I hate to inject some logic and reason into the chaotic ignorance that infects this thread but

I hate to inject some logic and reason into the chaotic ignorance that infects this thread but...

1) For there to be a "cure" there must first be a disease.

2) People being attracted to underage people is not a disease. For men, it's merely a habit they've gotten into. For women? Who knows.

3) Being attracted is a vague term itself. Everyone agrees that a pretty little girl is pretty. Even grannies admit so much. So are they pedophiles? So what's the difference? "Pedos" extend that attraction to their bodies as well as their faces. As I said. we all agree that a pretty little girl is pretty. So non pedos are either pedos or there is some other attractiveness that real pedos must find that most people don't. The pnly thing left after the face is the body. Therefore, "pedos" are adults who find underage people;'s bodies attractive. Make sense?

4) So what is so unattractive about an underage body in the eyes of the masses? Do they find it disgusting? Repulsive? I suppose some are. Fatties and the like.

5) No, they never think of it in these terms. They assume that if you find an underage body attractive then that means that you want to rape, torture and murder the underage person. How they make that jump of logic and reason I don;t know. Therefore, since they are illogical and unreasonable, their opinion on the matter is void.

6) Simply admitting that an underage body is attractive does not mean that the one admitting such a thing would or wants to have sexual activity with that underage person. That is an assumption that the ignorant masses make.

7) They are so dumb in fact, that the ones reading this have already assumed that I'm advocating sex with children, even though no such thing appears in my post. No really. They actually are that dumb. No shit.

8) The body is also different than the sex organs and anus, yet the ignorant masses think that if you find the body of an underage attractive that also means that you want to touch the sex organs and anus.

Attached: 84fee18cad.png (369x367, 88K)

Other urls found in this thread:

nudistfun.com/nudistvideoclub_oa138.jpg
youtu.be/SdJVI5zpra8

I’m sorry?

Dude you think you're smart but all you you said was: you can find someone attractive without being sexually attracted to them.

It's forbidden because children are easy to manipulate, meanwhile seeking child mates is a pathetic avoidance of actual fertile women. Within this you end up manipulating children in ways that would shame anyone, but without the child's understanding resulting in a kind of fridge horrror that produces revenge complexes and subsequently parental caution against such parasites.

You're a brood parasite, you eat eggs. Nobody likes snakes. Here, have a gay furry because it will ruin the thread a little.

Attached: 1583018750677.jpg (888x1000, 94K)

>They assume that if you find an underage body attractive then that means that you want to rape, torture and murder the underage person. How they make that jump of logic and reason I don;t know.
Normal people view children as sub humans to be bossed around. They assume that if they were attracted to children that would extend to being sexually exploitative. The connection they don't make is that people tend to value, respect and even idolize those they're attracted to.

Pedo detected.
Why justifying and projecting so hard? Sick fuck attracted to children, kys.

Kids are sexy, deal with it, sweatie ;)

Attached: 1496756711338.jpg (500x332, 48K)

I don’t think normies understand that people like us really do love little girls. We just want them to be happy

I don't understand that blue and orange picture. It's crazy land !

you use the term "underage", which means of an inappropriate age. then you say it's not a "disease" to be attracted to it.

it's obvious that being attracted to something that is inappropriate is not "easy", and causes one to be without "ease" to obtain it, therefore it is a "disease". QED

Then you accept they'll be dirty little goblins until they turn 15 and want to fuck Chad and become a dirty whore like all women.

Attached: 1582861470907.png (831x572, 589K)

>It's forbidden because children are easy to manipulate
This.

9) Many of these morons openly advocate online that they want to mutilate the sex organs of those who are attracted to underage people. This is evil , disturbing, and sick on a Serial Killer level sick. These people need to be put down for the safety of society. Perhaps they would like to have their sex organs cut off like they advocate having done to those who are attracted to undergage people.

10) Also, how would they like it if they were called rapists because they are attracted to a person of the opposite sex? In case they don't get the point (they don't) let me rephrase that. Assuming that I am a molester, child rapist, child killer, or even someone who would have sex with an undergage merely because I admit to myself (not even to others) that i find some of them attractive is the same as assuming that you are a rapist or murderer just because you find an adult attractive. It doesn't make sense.

The cops say "we can't take the chance". Well buddy, I can't take the chance of trusting you. Of trusting your "good nature" or your "reasonableness". My life is as important to me as some underage I never did anything to but might according to you, is to you. Therefore, using your own logic, I can't take the chance that you might overreact in regards to me.

Therefore, you must go and be exposed for all the rotten things you do to people in the name of protecting the "children". You've unleashed a Holocaust on thousand of people in this nation in a wild eyed effort to get the pedos "off the street". In the process you have comitted heinous crimes, felonies, and totally destroyed countless lives for good. Most of which are people who never did a damn thing to anybody else. What? They saw a drawing on the internet? Really? That's your big crime? Why go after the person who made the drawing when you can log the IP of the guy who looked at it and destroy him instead? It's easier that way. Right? well FUCK YOU. I'm coming for ya assholes.

I aint no peedoh but I am in agreement with you, OP. Further, I don't think they should be crucified if society is trying to be cool with this whole sexual identity spectrum thing now. I think the problem is while everyone can agree that acting upon pedophilia is wrong because not all parties involved possess the mental capacity to consent, it's uncomfortable to accept it as just another dimension of sexual attraction because it hurts the arguments of the homos and the furries.

Attached: 1573192348285.jpg (636x382, 45K)

God. XD first of all:
>People being attracted to underage people is not a disease.

yes, none said it is. It's a disorder which is diffrent thing.
> People being attracted to underage people is not a disease. For men, it's merely a habit they've gotten into. For women? Who knows.

Disorder: Irregularity, disturbance, or interruption of normal functions.

>Therefore, "pedos" are adults who find underage people;'s bodies attractive.

Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

>The body is also different than the sex organs and anus, yet the ignorant masses think that if you find the body of an underage attractive

I don't get whats so attractive about it, its simply not developed human and diffrences are not in shape of body, but amount of fat or so. But again i m not used to habit of looking on naked children.

P.S. if you find my definition or source invalid, find better one. Im here for you :P

had a good thing going there then you had to finish it on a whiny butthurt edgelord tone

Children can consent

hwell you just copy pasted the wikipedia definition, and wikipedia is not a valid academic source

You are just offering a two screen Plato's cave and your discussion is just casting shadow puppets. Seek truth instead of pre-established political goal.

