One of the thoughts I have is. Why hasn't this been scientifically established? Haven't extensive studies been done already? Why do I have to go looking for this information? Why isn't the media telling me exactly what pedophilia is?
One fundamental problem has always been that it's kinda hard to get good studies on the matter. Most pedophiles don't exactly advertise themselves, and aren't likely to respond to request for a study on pedophilia for obvious reasons, so you're left with the imprisoned or the crazy ones that publicly talk about it. Neither of which give you particularly representative data.
One of the thoughts I have is. Why hasn't this been scientifically established? Haven't extensive studies been done already? Why do I have to go looking for this information? Why isn't the media telling me exactly what pedophilia is?
I'd say ethics is a large reason. To make a clear cut study into pedophilia you kind of need it to happen in either the past or present in order to observe it.
One fundamental problem has always been that it's kinda hard to get good studies on the matter. Most pedophiles don't exactly advertise themselves, and aren't likely to respond to request for a study on pedophilia for obvious reasons, so you're left with the imprisoned or the crazy ones that publicly talk about it. Neither of which give you particularly representative data.
I think not only the representative data. But I came across psychologists advancing the theory that it was simply an orientation. Which flies in the face of male sexuality. If that 21 year old is actually a 1000 years old due to magic, they'll fuck it, shes hot. But a 20 year old that looks like a 10 year old? Pedos won't touch it. Despite visually they have all the characteristics of their preferred age group. I think there is some fuckery going on.
I think not only the representative data. But I came across psychologists advancing the theory that it was simply an orientation. Which flies in the face of male sexuality. If that 21 year old is actually a 1000 years old due to magic, they'll fuck it, shes hot. But a 20 year old that looks like a 10 year old? Pedos won't touch it. Despite visually they have all the characteristics of their preferred age group. I think there is some fuckery going on.
There's obviously something there, whether you want to call it an orientation or preference or psychosis. I do suspect there is some complexity to the matter, and not all of it is the exact same problem. Like, a schoolteacher trying to bang a 16 year old student is pretty different in terms of the psychology behind it than, say, Ian Watkins, who literally pursued sex with a one year old baby. Both are generally accepted as morally wrong for a number of reasons, but whatever's going on it their heads is probably not that similar.
There's obviously something there, whether you want to call it an orientation or preference or psychosis. I do suspect there is some complexity to the matter, and not all of it is the exact same problem. Like, a schoolteacher trying to bang a 16 year old student is pretty different in terms of the psychology behind it than, say, Ian Watkins, who literally pursued sex with a one year old baby. Both are generally accepted as morally wrong for a number of reasons, but whatever's going on it their heads is probably not that similar.
For the record, if someone presents sexually mature regardless of their age, then if the person is an idiot, sure... they might try to get some action. But if someone presents their age as exactly what they are looking for, but is still an adult, and they aren't interested. Then I think the motivation behind that needs to be studied. Because biologically that makes little sense.
There was a clip on twitter last year of a class full of white young women on all fours twerking that I couldnt find due to the account being suspended. Somewhere around 50 with the white teacher recording with pride in a dance studio. This isn't a black thing.
I mean, yeah, white women can do that as well, but generally it's blacks the ones who find it attractive. I don't know man, even if it's actually attractive women twerking and not children, the whole dance looks too ridiculous to me. It's a bit of a boner killer.
I've done my bachelor's thesis in forensic psychology on this, which is why I'm very adamant about the specifics. Female pedophiles are much more of an enigma than male pedophiles. Typically, female pedophiles don't look at child pornography. Nor are they indiscriminate. Typically they go for boys. There is the rarer case where a pure female abuser will follow the pattern of a male pedophile, but this is a lot more uncommon.
There's really a lot we don't know about female pedophiles compared to male pedophiles. Probably because they go after boys and there's a societal standard that says this is more ok. It also has to do with manliness. You got to have sex with a hot older woman? What are you, a pussy? So, while female pedophiles will always offend like male pedophiles, the information we possess is so much more limited because they're not caught nearly as often.
Since they don't typically look at child porn at all, they're rarely caught in stings. Sometimes you will get a pedophile couple, but this is not as common. And since there's a double standard, a lot of female pedophiles go unpunished since its not reported.
That's whats odd. I see people saying Anime loli is the gateway. But no one ever mentions these super petite adults. Like fucking ever. It makes me think that no, anime loli has nothing to do with this, it's some sort of distraction tactic. After all, shouldn't these adults made up in schoolgirl outfits be the solution? But it's complete silence.
Well, how many times have you seen someone say 'Anime is pedophilia!' and they turn out to be actual pedophiles? Its basically deflection. Do anime girls look and act like real children? A lot of times, no. So why would pedophiles care? Its fake. They can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, just like we can. And they want the reality. Its why they aren't satisfied by drawings or petite pornstars.
