Globohomo's chomopomo prophets openly talk about their love of pedos:
These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal, but somehow in bad taste. On the evening news, one sees handcuffed teachers, priests and Boy Scout leaders hustled into police vans. Therapists call them maladjusted, emotionally immature. But beauty has its own laws, inconsistent with Christian morality. As a woman, I feel free to protest that men today are pilloried for something that was rational and honorable in Greece at the height of its civilization.
-Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae
any child old enough to decide whether or not she or he wants to eat spinach, play with trucks or wear shoes is old enough to decide whether or not she or he wants to run around naked in the sun, masturbate sit in somebody's lap or engage in sexual activity... Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them. They need us badly.
Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous.
-Allen Ginsberg, The Liberation is the Word, literary author, gay activist and founding member of NAMBLA
This notion of consent is a trap, in any case. What is sure is that the legal form of an intersexual consent is nonsense. No one signs a contract before making love... When we say that children are 'consenting' in these cases, all we intend to say is this: in any case, there was no violence, or organized manipulation in order to wrench out of them affective or erotic relations.
-Guy Hocquenghem, Sexual Morality and the Law, signer of the 1977 petition against age of consent laws
Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.
-Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex, widely regarded as a founding text of Gay/Lesbian studies and Queer Theory
But pederasty is probably historically the most common form of homosexuality in Western culture, as well as many other cultures. It exists in all cultures, and in some is considered the norm, even today (e.g., Iran, among the Pashtuns). To label it 'child abuse' or 'child molestation' is preposterous and stupid.
-David Thorstad, rage email, president of both the Gay Activists Alliance and Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in NYC in the 1970s, founder of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), compared being a pederast in the US with being "a Jew in Nazi Germany"
It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside... The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.
-Judith Butler, Undoing Gender, most influential living gender theorist. She sees incest taboo as working towards heteronormativity and asks that prohibition on incest be rethought to prevent the "violation" that is heteronormativity.
If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual ... then I would not call it pathological in any way.
-John Money, Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, psychologist who forced a boy to be a girl and get humped by his twin brother after a botched circumcision. Both of the Reimer brothers committed suicide.
But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given. And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.
-Michel Foucault, The Danger of Child Sexuality, Pope of Chomopomo, most cited academic in grievance studies, signer of the 1977 petition against age of consent laws
Suppression of the natural sexuality in the child, particularly of its genital sexuality, makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of authority, good and adjusted in the authoritarian sense; it paralyzes the rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a general inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties. In brief, the goal of sexual suppression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all misery and degradation. Initially, the child has to submit to the structure of the authoritarian miniature state, the family, which process makes it capable of later subordination to the general authoritarian system. The formation of the authoritarian structure takes place through the anchoring of sexual inhibition and anxiety.
-Wilhem Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism
Other notable globohomo clergy:
Judge Brett Blomme, organizer of Drag Queen Story hour, made child porn in his home.
Henry "Harry" Hay, pioneer in US Gay rights, founder of the first sustained gay rights group in the US. Supported NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) and marched in the pride parade with a "NAMBLA walks with me" shirt.
Magnus Hirschfeld founder in 1897 of an institute deemed "the first advocacy for homosexual and transgender rights", considered homosexual "ephebophiles" as something common and nonpathological.
Simone de Beauvoir, lesbian feminist superhero second to none, of "every woman is homosexual by nature" fame, was one of the signers of the 1977 petition against age of consent laws demanding "recognition of the right of children and adolescents to maintain relationships with persons of their choice". It was in reaction to three men being taken to trial for grooming boys and girls under 15 years of age, but allegedly "without violence".
Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in California, of Oscar winning biopic about his life, and has a Navy ship named after him. Milk took advantage of his work with at-risk youth to groom at least one 16yo runaway Jack Galen McKinley who had substance abuse problems and lived on the streets of NYC (where the age of consent was 17). Jack would end up comitting suicide years later.
Pedowood is just the tip of pomochomo media:
Victor Salva's rape of his 12 year old actor is defended by intelligensia allies like John Edgar Browning.
Wikipedia is more pozzed than Charlie Sheen:
Rodney Reedraped a 12 year old and wikipedia covered it up for Shaun King's BLM bullshit.
There was a fellow on r/KiA2 who did the same thing. He tried to justify it by saying that Vaush had said that it's as bad as child labor. So I asked if he thinks that a 13-year-old working in a farm is as bad as doing child pornography. He said no, a farm is OK. A contradiction. Then he disappeared.
That is one fucked up way to look at it.
If pedophilia ever becomes "normal" in the west, I pray to God to end us all. We do not deserve to live if we can't protect our children.