Attached: platos_cave.jpg (1000x560, 183K)

Children can consent to driving a car on the freeway, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

SOME GENIUS WROTE:

" It's forbidden because children are easy to manipulate, meanwhile seeking child mates is a pathetic avoidance of actual fertile women. Within this you end up manipulating children in ways that would shame anyone, but without the child's understanding resulting in a kind of fridge horrror that produces revenge complexes and subsequently parental caution against such parasites.

You're a brood parasite, you eat eggs. Nobody likes snakes. Here, have a gay furry because it will ruin the thread a little."

Where in my post did talk about seeking a child mate? I don;'t see it. are you having hallucinations and seeing something that isn;t there? You see this is exactly what I;m talking about. This person ASSUMED that one who finds an underage attractive is "seeking a child mate". What a piece of shit to make such an assumption about someone else they don;t even know. These kinds of posts lead me to believe that the only thing worse than an actual child abuser is a child protection advocate or whatever the fuck they call themselves. You people are actually insane. How many people have you driven to suicide on purpose you worthless worm? Di you think your crime spree would go on forever because you hide behind the shield of being an anti pedo activist? You day is coming scumbag. The whole world will know your crimes.

Regular men are attracted to fertile women. Fertile women have certain shapes and sizes.
Your brain is fucked up and it makes you attracted to kids.
It is like wanting to eat the tree and not the fruit.
If you have urges around children, please stop.

Have you ever been diagnosed with autism?

to be fair, all people are easy to manipulate, aside from the small minority who do the manipulation.

If you have urges around adults, please stop. It’s NOT ok to be attracted to people past puberty

>Homosexuality (alternatively spelt fagzzzz) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to others of the same gender as his or herself.

Disprove my statement without disproving yours.


I don't think it's possible. In order to truly consent, they would need to fully understand the circumstances they are in, and project the likely outcomes -- short term and long term -- that would result. They would need to use that information to form their decision. And in many cases, they truly cannot perform these mental operations, because their brains have literally not yet developed the circuitry for the task. I can tell you that when I was a tween I would have let my gross old grandma-esque principal fuck me if she wanted to. I wanted absolutely anything. But I was driven purely by the short-term desire, and not considering any of the consequences.

Attached: 1573101530753.jpg (415x604, 50K)

You mean you are an pedophile and try to make it legal?

>when I was a tween I would have let my gross old grandma-esque principal fuck me if she wanted to
I don’t believe you

BTW This is a good thread. If not copypasta, you should go ask us weirdos in about this.

Attached: the_future.jpg (500x500, 91K)

>For there to be a "cure" there must first be a disease
i dont get the point is this about gays?
> People being attracted to underage people is not a disease. For men, it's merely a habit they've gotten into. For women? Who knows.
yeah happens usually to fucked up people and veteran coomers
>Being attracted is a vague term itself. Everyone agrees that a pretty little girl is pretty. Even grannies admit so much. So are they pedophiles? So what's the difference? "Pedos" extend that attraction to their bodies as well as their faces. As I said. we all agree that a pretty little girl is pretty. So non pedos are either pedos or there is some other attractiveness that real pedos must find that most people don't. The pnly thing left after the face is the body. Therefore, "pedos" are adults who find underage people;'s bodies attractive. Make sense?
sure thing
>So what is so unattractive about an underage body in the eyes of the masses? Do they find it disgusting? Repulsive? I suppose some are. Fatties and the like.
yes same with 100yo grandmas
>No, they never think of it in these terms. They assume that if you find an underage body attractive then that means that you want to rape, torture and murder the underage person. How they make that jump of logic and reason I don;t know. Therefore, since they are illogical and unreasonable, their opinion on the matter is void.
but all pedos are murder and shit bro
>Simply admitting that an underage body is attractive does not mean that the one admitting such a thing would or wants to have sexual activity with that underage person. That is an assumption that the ignorant masses make.
yeah but you kinda imply you would
>They are so dumb in fact, that the ones reading this have already assumed that I'm advocating sex with children, even though no such thing appears in my post. No really. They actually are that dumb. No shit.
unironically i thought ur a pedo
> The body is also different than the sex organs and anus bla bla
yes

Oh yeah dude. Sometimes she would lean over and you could see down her shirt to her gross old flappy grandma boobs, and I used to fantasize about that shit in the bathtub.

are we threatening people now

human sexuality is far more complex than that. biologically we are most similar to bonobo monkeys, who when observed in the wild are highly promiscuous, often engaging in homosexual, pedophilic, gerontophilic, incestuous activities. these behaviors serve social and recreational functions and are not only for the purpose of reproduction.

cunts like you, op, are the reason I'm glad I grassed up my friend over her being a shota bondage loving pedophile!

>biologically we are most similar to bonobo monkeys, who when observed in the wild are highly promiscuous, often engaging in homosexual, pedophilic, gerontophilic, incestuous activities. these behaviors serve social and recreational functions and are not only for the purpose of reproduction.
In summary most people are horny mother fuckers that cannot control their urges with shirks making them fell normal.

>these behaviors serve social and recreational functions and are not only for the purpose of reproduction.

That's an interesting point. Even us non-pedos would be down to fuck a wide range of people if it was just for fun and not held as a taboo by social norms. Seems natural that it should be just a fun thing for people to do with each other, rather than attach all this meaning and commitment to it.

Here we go again. Someone wrote:

"Regular men are attracted to fertile women. Fertile women have certain shapes and sizes.
Your brain is fucked up and it makes you attracted to kids.
It is like wanting to eat the tree and not the fruit.
If you have urges around children, please stop."

He says my brain is fucked up which makes me attracted to kids. This is absurd to the extreme. Beauty is beauty. It blows my mind what must happen to these people when they see a naked little girl. I bet they say "ewww grosss. How disgusting. Mommy make it stop!" What the fuck are they talking about? They act as if I don't find adult women attractive also. Look chump, I find a beautiful female attractive.. guess when? When she is beautiful. That's it. An obese little girl I do not find attractive. A beautiful one I do. What's the surprise? You assume it's a brain disorder, but the trust is you just WANT it to be a brain disorder so it all fits neatly into the bs you've programmed yourself to believe. You're so afraid of being labeled a pedo or of the idea that deep down you might actually be one, that you overstate evert single aspect of it lumping anyone who finds them attractive in with actual murderers. That alone should awake you up to how fucked up YOUR brain is.

