

Pedophilia is A-OK as long as it isn't acted on.

Child molesters should swing from streetlights.

>>22871

I don't post here because I'm not a fan of the pseudo intellectual talk, but I'd say yes. But not because it's a child, I think it always worse when you commit crimes on those even less able to protect themselves, I.E. the elderly, the disabled, children.

>>22871

Yes, but only because they are likely to suffer more from the same experience.

>>22824

It is possible to condemn the cruel and inhumane actions of other people without proposing committing cruel and inhumane acts yourself. Torturing people to death would make you no better than the people you hate, if not worse. A truly civilized and compassionate society would seek to prevent all suffering, not just the suffering of people who abide by its rules.

Nothing is wrong with pedophilia, everything is wrong with child molestation.

I'm a huge fan of lolicon and while I don't exactly hate pedophiles, I find them quite hard to sympathize with and tolerate at times

I actually don't like the fact that there are so many boards on this site dedicated to the attraction to real (3D) underage girls. I find it 'morally wrong' and, honestly, just plain disgusting that they exist.

Why? I believe it's unhealthy for those boards to be here as it only deludes them into thinking that their feelings are completely natural, when really, it's a sexual disorder/mental illness they are circle-jerking. It's also almost impossible to reason with them without being called a 'SJW' or 'feminist' and them trying to convince you that it's somehow natural and normal.

I honestly think 8chan would benefit from removing the pedo boards since they have caused nothing but trouble from the beginning. Either that or they should be made hidden or at least blocked from being shown on the first page no matter how many posts/posters.

>>22927

>Why? I believe it's unhealthy for those boards to be here as it only deludes them into thinking that their feelings are completely natural

He said on a lolicon board. I'm really glad that all over the world lolicon is being labeled as cp so you fucks stop thinking you're completely normal for jerking off to drawn little girls. Wouldn't call you a SJW or feminist, would call you a hypocrite. It's completely fine not to like pedophilia, the same way it's completely normal to feel weirded out by scat or gore or whatever else people masturbate to. But do not pretend that you have a moral highground here just because you prefer 2 dimensional little girls.

>>22928

Is it legal to use my mind to imagine whatever the fuck i want? YES

It is legal and completely ok to think whatever the fuck you or me or anyone wants to think.

Could i draw myself killing or torturing or kidnapping an individual for no good reason? yes, it is legal and i have the full right to distribute it and to make a profit of such drawings.

That is the very basis of loli: am i allowed to think about a child in a sexual way?

am i allowed to use my creativity to make such image a visual representation of my imagination? yes

No matter how much kikes try to make loli illegal, its not gonna happen. lolis are images, not real representations of a child. Could i go to jail for drawing a murder? if so, many artists would be in jail already. There would be no works of fiction because someone is gonna be pissed about the fictional contents of a book/movie/comic/drawing etc.

There is no way anything could penalize an individual from thinking whatever the fuck he wants. if i want to think about you with a horse dick up your ass, i can do so. i could draw a visual representation of you made entirely out of imagination and a big horse dick up your ass and distribute for free and there is nothing you could do about it.

What are you gonna do, call the police because a drawing of you got raped?

Game of thrones with so many rape and murder scenes and why wont you call them cops "please, officer this woman is being raped in a fictional work by George R. R. Martin"

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its gotta be illegal

>>23011

We seem to agree, it's just you, for some reason, think loli is different from real life pictures of cute little girls when pedophilia is concerned. You seem to be against thought policing, but at the same time claim

>I actually don't like the fact that there are so many boards on this site dedicated to the attraction to real (3D) underage girls. I find it 'morally wrong' and, honestly, just plain disgusting that they exist.

If we're talking about pedo boards and it's content, and imagine a hypothetical pedophile looking at those pictures and pictures here. What's worse? Picture of non-nude modeling, or pictures of lolis getting fucked in the ass?

>That is the very basis of loli: am i allowed to think about a child in a sexual way?

Yes, you should be. Same with pedophilia and pictures of little girls

>No matter how much kikes try to make loli illegal, its not gonna happen

It has already happened

>There is no way anything could penalize an individual from thinking whatever the fuck he wants.

There are plenty of ways of penalize people for bad thoughts, and it is happening.

>Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its gotta be illegal

Of course not, and that's why pedo boards exist here.

