Post: #1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948...males.html

Quote: "Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

This is how it begins: with murmurings in special academic conferences. Soon it will spread through the rest of academia, then through elite opinion-makers/journalists and will finally be injected into the public at large through the media/entertainment propaganda apparatus (should you doubt its efficacy, recall this would be the same propaganda machine that turned approximately 1/3 of formerly anti-homosexual Americans pro-homosexual in under a decade. This is also the same propaganda machine that has a long history of celebrating and harboring pedophiles within its ranks, from Bryan Singer to Roman Polanski). This will first be sold under the guise of protecting homosexual and transgender teenagers. We will be told that it is unconscionable to deny 16 year old homosexuals and transgenders the right to have sex with older lovers, because opening up sexually to their peers may make them a target for bullying. This will then be extended down to 14 year olds, then 12 year olds and by that point the thing will be done. Your sons and daughters (or your grandchildren, certainly) will be taught in school that "intergenerational sex" (the progressive euphemism for pedophilia) is natural and desirable, especially if its with a member of the same sex.

Perhaps you think I'm being an alarmist. In that case I'd ask you: what exactly is it going to take for you to understand these people are fundamentally twisted? Your 14 year old son coming home and telling you that he learned in school that being sodomized by 40 year old homosexual perverts was a healthy rite of passage for all young men? Your 12 year old daughter being molested by some guy she met online because the media portrayed such relationships as being cool?

This is why I continually harp on the point that ambivalence toward the progressive sexual agenda (notably homosexuality) is not enough. If you've ever started a sentence with something like, "Well, I don't care if the gays want to get married, but..." then you are part of the problem. You should care, because they aren't just going to stop with getting married. That's only the beginning. Your tolerance has been weaponized and is being used to destroy your culture and corrupt your children (or your future children).

It is the ultimate cop out for men like us to express tolerance for these degenerate destroyers of society. Our tolerance is not a virtue, it is simply a form of cowardice. It has become the easiest thing in the world to express tolerance these days. Everyone is lauded for doing so, and every single major institutional force in the West, without exception, is 100% pro-tolerance at this point.

But what exactly are we being asked to tolerate? Objectively speaking, it is nothing less than the absolute destruction of the family and all the traditional support structures that allowed for the creation, growth and maintenance of families (marriage, religion, community, patriarchy, etc...). Why is this being done? It's very simple: in the absence of families to raise and provide for children, the government must step in to act as teacher and provider. We can already see this process well underway in the American black community. The elimination of the family is the ultimate and irreversible step toward a total government capture of the individual himself. It is basically the endgame of the elite, the final stage of world government in which capitalism and communism become indistinguishable, where corporations and banks are the state, and there is no possible distinction between citizen and consumer. The individual becomes utterly helpless, dependent on the government/corporation to meet all his needs. He has fully regressed from a free man into a slave.

The family is the cornerstone of Western civilization. Great men are built by families, they don't spring from the ground fully formed. The progressive assault on traditional sexuality and marriage is nothing more than an attempt to completely destroy the concept of family in the West. Marriage, formerly the bedrock of the family cemented by a lifelong partnership of husband and wife, has been replaced by promiscuity or serial monogamy at best, robbing the family unit of the stability needed to optimally raise children. The introduction of homosexual marriage was nothing more than a Trojan horse to eliminate the very idea of what marriage should constitute within society: the fundamental building block of the family designed to produce and nurture children. Now that homosexuality has been fully accepted, we can see they are shifting toward increased degeneracy in the form of pedophilia. This is not a random occurrence, and in fact was entirely predictable (and was predicted by many). This is simply what happens when men who know better remain silent, when men are intimidated into expressing "tolerance" rather than speaking out against degeneracy and perversion being thrown in their faces.

