• Please remember, if you're posting about a localizer, person of interest, or other internet bullshit that may be deleted.
    Make Sure to Archive.
    Despite what people say about the internet things can be deleted, and screenshots are only as reliable as the posters credibility.
    Archive Here

Megathread Lolidrama

Balrog

varishangout.com
Better ban me if you want me to "fuck off", bozo. I've done nothing but argue in good faith and so far all you've offered in response is blatant denial, making shit + random insults. Hopefully some better users will look at this thread tomorrow, I've wanted to talk about this with someone with at least half a brain about this for a while and home you're not it.
I'm not a mod, retard and why would I ban you just for being retarded? Not everyone is like you and will throw a tantrum just because someone disagree with them. Only antis like you and those who parrots the same talking points do that.

If you use pre-made anti arguments, you're not arguing in good faith at all. Suggesting that because pedos breath air, everyone who breath air has 'overlaps' with pedos like you're doing can't be a good faith argument either, it's at best fallacious bullshit that doesn't hold up or at least purposefully misuse the word 'overlap' to create a connection where there is none.

Did you think you were having an argument with the 'admin of lolis' or some dumb LARPing shit?

Proving you wrong isn't what denial mean and neither is dismissing your empty assertion that we've got overlaps with pedos like you.

Nobody care about the fact that you're desperate to talk about your cope and want people to agree with it.

You're so mad you can't even write your gay rap punchline correctly. You're gonna end up behind bars anyway.
 

NretsewThePerv

varishangout.com
Regular
I love how the last part of my rant was completely fucken ignored
and on the people spewing shit about loli and its relation to pedo shit just see one of my many posts on this forum about abstraction as I don't feel like repeating myself. are there pedos both making and enjoying loli? sure. just like there are pedos making movies, games, books, and all kinds of media you like. pedos are fucken everywhere, you may or may not have come face to face with one IRL and you would never know. so there is no need to state the blatantly fucken obvious unless you are an anti trying to use it as some kind of gotcha, unless we got proof they doing crimes I don't fucken care

LiterallyRichter you are not fucken smart pointing out that some lolicons/loli artists CAN be pedos, it's not "nuanced" to point out the blatantly fucken obvious. ofc there are prob some loli artists out there who are pedos. but unless you show me some fucken proof of them going after real kids or being in the possession of real CP then shut the fuck up and fuck off. no one is impressed with this bullshit. it's just fucken annoying as lolicons want to distance themselves from real fucken pedos who do real fucken crimes but you seem hell-bent on connecting the two. and for what? so you can seem big brain on the internet it seems like based on how you post

the fact of the matter is this you don't have to be a pedo to be into lolicon and some pedos are into lolicon are both true statements, and also being into lolicon does not make one a pedo. like I said I'm not gonna repeat what I've said before about being attracted to abstraction over reality. but it's very relevant here

now stop fucken double posting and go get a room (make your own fucken thread about this topic so you can shit in there)
 

LiterallyRichter

varishangout.com
I love how the last part of my rant was completely fucken ignored


LiterallyRichter you are not fucken smart pointing out that some lolicons/loli artists CAN be pedos, it's not "nuanced" to point out the blatantly fucken obvious. ofc there are prob some loli artists out there who are pedos. but unless you show me some fucken proof of them going after real kids or being in the possession of real CP then shut the fuck up and fuck off. no one is impressed with this bullshit. it's just fucken annoying as lolicons want to distance themselves from real fucken pedos who do real fucken crimes but you seem hell-bent on connecting the two. and for what? so you can seem big brain on the internet it seems like based on how you post

the fact of the matter is this you don't have to be a pedo to be into lolicon and some pedos are into lolicon are both true statements, and also being into lolicon does not make one a pedo. like I said I'm not gonna repeat what I've said before about being attracted to abstraction over reality. but it's very relevant here

now stop fucken double posting and go get a room (make your own fucken thread about this topic so you can shit in there)
Oh I've got no problem with them being pedos, I'm not even sure why you're bringing the other stuff up. Just because they're pedophiles it doesn't mean they're involved in criminal activities, I don't know a single place on Earth where just being a pedophile lands you in jail. This is what I mean when I say you got 0 nuance. I'm not "hellbent on connecting the two" I just think saying loli has nothing to do with pedophilia is frankly a silly statement and it's creating a wave of annoying ironic lolicons that are gasping for air once they realize that some artists and publications are like the pedos that are supposed to be their (mortal) enemies!
 

