(07-08-2014 09:52 AM)scorpion Wrote:  For those who think this is unrealistic, it's important to keep in mind that the left isn't going to suddenly start advocating for fat, hairy 60 year old men to have sex with 12 year old girls.

As I said, they are going to build off of their success with homosexuality/transgenderism and the "tolerance/acceptance" movement. This means that pedophilia acceptance will begin with 16-18 year old homosexuals and transgenders. We will be told that traditional heterosexual expectations of sexuality are incompatible with the needs of "vulnerable" homosexual and transgender teenagers. They will be painted as victims of heterosexual oppression and bullying, and "intergenerational sex" (their term for pedophilia) will be sold as their right. Older lovers will be painted as mentors rather than predators.

The same arguments used for homosexuality and transgenderism will be deployed again:

"It doesn't affect you, why do you care?"

"Love is love, no matter the gender....or age."

"It's their body they should be able to do what they want."

Progressives are masters of getting a toe inside the door and then forcing their way in. Once it's legal for 16 year old homosexuals and transgenders to have sex with adults, the question will be asked: well, why not 14 year olds? Are they less human? Don't they have rights to enjoy their sexuality? And it will continue in this manner until the thing reaches its wretched end.

I agree they will push in the pedophilia direction. However, I think this will be bad for the left.

Advocating pedophilia is extremely unpopular. I sincerely doubt they can normalize it without more people speaking out and the left losing some elections.

That 'art' video was disturbing, so i put Taylor Swift to it.

There's a lot of articles nowadays about single gay adult men adopting gay teenage boys. Usually written in a somewhat sensationalist tone.

Now, if a single straight adult male were to adopt a teenage girl (regardless of orientation), it's very obvious what the reaction would be.

It has reached a point where gays literally cannot be questioned. Anything they do is glorified.

Example, with the exception of a major few coastal cities and possibly Vegas, any straight man in the US above 27 who isn't married or at least divorced with kids is viewed as odd or seen as suspect. Even if he's living a player lifestyle, a certain large segment of the US will always reserve judgments about the unmarried straight male past a certain age, unless he's a celebrity or rockstar.

They'll be able to accuse him of being gay without reprimand, but cannot say anything to a true affirmed gay man about his sexuality (this paradox is very upsetting to gay activists when pointed out since it means "gay" is still used as an insult). A single gay man who is living a promiscuous lifestyle checking grindr every 15 minutes is celebrated as being a "self-confident gay man". Even the conservatives now probably find a single gay man past a certain age to be more normal than a single straight man.

(07-08-2014 06:23 PM)la_mode Wrote:  It has reached a point where gays literally cannot be questioned. Anything they do is glorified.

This is key right here. Well put. This ties in nicely with the average millenial who cant handle the slightest criticism. And do not forget that young people are the biggest supporters of gay rights. They lose their shit if you point out anything remotely wrong with their behavior, work ethic, or overall demeanor.

Gays and millenials are like two peas in a pod. Though the latter group consists mostly of heterosexuals, their collective mindset is that of weakness, faggoty behavior, and loose morals.

If pedophilia gets mainstreamed, it won't be because of adult men who are shamed, arrested, and beaten up for it.

Rather, it will be for the benefit of women. Specifically, it will come about because judges will loosen the laws that are putting the many female teachers having sex with students behind bars.

Around ten years ago, the wedding of Mary Kay Letourneau and her student was treated like a royal wedding by People magazine and Entertainment Tonight, the latter of which paid for the lavish affair.

And, of course, when women do this, the media treats them completely different than they treat men, often devising convoluted pop psychology explanations to excuse their behavior.

Notice the People magazine cover (below) calls Mary Kay's molestation of a 13-year-old "obsessive love." Think they'd say that if you bedded a girl the same age?

