Just started reading this book and I got a boner when he described Annabel. Is that bad?

>>24480608 (OP)
nonce

>>24480608 (OP)
pervert

>>24480625
hnngh

there's nothing wrong with wanting kids

>>24480634
basedbasedbased

>>24480625
God look at the shape of that mouth. I wish I could shove my cock in there.

>>24480608 (OP)
kys pedo

>>24480885
>Feminists made aoc higher!!!! It's their fault!!!

mad because you're not legally allowed to rape little girls? sucks to be you, kill yourself via rope anon

>>24480885
All i'm getting from this chart that women are right, every single human male is a pedophile

>>24480608 (OP)
oh boy. wait til he meets dolores haze

>>24481534
*ephebophile, roasty.

>>24481559
Uhh, sweaty, look at the chart again. Those are hebephiles

>>24481560
uhhh, sweaty, look at the chart again. 11 year old little girls are classfied as ''women'', those are pedophiles

>>24481563
Uhh, sweaty, take a close look at the chart again. Only 13+ is classified as women.

>>24480885
I think the problem with the chart is that some teenage girls can look like sheboons that have already given birth. There were guys in my 7th grade, mainly churkas, who looked with their bears and hair like factory workers who had stepped into the school by accident.
There's a reason why ID is asked in shops and clubs since some kids can look grown up enough at 13.
I think this is the issue that triggered a response in men. To use this chart to support pedophilic desire is one the most popular /pol/ strategies.

>>24481566
uhhh, sweaty, look at the chart closer. the purple circle only has ages 6,7,8,9 and 10 in it. which means 11 year olds are classfied as ''women''

>>24481578
i'm not sure what is this chart is trying to prove. that all men are attracted to 12 year olds girls?

>>24481579
Uhhh, sweaty, don't even bother looking at the chart again you're retarded and i'm going to tell you what's on it: the purple circle are only those females the jews rape and it includes 11 year olds while 12 year olds are apparently too old for them while 13+ are classified as the women non-jewish men are attracted to.

>>24481584
uhh, sweaty, who cares? they are pedophiles either way

Why do people think Lo is some innocent that dindu nuffin? She's a massive, manipulative cunt that had ample opportunity to escape but she didn't
She wasn't LE GROOMED RAPED ASSAULTED, she was a willing consenting woman

>>24481523
If it was legal it wouldn't be rape qud era demonstratum

>>24480608 (OP)
Is that worse than me relating to his admiration of nymphets? I don't get the sexual lust for prepubescent girls, but I can't deny that there is something charming and glowing about girls around that age.

>>24481597
Because he's coping about Annabel dying

>>24481593
Don't be antisemitic.

>>24481601

>>24481534
>>24481578
It's not a real chart.
I must have seen it reposted hundreds of times, and yet not a single person other than me actually thought to check whether the paper contains either that chart or data that looks even related to it.

We really do live in a society, huh.

>expecting fact checking and sources from the place that blindly accepted le hypothetical breakfast with zero evidence

>>24480885
There's a difference between being 13 in 1405 and 2025. They'd look much older, and would probably be way less retarded than a modern post wall roastie.

>>24481632
Funnily enough, the first few times it was posted it didn't have a citation at all and a fair number of people called it bullshit.
Then he found a paper that has a title which kind of fits, put it on there, and since then nobody ever questioned it again.
That's the effect a veneer of scientific authority can have.

>>24481653
>Funnily enough,
>>24481632
>expecting fact checking
>>24481626
>I must have seen it reposted


no whats ACTUALLY funny is that you tryhard nigger brained redditors are so fucking retarded that while trying to act intellectually superior and smugly talk down to people you show that you cant fucking READ and see that the chart isnt saying that 13 year old girls are the most attractive to men. its saying that 13 year old MALES are the most horny when looking at "pedophilic stimuli" (assuming this is even a real study)

stop being fucking RETARDS and learn to READ nigger

ALSO while complaing about not looking up sources, WHY DONT YOU JUST TYPE IT IN AND LOOK?!?! instead of pontificating on high about the possibility of such a study being fake and then patting yourself on the back for being so smhaaat

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005789405800395

>The hypothesis that arousal to pedophilic stimuli is a function of general sexual arousability factors was supported in that pedophilic and adult heterosexual arousal were positively correlated, particularly in the physiological data. Subjects who were highly arousable, insofar as they were unable to voluntarily and completely inhibit their sexual arousal, were more sexually aroused by all stimuli than were subjects who were able to inhibit their sexual arousal. Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior.