NretsewThePerv

varishangout.com
Regular
Oh I've got no problem with them being pedos, I'm not even sure why you're bringing the other stuff up. Just because they're pedophiles it doesn't mean they're involved in criminal activities, I don't know a single place on Earth where just being a pedophile lands you in jail. This is what I mean when I say you got 0 nuance. I'm not "hellbent on connecting the two" I just think saying loli has nothing to do with pedophilia is frankly a silly statement and it's creating a wave of annoying ironic lolicons that are gasping for air once they realize that some artists and publications are like the pedos that are supposed to be their (mortal) enemies!

I love how you did not even read what I said you dumb cunt

I don't fucken care if you have no issue with them being pedos or not. I'm telling you pointing it out and making that connection is fucken meaningless and just causing the kind of bullshit we have seen all day in this thread.

and what the fuck are you even talking about with this shit, "I don't know a single place on Earth where just being a pedophile lands you in jail." well yea dip shit no fucken shit you have to commit a crime to get landed in jail. that doesn't make shit like fucken MAPs ok or welcome. like I assume you are trying to infer here with your line of reason "well maps have not gone out and diddled a kid yet so it's fine to allow them in lolicon spaces" or some shit

this is why everyone is calling you the fuck out and why you seem sketchy as shit, you are not as smart as you think you think

if you want to start a fucken pedo defence thread go on ahead. cuz that seems like what you want to do. just know people who are attracted to real kids are not welcome here. as even tho, you seem to not think there is. there is a difference between loli and real shit

otherwise, stop making blatantly fucken obvious statements
 

Scornful Gaze

varishangout.com
Regular
Patron of the Forums
It's kind of what I'm trying to pry back in.
Which begs the question, why? Why do you care what a bunch of people in an obscure ass forum thinks about the subject? If you're just trying to get a laugh, I'll understand, but what's the endgoal of saying shit basically everyone already knows? Not being hostile I'm legit curious the rationale here because, I'll be honest, I'm legit surprised how much attention this place gets compared to its relative lack of activity or interesting posts.
 

ninja8tyu

varishangout.com
Regular
This has been slang on 4chan before Nil ever became infamous on lolicon twitter. Please. All of these arguments have been had before.
i really don't see the point nor really care enough about what's being said

i'm simply completely confused to what point this brings exactly

like what, exactly, is "lolicons are more closely related to pedophilia" supposed to be significant towards in the grand scheme of things

you all can argue about whatever the fuck pedophilia is like the retards on twitter thinking attraction to a 500-year old grandma
GrandmaIconC.png
is somehow pedophilia, because that term has lost all its meaning

no one ever makes that point as-is besides antis
because they want lolicons to admit that they're a "pedophile;" the attraction to the abstract properties related to youth, but not necessarily within the category of youth, because glasses are minor-coded now and beyonetta is actually a JC
and via double-speak, call them a pedophile; a child-raping monster who traumatizes children for life and may even kill them after their done using them as nothing more but a tool for their own pleasure

the fact you seem so utterly shocked that everyone here is calling you a pedophile projecting onto lolicons is rather a surprise, because i genuinely can't believe there's a person who's capable of communication yet so low-functioning that they fail to realize that simple thing and the general stigma related to that term, alongside carelessly accusing comic LO artists as pedophiles with only the reasoning that antis typically use rather than any firm proof.

and making bold claims like "lolicon artists are open about their pedophilia" without proof is pretty fucking much what antis always do
and i even doubt it's actual pedophilia either.

feel free to reiterate the fact that these ideas have been talked about in the past as if it has a point.
it doesn't change the fact they're just as stupid then as they are now.

you're rather insistent on making everyone agree on your notion that there's a giant overlap, but have no point beyond that
which leaves us to fill in the gaps

of all the possible connotations that presumes your unproven premise is true, and your attitude the entire time, it's either "we're also all technically pedophiles (already have/will develop an attraction for real children) for liking fictional children and that's okay," "utilizing minors as reference for adult works is not unethical (do i even need to explain this?)," and "we're hypocrites for (implied to be knowingly) supporting 'pedophiles' but not pedophiles"

so of course, people would get mad, because that presumes quite a bit about all of us individually and as a group, which is false.

feel free to call us idiots for being unable to comprehend the ideas created by your 177013-dimensional mind capable of abstract thought beyond mortal comprehension if you want
but it certainly won't change the fact we see you as a giant fucking retard who is without any reasonable doubt an anti, and if somehow not, still leaves several negative implications to what you are like in terms of personality, intelligence, wisdom, and ability to convey information.
 