Very few people financially benefit from gore, its distribution does not help to proliferate violence as a business unless you're watching a snuff film which IS illegal. You are seeing the horrors of the world in passing and it manifests all around you and there will likely be a time where you may have to directly see gore or conduct violence; the world is that unstable. CP is very deliberate and you have to be looking for it to find it, there will never be a time where abusing a child becomes necessity - and you are funding its continuation.
Anyhow all of this sounds like "waaaaah! waaaaah! why won't you let me diddle children?"
It's always hilarious how they pretend their hate-fantasies of other people are reality.
It couldn't be any more obvious that they're simply projecting their own inadequacies onto others.
It would probably drive them nuts to know that it's been shown that "right-wing" people get more sex, are more attractive, are physically stronger, exercise more, have greater aversion to revolting images, have a distaste for body odor, and know more about liberals and their beliefs than liberals know of conservatives.
But for a group of consumer retards who eat up make-believe echo chamber nonsense and consumer manufactured stereotypes, is it really any surprise that they live in fantasy-land?
Of course a group of degenerate losers would argue that it's morally ok to have such gross crap involving kids on their computer. They have no principles and will do mental gymnastics and use ridiculous strawman arguments to somehow twist reality to justify it.
Wanna know which people constantly scream about "incels"?
Those projecting their own insecurities and lack of any sort of meaningful sex life onto everyone else, and bitter roasties who only find value and validation through sex.
There really is no other explanation. Why else would who other people have sex with even matter within the context of any intellectual discussion?
Even funnier is that somehow these same people believe that by becoming "bi" or "gender fluid" it makes them not incels. That by sucking dick or pretending to be discriminated against — and thus unable to score — it makes them not fit into that category.
Again, all of these things are not surprising from a group that bases their entire lives around self-serving hedonism. Go into any leftist community and you'll very quickly realize what I'm talking about; their entire lives revolve around their feelings, consumerism, and sex.
There's so much more that could be said, but the reality is they're myopic ideologically obsessed losers who have been brainwashed by consumerism into an odious cult of narcissistic self-worship. Most don't hold a single individual thought or belief in their tater-tot brains, they just parrot whatever mantras or shibboleths help them fit in with the collective. Corporate simps you LARP that they're "anti-establishment" while being the single largest group consistently supporting and praising it. They're constantly whining about their "mental illnesses" — which are typically self-diagnosed or a Doctor just agreed and tossed pills at them to get them to shut up and get out — because in every facet of their lives they want attention for their make-believe "struggle." They want to feel like they're "overcoming" something and be praised simply for existing while simultaneously having something to point to for all of their failures that absolves themselves.
As a side-note, that guy in OP says "I watch gay porn, it didn't make me gay!"
Uhhhh, if you're beating off to gay porn then it most certainly did. You can say you're "bi," I guess, but you still like sucking dicks.
Which goes back to what I said earlier.
Either way, porn is trash and people should avoid it. I've always felt that way and always will.
I'm not too concerned about it.
It's likely that last line, but I also think it's completely true and there's good reason for it.
Porn desensitizes people — particularly men — and pushes them deeper in order to simply achieve arousal. This isn't anecdotal; it's been discussed and looked into. The worrying part of it is that it drives people further into fetishes that they may not typically have otherwise.
In summary: it destroys your sex drive.
If we're looking at it objectively, then what, exactly, are the benefits of porn?
Assistance in jerking off? That's pretty much the only thing I can think of.
That said, what are the negative consequences?
Besides what's already mentioned, there's a myriad of potential negative consequences.
I'm not telling people what to do — they can do whatever the hell they like — but I'm not going to pretend I support something that doesn't really have any benefits.
then what, exactly, are the benefits of porn?
Assistance in jerking off? That's pretty much the only thing I can think of.
What are the benefits of women?
What about the many negative consequences?
You can make anything sound bad if you just take the worst of it.
In general, agreeing with feminists is never a good idea and that's why nobody trusts anti-porn crusaders.
The leader of that movement famously said : "The place for a man is dead on the floor with a high heel in his mouth, like an apple for a pig."
Why on earth would anyone trust their research? Who benefits from the downfall of the porn industry other than manipulative women and OnlyThots, who get a stream of new victims.
Okay, but are they wrong in comparing it to gore? Do you guys think gore videos should be legal to possess? Especially from murder victims. Let's say pictures of people who have been murdered, who are under 18. If you want to criminalise footage of one terrible crime against people under 18, then you want to criminalise ALL footage of similarly terrible crimes, no?
I don't like the idea of the government criminalising data. That's all there is to it.
I won't shed any tears for it though. What I'm saying is entirely a matter of principle, not preference.
