[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / aus / dcaco / miku / rule34 / suicide / wooo / x ]

/younglove/ - Child Love Discussion

Keep it clean and legal. Thanks.

Catalog

Winner of the 8chan Attention-Hungry Games
/mu/ - Music Festival of Autistic Rage: Come talk about music with us.

Never bareback any imageboard.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.


Tor posting has been re-enabled. Let's hope our spam problems are gone by now.

File: 24ab3157ddfc466⋯.jpg (731.22 KB, 2048x1365, 2048:1365, 1431803884200.jpg)

 No.35388[Reply]

Welcome to /younglove/, a discussion board aimed at people who are emotionally and/or sexually attracted to people of young ages, though everyone is welcome to post.

RULES

1. All global rules apply. That means no child pornography.

2. Only post “clean” photographs. This means fully clothed (no underwear or swim suits), no nudity and no erotic poses.

3. No flooding or commercial spam.

4. Do not post real world identification (aka dox).

5. No advocating violence against children.

 No.35389

Things To Consider

A pedophile is defined as someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children.

Sexual attraction to pubescent children is hebephilia, while sexual attraction to adolescents is ephebophilia.

Being a pedophile does not mean someone is, or ever will be, a child molester or rapist. Both molestation and rape are an action which involve a victim while pedophilia is a passive attraction.

Having a sexual attraction to children isn’t illegal, acting on such desires can be however.

While sexual attraction is the key factor in being a pedophile, many pedophiles choose to avoid contact with children completely. Others wish to be close to a child or children while abstaining from any sexual behavior.

Opinions on whether or not sexual activity with a minor is moral differ greatly and such discussion is welcome here, but while this is not a rule, please do not discuss having done anything that could be considered a crime involving a minor. Doing so can put the community at risk.

Thank you.




File: 2c5434f63a9f66b⋯.jpg (39.09 KB, 339x407, 339:407, peinados-ondulado.jpg)

 No.36936[Reply]

I've become growingly obsessed with my gf's 10yo sister.

About 2 years ago I accidently saw her naked while she was drying herself with a towel with the door open in her parents room.

I'd like to make her fall in love with me so I could kiss her.

Also, I've been thinking about buying one of those spy cameras disguised as common objects like wallchargers, and secretly record her naked.

What should I do, how should I ago about making her fall in love with me or record her naked?

Sorry if my English is not perfect.

Her hair looks like pic related, but her face far prettier, she is a really beautiful little girl.

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.36949

You should respect her and not try to manipulate her or invade her privacy.

>>36947

I'm exclusive, and OP is letting his incest fetish take over his mind.


 No.36950

File: d2c9f847afafb96⋯.jpg (34.37 KB, 500x520, 25:26, f8476a7bb1314a00c48603589a….jpg)

I suggest the D.E.N.N.I.S system. Again.


 No.37010

>>36950

If you keep suggesting this at some point some dumb shit will actually try it lol


 No.37011

File: 6fdcd1828085024⋯.jpg (14.5 KB, 300x300, 1:1, 56597579.jpg)


 No.37066

>I'd like to make her

>Also, I've been thinking about buying one of those spy cameras disguised as common objects like wallchargers, and secretly record her naked.

Inb4partyvan.

also, this is probably shill post.




 No.36534[Reply]

Anyone else feels like you are losing your pedophilia? On the last few years I am becoming less and less attracted to LGs, to the point a few days ago I tried to fap with CP and I just couldnt get turned on. The kids were not really into it so I closed it and fapped to hot women.

Maybe is because I have a grown up girlfriend and have a lot of interactions with women?

I have zero contact with little girls so they are not part of my life. And that's also true for the vast majority of males without children of their own. Most men just don't have a contact with little girls in their life, but they do meet a lot of women every day. So it's natural and normal that in the end you think more about women than about LGs.You meet women, you make friendship and flirt with them, time passes, and in the end, you realize you can't remember the last time you had a sexual thought about children.

So maybe I am cured? Maybe natural contact with women and zero contact with children is a cure for pedophilia? I have watched CP for years and I never felt that my pedophilia increased because of it. On the contrary, I became less and less of a pedophile.

What are your thoughts on this? Am I still a pedophile? Do you feel that you are less "pedophilic" than before?

27 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.36663

>>36627

>I'll agree that it's not really a representative sample of the general population, but he did at least make an attempt to be objective.

>he made an attempt

lol

Let's send him a participation trophy with the engraving "You tried!"


 No.36739

>Do you actually think that a 7 year old can be a PARTNER?

I. Have. Done. Exactly. This. For. Years. At. A. Time.

>Have you ever made crazy love with a woman? Do you honestly think you could ever replicate that with a child? The same level of nausea, nausea, nausea, nausea, nausea and general disinterest?