Loliliberator_DQN

varishangout.com
Is this the part where the curtain falls and you guys admit that though distinct there is a closer link between pedophilia and lolicon than you'd like to admit? Bubbuka is not the only artist to just be openly a pedo(see Mammoth, Dorontabi and pretty much everyone who works with Comic LO).
I'm not going to deny that certain artist could fall into the category with bubbuka and shadman, But i recently had a conversation with Patrick W. Galbraith and the artist and publishers of LO have outspoken statements about pedophilia and it not having a connection to lolicon.
 
Last edited:

Narbray

varishangout.com
Regular
View attachment 9146
View attachment 9147
View attachment 9148
Tweet ||

View attachment 9145
Tweet || Archive



We know they're willing to mass harass someone, send them death threats, dox them, and even push people into suicide.
But I have never encountered a situation where they specifically and completely fearlessly targeted someone over this, from doxxing, death threats, mass harassment, and now it's gotten to the point they're willing to make encounters with them, even at cons and such, in public and even audaciously admitting to several crimes, legal and moral, yet are left untouched and unscathed.
At this point, I feel as if I'm witnessing a snuff film with quite a bit of build-up, and I'm not enticed to let it play out where some fucked up shitheads will be enjoying live slaughter of a human being.

Dunno if it's because people are just desensitized to it, but dead bodies are very unsettling on a deep level.
Special effects and dumb acts come barely close to it with their fun water balloon bursts of blood and flailing.
The simplicity of it is probably what makes it horrifying.
When they stop moving, it's so unnatural in such an unsettling way. They should be moving, but they don't. Even worse is when they twitch or spazz out, be it due to remaining nerve impulses and such, and knowing that they shouldn't be moving, but they still do.
But I digress.

The fact they aren't getting the metal part of a belt to their skulls is rather disappointing and a very bad sign that such evil is very much overlooked and tolerated.

While I doubt anyone here would have the likely chance of encountering such people in real life, I am beginning to think that if this continues, some bold brat will cross a line, and whether it succeeds or not only will say about that these people are in fact threats to be neutralized if it ever occurs.
And if that event were to happen, and they succeed, then it will encourage more violent activity, vitalizing a group of malice-filled demons with the knowledge that even they can kill a "pedophile," for the sake of their twisted dystopian justice.

Personally I'm not tempted to wait around and find out to see if someone's skull will get cracked over drawings, but not like I can do much from a computer screen, especially unarmed against some fucked up violent shitbags.

But because of that, I can't see what my thoughts mean in the grand scheme of things.

What're y'alls thoughts on this? Honestly some other perspectives, preferably hopeful ones, could do me well here.
don't worry, the really dangerous people are not the ones who spread their shit behind the protection of a screen.
The day may come when we actually find a psychopath taking ''justice'' against ''pedophiles'', but it would be only 1 case out of thousands.
but that doesn't mean that these things are not dangerous and illegal and should not be allowed.
these people are nothing new, they are just a new form or extension of human behavior.
I would like to meet some of these children to see if they are as brave in real life.
It's not "anti talking points" this stuff was being discussed by lolicons on 4chan way before tumblr had invaded twitter. These arguments aren't anything new. Time is a flat circle it seems. The claims some you make are simply unreasonable and make lolicons look like ridiculous zealots in their own right.

It's called referencing and it's completely natural for the artistic process. I don't care that Bubbuka is referencing Laura, his art is still good. I might as well never like any lolis at that point because unlike what most of you care to admit, they are meant to depict children and they are referencing the proportions and aesthetics of children to achieve that effect. Some lolis are drawn more like petite women but you can usually tell what each artist is going for.
it looks like you completely skipped the post by @NretsewThePerv lol

ok look I understand what you mean and I am not going to call you retarded because your way of thinking makes some sense in the first place, the problem is that it only makes sense if the subject we are talking about is like mathematics where 2+2 will always be 4, or the way you put it (which I have been asked many times before) is this ''lolis (and shouta) look like children in many ways (this is a fact and no one with at least 2 neurons could deny it), therefore the people who like them must have some relation to pedophilia (or by extension lolicon and pedophilia must have some relation)``, simplified ''loli/shouta=children therefore lolicon/shoutacon must have some relation to pedophilia```.
the problem is that this is a fallacious argument, since the human psyche and by extension psychology are not so simple nor so exact.
Here I will raise some points that can be analyzed to prove that lolicon/shoutacon does not necessarily have to be related to pedophilia and how likely or close this relationship is.