>>23172

Children can't consent.

As a hebe, seeing people post here how they arent pedos yet fap to lolis is hilarious.

Its like people fapping to traps but thinking they aren't gay or people fapping to anthro but saying they aren't furries

its all denial and by definition you're all pedos anyway. Pretty sure you're sexually attracted to children, no matter they're drawings/2D whatever.

Just accept it and then get ready hide it from any normal ever

>>23025

>It has already happened

There seems to be some give and take. It actually seemed to be becoming a bit more accepted for a bit. Then the extreme left went sex negative, and thus the whole "sex=progressive" stopped, and loli took a huge hit.

Good news is that I'm already seeing the signs of people are getting fed up with those sorts. I expect the balance to stagnate for a few years…and barring Morality 3.0, perhaps start to become acceptible again.

>>23172

>Children can't consent.

Why? Because their minds aren't developed enough? Why does everyone treat sex like it's a big important life-changing event? It's not some deep philosophical implication that must be mulled over with a mature mind. As long as there's no rape or incest going on what's the big deal?

>>23198

The largest argument is balance of power. Children may acquiesce even when they would rather not.

Sort of a subconcious "Let the Wookie Win" mindset. Thus coercion.

Not saying that sex would necessarily screw them up however. The majority of the psychological damage comes after the fact, from friends, family, the psychologist trying to explain how you *should* feel, until you do.

>>23199

This is true. But maybe we should teach kids how to think for themselves, even if we continue to discourage pedophilia. Might help in the long run.

>>23200

We should encourage everyone to think for themselves.

It's just that such a mindset goes against many of the foundations of power.

Business, media, politics… what would happen to most of them if people actually were taught to give serious thought to everything they saw.

It would not be allowed.

For the hundredth time the thread has come full circle arguing over the same thing. I don't even come in here and have seen it happen again and again.

>>23200

In future people young as 10 would be mature enough to consent etc. that would be on space age where people learn aeronautics, quantum physics, rocket science at young age.

>>23226

people arent getting more mature, they are getting less mature.

like whats said in this post >>23206

for the people that run the world, its not a good thing for people to be mature.

what is possible, is that progressives succeed in making sex and relationships worthless, and have no more meaning then a handshake.

>>23191

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

>>23725

>Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

It can't, it just damages it.

I just don't understand how pedos can see real children arousing.

>>23734

The reason you find loli arousing is because they are imagery of idealized children.

Stop being so fucking dishonest. People are attracted to drawn images of adults because they are naturally attracted to adults. Millions of years of evolution doesn't suddenly change when the person is considered socially "underage". There is not a single lolicon who doesn't have some form of sexual attraction to "real" kids. They and you might say otherwise but you are lying.

The science is there and biology is immutable.

>>23734

"If I could one day make these urges just disappear (something I prayed for back when I believed), I’d still be drawn to children just for their own qualities. I loved how you could read their emotions right off their faces, because they didn’t see a need to hide it or play games with how they feel. I loved their idealism, their unbridled enthusiasm for the things they loved. Maddy had eventually opened up to me about her self-identified geeky passion for archaeology and ancient civilizations, including lost ones like Atlantis, and in doing so, she made me love it too, a little. I also love that you can influence younger people, guide them, make a positive difference in their lives like you can’t do for someone who’s grown up and won’t let anybody in.

In truth, I don’t think I like kids because I have these sexual urges, but that I have sexual urges because I like them so much. Imagine someone that makes you happier just by just being with them. Now imagine that they also have physical qualities you find attractive. A beautiful, angelic face, the beginnings of a womanly form, combined with an awkward unawareness of their own beauty and a vulnerability that makes you want to do anything to protect them. Size, as well, I guess, in my case. I’ve always been attracted to petite women. Is it that unexpected that, even if they were a child, some part of you would instinctively consider the impossible, crazy idea that you could unite that happy feeling with your most powerful drive, sex? That you’d think about them sexually more than other, more socially acceptable alternatives? I don’t think so."

>>23750

Well i haven't looked at pictures of real kids so i don't know, but maybe you are right.

>>23734 "I just don't understand how pedos can see real children arousing."