Tolerance is cowardice. Remember this article, and that ambivalence toward these matters is nothing less than acquiescence to your children and grandchildren being legally groomed by pedophiles. The next time you're out with people and some kind of homosexual, transgender or other degenerate progressive sexual topic comes up, express your disgust and disapproval. Refuse to go along with the crowd, even if it gets you some heat. The truth is that a large, silent minority is with you, and your boldness might even draw out a fellow supporter or two from the group as well. What began as an exercise in progressive groupthink could turn into an ideological gut check for everyone involved. At the very least, the progressives will know that there are still men out there who will not be cowed, that there are still men out there who think for themselves and who will stand up for what they believe.

And above all else remember that ultimately this concerns you and me very little. What's really at stake is the future. What would you think of your grandfather if you knew he had tucked tail and ran away in the heat of some battle? Understandable? Maybe. But certainly not commendable. Well, today's battle is cultural rather than martial. Our cowardice is therefore not fleeing from violence, but from the possibility of social opprobrium, professional censure and general vilification. We did not ask to fight this battle, and yet we find ourselves in it. So we must speak up, and speak out against what we know to be wrong.

Tolerance is cowardice, and the entire West is currently a cultural battlefield. Act accordingly.

Post: #2

I have been saying this would happen for a long time.... Remember, we have to accept everyone. This is just a sacrifice the kids will have to make.

Post: #3

Like it or not, capitalism and democracy are vanishing. The sheeple vote for whatever social justice cause comes up, without thought as to what possible effect it could have. More proof that democracy is a waste of time. Hobbes was right.

Islam is the future. To some extent, it can't come quickly enough. Radical Islam will do horrible things. But it'll also unfuck a lot of what modern liberalism has done.

Post: #4

So it's only gonna be men having sex with boys, not men having sex with girls, right?

Post: #5

"This is why I continually harp on the point that ambivalence toward the progressive sexual agenda (notably homosexuality) is not enough. If you've ever started a sentence with something like, "Well, I don't care if the gays want to get married, but..." then you are part of the problem. You should care, because they aren't just going to stop with getting married. That's only the beginning. Your tolerance has been weaponized and is being used to destroy your culture and corrupt your children (or your future children)."

Dude WTF man?

Why all the homophobia?

You act like gay people having rights is a sin.

Post: #6

Next up is tranny acceptance, not legalized pedophilia. The left hates pedophiles same as everyone else does.

Post: #7

That has been around for a long time.




Kinsey hired pedophiles who had orgasm experiments done on them - among them were kids and toddlers who were 6 months old. (BTW - Kinsey overstated promiscuity back then by picking a lot of prostitutes and thus overstating the amount of men and abortions that the average woman would have had.)

The UN has been pressing for decades for childrens' right for sex:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/un-group...g-abortion
http://www.pop.org/content/unicef-should...-or-unisex
http://www.beatit.co.za/siyayinqoba-beat...tional-sex

Now - lowering that age to 16 or 15 might be fine, since girls have often sex by that age anyway, but the agenda won't stop there. It will take those points and push on where it really wants to go - the ability for anyone to have sex with any kid until age 0. (Kinsey's perception of an orgasm at age 1 was crying btw.)

They will sell it as a right, but what does it mean? It means that a 10-year-old can legally "choose" to have sex with a bearded guy in a van.

But I am not so sure, whether they will manage to push it through that fast - we might see lowering the age of consent to 15-16 in the next decades, but lowering it to 10 or below is not going to be easy, unless we live in a completely open 1984-like dictatorship already.

And it won't be as funny as with Jon Lajoie:

Post: #8

Potential article in HuffPo Gay Voices in the not-so-distant future

Deconstructing Straight Parenting Privilege & Gay Adults Rearing Gay Youth, by Charles K. Hornmeister, Ph.D.

The systemic homophobia that paints gay people as insatiable sexual predators leads me to preface my essay: the gay community does not condone pederasty or pedophilia. Centuries of painting us as degenerates has lead me to lead-off with this statement. Sexual contact with a person who has not yet reached their sexual majority is not consenual and is sexual assault. Period.

That disclaimer aside, one thing that pains me as a gay man is the ignorance of hetero parents. Gay kids don't get the privilege usually of being born to gay parents, they are born to -- at best -- clueless heteros who most likely have never questioned their unearned privilege of being straight. Parents can love their gay kids all they want, but love alone is not enough to understand the pain of a gay person in an all-too-straight world.