RETARDED FAGGOTS

>>24481559
>>24481560
Don't use the terms ephebophile and hebephile to pathologize healthy male sexuality. These terms are only for pederastic relationships. A straight "ephebophile" is just a normal straight man. #wordsmatter #controlthedialogue

>>24481859
>wordswordswordswordswords
I accept your concession faggot

>>24480608 (OP)
Who doesn't. I just read the chapters where they nearly do the sex act and it just is absolutely amazing. Everyone who calls others perverts because people get sexually aroused by that stuff are pedophiles that want to deny it too hard and call others pedos to distract from their own pedo brains fucking aorund. You get so absorbed in that beautiful writing that you are inside that brain of Humphrey at that time. You don't notice that you arent actually that age.

I have never felt sexually attracted to small children in my life. >>24481597 is right though. Some of them have that purity about them. I once saw a probably prepubescant girl in train and she had that certain characteristic about her. But I couldn't really wrap my finger around it. And someday I saw a picture of Jeanne d’Arc and that girl looked like one of her paintings. MF that girl had hat purity and near holiness about her.

>>24481859
>in a community sample of normal men
Also here's a screenshot from the paper.

>>24481859
>that the chart isnt saying that 13 year old girls are the most attractive to men. its saying that 13 year old MALES are the most horny when looking at "pedophilic stimuli" (assuming this is even a real study)
The graph is made up so I guess it can say whatever you want it to, but if the bars are labelled "% sexually attractive females", the non-deranged interpretation is that it's supposed to be about the attractiveness of females.
>>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005789405800395
Yes, that is indeed a study that was published. I notice that you have not actually looked inside and pointed out where the graph can be found. You may be shocked by the results!

>>24480885
I have never seen anyone so red-faced, tooth-gnashingly indignant over not being allowed to fuck kids as a conservative. What's up with that?

>>24481859
Here's the full article if you're interested. The tl;dr: is that the age chart isn't in there, but 26 of 80 subjects were equally or more attracted to the child stimuli compared to the adult stimuli, which is typical and there's a ton of studies that support that ratio.

https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80039-5

>>24481929
>>24481904
>>24481903
>casually ignore that you couldnt read the chart correctly, whether it was real or not which i already pointed out
>casually ignore that you were just thumping your chest and claiming its a fake study a moment ago and how you realizing its fake proves your intellectual superiority but now youre acting like wizened researchers grasping at straws all of a sudden because i gave you the link

i accept your concessions and can feel your red faced embarrassment through my screen. do better next time instead of making asses out of yourselves

>>24481942
>casually ignore that you couldnt read the chart correctly, whether it was real or not which i already pointed out
You sound deranged.
>casually ignore that you were just thumping your chest and claiming its a fake study a moment ago
I did not claim this anywhere. You sound deranged.

>>24481907
>give kids hormones, cut off their breasts, let pakis rape and murder them, and put them in zog mindrape daycare for 7 hours a day even though school drives child suicide rates through the roof
meh
>Let a sensitive young man of the age of 25 take a 15 year old woman to be his wife and raise a happy family
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU YOU SICK TWISTED DISGUSTING PEDOPHILE NONCE PERVERT RAPIST

>>24481950
Yes we've established conservatives want to fuck kids, my question was "What's up with that?"

>>24481971
I imagine it's a result of their lower rates of mental illness and higher levels of happiness. Additionally, supporting the judeo-feminist 18 year old age of majority is typically associated with low IQ.

>>24481984
I don't think you should be talking about IQs if you can't see the flaws in your image, nonce.

>>24482007

>>24481984
>no boomers

>>24482011
So you can't?

>>24481971
What's up with it is that literally a third of all men are more attracted to girls than women, see >>24481929. Therefore, pedophilia can not be as maladaptive as you've been led to believe, otherwise it would have been suppressed by evolutionary pressure and would not be nearly as prevalent as it is today. I don't have a good explanation for why anyone likes anything; I would suggest that "why shouldn't he like that thing?" is generally a more useful question than "why does he like that thing?"

