Hate to say it, but anyone who was willing to have their dick measured while looking at child porn is probably someone who wanted to look at child porn to begin with
I’m 100% assuming, but there’s no way there wasn’t a disclosure form for having your genetalia measured while looking at illicit images of children. The legality aspect alone would make Big Pharma cringe.
He's still correct though. Imagine the lawsuits if this was the only project that would fulfill the requirements. That's even before you get into informed consent (which admittedly the clotshot gutted).
That said, I think people are slightly misunderstanding what he's saying. He's not definitively stating that everyone is interested in children (although that is his opinion), he's stating that's one option. He's basically making the 'spectrum versus binary' argument. The second 'option' he proposes is the standard 'you are or you aren't' binary. That said, it sounds like he does lean toward the spectrum version, based on the direction of his "research."
I'm curious about the rest of his argument, and what the 'third option' is. Probably some nonsense about 'active' versus 'passive' pedophiles.
Also, I imagine these fucks are pushing for the 'spectrum' answer, and we'll see that as 'accepted fact' in a few years.
The war on pedos is perhaps the most important cultural battle of our time. These people need consequences.
Exactly. The study is invalid from the start. Using such mutable words as kids/children, and then including pubertal hebephilia nomenclature. Gee whizz, people are attracted to sexual maturing. Shocker. Real pedophilia is bad. Hebe and ephebephilia is not. Those are natural, and even counted for in age of consent (which isn't the same as 18).
In Hollywood she could well be above 18 and they still claim the actor/producer took advantage of her and cancel them without investigation because believe all women.
You could also claim that everyone has some amount of homicidal intent. Should that change how we view murderers? Pointless "research" used to normalize pathological behavior.
What are "stimulating images", how did he acquire them, and why is he still above ground?
Those kids were apparently given him the ole "fuck me" eyes.
Absolutely. "I'm not sick, I'm totally normal, everyone's like I am!"
Plus, watch the video, the guy is creepy as hell.
drawn, quartered
shot, buried
chained, burned
I could keep going.
Hate to say it, but anyone who was willing to have their dick measured while looking at child porn is probably someone who wanted to look at child porn to begin with
Eh, I'd imagine you don't always know the full details of the study going in.
I’m 100% assuming, but there’s no way there wasn’t a disclosure form for having your genetalia measured while looking at illicit images of children. The legality aspect alone would make Big Pharma cringe.
How do you even go about doing that, though? It also sounds sketchier if you have to put it in writing!
Also, they mention 'stimulating' but I'm thinking it's not full on CP. They probably just play Cuties for you or something. Yuck.
Then again, I put nothing past academia. "Hey, come look at CP...for research!"
Ah yes the Kurt Eichenwald defense! It’s for research!
Or they’re a university student in a basic psych class who needs to participate in research projects to get a grade…
He's still correct though. Imagine the lawsuits if this was the only project that would fulfill the requirements. That's even before you get into informed consent (which admittedly the clotshot gutted).
Are they going to force someone to participate in a study with things on their dicks?
So...this dude's a pedo, 110%.
That said, I think people are slightly misunderstanding what he's saying. He's not definitively stating that everyone is interested in children (although that is his opinion), he's stating that's one option. He's basically making the 'spectrum versus binary' argument. The second 'option' he proposes is the standard 'you are or you aren't' binary. That said, it sounds like he does lean toward the spectrum version, based on the direction of his "research."
I'm curious about the rest of his argument, and what the 'third option' is. Probably some nonsense about 'active' versus 'passive' pedophiles.
Also, I imagine these fucks are pushing for the 'spectrum' answer, and we'll see that as 'accepted fact' in a few years.
The war on pedos is perhaps the most important cultural battle of our time. These people need consequences.
On Reddit, “children” includes 16 and 17 year olds. They scream rape when a 27 year old teacher fucks a 16 year old boy.
Yeah, I’ve been 16. I’d fuck the teacher and keep my mouth shut. Not rape.
Exactly. The study is invalid from the start. Using such mutable words as kids/children, and then including pubertal hebephilia nomenclature. Gee whizz, people are attracted to sexual maturing. Shocker. Real pedophilia is bad. Hebe and ephebephilia is not. Those are natural, and even counted for in age of consent (which isn't the same as 18).
In most states the age is 16. Some are 17, and only a few are 18. Of those that are 18, only two lack Romeo and Juliet laws: California and Oregon.
The “rape” articles are always about Hollywood people though, which will include any adult male having sex with a 17 year old actress.
In Hollywood she could well be above 18 and they still claim the actor/producer took advantage of her and cancel them without investigation because believe all women.
Academia will deserve what's going to happen.
Yes Inquisitor, this heresy right here.
You could also claim that everyone has some amount of homicidal intent. Should that change how we view murderers? Pointless "research" used to normalize pathological behavior.
And this just sailed past the ethics board.
Brb, flammenwerfer.
The german side of me wants to know how much he weighs. 5 minutes a pound should do it.
I noticed he didn't try to measure the "response" of women shown CP or whatever