if I ever become a wealthy CEO, I'll instruct teh HR department to show job applicants some lolicon picz, and only hire those who get b0narz by looking at them

if I ever become a wealthy CEO, I'll only hire beautiful teen and tween girls and their jobs will just be finding ways to make sperm come out of my PENIS

Is pedophilia associated with LGBT? I know in the 50s it was, but as far as I know the gays backstabbed the pedos ages ago. In my opinion if pedos want to normalise themselves, they should push it to the left as sexual liberation, and to the right as a way to get old fashioned traditional virgin brides. I think that the reason for a lot of the hate against pedos atm is because society doesn’t accept racism or homophobia as much nowadays, so people use a group no one will defend as their punching bag.
Just my thoughts ┐(ﾟ～ﾟ)┌

>I know in the 50s it was, but as far as I know the gays backstabbed the pedos ages ago.

In the US and many west countries it was associated with gays because it was prosecuted the same. For example, in america pre-1950 a gay would be arrested for Sodomy, likewise a pedophile would be arrested for sodomy as well, sodomy was a catch-all umbrella charge for deviant sex in general, and this lead to the early associations with gays and pedos as bed fellows.

>as far as I know the gays backstabbed the pedos ages ago.
There were pro-pedo movements into the 70s and 80s but when the hysteria ramped up, gays dropped all outward association with pedophilia, Gays at the time wanted to be taken seriously and survive the sex negative, censorship period of the late 80s, gain the right of marriage, etc. So they threw pedos (especially hetero ones in particular) under the bus. The whole "We're weird, but we're not as weird as THOSE GUYS!" Mentality you see today with LGBT tw*tter types echos the same mentality of gay activists during the 80s

In the eyes of Anglo-Saxon culture, pedophiles serve as the propitiation of sins for homosexuals. Our society would have never accepted them if it didn't have another group of 'perverts' to direct its hate towards. So of course the homos joined them.

all of you are wrong. pedophilia has been hated since ancient times pretty much universally across all cultures, whilst homosexuality was legal in rome and the likes

>>177935
That is completely false though. It’s never been as widespread as ephebephillia (however tf you spell that). Throughout history it was very common to marry pubescent girls, but marriage to pre-pubescent girls wasn’t rare by any means. Not even that long ago in the West pedos were viewed far less negatively, whereas gays were utterly despised. It wasn’t uncommon for royals in Europe to marry/betroth little girls, all the while homosexuality was punished severely. Worth noting that the Islamic world was similar (Muhammad even had his own loli). Also worth noting that in primitive tribal societies (the way humans lived for 99% of their existence as a species) marrying pubescent and prepubescent girls is usually the norm. In fact, a lot of old anthropology books include lots of photos of naked children

>>177937
when the european royals married off prepubescent children they were married off to other similarly aged children, and they didn't have sex until teenage years or adulthood. Sex with children before puberty has never been commonplace and has always been frowned upon because it is extremely harmful to the child. A adult PENIS will cause lasting damage to a pre-pubescent child, and a boy who has not himself reached puberty cannot even withdraw his foreskin (if he has one) let alone ejaculate or feel and understand sexual pleasure. All sexual interactions with pre-pubescent children are only pleasurable for the adult. whether a child can "consent" is more of a moral than a scientific question though

The definition of pedo has now been stretched to anyone who has sex with someone under 18, but if we talk about it in the literal sense, no, it wasn't common. Also marriage is a western concept, as is monogamy. Tribal societies in many parts of the world engaged in polygamy and homosexuality, and had no marriage to speak of. It's a quirk from european and to a lesser extent some asian societies. There is no evidence that actual pedophilia has ever been anything but shunned in almost every society on earth, though its taken much more seriously now then it has been in the past

>>177939
*keep in mind those royal marriages were not for love and certainly not for sexual pleasure, but for making children. thus it would have been completely illogical to have sex and all the risk that entails if the girl couldnt even have a baby. Besides, having sex for any purpose other than recreation was a sin, and royals were real jesus freaks

>>177940
Fair points. You make a good case, and while I’ll note that concepts of marriage are not uncommon to primitive societies (Papua for instance) I can’t say in good faith that I have strong counters to any of your other arguments

>>177939
Prepubescent children can have orgasms though, and it's not even uncommon.