I dunno, I could always drink Ipecac while watching paint dry…

Don't let the door hit you.


 No.37062

>>36623

OP here let me jump back to this thread

I have no issue against exclusive pedophiles because I think it's a very legitimate orientation. I think that pedophiles who are exclusive are ok. I think that pedophiles that think that sex with grown ups is gross are ok. I also think that non-exclusive pedophiles are ok. And I also think that pedophiles who have started to appreciate the beauty and companionship of women are OK. My point is that even if you are currently adamant that you are a pedo, in the future maybe you will change. Pedophiles CAN change. That's all I say.

About "making love". I seriously doubt even preteens (8-9+) can "make love". They don't have the maturity to actually make love. And by "making love" I don't necesarily mean penetrative sex. I think it could be erotic and pleasurable, in some cases, but it wouldn't be "making love".

Another thing about emotional support: I think you are overrating what I said. I didn't mean to imply that women (or LG) should be your emotional support every day of your life. More precisely, what I meant is, that LGs can't interact with you in the level an adult woman can. Of course, she might be able to interact with you sexually, and even in some sligthly emotional way, but she is not an adult and thus she cannot truly interact on your level.

Sure, if you want a purely sexual relationship where your own pleasure is the most important thing, then little girls are way better than a woman, because they are prettier and sexier. But if you want a partner who can also enjoy a sexual relationship, who can also feel deeply in love, if you want someone who can understand you, connect with you, have interesting discusions and live a fullfilling life with you, then you have no other option but women (or men, if you are a gay).

As you said: little girls will grow. So you will never be able to form a family and have a long term relationship if you are an exclusive pedophile.

AgPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.37063

File: 0822570b2ba7643⋯.png (942.28 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, Screenshot (861).png)

>>37062

>About "making love". I seriously doubt even preteens (8-9+) can "make love". They don't have the maturity to actually make love. And by "making love" I don't necesarily mean penetrative sex. I think it could be erotic and pleasurable, in some cases, but it wouldn't be "making love".

Well preteens aren't certainly going to make love the same way an adult woman do, but saying they cannot is kind of an overstatement there, because they can. Matureness isn't based on only age, and despite of that, we don't even want something adult-like with children anyways, so relationships are going to vary in these, well, they vary in all relationships, but you could say that the general way into this would also be different for the general approach from regular ones.

>that LGs can't interact with you in the level an adult woman can. Of course, she might be able to interact with you sexually, and even in some sligthly emotional way, but she is not an adult and thus she cannot truly interact on your level.

Sexuality isn't everything in a adult-child relationship. She perhaps can't support you in the same way an adult woman would, but that doesn't mean she can in a different way. Consider that many people's needs for emotional support is not equal to having someone of "equal level". Some people get their emotional support from online groups, games, exercising, among other activities as well. In my case, children would satisfy my emotional needs just by having them around and being able to play with them and forgetting about how horrible this world is.

Also, I feel I need to say that I have indeed had deeper conversations with little girls than I had with many adults in the past. It's rare, sure, I will admit that, but the cases that you can talk about a lot of things with them are there.

And even if they don't meet said level, does it actually matters that much if both love each other anyways?

>Sure, if you want a purely sexuaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.37064

* in an adult-child




File: d18e842ceb92cf6⋯.jpg (59.05 KB, 296x219, 296:219, Woody_Allen_-_Take_the_Mon….JPG)

 No.37055[Reply]

My family's swimming pool has progressively become an object of torture for me this Summer. Lgs from the neighborhood constantly come over to swim and I can see them from my window. It started as eye candy fun but it has become torturous. Have any of you had experiences like mine? I feel so alone.

 No.37056

So get out there and dive in. What's the problem?


 No.37058

>>37056

Too neurotic. It'll be too awkward.


 No.37060

>>37058

I guess that's something you should work on, then. I'd suggest starting by cleaning your room and getting a job, in whichever order your prefer.


 No.37061

File: ddbe3110bf47d35⋯.jpg (35.28 KB, 517x492, 517:492, 1502997192850.jpg)

>>37060

My room is spic and span and I have a full-time job. What now?




 No.36952[Reply]

I've been thinking about those people who have a thing for keeping LGs in dungeons and basically making them slaves.

They always fuck up, right? They mistreat them and eventually the LGs need medical care and they're forced to take them out, exposing themselves, and/or they film them and share the pics and vids and then get caught because they show clues; but then I realized there must be a bunch of people around the world with big houses and unregistered LGs inside that we don't and won't know about, because they're not dumb enough to distribute pics or vids. I mean, since the only ones we get to know are the ones that get caught, I have to conclude there are plenty we don't know because they've managed to not get caught.