>>24482015
>What's up with it is that literally a third of all men are more attracted to girls than women, see >>24481929
I did see it. Did you see the sample size?

>>24482025
I could link you a dozen other papers with similar results but you'd dismiss them all because no single author bothered to strap a dick gauge to a thousand men for a single paper.

How about instead, you post one (1) study showing less than 10% of men attracted to minors?

>>24482015
>I don't have a good explanation for why anyone likes anything; I would suggest that "why shouldn't he like that thing?" is generally a more useful question than "why does he like that thing?"
To act on it is unethical because teenagers lack experience and agency, leaving them vulnerable to entrapment in daughter-wife situations. Every system has its flaws, but this one solves more problems than it creates.

>>24482080
No one has experience until they earn it, dumbass.

>>24482083
Which is why it's considered appropriate for minors to get that experience with each other than have an adult groom them.

>>24482080
It's funny that you say this on /lit/ of all boards because if you have read even a marginal amount of historical material you would see that children in the past were far more experienced and agentic than adults today. Infantilizing teenagers and forbidding them from making any consequential decisions until they are in their 20s doesn't prevent them from making mistakes, it just means they learn their lesson later along in life.

>>24482085
Why do you assume that the only scenario in which someone under the completely arbitrary age of 18 can't be attracted to someone over it and that any "attraction" must be the result of grooming?

>>24482015
Evolutionarily beneficial is not the same thing as good or moral. Why pedophilia is considered immoral and is made illegal is a fairly simple equation: when it's allowed, the most vulnerable members of society are more open to grooming and abuse from those with more experience with them, and when it's disallowed, well-meaning adults simply have to fuck girls slightly older. One of these is clearly worse than the other.

>>24482086
That's not entirely true. You and I both have been able to avoid poor decisions we would've made as stupid kids without making the mistake first.
>Just let me fuck the kids so they'll know not to do it later! It'll build character!

>>24482088
I'm not. The point of contention here isn't privately felt attraction.

>>24482100
>Just let me fuck the kids so they'll know not to do it later!
I am not interested in casual sex with adult women under the age of 18, I am interested in marriage and baby-making sex.

>>24482104
>>24482100
My gf is 15 and I am 22 and there is nothing you can do about it btw

>>24482105
Even less ethical, because you're interested in entrapping a minor as a daughter-wife. You are the exact kind of scummy nonce age of consent and marriage restrictions were written to protect children against.

>>24482105
>Just let me entrap children in marriage and motherhood so they'll know not to do it later! It'll build character!
Is this supposed to be better

>>24482085
What makes you think that relationships with other minors will be went healthier than a relationship with an adult? Besides that, why do you think the solution to having a lack of experience is to keep them locked down until their 18th birthday and then throw them into the deep end with exactly as little experience as they had at 14?

>>24482124
Because as two children with the same amount of experience and agency, if/when the relationship goes sour, they can just break up and learn from the experience. That dynamic does not exist between an adult and minor as the development gap makes the minor vulnerable to grooming, manipulation, and abuse.

>>24482151
What prevents minors from manipulating and abusing each other? And why are the parents tolerating their child being manipulated and abused?

>>24482124
A 14 year old will not be able to finacially abuse her. He will not be able to take her out of her home into his, pulling her away from her family, and hold potential homelessness over her if she acts up. He won't impregnate her on purpose and hold a kid over her, because for a 14 year old boy, pregnancy is a nightmare scenario. Adults have both the experience and the means to abuse children in a way that is far more consequential and has far more potential for long term harm. You don't understand the dynamics of abuse if you can't see this.
Even if you were somehow a good-hearted pedophile, I don't understand why you would be willing to champion its legalization knowing that you are trading an inevitable increase in the abuse of children for your apparent need to fuck girls a couple years younger.

it's normal and healthy to crave cunny

>>24482156
>Age of consent laws are to deincentivize adults from abusing and manipulating minors
>Oh so you're saying it's okay for minors to abuse and manipulate each other and the parents should tolerate it?
The fact that you can't even argue without these pathetic fallacies exposes you got the exact kind of nonce that wants to manipulate a child in hopes they'd be too naive to realize it.