The only thing loli does with pedophiles is delay their search for real child pornography. If loli didn't exist, there would just be a bigger lag period between them offending. It is an inevitability. It encourages nothing. If those urges are there, they're there for life. Looking at loli without any sort of trauma or the psychosis of pedophilia is not going to turn you into a pedophile, much like having rape fantasies is not going to turn you into a rapist.
Pedophilia is one of the most heinous crimes out there. And people think that drawings can magically make that shit happen? Bitch, please. To treat such things as fundamentally different from fake violence, fake rape and other harsh, violent fetishes that are simulated is a huge mistake.
Destruction is what it's really all about. With a drawing or a small adult, you're not harming anyone. But harming a real, live child is an intrinsic part of it all, isn't it?
Part of it is destruction, yes. Absolutely. Trauma victims might have misplaced rage and anger. Some are stuck in that mentality where there is such a strong association between sex and children, it forever warps them. Pedophilia is destruction. It is the absolute annihilation of innocence. Pedos wouldn't go for a 12 year old that is 1,000 years old. As much as people joke, pedophiles want child-like innocence. They want that naivety.
Pedophiles are lying when they say and believe 'oh, children can be sexually mature and consent too'. They don't want that, because if they did, they'd look at petite porn stars and things like that. They want that innocence. There was a story about a pedophile who babysat this girl who was practicing her ballerina moves and he got so aroused he had to go to the bathroom and masturbate. Do you REALLY think that looking at loli or drawings or petite pornstars is going to lead to something like that? You're fucking high if you think so.
One fundamental problem has always been that it's kinda hard to get good studies on the matter. Most pedophiles don't exactly advertise themselves, and aren't likely to respond to request for a study on pedophilia for obvious reasons, so you're left with the imprisoned or the crazy ones that publicly talk about it. Neither of which give you particularly representative data.
This. We only really have data about pedophiles that offend. The problem is pedophiles are extremely manipulative and it is very difficult to get good information from a pedophile who hasn't yet offended. Because there is no crime to analyze, you have to basically go on their word. Which are mostly delusions and lies. They will misinterpret normal child-like behavior as something inherently sexual. Again, warping your entire world view like this is not something that you can do by looking at drawings or things that are fake.
I'd say ethics is a large reason. To make a clear cut study into pedophilia you kind of need it to happen in either the past or present in order to observe it.
Another part of the reason is that if a psychologist talks to a pedo and the pedo admits fantasies of real children or children that they know, it is actually part of the law that the psychologist has to report that to the cops. So ethically, you really can't do research on a non-offending pedophile who has sexual fantasies about children in their lives. Its just not possible. Psychologists and psychiatrists have a duty to report that.
Also, pedophiles are never going to admit their behavior is abnormal. They will always try to normalize it or justify it. They're always on this crusade to say 'everyone would fuck someone younger'.
This. We only really have data about pedophiles that offend. The problem is pedophiles are extremely manipulative and it is very difficult to get good information from a pedophile who hasn't yet offended. Because there is no crime to analyze, you have to basically go on their word. Which are mostly delusions and lies. They will misinterpret normal child-like behavior as something inherently sexual. Again, warping your entire world view like this is not something that you can do by looking at drawings or things that are fake.
Also, pedophiles are never going to admit their behavior is abnormal. They will always try to normalize it or justify it. They're always on this crusade to say 'everyone would fuck someone younger'.
So really all we have is their actions as evidence. And their actions demonstrate they aren't interested in adults that resemble children. They aren't interested in drawings of children. they are interested in children, purely. So what baffles me. Is where are the psychologists that go... This isn't right. Sexually, Men are drawn to their visual ideal, and yet, when these peoples ideal is presented, if they are an adult, they refuse. Why hasn't anyone seriously written a paper about this?
One of the thoughts I have is. Why hasn't this been scientifically established? Haven't extensive studies been done already? Why do I have to go looking for this information? Why isn't the media telling me exactly what pedophilia is?
Pretty sure pedophilia was considered a mental disorder in the past, though I may be wrong about that. Once you get rid of the idea of "normalcy" it gets increasingly difficult to establish limits on what is and isn't. Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder too and that's no longer the case. Not equating homosexuality and pedophilia but the declassification of one probably has something to do with the other's lack of medical clarification.
Read the article but it doesn't seem to actually say what these regulation of the Internet benefits were. Can someone spell it out for me what Obama actually specifically did that benefits Netflix?
Read the article but it doesn't seem to actually say what these regulation of the Internet benefits were. Can someone spell it out for me what Obama actually specifically did that benefits Netflix?
Netflix doesn't pay for how much bandwidth they use somehow, reportedly. If that's true, I'd imagine it would have something to do with that. They'd go belly up faster the Kenosha burned if they had to foot the bill for all the internet they use.