  • first, nowadays we are seeing (and I think this is a fact for many people here but it is difficult to understand for an outsider) that many people are increasingly separating their attraction to characters (regardless of their age or appearance) from their attraction to real ppl, seeing more and more cases of people who have directly started to lose interest in real people, resulting in people (many) attracted to characters who directly do not give a damn about real life people, this can certainly be considered a pathology and therefore a paraphilia as it can affect the sexual well being and life of these people, but it should be approached in my opinion as an individual paraphilia, therefore attraction to characters of this type that have some similarity with children should be approached separately from pedophilia and, if necessary, treated as pathologically different. (to explain this in more detail let's go to the following points)
  • Second, people feel a natural attraction to young people, and yes this includes children, whether people want to deny it or not, whether they like this argument or not, especially if they some sex appeal (which I will touch on in the next point), as proof of this there are hundreds of cases of child sex offenders who have not been directly diagnosed as pedophiles, the problem is whether this goes unnoticed by you or not, If you start thinking about it too much then you probably have a problem, because although people may feel some sexual attraction towards children sometime in their life, they will automatically detect it as "a bad target to reproduce", this added to the fact that children do not release many pheromones, this is because the brain can associate many things with sexual attraction but not become a paraphilic. For example many people find feet or stockings attractive... and this does not mean that they have a mental disorder, but people do not see it the same with pedophilia simply because of their instinct of ''protection'' (and maybe something else that I do not know).
    Now add to this what @NretsewThePerv says, it is not so rare that a person feels attraction towards a character that look like a child but in the same way dislikes real children, this is because clearly your brain can differentiate between one and the other (this mainly unconsciously), and thus feel attracted to one or the other, imagine this as a person who likes women but not men, it is not just a moral issue, it is simply something more abstract and more subjective, that can not be applied objectively but in the same way you can not prove that if you like one you like the other also but if we know that it is possible, well I think the same principle applies to this of the lolis/shota. I don't think this is something as pathological as pedophilia as long as you are aware of WHAT YOU LIKE and don't try to go more towards the real thing as well as HOW MUCH YOU LIKE so it doesn't become a problem for you and others. Paraphilias are an intense attraction, something pathological in many cases and to say that someone who likes lolis is already automatically a fart is just absurd lol, in the same way I don't think there is a link between one and the other which is what we are discussing in the first place.To this let's add that people tend to easily confuse any form of attraction with sexual attraction, for example tell me here who hasn't dreamt at some point that they have had sex with their mother or sisters, and this ''confusion'' does not necessarily have to be a passing thing, and can apply to cute characters.
  • Third, here we will fall into art, and how art through an ''exaggeration and visual narrative`` expresses certain things to its viewers, simply put, you can make a child look sexually attractive to you through a drawing by using expression, narrative and exaggeration, and this will apply to many people whether they deny it or not lol, this is a good way to explain why seeing these typical 3d model illustrations feels so weird and no attractive, however lolis designs are usually very attractive and I doubt you will find someone who can tell you without getting their ideals in the way, i bet all these people who say that lolis are for pedophiles also see lolis attractive in a certain way but refuse to acknowledge it lol in fact many do accept that they are cute but not sexually attractive, but from that to the other there really isn't much difference, the problem is that they are made to be attractive, and the people who create them create them taking into account (not so consciously) of aspects that make them attractive, at the end get to think that the only thing that really differentiates an ''adult'' character from a ''child'' character is simply the volume of their body lol, something that would not be so in real life. In the end humans are sexual organisms and when we see something with a merely human aspect we will unconsciously try to sexualize it, try to see if it is a good match to reproduce or not if to these we add characteristics that make it more attractive then the result is evident and that doesn't mean at all that you are a pedophile lol.
It would be really complicated to know if all this started as pedophilia derived or not, I personally think not, although there might have been some real pedophile contributions to this art style, which I don't really see the problem and it doesn't mean that the consumers are really pedophiles either. Having said all this I would bet that only a small percentage of lolicon/shotacon are actually pedophiles, also keep in mind that pedophilia is a mental disorder that can influence behavior, so it is common for pedophiles to try to find a way to satiate their peculiar sexual interest, besides representing a problem in the life of the affected (or for those who surround him or victims) therefore it is really complicated to differentiate a paraphilia of common eroticism that is why it is usually accepted that paraphilias are pathological disorders due to the damage they can cause, in lolicon is quite apart to real so the damage is null, in any case would be to oneself, but that would be something different from pedophilia since you do not try to have sex with children, do you understand what I mean? , And you should not directly label anyone as a pedophile without properly studying their behavior patterns and the damages of these.
I personally really doubt that current practices of consumption of lolicon/shotacon content are linked to pedophilia (although it is possible in a small amount of people), for example it is more and more common to find people who are only sexually interested in 2D characters and that automatically stops being part of any chronophilia to become a completely new and different paraphilia with its own characteristics and behavior patterns although in some aspects it is possible to find similarities only because the objective has a merely human aspect.

