ITT

[Anonymous No.13269313]

Post dumb book reviews
>hurr durr Lolita bad

[Anonymous No.13269322]

>>13269313
>muh catalog of ships

[Anonymous No.13269331]

>>13269322
>implying that's not what it is

[Anonymous No.13269339]

>>13269331
>implying it's a bad thing

[Anonymous No.13269344]

>>13269313
>she was disgusted by Humbert's pov, but wants to read instead a rape fiction from the pov of a barely pubescent victim
wew. the mental inadequacy of burgers is boundless.

>>13269322
fpbp

>>13269313
>everyone is smart but me

[Anonymous No.13269359]

>>13269339
>implying it's a good thing

[Anonymous No.13269377]

>>13269313
He is right. Fuck off pedo.

[Anonymous No.13269423]

[Anonymous No.13269434]

>>13269423
holy shit, this may be the most based review of the Bible I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.13269446]

Look up your favorite book on Goodreads, sort for 1 stars, rage and post here.

[Anonymous No.13269457]

>>13269423
This is an excellent review though.

[Anonymous No.13269464]

[Anonymous No.13269476]

>>13269434 (me)
>>13269464
yeah, this one is too euphoric and Reddit for my tastes, gonna have to give it a yikes

[Anonymous No.13269487]

>>13269446
Not surprised that a lot of Arabs gave it 1 star and wrote their reviews in arabic script

[Anonymous No.13269497]

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/340489805
Y I K E S

[Anonymous No.13269519]

are you fucking kidding me

[Anonymous No.13269531]

>>13269487
based Arab 1 starring Dante for placing the
Prophet in hell.

[Anonymous No.13269629]

[Anonymous No.13269679]

>>13269313
Lolita has nothing to do with pedophilia.

[Anonymous No.13269696]

>>13269679
>a book where the main character is a pedophile who rapes his stepdaughter as the main source of conflict is not about pedophilia
lol

[Anonymous No.13269697]

>>13269377
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Lolita is not prepubescent.

[Anonymous No.13269699]

>>13269696
see >>13269697

[Anonymous No.13269711]

>>13269697
>>13269699
>pedantry
lol

[Anonymous No.13269724]

>>13269711
Pedophilia and ephebophilia are distinct psychological disorders.

[Anonymous No.13269728]

>>13269679
>>13269696
>>13269697
>>13269699
>>13269711
The point is that Lolita doesn't endorse pedophilia. Nabokov wants you to sympathize with Humbert over his tragic childhood but makes it clear that he destroyed Dolores' innocence and life. The clueless buffoon of a reviewer is either a brainlet or didn't even read the book.

[Anonymous No.13269729]

>>13269711
>can't admit they're wrong
lol

[Anonymous No.13269732]

>>13269724
>>13269729
yes, completely different, it's not like they both concern the rape of the underage, no, of course not, they have nothing in common and can never be used interchangeably

[Anonymous No.13269747]

>>13269732
the difference is one of them produces children and has frequently been thought as normal

[Anonymous No.13269752]

>>13269732
That they both concern the rape of the underaged is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they are distinct phenomena. Careless use of words for distinct psychological disorders leads to the spread of misinformation and creates confusion.

[Anonymous No.13269756]

>>13269747
>>13269752
this is getting dangerously close to apologism

[Anonymous No.13269761]

>>13269679
>>13269696
>>13269697
>>13269699
>>13269711
>>13269724
>>13269728
>>13269729
>>13269732
>>13269747
>>13269752
>>13269756
All of these anons? The same exact faggot.

[Anonymous No.13269763]

>>13269756
oh no

[Anonymous No.13269764]

>>13269756
>dangerously close
it was obviously some fedora who identifies as an 'ephebophile' or whatever from the start

[Anonymous No.13269770]

>>13269756
I have merely elucidated that pedophilia and ephebophilia are not the same thing. I do not condone either of them, nor have I typed anything that reasonably suggests that I do.

[Anonymous No.13269776]

>>13269761
No

[Anonymous No.13269780]

>>13269761
I will neither confirm nor deny
>>13269763
oh yes
>>13269764
I had assumed so early on, but I was giving them the benefit of the doubt
>>13269770
ok buddy

[Anonymous No.13269784]

>>13269761

[Anonymous No.13269800]

>>13269763
>>13269764
>>13269770
>>13269776
>>13269780
>>13269784
Still the same faggot. This isn't funny, nor is it cute. Stop before you truly embarrass yourself.
>>13269784
>inspect element
I take that back, it's getting embarrassing now.