Anyway, here's a question: if you keep a couple of LGs completely isolated from society from birth, you stimulate them with books and games and love and pets, you control 100% of the media they consume, you give them tasks and a sense of responsibility and reward good behaviour/punish bad behaviour, and you teach them how to read and do basic math and arts and crafts, how would their minds develop?

They wouldn't be retarded, right? Basically they'd be unfit for society, but completely fit to their environment. Physically they could develop well (or even better that the average Western LG) with regular exercise and plenty of space, mentally they wouldn't be dumb, but you could mold them to be completely obedient and devoted to you and they would keep their naivete.

You think this could be happening right now?

I do.

Would it be too difficult to secretly keep LGs as pets/lovers/daughters/maids (and to make them eventually give birth to other LGs) with enough money in a country with a non-intrusive government? It would take money, but let's say someone has it.

Obtaining them from birth and before they're put into the system would be the real challenge, but I already have conceived a way to do it.

Without knowledge of the world, they wouldn't even realize their unusual position, so they wouldn't question or reject it. Am I wrong?

11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.37048

>>37034

Communities do exist everywhere, but they're tolerated or suspected in different degrees depending on the country. Where I live, some years ago, a lady with some sort of extreme anti-government, self-ownership ideals and her followers were forced to disband because a person died of natural causes in their commune and they didn't report it. So it looked like they were covering a crime, right? So the Gov went in and found out the hippies weren't registering their babies and it was a huge deal.

On the other hand, my government won't bother you in your own house EVER if you live in the city or a nice big house. My family has bought many properties all over the country. If I wanted, and I'm not saying I want, I could set this plan in motion as soon as I find myself alone, which will be when my wife dies. She's ill (poor thing, she's barely 32) and probably won't make it. We didn't have kids and we can't now. In any case her doctors always advised against her having children, because of her health.

So I will probably find myself all alone in the world pretty soon.

I can't play the religious aspect, though. No Amish Paradise for me, and I don't feel like dealing with society too much after my wife, by no fault of her own, breaks her promise of never leaving me.

I don't feel like marrying again, and I really do love children (in a parental way, not just in a sexy way) and I know I will be able to provide for a group of cuties if (big if) I choose to do this, I don't see why not. I mean, the NO SOCIETY FOR ME is my future no matter what, I'm not even 36 and I'll find myself soon alone, as I was before knowing my wife, but even more bitter. My own family is uncaring and they won't miss me. In fact I know the family of my wife will care more about me.

I'm taking every angle into consideration, too. I don't wanna hurt the kids, so I have to design an optimal set of conditions for their healthy development. I think I could work something out.

I may or may not be seriously considering it. If I find a proper way to keep them healthy and happy and not retard their development, should I just not o it and grow old alone, bitter and share myPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.37052

>>37048

Look, I'm the last person to try to pathologize other people's viewpoints. I know exactly what it's like to have people write you off as a kook and refuse to consider any argument you present. And so I've been trying to read everything you say in the best possible light, and give it consideration. But it's clear that what you need isn't a child, it's a therapist. I'm suggesting this for reasons that have nothing to do with little girls; obviously I respect and share your attractions or else I wouldn't be here. My concern is with your obvious bitterness and resentment that's loosely focused at all of society. Figure that out first, then consider parenthood.


 No.37053

File: 654e23503cbc3f0⋯.jpg (19.01 KB, 600x600, 1:1, IMG_4316.JPG)

>>36967

>>37045

Agreed. Keeping a girl from seeing the world for your own good, even if you do "raise her normally" is just evil OP.

Never being able to enjoy the pleasures of outside life is awful. The idea of people treating little girls this way makes my blood boil.

I just want to cuddle them and take them to the movies and the mall and amusement parks, that's love.


 No.37059

>>37045

>>36967

>>37053

You do realize the OP was only asking questions? Cool your white knight horses. Geez. If this is all it takes to make your blood boil then you are unfit to be around young people. That kind of anger will eventually be something they copy.


 No.37065

>>37059

The only white knight is you stop defending op he is a monster.




 No.37057[Reply]

I want a baby to pick it up



File: d4508ea03e44e95⋯.jpg (41.49 KB, 480x799, 480:799, IMG_20161126_175445.jpg)

 No.32746[Reply]

Is anyone still running this board? Because it needs to be cleaned up. This is the last fucking board we have, and it needs to now appeal to everyone. For one thing, how about we drop "child love" from the title? We aren't all child lovers here. I'm an adolescent lover myself. Just call it "MAP Discussion."

