[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

View post   
  [?]In ghost mode, only threads with non-archived posts will be shown
File: 594 KB, 558x800, e1b56863941626ae01b160242a68136d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10980758 No.10980758[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is it still pedo even though they're 500+ years old?

>> No.10980768

Yes because they appear to be younger.

The law has accounted for this, pedo scum.

>> No.10980771

Quality otaku culture

>> No.10980776

The other day I lurked /co/ and they were having an argument about the new Green Lantern cartoon. Apparently there's some robot girl character who is a replica of a real little girl, and /co/ found it "creepy" that she was attracted to an older man or something. It really pissed me off, actually.

>> No.10980781

>>10980776
fuken normies, amirite?

>> No.10980782

Yes, they're the pedo though.

>> No.10980787
File: 76 KB, 731x673, sakura-and-yukito-card-captors-sakura-23274756-731-673.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10980787

>>10980781
But even normals know that little girls have crushes on older guys. It's not like the media doesn't encourage it. Are those 9-year-olds not supposed to feel physically attracted to Justin Bieber?

>> No.10980788

Is it so bad to be attracted to 500 year old vampires who look like they're 11?

>> No.10980793

>>10980788
It depends if you're attracted by their body or by their personality.

>> No.10980795

>>10980794
Then you're a pedo.

>> No.10980794

>>10980793
Body.

>> No.10980803

>>10980795
Tell me something I don't know.

>> No.10980800

>>10980776
/co/ and /cgl/ are tumblr's foothold from years ago. They're remnants of a dark time.

>> No.10980806

>>10980803
I love you.

>> No.10980808

>>10980806
Urusai urusai!

>> No.10980814
File: 192 KB, 800x1200, 1358486300296.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10980814

Little girl attracted to you? Take advantage of it!

>> No.10981252

>>10980758
No

>> No.10981320

They're grannies.

>> No.10983005

>>10980814
what is this from? Google lists a bunch of threads that lead nowhere and a title that isn't helpful leading me to a bunch of chinese websites.

>> No.10983485
File: 2.51 MB, 1423x2000, 971451540e5a77edb00dfd7f05ee6a1594ece2de.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10983485

Radiocarbon dating says they're OK.

wud serve faithfully.

>> No.10983732

Why do you get hard from little girls /jp/?

>> No.10983742

>>10983732
...Why wouldn't I?

>> No.10983758

>>10983742
Because it's pedo to be aroused by little girls.

>> No.10983797

>>10983758
You're assuming that's a reason to NOT be aroused by little girls.

>> No.10983807

>>10983797
It's bad to want to have sex with a child!

>> No.10983808

>>10980814

sauce? Don't think its Hajimari no Niina.. a shoujo manga the pic reminded me of. Good read imho.

>> No.10983813

>>10980758
Flan is only 495.

>> No.10983820

>>10983813
Isn't 495 years only the time she spent in the basement, rather than her actual age?

>> No.10983850

>>10983813
Doesn't matter, still legal.

>> No.10983859

>>10983850
Not under the Protecting Prepubescent Persons Act of 2012.

>> No.10983984

>>10983807
Silly, I don't want to have sex with children. I want to dress them up in various cute clothes and take pictures of them. And then masturbate to the pictures.

>> No.10984045

>>10983984
Do you want to feel them up? That's pedo too.

>> No.10984055

Sexualizing 2D is bad?

What next? Normals will tell us that even thinking about lewd things is bad? Even though they're the ones having the sickest fetishes with their porns.

>> No.10984059

>>10983984
This. If I had to have sex with a child, I'd probably be sick. But I love the idea of dressing them up in frilly summer dresses and bathing them, then keeping the pictures for those dreary nights when the lolis are asleep and I'm all alone.

>> No.10984066

>>10984055
Sexualizing 3D is bad? What next, etc.

It's not like we're telepathically abusing kids by being attracted to them.

>> No.10984071

>>10984066
According to the FBI you are

>> No.10984089

>>10984066
It's funny that you guys are the one usually annoying the hell of us all the time with the rhetoric : "Get a REAL girlfriend, 2D is just a picture !"
..but then go all defensive when people have fun with their 2D loli. Are you envious or something?

>> No.10984085
File: 88 KB, 455x687, Donald_Ewen_Cameron_canmedaj01237-0046-a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10984085

>>10984071
But the FBI has actual technology that can telepathically abuse people. They're hypocrites.