[Anonymous No.13269803]

>>13269780
>stating that different but similar bad things are different things means you support one of them

[Anonymous No.13269813]

>>13269800
ok buddy
>>13269803
>conveniently forgetting the fact that differentiating ephebos and pedos is a common tactic used by the former to normalize their mental disorder

[Anonymous No.13269822]

>>13269800
Yeah, it's embarrassing for you defensively brainlets who are baselessly accusing me of being a sex offender just because you feel bad about being wrong about what pedophilia is.

[Anonymous No.13269838]

[Anonymous No.13269839]

>>13269803
>>13269813
>>13269822
Embarrassing, you even forgot to reply to the correct comment. What a retard.

[Anonymous No.13269840]

>>13269813
Again, ephebos and pedos are two different repulsive things. Would you accuse a mental health professional of ephebophilia for stating that it and pedophilia are distinct disorders?

[Anonymous No.13269845]

>>13269839
I didn't though

[Anonymous No.13269849]

>>13269838
he's right, you know

[Anonymous No.13269860]

>>13269822
>implying I didn't already know what pedophilia is
you're like those assholes who get triggered when people use "theory" in non-scientific contexts
>>13269840
yes, I would, since I don't rape minors

[Anonymous No.13269867]

>>13269860
this nigga mad he didnt get laid as a teenager

[Anonymous No.13269879]

>>13269867
have sex

[Anonymous No.13269913]

>>13269860
>implying I didn't already know what pedophilia is
Well, you used the word incorrectly, so...
>yes, I would, since I don't rape minors
A researcher would have absolutely valid concerns about the proper use of these words. For one thing, the say things are discourages ephebophiles from seeking help. They might struggle with sexual urges towards underaged people and don't want to talk about it because people will think they want to fuck infants. The better

The better people understand a problem, the better it can be addressed.

[Anonymous No.13269958]

>>13269913
>don't want to talk about it because people will think they want to fuck infants
because they do
fuck off, piece of shit pedophile, nobody wants you here

[Anonymous No.13269963]

>>13269958
le ebin outraged moral crusader

[Anonymous No.13269979]

>>13269697
Die

[Anonymous No.13269996]

>>13269958
They do not. Ephebophiles who are not pedophiles are not pedophiles. You have absolutely no valid objections to anything I have said, so you resort to unfunded ad hominem attacks. Also, your refusal to promote accurate discourse about these psychological problems only contributes to their continued prevalence, and at worse exacerbates them.

[Anonymous No.13270001]

>>13269996
Don't bother, the difference between the disorders is beyond his understanding. He's the type of person who thinks that if you have ever had fantasies of killing someone that makes you a psychopathic killer

[Anonymous No.13270008]

>>13269996
Who the fuck cares what it's called. It's sick nonetheless. I will continue to call it pedophilia when it involves a child.

[Anonymous No.13270018]

>>13270001
One wants to rape a child and the other wants to rape a slightly younger child. Not a big difference

[Anonymous No.13270022]

>>13270008
>Who the fuck cares what it's called
People who want these disorders to be well-understood so they can be appropriately addressed.

[Anonymous No.13270039]

>>13270018
You literally don't know what we're talking about. A pedophile desires to have sex with a prepubescent child. An ephebophile wants to have sex with a post-pubescent teenager that hasn't reached the age of consent yet. There's a definite difference between wanting to diddle a 6 year old and wanting to have sex with a 17 year old

[Anonymous No.13270040]

>>13269697
Humbert lusts after Lolita before her menarche and also after. He describes 9-12 as the age range of the girls he is attracted to. He is a pedophile.

[Anonymous No.13270057]

[Anonymous No.13270116]

>>13270039
>fucking a 17 year old is ephebo
and you were just saying before that I don't understand the definitions
just admit it, you're a fucking pedo

[Anonymous No.13270190]

>>13269487
Lmfao that one comment in arabic writing is phonetically 'Fak yoo Dan tee"

[Anonymous No.13270202]

>>13269487
based Samuel the joke getter

[Anonymous No.13270283]

>>13270040
Not a pedo if she has hit puberty. Hebephillia is a distinct disorder. Normal men who are not mentally ill can be attracted to a pubescent 12 year old girl. Becomes a pathology if that is all you're obsessed with.

>>13270116
You're an emotional retard and by having this ham-fisted attitude to this subject you will end up doing more harm than good. It's worth recognising that its perfectly normal to find a 15 year old girl (who has literally finished puberty and looks the same as she will when she's 23) attractive, but that it's generally not going to be good for society or her for you to have sex with her or be in a relationship with her.

[Anonymous No.13270305]

>>13270283
whatever helps you sleep at night, creep

[Anonymous No.13270327]

>>13270283
You didn't read my post, did you? Lolita enters puberty during the course of the story. Humbert lusts after her the moment he lays eyes on her. That is before she enters puberty. Humbert is attracted to prepubescent girls.

[Anonymous No.13270366]

>>13270040
If she's that old he's not a pedophile he's a hemophiliac.