[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / bbbb / fur / htg / polmeta / sonyeon / wai / zoo ]

/younglove/ - Child Love Discussion

Keep it clean and legal. Thanks.
Winner of the 11th Attention-Hungry Games
/jp/ - You must be this high to post

/bane/ and /just/ stream on Saturday October 21
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 1 per post.


CAPTCHA is enabled for thread creation only, not for regular replies. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I only have limited tools to handle spam, and I don't want to disable Tor all together. If this doesn't help at least a bit, I'll disable CAPTCHA.

File: 01652eb06809f50⋯.jpg (89.23 KB, 680x822, 340:411, a73bf4_6371122.jpg)

 No.38809

Or anything pedophilia related.

Can be from false facts or normalfags making shit up.

>all pedos have small penises, that why they like little girls

>going to therapy will "cure" you

when will these memes end?

 No.38811

I've always been bothered by these highly questionable studies Cantor did.

You know the ones that say: pedophiles are less intelligent, more likely to be left-handed, and shorter.


 No.38814

>>38811

>highly questionable

The methodology was fundamentally broken and the results were totally meaningless. You'd find the same results if you looked at any population of prisoners compared to non-prisoners.


 No.38815

Where to even begin.

>power imbalance means the relationship is inherently abusive

>all pedos were abused as children

>3 billion dollar cp industry

>all pedos are balding fucking white males

>formerly sexualized children claiming they enjoyed it are victims of Stockholm syndrome

>pedophilia was never tolerated by society

>children cannot comprehend oral

>all pro-contact pedos are deluded

>children lack abstract reasoning ability

>children have zero sexual desires

>pedos lust after children because they're unattractive losers who go after (the most difficult to attain targets) because they're easy

>child marriage is normal in some countries and you're an Islamophobe if you think otherwise

>sex among children is acceptable but once an adult enters into it everything magically changes

>children can consent to permanent gender changes but not to sex

>watching child pornography re-victimizes the child but this same rule does not apply to any other form of recorded abuse/violence

>murderers are morally superior to someone who had consensual sex with a child

Long story short, we're losers and everyone can shit on us.


 No.38816

File: d8d70992de00da3⋯.png (429.63 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, Screenshot_20171001-164753.png)

>>38814

There's problems with his methodology, but that's not one of them. He compared pedophile sex offenders to teleiophile sex offenders. Also, while the IQ and height differences are ridiculously overstated (the actual difference he found was literally 1 point of IQ difference between sex offenders targeting children and sex offenders targeting adults, pic related, and 1-1.5cm height difference), the handedness difference and the correlation between pedophilia and childhood head injuries are actually meaningful results.


 No.38843

>>38816

Not only that, but those small bars also mean something. Those represent the uncertainty. If what you are measuring is actually following a normal distribution those small bars should get shorter for bigger sample sizes.

And the fact the the uncertainty for "sexual offenders against adults" and "nonoffenders" is around three points, should already tell you that those samples are too small.

And as it is stated in the text below, those two sample sizes are actually one order of magnitude smaller than that of "sexual offender against children".

So, saying that there is even just a one point difference from this data is already unscientific.

Not to mention, that the mean IQ of any random sample of people should be around 100, since that's how it is defined. So the fact that the IQ score for "nonoffenders" is about 103 points probably means there is some sort of selection bias in that group as well.


 No.38847

File: 91d767d466df7df⋯.png (382.13 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, Screenshot_20171002-065634.png)

>>38843

And then there's this one, where the claim of 2 IQ points per year of AoA came from. Note that "sex offenders against children under the age of 18" score 9 points higher then "sex offenders against adults" from the previous graph, and equal to "nonoffenders." Apparently ephebophiles are the true patricians and IQ falls off as one's preferences deviate from the ideal age of 18. If we were to substitute adult data for the presumably flawed <18 data, we'd get an almost perfectly flat line.


 No.38850

>>38809

>Kids are not capable of getting horny

what the fuck have you been doing during your whole childhood?


 No.38873

>>38847

>>38816

I've been thinking about this some more and it seems to me that the most likely explanation is that the "under 18" data, and to a lesser extent the "under 16" data is contaminated by non-rapists, i.e. they just tested a bunch of people in prison for statutory rape, whereas the other studies actually look at some of the facts of the case (to determine age of the victim if nothing else) and are more likely to filter out subjects that aren't cut-and-dry examples of rapists. Therefore, it makes sense that the "under 18" data is roughly comparable to the general population (because a large number of them are just normal, non-rapey people who happened to run afoul of an unethical law) while the rest of the data is comparable to sex offenders against adults (because rapists are rapists regardless of the age of the victim).