There even used to be a blog about this, which featured a massive list of female sex offenders who were in the education field. I can't find it anymore, but if anyone knows what it was (or is) feel free to pass the info along.

scorpion, for someone who likes to bring up the Frankfurt School at every opportunity, one almost gets the impression that you didn't really take in your Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse very conscientiously with your morning cereal.

The whole point of "cultural Marxism" was that it was a means to an end. What these dudes realized was that normal run-of-the-mill Marxism would never fly in places like the US as they were, and that the "cultural" stuff had to come first -- the undermining of the nuclear family and traditional social structures, the emancipation of women and so on. But the ultimate goal was, of course, exactly the same as always: redistribution of wealth, central planning, communism, the whole 9 yards. So it is just as I stated: the true goal is indeed a grim and joyless statist "equality"; the whole sexual movement is a sideshow. The sexual liberation is a passing phase -- the true trend of progressivism in sexual matters is always towards moralizing and prudery.

It is instructive to recall the history of sexual mores in the USSR. The "liberation" stuff came early -- one of the earliest actions of the authorities was abortion on demand and at will, then a radical redefinition of the place of women in society, an open discussion of sexuality etc. But once these measures fulfilled the point of undermining the traditional family as a source of authority, there was an immediate and sharp turn towards extreme prudishness and sexual repression. Even as the authorities were happily providing abortion on demand to every female, Stalin (an avid film fan) was busy personally censoring all foreign and domestic movies lest a single scene suggesting a more than friendly kiss pass through. Pornography, of course, was completely outlawed and considered a baneful influence of the rotten Western capitalists; many people were arrested and jailed for the undermining of public morality and for succumbing to the rot of the Capitalist enemy. In short, the Communist state was not that far from your ideal society.

And there is no need to go that far afield, either. Like I said in my earlier post, just look at today's gays. In the '70s and '80s they really were types that had a spark of actual sexual depravity, cruising the bars and bathhouses in search of fresh meat. Now they're your infinitely dull "married" neighbors nattering ad nauseam about climate change or cupcakes. Why speculate about ludicrous scenarios when we can look around and see the reality with our own eyes?

Lastly, what really takes a special kind of myopia is to ignore the fact that we are now in the midst of a full-blown national hysteria about "pedophilia", "child sexual abuse", and "sex trafficking" (this hysteria is very closely allied and contiguous to the one that relates to the supposed "rape epidemic" on campuses and elsewhere). In the current culture, children are considered sacred and threats to them are imagined around every corner. And somehow, very unsurprisingly, all of these hysterias are being propagated jointly by progressive feminists and conservative/religious white-knights working as a team. The only measures on which the left and the right ever agree and that pass with great bipartisan majorities in state legislatures are ever more fanatical and draconian laws against "sex offenders" of every kind -- measures that end up permanently ruining the lives of many innocent men all around the country.

To say, as Samseau did, that pedophilia is "very unpopular" is truly the understatement of the century; we are in the midst of an ongoing witch hunt which is likely to get worse before it gets better. To theorize, in such circumstances, that progressives would ever try to agitate for "legalized pedophilia", or that such an absurdity will ever come to pass, is to let one's own ideological zeal delude oneself with respect to the most basic and obvious facts.

Lizard, your point about the sexual liberation that followed the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent turn back toward traditional morality is correct, but you are ignoring an extremely important fact: they were acting out of necessity, not following an established plan. The extreme sexual debauchery that followed the Revolution was literally destroying Russian society. Stalin clamped down and re-instituted traditional sexual mores by force because he legitimately feared the complete dissolution of the state if he didn't. Sexual liberation is an inherently destabilizing force, which is indeed why the Bolsheviks emphasized it during the Revolutionary period. Yet the original plan was never to abandon it - the Communists always wanted to utilize sexual liberation as a tool not just for societal destabilization, but specifically to destroy the family through liberation of women and premature sexualization of children. As to what kind of society they eventually wanted to create, who cares? The rationale for pushing Communism in Russia was never actually to create a Communist utopia, it was simply to obtain power by toppling the Czar. The true believers of the Revolution were simply useful idiots, as they always are. Trying to equate Communist morality with traditional Western morality is simply asinine.