While America has come a long way -- and an even longer road lies ahead -- previous generations of gay people had to fight for our rights. Just to be seen, to be recognized and celebrated for our mere existence -- like straight people! -- was fought tooth and nail by gay people from Stonewall to Lawerence v. Texas to current debates on gay parenting. These generations of gay people are strong, fierce and defiant as they have stood down the rank ignorance of religious bigots, closeted homophobes and the general heteroracist patriarchy that viciously oppresses anybody who isn't a white, heterosexual man.

As such, it should go without saying that these elder statespeople of the gay community have a vested and moral interest in gay youth, the people who will take up their mantles as revolutionaries and gender pioneers. They fought for visibility, they fought for rights. Now the fight shifts to the rearing of gay youth.

One of the most stubborn buttresses of heterosexual privilege is the privilege to raise gay youth. Yes, babies aren't born with little rainbow flag stickers proclaiming, "I'm gay and proud of it!," but it is painfully obvious that it is straight people who make gay babies. Since privilege blinds itself to those who have it, straight people haven't spent much time in their life obsessing over their sexual identity. When a gay child comes out to their straight parents, the straight parents lack the appropriate tools to empathize with their child due to heterosexual privilege.

Enter gay adults. Adults who have come to terms with their gender identity. Adults who are not blinded by the crushing weight of heterosexual privilege. In sum, adults who can care because they were forced to care because of heterosexual supremacy.

Social conversations on gay youth and their relations to older gay people needs to shift soon and dramatically. While a hug from your clueless hetero Mom might feel good, if she has never dated a woman openly, she is blinded to the emotions her daughter or son might be feeling. If the child is a daughter, she needs to talk to a gay woman, a woman who has been out and proud for many years of her life.

In New York or L.A., gay youth have the privilege to join organizations like Gay Queens Empower Gay Princesses and The Girl To Woman Gay Alliance aimed at erasing straight parenting privilege by providing gay youth adult mentors. While these organizations are important tools to dismantle heterosexual gender norms, they are insufficient because most every gay child does not come a supportive home and many do not live in large, progressive cities.

Thus, schools and state agencies should be the primary vehicles for gender transformation of straight parenting privilege. Mandatory inclusion of gay parents in youth literature, sex-positive education starting -- at the latest -- the general onset of puberty and stand-by gender officers who are versed in feminist gender theory and can handle any issues of homosexuality, bisexuality and any other gender-related concern. Compassion and love alone are insufficient vehicles to revolutionize heterogendered society, education and empowerment are the keys to this car, but not the final piece to cure this ill.

Gay adults need to be brought into directly in gay youth's lives. While tolerance and education are paramount, the final key is gay adults co-parenting gay youth with straight parents. Much like how the state comes along side parents to rear their young, gay people need to brought in as another type of co-parent. A gay teenage girl cannot be taught the norms around lesbian sex by her mother, much less her father who most likely objectifies lesbians in his pornography preferences.

I've danced around this a bit, but what true equality, empowerment and tolerance look like is gay people lifting up gay people. Straight parents can and should love and celebrate their gay children, but they are insufficient to reduce stigma around homosexuality and gender non-conformity. As family norms evolve, most likely gay youth will transition away from their straight parents when they come out as gay. Gay collectives might crop up in cities where gay children and teenagers can live away from their heterosexual parents and learn from actual gay people who understand them in a way their parents never will.

While my last suggestion may never come to pass, straight parents need to understand that gay adults -- perhaps their age -- will enter their child's lives and engage in parenting they are too privileged to do. This has been going on for centuries -- with heterosexuals pretending we are sodomizing their children -- and needs to be brought into the light of society.

Instead of assuming pedophilia, we need to assume the goodness of homosexuals. I shouldn't even have to shine the light on the bigotry of worrying over pedophilic homosexuals in 2017, but the norms and contours of heterosexual privilege are complex and highly resistant to deconstruction.

