How much of anti-pedo sentiment is just a gigacope for the fact that prepubescent girls are off-limits?

The easiest thing to do, when you can’t have something, is to take a sour-grapes attitude toward it. That’s why when men get to be in, say, their 50s, and can no longer pull 20-year-old girls as easily, they start to talk about how 20-year-old girls aren’t that great anyway. They start talking about how they prefer older femoids’ maturity. (Another reason is that they don’t want to seem like perverts for wanting to violate the half-your-age-plus-seven rule.)

Well, it could be the same way with prepubescents. They’re off-limits, so it’s easiest to just say, “I wouldn’t want a girl that young anyway. Real men prefer older women.” I saw this dude over at RVF saying that as you get older, “you start to look at other attributes of the woman… like pleasantness, conversation and positivity (all things lacking in hot young things)”. If that were true, then Hugh Hefner should’ve been using his money and fame to attract femoids his age, rather than young bunnies, because why wouldn’t you want the best you can get, if you’re in such high demand?

As soon as you admit that something you can’t have is desirable, then it starts to torment you, especially if you see other men having it. Why do you suppose child pornography had to be banned? Men couldn’t handle seeing other men doing stuff with prepubescent girls, that they’re not allowed to do. People justify these laws by saying, “The victim gets revictimized every time the video is watched,” but there will come a day when those girls are long dead of old age and buried, and the videos out of copyright (and therefore unable to generate income streams), yet the videos will remain illegal because they will retain their power to arouse male desire.

Remember what drove Elliot Rodger nuts — seeing obnoxious brutes with beautiful blonde girls, and knowing how much he wanted to have that. He wasn’t able to just tell himself, “Blondes aren’t that great anyway; they’re so dumb,” etc.

If men were to acknowledge that getting a blowjob from a prepubescent girl might actually feel good, it would produce discontentment at not getting to have that. Part of what child porn videos reveal, that must be kept hidden from the world, is that some of these little girls have some skills and talent at sucking dick, and really give it their all, even before reaching puberty.

Some cucks hate this type of thread because it interferes with their ability to gigacope with the fact that even if they ascend, they still won’t be allowed to get their dick sucked by a cute little girl. The truth hurts, but you gotta face it with courage. It’s just part of taking the blackpill.

4 thoughts on “How much of anti-pedo sentiment is just a gigacope for the fact that prepubescent girls are off-limits?

  1. Thank you very much for writing this Mr. Larson. Well to the point. I didn’t think about how jealous sour grapes play a part in getting items banned. And also I like the tone of male sexualists and hooefully more mainstream ideas of kids being sexual(read:human) than we ever give credit for. My own pre-pubescent blowjob skills were well honed due to familial sexual interactions and I’m glad to have received the early practice. Cheers.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hm, things being forbidden or concealed is a large part of ordinary sexua tropes. That doesn’t seem to interfere with paedophilia. I’m not convinced that opposition to ‘paedophilia’ is indeed a matter of ‘coping,’ a ‘cope’ seems like it should imply lightening the situation rather than self-imposed ascetic discipline or merely disagreeing with what one would prefer. Further, that’s circular – paedophilia is opposed, which makes it less likely to be seen as acceptable. Typically, in a sexual context, concealment and the ‘taboo’ are treated as a part of ordinary sexual attraction and not as inimical to it. Hence, liberals will support homosexuals or degeneracy or the sexual revolution, because they draw on a sense of the ‘forbidden.’ Obama promoted his campaign by appealing to a need for ‘change’ and ‘hope,’ for something pseudo-revolutionary which would seemingly be ‘edgy’ and new. Of course, the Clinton campaign instead ran on the basis of ‘experience’ and dynastic politics; in a sense, Obama’s political campaigns have a lot more in common with the victory of apparent ‘upstart’ Trump over the ‘establishment’ Clinton than with the Clinton campaign. All the same, the liberal base still tend to draw on things which seem ‘edgy’ while being quite generic, as a constant trend. They just can’t always turn that into a coherent campaign with an attempt at a political message.

    Likewise, liberals often hint that conservatives oppose homosexuality because they actually support it. Suggesting such things would actually raise more questions than it answers. And most people are quite willing to engage in hedonistic or degenerate behaviour, so why would they suddenly become reluctant to do what they would like? Incels are a whole subculture based on people wanting things that they can’t have. If they decide to not seek certain things, then they’re far from ‘coping’ and are rather reformulating the situation or questioning why they have to cope in the first place. People don’t have to cope with a situation, only with their perception of the situation. A person can try to ‘cope’ with a treacherous position even if they just imagined it.

    If people want something that they can’t have, then they have to ‘cope’ with the absence because this leaves them in a negative situation which they try to deal with. If wanting it is directly in question, then they haven’t yet gotten to the point where they cope.

    Males obviously oppose paedophilia for other reasons, otherwise it wouldn’t have been forbidden in the first place. They don’t merely encounter a situation where paedophilia happens to be ‘forbidden.’ If ‘anti-paedophile’ aspects are already a legal and cultural norm, it needn’t be a surprise that many males support it.

    Like

  3. Hm, things being forbidden or concealed is a large part of ordinary sexual tropes. That doesn’t seem to interfere with paedophilia. I’m not convinced that opposition to ‘paedophilia’ is indeed a matter of ‘coping,’ a ‘cope’ seems like it should imply lightening the situation rather than self-imposed ascetic discipline or merely disagreeing with what one would prefer. Further, that’s circular – paedophilia is opposed, which makes it less likely to be seen as acceptable. Typically, in a sexual context, concealment and the ‘taboo’ are treated as a part of ordinary sexual attraction and not as inimical to it. Hence, liberals will support homosexuals or degeneracy or the sexual revolution, because they draw on a sense of the ‘forbidden.’ Obama promoted his campaign by appealing to a need for ‘change’ and ‘hope,’ for something pseudo-revolutionary which would seemingly be ‘edgy’ and new. Of course, the Clinton campaign instead ran on the basis of ‘experience’ and dynastic politics; in a sense, Obama’s political campaigns have a lot more in common with the victory of apparent ‘upstart’ Trump over the ‘establishment’ Clinton than with the Clinton campaign. All the same, the liberal base still tend to draw on things which seem ‘edgy’ while being quite generic, as a constant trend. They just can’t always turn that into a coherent campaign with an attempt at a political message.

    Likewise, liberals often hint that conservatives oppose homosexuality because they actually support it. Suggesting such things would actually raise more questions than it answers. And most people are quite willing to engage in hedonistic or degenerate behaviour, so why would they suddenly become reluctant to do what they would like? Incels are a whole subculture based on people wanting things that they can’t have. If they decide to not seek certain things, then they’re far from ‘coping’ and are rather reformulating the situation or questioning why they have to cope in the first place. People don’t have to cope with a situation, only with their perception of the situation. A person can try to ‘cope’ with a treacherous position even if they just imagined it.

    If people want something that they can’t have, then they have to ‘cope’ with the absence because this leaves them in a negative situation which they try to deal with. If wanting it is directly in question, then they haven’t yet gotten to the point where they cope.

    Males obviously oppose paedophilia for other reasons, otherwise it wouldn’t have been forbidden in the first place. They don’t merely encounter a situation where paedophilia happens to be ‘forbidden.’ If ‘anti-paedophile’ aspects are already a legal and cultural norm, it needn’t be a surprise that many males support it.

    Like

  4. What if some of those who argue against sex acts with prepubescents do so as a tactical move to push the goal of abolishing the age of consent altogether? Dunno… Maybe… Maybe not… Maybe I am one of them or maybe I am a blue knight too… Dunno.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s