Well. The terrifying thing about pedophiles is that. You see, there is sort of an epidemic of single mothers in society today, and these women would like to hook up with some nice male providers and settle down. We just can't have dirty pedos running around, capiche? What if one of these women were to let a pedophile into their own home right along their child?

The key is the difference between romantic attraction vs sexual. I love teens, they're cute, but wouldn't bang them, my dick wouldn't even get hard, I'm sexually attracted to curvy fertile women. The ones who would bang kids are I'll.

Sorry about the typos. No I'm not autistic, just typing fast and not proofreading.

By the by. I could crop a photo of a little girls naked ass a put it side by side with a cropped photo of an adult womans ass and ask you to guess the age. Or just not tell you and let you all go "oh yeah, baby" and every single one of these motherfuckers would lust on a little girls ass without knowing it. Yet, they act like they see some monumental difference that make some obviously "gross" and the other attractive. they are just lying to themselves plain and simple. Which would be find if there wasn't a trail of dead bodies in their wake.

Why do you think there is an epidemic? Where did all the nice male providers go?

>Which would be find if there wasn't a trail of dead bodies in their wake.
wait wat

What about the curvy infertile women? You just get mega droopy then?

Someone wrote: "What if one of these women were to let a pedophile into their own home right along their child?"

What if? Oh my god there's a man here who finds me beautiful! Oh no! Call the Army! Call the Pope! What the hell are we gonna do!!!!!!!

AGAIN you are conflating someone who finds underage people attractive with someone who would attack them. Stop throwing someone else's crimes onto me!

I saw it on the television

Someone wrote: "The key is the difference between romantic attraction vs sexual. I love teens, they're cute, but wouldn't bang them, my dick wouldn't even get hard, I'm sexually attracted to curvy fertile women. The ones who would bang kids are I'll."

Once again, conflating someone who finds them attractive with someone who would attack them.

As for teens, I guarantee I could find you a teen, and not tell you it;s a teen. and your dick would get hard. 100%.

Pedophilia is as problematic for society as for the person. I could just imagige the idea of not being allowed to love and have sex with who you want (Granted it of course has to be that way for obvious reasons). But the most twisted part is that these people can´t get help either since just saying you have the attraction = social suicide. So instead they have to live with the desire without any proffesional help. Some manage, some act, some kill themselves. A twisted thing it is.

>There are pedos who want to get help but can't
These people don't exist, from a scientific perspective.

someone wrote: " (You)
>Which would be find if there wasn't a trail of dead bodies in their wake.
wait wat"

First off, sorry about the typos. As for what I said. Does that actually surprise you? They openly say they want to cut our dicks off. They've been saying this for over a decade. So you thought people that insane are just blowing off steam on the internet and not organizing to "Do somethin' about it"?

So, yeah. They've already got innocent blood on their hands and they don;t care cuz it;s "for the children". Fuck them! Psychotic cold blooded killers.

Not everyone takes modern society’s narratives around adult-child sex for granted, especially not among pedophiles

Someone wrote: "Pedophilia is as problematic for society as for the person. I could just imagige the idea of not being allowed to love and have sex with who you want (Granted it of course has to be that way for obvious reasons). But the most twisted part is that these people can´t get help either since just saying you have the attraction = social suicide. So instead they have to live with the desire without any proffesional help. Some manage, some act, some kill themselves. A twisted thing it is."

Pedophilia is not a problem. Child rape is. Is heterosexuality a problem because some of them rape women? Are you a criminal because someone else raped a woman? It doesn't make any sense.

I agree with you about people not seeking help due to social stigma. But you can't get therapy to find something that is beautiful to not be beautiful anymore. It's retarded. What if you like to look at sunsets at the beach. And you say "it's so beautiful." But society thinks that's insane because everyone else is so normal and healthy. So they send you to a shrink to try to get you to not find sunsets to be beautiful anymore. It's fucking lunacy. You are talking nonsense.

It's just a matter of the state of the global panopticon, fren. Before long, all pedophiles will be revealed for what they are and dealt with. All children who have been molested will immediately be detected.

Probably a green text story about a mother daughter threesome.

You're not dating someone who finds you repulsive afterall

My dick gets hard over seeing a hot naked teen that has the body of an adult. I'm not going to fuck them though.

Also fyi, women feel the same way when they see a 14 year old boy who is muscular and good looking. Just look at all those beiber fans back when he first became popular.

It's 100% OK to be attracted, but not OK to try shit.

I do agree in principle with OP
For example, a lot of people have homicidal tendancies but never act on them.
There is also a constant REKT thread here that shows horrific accidents, and obviously some people are intrigued, but most would never want to see it in real life.
Attraction (sexual or otherwise) to youth is always vilified, but OP is right, it's not given the same treatment afforded to every other vice.
Without being able to be talked about without condemnation, this affliction will never be resolved.

I, myself, would never be attracted to anyone below generally the late teen age, but even these days some 15 year olds look over 18! Should I then be tarred as a bad person for being sexually attracted to (but never acting on) someone deemed underage?
It's these kind of conversations that need to be allowed to be talked about, so that we can better help with weeding out those with afflictions, against those that would act on them; again, like those who murder or those that just fantasize about it (thank you Hollywood writers).

someone wrote: "It's just a matter of the state of the global panopticon, fren. Before long, all pedophiles will be revealed for what they are and dealt with. All children who have been molested will immediately be detected."

Yeah, and before long everyone who attacks people who find underage people attractive but did nothing to any of them will be detected and outed for the sick twisted shit they do to them and they will be dealt with. By the way, those kids who get molested, yeah they get targeted by the anti pedo groups who say that most molesters are molested when they are kids. So the very kids they are trying to help become victims of the helpers. And they don't wait until their adults to do it. They start attacking them when they are still kids., So take your high horse and shove it.

go masturbate to piper perri or something, or are you not able to cause she isnt underage?

Not sure if trolling or retarded. Getting help and getting cured are two different things so even from your perspective I am correct.

Not really sure what you are intending at here? Most pedophiles realise their urge is wrong, look at every single "Caught" video out there. Almost all of them know it is a negative thing from societies viewpoint and most also know that it is wrong.

There's really nothing to talk about though.