======================

The human body is a very complex biological machine with millions of factors, allowing for every possible combination of sight/smell/taste/touch and the emotions such generates. It's almost as if Nature demands that every idea of what a human can be should be filled by someone who can experience that POV. Given that God created Nature, and that Nature does what it does BY DESIGN, why is there even any debate on why people like what they like? Why do you like the kind of cake that you do? Almost everyone likes cake, but their favorite cake is unique to them (to a point) … their taste buds and their genetics and cells are crying out for that particular cake, creating a feeling of deep desire and hunger for that cake.

And inside the mind, there is a locked door, which can only be opened by some secret key at the wrong time. I went my whole life until I was over 25 having no interest in children whatsoever. I was nice to them, but felt they were not worthy my time as I was a socially inept person and kept to myself. But I was heavily into porn. I had Napster at that time, being the first sharing program available. One day I downloaded a movie called "Hel-lo" about a girl doing oral on her father. The very idea of how wrong it was, that this should never be happening, and yet clearly had already happened, that idea had never once entered my mind. But it was definitely my key to that hidden lock within me. I had been fapping for hours and couldn't get aroused by anything short of the most petite dark-skinned asians, some of the rarest girls you could find on the net, and I wasn't finding anything like that to keep me going. So when I saw the child doing this, I lost my entire being in the orgasm that came next. It was the loudest, hardest, most scintillating orgasm that ever came over me and I've never had anything like it since. That experience was so amazing, I chased it for the rest of my life. It became my hobby and my obsession. This was cake that tasted so good, but yet everyone said it was wrong to eat. At first the powerful sensations that took hold of me made me forget about why I liked this cake. I just did. Something in my mind, my flesh, my whole body vibrates to the sensations this cake brings me.

continuing ….

Why do you like the food that you do? Why do you like the girl that you married or the man you're having gay sex with that you hide from everyone? Why do you like anything that is called "bad" or "forbidden" such as cigarettes, drugs, or anything?

Our bodies are "set up" by Nature for this very fall. We are meant to fall. It's the only way to experience so many emotions and have a real rollercoaster ride. Otherwise, why didn't God just create obedient robots that did everything right in the first place? He could have. We would all do everything like Jesus did and be perfect too. But then there wouldn't be anything memorable about that universe or really any point to it. There'd be no stories to tell. Every book would be the same story, there could only be one book written because any other books would be pointless. And since every life is a story, that story lives or falls by its complexities, its struggles, it accomplishments, its failures and how people got over those to keep going and win.

How can you NOT understand how some people find children arousing? In this world of every conceivable idea made flesh, to be shocked or astounded by what's possible out there in humanity, is to be a close-minded moron. There are always haters, always losers, always killers, always heroes, always freaks, always outcasts, always the in-crowd, always the jock, the straight guy, the gay guy, it's always there. If you can't see the complexity, you aren't looking hard enough, or you are closing your eyes and burying your head in the sand of "what's good for you" only, with no thought about the larger picture.

Children's bodies are cleaner, smoother, younger, fresher, skinnier, less mottled, with perfect skin and their eyes (in comparison to their heads) are seemingly bigger (although eye size never changes from birth to death) and so look more innocent. Sometimes sex is exciting because of the loss of innocence. Sometimes its exciting with a girl more depraved than you. Life is about the complexity of everything and how you fit into that complexity, where your preferences are, and how it all matters to you.

The struggle we all face is the balance between SELF and OTHERS. This is the battle between evil and good. Selfishness and Love. Death and life. We can't help that we like a certain flavor of cake. Its not something we can just turn off to make the world feel more safe. Even the Bible says "if anyone would go into the fire, then into the fire they will go." This means sometimes, nothing can be done about what's going to happen to you, not even a prayer will stop a bullet. You can still pray if you want to, however, that's where faith come in. But it's foolish to think God will rescue you or do anything for you from prayer. You have to rescue yourself first and then sit around wondering if it was God who did that, or you? But since God created Nature and Nature created you, there was never any choice on your part about your creation, and how you would become. So why can God blame you for being a pedophile if "HE" created you as one? If not even God can blame you for being a pedophile, then why can another man? They can't. No one can blame you, not legitimately, although they can blame you without cause. I don't blame gays for being gay. I only ask them not to flirt with me, because I don't prefer that experience. I prefer cake. Thanks.

That it is healthy and natural and actually beneficial. It should be practiced and any female over 18 should be killed.

