Why are a lot of techbros also pedophiles?

>>106144366 (OP)
technology enthusiasts like women like transistors: small, primarily asian and switching all the time
so it's a natural fit

>>106144384
you're a yellow roastie or a jew from reddit

nobody likes gooks

those who fuck gooks do it purely to cope for being ugly and retrded enough to not get touched by a human prostitute, and gooks spread legs to any foreigner especially whites

>>106144366 (OP)
because a lot of them are ugly and retarded, and children are the easiest to groom

A lot of time spent on the Internet where paedos and more recently trannies groom them.

>>106144366 (OP)
You're confusing techbros with financebros Financebros are just degenerate gamblers who's number managed to hit, so they're doing all the other things that natural degenerates do..

>>106144366 (OP)
they like beta testing tech before it enters production (esp linux users)

>>106144366 (OP)
In pedophile typology it is generally agreed upon that there are two main sub-types. one of them prey on young girls out of opportunism (ie, they're not actually attracted to them but see them as easy pickings, or they're desperate to have their sexual needs met) but still generally prefer women their age. Then there's the actual pedophiles who have a genuine attraction to children, who almost exclusively prefer to have relationships with them and are not attracted to peers their age. This second type is more likely to prefer both boys and girls.
>erm...technology?
Most terminally online fa/g/s who make threads with lolis in the picrel usually fall under the first subtype. They've spent a lot of time indoors hooked to computers and it's a habit formed in their developing years, which leaves no room for social skills to talk to women, which makes them desperate, which leaves them at risk of becoming the first subtype. My (non) professional opinion? Get off the internet.

>>106144366 (OP)
Evolutionary reasons.

>>106144555
I have never heard of this in a single psychology report. Do you have any sources? This sounds like something psychos would do, and they tend to flourish in business settings. I believe you, but I am pretty behind on my armchair psychology.

>>106144602
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8146192/
Table 1 and Table 3 make a distinction between paedophilic and non-paedophilic child sexual offenders. Table 1 in particular differentiates them between situational (opportunistic) and preferential (actually paedophilic) offenders. There's also an amazing video from an experienced forensic psychologist that I'll link here, although I don't know the timestamp for when he mentions both of them. Still worth a watch if you're morbidly curious about stuff like this. Don't really know if this constitutes as a source but meh, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqgADTRHndo

>>106144384
kek

>>106144366 (OP)
>>106144780
It's an attraction to a body type, not necessarily children. However, they can often be intertwined. It's much more complicated than >>106144555 makes it out to be. Unless maybe you're specifically talking about child manipulators/rapists which is a different thing entirely. The problem is the word "pedophile" is way overused for an extremely complicated social and personal phenomenom, or really group of often intertwined phenomena. Picrel.

Of course I doubt anyone here, or really much of anywhere has much interest in taking a real intellectual look at all the things that get labelled pedophilia. The fact OP's image is of Epstein pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

>>106144600
It only makes sense that the paternal desire to have children and the means of producing children would eventually overlap. Almost like sado-masochism.

>>106145338
I'd hug picrel. It's not triggering lust, but a desire to love and get loved back without fearing to get betrayed because picrel looks innocent and safe enough. I don't care about real kids though, they're a far cry of that ideal

>>106144366 (OP)
sir we have >>106139689

>>106144366 (OP)
They like to be early adopters

>>106145338
A "real intellectual look" at what you are would reveal that you're a pedophile. The fact that you rally so hard against simple facts like this prove that in your heart you know it's evil. Constant obfuscation and "yeah but" and "what if" are the only defense you gross motherfuckers ever have. If you actually thought that being a pedophile wasn't that bad then you'd wear it proudly instead of calling it "personal phenomena." Why should the world at large accept you if you can't accept yourself? Get real.

>>106144366 (OP)
>pedophiles
feminist psyop
there was no pedophilia 50 years ago

>>106145377
I'd hug, uncloth her and trace my hands through her entire naked body.

>>106146093
Not sure why I should feel evil when I have never abused a child or anyone at all. I have never interacted sexually with a child.

Not sure why anyone should be proud or ashamed of their sexuality as a matter of fact either.

I was merely pointing out that the issue is more complicated than the poster I was replying to made it out to be.

What I would personally like is someone who is of age, but who is significantly younger than me and has a very child like or early teenager like body. I just want a mate I am comfortable with.

But hey, you have me all figured out, right?