You can fuck anyone that can give consent. Children can't legally give consent. Therfore it's illegal to fuck them/possess pornography of them

Murdering is wrong too.

Someone with homicidal tendencies that doesn't act on them is OK in society. It's not OK though to drag people out of bars and beat them 'half' to death. Police will still charge you with assault.

Andy Sixx fucked my ass when I was in kindergarten

Some brainiac wrote: "go masturbate to piper perri or something, or are you not able to cause she isnt underage?"

I had to look her up. Anyway, if you read the thread you would already know that I am attracted to and want to fuck adult women. And yes I wank to adult women. The fact that you think that if someone is attracted to underage people automatically means that they are not attracted to over 18 people shows your ignorance.

In addition to that, just how were you all "cured"? Most people do it for the first time before they are 18. And according to the morons "there is no cure". So how were you cured if there is no cure?

Brainiac: That was different, I was 15 at the time.

OP: Oh, so a 15 year old dick going into a 15 year old pussy causes no physical, emotional, or psychological damage, but if the dick is 18 or above, then she's ruined for life? Also, you lusted for an underage girl when you were underage. You fucked one. You look back at your years in high school when talking to old friends and say things like "That Mary, she was a smoking babe." Because that's what you thought in high school. But now you are an adult. Why don't don't you look back at yourself in disgust?

Do you agree that underage people are all pedophiles? Therefore, everyone should have their gentials cut off according to the anti pedo brigade.

if you want to have actual sex with a minor and condone sex with kids and the production and distribution of videos featuring the act of fucking a child you are a pedo.
if you find a child attractive dont mention it and dont try to argue its fine to find them sexually appealing, because there really isnt a point for doing it. the damage done to children who had sex with adults is well documented.

>getting help or getting cured
How is this relevant to anything? Pedos probably don't go out of their way to identify themselves as such because they know everyone hates them. But this in itself is just speculation. There can't be a cogent scientific opinion on a matter when no data exists. I simply stated that they don't exist for the sake of brevity.

I had sex with adults as a kid and I'm fine. People tell me I'm not and that I can't possibly be fine and will take behaviors that were otherwise not a problem and suddenly start seeing them as "symptoms" of the damage done from having sex as a kid with adults. It's fine for adults to fuck the shit out kids

Another Mensa member chimes in.

They say "if you want to have actual sex with a minor and condone sex with kids and the production and distribution of videos featuring the act of fucking a child you are a pedo.
if you find a child attractive dont mention it and dont try to argue its fine to find them sexually appealing, because there really isnt a point for doing it. the damage done to children who had sex with adults is well documented."

Starts off by giving a false definition of pedophilia.

Then says don't tell anyone if you find them attractive but wouldn't do anything with them. And that's good advice.

Then says the damage done to children from having sex with adults is well documented. Again. I look back at my posts and I don't see where I said it wasn't. This is called a strawman argument. That is where you act like I said something that I did not say and you attack that and then sit back acting like you won the argument. Epic Fail.

Attached: 1502047220584.png (500x500, 210K)

it makes you wanna fuck kids apparently, so it fucked you up big time, idiot.

fuck off pedo

Don't worry. There's no actual damage done to the kids, outside of maybe a torn asshole or getting poked in the eye during rough sex

No, the ones who fucked me weren't fucked up either. It's fine. If they want to fuck kids, that's good for them and the kids. The kids who grow up to be kid fuckers are no different than those who introduce games or music to kids that they learned when they were kids. It's just passing down traditions.
If you played with model railroads as a kid and then introduced kids to model railroads, that's not fucked up

Yet another mental giant adds his two cents. While taking in all the relevant facts, doing in depth research on the topic, and applying logic, deductive and inductive reasoning, he tops that off with heavy dose of critical analysis and gives us his insightful comment on the topic! And here it is:

" (OP)
fuck off pedo"

>claiming fucking a kid compares to introducing them to new toys
"nah, im not fucked in the brain for life"

Anecdotes like this are interesting. There is a theory that children that were molested and went on to molest children themselves, would have grown up to be pedos regardless of whether they were molested to begin with. And the fact that they were molested in their youth merely reduced the inhibition they had toward molesting children themselves. Interesting but ultimately anecdotal.

I'm going to part with this link to a sweetie pie. No, I do not want to fuck her. But if you look at this photo and see something gross, then you are gross. I see a sweet, beautiful little girl and I love her.

nudistfun.com/nudistvideoclub_oa138.jpg

It's a logical fallacy to assume that truth lies in the middle of 2 claims

I guess this pic summarizes Plato's allagory of the cave

You bring up a great point
How illegal was it to have/watch a video containing Tracy Lord (17 during most of her porn career)?
Should all who watched or bought them be retroactively beaten up or thrown in jail?
I know it's an extreme case and I nowhere near condone children or teens in pornographic images, but these are where some have been vilified in the past for.
They simply looked and saw an attractive 'woman'. They were not acting upon anything, didn't see age, but any attraction to this is then deemed 'pedo' by the world.
Most images on Cred Forums are even by girls/women taking and sending pics of themselves nude. Who is to say what actual age they were at the time of 'consentually' posting?
Again, this is only an extreme case, clear children should be off limits and that is the moderators job here.
But anyone would hate to have their entire life destroyed simply because they looked at an attractive person who ended up being 17.
You are right, ownership or distribution of clear child imagery should remain illegal. But always be careful about the grey area, because that is how lives get ruined; just for an attraction, the world will turn on people without a heartbeat.

It’s society’s viewpoint that is wrong, and I can assure you sir, that “most” pedophiles absolutely do not agree with society’s contention that they are evil monsters

1) Absolutely grant you this. There's no way to "cure" intrinsic qualities.

2) Not a disease, but if kept unchecked can be incredibly dangerous. Historically we've fucked kids, but it seems like it's not psychologically health for them.

3) Pedophiles often are attracted far more to children AS children, not necessarily their form alone. The voice, mannerisms, etc. are just as important to some as the body.

4) Youth is incredibly appealing. I don't think it goes much deeper than that.

5) At times people pair having sexual attraction to a body to wanting to sexually interact with the individual who has that body. For kids, this can constitute rape due to the child's lack of psychological capacity to consent.

6) Maybe, but this needs to be qualified when such is the case. I can say my nephew is pretty cute/handsome without having any sexual interest in him.

7) I don't know if you're advocating sex with children, but I don't know if I'm on board with the framing you present.