 No.38894

>>38815

>because they're easy

consequences aside, it is a lot easier to talk to a kid than an adult, for me anyway.

>but not to sex

i see what you did there.

i'm a loser but, then if i was 'average' i'd still be a loser. what you're attracted to doesn't hold value. just like liking a certain movie doesnt make you an expert media critic.


 No.38911

I hate the idea that pedophiles are just children on the inside, thus pedos being together is a good solution.

I also hate everything >>38814 hates.


 No.38912

I meant to say >>38815


 No.38944

>>38815

>pedos go after children because it's easier

This is the one that blows my mind. Ah yes, I would really like to voluntarily pursue being THE MOST HATED GROUP OF PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. It sounds a lot easier than being normal! Similar to the argument that homosexuals choose to be gay, I suppose because they just weren't getting enough bigotry and hate crimes in their life.


 No.38952

>>38944

Except it is 2017 and many gays are choosing it. If anything they are revered like saints in the West. The only real persecuted minority left in the Western world are hebes and lower.


 No.38972

>child porn has nothing to do with pedos


 No.38974

(Thread posting isn't working at the moment so I'll just say this here)

Hysteria Toward New Netflix Show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTC7wQMHHEA

It's a comedy showing kids going through puberty and exploring their sexuality. The comment section is full of antis calling it "a show for pedophiles" and "softcore child porn", and videos have been made saying the same thing.

What do you guys think about this?


 No.38975

>there are no moral absolutes except for pedophilia

>women cannot be pedophiles and those who are are only that way because a man made them into one

>pedophilia is wrong because it's illegal

>developed countries hate pedophiles, therefore there is a causative link between hating pedophiles and how well developed a country is


 No.38976

>>38974

Southpark and other shows have done worse. xD


 No.38979

>>38974

LOL those are the biggest, most whiny, POLITICALLY CORRECT FAGGOTS. It's funny how these groups cry so hard about SJWs, but really they are like two sides of the same coin.


 No.38981

>>38974

I already know this show from /co/.

>shitty art and somehow worse then Seth MacFarlane

>edgy humor

I don't know why normalfags suddenly thinks pedos are behind this show. Fuck off with that shit.


 No.39138

That pedos are usually ugly old men. I'm the exact opposite. I'm young and good looking and I still end up being a pedo. rip.


 No.39139

>>38911

Duude, I've heard that shit too.

http://www.sophiagubb.com/on-pedophilia/

I was hoping this girl would have a more open mind(since she has other unpopular ideas), but she just said pedos should get together for the exact reason you said.


 No.39140

>>39138

>I'm good looking

Leave. You don't belong here and we don't want you here.


 No.39142

>>39138

Please don't leave. Maybe you will annoy the troll enough and it will leave.


 No.39143

>>39142

Fuck off samefag


 No.39144

>>39140

>>39143

Hey, man, what the hell are you doing? Quit impersonating already. What the hell is your problem?


 No.39145

>>39144

I've found out how to tripcode.


 No.39148

>>39145

trips ruin the charm of being a namefag


 No.39150

>>39140

whats wrong? Scared a pedo Chad will take your waifu away?


 No.39152

>>39148

I did it to ensure that my username won't be hijacked by imposers, like with the above. I can't have weirdos cramping my style and abusing my name.


 No.39153

>>39152

Impostors.


 No.39158

Child porn is hard to find and you only have it because you went out of your way to get it

Everything good happened on Youtube because a pedophile "groomed" them

3000 pedophiles have been vanned by Our Lord and Savior since He became President

Takedownman says we've all fucked 300 kids lol


 No.39162

>>38816

That comparison is still completely useless for drawing conclusions about the wider pedophile population. He's implicitly assuming that all sex offenses introduce equal bias into the results. If he was being honest, the only thing he could say is:

>people who get convicted of "child sex offenses" have slightly lower IQs than people who get convicted of "adult sex offenses"

If he wants to compare pedophiles with teleiophiles, he needs to actually look at representative samples of the two groups. Looking at prison populations will always give bad data because those populations are pre-selected in a very chaotic, biased way.


 No.39185

Sine I can't post a thread:

Guys… We're fucked:

I know people who are against an 18 year and a 15 year old together, along with 12 and 14, and 14 with 16.