Anyway, great shit that I have released here lol, probably few people read all this, but well it's just my opinion and point of view based on the things I have investigated on my own and the knowledge and experiences with psychology that I have had throughout my life.
Of course this should not be taken as the absolute truth but in the same way you will never find an expert in psychology (that is respected) that with the current knowledge of psychology can give an absolute truth on this subject, because simply psychology does not work like that and many times it is very complicated to prove things because each case is peculiar.
I repeat it many times but it never hurts, psychology often completely ignores the scientific method, it is a ''science'' that still requires much study and improvement (this includes psychiatry and all related branches including psychoanalysis and sexology).

In short ''they look like children=pedophilia`` is not the right way to approach this, it is a fallacy.
 
Last edited:

Hexasheep93

varishangout.com
Regular
don't worry, the really dangerous people are not the ones who spread their shit behind the protection of a screen.
The day may come when we actually find a psychopath taking ''justice'' against ''pedophiles'', but it would be only 1 case out of thousands.
but that doesn't mean that these things are not dangerous and illegal and should not be allowed.
these people are nothing new, they are just a new form or extension of human behavior.
I would like to meet some of these children to see if they are as brave in real life.

it looks like you completely skipped the post @NretsewThePerv lol

ok look I understand what you mean and I am not going to call you retarded because your way of thinking makes some sense in the first place, the problem is that it only makes sense if the subject we are talking about is like mathematics where 2+2 will always be 4, or the way you put it (which I have been asked many times before) is this ''lolis (and shouta) look like children in many ways (this is a fact and no one with at least 2 neurons could deny it), therefore the people who like them must have some relation to pedophilia (or by extension lolicon and pedophilia must have some relation)``, simplified ''loli/shouta=children therefore lolicon/shoutacon must have some relation to pedophilia```.
the problem is that this is a fallacious argument, since the human psyche and by extension psychology are not so simple nor so exact.
Here I will raise some points that can be analyzed to prove that lolicon/shoutacon does not necessarily have to be related to pedophilia and how likely or close this relationship is.

