[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

View post   
  [?]In ghost mode, only threads with non-archived posts will be shown
File: 787 KB, 873x1200, 18115240_p0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8795846 No.8795846 [Reply] [Original]

/jp/ is full of pedophiles.They just displace their urges onto 2D because they think it's an acceptable replacement.

Displacement is a valid psychological defense mechanism. That's exactly what the entire board does.

>> No.8795852

ebin

>> No.8795858

Let's just talk about how erotic /ss/ is and why those cute older cousins never tricked us into fucking them.

>> No.8795864

What are they saying in the OP pic, can anyone translate that moonspeak?

>> No.8795872

>>8795864
"the pleasure of being cummed inside"

>> No.8795885

>>8795864

Welcome to our store! What are you looking for? I dont know the kanji.

>> No.8795889

Most depictions of loli portray 10-15 year olds, not <10 year olds. It would thus be hebephilia, not pedophilia.

Also:

>"contented pedophile"—an individual who fantasizes about having sex with a child and masturbates to these fantasies, but does not commit child sexual abuse, and who does not feel subjectively distressed afterward—does not meet the DSM-IV-TR criteria for pedophilia, because this person does not meet Criterion B.

>> No.8795898

>>8795846
>That's exactly what the entire board does.
I don't see what's wrong about this.

>> No.8795918

>>8795846
Wrong, /jp/ is full of stinky men wishing to be turned into little girls and be raped by pedophiles.
That's not the same.

>> No.8795929

>>8795846
You're acting like we all don't already know this.

>> No.8795937

>>8795918

Not everyone, i want to be raped by a pack of dogs.

>> No.8795953

>>8795937
What a coincidence, I happen to be a pack of dogs and I want to rape a little girl.

>> No.8795965

>>8795953
Cool, I'm the embodiment of rape and I want to posses a pack of dogs to rape a little girl.

>> No.8795968

Real CP is really sad.

I'm not usually a moral freak or anything, but it makes me sad to see those real kids being abused. Maybe I wouldn't feel as bad if they didn't look really sad or broken half the time.

2D is nothing like 3D pig disgusting.

>> No.8795975
File: 217 KB, 800x1294, 1329509033905.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8795975

Although my fetishes are many and specific, I have never looked at children with lust. With my fixation in romantic relationships and fully developed women, I don't think I ever will.

>> No.8795979

>>8795898

He openly said there's nothing wrong with it.
>Displacement is a valid psychological defense mechanism.

He merely implied that it's unacceptable, which it isn't.

>> No.8796052

>ohlookitsthisthreadagain.jpg

You know, I've been thinking. What makes pedophilia wrong? Where is the wrongness in it? How is it wrong to love children? Why is it unacceptable to find children attractive?
Answer my questions, moralfags.

>> No.8796067

>>8796052
You need something to hate, and homosexuals are becoming too PC to touch.

>> No.8796100

>>8795979
Really, who cares about shit being acceptable or not anyways?

>> No.8796129

>>8796052
Because a child is not phisically or mentally able to be in an adult relationship. Mind you, your attraction to them is based on their youth. As soon as they mature you will get rid of them, making your "love" extremely vain and superfluous.

That, and as one of the greek said before, a child cannot provide the same mental stimulation as an adult does.

And boy oh boy, I am not even touching what is morally wrong with it yet.

>> No.8796157

>>8796129

>morally wrong

Confirmed for high schooler. Shouldn't you be in class right now?

>> No.8796174

>>8796157
Not him, but most of the world believes pedophilia to be morally wrong.

>> No.8796185
File: 257 KB, 1039x1088, Michells_lemonade.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8796185

>>8796129
>Mind you, your attraction to them is based on their youth. As soon as they mature you will get rid of them, making your "love" extremely vain and superfluous.
Just normals are attracted to women only based on them being in their particular age bracket, and will get rid of them as soon as they become old, making their "love" extremely vain and superfluous?
Except people have stayed married through old age, despite only a tiny minority of sick and deranged freaks liking old women.

>> No.8796194

>>8796185
That guy is one of my favorite artists, even when looking at his non ero stuff the lolis are just too good.

>> No.8796203

>>8796157
Ad hominem!

I won the debate.

>> No.8796213

>>8796129
I don't know man, I've seen posts here on /jp/ about people wanting to love a little girl to raise her to be a nice and proper wife

>> No.8796232

>>8796174
Who gives a damn about the arbitrary morals of the world?

>> No.8796236

>>8796232
Most of the people in the world.

>> No.8796315

>>8796129
>Because a child is not phisically or mentally able to be in an adult relationship.
Physically maybe, but mentally? You sure underestimated how fast kids' mental growth is.

