You can't hide from the truth forever

Hey retard. You said, and I quote, "1/5 men are AT LEAST equally sexually attracted to girls under 11 years old".
The article clearly states

Saying "they are not mutually exclusive" does not mean shit. You cannot make inference from it. Saying that someone is hebephilic does not mean you can assume they are also pedophilic as well. You just know one aspect, the others are unknown. Get your shit straight.

Attached: annoyed black panther.jpg (325x480, 38.65K)

Can we have this pro-pedophilia threads deleted

the "primarily" thing could change it, there are also those who are both, so i don't know how they're counting
can't be arsed to click on that link

look, i don't want to give you too much shit, you are punished enough just by your existence, but there's no support to rally here for anything other than humane treatment rather than some spergs violent fantasies
it's weird you'd call someone "bigot", even outside of the issues context, just because they diagree with how you read your numbers

You forgot your flag.

I'll explain this VERY SLOWLY to an insecure bigot like you.

I DID get one thing wrong - the max age included in the first statistic.

This means that if you have 1,000 men then 220 of them have an attraction to girls under 13 that is >= the attraction to adult women

This means that there is 19% of the population that are MORE attracted to girls under 14 years of age and possibly more who are equally attracted (making up that 22-19 = 3%). Of this 19%, 16% are have a greater attraction to 11-14 year old girls while 3% have a greater attraction to 11 and younger. All of these 19% are still attracted to girls under 14 and the difference between attraction to each age category of girls isn't listed in this meta-analysis.

LEARN TO READ, RETARD

Pedophiles are literally the most marginalized and oppressed group on the planet solely because they like things other people don't.

Name a group more reviled for less reason than pedophiles.

Scientists can't even publish legitimate data on the subject because of bigoted oppression. Seethe rind et al controversy where political systems of power stifled legitimate scientific inquiry.

Youre still wrong in your OP though.
And pedophilia =/= hebephilia

Attached: smug.png (313x325, 88.93K)

Gamers

Yes. I averaged the 22% to 1/5 and accidentally read 11 instead of 13.

I'll correct that.

Just because it's natural to be attracted to teens doesn't make it ethical. It's just as natural for some people to be attracted to animals but I don't see you aggressively defending zoophiles.

Zoophiles aren't as marginalised in society although they do face similar challenges.

All bigotry towards harmless sexual orientations is wrong and a tool to divide the working class.

I have yet to find a child whose had sex with an adult and came out unharmed psychologically

maybe there's some stigma to it because some pedos do rape kids, and they don't really like that, so…
i give you that there's uncalled for hysteria that is politicized by right wingers to defame opponents with conspiracy theories and that there's a resulting lack of openness towards studying and treating pedophiles while not equating them to active rapists if they haven't acted on it

but that's about it, you wont get anyone here to give you any "support" beyond this

Not what we're arguing but regardless, your anecdotal nonsense means nothing.

And much of the scientific literature on this issue has been historically oppressed solely for political reasonings, like the rind et Al controversy

uh, well… i dunno. i had a gf once, at that point of legal age, telling me about her experience. let's say she didn't mind it, i guess?
another one however was freaked out when she told me about her realization that some relative of hers did something messed up she only found to be odd when she didn't understand what was going on.

i wouldn't legitimize pedophile acts just by some singled out cases you know of

but it's why pedophiles are stigmatized, because of the effect on the child, whether or not it's "natural" is irrelevant

Tbh, attraction to teens is fine. Not because people want to fuck them, but because they have the actual capacity to fuck and process fucking in an adult way. The problem is mostly power dynamics.

Prepubescent kids can't even cum right, they're literally not physically ready for sex. And early puberty is liable to be confusing - but after they've had a few years of getting used to what their body's doing, I don't really see the issue.

Rape and stuatory rape are two different things.

One is legitimate offender, the other is a made-up term by sexual puritans who rely on myths about how it causes psychological trauma despite it most likely being the case that systematic demonization of the act and tearing lovers away from each other is truly what harms them. Selection bias is obviously evident since it's only the bad cases that become the subjects of study,never the positive cases.

This is indoctrinated bigotry. This is like saying

ISLAMIFICATION

Not exactly, the prophet (PBUH) loved all kinds of women, his first wife was 50 something when he married her

there's a reason i simply said "rape"
they still cannot consent, it's the same thing to me
the effect is irrelevant for this, they can't say yes to something they have no comprehension of
and i wouldn't call a childs sexuality something they themself have a grasp of

Note to summerfags: this thread is the human nature argument but applied to a particular thing. 'why dont you care about muh pedos? see? HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE SHEER NUMBERS? EMBRACE THIS IDENTITY HURR DURR'

Upset?

No one cares if you're attracted to kids. There's nothing unethical about it. Have a good fap to some loli hentai.

But you can't go around fucking children. That's sick. They have no idea what's going on. You're an adult. They absolutely depend on you to have their best interests in mind. And then you want to go ahead and use them to fulfill your sexual needs? That's horrible. If that's you, you're a horrible human being, and you should probably go jump off a rooftop.

That being said, our society is pathologically afraid of pedophilia. I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with helping children explore their sexuality. But it can't come from a place of sexual desire, or even worse, some enjoyment of the position of power you have over them. That's where you gotta draw the line.

so that's why kids who get diddled mostly become heroin addicts

Non-harming, you say. It is not inherently-harming, yes, but what is the spirit of this practice? These children are not brought fully into the social world and they are as such not able to approximate the meanings of what's going on. Even those who know about sex don't necessarily understand the meaning of it. What you are asking for is a sort of asymmetric relationship where the asymmetry is based upon a very stark divide between the adult who knows more and registers it more and the child who doesn't. In order for your fantasy to work while overcoming this, adults must either be reduced to children or vice versa. If not, adults are going to be making use of children AS IF THEY ARE OBJECTS. It is a deeply bourgeois fantasy for that reason: people are objects to further some sort of cause for the bourgeois subject.

Say what you like about 'the facts' but your empiricism does not approximate what it practically means for us. When you are cornered there, you SQUIRM in the face of your fantasies being mauled before your eyes.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1444x1728, 897.79K)