/lit/ - Literature

>>22253400
>I'm better than you because I'm attracted to old, dried up, infertile women. Lol? Alright then, bro.

>>18069205
Pedophilia is the occidental equivalent of (Islamic) blasphemy. People in Islamic countries get stoned, burnt, murdered, whatever, for even being ACCUSED of burning the Quran, and there are still laws in place to imprison you for dishonouring Allah. Funnily enough, they don't chimp out at all over pedophilia, it's kind of not a big deal. Some might say "yeah it's bad" the same way we think punching people out of nowhere is bad, but it's not like they get worked up into a fury.

People in the west have been propagandized to become enraged at the mere mention of someone being a pedophile. They treat it like the worst possible thing someone could be, and most people determine pedophilia based off of age (an arbitrary metric which counts years traveled around the sun, not biological development). That is, most people see anything below [legal limit] to be pedophilia, and thus reprehensible. People have been trained to think in this black and white sense, where pedophilia is having sex / being sexually attracted to anyone under the age of 18 (in America, in other countries the age varies), but everything else, outside of rape, is ok. They have also been trained to work themselves into a frenzy, to automatically shun, despise, and castigate anyone who has been convicted or accused of pedophilia, no matter how long ago or little evidence exists. The problem I have is not that they despise pedophilia, but by how easily they have been persuaded to hate pedophilia to such an extent that even the mere mention of it brings their blood to a boil. It parallels with the situation in Islamic nations; we can laugh at them and say they're savages, but we're equally unforgiving. It's human nature to never let go, to assume that people are fixed and cannot redeem themselves, that the Jean Valjeans of the world ought to suffer endlessly for a single mistake made long ago.

It's my personal view that you shouldn't have sex with (biological) children. On top of that, can't see a reason to seek a partner under 22, since women below that age are generally immature and thus not suitable as a partner. I believe children offer more joy through their innocent, playful natures than through other means. On top of that, since they are technically children, they're incapable of giving birth, and thus the only reason one would be driven to sex with a child is through carnal desire, which is of course immoral (if you need a lecture on why intemperance is immoral, unironically start with the Greeks).

>>16823948
Retard
>>16824102
>doesn't act on it
Spooked faggot.

>>16229245
I don't intend to go to bat for those guys but weirdly enough I don't think an adult man picking up a little girl as his couple/lover/wife would be all that questionable in a society-less setting, pic related, so I'm not too sure if you should get rid of it or not.
Is there an event that severs the relationship between those two guys, though? From what you say your setting is, it sounds to me like a break up could be lethal for someone who is not old or strong enough to take care of himself on his own.

>>13119153
Yeah, things are so much better for children these days.

Thanks, Christian feminists.

>>13028643
No idea, this is just one of generic loli pill pastas. I suppose one should rewrite the /pol/ hitler memes into some /lit/ pseud ones.