Pedophilia ≠ Child Molestation . That needs to be drilled into every single person who keeps using those two words interchangeably. It's not guilty to think of something in your head, but it IS guilty to actually act upon it.

>>25395

While I don't agree with the statement of killing any female over the age of 18, starting to reproduce at 16~ is best. The woman is at the prime of her life at 19~, and everything after that is downhill. The husband should be in the mid to late twenties.

>>25425

You should have lived during the Roman Empire. Average marriage age for girls around 14 to 16. The husbands' ages should have matched your idea, too (although some were certainly much older).

>>25395

>>25425

We all die duh. Well you guys don't realize that females after 18 are useless, infertile, old, used up, mean and nasty. I don't see a need for them. Also don't believe in monogamous relationship. Men should get girls at birth and have no less than 5 girls at a time. Girls should be raised to worship your dick.

>>25439

Anon, people don't shit out women. If you wanted society to be run like that, there would be a blatant imbalance between the men and women. We would need only the best of the best of men to reproduce, having amazing physical and mental abilities. You would most likely be slaughtered like the beta you are.

>>25481

Brave New World isn't as horrible as Huxley wanted everyone to think. It does raise ethical questions though; but I believe if we re-engineered that notion of society we could be able to retain its best getting rid of its not-so-desirable (or ethically problematic) aspects.

>>25395

Fuck off idiot.

>>25416

Just because they are a "child" doesn't automatically make it molestation. I want the braindead normies, like yourself, to fucking understand this.

Kids don't reach 16 or 18 or whatever your legal age is and all of a sudden become want to have sex or indulge in sexual pleasure. Fuck this mindset. When I was 9 if I could I would have been more than happy to fuck girls and I grew up moving around a lot and there were dozens of girls who in their youth were sexually curious and made playful advances. Fortunately I was still young enough at the time that it wouldn't have ended up getting me thrown in jail -though it probably would nowdays with how retarded the laws are getting- but to those who spout the concept that all sexual interaction with children is molestation, get fucked.

Puberty happens and kids, just like adults, have sex organs and genetic urges they do attempt to both satisfy and explore.

>>25641

>Fuck off idiot

>Says the edgelord pedo who wants to exterminate adult females so he can fuck the underage ones indefinitely

That's some really pathetic thinking, dude…

Also you'd better not forget to eliminate the adult males too. I don't think they'd be too happy with someone of your age 'trying it on' with their young daughters/sisters. Unless your other fantasy is being castrated and lynched by a mob of angry fathers, of course…

Not much. Evolutionary wise we've outgrown it.

>>16960

Even before i came to like/prefer loli, i was pretty much unable to fap to 3d anymore. And i prefer lewd as fuck cock hungry lolis. Not mindbroken ones. Plus i hate rl kids. But back on topic, as many stated before, being one isn't making you be a guaranteed molestor/candyman. It's up to the individual if they act upon it. Like schizo's. If they act upon the voices they hear should they be considered to be deemed "dangerous" or so.

>>25711

False. We haven't at all. It's only become socially acceptable to condemn something natural.

>>25719

Senstive much? Maybe you live in another country however the US won't legalize it. Here are a few reasons:

1) There is no purpose for it besides it being something for the adult. Most pedophiles forget kids when they discuss their sexuality. It's about them.

2) The average parent doesn't like their teenager have sex with another teen and you think it gets better with little kids and adults?

3) Kids deal with a lot of other issues and adding sex with an adult won't benefit them. Pedophiles seem to forget this.

4)Evolutionary it made sense. Women/girls were property, they didn't have rights, life span was shorter, they didn't do much etc. Girls actually have a lot on their plates now, they are taught they don't need to rely on a man or that men don't define their worth. Basically culture doesn't teach girls they have to please you dick.

5) There are plenty of outlets fantasies, loli porn, writings, talking to other pedophiles anonymous and safely.

6) Natural isn't a good argument. Pedophiles use this all the time and I just sigh. This argument is easy to deconstruct. Cancer occurs naturally and chemotherapy doesn't. Natural does not equal good, just like something that isn't Natural is not bad.