They haven't "gone nuts".
They're evil. They have always been this evil, they've just gotten worse at hiding it.
Gotten worse?
No, they think there's no need to hide it anymore.
let's not blame "evil", it's more technically accurate to call them degenerate.
No, they are the demonic embodiments of pure evil.
You sound surprised.
The Father of the Sexual Revolution, Alfred Kinsey, and creator of the Kinsey Scale of sexuality, conducted infant rape and documented it in his 1946 work Sexual Behavior In The Human Male. Bill de Blasio put pedos next to elementary schools. The Tavistock Clinic was doing mass medical tranny experimentation on children, but was fortunately slapped down recently by reactionary judges. In Germany, Dr Kentler gave foster kids to pedos, and green movement founder Daniel Cohn-Bendit bragged about a child sex daycare. A high school in Ohio included child porn as part of it's curriculum, and a high school in Texas was caught giving kids pedo fan fic.
Globohomo's chomopomo prophets openly talk about their love of pedos:
-Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae
-Pat Califia, The Aftermath of the Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of '77
-Allen Ginsberg, The Liberation is the Word, literary author, gay activist and founding member of NAMBLA
-Guy Hocquenghem, Sexual Morality and the Law, signer of the 1977 petition against age of consent laws
-Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex, widely regarded as a founding text of Gay/Lesbian studies and Queer Theory
-David Thorstad, rage email, president of both the Gay Activists Alliance and Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in NYC in the 1970s, founder of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), compared being a pederast in the US with being "a Jew in Nazi Germany"
-Judith Butler, Undoing Gender, most influential living gender theorist. She sees incest taboo as working towards heteronormativity and asks that prohibition on incest be rethought to prevent the "violation" that is heteronormativity.
-John Money, Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, psychologist who forced a boy to be a girl and get humped by his twin brother after a botched circumcision. Both of the Reimer brothers committed suicide.
-Michel Foucault, The Danger of Child Sexuality, Pope of Chomopomo, most cited academic in grievance studies, signer of the 1977 petition against age of consent laws
-Wilhem Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism
Other notable globohomo clergy:
Judge Brett Blomme, organizer of Drag Queen Story hour, made child porn in his home.
Henry "Harry" Hay, pioneer in US Gay rights, founder of the first sustained gay rights group in the US. Supported NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) and marched in the pride parade with a "NAMBLA walks with me" shirt.
Magnus Hirschfeld founder in 1897 of an institute deemed "the first advocacy for homosexual and transgender rights", considered homosexual "ephebophiles" as something common and nonpathological.
Simone de Beauvoir, lesbian feminist superhero second to none, of "every woman is homosexual by nature" fame, was one of the signers of the 1977 petition against age of consent laws demanding "recognition of the right of children and adolescents to maintain relationships with persons of their choice". It was in reaction to three men being taken to trial for grooming boys and girls under 15 years of age, but allegedly "without violence".
Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in California, of Oscar winning biopic about his life, and has a Navy ship named after him. Milk took advantage of his work with at-risk youth to groom at least one 16yo runaway Jack Galen McKinley who had substance abuse problems and lived on the streets of NYC (where the age of consent was 17). Jack would end up comitting suicide years later.
Pedowood is just the tip of pomochomo media:
Victor Salva's rape of his 12 year old actor is defended by intelligensia allies like John Edgar Browning.
Wikipedia is more pozzed than Charlie Sheen:
Rodney Reed raped a 12 year old and wikipedia covered it up for Shaun King's BLM bullshit.
Plebbit is run by tranny pedos.
tl;dr Not fucking children is somehow child abuse.
Last updated 18 September 2021
Imagine arguing in favor of child prognography just to defend a soy faced walrus pile of trash Marxist YouTuber
There was a fellow on r/KiA2 who did the same thing. He tried to justify it by saying that Vaush had said that it's as bad as child labor. So I asked if he thinks that a 13-year-old working in a farm is as bad as doing child pornography. He said no, a farm is OK. A contradiction. Then he disappeared.
That is one fucked up way to look at it. If pedophilia ever becomes "normal" in the west, I pray to God to end us all. We do not deserve to live if we can't protect our children.
https://c.tenor.com/9nz8nF-vNRIAAAAC/gay-news.gif
The great thing about 4chan is that you can pose as the other side, and then use screenshots to make them look foolish and evil.
Not saying that this is what happened here, but there's no way to prove it one way or the other.
Very few people financially benefit from gore, its distribution does not help to proliferate violence as a business unless you're watching a snuff film which IS illegal. You are seeing the horrors of the world in passing and it manifests all around you and there will likely be a time where you may have to directly see gore or conduct violence; the world is that unstable. CP is very deliberate and you have to be looking for it to find it, there will never be a time where abusing a child becomes necessity - and you are funding its continuation.