>> No.10984127

>>10984089
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

You can get your jollies off however you like, whether it's drawings of little girls, photographs of little boys, videos of adults, or stories about aliens.

I just think it's unfair to single out 2D pedophiles as the victims. Pedophiles who prefer 3D are victims too, especially when they're not hurting anyone.

>> No.10984132

If you fuck a 12 year old girl who looks like a 30 year old girl, it's wrong, because it's her age that matters.

If you fuck a 500 year old girl who looks like a 12 year old girl, it's wrong, because it's not her age that really matters.

These people don't give a fuck about having a consistent moral code, they just want to judge us.

>> No.10984164

>>10984132
>If you fuck a 12 year old girl who looks like a 30 year old girl, it's wrong, because it's her age that matters.
She's not mentally capable of consent.

>If you fuck a 500 year old girl who looks like a 12 year old girl, it's wrong, because it's not her age that really matters.
That's judging however.

>> No.10984166

>>10984066
Not at all. But by desiring children you are creating a demand for child pornography. This demand encourages people to record child rape, thus by desiring children you are an accessory to rape.

>> No.10984160

It doesnt matter how old they are,
The fact that you are attracted by them still makes you a pedo

>> No.10984170

you people are fucking ridiculous

>> No.10984177

>>10984176
this is literally the board for people rejected by /a/

>> No.10984176

>>10984170
This isn't /a/ kid

>> No.10984175

>>10984127
>2D pedophiles
>3D pedophiles
Biased fact.

A guy interested into 2D lolis doesn't necessarily means that he likes 3D lolis too, which is the common occurrence.
I'm not judging 3D pedophiles, they do whatever they want with their life, but I don't like it when people labeled us as the same, especially considering that they're constantly spouting their bullshit "2D is not real". If it's not real, then why do they care?

>> No.10984187

>>10984177
You are literally wrong.

>> No.10984190

>>10984177
>rejected

How does one get rejected on an anonymous board? Anyone can post there and no one would know. If people decide to post here instead of /a/ that's just because they want to.

>> No.10984192

>>10984177
Get a time machine and go back to 2008 before you start talking about why /jp/ exists.
Moot was mad because people kept doing Touhou hijacks in /a/, so he created /jp/.
It was from constant bitching or people being rejected, moot just got so mad that he created /jp/. He even threatened to remove /jp/ if it started getting spammed with semenonfig.

Fast forward to now however and you see /a/ adopting /jp/'s mannerisms and fads, while failing horribly (e.g. trying to be elitist and then getting mad when someone says their tastes are shit).

>> No.10984193

>>10984175
>A guy interested into 2D lolis doesn't necessarily means that he likes 3D lolis too

I know, that's why I tried to make the distinction. I wasn't saying you want to go out and molest real kids because you like 2D artwork or whatever, I hate that too.

What I think is unfair about saying something like, "They're just drawings! We don't want to harm real children!" is that it can equally apply to a lot of pedophiles who do like real children. Not all heterosexual men are rapists, after all. They just want to get off to some pictures, there are no victims, whether it's a drawing or a photograph. Any victimization has already happened, which is certainly a bad thing, but it's the people responsible that should be punished for it.

>> No.10984194

>>10984192
>It was not from
Fix'd

>> No.10984199

>>10984193
How would you knew the pictures of your rape were on some website for people to masturbate to.

>> No.10984219
File: 48 KB, 595x440, trangbang.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10984219

>>10984199
I probably wouldn't know.

There are pictures of far worse things that have happened to people, and some of them are quite famous.

People have seen me naked and it's embarrassing. Some of those people probably have really good memories and can remember every detail of my genitals. But if we had some mind altering device, I don't think I have the right to make them delete that image from their brain, even if I hadn't agreed to be seen naked. Maybe someone forced me to strip, in which case they should get arrested for sexual harassment. But that's it.

>> No.10984241

>>10984219
His argument was pointless anyway.

Assuming that we're talking about a 3D pedophile jerking off to real photos of lolis, chances are he'll just use them until he finds a "better" loli to fap to, just like people consuming sex. Even if you have a picture of yourself naked on the internet, chances are everyone will just forget about this after 1 month at best.