26 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.36920

>>32746

I think we can all agree that while young love is a nice uri name, the problem is in the header at the top of the page. Child Love sounds like pedo exclusively. Can't we please change the header to be more inclusive?

>>32773

The only reason you and others feel so paranoid with hebephiles around here is because only 200 years ago hebephilia was practiced by many people. You are afraid society will wake up to this truth and still treat pedos like crap. Your fear isn't hebephiles betraying you. It is society keeping you swept under the rug for the rest of time.


 No.36921

Jesus, these fucking spambots even bump old threads.


 No.37046

>>36921

It doesn't change the fact that the OP brought up a valid point. What would be the harm in changing it to "child&teen love"? Or one of the other suggestions given here?

The OP is right. With reddit banning the most popular sub it had ever seen, and this site banning hebe, there are not many places left for hebephiles to feel at home.


 No.37049

File: 5637ff34189760b⋯.png (337.9 KB, 608x279, 608:279, Screenshot_2017-06-06_02-0….png)

>>37046

Point taken. Even 2D is getting banned all around as we speak and it's stupid the level of censorship which is being implemented in this time.

People never learn that any and all kind of censorship is futile. It will serve nothing in the long run, except for trying to cover issues that needs to be addressed directly, some by accepting them, and others by working with it, not straight ban them. Censorship will never stop anything, history confirms this and even modern times are proving it once again.


 No.37054




 No.36668[Reply]

Started a Reddit thread these days and I have gotten from interesting responses to absolutely ridiculous responses. You guys are welcome to participate and give your individuals inputs about experiences or overall anything you guys might want to add/share to the thread.

I know Reddit is cancer though, I have been cringing with some the responses, but it has gone better than even I have expected… Please disregard the stupid username I chose for myself. I never thought I would have used that account to this extent, it sorta happened.

https://www.reddit.com/r/confessions/comments/6shd1w/i_am_a_pedophile/

138 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.37027

>>37016

I don't know if you've noticed, but the vast, vast majority of posters here go without pen names. Part of the reason you see my stuff everywhere is simply because I have a name with which you can identify me, for your own sake. Hell, I don't even know who you are.I'm responding to a bunch of people who won't even identify themselves.

Another reason is that I'm just a fast typer, ergo I can respond rather quickly to multiple posts. I really don't waste more than fifteen minutes on this board a day, if that. (And I'm not on everyday.)

Finally, I do respond to points raised by other people. I don't know what you're on about.


 No.37036

>>37027

So what you're saying is you don't think before you post?

>>>/b/


 No.37043

>>37036

Lol, ouch. Burn.

>>37025

Umm, evidence for what? That sex with children is always harmful? I saw no pdf files in your post?

And even if you do find proof, this is one of many reasons this board exists. That is, to combat shoddy science done in the name of "protecting children" and "getting politicians re-elected" and "being a white knight scientist for everyone to revere". It is astonishing how biased science is these days, but it is no wonder considering many people have a chip in their shoulder about creationism/racism/feminism.


 No.37050

>>37043

>It is astonishing how biased science is these days, but it is no wonder considering many people have a chip in their shoulder about creationism/racism/feminism.

What's even more astonishing is the fact there are people here who also fall for that stupid obvious bias in science and many other forms of communications. They fail to see that and they're acting like Falangist Spain in WW2, to mention an example. I don't know how many of you folks know Spanish or not, but I would to share this manual that was made for children in Spain during their times in the Civil War. It's basically a book containing all propaganda and mixed-up definition of words, but stating them as facts… Kind of reminds me of certain societies nowadays when it comes to certain minorities… Oh, wait!

https://laicismo.org/data/docs/archivo_500.PDF


 No.37051

* would like to share




File: bd0860faa758238⋯.jpg (62.58 KB, 500x750, 2:3, 15f210d7d0d32c25bd1fede717….jpg)

 No.36715[Reply]

I'm 20

I'm attracted to little girls

I'll never hurt them

I don't want sex with them,I want just a true love relationship,is it possible? How can I seduce a little girl (5-10 year old)

12 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.36850

The responses to this thread are beyond stupid.

Why do you want a relationship with a 5-10 year old girl?

Option one:

> you want something

This is called "Desire". It is the name of a daemon, KYS.

Option two:

> you have something to offer

This is called "Love". It is the name of an angel, continue.

Now:

What could you possibly have to offer?

Like, what could you do to any 5-10 year old girl, to make her happier, or improve her life in any way?

If she already has a good family environment, she probably will need nothing from you. Contrary to what many people seem to think on this website, children don't "need that" from anyone.

You could teach her things, if you know anything. She wouldn't love you for it.

You could find a girl who has an unstable family or no family, and try to raise her some how, fill in a void that's left somewhere.