To your point about homosexuals, again, it seems as if you are only analyzing these things at the surface level. Do you think that today's homosexuals are somehow less depraved than they were a generation ago? Of course not. It's simply that today's homosexuals have much better PR! Homosexuals are still wildly promiscuous to a degree that normal heterosexual men cannot begin to fathom. Marriage between two homosexuals does very little to slow this practice down, either. So while the television may invariably portray a married homosexual couple as being monogamous, the reality is that homosexuals are just as, if not more promiscuous and debauched than ever (online hookup sites/apps facilitate this). Stats here: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 . And lest you dismiss the FRC as biased, ahem: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

And I can agree that there is indeed an overblown hysteria around the idea of "saving the children", but I think this is simply a case of parents exchanging rational fears for irrational ones. Soccer moms are more worried about their children being raped and murdered by a creepy dude in a panel van (an extremely remote possibility) than they are about their children receiving tons of overt sexual indoctrination through the schools and media from a very young age (which is basically unavoidable if they watch TV and go to public school). And while the former is certainly the worse outcome in isolation, in aggregate society is much worse off with the ubiquity of the latter, with millions of children growing up with warped views of sexuality and relationships. I also agree that if progressives tried to promote legalized pedophilia as nakedly and simply as the term "legalized pedophilia" then they would surely fail. But of course they are not that stupid or careless. My previous posts in the thread outline the manner in which the practice will be introduced. The progressive playbook is well known at this point, and includes the use of obfuscating language and euphemisms, gradual incremental exposure and emotionally manipulative propaganda through entertainment media and heart-tugging news stories.

A very interesting book I would recommend to Lizard and anyone else interested in this topic is Libido Dominandi. Actually, to call this book interesting is a bit of an understatement. It's mindblowing, and drastically altered my views regarding the effects of sexual liberation on society. I notice it's out of stock on Amazon but it's definitely worth tracking down a copy if you can find one at a decent price. Summary from Amazon:

Quote:"Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices." – St. Augustine, City of God Writing at the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire, St. Augustine both revolutionized and brought to a close antiquity’s idea of freedom. A man was not a slave by nature or by law, as Aristotle claimed. His freedom was a function of his moral state. A man had as many masters as he had vices. This insight would provide the basis for the most sophisticated form of social control known to man.

Fourteen hundred years later, a decadent French aristocrat turned that tradition on its head when he wrote that "the freest of people are they who are most friendly to murder." Like St. Augustine, the Marquis de Sade would agree that freedom was a function of morals. Unlike St. Augustine, Sade proposed a revolution in sexual morals to accompany the political revolution then taking place in France. Libido Dominandi – the term is taken from Book I of Augustine’s City of God – is the definitive history of that sexual revolution, from 1773 to the present.

Unlike the standard version of the sexual revolution, Libido Dominandi shows how sexual liberation was from its inception a form of control. Those who wished to liberate man from the moral order needed to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido led inevitably to anarchy. Aldous Huxley wrote in his preface to the 1946 edition of Brave New World that "as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase." This book is about the converse of that statement. It explains how the rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer a system of covert political and social control. Over the course of the two-hundred-year span covered by this book, the development of technologies of communication, reproduction, and psychic control – including psychotherapy, behaviorism, advertising, sensitivity training, pornography, and plain old blackmail – allowed the Enlightenment and its heirs to turn Augustine’s insight on its head and create masters out of men’s vices. Libido Dominandi is the story of how that happened.

(07-08-2014 12:58 AM)Deluge Wrote:  Next up is tranny acceptance, not legalized pedophilia. The left hates pedophiles same as everyone else does.

They love pedophiles who are also movie directors.

(07-09-2014 02:58 AM)puckerman Wrote:  They love pedophiles who are also movie directors.

