Are pedocels the worst kind of incels?

Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
Yes, anyone who wants to fuck this is seriously mentally ill:



Even JB a little younger and less attractive than the above girl still mog the average 30+ yo woman:



I'm sure you would reject these girls if you were stranded with them on a desert island with no laws.


=====
@EARTH

look at these toddlers sexualizing themselves (if men are looking, otherwise they're just innocent pictures).
Stop posting these underage girls. Shame on you. Those girls are only meant to be taken by Chad. You're not even supposed to be defiling their bodies by looking at them.
 
F

FACEandLMS

Wizard
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
4,044
Stop posting these underage girls. Shame on you. Those girls are only meant to be taken by Chad. You're not even supposed to be defiling their bodies by looking at them.
The fact that you called them "underage" means that you had "AOC" on your mind while thinking of them.
Thinking about sex with a JB is as bad as raping them.
Therefore you are a child rapist.

IncelTears taught me how to logic.
 
J

Jackson14

Banned
-
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
279
Pedophilia is another product of feminism.
Pedos don't exist.
Jesus, so many bluepillers here!
There is no biological reason to be attracted to kids. It is fucked up plain and simple.
 
UramiSan

UramiSan

Your Incellence
-
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
158
Dude, at some point is blatant obvious everyone feeds on them to virtue signal themselves.

Even non-pedocels can't deal with being the lowest scum.
 
BrendioEEE

BrendioEEE

Escort"cel" Exposer
-
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
2,837
Dude, at some point is blatant obvious everyone feeds on them to virtue signal themselves.

Even non-pedocels can't deal with being the lowest scum.
 
I

_incelinside

☆☆☆☆☆
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
12,428
It's not people's fault they are attracted to pre pubescent children but they shouldn't act on it tbh.
 
Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
It's not people's fault they are attracted to pre pubescent children but they shouldn't act on it tbh.
People also insist that they not even talk about their attractions.
 
J

Jackson14

Banned
-
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
279
It's not people's fault they are attracted to pre pubescent children but they shouldn't act on it tbh.
I often think about this and it's weird. Everyone is predisposed to become whatever they become. Can you blame a psychopath serial killer for killing people if they were born hard-wired to do it?
 
BrendioEEE

BrendioEEE

Escort"cel" Exposer
-
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
2,837
There's a difference between exclusively being attracted to children and wanting to hurt them, and being attracted to neo natal features. Biologically speaking men are heavily attracted to Neo Natal and Childlike features, who predominantly has these features? Asians and Children. To deny attraction to childlike features, and yes even children in some cases is simply a lie, however it is a justified lie, because pedophilia is wrong, unless hypothetically in some alternate world you were given a child bride, not to abuse, but to raise and turn into the perfect wife. Someone you'll love beyond just being a child, someone you'll love because they're your wife, and you treat them well, etc.

It's hard to even have these conversations tho because in the modern context it makes people extremely uncomfortable.

Personally I want a pure white virgin wife, most white virgin women happen to be in the pedophillic and hebephillic range nowadays, which is a shame. I'd happily take a virgin woman between 18-25 but they're getting rarer and rarer, it's why i'll probably have to JBW cope and go to Japan, since Asian girls on average (especially Japanese girls) are much more likely to be a virgin.
 
Robtical

Robtical

Don't buy used roast goods
-
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
13,127
I often think about this and it's weird. Everyone is predisposed to become whatever they become. Can you blame a psychopath serial killer for killing people if they were born hard-wired to do it?
Wanting to smash jb's is no where near as bad as killing, and it's way more common in men to be attracted to them than being seriel killers. Plus there are plenty of cucks who say, "I wish a sweaty post prime femoid teacher fucked me when I was 12." So it shouldn't matter when men do it.
 
Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
I have a question for anti-pedocels.

It's one thing to say, "Young girls can't make their own decisions about what age they should be getting married at, because they're too stupid."