What would you do then, if you got her to love you, and you realized that the best thing you could do for her… would be to be platonic?

do you want

to touch

a body

or a life?


 No.36892

>>36850

Very insightful comment too bad you will get called names and told to leave.


 No.36901

>>36892

Not much to disagree with here, tbh. I'm the guy arguing with him in two other threads right now and I think this is a breddy gud post.


 No.36903

>>36850

>What would you do then, if you got her to love you, and you realized that the best thing you could do for her… would be to be platonic?

Virped detected. What if you realized that the best thing you could do for her is touch her? To hold her? You do realize how stupidly normie your statement sounds right?


 No.37047

>>36850

Get out you normalfag scum




File: ccc563d1240dd60⋯.mp4 (3.92 MB, 1280x544, 40:17, kiss.mp4)

 No.33075[Reply]

Since the self-haters got for themselves a commercial name – Virtuous Pedophiles, or VirPed for short –, I believe that the self-loving part of the community deserves one too. For that I suggest Pedo-positives, or Pedo+ for short.

58 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.37019

File: 5c469bd0bc790f8⋯.png (1.1 MB, 1366x768, 683:384, Screenshot_2017-05-19_22-5….png)

>>37017

>Molestation used to mean "unwelcome touching". Now it means only that, when used in the context of adults, whereas in the context of a child it's any form of sexual interaction. It is of course ludicrous. A child molester should be the term used for someone who touches children without their consent, a child rapist someone who rapes children.

Agreed. This is a form on how people in power choose to redefine this words in a not-so fair way in order to further their agenda, and the people who blindly obey to these changes while trusting the government. The irony in this is that those "who are against" the government themselves also fall in their charades, so it really leaves you wondering just how much different current society is due to our advancement in technology, but also the cleverness of manipulating it.


 No.37026

>>37017

The vast majority of us that I've spoken to are with me, so I don't think I'm off base here. People who want penetrative sex are a minority. You are a minority within a minority.

Anyway, the belief is that child porn is harmful to children, and that viewing the pornography "re-victimizes" the children in it, because knowing someone is watching their pornography may cause them significant distress or pain. Consuming child porn also creates a psychological demand for more pornography, which, as you'll recall, is harmful, per psychiatric consensus. You can debate that, but that's the belief.


 No.37032

>>37026

Knowing that it exists, in this case, is necessary and sufficient to cause the full amount of harm. There is no additional harm caused by viewing a video multiple times, there's no additional harm caused by 101 people possessing a copy compared to 100 people possessing a copy, and there's no harm done at all if the child is never made aware that it's been distributed in the first place. In fact, you can cause exactly the same amount of psychological harm just by telling the victim it's out there, regardless of whether or not it's true. Therefore, the act of viewing or possessing cp by nature cannot cause harm to children. Rather, it's the production, distribution, and reporting of that distribution back to the victim that are the factors of harm.

As for your assumption that possessing cp will encourage the producer to make more, how is this cheerleader effect supposed to work from downloading reposts of reposts, or downloading from sites without view counters? The producer has no way to tell whether anyone has seen it in this case. And what would he do if he didn't get any views at all like you would prefer? Let's say someone posted a cp video somewhere and it only ever got 5 views and one response: "eh, she's fat." You think he'd get his feelings hurt and just give up on this whole sexual contact with minors thing? Even if he did, he already posted that video, which is enough to cause harm if the victim ever learns about it.

And here's the important thing to remember: the currency for cp isn't money. That's how you get caught and thrown in prison forever. The currency for cp is oc. By banning all of this material that's already been made and distributed and caused all the harm that it's ever going to cause, we've forced people to produce new cp in order to pay hoarders for access to their archives. Once again, you're making quick judgements (cp is bad, bad things should be illegal) without considering their effects (the only definitive way to prove you're not a cop online is to rape a child on timestamped video). Your current mode of thinking is exactly what causes practically every form of crime and violence everywhere. You would do well to consider the full effects of the actionsPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.37037

>>37026

>The vast majority of us that I've spoken to are with me, so I don't think I'm off base here. People who want penetrative sex are a minority.

>Anyway, the belief is that child porn is harmful to children, and that viewing the pornography "re-victimizes" the children in it, because knowing someone is watching their pornography may cause them significant distress or pain.

Good job repeating what I said.

>You are a minority within a minority.

I didn't say that I approve of penetrative sex with children. However, I'm open to the possibility that it could somehow be safely legalized.

>Consuming child porn also creates a psychological demand for more pornography, which, as you'll recall, is harmful, per psychiatric consensus.

>You can debate that, but that's the belief.

To clear up a few misconceptions that you have:

Consensus is not evidence.