>> No.10984273

>>10984219
> I probably wouldn't know.
Well people who have been victims of child sexual abuse don't generally like the idea of their pictures hosted on porn websites for people to masturbate to. The knowledge that the porn is still out there for people to masturbate to

In all honesty, though, it's not as though I think someone who masturbates to CP is actually abusing a child because no matter how I think about it the child has no way of knowing what that particular person did. But I think hosting CP websites and trading CP should be illegal.

But I do feel bad for sending them to prison but that's just because the prison system is awful and they'll probably get shived or raped or repeatedly physically assaulted. And I do find it troubling how people think someone deserves a decade in jail for masturbating to CP. The sentences aren't there to protect anyone. They're there because people hate pedos.

>> No.10984280
File: 65 KB, 285x276, you will never.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10984280

>feelio when my bro and me fight about this all the time
>feelio when my bro claims having a crush on remi is Pedophilia, Necrophilia, and GILF Syndrome all in one
>feelio when he might just be right on all accounts

>> No.10984288

>>10984273
>But I think hosting CP websites and trading CP should be illegal.
Bad idea.

Just what do you think will happen if you start forbidding that? It's just like people trying to ban porn. Some people need them to either satisfy their lust, vent out their frustration of possibly both.

Banning everything would be the quickest way to raise the rate of rape acts and child abuses.

>> No.10984294

>>10984280
>having a crush on remi is Pedophilia, Necrophilia, and GILF Syndrome all in one
Your brother is an idiot. Period.

>> No.10984298

>>10984288
Are you literally trying to argue that some people need porn to "satisfy their lust, vent out their frustration of possibly both."?

>> No.10984297

>>10984280
>GILF syndrome
wat

>> No.10984305

>>10984298
He's saying it's better that people fap to porn than going out and raping some poor kid

>> No.10984306

>>10984297
The logic he uses is that since she's like 480 years older than me she's a super-GILF (Granny I'd Like to Fuck).
Whatever, she's still my one and only waifu.

>> No.10984310

>>10984288
Eh, the way I see it it even if it's illegal people will still do it. The trick is to make the punishment not nearly as harsh as the punishment for actual rape / molestation so people will do it instead.

>> No.10984311

>>10984306
The term is GMILF

>> No.10984321

>>10984305
Fap to your imagination once a week. Problem solved.

>> No.10984322

Do you think pedophiles will ever be viewed as homosexuals are today? A misunderstood minority?

Also,
http://newgon.com/wiki/Accounts_and_Testimonies

>> No.10984335

>>10984273
>Well people who have been victims of child sexual abuse don't generally like the idea of their pictures hosted on porn websites for people to masturbate to. The knowledge that the porn is still out there for people to masturbate to

Then I'm sorry for those people who feel bad because of their knowledge, but I don't think what goes on in their head should affect (even ruin) the lives of other people.

If I was an abuse victim I'd be more disturbed by the knowledge that I was abused than by knowing some perverts are jerking it to pictures of me. Hell, people jerk off to Facebook pictures, and Facebook has a "no nudity" policy. That doesn't mean certain pictures should be banned, whether the person depicted was aiming to be wank fodder or if they just wanted some nice holiday photos.

>> No.10984336

>>10984322
Oh, man, I know there was a comic about this somewhere where furries and pedos are like "It's so good to be accepted" and an old woman is like "back in my day we didn't have sex with animals" and the furry replies "STFU OLD BITCH STOP HOLDING US BACK WE'RE SUPER PROGRESSIVE BLAH BLAH"

>> No.10984351

>>10984336
I can't tell from your description but was the point of the comic to make fun of furries and pedos or to make fun of homosexuals and social justice people?

>> No.10984357

>>10984321
People sometimes needs fresh ideas to nurture their imagination.
What I failed to understand is why you're so much against it, they aren't even affecting your life in any way.

>>10984335
Banning something because someone feel bad about that knowledge is just wrong anyway.

>> No.10984364

>>10984357
>Banning something because someone feel bad about that knowledge is just wrong anyway.

Exactly. Though I do understand that sometimes things can be harmful or offensive, and I'm not saying people should be able to get away with serious harassment or discrimination. But unless a person's actions are directly affecting you, then what they're doing shouldn't be considered a crime. If they track you down and whisper lewd comments over the phone while they masturbate to your pictures, by all means phone the police. But simply assuming that people are getting off to your pictures shouldn't make it a crime.