>Mind you, your attraction to them is based on their youth.
OK, I can't deny that. How I wish to live in a world where age locking is possible.

>That, and as one of the greek said before, a child cannot provide the same mental stimulation as an adult does.
I'm not quite understand, but I think I have to disagree with you here.

>And boy oh boy, I am not even touching what is morally wrong with it yet.
I don't care about morals, so this point is moot.

>> No.8796331

Shut the fuck up you twobit google psychologist. Reported.

>> No.8796332

I see nothing wrong in fucking kids either

>> No.8796333

I love little girls

>> No.8796345

>>8796315

Allright thread over, the resident expert on Developmental psychology arrived.

>> No.8796346

I hate all 3dpd apart from gals, thus I'm saved.

Dunno what I'd do if were to be placed in the same room with a pretty loli gal with twintails. But as if something like that would ever happen, right?

>> No.8796349

>>8796129
>blah blah blah

Didn't stop the greeks from having institutionalized pederasty
Which most cultures did up until the middle ages

>> No.8796359

>>8796213

I am one of those who wants to breed the perfect housewife, not a female empowered whore who thinks she's better than me in all things.

>> No.8796387

>Displacement is a valid psychological defense mechanism.
Well, thank you for your support.

>> No.8796428

>>8796052
The general argument is children aren't developmentally ready for a relationship. The problem is those people overlook the fact that not everyone develops at the same rate and their term 'ready for sex' is extremely hard to provide a proper criteria for.

Now, when we establish that not everyone develops at the same rate, that means there are those who are, say, 16, 14, and even 10 year-olds who have mentally matured enough to make an 'informed' decision on the matter. From this, it really comes down to whether or not if you believe in the Blackstone Ratio. If you do, you can't logically be anti-pedophilia unless you believe in arbitrarily stripping people of their rights.

As for the term 'ready for sex,' I'm not going to bother saying the problem with that except many of the problems anti's throw out can be easily solved by earlier sex ed, something that would happen if the act of pedophilia were legal.

>> No.8796808
File: 188 KB, 1920x1080, 1332121671859.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8796808

>>8796052
>>8796428

Children are not physically ready for sex. If you have sex with a child you will cause physical damage. Puberty is when that changes. Fact.
Mentally, you could make it so a child was mature enough for sex at a much younger age, if they had the right disposition. However, that would screw them up severely, as it is not the norm. The norm is extremely important, because a child looking around their world and finding that none of their peers are like them (which would definitely be the case unless you raised a house full of these children, you sick fucks) would find themselves very lonely. They would feel ostracized. Maybe they would even BE ostracized. People are naturally against loneliness and being alone for two reasons. One: In the past (and sometimes even now) it was easier to survive in groups. Those who live alone died more easily, because a lot of arbitrary accidents can kill you if you have no one to come look for you/help you up/nurse you back to health. The genes of the loners are not passed on. Even in the best case scenario, where the loner lives a long pleasant life, the genes are likely not passed on, because an enjoyable life of being alone does not encourage a person to seek company. Hence, no breeding. Loners die without passing on their genes.

>> No.8796813

>>8796808
I like the subtle implication that /jp/ was molested as a child.

>> No.8796820

>>8796808
Yeah but most children hit puberty (are ready for sex) at 9-12 years.

>> No.8796821
File: 416 KB, 1600x1224, 1332032987936.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8796821

>>8796808
(cont.)

I said all that to say, preparing a child for a sexual relationship would likely destroy their ability to have a normal social life, and as this sort of thing is important to most people due to genetics, doing so would likely destroy their chances at happiness.
This is really only the case because society does not bother preparing children for sexual relationships. If that were the case, this would be normal, and the child would not feel weird, or be the odd one out, and you sick fucks wouldn't have to worry about mentally/emotionally destroying them. The reason this is not the case is because society has enough sense to realize that there is no point in doing this. Children who haven't hit puberty can't breed yet, and breeding is the biological point of having sex.
I really didn't mean to write all of this, so TL;DR --> Pedophilia is some sick fuckery. I say this without malice, as it is objectively true.

>> No.8796846

>>8796821
>Children who haven't hit puberty can't breed yet, and breeding is the biological point of having sex.
So then what about ten year olds that have hit puberty? Should be fair game, right?

>> No.8796843

>>8796808
>Children are not physically ready for sex. If you have sex with a child you will cause physical damage. Puberty is when that changes. Fact.

And again more generalizations. However, even granting you that, a relationship with a child wouldn't even necessarily need sex, especially not penetration.

>. However, that would screw them up severely, as it is not the norm.

You're still arguing from the perspective of children not being properly mentally developed, though, because it's their own choice, no one is forcing them to be in an 'adult'-relationship.