Beliefs are ideas held without the need for supporting evidence.

Porn addiction is dangerous and this can be proven. Although, the same is true of all addictions and it is hypothesized that addicts are predisposed to be that way and will always seek out something to ruin them. What are the dangers of moderate porn consumption?


 No.37042

>>37032

Yep. And your point about the cheerleader effect is spot on. Just like with prostitution, as soon as you make something illegal it causes some bad things to happen. By making cp legal, producers don't have to hide what they are doing. But nope, let's just keep saying cp traumatizes a child for the rest of her life every time someone watches the video. Yeah, sounds logical…




File: 1458714119918.png (277.38 KB, 600x700, 6:7, 1422253184891.png)

 No.31218[Reply]

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/MD-Anderson-physician-pleads-guilty-to-collecting-6959889.php

>be smart pedo

>want to help kids

>become pediatric oncologist

>save hundreds of loli and shotas over career

>research further how to fix them in job at one of the most prestigious cancer centers in the world

>go to jail, have reputation destroyed, and lose everything for looking at picture that were probably pretty tame since the media and police would have made note if there were any sadism, which they didn't)

>no indication of any other crimes at all

>they still contact your patients and tell them you're a monster who never cared about their cancer just for lelz

50 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.35027

>>34991

>You think children not wanting their nudes, sex tapes or their rape videos online is the same as a video of baking bread?

Putting them online is not the same as possessing them.


 No.35147

>>34991

>You are comparing children to an object. You think children not wanting their nudes, sex tapes or their rape videos online is the same as a video of baking bread? Wow you are heartless.

I just watched a video of an old black man being shot. Did I just murder a man? If I watch it again, will he die again?

I have a theory that the reptile layer of the brain of anyone who hasn't spent at least 10 years using computers can't distinguish reality from pixels and that's why they think that watching a video of a child being raped is the same as raping a child.


 No.37039

hello lov


 No.37040

>>37039

Would you bots fuck off?


 No.37041

>>35147

Could be onto something there. Personally I am tired of people acting like watching a video is the same as doing that action in the video. If we could at least make it legal to own cp, but keep production criminalized, then it would be a step in the right direction. Imagine a world where you don't have to use darknet to download videos that were made 20 years ago by a company, or download videos from periscope/youtube etc made 1 week ago by someone who was not pressured by anyone to take their clothes off. I understand this board has many pro-contact people, but I am astounded that so many antis still exist and do not see how corrupt and screwed up our cp laws currently are.

>>37040

It is actually convenient for people like me because this board explodes with activity from time to time and I miss some posts. I wonder if sometimes these bots do it because they see the last post being pro-contact/pro-cp (of a sort) and purposely try to egg on another argument. This board certainly is filled with antis in disguise, so it certainly is going to work.




File: abdeb85ebbb672e⋯.jpg (140.28 KB, 900x722, 450:361, best-of-friends-emile-vern….jpg)

 No.36574[Reply]

A survey that pretty much puts you in situations with children and presents you with options to opt for as if you were living given scenarios, from both the minor-attracted person's perspective, as well as putting you in the shoes of the child's in certain occasions. I found it interesting after a friend shared it with me. I took it and then saw that it's still not shared here, as far as I know, so I will post it here.

https://uoitsocialscience.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7QmqjrsNx912DSR

81 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.37005

>>36996

>the vicious Anonymous hides his face.

>He feels shame, he has no good answers.

You want a tripfag circlejerk? Fine, here's your circlejerk. These are my posts in this thread since the discussion turned away from the poll:

>>36871

>>36881

>>36889

>>36898

>>36918

>>36972

>>36975

Now, to answer your questions:

>>36964

>why? Why are you this way? What's wrong with living a normal life? Have you tried?

Define normal. Full time job, beautiful wife, two and a half kids? Tried it, didn't work out. Wage slavery doesn't agree with me and not being interested in women puts one at a distinct disadvantage in the dating game. Kids, maybe someday.

>What future would this have? (I'm assuming you're male and interested in females between 6-12, this text may not apply to other cases.)

I'll let you know when I get there.

>How would you relate when she gets older?

Too soon to say. Maybe we remain close. I do have a couple of teenage and adult female friends, so it wPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.37024

File: 497e632528d2c64⋯.jpg (127 KB, 640x488, 80:61, DIY-mosaic-font-b-Diamond-….jpg)

>>36999

>>37005

I enjoy raising children, and I do this to direct blood, non-nuclear relatives, and non-relatives.

The emotional tone is different in each case, but the result is more or less the same.

They both fill different roles- just because one is a higher responsibility, doesn't mean I personally enjoy it more.

I enjoy helping someone who gives me understanding, sweet attention, who shares a platonic attraction, who benefits measurably from this association.