>> No.10984362

>>10984322
Yes, right before society collapses. It'll be Rome all over again baby!

>> No.10984363

>>10984351
Basically to make fun of the path society is supposedly taking.

>> No.10984370

>>10984357
>People sometimes needs fresh ideas to nurture their imagination.
That sounds like literature and art.
>aren't even affecting your life in any way.
Everything affects everything. Some people are more interested in the surrounding world than others. The less interested tend to reject formal education.

>> No.10984374

>>10984357
>Banning something because someone feel bad

But people feeling bad is why we ban things to begin with. I think people forget this creates problems. I mean, not just feel a "little" bad, but when something seriously hurts mentally we ban it.

Or at least, that's what we ought to do.

>> No.10984382

>>10984374
>I think people forget this creates problems
I meant to say, I think people forget this, and that fact creates problems.

>> No.10984384

>>10984374
But it depends on intent and how directly you're affecting the person.

Sad music makes me feel terrible but I don't think it should be banned.

>> No.10984406

>>10984384
No, as I stated in there it depends on the level badness one feels.

And intent serves to mitigate but not dismiss punishments. If I accidentally hit someone with my car while not being careful I'm still going to be punished.

It just that, apparently, the thought of their porn being hosted on the internet makes people feel _very_ bad. So bad that they decided it should be banned to make these people feel better.

>> No.10984410

>>10984370
Let's be a bit realistic here.

Unless the pedophile is a stalker like >>10984364 mentioned, chances are the loli in question will never know that some guy is fapping to her somewhere, THIS is why I said that it doesn't affect your life in any way.

What I noticed is that people wants to ban things because they don't want to be HYPOTHETICALLY sexualized or something, just how stupid is that? In what kind of world are they living?
You cannot format everyone the way you want, heck this is exactly why humanity have all sort of problems, because of expectations, formatting etc.

I don't support pedophiles or something, but for the love of god let the guy be as long as he doesn't attack children. People are all for privacy but they are ok with intruding this guy's life only because he faps to little girls? That's just mere hypocrisy.

>> No.10984412

>>10984384
All I can say is that my life used to be much healthier when I didn't jerk off 2-5 times a day. Good porn encourages me to masturbate more. There's a reason why "wanker" is an age-old insult in many cultures.

>> No.10984423

>>10984406
>It just that, apparently, the thought of their porn being hosted on the internet makes people feel _very_ bad.
So, if tomorrow I read something on internet that makes me feel _very_ bad, It should be banned? You do realize how stupid that sounds right? In the end you'll have to ban everything.

>> No.10984456

>>10984410
>let the guy be
>People are all for privacy
To be honest, I'm not American.

>> No.10984460

>>10984423
It depends on how bad you feel. It's got to be long term psychological trauma.

Really, where do you think morals come from except "don't do things that make people feel really bad?". Laws are in place to try to keep people happy. So they don't have to be afraid of people robbing or hurting them.

Though, I can see the argument arising that a lot of "child porn" doesn't hurt that much since it just involves family pics or pics the kids took themselves. I which case that might be a good argument as to why sharing that shouldn't be illegal.

>> No.10984478

>>10984460
>It's got to be long term psychological trauma.

What if someone has some other complex or phobia?
I'm sure a lot of traffic accident victims can't stand the sight of cars, and I'd hate to be a PTSD victim watching a war movie.

Not to mention images of other forms of abuse aren't illegal, as far as I'm aware. The news was full of graphic pictures of the Boston Marathon bombing victims.

>> No.10984528

>>10984192
do you know what happens when a certain subgroup of users in one board are dumped into another board because they were being massive fags

it means you've been rejected

i'm sorry if the phrase makes you feel inferior

>ast forward to now however and you see /a/ adopting /jp/'s mannerisms and fads, while failing horribly (e.g. trying to be elitist and then getting mad when someone says their tastes are shit).
/jp/ has been shittier than /a/ for years now

stop trying to kid yourself

>> No.10984537

>>10980758
How is it nasty to have sex with lolis again? Remember, if its in the pooper, they can't call the cops

>> No.10984537,1 [INTERNAL] 

>>10984166
This is bullshit and I can prove it.

No, seriously.

>> No.10984537,2 [INTERNAL] 

>>10984537,1
Prove it.

>>
Reply to thread [?]Don't expect anything heroic. Your post will not be uploaded to the original board.
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action