It's another to say, "Fathers shouldn't be allowed to make certain decisions for their young daughters (such as at what age they should be getting married), because society knows better than them what's right for their daughters."

Why does society have to decide; why can't the father decide, based on his daughter's particular nature, their family's culture, or whatever other considerations he deems relevant?

And also, even if it is a bad decision for him to make, to marry her off so young, why do you care, given that she's not YOUR daughter? Why do you want to regulate it? Just because you're not attracted to prepubescent girls, and therefore don't want them to get married off at that age, because it would leave fewer jailbaits a few years later for you to try to marry?
 
Last edited:
Zod

Zod

Officer
-
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
757
Even worse. do everyone a favor and go check yourself into the nearest mental facility.
Bluepilled moralfag cuckTears infiltrator! The ultimate goal is to enslave women and make them our sex slaves, and they have to be trained as sex slaves from a very young (preteen) age
 
The End

The End

Wizard
-
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
4,454
Are you kidding me ? Why is it bad being a pedocell? the average pedocell intelligence is significantly higher than the average incel's intelligence.
.
Where did you hear that pedophiles have high intelligence? I've always read that pedophiles generally have low intelligence (and short stature). A lot of pedophiles are retarded people.
 
Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
Where did you hear that pedophiles have high intelligence? I've always read that pedophiles generally have low intelligence (and short stature). A lot of pedophiles are retarded people.
Those are just the ones who get caught. The ones who don't get caught don't get subjected to testing.
 
Last edited:
Creep

Creep

Blackpill Scientist
-
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
6,992
The worst thing about them is you can't even ask "why are there so many of them here" without them going on a full blown RAGE about how you are a subhuman cuck IT fag. Its insane.
 
narcissist

narcissist

Most recessed chin on incels.is. Loved by no one.
-
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
3,296
Hated by Chads, hated by normies, hated by femoids, hated by their fellow incels. They are the lowest kind of human being and they will probably end up being killed in prison after the police finds them. If I was one I would rope.
Yes, I would happily stab a paedophile.
 
Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
>Why are there so many pedocels here

It's not our fault kids are so sexy. We were just minding our own business when all these femoids decided to spread their legs to Chad and subsequently give birth to attractive children, whom they then took to malls and other public places where we couldn't help but notice their cute little asses, and the way in which they suck so hard on their lollipops, etc. And of course the moms have to dress them up as miniature sluts too.

If those femoids had let incels impregnate them instead, then there would be a lot more ugly kids running around, and pedophiles wouldn't be getting so highly aroused all the time and having to vent by expressing those urges all over the Internet as a way of coping. Therefore, this is all the feminists' doing.
 
Last edited:
Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
Pedocels don't have to worry so much about Chads taking all the girls.

2006-10-06-64_beach_jerk_2006.jpg
 
Zod

Zod

Officer
-
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
757
This thread definitely reveals many IT cucks who either lurk or larp here. It is very simple, pedophilia DOES NOT EXIST - it is a term that has been made up to mark someone attracted to a young foid as being "mentally ill". Being attracted to young and fresh femoids is a natural biological urge, and before feminism and cucked laws one could marry or buy a 9 year old girl to be his wife. Stupid cucks gtfo back to cuckTears, fucking moral fag hypocrites - in this thread you condemn sex with preteen foids, but in another thread you praise ER, mass genocide, rape, etc.
 
ElfCake

ElfCake

Lone wolf
-
Joined
Jan 24, 2018
Messages
133
I dont hate fellow pedocels, I feel bad for them
You do understand that you have a mental illness tho right? Their is no reason to be attracted to pre-pubescent girts. They can't even give you an offspring. I get finding 15-16 year old hot if they have a fat ass and great tits but being a pedo is fucked.
 
Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
You do understand that you have a mental illness tho right? Their is no reason to be attracted to pre-pubescent girts. They can't even give you an offspring. I get finding 15-16 year old hot if they have a fat ass and great tits but being a pedo is fucked.
Sex can serve other purposes besides producing offspring.
 