Polanski is no pedophile. He has been fucking teen girls as a teenager in Poland in his youth. He used to approach girls as a 15-year-old saying: "You fuck already?" That 13-year-old was Jodie Foster level 13. I am not excusing the bugger, because 13 is young, but leaving your pre-mature teen daughter alone in a whirlpool with Hollywood actors is just crazy.

If you leave your sexually pre-mature daughter in a pool with Justin Bieber, a bunch of NFL players and some Hollywood actors, then don't expect her to be a virgin next time you see her.

There are 13-YRO runway models, who are 5'11:
   
The fashion industry has been using 14-16 year olds for ages, since they really look better than at 22.

Don't lump sexually mature girls together with the sickness of real pedophelia - of course the Elite will do exactly that - if banging a 15-yro is fine, then so is a 6 yro! That will be their reasoning and calling pedophelia a sexual orientation. Sick bastards.

(07-08-2014 07:12 AM)Frost Wrote:  The only reason it might NOT be is that opposition to "Pedophilia" is a useful cudgel for the left to bash healthy adult male attraction to young (but still adult) women. A "real man" would prefer a 45-year old with life experience over a 21-year old, you see, according to Maureen Dowd and her ilk. How will the powers that be maintain their disapproval of male preference for fertile young women, while adopting a more permissive attitude towards actual pedophiles?

The left has never seen a double standard that they didn't like. They contradict themselves all the time.

Ped will never be legalized.

In most european countries the process is exactly the opposite:

The age of consent when girls can have sex without repercutions for the guys,
is growing (and not lowering).

It used to be 12 - 15 in Eastern Europe, Russia, Baltics,
in the recent years it went up to 16.

In United States is high 18.

The same growth is also in many other countries in Europe.

People are also marrying at much older ages.

The average age of getting married in Northern Europe
is approaching 40 rapidly

Yeah...I think you are drinking too much kool-aid.

(07-08-2014 09:34 PM)scorpion Wrote:  To your point about homosexuals, again, it seems as if you are only analyzing these things at the surface level. Do you think that today's homosexuals are somehow less depraved than they were a generation ago? Of course not. It's simply that today's homosexuals have much better PR!

That's a point I've harped on in this forum whenever the topic of homosexuality and how before our eyes it's gone from something to be hidden away to being paraded in front of parade of popular media. The reason for the change is because the homosexual activists have sucessfully implemented the image that Lizard of Oz was using to describe what total's homosexuals are supposed to be like: "now they are just your most colorlessly stolid neighbors who are "married", walk their dogs and talk about "climate change"." In other words, they have managed to convince the public at large, especially those who are younger that gays really are no different from any other family that wants to live in the white picket fence, mow the law, and throw the football with their children in the afternoon.

Check this viral video from a few years back:





Despite the falling part of the family unit and the breakdown of sexual mores, I think that the majority of the American public still believes in the ideal of boy meets girl, they fall in love, and start a loving family. Homosexual activism has successfully convinced this public that they too want the same thing. They have successfully hitched their wagon to the prevailing cultural zeitgeist.

This thread reeks slightly of homophobia. However, I can see your case against pedophilia. "

That is the sort of bloody nonsense up I will not put."

There's a book out there (I don't remember the title) that basically describes how gays were going to use media and psychology in order to shift American public opinion in their direction.

(07-09-2014 02:16 PM)Fortis Wrote:  This thread reeks slightly of homophobia. However, I can see your case against pedophilia. "

That is the sort of bloody nonsense up I will not put."

You might as well call us creepy. Sure youre on the right forum?

The next step is not pedophilia. It's not ripe yet.

The next step is legalizing incest.

Then pedophilia will follow shortly after.