Secondly if we all possessed such a conservative and safe mindset we'd socially be stuck hundreds of years, someone's going to have to start. Are you anti-homosexual, too?

And thirdly, by that same logic you can argue it's unhealthy to promote any sort of niche interest in a child because it could lead to them becoming an outcast. Often the factors leading to one becoming an outcast is more complex than what kind of relationship they prefer, and even in those cases, like I said earlier, it's their own choice.

>> No.8796850

>>8796820
You mean that they *begin* to enter puberty at that age. That does not mean that they are all prepped and ready for it, which normally starts at +16 years old, the age of marriage for girls in times of yore. Men could only marry when they were old enough to have their own home and a profession to support a family, which was normally around 30+ years old.

>> No.8796861

>>8796820
And also are at a higher risk for complications arising during child birth, so no, they're not actually "ready".

>> No.8796876

real life is full of lolicons.They just displace their urges onto 3D because they think it's an acceptable replacement.

Displacement is a valid psychological defense mechanism. That's exactly what the entire board does.

>> No.8796878

>>8796843
>like I said earlier, it's their own choice.
Don't really care about the rest of your argument but that particular line is too dangerous to allow.

"Own choice" is a lie, people are easily manipulated, just look at the corporate controlled governments and the idiots that vote for them. Too much freedom is a bad thing.

>> No.8796886

Is that a little boy or a little girl?

>> No.8796892

>>8796878
If you're going to define 'own choice' as 'independent of absolutely any external influence,' you must be quite depressed because you don't control anything.

>Too much freedom is a bad thing

I disagree, it's their life, they aren't harming anyone, why not?

>> No.8796907

>>8796843
Most children of 10 do not even care about sex until hormones come in and do the job. It is YOU who is forcing the whole sex thing on someone unprepared. This is a sensitive subject because 1) You do not make the call 2) Teens and kids do not have an informed enough opinion on the matter.

Say what you will, but I would not take the decisions of an early teens kid very seriously. They are ill adviced.

Oh, and this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/08/us-child-death-yemen-idUSTRE63752Z20100408

Dear god. People like you do nothing but kill my faith in humanity.

>> No.8796906
File: 154 KB, 330x327, 1311682292976.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8796906

>Secondly if we all possessed such a conservative and safe mindset we'd socially be stuck hundreds of years, someone's going to have to start. Are you anti-homosexual, too?

Firstly, I have no opinions regarding homosexuality. Secondly, I don't think that really has anything to do with this. Lastly, that first sentence makes no sense to me at all in relationship to the topic at hand. Your whole post makes no sense to me, in fact.

>>8796846

There's still the mental/emotional side to worry about. I did mention that. Most children aren't ready, even if they think they are. That's not on them though, and it doesn't need to be changed.
I really don't feel like getting into a discussion about this, as I originally meant to only lurk. My post just ended up being longer than I thought it would be. It's not like I think I can convince you people of anything, I just couldn't let that post by without saying something.
I'm going to go back to lurking now.

>> No.8796903

>>8796878
You are so funny. Seriously, I have been laughing reading every of your posts. You are so right out of high school.

>> No.8796916

ITT: Pedophiles who think they're just interested in 2D lolis
Play Hizashi, you'll realise who you truly are.
Just like me ;_;

>> No.8796917

>>8796821
The worlds youngest mother was 6 years old

>> No.8796922

>>8796916
This game just makes you realise you're just a filthy pedophile, and not some lolicon. I'm scared to even stay somewhere near little girls. I'm sure my penis could convince me to rape some.

>> No.8796923

>>8796906
>Firstly, I have no opinions regarding homosexuality. Secondly, I don't think that really has anything to do with this. Lastly, that first sentence makes no sense to me at all in relationship to the topic at hand. Your whole post makes no sense to me, in fact.

Says the guy going off the tangent of social ostracization, okay.

>>8796907
Again, I'm not only talking about sex, I'm talking about child-adult relationships as a whole. And, speaking from experience, that's bullshit, but anecdotes aren't evidence so.

>do not have an informed enough opinion

By the same logic a toddler shouldn't be able to ride in a car because they can't make an informed decision and consent to riding in a vehicle. Simply put, educate them.

>> No.8796925

>>8796850
We've had 6 year old mothers, and 12 year old grandmothers just fine.
And resorting to the whole "can't reproduce" argument is baseless anyway, would you oppose gay sex on the same grounds?

>> No.8796929

>>8796917
And that didn't fuck her up at all, did it? A baby is a parasite. A very greedy parasite. The bones of that girl are gonna be really brittle when she is old.

I would like to see numbers of how many girls that young die, not only the ones who survive.