Zod

Zod

Officer
-
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
757
Bluepilled moralfag cuckTears infiltrator! The ultimate goal is to enslave women and make them our sex slaves, and they have to be trained as sex slaves from a very young (preteen) age
but clearly they dont want to have sex with u. otherwise why are u here? No one wants to have sex with u. not even a used up 60 year old hag.
And yet another proof of extremely low IQ values among cuckTears members. This one is so extreme that I'm 100% sure it was a legit foid, her low IQ can't even grasp the concept of slavery. No one will ask you for consent you little whore, you will be forced to please your master at his will
 
E

Evildoer

Overlord
-
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
6,427
I don't think so, we're all equally rejected by society, being a pedocel doesn't change much.
 
BabilKrali

BabilKrali

Dragon level disaster
-
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
359
Where did you hear that pedophiles have high intelligence? I've always read that pedophiles generally have low intelligence (and short stature). A lot of pedophiles are retarded people.
A lot of scientific research proved this fact.
 
Figthcel

Figthcel

Fap To Fighter Jets to free yourself
-
Joined
Jun 16, 2018
Messages
831
What does it matter.

Lets just fight normies.
 
Robo Sapien

Robo Sapien

Transcendent
-
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
1,640
Sex can serve other purposes besides producing offspring.
It actually doesn't. The only reason to have sex is to reproduce offspring. Anything else is cope.
 
uglylifematters

uglylifematters

wish I could
-
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
2,375
depends on what you mean by pedophile tbh
 
Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
It actually doesn't. The only reason to have sex is to reproduce offspring. Anything else is cope.
Well, if you want to broadly construe "producing offspring" to include stuff that's related to it (e.g. keeping the parents together, so they can both be there to raise the kids; how many couples get back together because one or both or them misses having sex with the other), then who's to say pedophilia isn't indirectly reproductive.

E.g., a girl could get married off while she's still prepubescent, so that her impoverished family can get rid of her, and so that the guy who marries her can get a virginal bride. If other men are attracted to 13-year-olds, but he's attracted to girls who are even younger, then he has an opportunity to grab those younger girls before other men get them.
 
Robo Sapien

Robo Sapien

Transcendent
-
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
1,640
Well, if you want to broadly construe "producing offspring" to include stuff that's related to it (e.g. keeping the parents together, so they can both be there to raise the kids; how many couples get back together because one or both or them misses having sex with the other), then who's to say pedophilia isn't indirectly reproductive.
There isn't anything productive about having sex with children. I'm all for young brides. Largely due to life experience. Most women will grow up and do nothing but become whores and single mothers if given the chance. Women clearly are poor decision makers when it comes to selecting mates. You'll get no argument from me there, but this bull shit about "reproducing" with prepubescent girls is just retarded. They can't sexually reproduce, there's no reason to fuck them. There is no "producing offspring" other than her popping kids out of her vagina. If that isn't happening, then reproduction isn't happening.

E.g., a girl could get married off while she's still prepubescent, so that her impoverished family can get rid of her, and so that the guy who marries her can get a virginal bride. If other men are attracted to 13-year-olds, but he's attracted to girls who are even younger, then he has an opportunity to grab those younger girls before other men get them.
If we had a society where people could punish their daughters for being whores and force them to stay inside until they got married, this issue would largely go away. It wouldn't matter if she was 9 or 14. She would still be a virgin and know her place. Quite frankly, this obsession with purity is bullshit. Let's say for the sake of argument that you do get a young wife. Your argument fails to recognize that she will still mature into a woman in this society. Women are duplicitous and untrustworthy by nature, and society has unfortunately stripped a man of all his rights in punishing disloyal wives. That means that there's no incentive for women to be loyal, other than personal incentives. Getting an underaged girl will not fix this problem.