7) Plenty of kids kids grow up without having sex with adults and they turn out fine.Its not like out society will crumble if kids can't have sex with adults. Kids aren't missing anything. Have you been around kids? Helped raised them? I doubt it because kids are much more than sex objects. Sex isn't the most important purpose in their childhood nor it it needed. Do you care if the other needs of the kid are met or are you a pedophile acts like sex with adults is more important than school, food, good home, clothes, mental health, overall health, socially connecting with peers, extra curricular activities, behavior, good nutrition (just because you have food doesn't mean good nutrition), etc.

I didn't say pedophilia is bad just not needed in the US. Its eevolutionary mismatch to society's culture. Sorry if you are offended or exclusive. Move to another country if your life depends on it.

>>25724

Not gonna read the pseudo-intellectual wall of text filled with fallacies and circular arguments. No, I'm not "sensitive" this was my only reply to you and I only stated a fact which contradicts your previous post. It is natural and if we have "evolved out of it" it would not exist.

I think that men who look at themselves as "pedophiles" are the product of a society that is very neurotic, when it comes to showing affection.

Children are the most sensual people in our society. More than adults, they love cuddling, and touching and being close those whom they love.

When children hit puberty, all of a sudden they are taught that all of the things that they used to enjoy - when it comes to showing affection through touch - are now subsumed under the concept of "sexuality." This is terribly confusing for kids of that age.

Boys in Western countries, it seems to me, are much harder hit by this than girls are.

The social mores of young women's culture allow them to show affection through touch, to be wistful toward other people, to appreciate beauty of a person's body or posture in a platonic way, and to have a desire to show loyalty to someone who looks to be a person who could be a good friend, without any of these things necessarily being misconstrued.

The social mores of young male culture don't allow any of this. Boys who wish to maintain their custom of showing affection toward other people have no outlet, and have no guidance, really, except what they learned when they were children.

As young males head into high school and young adulthood, they learn male affection is always under suspicion. Men to whom it's directed don't like it. Women are very conflicted about it. The only people who unreservedly appreciate displays of affection are children. What kind of message does this send to a young man?

So, what should people do, who feel that they are sexually attracted to kids? I

think the only way to "pick the lock" of this problem the problem is to

separate, in the mind, all the things that have to do with "affection" from the

concept of "sexuality."

There's a fascinating way in which our society uses the Greek suffix -phile. It

usually people who are a very keen interest in something, and they focus on

studying it a lot. An audiophile is someone who loves music recordings. A

bibliophile loves reading.

Isn't it true, that in the same way, a "pedophile - in the purest sense - is one

who really studies children all the time? That kind of person will have learned

how children think… how they interact… how best to intervene when children

are having conflicts… how best to teach children. This is what is so goddamn

tragic about this affection we call "pedophilia." It's a terrible distraction.

I believe that people who are toying with this idea of "sexual attraction to

children" are likely those who are some of the most skilled at winning

children's hearts. Wouldn't they have to be charismatic around children? That's

the only way a person could start to entertain those kinds of romantic thoughts;

if children just don't like someone, it's going to be a challenge to be fond of

them. What this means, is that these young men are ironically putting themselves

at risk of not being able to pursue a career niche where society would really

benefit from the input of a wave of men who understand children, who are not

afraid of showing affection to them, and who are willing to spend their energy

taking care of them.

Of course, one can always make the larger social argument that in an ideal

society, children who are exposed to these adult rituals from a young age would

grow up to be healthier and better adjusted adults. However, that really is an

entirely different topic than one's own personal adult emotional needs. And

really, it's paramount that those who would believe that they are "pedophiles"

understand that within the context of current Western society, sexual

interactions with children ARE damaging. Even Tom O'Carroll, former leader of

the British organization PIE, admits this

(http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/minutes-investigates-alleged-

westminster-paedophile-network/story-e6frfmyi-1227447820543).

Since, we're on a forum where people cherry pick panels from Japanese manga and

share them with other folks, let's talk about Japan. Japan is a very

interesting social study. Before Japan opened up to the West in the 1860s, and

even up until World War II… Japan had a very different way of dealing with

teaching sex ed to kids, from the West. It was done in a very graphic way, in

the home. Think about sitting down with your own kids with the book "The Joy of

Sex." That's what it was like. Parents quite openly discussed sexual positions

and such things with their kids.