>>36935

>>36937

>>36958

>>36984

There's just something I can't resolve with the nature of this community-

you seem to base your identity on your attractions, and your happiness on your degree of satisfaction.

I remember that perspective, it was distinctly adolescent. I'm glad I've matured.

I feel like I need to explain -why- I choose to abstain. I've been in a "secretive" relationship once, legal but not socially acceptable. It just wasn't worth concealment. I'd rather have the cognitive pleasure of living my life in a completely safe and transparent way,

but beyond that, some people seem to have different ideas about whether it affects a child negatively to have sexual contacts.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.37028

File: bfb0da34cc23a04⋯.jpg (1.2 MB, 1280x630, 128:63, randomedit18.jpg)

>>37024

>I feel like I need to explain -why- I choose to abstain. I've been in a "secretive" relationship once, legal but not socially acceptable. It just wasn't worth concealment. I'd rather have the cognitive pleasure of living my life in a completely safe and transparent way,

I understand that, which is why most us choose to abstain from these relationship now, BUT advocate to make them legal so that such harmful consequences from these essentially harmless loving relationships no longer have to be illegal and potentially risking both partners with the known proceedings that would normally come once the relationships comes to light.

Me, personally, do not want to be in a secretive relationship, I want to love my partner and be afraid not of telling the world of how much I love her, and ideally of course, her also saying that she loves me as well.

Am I saying I will break the laws to get that now? No way, José. That would eventually hurt both of us and I obviously don't want my lover to suffer, but I can't just stand around like an idiot and pretend something will fall from the sky and/or that people will be tired from hating us and realise how stupid they are by making harmless things illegal.


 No.37029

*no longer have to potentially risk both


 No.37035

>>37024

>you seem to base your identity on your attractions, and your happiness on your degree of satisfaction.

You seem to be making the mistake of assuming you know anyone here. You have no idea who I am, you have no idea what other boards I frequent or what topics I post on, and you have no idea what I do with my life outside of shitposting on Appalachian platypus-taming forums. At best you know a bit about my sexual preferences and have a vague idea of how that interacts with my morality.

>I've been in a "secretive" relationship once, legal but not socially acceptable. It just wasn't worth concealment. I'd rather have the cognitive pleasure of living my life in a completely safe and transparent way,

You think I enjoy keeping secrets any more than you do? The whole reason I come here is because it's a place where I don't have to hide or pretend.




File: 0154db4fa072560⋯.jpg (51.04 KB, 800x723, 800:723, 0154db4fa07256046a9dd62f56….jpg)

 No.35763[Reply]

Friendly reminder that anyone who fucks children deserves the death penalty.

13 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.37021

>>37020

Remember to sage when you post in these threads.

Actually, this is probably a thread that deserves an anchor.


 No.37022

>>37021

Pardon my ignorance, what do you mean by "sage"? If you mean reporting spam bots, I always make sure I do that, same with the cp bots that often come around.

Ahhhhhh, you mean not bumping… Yeah, my bad, though you're right this thread might be worth to have here again.


 No.37023

>>37022

>And he didn't sage

>Again

Put sage in the email field or tick "don't bump" in post options. Not that it really matters at this point because it's already the top thread, but seriously.


 No.37030

I've been aware of my attraction to youth ever since I was in the fifth grade and still looking mostly at the first graders. My age preference hasn't evolved since then. I don't pretend to know why and at my current age (oldish) it doesn't really matter.

I agree completely with OP. Anyone who hurts kids for any self-serving reason should be prevented, by whatever means necessary, from any possible contact with children.


 No.37038

File: 59ff26cfd5fa08a⋯.png (1.22 MB, 1366x768, 683:384, yuuedit2.png)

>>37030

>from any possible contact with children.

Are you implying that contact with children is inherently harmful or only suggesting that those with selfish reasons should not be allowed near children?

Keep in mind that sexual contact with them doesn't make you selfish, forcing them to it, if they do not consent to it, is what makes it harmful, and also other elements that must be kept in check, depending on the age and overall individual cases.

Sexuality itself is not bad, if you denounced that, because if you meant all contact in general then it's ridiculous, except if you only aimed that to people with genuine violent intention and not just to everyone who would have contact with children in that sense.




 No.35490[Reply]

Like any change in AOC laws? Like the removal or lowering.

Or child porn being legal?

You can call me negative or depressed but I do not see change happening. I post on this board and other pro-contact boards, but when I log off and go out in the world nothing none of this matters. We are still hated, even if we have not broken the law.

I guess I come here to live the fantasy that we will win rights for children and us MAPs.