>>24482169
>He will not be able to take her out of her home into his, pulling her away from her family, and hold potential homelessness over her if she acts up.
Kidnapping is illegal regardless, and why would she be homeless if she was free to go back to her parents?
>He won't impregnate her on purpose and hold a kid over her, because for a 14 year old boy, pregnancy is a nightmare scenario.
Why is getting her pregnant on accident any better? An adult will probably be more conscientious and rigorous about the use of contraception than a kid getting his rocks off for the first time.
>Adults have both the experience and the means to abuse children in a way that is far more consequential and has far more potential for long term harm.
May we see this long term harm? I'm not trying to trivialize abuse or imply that it never happens, but on average do the numbers actually support your position? Abuse happens anyway, rapists will rape regardless of whether it's legal or not. Age of consent laws do exactly nothing about rape because it's illegal regardless of the age of the victim. All AoC laws do is make consensual relationships illegal.

>>24482197
If the parents are in the picture to prevent another minor from abusing their daughter, why wouldn't they prevent an adult man from abusing her? And if the parents are absent or otherwise neglectful, wouldn't she be better off in a relationship with a man that can provide for her?

>>24482211
Parents typically do get the police involved when they find out an adult is grooming their child. In fact, if the abuse is severe enough from a minor, the offending minor can be charged with a crime.

>>24482228
Well, since no one is calling for abuse to be legalized, they could still do that regardless of whether it's a minor or an adult abusing her.

>>24482197
>>24482169
>>24482151
I WILL get my daughterwife
I WILL marry her and grow old with her
I WILL NOT marry a 27-year-old with a masters degree who rode the cock carousel and now makes powerpoints for a living
YOU WILL die mad about it knowing there is nothing you can do to stop me
this is my creed

>>24482233
Manipulation and power/financial abuse can be more nebulous. The lack of experience and legal agency a minor has creates too much of a hazard for adults savvy enough to skirt the line.
It's not illegal for you to firehose logical fallacies in every post, but it does flag the kind of behavior groomers use to try to manipulate their victims and take advantage of their still-developing brains.

>>24482203
>why would she be homeless if she was free to go back to her parents?
You don't understand abuse. It is the only way you could possibly say something this stupid. People that stay with abusers do not do so because their abuser has put padlocks on the doors preventing them from leaving. They do it because of the mechanisms of abuse, because they have been browbeaten into believing they are dependent on their abuser and that it would be worse for them if they left, even if the opposite was true. They are manipulated into pushing their friends and family away, or in the worst cases are targetting specifically because they don't have them.
Adults are the most capable of the worst most life-ruining forms of these abuses, be it finacially, emotionally, physically, via isolation, etc. and children are the most vulnerable to them. Which is why reasonably societies try to protect them from it.

>Why is getting her pregnant on accident any better? An adult will probably be more conscientious and rigorous about the use of contraception than a kid getting his rocks off for the first time.
It's worse because it is another form of dependence an abuser can use to hold over a child (or even an adult) - "You can't raise this kid alone at 14, so you have to stay with me."

>May we see this long term harm? I'm not trying to trivialize abuse or imply that it never happens, but on average do the numbers actually support your position? Abuse happens anyway, rapists will rape regardless of whether it's legal or not. Age of consent laws do exactly nothing about rape because it's illegal regardless of the age of the victim. All AoC laws do is make consensual relationships illegal.
Bizarre point. All you need to accept is that the amount of abuse prevented by laws (and social consequences) is non-zero, and that alone should be enough for you to also accept that it is not an agreeable trade-off for being able to fuck slightly younger girls.
>>24482233
Many forms of abuse are not illegal and cannot reasonably be made illegal.

>>24482253
How exactly does one financially abuse someone who at any time can go back to their parents and have all of their basic needs met? Young adults who have already been kicked out of the nest are far more susceptible to this. The current model which you're endorsing involves keeping minors completely without experience of real relationships at which point they're immediately thrown out into the world without the experience or support to prevent the very abuse you're describing.

>>24482261
>They do it because of the mechanisms of abuse, because they have been browbeaten into believing they are dependent on their abuser and that it would be worse for them if they left, even if the opposite was true.
It sure seems to me like this would awfully difficult to pull off with a child of loving and attentive parents, short of a literally kidnapping scenario. If the parents themselves are abusive or neglectful, who's to say that the "abuser" isn't the lesser of two evils?