8) No disagreement here, but I still think interacting with children can be dangerous and we should maybe try to prevent it from happening where harm could be possible.

Hope this makes sense to u user.

OP, you're a pathetic creature. In other words, a faggot.

Well done OP.
in your quest to justify your bias you missed actual relevant data pertaining to your subject.

We're all attracted to different things throughout a day or a week or a month.
If that's a barley legal 18-year-old model in a string bikini promoted by H&M or your wife's best friend the key isn't to feel shame about the attraction.
The key is to not act upon it so that you harm others. Especially children.

Attached: MV5BNjY0NzU3MzQ1NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzg[email protected]@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,679,1000_AL_.jpg (679x1000, 62K)

>Being attracted is a vague term itself. Everyone agrees that a pretty little girl is pretty. Even grannies admit so much. So are they pedophiles? So what's the difference? "Pedos" extend that attraction to their bodies as well as their faces. As I said. we all agree that a pretty little girl is pretty. So non pedos are either pedos or there is some other attractiveness that real pedos must find that most people don't. The pnly thing left after the face is the body. Therefore, "pedos" are adults who find underage people;'s bodies attractive. Make sense?

Not true. Everyone can appreciate a strong person or a good physique.
Me looking at Arnold Schwarzenegger and thinking his body is something good is categorically different than me finding him sexually arousing.
Finding him sexually arousing would tell me something about my inner psychology and my desires and my appetites.

It's wrong to feel the attraction in the 1st place
It's a mental illness

Why is a different taste from you a mental illness? If someone has a favorite flavor of ice cream that is different from yours, are they mentally ill?

Way to vomit fallacies.

Not an argument.

Correct.

>Why is a different taste from you a mental illness
Yeah I have an appetite to eat sand, toilet paper and my own hand

None of these are mental illnesses to you?

None of them are even slightly analogous to appreciation for the beauty of children.

>analogous to
Dipshit. Mint chocolate chip is analogous to pedophilia?

>It's a mental illness
I don't have my copy of the DSM-V within arm's reach but I'm pretty sure it isn't treated as a mental illness, but rather as a general health issue unrelated to any illness.

Yes.

Then an appetite for sand is as analogous.

>a group of people says its not a mental illness and they wrote a book so I'm right!

Retard.

Why not?
Sex with children is not the right thing to do. Kids can't have babies.
It's fine if you have a gross appetite to have sex with a kid (ie a novelty or something like people who are curious about touching a dog's dick or trans porn), but to think that is your sexual orientation or if its the only thing you can get off to, is a mental illness.

No, it isn’t. I’m sorry you have a very low IQ

Don't be. I'm not the one who seems developmentally arrested enough to peak at that level of rationalization.

>>a group of people
are you ready to challenge literally the leading psychological institution in the fucking world and their publications?

Prefering blonde or brunette women is analogous to mint chocolate chip vs vanilla ice cream

Wanting and having a compulsion to only eat toilet paper is analogous to wanting sex with children

Tell me WHY they are correct
You can't just say "because XYZ people said so"

>1) For there to be a "cure" there must first be a disease
The idea of 'cure' was dropped long ago, now there is only treatment. Also, learn the difference between illness and disease.
Pity your thread shit itself that early.

>Why not?
Because appreciating the beauty of children is not similar to some rabid impulse to consume random materials or anything in sight
>Kids can't have babies.
Prepubescents are only temporarily infertile. They grow up. Pedophilia does not damage one’s ability to reproduce.
>but to think that is your sexual orientation or if its the only thing you can get off to, is a mental illness.
You should express this more clearly: “stop liking what I don’t like”
No, it isn’t. I’m sorry you have a very low IQ

Appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious when that authority has greater manifest knowledge and research on topics than others do. The DSM-V is a comprehensive publication from the American Psychological Association. You are an user. Should I shrug off the leading psychological organization and trust some user on Cred Forums instead?

I am of the opinion that there are many more pedophiles in society than are cognizant of this fact. It could very well be the case that such in-denial pedophiles pose an even greater risk of attacking children. It should be possible to detect them as well given the right technologies.

>don't be sorry
>no it isn't
You really do have the mind of a child.

I think this post is a great example of the fact that normal people’s opposition to adult-child sex is based pretty much exclusively on complete ignorance of pedophilic desires. No pedophile wants to “attack” children, that is unequivocally not a pedophilic impulse. We only desire consensual, loving, and mutually enjoyable sexual relationships with children.

>No pedophile wants to “attack” children
>desire consensual, loving, and mutually enjoyable sexual relationships with children.
pick one, u cant have both.

Are you actually retarded?

This is a good distinction. Only when a pedophile has actual other mental health issue do they explicitly want to enact abuse against kids. Any self-conscious pedophile will realize that kids overwhelmingly lack the psychological maturity for a relationship. The goal is not to eradicate the interest a la conversion therapy, rather the goal is to develop healthy coping strategies to overcome the attractions.

Hahahaha.

No. Many like you have said the same, and yet they've been caught distributing illegal pornography, or worse, after a given period of time. There is no consensual. There is no loving. There is mutually enjoyable. You motherfuckers, you're all like spoiled toddlers. When some of you actually get your hands on a child, it's a crime scene.

I think you radically misunderstood my point

Fuck, for once I support the gay furry.
OP, you should try Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic pistol.

>There is mutually enjoyable
>There is no mutually enjoyable

In society, the definition of having any sexual relation with a child is analogous to an attack. It's just how it is.

i think it would be easy for you to grant me that children at large lack the psychological capacity to sustain a relationship.

even if it isn't explicitly an "attack" it's still almost always incredibly coercive. we can't even determine any distinctions because we can barely qualify the maturity to consent, much less determine a metric by which to measure this capacity.

Society does believe this, but it's a lie, it’s a monstrous myth, it’s evil
No.

Keep telling yourself that, hero.

pedophiles are always rapists because any sexual contact with a child is rape in every scenario

What about the scenario where they are willing participants?

>No.
Do you have some research to determine that children have the psychological capacity to participate in a constructive romantic relationship?

its still rape by law and by common sense because they are too young to understand what being a willing participant means

based dubs

but have u considered that law and common sense aren't a good basis for determining these things?

Face it though, we regularly coerce children in all ways, children do not have full human rights until after they have been through our socialization programs and grown up. The fact remains, the sexual violation of children is not tolerated in society, even though it is difficult to put your finger on a precise reason why. We ought to just assume that it turns them into pedophiles like some kind of zombie disease. And that is what we tend to assume.