If you're a pedophile, fine. Just don't try to masquerade your pedophilia as some moral and righteous argument.
 
Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
If we had a society where people could punish their daughters for being whores and force them to stay inside until they got married, this issue would largely go away. It wouldn't matter if she was 9 or 14. She would still be a virgin and know her place. Quite frankly, this obsession with purity is bullshit. Let's say for the sake of argument that you do get a young wife. Your argument fails to recognize that she will still mature into a woman in this society. Women are duplicitous and untrustworthy by nature, and society has unfortunately stripped a man of all his rights in punishing disloyal wives. That means that there's no incentive for women to be loyal, other than personal incentives. Getting an underaged girl will not fix this problem.

If you're a pedophile, fine. Just don't try to masquerade your pedophilia as some moral and righteous argument.
Do you believe there's any such thing as an alpha widow -- a girl who fixates on the first guy who ever fucked her, and compares subsequent guys unfavorably to him, because that's the standard she has learned to judge guys by? In other words, she got spoiled by dating and sleeping with guys who were out of her league, and now she can't lower her standards and be happy with a beta husband because it's not in girls' nature to be content downgrading once they've experienced the best.

What about the statistics showing that the more guys a girl has fucked prior to marriage, the more likely the marriage will fail; what's the explanation for that?

Child marriage CAN turn out fine. Eunice Winstead (aka Eunice Johns) had several kids. That marriage was successful, from a reproductive point of view. But that guy probably kept her fairly isolated, in the mountains. They were subjected to a lot of stigma, so they withdrew from society.

Also, no one answered my question from an earlier post above, which was, if you believe in patriarchy, why do you give a shit if a father marries his daughter off when she's 9 rather than when she's 13? Why do you care what another man does with his daughter? Patriarchy is supposed to be rule by fathers. As soon as outsiders come in and say, "You can't treat your daughter that way" or "You can't treat your wife that way," it's no longer patriarchy.

Not every father is going to marry their daughter off at age 9, so if you don't support that practice, then in a patriarchal society, why wouldn't you just marry a girl who's older, and then marry off your daughters whenever they reached an age at which you thought they were ready? Why meddle with others' families and tell them, "You have to abide by my standards"?

That's how we ended up where we are now -- people kept meddling with others' families, and telling them, "You can't spank your wife, you can't force your daughter to be a housewife instead of going to school and riding the carousel, etc." Instead of saying, "Let each family do what they want" we said, "Let's decide via the democratic process what are some standards we need to put in place to make sure females are treated right" and then we ended up with the current mess.

The best standards could have arisen organically, though, through experimentation and seeing what works. As it is now, a bunch of feminist academics churn out studies saying, "Child marriage is bad for girls" and probably any contrary evidence gets thrown in a file cabinet rather than published. And then our legislators make decisions based on biased "research". Most truly patriarchist churches, like the Fundamentalist Mormons, end up getting destroyed because of laws against "child marriage". Their leaders get prosecuted for banging the young jailbaits, and their property gets seized by the state.

As soon as you ban child marriage as a way of protecting, say, 3-year-old girls from getting raped up the ass, it becomes a slippery slope leading to a situation like what we have now. The feminists want to keep raising the marriageable age and imposing more legal and cultural "protections" for girls. They want to educate them and so on. As soon as you start giving girls any rights, we end up in this downward spiral of cultural decay.

We might not go all the way down the slippery slope immediately; it might take awhile, but it'll happen eventually.
 
Last edited:
Robo Sapien

Robo Sapien

Transcendent
-
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
1,640
Do you believe there's any such thing as an alpha widow -- a girl who fixates on the first guy who ever fucked her, and compares subsequent guys unfavorably to him, because that's the standard she has learned to judge guys by? In other words, she got spoiled by dating and sleeping with guys who were out of her league, and now she can't lower her standards and be happy with a beta husband because it's not in girls' nature to be content downgrading once they've experienced the best.
Alpha widow is another name for the concept of the womb imprint. A woman is physically imprinted by the first few guys she's fucked, yes. This still doesn't justify your argument.