>>24482302
>Minors are easier to emotionally manipulate
>Okay so why don't they just not let themselves get manipulated?
jfc

>>24482302
>The current model which you're endorsing involves keeping minors completely without experience of real relationships at which point they're immediately thrown out into the world without the experience or support to prevent the very abuse you're describing.
We were literally just discussing how minors can gain experience with other minors, you weaseling nonce

>>24482315
>They can be financially abused!
>Wait, no, they actually can't, but they can be emotionally abused!
>And the parents will just choose not to do anything about it because otherwise my argument falls apart

>We were literally just discussing how minors can gain experience with other minors
Remind me why that's supposed to be better? Because the parents will choose to stop abuse from minors and choose not to stop abuse from adults, right?

>>24482302
>short of a literally kidnapping scenario
A 'kidnapping scenario' or in this case child abduction is only defined by the laws that state when a person is considered to be an adult in the first place. You presumably already believe that a child of such an age can consent to move in and live with their adult partner, so this is just retarded.
If your position is that it should be at the parent's discretion, then you only run into the same issue: abuse victims will lie and hide the abuse they receive from their partners. Abusers will lie and feign good will. They might not realise what they are experiences is abuse at all, which is especially common among the young and inexperienced as they are children with no basis for comparison. Parents may not do their due diligence in vetting the men. Maybe they do, but abuse does not start until later, at which point the child may be pregnant living away from her friends and family - abuse rarely starts at the beginning of a relationship.
Or any number of ways this system could fail in a way that simply making it illegal wouldn't, but that doesn't allow you to fuck vulnerable kids so you can't have that.

>>24482342
>A 'kidnapping scenario' or in this case child abduction is only defined by the laws that state when a person is considered to be an adult in the first place.
Are you trying to argue that it's legal to abduct adults? I don't get it.

>>24482341
You nonces are exhausting. Literally every post you make is based on a fallacy. Nobody here backtracked on financial abuse and every reply you make is some kind of variant of the waffle/pancake fallacy. Even you know your position is indefensible so your only recourse is to troll. There's no point in engaging with you further because every response from you is just making shit up nobody said.

>>24482377
>Nobody here backtracked on financial abuse
Okay, maybe you'd like to defend your claim in that case. How is a 16 year old more vulnerable to financial abuse than a 20 year old?

>>24482350
No? I'm saying if you believe a child can consent to moving away from her family to live and have kids with an adult man, then her doing so is necessarily no longer child abduction. If you believe that, then this:
>awfully difficult to pull off with a child of loving and attentive parents,
makes no sense, because it would be up to the child, not the parents, and the abuse may not be apparent or recognized by the child before it's too late. If you instead believe the choice should come down to the parents, then you still have all the same issues I mentioned because the only reference for the relationship comes from abuser and abusee.

>>24482390
20 year old has access to legal, civil, and financial institutions that a 16 year old does not simply buy virtue of being a legal adult, you smooth brained nonce.

>>24482421
You're putting words in my mouth. Remember, I'm the one arguing against telling people "okay, you've reached the magic age, you're not my problem anymore, now fuck off." I can't imagine a situation in which your teenage daughter comes home one day and announces that she's decided to move in with her boyfriend and you just say "that's nice honey, have fun."

>>24482443
The typical 16 year old has access to their parents' finances to cover basic necessities that the typical 20 year old doesn't.

>>24482455
You just proved my point lmao
Minors are financially dependant. Good talk, stop cruising junior high schools you degenerate.

>>24482455
>You're putting words in my mouth.
You do that with every post.

>>24482462
>Minors are financially dependant.
My point wasn't that they aren't financially dependent (although I don't think they should be and there's plenty of jobs that minors can do), it's that they can't be financially dependent solely on an outside abuser if they have the option of going back to their parents.

>>24482468
Give three examples, along with what you actually meant.

>>24482485
They can if the abuser isolates them and you're assuming they have the wherewithall and agency to recognize the abuse to want to leave. That's literally how grooming works, taking advantage of a child's naivety and vulnerability to manipulate them into accepting sexual abuse. That's why these laws exist, as guardrails to protect minors from being manipulated from nonces like you.

>>24482501
>They can if the abuser isolates them
What are the parents doing during this?

>>24482505
That's the beauty of the law, it doesn't matter if the parents are negligent, impotent, or complacent in preventing the abuse, the abuser can still be prosecuted.
If you snatch a kid off the street, it doesn't matter if the parents weren't able to stop you, you've still committed a crime.