Poe’s law
Such research is impossible at this point in time and to my knowledge was never conducted while it was possible

Bullshit. Humans don’t have instincts.

>Such research is impossible at this point in time and to my knowledge was never conducted while it was possible
Lying little gremlin.

>Such research is impossible at this point in time and to my knowledge was never conducted while it was possible
then you absolutely have to concede that we have no evidence that children have the capacity to partake in romantic relationships with adults. in fact, the data i have seen shows the opposite, that generally children are not able to form constructive romantic relationships with adults.

No, I absolutely do not.

they are absolutely a good basis for determining these things grown adults who are attracted to children likely see them as peers cause they never matured and mentally grew into adults themselves this does NOT excuse their bullshit behavior like the rest of us they need to grow up

then provide evidence that children can partake in constructive romantic relationships with adults.

The many historical examples of functional relationships between adults and children

These are not modern day examples

ok but do you have anything from psychologists about such relationships?

Gold star next to your name
This is a topic which psychologists have scarcely understood

>lalalalala I can't hear you

>This is a topic which psychologists have scarcely understood
which of course means you can totally just assume shit and pull it out of your ass since there's no evidence. that's totally how psychology works.

who is this guy? and why is he associated with shitting every time???

Autists.

Why should we assume psychologists have always held perfect knowledge of the things they deal with even though they emphatically deny that, especially with regards to adult-child sex and pedophilia? Why should we expect psychologists to know much about a very specific sort of adult-child sexual experience, even though they tend to look at those very broadly? Why should we expect psychologists to know more about adult-child relationships than pedophiles despite the fact that pedophiles engage in such relationships at a far higher rate than any other demographic in the population?

Cause they are the experts and their position is politically paletable.

>Why should we assume psychologists have always held perfect knowledge of the things they deal with even though they emphatically deny that,
of fucking course not. but i do not have to grant you anything without psychological evidence. this is something i imagine is tough to study, but you should be able to provide at least some modicum of a psychological case in your favor.

Note that no one said anything about perfect knowledge. Note that it is the specific job of psychologists to know about psy-cho-lo-gy. Note that the concept of adult-child relationships, sexual or otherwise, have been examined copiously for time immemorial. Are you seriously suggesting- of course you will, because you're not thinking right now.

You're reacting. You're rationalizing, you filthy fuck. A behavioral psychologist can choose to deal specifically with child development, and not only do you want to ham-fistedly imply that even the most obsessed or consumed psychologists looks at children broadly, but that psychologists, psy-cho-lo-gists, are to know less about adult-child relationships than the diddler down the street.

Shit for brains.

You're really giving psychologists a bit too much credit there. It is, afterall, a soft science. And looking at the state of mentall illness in society today, you can't even argue that they have done an acceptable job. But they are what we have in this day and age, so we are going to listen to them. It really comes down to none other than politics.

Non pedos arent pedos. We usually say a young guy or girl looks cute so they have fucking self esteem moron

How about historical evidence? It is a fact of history that there have been many functional romantic relationships between adults and children. You may not hand-wave that away simply because this fact is not a psychologist’s. opinion. This is a topic which psychologists are profoundly ignorant on and are typically deeply influenced by society around them. The vast majority of psychologists, all to my knowledge except the handful of experts on pedophilia, hold the exact same common misconceptions as the standard person, and those handful of experts are just starting to understand things about it that pedophiles have known as long as there have been pedophiles, after many decades of hostility and willful ignorance.

>You're really giving psychologists a bit too much credit there
Because the diddler down the street can't even establish a soft science, to begin with. Behavioral psychology is further removed from soft science, to begin with. Unless you want to invalidate the concept of neurology, you had better stop while you're ahead.

It isn't even that the soft sciences are worthless. They just become something for you to attack when they don't support your desire for kid diddling. It must be because it's all steeped in politics, it's a soft science, it's not good, don't pay it any mind.

>psychology hasn't done a good job of curing mental illness
Did you think that this was the purpose of psychology? To cure? Dipshit.

>You may not hand-wave
It's antiquated. You don't even seem to communicate that you understand the concept of an anthropologist, or a historian, or the fact that all of those things can become interdisciplinary.

Attached: 0a1.jpg (643x820, 80K)

Yeah, yeah. So what though. It's a matter of politics. Society has alot to gain from this pedophile bogeyman. So do any persons of influence who might seek to take advantage of this situation. It's beneficial to feminists because the vast majority of pedos are known to be men. It's beneficial to authoritarians because it gives a compelling reason to seek stricter regulations on speech and surveillance and stuff. It brings more funding to law enforcement and child protective agencies. the list goes on.

We're rigged to be attracted to teenage girls.

Most children look different from that, but some inevitably have an older looking face with less baby fat and it confuses us into being attracted to them. Better get over it kid

Attached: csn.jpg (1072x1564, 283K)

history is irrelevant to me. i am more interested in the psychological effects and indications of psychological capacity.

Age of consent used to be 10 before Christian socialists lobbied to change it

>It's antiquated
If children are incapable of romance and sexuality with adults by nature rather than as a consequence of the stigma attached to such relationships in modern times then it should not matter how ‘antiquated’ it is.

Do you think you can learn of the psychological effects of adult-child romance apart from actual instances of it?

>brings more funding to child protective agencies
The pedophile would hate well-funded child protective agencies, huh.

Here's a fun can of worms for you: slavery.

If they can consent then why is child porn illegal. It's illegal because they more than likely dont realize what they are doing and thus it's not consent its tricked into being sexual

>Here's a fun can of worms for you: slavery.
I accept your concession.

Being attracted to young girls is perfectly allright.

>attack when they don't support your desire for kid diddling
Now, now. Whos to say that you aren't the one who really desires to diddle kids. Politics are what create the strongest binds on society and though they are mercurial in nature, it is not conceivable that fucking children will become acceptable anytime soon.

Then can you present psychological cases in favor of children having romantic relationships with adults?

Attached: 6264343_0.jpg (630x630, 43K)

The many historical examples of functional relationships between adults and children

That's not a concession, idiot. You spent all of 0 seconds running away from that uncomfortable landmine, and it shows. Sub in slavery for what you just typed. Try to make the same objection, in favor of slavery.