>>177939
>it is extremely harmful to the child. A adult PENIS will cause lasting damage to a pre-pubescent child
There is no way blowjobs, thighjobs, buttjobs, armpit sex, naizuri, footjobs or adorably immature handjobs will cause any damage to a loli, physical or mental. It's just training her to be a good wife, the same as teaching her how to cook, clean and take care of baby dolls at an early age.
>cannot even withdraw his foreskin
I'm in my 30s and have never retracted my foreskin even though I've fapped and ejaculated over 15k times.
>All sexual interactions with pre-pubescent children are only pleasurable for the adult
If you wouldn't have enjoyed the company of a hot naked woman letting you play with her boobs while she plays with your pre-pubescent 10-12 year old PENIS that just means you were a fag. Most kids would very much enjoy having some naked fun time with an attractive adult member of the opposite sex, especially if they can have orgasms.
>There is no evidence that actual pedophilia has ever been anything but shunned in almost every society on earth
I don't think you looked very hard for that evidence, but even if that were true I don't care about the consensus of dumb hairless monkeys that didn't wash their hands with soap in between shoving things up their butts, playing with poop, and eating for about 200k years

>>177935
This guy actually took what they taught him in school seriously. LOL. What a dummy.

>>177953
You read newgon wiki and /pol/ and thought some schizos infographs were factual

>>177954
I dont even know what that is, Weirdo. (;ﾟДﾟ)

>>177953
haha good thing i dropped out of school!

Ultimately the issue with anti-contact arguments is that most people today consider themselves to be "sex positive" - meaning they believe that the expression of sexual desire is not inherently harmful, In fact they'd say repressing that desire is harmful. This was not the view of our society formerly, which held that desire (sexual desire in particular) is something powerful and potentially dangerous, and thus needs to be reigned in.

Our society has claimed to be sex-positive while retaining much of the same instinctual feelings about sex as before. Youths are confusedly taught that masturbation is normal and healthy, but that porn is bad. They can masturbate, but they cannot go into a sex shop to buy a toy to do it with. They're taught that having sex with other youths is normal, but that it would be harmful with an adult. When prodded, people will apply rationalizations that will be equally hypocritical if questioned further.

Pro-contact is the logical conclusion for those who view sex positively. For those who would argue that sex is harmful, the idea of restricting the knowledge and experience of sex is justifiable. I'm not making a pro-contact argument here, merely applying the Socratic method. Right now my personal views are undecided.

>>177962
>They're taught that having sex with other youths is normal
It sure as hell wasn't 20 years ago in middle school where I lived. We were taught abstinence until marriage, lies like condoms having a 20% failure rate at preventing pregnancy, holding hands wasn't allowed and you could get EXPELLED for kissing. Shit like that is the real reason there are so many school shootings in america, because some schools treat kids worse than prisoners.

>>177962
I think simple minded people see sex as PENIS in VAGINA, and dont realize that "sex" can mean a whole host of non-penetrative things.

>>177948
>pre-pubescent 10-12 year old
Nigga that's literally the age puberty starts at, that's not prepubescent you retard

>>178003
plenty of boys haven't hit puberty yet at that age you double nigger retard bitch ape shit nigger

>>178003
>>178004
both of you are triple retard gorilla bitch niggers

>>178003
>>178004
>>178005
You giga retard gorilla bitch niggers, girls are starting puberty as young as 8 these days because of birth control water and micoplastics.

>>178007
so now we cant have cute prepubescent girls

>>178026
but we can have even cuter pubescent girls!

>>178031
yes but their body will be covered in hair the stinky pit part is okay but still!

> a boy who has not himself reached puberty ... cannot ... ejaculate or feel and understand sexual pleasure
What a bs

>>177937
yea but consumating before puberty was very much looked down upon

>>177935
i wont stand this slander against the roman
roman despised homo
legal technicaly only with slave and maybe foreigner(disohonoring another roman citizen likely fell under sodomy or rape law)
and if it was known that you were a homo you would immiedatly become a social outcast (indipendent of active or passive)