The oppression of homosexuals leads to introspection on gender and sexuality that results in a more complete and compassionate person. In an ironic twist, homophobia leads gay people to be better people than heterosexuals. It is doubly sad the straight people project what they perceive as perverse sexual desires onto gay people while denying our superior insight into morality and power.

This is a final and delicate point, but homosexuality can lead to our questioning about consent and age. Age of consent laws are based out of conservative and bigoted notions of who gets to have sex and fall in love and who does not. Bigots immediately retort that we are seeking to have sex with young boys or girls, but we are not. We respect our own but we also know what it was like to be a young teenage boy or girl with eyes for our teacher or friend of a parent. Professionals like teachers should never engage their clients as anything more than clients, but gay people understand, deeply, what it feels like to desire somebody you can't have.

To be sure, the complexity of gender and sexuality won't be solved in our lifetimes. Yet, we can slowly work towards an understanding of straight parenting privilege and empower the brave gay adults who came before gay youth. We can and should connect gay adults with gay youth and start to tug at the strictures of heterosexual parenting. We can challenge norms on parenting and foster more compassion and tolerance. We can also loosen conservative notions of sexual repression based out of fear, intolerance and bigotry. It starts with straight people sitting down, shutting up and letting gay people lead the conversation. It needs to start now.

Post: #9

Historically, the only force that has been effective in regulating public morals has been organized religious institutions. In whatever form (the Jews with their codified laws and scholars, the Catholic Church with its organized authoritative structure, or the Moslems with their Qu'aranic laws and traditions) religious faith has been found to be indispensible to rulers who wish to maintain public order.

The state can't be everywhere at all times. It needs the assistance of the guardians of supernatural forces, to keep man's destructive instinctual urges in check. It has always been so.

But in the West, Christianity has been in decline for a long time. No one really listens to (or fears) the Roman Church.

In previous ages, it was different. People were kept in line by adherence to religiously-sanctioned moral codes. Today, not so much so.

Nothing else is as effective. You can't keep people in line with admonitions. You can't keep them in line with laws. They need to feel--and believe--that the hounds of Hell will be nipping at their heels if they embrace filthy degeneracies and depravities.

I don't know what the answer is. But it's clear that the old morality is under severe attack.

Post: #10

(07-08-2014 12:43 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Like it or not, capitalism and democracy are vanishing. The sheeple vote for whatever social justice cause comes up, without thought as to what possible effect it could have. More proof that democracy is a waste of time. Hobbes was right.

Islam is the future. To some extent, it can't come quickly enough. Radical Islam will do horrible things. But it'll also unfuck a lot of what modern liberalism has done.

What, you mean like like sodomizing young men?

Apparently you haven't read The Kingdom in the Closet. Riyadh is so gay, it makes San Francisco look like an episode of Leave it to Beaver.

No shit.

As for the designed destruction of the west wrought by cultural marxism, one need to simply read the books lauded by the movement. Eros and Civilization by Herbert Marcuse created "sexual liberation" and expounded upon Freud's theory of infantile sexuality he termed polymorphous perversity - or the idea that infants are ready to demonstrate any kind of sexual behavior, with any kind of pleasure, without any kind of restraint (what a sick fuck).

You can read more at an article entitled The Age of Polymorphous Pervisity, Part One:

Quote:In order to understand the shift that Dawson foresaw and that ultimately took place, it is necessary to look back to 1909, when Sigmund Freud released his understanding of human sexuality. Trying to understand something as powerful as sex, Freud turned to what he called the “infantile” stage of human development, and identified the leading characteristic of infantile sexuality as polymorphous perversity. Freud explained: “What makes an infant characteristically different from every other stage of human life is that the child is polymorphously perverse, is ready to demonstrate any kind of sexual behavior, with any kind of pleasure, without any kind of restraint.” He then explained how “civilization” emerges only after this innate, polymorphous perversity is restrained by psychological repression, social form, and custom. Such restraint, Freud felt, was inevitable and indeed necessary, for procreation is necessary for the continuation of the race, and therefore heterosexual coupling was absolutely essential for civilization itself.