This is a slow regression to pagan morality

After the gays and trannies, then it will be the pedos. Then after the pedos we'll get the zoosexuals (people who have sex with animals). They already made a movie about Mr. Hands called Zoo which delved into the virtues of getting assfucked by horses. Kenneth Pinyan died for social justice lol. Zoosexuals are born this way! Put an end to kink shaming! #FCKH8

Ramzpaul shows us an ad from the future.

(07-08-2014 09:34 PM)scorpion Wrote:  To your point about homosexuals, again, it seems as if you are only analyzing these things at the surface level. Do you think that today's homosexuals are somehow less depraved than they were a generation ago? Of course not. It's simply that today's homosexuals have much better PR!

(07-09-2014 02:14 PM)Wutang Wrote:  That's a point I've harped on in this forum whenever the topic of homosexuality and how before our eyes it's gone from something to be hidden away to being paraded in front of parade of popular media. The reason for the change is because the homosexual activists have sucessfully implemented the image that Lizard of Oz was using to describe what total's homosexuals are supposed to be like: "now they are just your most colorlessly stolid neighbors who are "married", walk their dogs and talk about "climate change"." In other words, they have managed to convince the public at large, especially those who are younger that gays really are no different from any other family that wants to live in the white picket fence, mow the law, and throw the football with their children in the afternoon.

Nope, my point was a twofold one but you're only looking at a part of it.

Note that I began my post by saying that the thrust of the "gay marriage" movement is trying to sell us on the lie that gays and straights are the same, just as feminism is trying to sell us on the lie that men and women are the same. And both of these are indeed lies. The basic nature of women has not changed, and neither has the basic nature of gays.

However, the intense cultural pressure that is being exerted as part of that thrust is in the direction of everyone acting the same. This is being noted all the time about men and women: women are acting more like men and men are acting more like women. That is no fantasy, that is reality that we see with our own eyes every day and that gets written about every day on this forum and elsewhere.

The same is true of gays. Under the intense cultural pressure to conform to the demented progressive ideal of sameness, they have indeed lost a great deal of their former sexual charge and untrammeled decadence. That is not "PR", that is what I see with my own eyes. The descriptions I gave are what I've observed and I don't doubt that others observe the same things.

The point remains that the true progressive ideal is not some Sadean fantasia of a debauched free-for-all, it is a grim and joyless vision of sameness and "equality". Of course this is based on rank lies about human nature; you cannot make men, women, gays, straights etc change their basic natures any more than you can make a tiger change his stripes. But the intense pressure of a society hellbent on this demented ideal can and does go a long way towards modifying the behaviors of large groups of people in ways that are contrary to their basic natures. So you get these fags that are really trying to dupe themselves into acting "married" just like stupid bitches believe that they need to "run marathons" and "do fucking great science".

And one last time: "legalized pedophilia" is an absurd fantasy. Look at the f'ing insanity around that Virginia 17 year old dude and his "child porn" dick pics. The whole sphere is one that evokes religious hatred on both the right and the left. The only direction it will go ever is toward greater restrictions and prohibitions. That's reality.

Sometimes I feel this forum is beginning to jump the shark with this kind of absurd reactionary fear-mongering. What is this, Fox News?

I can't help but roll my eyes everytime I hear someone use "homosexuality" in the same sentence as "bestiality" or "pedophilia". Adult homosexuality is between consenting adults and is thus a victimless crime that harms no one. It concerns no one other than those involved. Child sexual abuse involves individuals who are incapable of giving or withholding consent. The psychological damage it causes to children is well known. The two things are in no way related.

What about beastality then? It does not concern another human being except the one having sex with the animal. Even if there was some sort of psychological damage to the animal, would it matter? Does consent matter when it comes to a non-human animal since after all we don't care if animals can consent to being butchered for food or used as slave labor while we would aghast with the same being done to a human being.

(07-09-2014 11:23 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  Sometimes I feel this forum is beginning to jump the shark with this kind of absurd reactionary fear-mongering. What is this, Fox News?