>>24482455
>magic age
You don't look smart when you repeatedly misunderstand the purpose of laws like this.
>I can't imagine a situation in which your teenage daughter comes home one day and announces that she's decided to move in with her boyfriend and you just say "that's nice honey, have fun."
Do you believe she has the ability to consent to having sex with, marry, move in with, have kids with, an adult man or not? Or do you believe it should ultimately come down to the parent's decision? Both of these options are bad for reasons I have already explained and you have yet to respond to.

>>24482525
>Do you believe she has the ability to consent to having sex with, marry, move in with, have kids with, an adult man or not? Or do you believe it should ultimately come down to the parent's decision?
I believe that everyone involved deserves a say (and would have their even if it wasn't deserved) and that if everyone is in agreement it shouldn't be the government's job to interfere with their decision. If there is no consensus, then we have a million years worth of solutions for resolving conflicts of opinion.

>>24482545
>I don't think the law should get between me and committing a crime
KEK

>>24482545
>it shouldn't be the government's job to interfere with their decision
And if he decides to run off with him anyway? What if only one parent agrees? Are siblings or other relatives involved? What constitutes 'involved'? How unanimous does the decision have to be before the government intervenes, if they ever do? If the daughter is manipulated later on and the man found to be lying about his character, can they revoke their decision and have him arrested?
If you can answer all of these without just describing a lawless backwater faggot commune and tell me how that is better at preventing abuse than a simple law that says you go to jail if you fuck kids I'll be impressed

>>24482560
>It's illegal and therefore it shouldn't be legal because then people could commit a crime
You got me, I've got no response for this. Best I can do is to call you a retard.

>>24482565
>You want people to have legal repercussions for committing the crime of fucking a kid, retard?
My sides

>>24482564
You're deep into specifics here, there is no generalizable answer to any of this. If you want a real life example of how a situation like this might play out, I'd recommend you read Tiger, Tiger: A Memoir, by Margaux Fragoso. The book in no way endorses pedophilia, but it certainly provides a more realistic depiction of what such a relationship would be like than Lolita.

In the meantime, I'll just remind you that abduction and abuse are illegal regardless of the age of the victim, and that underage couples eloping is not unheard of; there's existing solutions there as well.

>>24482606
>In the meantime, I'll just remind you that abduction and abuse are illegal regardless of the age of the victim
Again, the age specificity is to account for abusers who groom their victims into complying. We're not just talking about dragging a girl kicking and screaming to your love shack too be her child wife against her will. Age of consent accounts for abusers who are able to manipulate their victims into compliance.

>>24482606
Laws are by necessity specific, and we are talking about how far the law should extend. Your real answer is that you have no answers and think law and order should just come down to the whims of the masses i.e. you want lawless commune. Try again.
>I'll just remind you that abduction and abuse are illegal regardless of the age of the victim
Many forms of abuse are not illegal and can't be made illegal by nature, and many cases of abuse do not constitute abduction. Most cases of abuse, as I have said at least three times now, do not involve locking people away so they are physically unable to leave.

>>24482644
>>24482663
Once again, you both accept that it's okay for minors to have relationships with other minors, and that it's possible for minors to commit these same sorts of abuse. And yet you're not worried that the victim's family has no recourse but to sit back and watch it happen as long as it's a minor doing the abuse and not an adult. Why is that?

Beyond that, I would argue that these situations happen anyway. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you agree with this, and that you don't think that AoC laws are a magic bullet that has ended grooming for all time. The kind of people that would do that kind of shit are clearly not the kind of people that are worried about laws. Thus, AoC laws aren't preventing abusive grooming relationships, they're only preventing healthy relationships where everyone is more or less in agreement about the situation. In fact, I would suggest that by preventing healthy relationships, they actually increase the danger of abusive ones.

>>24482750
>And yet you're not worried that the victim's family has no recourse but to sit back and watch it happen as long as it's a minor doing the abuse and not an adult. Why is that?
Yet another example of you putting words in people's mouths. This shit only works on the children you try to groom.