Even if we finally reject Freud’s theory, it is crucial that we understand its influence. Freud is no doubt one of the ideological horsemen of the twentieth-century apocalypse, but even he was outdone by those who came after him.

In the second half of the twentieth century, Herbert Marcuse revisited Freud in his book Eros and Civilization, mixing his theories with those of Marx in order to develop a theory of sexuality as liberation. The whole problem, Marcuse thought, was the very restraint that Freud believed was inevitable and necessary, the repression that Freud saw leading to civilization itself. According to Marcuse, the only way to achieve liberation is to undo that repression, to reverse that restraint, and thus to unleash in society itself that infantile stage of pure sexuality–of polymorphous perversity.

When Eros and Civilization appeared in the 1960′s, it received much attention on college campuses–where such ideas are always met with an enthusiastic audience–but the rest of the culture remained largely unaware of, and untroubled by, the assault that had begun to take place upon the very foundations of civilization itself. Now, in the year 2005, it has become obvious that this ideology of polymorphous perversity is inch by inch–if not yard by yard–gaining ground. Read the daily newspaper, or just review the events of a typical week. Even something as basic as the heterosexual nature of marriage is now very much under assault. The very idea of normality, or of fixed institutions, is being subverted by the culture and marginalized by cultural elites.

The answer is a full stop return to Christianity in the west. Nothing else will suffice.

Freud, Marx, and Marcuse were all jews (or so-called jews) subverting Christian civilization and a true restoration to Christianity would put an end to that.

Post: #11

I don't care how liberal they are no parent is going to allow their 13 year old daughter to be with a 30 year old man. It'll be a very cold day in hell.

Post: #12

delete

Post: #13

(07-08-2014 01:14 AM)Coldfire Wrote:  I don't care how liberal they are no parent is going to allow their 13 year old daughter to be with a 30 year old man. It'll be a very cold day in hell.

True,

but I think they're going for the opposite: 30+ y.o woman with young boy/girl. Just see how many stories of old female school teachers banging their young students coming out these days.

I've seen titles of movies from "arts" festivals that are about that topic (female teacher having "affairs" with teenage boys/girls).

Post: #14

If by "children" they mean "aged 15-18", then I agree.

Post: #15

Homosexuality should never be compared to paedophilia. It's consenual sex between two adults vs. non-consensual sex between an adult and a minor.


The whole point of laws of consent around the world is to safeguard children who lack mental capacity / maturity to protect themselves by giving informed consent.


Paedophiles are probably the most hated people in the world. Preying on children will get you fired from your job and segregated in prison so you don't get murdered by inmates for being a 'rock spider'.

Post: #16

(07-08-2014 01:14 AM)Coldfire Wrote:  I don't care how liberal they are no parent is going to allow their 13 year old daughter to be with a 30 year old man. It'll be a very cold day in hell.

Disagree. as recently as the 80's it was common. It's not such a stretch to think it's possible...

Post: #17

(07-08-2014 01:14 AM)Coldfire Wrote:  I don't care how liberal they are no parent is going to allow their 13 year old daughter to be with a 30 year old man. It'll be a very cold day in hell.

Go back and study your history, that was the natural way of most of the civilised world during the Greek and Roman eras. It's not something I'd be happy doing, but consider Ecclesiastes 1:9

Quote:"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #18

(07-08-2014 01:46 AM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:14 AM)Coldfire Wrote:  I don't care how liberal they are no parent is going to allow their 13 year old daughter to be with a 30 year old man. It'll be a very cold day in hell.

True,

but I think they're going for the opposite: 30+ y.o woman with young boy/girl. Just see how many stories of old female school teachers banging their young students coming out these days.

I've seen titles of movies from "arts" festivals that are about that topic (female teacher having "affairs" with teenage boys/girls).

Yeah - but I don't see a problem with 15-year-olds banging their female teachers.