What about the statistics showing that the more guys a girl has fucked prior to marriage, the more likely the marriage will fail; what's the explanation for that?
The point you make here is true, but for different reasons than you're willing to admit. Even during the 30s, 40s, and 50s when women had fewer sexual partners, and got married to their first sexual partner, they still cheated. Even though they hadn't been corrupted by feminist ideals, they were still fucking outside of their marriage. Many of them were married as young as 11. It still didn't prevent them from getting juiced by the mail man. This concept that "virgin women" won't cheat is bullshit. Granted, they will learn to tolerate you because they will age out and accept the fact that they simply can't do better than you.

Child marriage CAN turn out fine. Eunice Winstead (aka Eunice Johns) had several kids. That marriage was successful, from a reproductive point of view. But that guy probably kept her fairly isolated, in the mountains. They were subjected to a lot of stigma, so they withdrew from society.
You're still failing to see why that marriage was successful. He restricted her ability to move and see other men. Restricting her freedom and preventing her from heavily interacting with other people is what made the relationship workable. You can continue to ignore this fact, but everything in this conversation keeps going back to taking away women's rights.

Also, no one answered my question from an earlier post above, which was, if you believe in patriarchy, why do you give a shit if a father marries his daughter off when she's 9 rather than when she's 13?
This isn't even a question. A 9 year old can't have children. Procreating with them is by definition unnatural, and I'm not even going to get into rare bullshit cases where people hit puberty early. 90% of human beings don't sexually mature before the age of 11.

Why do you care what another man does with his daughter? Patriarchy is supposed to be rule by fathers. As soon as outsiders come in and say, "You can't treat your daughter that way" or "You can't treat your wife that way," it's no longer patriarchy.
No, it's called having a social code of conduct. A set of rules that men agree to in order to prevent havoc, chaos, and destruction. In the vast majority of cultures, including backwards African cultures, they recognize the value in not marrying off children who haven't reached puberty.

Not every father is going to marry their daughter off at age 9, so if you don't support that practice, then in a patriarchal society, why wouldn't you just marry a girl who's older, and then marry off your daughters whenever they reached an age at which you thought they were ready? Why meddle with others' families and tell them, "You have to abide by my standards"?
This isn't about meddling in other people's families. This is about preventing abuse and creating a harmonious society. Again, most cultures don't allow for children to marry. That age varies depending on the region and its values. Nevertheless, that age rarely goes below 12.

That's how we ended up where we are now -- people kept meddling with others' families, and telling them, "You can't spank your wife, you can't force your daughter to be a housewife instead of going to school and riding the carousel, etc." Instead of saying, "Let each family do what they want" we said, "Let's decide via the democratic process what are some standards we need to put in place to make sure females are treated right" and then we ended up with the current mess.
No, we ended up here for a variety of reasons. Some reasons were good, others were bad. One reason in particular was to truly prevent abuse. For example, the recent capture of the Golden State Killer is proving that abuse is what often creates deviants and psychopaths. The guy was chronically abused by his mother and stepfather, on top of witnessing his 7 year old sister get gang raped at the age of 9 by a group of airmen. I don't believe for a second that it was a coincidence that the first guy he killed was in the air force. Allowing people to do deviant and fucked up things to their kids in the name of "rights" will only create more sick and twisted people.