I can't help but roll my eyes everytime I hear someone use "homosexuality" in the same sentence as "bestiality" or "pedophilia". Adult homosexuality is between consenting adults and is thus a victimless crime that harms no one. It concerns no one other than those involved. Child sexual abuse involves individuals who are incapable of giving or withholding consent. The psychological damage it causes to children is well known. The two things are in no way related.

Exactly what I was going to say. This is the type of "sky is falling" hysteria one would expect from the likes of Sarah Palin, Fox News and the Religious Right.

OMG, they are recognizing homosexuals, now pedophilia is next. Ridiculous in the extreme.

If anything, society is moving in the opposite direction. Not too long ago, the Page 3 models that appeared topless in the Sun, the UK's most widely circulated newspaper were 16 year olds. In today's society those editors would end up in prison.

Sargon of Akkad, 2014:

(07-09-2014 11:23 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  Sometimes I feel this forum is beginning to jump the shark with this kind of absurd reactionary fear-mongering. What is this, Fox News?

I can't help but roll my eyes everytime I hear someone use "homosexuality" in the same sentence as "bestiality" or "pedophilia". Adult homosexuality is between consenting adults and is thus a victimless crime that harms no one. It concerns no one other than those involved. Child sexual abuse involves individuals who are incapable of giving or withholding consent. The psychological damage it causes to children is well known. The two things are in no way related.

Sargon of Akkad's grandfather, 1964:

Quote:Sometimes I feel this newspaper is beginning to jump the shark with these kind of absurd reactionary fear-mongering editorials. What is this, the John Birch Society newsletter?

I can't help but roll my eyes everytime I hear someone use "divorce" in the same sentence as "pornography" or "homosexuality". Divorce is between consenting adults and is thus a victimless crime that harms no one. It concerns no one other than those involved. Homosexuality and pornography involve individuals who are incapable of giving or withholding consent because they are obviously mentally ill or deranged. The psychological damage they cause to children is well known. The two things are in no way related.

Sargon of Akkad's grandson, 2064:

Quote:Sometimes I feel this neural sharing group is beginning to jump the shark with this kind of absurd reactionary fear-mongering. What is this, the 19th century simulation world?

I can't help but roll my eyes everytime I hear someone use "pedophilia" in the same sentence as "bestiality" or "necrophilia". Pedophilia is between consenting human beings and is thus a victimless crime that harms no one. It concerns no one other than those involved. Bestiality and necrophilia involves animals or dead humans who are incapable of giving or withholding consent. There is no psychological damage caused by sexual relations between two human beings if there is consent, this is well known. The two things are in no way related.

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean that they would target children or try to make them gay. I have people in my family who are gay and they would find that abhorrent.

This is a judge in Australia declaring publicly:

Quote:A Sydney judge has compared incest and paedophilia to homosexuality, saying the community may no longer see sexual contact between siblings and between adults and children as “unnatural” or “taboo”.
District Court Judge Garry Neilson said just as gay sex was socially unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s and 1960s but is now widely accepted, “a jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner”.
He also said the “only reason” that incest is still a crime is because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities in children born from consanguineous relationships “but even that falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion”.

Judge Neilson made the extraordinary and bizarre comments in the case of a 58-year-old man, known for legal reasons as MRM, who is charged with repeatedly raping his younger sister in the family’s western Sydney home in 1981.
The man had earlier pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when she was 10 or 11 years old in 1973 or 1974 after police recorded a telephone conversation between the siblings in July 2011 in which he admitted to having sexual contact with her when she was “a kid”.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/judge-compares...z372mUs2JT


It is as expected. Homosexuality between adults has been around forever and criminalizing it was wrong anyway. Now they turn around and say, if that has been wrong, then how about having sex with a 10-year-old?
In this case they excuse both incest and pedophelia, saying - there is nothing wrong with fucking your non-sexually mature 10 YRO sister, because .... being gay was criminal back in the day.


It is exactly as Scorpion said - the next battle is started.