Netflix doesn't pay for how much bandwidth they use somehow, reportedly. If that's true, I'd imagine it would have something to do with that. They'd go belly up faster the Kenosha burned if they had to foot the bill for all the internet they use.
If you're referring to what I think you are, it was part of the whole Net Neutrality farago where ISPs wanted to be able to double-dip by charging both their customer for bandwidth to receive and the source, e.g. Netflix, for sending. It would allow them to create effectively a multi-tiered Internet with companies coughing up extra money for priority packet sending and other technical dressing up of "fast vs. slow". I thought the idea was that it would actually benefit groups like Netflix and Google because it would create an expensive barrier to entry for their competitors.
I also don't like calling someone a pedo who doesn't go after real children because it devalues the term which is being overused as it is. But its already starting to become some sort of generic insult in internet shitflinging, sometimes based on the barest of pretense because it can destroy someone's life. So it might be kinda fruitless anyway.
Overusing a heavy word absolutely waters down its meaning over time. Not only that, it categorizes and compacts. You're a 'Nazi' if you disagree with hard-left woke culture. 'Rape' runs the gauntlet from brutal assault to an awkward pass on a bad date 20 years ago. Likewise, 'loli' and 'pedophile' are used on your average ResetEra thread about waifu costume designs.
But words like rape, Nazi and pedophile have serious implications. Stripped of their value, they're going to hurt less and less when real monsters appear. We're already seeing it with the 'MAPs' on Twitter. Instead of a massive backlash that (rightfully) points out how MAPs will urine soak the inclusion movement, the social justice brigade is looking the other way. In the case of Cuties, they're reacting exactly as you expect them to, talking about how brave this black woman is for making such a profound contextual statement.
I don't believe it's a coincidence. The Left knows how language and rhetoric work. Language is their weapon. They're bending and twisting big terms, and there is a reason behind it.
If you're referring to what I think you are, it was part of the whole Net Neutrality farago where ISPs wanted to be able to double-dip by charging both their customer for bandwidth to receive and the source, e.g. Netflix, for sending. It would allow them to create effectively a multi-tiered Internet with companies coughing up extra money for priority packet sending and other technical dressing up of "fast vs. slow". I thought the idea was that it would actually benefit groups like Netflix and Google because it would create an expensive barrier to entry for their competitors.
Idk and I dont remember. I don't think so though. What I was referring to specifically had to do with Netflix and sites like YouTube not all of the internet. I could be 100% wrong though.
That may have helped Alphabet since they have money to burn. Netflix has a 74-78% debt ratio and if they had to pay for how much bandwidth they use it would destroy them financially. It would probably destroy streaming as well, at least in the USA.
What an absolute fucking disaster! Given that this abomination is a French production, it's another episode of Common Filth Was Right Again. Seriously, the more time passes, the more I feel like an idiot for talking so much shit about him back in the day.
I recently watched the video below from Think Before You Sleep on child beauty pageants; given that they are a thing I can see why Netflix would think that shilling Cuties might find fertile ground among a Burgerfat audience. If you can stomach his nasal autism voice, he does make a lot of good points.
"Save yourselves from Hell."
Then again, I do agree with Null that this child softcore porn was not intended for commercial success or starting a "debate", but as an excuse for disgusting perverts to film little girls twerking.
Twerking looks like a mating dance monkeys do. The fact that black people like it so much doesn't help...
As for condemning without watching the movie. Maybe in the past people would have been more open minded to nuance but in this modern time where we can see case after case of something being condemned by outsiders/media without attempting to understand it, well...you reap what you sow.
Look. Even if Netflix marketed this all wrong and it's a misunderstood (rated NC-17 so the child actors aren't even supposed to see their own movie) coming-of-age film, it's about twerking 11-year-old girls. That's the entire focal point, not just one weird scene in the middle or at the end. If someone walked in and preteen twerkers were on your screen, what would be their first thought?
The night this first blew up, I told my wife there was controversy over an upcoming Netflix movie about twerking 11-year-olds. "Want me to pull up the trailer?" I asked. "I don't want that anywhere near my TV," she replied.
What an absolute fucking disaster! Given that this abomination is a French production, it's another episode of Common Filth Was Right Again. Seriously, the more time passes, the more I feel like an idiot for talking so much shit about him back in the day.
I recently watched the video below from Think Before You Sleep on child beauty pageants; given that they are a thing I can see why Netflix would think that shilling Cuties might find fertile ground among a Burgerfat audience. If you can stomach his nasal autism voice, he does make a lot of good points.
Then again, I do agree with Null that this child softcore porn was not intended for commercial success or starting a "debate", but as an excuse for disgusting perverts to film little girls twerking.