The best standards could have arisen organically, though, through experimentation and seeing what works. As it is now, a bunch of feminist academics churn out studies saying, "Child marriage is bad for girls" and probably any contrary evidence gets thrown in a file cabinet rather than published. And then our legislators make decisions based on biased "research". Most truly patriarchist churches, like the Fundamentalist Mormons, end up getting destroyed because of laws against "child marriage". Their leaders get prosecuted for banging the young jailbaits, and their property gets seized by the state.
I understand. Feminists are cancer dude. No doubt about it. I actually hate modern academics because it's based upon enlightenment philosophy created by Prussian, Bavarian, and Transylvanian royal feminists. Including Catherine the Skank. The enlightenment posited that women and men were equal. All of that is bull shit. There's no such thing as equality in this universe. Equality means being the same, and men and women aren't the same. That being said, marrying off children is bad because it's unnatural. There's no reason to do it. Liking children is a maladaptive mating strategy like wanting to fuck dogs or corpses. There's no reason to do it.

As soon as you ban child marriage as a way of protecting, say, 3-year-old girls from getting raped up the ass, it becomes a slippery slope leading to a situation like what we have now. The feminists want to keep raising the marriageable age and imposing more legal and cultural "protections" for girls. They want to educate them and so on. As soon as you start giving girls any rights, we end up in this downward spiral of cultural decay.

We might not go all the way down the slippery slope immediately; it might take awhile, but it'll happen eventually.
The slippery slope is not taking away women's rights. That's the slippery slope. Focus on restricting the rights and freedoms of adult women. It's not a slippery slope to prohibit fucking dogs, children, or corpses.
 
Last edited:
Leucosticte

Leucosticte

Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,079
Alpha widow is another name for the concept of the womb imprint. A woman is physically imprinted by the first few guys she's fucked, yes. This still doesn't justify your argument.

The point you make here is true, but for different reasons than you're willing to admit. Even during the 30s, 40s, and 50s when women had fewer sexual partners, and got married to their first sexual partner, they still cheated. Even though they hadn't been corrupted by feminist ideals, they were still fucking outside of their marriage. Many of them were married as young as 11. It still didn't prevent them from getting juiced by the mail man. This concept that "virgin women" won't cheat is bullshit. Granted, they will learn to tolerate you because they will age out and accept the fact that they simply can't do better than you.
If you get a virginal bride, you at least get a honeymoon period when she's enthralled by your body and the newfound wonders of sex, before the romance wears off and she gets bored and decides to bang the mailman. When you get with a non-virgin, you don't even get that much. Right off the bat, she's comparing you unfavorably to the Chads she banged, who were out of her league.

You're still failing to see why that marriage was successful. He restricted her ability to move and see other men. Restricting her freedom and preventing her from heavily interacting with other people is what made the relationship workable. You can continue to ignore this fact, but everything in this conversation keeps going back to taking away women's rights.
I thought I was the one who brought up their isolation, as opposed to ignoring it.

This isn't even a question. A 9 year old can't have children. Procreating with them is by definition unnatural, and I'm not even going to get into rare bullshit cases where people hit puberty early. 90% of human beings don't sexually mature before the age of 11.
How do we set a standard of what's "unnatural"? People develop all kinds of weird fetishes whose purpose can be hard to understand. When a girl gives you a blowjob or lets you fuck her up the ass, is that natural or unnatural? It doesn't produce babies directly. Nonetheless, the couple who does that stuff can also produce babies.

Maybe the fact that she did whatever he wanted in bed (including blowjobs and anal) was why he ended up staying with her; maybe he thinks other girls wouldn't be as submissive. That kind of stuff perhaps serves the purpose of bonding; honest signaling theory might say it's how she shows love in a convincing way. We know that girls who have had a lot of previous boyfriends will often refuse to give their husbands blowjobs and anal sex.

More generally, there's just a lot of weird stuff that goes on in human relations, whose purpose is a matter of speculation. Humor, for instance. Why does it exist; how does it help us survive and reproduce? Animals don't seem to have humor. What about crying; what biological purpose does it serve to secrete liquid from your eyes when one feels sad?

What about non-sexual affection; what purpose does it serve for, say, a little child to want to be comforted with a hug? The hug doesn't directly help him survive or reproduce, so why is his psychology such that he needs that kind of gesture? (These days, of course, non-relatives are often not even allowed to offer a distressed child physical comfort, or accept a hug from an affectionate child, because any form of touching might be construed as sexual assault or "child grooming".)