Prove your claim of antiquity not having any basis here.

>Whos to say that you aren't the one who really desires to diddle kids
Me, idiot.
>Politics are what create the strongest binds on society
Not the politics you're thinking of.
>Politics
>mercurial in nature
See, you're an idiot. Define mercurial, and then repeat what you just said about politics not incorporating child-fucking any time soon, you diddling fuck. The so-called strongest binds on society can't both be inherently static and fickle.

>The many historical examples of functional relationships between adults and children
can you link to a SINGLE psychologist making an analysis of this kind of relationship?

No, he can't. He likely has the functional trimmings of an 8 year old.

>That's not a concession, idiot. You spent all of 0 seconds running away from that uncomfortable landmine, and it shows. Sub in slavery for what you just typed. Try to make the same objection, in favor of slavery.
I legitimately can’t tell if I’m being trolled, or if you’re actually so stupid that you genuinely don’t realize this is a total red herring

You think slavery is misleading and unrelated, when we're talking about taboos and what's not antiquated?

Do we need a psychologist to tell us if a relationship is functional or not? Have you perhaps ever thought of doing your own research instead of waiting for an authority figure to come along and tell you what to believe?
Also, I’d like to make the point right now that the ignorance of psychologists on these relationships does not validate their rejection of them, it means their opinion on this topic is irrelevant

I think you’re trolling me

>Do we need a psychologist to tell us if a relationship is functional or not
Since you started this by trying to hoist the psychologist onto your boyfucking side, yes.
>doing your own research
Motherfucker, really?

>Do we need a psychologist to tell us if a relationship is functional or not?
Yes, to an extent. A psychologist can identify potential psychological harm to given parties in given dynamics. I do not have the qualifications, much less the knowledge, to conduct this kind of psychological research.

>The so-called strongest binds on society can't both be inherently static and fickle.
Retard confirmed. Politics are a complex system that you can't simply abstract. It is something driven many groups of stakeholders who's interests conflict and align. Really stupid to claim that it cannot be both static and fickle, especially in the context of such a short timeframe as a human lifespan.

Have you heard of Rind et al.

>>Whos to say that you aren't the one who really desires to diddle kids
>Me, idiot.
found the actual pedo, lel

just give the doi you fucking retard

>People being attracted to underage people is not a disease.
Yes it is, and the cure is a bullet to your brain stem. Get murdered, pedofag. I hope it hurts.

>Politics are a complex system that you can't simply abstract
>can't simply abstract
>Politics
>complex
>abstract
>complex system
>can't abstract because it's complex
You dumb fuck. Picture related.

You have typed with your fingers, that politics are driven by many groups of stakeholders. That does not speak to the idea that it can't be abstracted. That does not speak to the idea that it can't be abstracted because it is complex. That does not alleviate the contradiction of saying that the nature of politics is mercurial, but that politics will also never allow for something. You dumb, dumb fuck. If the political policy, being known as the principle of action, is driven by many groups of stakeholders who hold different fucking stakes because of their fucking designation, their fucking namesake, then the fucking policy, which is abstract to begin with, will be pulled and pushed by the varying interests of each stakeholder. That's not even considering the ethics that get enshrined in policy, which is an even more abstract concept.

It's fucking mercurial, or it isn't. Human history isn't 70 years. Use your fucking pygmy walnut.

Attached: 1572167469139.png (743x201, 15K)

>pic not even related
I did not say never, I said not anytime soon. Political shifts are similar to a waveform and there are many many layers at many different wavelengths. For every political initiative, there is a counterforce and a ebbing, waxing action. Of course there is a potential annihilation of a political opponent that could disrupt this cycle. All these things have played out many times throughout history. besides, we are talking about one fucking issue dumbshit. and on a reasonable timeframe, kiddie fucking will not become legal. What, are you trying to argue otherwise you imbecile?

>I did not say never
>I said not anytime soon
Which is why you conveniently forgot this:
>Really stupid to claim that it cannot be both static and fickle
because while you vomit the idea that
>Political shifts are similar to a waveform and there are many many layers at many different wavelengths
there's this thing where you typed
>Politics are a complex system that you can't simply abstract

So let me get this straight. Ignore all the ways I just provided for you to abstract politics. You can't abstract politics, because it's a complex system. You can't abstract politics, because it's an abstract system, but there are many different "wavelengths" to politics.

Oh, that's a real concrete-sounding sentiment right there. Forget the absolute insanity that comes with insisting that overlapping wavelengths can be considered static. Forget the absolute insanity of trying to peddle the idea of overlapping wavelengths known as politics, playing out through human history, also having some sort of value to a "reasonable timeframe". Not any time soon, huh. But these things have played out many times throughout history, so, sure, this one fucking issue is supposed to prove that politics are both static and fickle within a reasonable time frame. Oh, but it won't happen in a reasonable time frame, something we've only recently doubled back to saying. Not any time soon, but, believe me.

Ebbing, and waxing, and fucking brainlets. It's waning and waxing, you fuck.

>yet the ignorant masses

tldr; Edgy teenager found out about his pedo-sexual tendencies and tried a "I against the uneducated world" strategy.

in the same universe

OP world fuck his brain out with some imported loli-looking doll from china and forgot his rant about the masses

This fucking cope. Omg user, you're such a fucking faggot, who cares what you think on a ching Chong board?

You're the one who picked such a retarded position to defend.
I used the language
>any time soon
To roughly indicate a timeframe being discussed in a very specific context. Your abstraction is:
>The so-called strongest binds on society can't both be inherently static and fickle.
How is that even relevant to begin with. You made an assertion that references eternity. It is clear that you are very mad and that is a sad thing. I can't help but be amused. Maybe that makes me a bad person, to be amused about how mad you got online. But even though i'm a bad person, i'm correct. what can i do?

9) Yeah I would agree that castrating pedophiles is probably not going to do much in terms of good, and it will likely bring about more harm at the end of the day. It seems like supplying people with therapy to learn coping mechanisms is far more productive.

10) The main difference between pedophilia and other sexualities is that in the latter, all parties are expected to be adults. Children cannot, to our knowledge, consent meaningfully, much less do they have the capacity for that kind of shit.

Fuck cops. I think we can agree on that one. Cops generally don't do good in resolving disputes, much less de-escalating situations.

I don't know if I'd liken the harmful views as genocidal, but they're definitely excessively violent where rehabilitation and provision of coping mechanisms would be more productive.