81 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.36986

>>36985

* the partners


 No.36987

>>36980

Are you really incapable of comprehending the difference between actions and intentions?

>>36985

I think the problem is just that it's difficult to think of individuals in the abstract. It's a lot easier for us to make sweeping generalizations about pedophiles because we don't actually know any other than ourselves. Then it becomes a simple matter of taking our own thoughts and beliefs and then applying them to a few million cardboard cutouts. It's harder with children, at least for me, because I do have an idea of how widely children differ in so many ways. Instead of trying to form a cohesive amalgam of all of those personalities, it's easier to just leave all of those millions of children as cutouts.


 No.36988

File: 1819c3b16b12d16⋯.png (174.07 KB, 360x516, 30:43, Screenshot_2017-06-06_16-5….png)

>>36987

Agreed. I guess that's how they also approach other things such as raising methods and general education. Some children are conformed by these, other do not meet up to these and others who exceed the requirements.

These individuals that are different are either outcasts and/or just plain treated differently while also still keeping a significant barrier around them.

>Then it becomes a simple matter of taking our own thoughts and beliefs and then applying them to a few million cardboard cutouts.

It is sad that reality really ends up into that, rather than embracing those different aspects each children have, not necessarily in their general education, but rather in their personal lives instead of just using them as databases to be filled up.

What also makes me preoccupied is that there are some young ones who express against these things, but their voices are disregarded: "Where is your mother?" "Who let you on the Internet?" "What would your parents said if they saw what you did here?"… and other things individuals choose to say to children rather than listening to them and learning how they are not defective for being different, no boy, what if they are just realizing how things are so fucked up?

People say children are more sensitive than us, perhaps they should pay more heed to what they have to say about our society especially, not only pay attention to them to hear what we want.

Though now I aimed in regard of people in general, in our case it's different, though also applicable with the same example you provided, since we were also raised in said society where children and ourselves when we were one were also subordinated to the restrictions that applied to us because of our age. Given that fact, once we reach "age of consent", or even before that, we choose to greatly distinguish that difference of power between ourselves and younger members. I find that disgusting and rather than embracing such mentality, I wPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.37002

>>36987

Are you really incapable of understanding that you are causing direct harm by telling them over and over again that all adult males should never be trusted? That the only people you can trust is family? You must be a different kind of stupid if you are going to continue arguing semantics in the face of REAL child abuse that happens in millions of homes without a single arrest being made.

We punish sexual abuse. We punish physical abuse. Yet we continue to ignore the emotional and social abuse that happens everywhere these days.


 No.37003

>>36987

>Instead of trying to form a cohesive amalgam of all of those personalities, it's easier to just leave all of those millions of children as cutouts.

This shows why age of consent laws are fundamentally flawed. Everyone is different. Some hebephiles like myself only think of sex if the mood is right. Some think about it all the time. Some teens don't think much about sex. Some teens think about it all the time. All 4 of these groups are not evil. And even if all 4 groups did enjoy some sexual activity, it does not automatically mean any of the 4 groups were evil/harmed for life.




File: 29389c85f96c617⋯.jpg (42.84 KB, 736x1000, 92:125, e353932a31e8f0a94ae5abcf16….jpg)

 No.35032[Reply]

This thread is for exclusive pedophiles. Non-exclusives can also post but they must first thoroughly check their privilege at the door.

Exclusive nepiophiles are encouraged to take some privilege points home with them.

66 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.36665

>>36203

>age 11-plus – are able to logically use symbols related to abstract concepts, such as algebra and science. They can think about multiple variables in systematic ways, formulate hypotheses, and consider possibilities. They also can ponder abstract relationships and concepts such as justice.

Children under the age of 11 can do these things.


 No.36672

>>36665

Not all children. This is just a general guideline.


 No.36677

>>36660

I think you missed the point. There is no magical age at which kids instantly grow up and start being something completely different. It's stupid to ask someone why they're attracted to 15yos and not 16yos because those are obviously just arbitrary numbers. We're attracted to people, not ages. His interests as stated extend to toddlers and high schoolers, but are presumably centered on 7-9 year olds, although it's entirely possible that his preferences are weighted toward one side or the other.


 No.36698

>>36672

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development#Challenges_to_Piagetian_stage_theory

>studies have found that children may be able to learn concepts and capability of complex reasoning that supposedly represented in more advanced stages with relative ease (Lourenço & Machado, 1996, p. 145).


 No.36951

>>36698

https://www.bu.edu/today/2014/can-young-children-understand-complex-science/

Old psychology is almost always quackery and circlerjerking that gets taken as fact for decades.




Delete Post [ ]
[]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
| Catalog
[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / aus / dcaco / miku / rule34 / suicide / wooo / x ]