I could argue that anti-pedophilia is what's unnatural. Because people are so paranoid about pedophiles, it's become impossible in most cases for an older man to hang out with a young boy, and offer him mentorship and instruction and companionship, lest he be accused of trying to groom the child for sex. But not everything a boy might want to learn can be picked up just from his father, because his father isn't an expert in everything. So boys are naturally drawn to other men who can help them pursue certain interests.

Boys can't ride the subway by themselves (the way they might in, say, Japan) because people are worried they'll be kidnapped. So instead, to keep them safe, they're confined to a house and plopped in front of a TV, where theoretically no one can molest them. They don't get to explore and go on adventures and make up their own games, without adult supervision and control, the way boys of previous generations did.

No, it's called having a social code of conduct. A set of rules that men agree to in order to prevent havoc, chaos, and destruction.
I didn't agree to it. In fact, I dissent from it. All progress has to start from a dissident saying, "This isn't working for me; I want to try something else" and going off on his own. That's what the Mormons in Utah, and the cult at Yearning for Zion Ranch, and many others tried to do, but society interfered, in the name of preventing abuse and disrespect toward women and whatnot.

One of the arguments against polygamy was that some first wives might not be cool with adding another wife to the family. But that's kind of the point; if the husband can say, "You either have more kids with me, or I'll get a second wife who will" then she has to submit. It's very pronatalist to give a husband that power. A lot of times (like with the power to spank or beat his wife), he doesn't have to actually use it; he just needs to have it available.

This isn't about meddling in other people's families. This is about preventing abuse and creating a harmonious society.
"Preventing abuse and creating a harmonious society" might be the end, but the means by which people seek to accomplish this is by interfering with families. They're going to break up the family and put the daughter in foster care. It's antithetical to patriarchism to put some female social workers, and a female judge, in charge of deciding whether a father is raising his daughter properly. But that's what the law does.

There's not really all that much of a "code of conduct" when it comes to child protection; the laws spells out some criminal behaviors, but the rest is left to subjective interpretation. You can try to fight for a reasonable interpretation, but you'll have to shell out a bunch of money in legal fees and wait for the wheels of justice to turn, while in the meantime you don't have custody of your kid.

Family law has been heavily influenced by feminist lobbying, and the family courts and social services bureaucracies tend to be dominated by feminists. So this is not a situation where masculine men have gotten together and said, "Hey, let's have a code of conduct to prevent people from wreaking havoc." This is a situation where feminists have said, "Let's disempower fathers and empower feminist bureaucrats."

It's not a slippery slope to prohibit fucking dogs, children, or corpses.
Those are the hard cases that make bad law. We legislate to stop that kind of stuff, and we set a precedent that's going to cause problems later.

By the way -- if foids become traumatized and fucked-up in the head due to sex they had as a kid, there are two possible solutions to that: (1) euthanasia, or (2) discounting their SMV. E.g., if she otherwise would've been a really desirable girl, but she's mentally ill, you might say, "Well, she's not quite desirable enough for me, so I'll pass," but some other guy might want her. But if no one wants her, then she can just be put down like any other animal whom no one wants to adopt.

This isn't like the East Area Rapist, who was allowed to roam around freely. Foids wouldn't be allowed that kind of liberty in a patriarchal society to go wreak havoc, even if they were mentally ill. They would be kept on a leash, and if they proved to be more trouble than they were worth, they would be killed.
 
Last edited:
I

ihatewomen94

Recruit
-
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
79
I feel for the ones who don’t act on their desires. There is no help for those people due to stigma.
 
UndertakerCel

UndertakerCel

18 year old truecel
-
Joined
Jul 13, 2018
Messages
501
What do you define as a pedo? I view many 12 year old girls to be attractive if they’re quite developed.
 
Top