Where the fuck did op go btw?

Hopefully plenty if they're like you. We don't have enough suicide nowadays. We need to get those numbers up.

youtu.be/SdJVI5zpra8

>You're the one who picked such a retarded position to defend

>Politics are what create the strongest binds on society
Oh, I typed that?
>To roughly indicate a timeframe being discussed in a very specific context
Oh, do specific contexts now matter and have validity? What about psychologists? What about all those historic examples? I'd love to know.

>How is that even relevant to begin with
Because your dumb ass was trying to use it as a defense.
>You made an assertion that references eternity
Point to it.

>i'm correct
>what can i do
Rationalize kid diddling, and suffer from arrested development. You're behaving like a child.

Here we go, first its females, then ist was gays, then its trans, and now the peods wanting their "rights".


Why are pedos sick? Cuz evolution does not benifit from them fucking kids.

KYS NIGGER FAGGOT PEDO

>benifit

Attached: 1583056621159.png (368x488, 119K)

Op hasn't posted for a while it seems. I do not think that you are op, and I certainly aren't. You kept accusing me of being a kiddie diddler. Barking up the wrong tree. Psychology, being a soft science like economics and sociology are ultimately subservient to political change. They always have to make adjustments because politics determine the status quo for our perception of human behavior. I certainly do not support adults having sex with children in this era.

>spends a whole paragraph to say "you can find someone attractive without wanting to fuck them"

Holy shit never before in my life have I seen a bigger white flag in an argument than I see right here

You got it

You know what, I read through your reply faster than I should've. This whole thing is pants-on-head retarded. What the fuck do you mean by
>Your abstraction is
?

That's not a fucking abstraction. That's a fucking statement. And while I still wait for you to point me to "an assertion that reference eternity", I can't wait for you explain what that even means, or why it's relevant. Nevermind the question of if it even exists, I want to know what that does to this disagreement.

>You kept accusing me of being a kiddie diddler
When people call you a nigger, do you assume it in the literal sense as well? What could have given off that impression? What could you have said, that warranted the exaggeration of you having fucked a child in the real? Furthermore, why would you take the label of kiddie diddler with such sincerity, when it clearly doesn't apply to you?

Hmm? You spent a lot of time defending a lot of things that speak favorably about kiddie diddling. There you go again, with psychology being a soft science, as if that discounts anything from before. Completely ignoring the interdisciplinary phenomenon, or the overlap with hard sciences when it comes to the pressing matter of understanding the human mind. Not one of the strong objections to this persistent theme of "soft sciences bad" and "politics bad" seems to have taken root in your mind.

Now, why do you think I call you all these things. Trends and norms do change. Notice that this has never been contested. And beyond that, it doesn't change the fact that a psychologist is going to know more about the damage of child fucking than a pedophile- or a pederast. It's illogical to conclude that. That goes for much of what's been stated in favor of child-fucking. Scroll up. No one who
>certainly does not support adults having sex with children in this era
makes most of these arguments so dearly.

I mean, what the fuck is this.

It's cause you sound like a mad dog frothing at the mouth. learn some respect.

>you sound like a mad dog frothing at the mouth
Am I supposed to know what this is an answer to?

Am I supposed to care?

Be my guest. Don't care how you look. brush up on your stylometry. You keep attributing posts to me that some user wrote. You're the one who makes a gross exaggeration in order to manufacture a contradition in order to take me to task because you apparently misidentified me as someone who must be wrong at all costs. Then you proceed to pay all costs. Now what are you left with? looking dumb.

>inject some logic and reason
>precedes to spout illogical, untrue, moronic bullshit

>Nobody likes snakes
I do. Lots of people do..

Also, lots of other animals eat eggs so your analogy is for shit, furry faggot.

No fucking idea..
Pretty much my opinion.

You'll never stop me. I probably fuck or get sucked by 30 different people under 17 per year. They're willing, and never manipulated. QQ about it. You can't stop me, and the kids love me. Plus I teach them things early, so they're careful later in life.

>stylometry
You have expressed the same sentiments and ideas in several posts. Whole arguments that say the same thing. Express the same thing. And those are supposed to be different anons. And I'm supposed to care about the opinions of others in a sea of piss. No, no, let's be polite. You fucking faggot.

>You're the one who makes a gross exaggeration
Nigger, do you read?
>What could you have said
>that warranted the exaggeration of you having fucked a child in the real
Let me just find the moment where I said I wasn't exaggerating. Wait, it doesn't exist, I have just finished communicating the same thing to you moments before. What a coincidence.

>gross exaggeration
>in order to manufacture a contradition
Now that's bullshit. I'm
>taking you to task
because you decided that you wanted to take that route. You're doing it right now, even still. You don't have to be wrong at all costs. No one is making you wrong when you're not.

You're going out of your way to say some seriously dumb shit. Including the schoolyard-esque retorts. We're not in the playground anymore, calling me a big meanie doo-doo head won't do anything. Oh no, you said I looked dumb.

But I can patently demonstrate the dumb shit you're liable to type without thinking, oh no.

>we regularly coerce children in all ways
and i think we should maybe minimize that.

>You have expressed the same sentiments and ideas in several posts. Whole arguments that say the same thing. Express the same thing. And those are supposed to be different anons. And I'm supposed to care about the opinions of others in a sea of piss. No, no, let's be polite. You fucking faggot.
literal schizo. watch the blood pressure.

>Also fyi, women feel the same way when they see a 14 year old boy who is muscular and good looking
my sides kek

>defaulting to the "you're crazy" response

>Politics are what create the strongest binds on society
>they bad

>You're really giving psychologists a bit too much credit there
>soft science
>they bad
>politics
>afterall

>holding mention of word choice and placement of adjectives

>none other than politics
>it's a matter of politics
>strongest binds on society
>their opinion on this topic is irrelevant
>left-field decision to compare politics to a waveform
>fucking up waxing and waning
>trail of toothless insults

>It's 100% OK to be attracted, but not OK to try shit.
Says you.

Attached: 1523764955428.jpg (1500x1125, 791K)

tldr, i´m not even going to read all of that shit.
if you want to touch children in an unappropriate way, you deserve to get punched.
learn the fucking difference between finding someone pretty and finding someone sexually arousing. and don´t talk about logic when really you´re just trying to jusify your perverted sexual desires, asshole!