>>24482755
Tell me where I'm going wrong in your view:
>adults can abuse minors
>minors can also abuse minors
>this abuse can be done in ways that aren't illegal
>it's okay for minors to have relationships with other minors because parents have extralegal ways of dealing with abuse from minors
>but they won't use those methods against adults, and that's why we need AoC laws

>>24482768
>it's okay for minors to have relationships with other minors because parents have extralegal ways of dealing with abuse from minors
>but they won't use those methods against adults, and that's why we need AoC laws
Assuming the form of abuse isn't something legally prosecutable like violence, it's usually a dipshit kid being a dipshit kid and assuming the parents get involved, it can be a lesson learned for everyone involved.
That's not the case with an adult, who should know better. The power dynamic and forms of abuse are not the same. Furthermore, this assumes the victim has sufficiently supportive parents. It's not uncommon for groomers to target kids with negligent parents and present themselves as a surrogate parent figure to gain their trust.
Just don't fuck kids dude, it's not hard.

>>24482799
>Assuming the form of abuse isn't something legally prosecutable like violence, it's usually a dipshit kid being a dipshit kid and assuming the parents get involved, it can be a lesson learned for everyone involved.
Okay, so they use extralegal methods to prevent it, so the law doesn't have to get involved at all.

>That's not the case with an adult
Why not?

>It's not uncommon for groomers to target kids with negligent parents and present themselves as a surrogate parent figure to gain their trust.
Negligence is itself a form of abuse. In some cases they might actually be better off with an abusive lover than abusive parents. They'd certainly be MUCH better off with a kind and supportive lover than either, but that's exactly the guy that's getting run off by the AOC laws.

>>24482838
>Okay, so they use extralegal methods to prevent it, so the law doesn't have to get involved at all.
Lmao no if you're an adult consciously grooming a minor, you do not get a "stern talking to" from their parents, you go to prison. Similar difference between your 11 year old getting in a schoolyard tussle with one of his peers and a grown man beating up an 11 year old. Whine about it to the judge.
>Negligence is itself a form of abuse. In some cases they might actually be better off with an abusive lover than abusive parents. They'd certainly be MUCH better off with a kind and supportive lover than either, but that's exactly the guy that's getting run off by the AOC laws.
You're not being "kind and supportive" by taking advantage of a vulnerable and neglected child in order to have sex with them. You're just trading one from of abuse for another. Thankfully both are punishable by the law.

>>24482869
How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

>>24482882
I'd be hungry, but glad I'm not a nonce.

>>24482869
>Lmao no if you're an adult consciously grooming a minor, you do not get a "stern talking to" from their parents, you go to prison.
I believe in a more permanent solution to the pedophile question. Not that anon, btw.

>>24482768
>>adults can abuse minors
>>minors can also abuse minors
This is where you're going wrong. These things are not equivalent. You do not understand the risk factors of abusive relationships, and that is why you cannot see a distinction between an abusive adult and an abusive minor.
You are equating a form of abuse that might be temporarily emotionally upsetting with forms of abuse that can be potentially life-destroying. Adults are far more capable of the latter forms of abuse, and allowing children to enter relationships with them puts them more at risk of that kind of abuse, to no benefit to the child whatsoever, solely for your own selfish reasons.
A child simply cannot be as dependent on another child they met at school as they can an adult
>>24482838
>but that's exactly the guy that's getting run off by the AOC laws.
You do not need to fuck children in order to help them you sick fuck

>>24482894
I'm >>24482869 and I support this post. Gary Plouche did nothing wrong.

>>24482894
You're all talk and wouldn't do shit to me if you saw me irl btw. You would give me a limp-wristed handshake, congratulate me and my 16 year old wife on our recent marriage, and then if you're feeling especially brave you might mutter something under your breath as you walk away defeated.

>>24482894
I'm >>24482838 and I support this post. Gary Plouche did nothing wrong.

>>24480608 (OP)
Is Annbel your mom?

>>24482838
>They'd certainly be MUCH better off with a kind and supportive lover than either, but that's exactly the guy that's getting run off by the AOC laws.
GOOD. Coercing teens with bad home lives into living with you so you can groom them into sex is one of the oldest groomer tricks in the book. You just made a very good case for AOC laws.

>>24482922
Get Plouche'd nonce.

Hours and hours of stupid discussion just for the pedophile to finally admit that he wants to take vulnerable children away from their parents to fuck them (virtuously)

>>24482904
>Be 17
>Only capable of temporarily upsetting abuse
>Turn 18
>Now capable of life destroying abuse
How does this work?