Also in some poor countries like South Africa 15 year olds getting an older sugger-daddy who will pay for school and college is not so bad.

The problem starts a little more down the line, when sex with pre-puberty kids is allowed.

Post: #19

Well the positive side effect would be pushing the legal age for chicks back a few years.

Just saying.

Post: #20

^ I could have gone my whole life without seeing that GIF

Post: #21

It's from this "ballet" (SEVERE TRIGGER WARNING. MEN IN UNDERWEAR):





Anyway sorry for the derail. As you were.

Post: #22

(07-08-2014 02:12 AM)Benoit Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:14 AM)Coldfire Wrote:  I don't care how liberal they are no parent is going to allow their 13 year old daughter to be with a 30 year old man. It'll be a very cold day in hell.

Go back and study your history, that was the natural way of most of the civilised world during the Greek and Roman eras. It's not something I'd be happy doing, but consider Ecclesiastes 1:9

You don't even have to go back that far. It was fairly common for a man to take a wife barely into her teens in the US west in the 1800's.

Mail order brides were also common due to the great disparity in numbers between men and women on the frontier.

Like most marriages back then, romantic love didn't enter into the equation, rather security and resources were the drivers.

Post: #23

You're not going to see legalized pedophilia being promoted by the left in any meaningful way.

To be fair to this topic the age of consent laws in the US are fairly screwed up. There are states where an 18 year old guy can get prosecuted for a having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, and it has occurred. My sister was 16 when she was dating a 20 or 21 year old and they've now been married a dozen years and have kids. You can't tell me my brother-in-laws actions should have been illegal, but they likely were.

Additionally I think we're doing the debate around age of consent a disservice with some of this type of reactionary rhetoric. Being attracted to physically mature, or close to physically mature people is normal human sexuality (see the OKcupid study the forum raved about). Most straight men are probably attracted to girls in their mid to late teens, they just view them as dangerous or jailbait and avoid giving them attention. Those of us that have matured a bit and dated adults that are much younger often realize it can be harder to connect and have meaningful, enjoyable relationships with people at so much of a different maturity level. Younger people are likely to change their views, lifestyle and personality more dramatically. My personal opinion is that in today's world people generally settle into a slower rate of personal change in their mid twenties. Should it be illegal for a 25 year old to fuck a 16 year old? Probably? Should it be the same crime as true pedophilia? No.

I think gays being able to have a union is a civil right, but I'm capable, as most people are, of having a nuanced opinion on other related topics.

I'll concede:
Being gay is abnormal
Being gay is associated with other development issues including substance abuse, crime and mental instability
HIV is primarily a gay and needle borne disease and is much harder to catch through vaginal sex
Sex=gender and there's only two genders
Societal acceptance of gays will promote a gay culture with higher rates of homosexuality

Does any of the above mean that two adults shouldn't have the right to do what they want with each other? No. Legally they should have the same rights as everyone else including contract rights (civil union/ marriage). If we really want to battle the PC sexual agenda, we need to be honest and concede where traditional society was wrong so we can get respect on the issues where that society has been right. Most people have gay friends or gay family but still don't want an overly PC and gay-promoting culture.

Post: #24

(07-08-2014 02:35 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:  It's from this "ballet" (SEVERE TRIGGER WARNING. MEN IN UNDERWEAR):





Anyway sorry for the derail. As you were.

My innocence is gone forever.

Post: #25

This isn't new. Part of the far-left, which over the years changed into a digestible liberal left, was back in the 70s 'in bed' with pedophiles. A german green party politician had a scandal because he was a pro-pedophile advocate back in the day. Then there was the story with the Copenhagen muncipality wanting to name a square after a (in)famous 'homo activist' only to discover he had a story of pedophile acts in his past, preying on boys as young as 12.

As for lowering age of consent and such, not all teen attraction is the same. The age at which a girl is sexually attractive is by definition when she is able to have children, for that reason, most age of consent is around 15-16 years in most countries.

Now as for homosexuals and their age of consent, there is no biological argument to be made at all, which is why it makes sense it should be 18 years old.