Modern day explicit pedophile-oriented manga in Japan… is basically an open

discussion about a matter that is never broached in the West. There are many

manga stories which are heavily critical of pedophilia in all its forms. There

are others which are very supportive of the idea. What I've seen in Japan is

that the result of this discussion is that kids become very aware of this

controversial social issue from a young age… and that the whole society tends

to realize that this pedophilia thing is really nothing more than a fantasy.

Prepubescent children simply do not have a physiological response that would

make them want to engage in sexual activities, more than just casually and

flippantly.

>>23212

No most of the world view hebephile as normal. In most of the world it is normal to be attracted to people in puberty.

Maybe in your "world"(America) but as seen by this case

>>22459

this is definitely not a world view, just yours

>>25835

Why definitely?

>wanting to fuck 3DPD

>at any age

>especially at the age they're most fucking annoying

Absolutely disgusting

>>25867

>most fucking annoying

I don't know, even leaving sex totally aside, I'd rather spend time with with a 10-12 year old girl than a random girl of almost any other age. Hell, more than a random guy of almost any other age. (The equation changes some if the random girl or guy and I share some common interest, of course, but if it's a "hey, you're going to be stuck talking to this person you've never met for a few hours, what would your preference be?" situation)

>>25729>>25835

Yes in the only world that matters to me is the US. You clearly are taking this personally and it is sad. Most men IRL don't seem to care as much as you to be sexually involved with girls like yourself. Most seem to want to grow with a human. I actually feel bad fo rpeople who can only connect with a small age range. You will always be tossing girls aside for new people.

also funny how only men are allowed to be hebes no women? I bet you think it is wrong and evil. Double standards because you are personally trying to defend yourself because of your issues.

>>25729

Yes you are offended. Clearly you feel the need to defend your sexuality by even ignoring infomation that can be backed up with evidence. Like I said I do not think it is wrong but honestly in the US there is no need for a child to be with an adult. You ignored what I said (because this is personal to you) and got upset. Calm down I am not saying anything hateful. Just in the US it is a mismatch. The sexuality is no longer needed. We live longer, science shows the best time for a woman to have kids is in her twenties (ask a gyno), girls are allowed to go to school and become educated, adults can interact with kids wihout sex, etc. Plus kids have plenty of other issues in the US adding sex is not the first thing on a parent's mind.

I know it may be offensive so sorry but other than pleasing the adult it not going to ruin a child's life not to have sex. Serious research children that grow up into adults who didn't have sex in their childhood they are fine. Unlike kids who did not get good nutrition, poor education, raised in a dangerous home, neglected etc. It is not needed so the US does not feel the pressure to legalize it.

Finally not to sound…like a nazi….but the reason why child lovers exist is because they are not being wiped out. Some remain celeibate, others may have legal relationships (having kids passes down the genes thus it goes on), and if ones offend and caught they are killed in the streets but put in jail. Also I am sure if they could remove the genes or give a drug to remove it they would.

You clearly have taken this personally and thus I will probably stop responding you sound emotional and reacting from it. Although it is natural it does not mean it is something every society will see as being legal. Drugs occur in nature but they are seen as needing laws to regulate it or even make it illegal. Also I am thinking maybe you live in another country because the US has negative attitudes towards child lovers. Like I have said to other ones (If you are from the US) can you go telling your family, friends, co workers, boss, random people, about your lust for kids? Do people on tv talk about havign sex with children? I mean we are on a anon forum where people hid their true IP address and does not appear on google you really believe the US agress or sees it as "normal".

Finally I can see why people stay on forums like this, they can escape reality and truth. You can live in a bubble so I am sorry for bursting it. In fact ignore me and enjoy this world.

>>25873

Again, not reading your made up pseudo-intellectual wall of text which is you just talking to hear yourself talk. You are wrong, not debate, we have not "evolved out if it". That is all that matters, not you deflecting and trying to appear half right through attempts to use fallacies, circular arguments and out right wild assumptions warped to be one sided for what you think is you being intelligent. You are the only one being "sensitive" as deviant by your ramblings.

>>25876

deviant = evident*

>>25873

New lolicon entering the fray.

I have known at least a dozen random people who have been sexually abused as children and am aware of the kind of impact that it can have on a child's growth and self-esteem as an adult, so I am inclined to agree with most of your points or at least see where you're coming from.