>You do not need to fuck children in order to help them you sick fuck
You say this and yet there's a huge number of neglected and abused minors out there and no one who feels obligated to support them.

>>24482927
>She's literally starving to death but at least she's not having consensual sex

>>24482927
>NOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SAVE AN ADULT 14-YEAR-OLD WOMAN FROM A BROKEN HOME, TREAT HER TENDERLY, NURSE HER TO HEALTH, AND HAVE GENTLE, LOVING SEX WITH HER BECAUSE... BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T OR SOMETHING
meds

>>24482947
>>24483014
Welcome back, Helmut Kentler, you despicable nonce.

>>24483071
What have you done recently to help a neglected child, anon?

>>24483087
Clack his pudgy fingers on a keyboard alone in his grandmother's basement. In the meantime, I've rescued three teenage women, all of whom are living with and servicing (in a mutually enjoyable way) me.

>>24483014
anon, please slice both of your wrists

>>24480608 (OP)
Yes

Thanks for the quality paedophilia discussion thread, folks. I look forward to the next in a few days.

>>24480608 (OP)
A healthy normal male can be attracted to a 16-18 year old, simply at minimum on a PHYSICAL level. Because they’ve gone or are going through puberty and already have the pubescent, or post-pubescent, traits of a human woman attractive to heterosexual men and the like.
This is now very offensive to mention in polite society, but it’s a real phenomenon. The infamous word here is “ephebophilia”, which Redditors will say something like this in response to:
>ummm, the fact that you even know that word and are making the distinction means you’re a pedophile sweaty :^)

Yes, I am going to use the word and make the distinction. There is a massive difference between even a 50-year-old man (or older) having a relationship with an 18-year-old young woman, and having one with a 9-year-old girl. The former can still be “gross”, “creepy”, “ew”, “icky”, but the latter is even more so, and on a whole different level. In fact, I think people are being outright immorally over-sanctimonious when they equate the two. They are actually trivializing and taking attention away from actually even more disgusting things like child rape.
Nabokov’s Lolita is talking about something beyond even this scenario of an 18y/o-50y/o sexual relationship, now either pedophilia or hebephilia at best (hebephilia = about while they’re going through puberty, pedophilia is before even that).
You can punch and smash and kick a wall nearby you as hard as you want about it, but I’ll always hold to this distinction.

>>24486381
Here's the thing. The semantics between pedophilia and hebephilia don't really matter in practice. A hebephile isn't just a normal dude whose lizard brain doesn't draw a distinction between 15 year old tits and 18 year old tits and is honest about this fact of life. The fixation on it being a 15 year old's tits is what makes it a philia, so when you're stamping your feet in indignant rage over getting called a pedo "I'm NOT a pedophile! I'm a HEBEPHILE REEEEE!" you're still admitting you're sexually fixated on girls whose bodies (and brains) are still developing.

>>24486454
You're overthinking this, anon. Humans (or men, at least) are attracted to an exceptionally large range of differing traits. You have guys that are attracted to landwhales, guys that are attracted to anorexic skellingtons, guys that are attracted to intelligent women, guys that are attracted to bimbos, so on and so forth. An attraction to pubescent girls is just another point on the massive spectrum of normal human sexual preferences. No one's calling a fixation on big tits a mental illness, the only difference here is that it's something you don't like.

>>24480608 (OP)
Yes and that’s the point of the book. It’s supposed to draw you in and make you complicit with his crimes. That’s the art school boilerplate at least. Personally I just think Nabokov was a sick fuck

>>24486508
The difference is the landwhales, skellingtons, bimbos, and so forth are presumably adults who can exercise informed consent.

>>24486580
kek based

>>24486605
There's been some research into the level of intelligence and knowledge required for mentally impaired adults to give informed consent. Here's a study on the subject, finding that the subjects deemed competent to consent to sex had, on average, an IQ of 65 and adaptive behavior age score of just over 9 years, and those deemed incompetent had an average IQ of 46 and adaptive behavior age score of just under 7 years. This suggests a rough cutoff of somewhere around 55 IQ and adaptive behavior age of 8, varying on a case-by case basis.

https://sci-hub.st/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J151v01n03_02

The reason that the average 15 year old can't give informed consent isn't because of a lack of mental capacity, it's because they're legally denied the right of consent.