  • first, nowadays we are seeing (and I think this is a fact for many people here but it is difficult to understand for an outsider) that many people are increasingly separating their attraction to characters (regardless of their age or appearance) from their attraction to real ppl, seeing more and more cases of people who have directly started to lose interest in real people, resulting in people (many) attracted to characters who directly do not give a damn about real life people, this can certainly be considered a pathology and therefore a paraphilia as it can affect the sexual well being and life of these people, but it should be approached in my opinion as an individual paraphilia, therefore attraction to characters of this type that have some similarity with children should be approached separately from pedophilia and, if necessary, treated as pathologically different. (to explain this in more detail let's go to the following points)
  • Second, people feel a natural attraction to young people, and yes this includes children, whether people want to deny it or not, whether they like this argument or not, especially if they some sex appeal (which I will touch on in the next point), as proof of this there are hundreds of cases of child sex offenders who have not been directly diagnosed as pedophiles, the problem is whether this goes unnoticed by you or not, If you start thinking about it too much then you probably have a problem, because although people may feel some sexual attraction towards children sometime in their life, they will automatically detect it as "a bad target to reproduce", this added to the fact that children do not release many pheromones, this is because the brain can associate many things with sexual attraction but not become a paraphilic. For example many people find feet or stockings attractive... and this does not mean that they have a mental disorder, but people do not see it the same with pedophilia simply because of their instinct of ''protection'' (and maybe something else that I do not know).
    Now add to this what @NretsewThePerv says, it is not so rare that a person feels attraction towards a character that look like a child but in the same way dislikes real children, this is because clearly your brain can differentiate between one and the other (this mainly unconsciously), and thus feel attracted to one or the other, imagine this as a person who likes women but not men, it is not just a moral issue, it is simply something more abstract and more subjective, that can not be applied objectively but in the same way you can not prove that if you like one you like the other also but if we know that it is possible, well I think the same principle applies to this of the lolis/shota. I don't think this is something as pathological as pedophilia as long as you are aware of WHAT YOU LIKE and don't try to go more towards the real thing as well as HOW MUCH YOU LIKE so it doesn't become a problem for you and others. Paraphilias are an intense attraction, something pathological in many cases and to say that someone who likes lolis is already automatically a fart is just absurd lol, in the same way I don't think there is a link between one and the other which is what we are discussing in the first place.To this let's add that people tend to easily confuse any form of attraction with sexual attraction, for example tell me here who hasn't dreamt at some point that they have had sex with their mother or sisters, and this ''confusion'' does not necessarily have to be a passing thing, and can apply to cute characters.
  • Third, here we will fall into art, and how art through an ''exaggeration and visual narrative`` expresses certain things to its viewers, simply put, you can make a child look sexually attractive to you through a drawing by using expression, narrative and exaggeration, and this will apply to many people whether they deny it or not lol, this is a good way to explain why seeing these typical 3d model illustrations feels so weird and no attractive, however lolis designs are usually very attractive and I doubt you will find someone who can tell you without getting their ideals in the way, i bet all these people who say that lolis are for pedophiles also see lolis attractive in a certain way but refuse to acknowledge it lol in fact many do accept that they are cute but not sexually attractive, but from that to the other there really isn't much difference, the problem is that they are made to be attractive, and the people who create them create them taking into account (not so consciously) of aspects that make them attractive, at the end get to think that the only thing that really differentiates an ''adult'' character from a ''child'' character is simply the volume of their body lol, something that would not be so in real life. In the end humans are sexual organisms and when we see something with a merely human aspect we will unconsciously try to sexualize it, try to see if it is a good match to reproduce or not if to these we add characteristics that make it more attractive then the result is evident and that doesn't mean at all that you are a pedophile lol.
It would be really complicated to know if all this started as pedophilia derived or not, I personally think not, although there might have been some real pedophile contributions to this art style, which I don't really see the problem and it doesn't mean that the consumers are really pedophiles either. Having said all this I would bet that only a small percentage of lolicon/shotacon are actually pedophiles, also keep in mind that pedophilia is a mental disorder that can influence behavior, so it is common for pedophiles to try to find a way to satiate their peculiar sexual interest, besides representing a problem in the life of the affected (or for those who surround him or victims) therefore it is really complicated to differentiate a paraphilia of common eroticism that is why it is usually accepted that paraphilias are pathological disorders due to the damage they can cause, in lolicon is quite apart to real so the damage is null, in any case would be to oneself, but that would be something different from pedophilia since you do not try to have sex with children, do you understand what I mean? , And you should not directly label anyone as a pedophile without properly studying their behavior patterns and the damages of these.
I personally really doubt that current practices of consumption of lolicon/shotacon content are linked to pedophilia (although it is possible in a small amount of people), for example it is more and more common to find people who are only sexually interested in 2D characters and that automatically stops being part of any chronophilia to become a completely new and different paraphilia with its own characteristics and behavior patterns although in some aspects it is possible to find similarities only because the objective has a merely human aspect.

Anyway, great shit that I have released here lol, probably few people read all this, but well it's just my opinion and point of view based on the things I have investigated on my own and the knowledge and experiences with psychology that I have had throughout my life.
Of course this should not be taken as the absolute truth but in the same way you will never find an expert in psychology (that is respected) that with the current knowledge of psychology can give an absolute truth on this subject, because simply psychology does not work like that and many times it is very complicated to prove things because each case is peculiar.
I repeat it many times but it never hurts, psychology often completely ignores the scientific method, it is a ''science'' that still requires much study and improvement (this includes psychiatry and all related branches including psychoanalysis and sexology).

In short ''they look like children=pedophilia`` is not the right way to approach this, it is a fallacy.
How about we let sleeping dogs lie :gura-pain:
 

Hexasheep93

varishangout.com
Regular
Oh I didnt read the post Im sure is pretty good.

Its just that this past few days, both in the fedi and here, has been nothing but dealing with the whole bubukka tracing nonsense and pedos spouting nonsense. Im juat a little weary that this is gonna get that shitstorm rolling again.
 

Hexasheep93

varishangout.com
Regular
Top