>> No.8796936

I was actually pointing towards your "child sex is bad because sex is only for reproduction" argument

>> No.8796943

>>8796821
>implying we do like anything other than 2D.

you would know this feel if you were a real otaku

>> No.8796945

I love 2D, and I love 3D, sometimes as young as 9. My philosophy is and always will be "able to bleed, able to breed."

Did you not find girls in your age group attractive as a lad? When did you supposedly stop finding them attractive? Is what It'd like to know.

>> No.8796947

>>8796929

Sup, kike Rand?

>> No.8796948

>>8796945
>"able to bleed, able to breed."

Does that mean that if I fuck you in the ass long and hard enough, you should be fine, right?

>> No.8796990
File: 202 KB, 1909x992, 0161.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8796990

>And resorting to the whole "can't reproduce" argument is baseless anyway, would you oppose gay sex on the same grounds?

>>8796936

Okay, I'll bite, but only to clarify what I meant. Gay people have sex with each other. They are usually consenting adults (or teens). As I understand it, gay adults (or teens) don't usually sexualize children.
I wasn't trying to make any kind of "sex is only for reproduction" point. I only stated that that is its biological function, which is fucking true. Adults attempting to initiate sexual relationship with children =/= Gay people attempting to initiate homosexual relationships with each other. In the case of children, their bodies are not ready. Neither are their minds. Also, the reason I brought up the reproductive thing at all is because I was talking about society in general, and why it makes sense that pedophilia is not widespread. If you want to bring gay relationships into this, (which you shouldn't because that doesn't make sense) all I will say is that most people are heterosexual.

>> No.8797023

>>8796990

>their bodies are not ready.

Maybe not a toddler, but a preteen certainty is in the majority of cases.

>Neither are their minds.

Subjective hoarse shit. You don't need to be a genius to rub genitals, or understand the implications. By the same token, the many adults these days don't engage in safe sexual practices, I'm sure all those aids ridden niggers who have 8 children, or the whore who has a one night stand every weekend are completely "ready for sex."

>pedophilia is not widespread.

Except it was and still is widespread, especially what they consider pedophilia these days. Just because it's no longer so popular in the first world doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. I bet your great grand pappy had his fair share of young maidens as well.

>> No.8797139

>Except it was and still is widespread

The majority of people prefer adults.

>what they consider pedophilia these days

If you're talking about finding teenagers under legal age attractive, (jailbait and such) I doubt that's what comes to mind when the majority of people think of pedophiles. Instead, they probably think of every story they've ever heard of some ten year old getting raped and chopped up.

>> No.8797146

>>8797139

I mean preteens. 10 is fair game if she bleeds.

>> No.8797150

>>8797139

>Instead, they probably think of every story they've ever heard of some ten year old getting raped and chopped up.

Oh and of course pedophiles always have to be violent offenders, who also would just throw the girl away as soon as they got older as seen in earlier posts. Isn't that grand?

>> No.8797159

Shit thread.

>> No.8797162

>>8797150
It's discrimination, plain and simple.

>> No.8797165

You're not victims.

>> No.8797169

>>8797165
Are you saying pedophiles were given a choice to become a pedophile or not?

>> No.8797199

>>8797165

Don't claim to be a victim, but don't care to be demonized either.

>> No.8797259

>>8797169
Gay people will be thrilled to know that you are using their lines to defend their own condition.

>> No.8797287
File: 17 KB, 600x338, souma1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8797287

>>8797259
you are the first one.

>> No.8797301

>>8797259
Interestingly enough, they did campaign for their rights alongside paedophiles back in the days when homosexuals were persecuted by the law. I recall hearing that there's a somewhat large, or as large as such rags get, German left-wing magazine which once ran a series of articles about how people felt empowered by relationships with adult gays when they were little boys.

But the moment they got their rights, all the faggots turned their backs on and helped hoist up paedophiles to be the new target of blame for all social-ills.

>> No.8797319

the first image is fucking hot

>> No.8798181

>>8797301
I can confirm that. It's also why I'm opposed to gay rights, just out of spite.

The background is that the gays wanted to become "legitimate" quickly, so they distanced themselves from the other perverts.

>> No.8798217

>>8797139
>The majority of people prefer adults.
There are two things. First, it was shown that even people with normal sexuality could be aroused by children under the right circumstances. Pedophilia refers to the primary preference. You can have secondary preferences too, they're just not as important for you. "Common sense" today says that every slightest hint of pedophilia makes you a complete pedophile, which is bullshit. Second, these days even looking at 17 year old girls is called pedophilia, even though it's perfectly normal. Sometimes I think the moralfags want to trick everyone into thinking they're pedophiles, for the purpose of making them feel bad about sexuality.

>>
Reply to thread [?]Don't expect anything heroic. Your post will not be uploaded to the original board.
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action