> Finally not to sound…like a nazi….but the reason why child lovers exist is because they are not being wiped out. Some remain celeibate, others may have legal relationships (having kids passes down the genes thus it goes on), and if ones offend and caught they are killed in the streets but put in jail. Also I am sure if they could remove the genes or give a drug to remove it they would.

I don't think it's genetic. My father *hates* sexual deviants, especially child molesters (he's been sexually abused as a child and has been in the prison system of which there are a large amounts of sexual deviants and 12-step groups where a large number of addicts have reported being sexually abused as children). My family on my Mother's side has a normal sexuality and adult/child boundaries (it's possible that my father may have been sexually abused from someone in his own family, I do not know the details)

I myself am a 30+ year old lolicon but at the same time I have spent large amounts of time around my nephews and nieces and do not have any kind of sexual attraction to them (affection, but more of just wanting to see them grow up healthy and happy), and I have not touched a child sexually ever since I have become an adult. I do think that my own loli-ism is more of a private kink has had to do with something that happened during my growth as I had become sexually aware at a very young age (even prior to puberty). I have sometimes found some children beautiful with even sexually attractive qualities but equally, I can find grown women sexually attractive too, and tend to keep my distance from children who I think are beautiful/attractive.

Anyways, I think the real turn-on for me is the forbiddenness of the thing, not the unequal power dynamic.

>>25949

I'm on my phone so I can't post a lot. However research is showing how sexuality us genetic and I'm thinking environment still plays a role. I wil dig up research in this soon.

>>25656

Epic strawman.

>>25949

The real impact it has on kids is that society tells them they should be traumatised by it. I was involved in a very bad car crash when I was a kid, lost a family member, a friend, and spent a while in hospital. As an adult I've been in a few crashes since, one where I was at fault, but nothing fatal for anyone involved. Yet I drive everyday.

This was vastly more traumatic than 99.99% of the "molestation" cases around the western world but the key difference is that society doesn't tell people that these sorts of thIngs are some extreme evil and violational which ought permanently change your life for the worst.

The problem is that we live in a female driven society and females artificially inflate the value of sex to the point that we are basically encouraged to believe the pussy is the highest pleasure any man have, which is bullshit but yeah. Women need this value because they have nothing else to bring into the picture and with the idea that if a girl is no longer "pure" it means she has no value. Without this gynocentric framework this supposed trauma would have no framework for being forced into the minds of these kids.

The trauma is due less to what happened and more die to the hysteria generated by adults. They are really to blame with any lastIng negative impacts.

>>25966

You sound like you probably think rape is not real or it is rare. Have you ever talked with or dealt with rape victims. Never heard one say, "society made me feel this way". All of them made it clear they did not want it and some actually kept it a secret….I find this view point distrubing because to discredit trauma makes you seem like a psycho who has no ability to understand or respect how a human feels. Also how are you better than society by telling them how to feel. How about they tell you not society not you THE VICTIM. I actually know rape victims do not speak for them.

Here is this gem

The problem is that we live in a female driven society and females artificially inflate the value of sex to the point that we are basically encouraged to believe the pussy is the highest pleasure any man have, which is bullshit but yeah

First off woman hater what society do you speak of? Next actually men were the ones who placed this value not women. Look up words like: whore, slut, bitch, hooker etc…..they refer to women not men. Next it is clear you blame women for not allowing you to molest little girls? I seen men like this. They think they are wronged because they cannot use up little girls sexually and blame women. Plenty of men would stop you from having sex with a girl especially their daughter. Also why are you mad women do not devalue themselves and girls? I do not wan tto live in a society where women are not allowed to have value…..

You could have left out you anti-woman part it would have helped your character. However usually people who deny rape (thus trying to silence and "'correct" rape victims telling them how to feel), are mad at women/girls having rights over their bodies tend to go hand in hand. You also seem to be mad at the idea that women and girls aren't sex objects for your pleasure. Your mother must have been a mean old cunt eh? lol.

Get help. I am glad we do not live in a society that you approve of. Go to a woman hating country, but if you are from the US things will get worse for you buddy.

Man this thread proves most the people here are pedos that use lolis as legal CP. I also fear for children based on how people post. It seems clear that these people want to rape kids because they think they can consent. Well I hope you all go to jail for your crimes gainst kids.

>>26011