These dumbasses think a 2-3 year age difference is abusive.

._.


 No.39187

>>39185

Ask them what if the 18 year old isn't abusive? If you're daring, that is, challenging the status quo is considered by many to be as bad as raping a baby.


 No.39189

>>38809

>What's the dumbest thing you've heard about pedos?

That were all impulsive left handed fat old neckbeards who have something wrong with our brains.


 No.39191

>>39187

The thing is, they are the kind of people who think the relationship is inherently abusive regardless of the younger person's consent and the older person's good qualities


 No.39200

>>39162

Unless you can think of some reason why pedophiles are likely to be significantly different than the average person in intelligence, I'm willing to consider these results reasonable. The problem isn't in the demographics he's sampling, it's in the fact that he's willfully misrepresenting his results.

He emphasizes that the data shows that the IQ difference between offenders against children and nonsexual offenders is significant, but the difference between sex offenders against adults and nonsexual offenders is fairly likely (~28%) to just be caused by chance. This is due to the fact that he only used 8 studies for offenders against adults, compared to >50 for each of the other groups. He neglects to acknowledge that while it's possible that the difference between offenders against adults and nonsexual offenders is due to chance, it's far more likely that the difference between the two sex offender demographics is simply the result of uncertainty.


 No.39202

The dumbest thing I've ever heard about pedos is that they should be allowed any freedom at all.


 No.39213

>>39202

GET OUT ANTI!!.


 No.39215

>>39202

You must be lost.

>>39213

You seem lost, too. Were you looking for >>>/r9k/?


 No.39219

>>39215

>Implying pedos dont use both boards


 No.39224

>>39219

>Implying /yl/ is your personal hugbox

I never said you can't use both. Just keep your frogposting faggotry where it belongs.


 No.39225

>>39224

> frogposting faggotry

I didn't post Pepe.


 No.39226

>>39224

>>Implying /yl/ is your personal hugbox

I was not implying that at all okay now you're just shitposting.


 No.39229

>>38850

Yes they are capable of getting horny, no they are not capable of realizing what they are agreeing to.

When they grow up and realize some creepy fucking adult was touching them and manipulating them to keep a disgusting sex-based secret, they live their whole life thinking men only want them for sex, that they're worth shit otherwise. That sex is the key to love and happiness. Putting out is what makes a friend.

Pedophilia is fucking wrong. It's mental manipulation and fucks you up for life.

"it's not a billion dollar industry" is about to be a debunked myth so goodluck with your disgusting pursuits, hope you rot in hell.


 No.39230

>>38850

>what the fuck have you been doing during your whole childhood?

Stfu shill get off my board.


 No.39235

File: 4d254b894fc490b⋯.jpg (58.73 KB, 405x529, 405:529, 1507088504948-0.jpg)

>>39229

>When they grow up and realize some creepy fucking adult

What if the adult was a handsome soldier and not some creep?

>"it's not a billion dollar industry" is about to be a debunked myth

Do you have a single fact to back that up?


 No.39236

File: 15db70b2abf9340⋯.jpg (72.34 KB, 564x785, 564:785, 1507092738190.jpg)

heh, meant to use this one


 No.39242

>>39229

If you think that's how relationships work you are the one with a problem.


 No.39255

>>All men are pedos but lie because of society.

If this was true then we would have rights by now. Or at least a offline movement


 No.39257

>>39255

If you define pedo by being attracted to under 18-year-olds it's pretty much true.


 No.39260

>>39257

Yeah, this is pretty much true. All hetero normies should find 15/16 year old girls as attractive as 18 year olds. This is a pretty good narrative to feed to the public.


 No.39263

>>39257

Pedophilia is the attraction to children who have not gone through puberty. I am using the correct definition.

>>39260

And both men and women are attracted to teenagers, most look like adults. Adults tend to be attracted to adult features. 16+ is legal in my area anyway.


 No.39332

Some variation of

>if a man is attracted to something he can't control himself and will use any means within his power to stick his dick in whoever or whatever he finds attractive

>since men are so much more powerful then a child that means if a man is attracted to a child he will automatically force any child he can be alone with to have sex

I swear this is the feminists fault that such a dumb idea is so widespread.


 No.39364

>>39332

Overall this is not true but the truth is all feminist need is certain men to behave this way and use them as examples of how all men will.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / bbbb / fur / htg / polmeta / sonyeon / wai / zoo ]