Anyhow all of this sounds like "waaaaah! waaaaah! why won't you let me diddle children?"
These arguments sound suspiciously like Paglia/Dr Money's.
lol, did you expect anything else?
It's always hilarious how they pretend their hate-fantasies of other people are reality.
It couldn't be any more obvious that they're simply projecting their own inadequacies onto others.
It would probably drive them nuts to know that it's been shown that "right-wing" people get more sex, are more attractive, are physically stronger, exercise more, have greater aversion to revolting images, have a distaste for body odor, and know more about liberals and their beliefs than liberals know of conservatives.
But for a group of consumer retards who eat up make-believe echo chamber nonsense and consumer manufactured stereotypes, is it really any surprise that they live in fantasy-land?
Of course a group of degenerate losers would argue that it's morally ok to have such gross crap involving kids on their computer. They have no principles and will do mental gymnastics and use ridiculous strawman arguments to somehow twist reality to justify it.
Wanna know which people constantly scream about "incels"?
Those projecting their own insecurities and lack of any sort of meaningful sex life onto everyone else, and bitter roasties who only find value and validation through sex.
There really is no other explanation. Why else would who other people have sex with even matter within the context of any intellectual discussion?
Even funnier is that somehow these same people believe that by becoming "bi" or "gender fluid" it makes them not incels. That by sucking dick or pretending to be discriminated against — and thus unable to score — it makes them not fit into that category.
Again, all of these things are not surprising from a group that bases their entire lives around self-serving hedonism. Go into any leftist community and you'll very quickly realize what I'm talking about; their entire lives revolve around their feelings, consumerism, and sex.
There's so much more that could be said, but the reality is they're myopic ideologically obsessed losers who have been brainwashed by consumerism into an odious cult of narcissistic self-worship. Most don't hold a single individual thought or belief in their tater-tot brains, they just parrot whatever mantras or shibboleths help them fit in with the collective. Corporate simps you LARP that they're "anti-establishment" while being the single largest group consistently supporting and praising it. They're constantly whining about their "mental illnesses" — which are typically self-diagnosed or a Doctor just agreed and tossed pills at them to get them to shut up and get out — because in every facet of their lives they want attention for their make-believe "struggle." They want to feel like they're "overcoming" something and be praised simply for existing while simultaneously having something to point to for all of their failures that absolves themselves.
As a side-note, that guy in OP says "I watch gay porn, it didn't make me gay!"
Uhhhh, if you're beating off to gay porn then it most certainly did. You can say you're "bi," I guess, but you still like sucking dicks.
Which goes back to what I said earlier.
Either way, porn is trash and people should avoid it. I've always felt that way and always will.
I don't understand why you got downvoted. Maybe the last line.
You're making really good points.
I'm not too concerned about it.
It's likely that last line, but I also think it's completely true and there's good reason for it.
Porn desensitizes people — particularly men — and pushes them deeper in order to simply achieve arousal. This isn't anecdotal; it's been discussed and looked into. The worrying part of it is that it drives people further into fetishes that they may not typically have otherwise.
In summary: it destroys your sex drive.
If we're looking at it objectively, then what, exactly, are the benefits of porn?
Assistance in jerking off? That's pretty much the only thing I can think of.
That said, what are the negative consequences?
Besides what's already mentioned, there's a myriad of potential negative consequences.
I'm not telling people what to do — they can do whatever the hell they like — but I'm not going to pretend I support something that doesn't really have any benefits.
What are the benefits of women?
What about the many negative consequences?
You can make anything sound bad if you just take the worst of it.
In general, agreeing with feminists is never a good idea and that's why nobody trusts anti-porn crusaders.
The leader of that movement famously said : "The place for a man is dead on the floor with a high heel in his mouth, like an apple for a pig."
Why on earth would anyone trust their research? Who benefits from the downfall of the porn industry other than manipulative women and OnlyThots, who get a stream of new victims.
I do not think they were even able to make a coherent argument.
https://odysee.com/@ShortFatOtaku:1/concepts-over-people:9
Okay, but are they wrong in comparing it to gore? Do you guys think gore videos should be legal to possess? Especially from murder victims. Let's say pictures of people who have been murdered, who are under 18. If you want to criminalise footage of one terrible crime against people under 18, then you want to criminalise ALL footage of similarly terrible crimes, no?
I don't like the idea of the government criminalising data. That's all there is to it.
I won't shed any tears for it though. What I'm saying is entirely a matter of principle, not preference.