Even Hitler liked a few jews.

>>10884 Any hol is a gol

They're more likely to be virped cucks

>>10884 "Non-exclusive" pedophiles are more likely thought to be the majority of pedophiles out there. Totally exclusive pedophiles, therefore, are the minority. Even so, there's a spectrum of exclusivity, with pedophiles who are equally attracted to adults on one end, with pedophiles primarily attracted to children on the other.

>>10897 actually that's wrong. exclusive pedos and gay pedos are way more likely to search for help non exclusive pedos can have relationships with kids that don't harm them while it's impossible for the other type of pedos

>>10911 >>10911 Not the other guy, but do you have any data to back up this assertion? Also, what on Earth are you talking about? Whether someone is exclusive or not has no bearing on what kind of relationship they can have with children. Being exclusive only means you're only setup to deal with kids sexually and romantically. You could still be friends with them regardless. And even so, sexual relationship aren't intrinsically harmful; there's an internet risk of harm, but that's the same thing with a number of different things kids unnecessarily partake in, and we don't freak out about that. This sex business is overblown, honestly.

Not only are most pedos non exclusive, but most men are non exclusive. It's the default setting. Unfortunately this also means that most pedos are pretending to be adult exclusive in order to save their own skin.

>>10916 I don't have the sauce sorry. it was an anonymous survey conducted by an european pedo help program. i don't want to search for it but it definitely sounds logical. By a relationship i meant a sexual relationship. i believe leaving kids after they grow up or pump and dump is harmful

>>10919 It doesn't really sound logical. You can't just spew out random tidbits like that and not back them up. And who said anything about "pumping and dumping"? We aren't teleiophiles who can just bang everything in our path. Hookup culture isn't good for most people, let alone kids. We shouldn't just reproduce the same faulty structure they have just 'cause. That'd be foolhardy. Pedophiles want actual relationships, as shocking as that may seem to ignorant teleios. We aren't animals who only want to hump.

>>10919 Hey bro did you hear that if you drink rat piss you'll become so ripped you'll look like a God? Huh? You want proof? I don't have the sauce sorry. It was an anonymous survey conducted by an european rat piss program. I don't want to search for it but it definitely sounds logical.

>>10920 >They're more likely to be virped cucks and do you have sauce for that? why would anyone who can ignore their pedophilic urges and still be sexually satisfied involve themselve with anything pedo related? >Pedophiles want actual relationships i know but how would that work for exclusive pedos? cp playing in background on tv? some kind of pills? i would argue that hookups while harmful would be less harmful than a pre-planned breakup after the kid "expires"

>>10922 What? What are you talking about? Pedophiles, just in general, have two options when it comes to kids getting older: stay with them anyway or break up. Neither option is more moral than the other, and you can't simply take a blanket approach when it comes to something as delicate as love and relationships. Some relationships last the test of time and continue on regardless of whatever stumbling blocks lie ahead of them, while some relationships end... and that's okay. Forcing people to be in relationships when they're no longer attracted to their partner just to satiate some weird moralism doesn't make sense, and can't be good for either partner in the relationship. Regardless if we're talking about a pedophilic relationship or a teleiophilic relationship, when it's time for a relationship to end, it needs to end. If you're an exclusive pedophile and you don't have any attraction to adults whatsoever, then that's okay. There's nothing wrong with being honest with yourself and your partner. I believe that as long as your approaching the situations with the appropriate care and compassion, and that you communicate your feelings clearly and in support of your significant other, that there's nothing wrong discussing this subject. Most people are sexual; they need to feel attracted to their partner in order for the relationship to function. Pedophiles aren't unique in this regard, it's just that people only ever get older, not younger. But if we lived in a world where some did get younger, we would see teleiophilic relationships fizzle out. Teleiophiles need their partners to be adults. We need them to be children. That's just how it is. So again, so long as you approach the situation care and the appropriate concern for your partner, there's nothing wrong with being honest and moving on.

>>10921 Muhammad actually said something like this but about camel piss.

>>10922 >cp playing in background on tv? some kind of pills? i would argue that hookups while harmful would be less harmful than a pre-planned breakup after the kid "expires" Anti-tier shitposting

>>10955 >you care about kids after they grow up? YOU ARE AN ANTI!!

>>10960 >*strawman*

>>10977 do you even know what that means?

>>10978 Yes.

>>10980 Great Your didn't have an argument and just called me an anti for pointing why exclusive pedos wouldn't be good partners in the long run, so i assume you disagree with that If you want a strawman please say why you disagree and i will make one >>10926 Being exclusive disqualifies relationships from the get-go. Normal adult or non-exclusive pedo relationships don't have anything that would prevent them from lasting till the death, at the beginning you can't predict when and if it's going to end. While you can move on, your partner will have problems with that and will still be thinking about you years after it ended. Kids bond way stronger and everything they loved about you is still there. You can't prevent it without manipulation/ purposefully turning the relationship to shit near the end. There is also a very high risk that they will blame themselves for everything and explaining pedophilia to them won't stop it. Knowing that it mainly benefits you and is very likely to hurt the girl, why would you do it?

>>10980 chad one word answerer >>10981 virgin unconfident over-explainer

>>10983 thank god you aren't a judge

>>10981 >Your didn't have an argument and just called me an anti for pointing why exclusive pedos wouldn't be good partners in the long run, so i assume you disagree with that Oh I'm sorry I thought you were being intellectually dishonest, I didn't realize you were just a retard I compared you to an anti because you're making exactly the same argument as an anti and assuming that a(n exclusive) pedo would act maliciously and would NOT want a lifelong traditional relationship with a gang of niggers.

>>10985 >with a gang of niggers can you stop being retarded and read? an exclusive pedo regardless of intentions CANNOT have a happy lifelong relationship also, the other exclusive guy breaks your argument

>>10981 I'm sorry, but literally everything you said is is a complete lie. Exclusives can be in long-term relationships with adults. That's an actual possibility, and there are at least a couple cases floating around the community of exclusive or near exclusive pedophiles in relationships with adults. If they can make it work, then we have no right to tell them anything. Moreover, you literally just made up everything about kids and bonding, or the whole manipulation bit. There are several anecdotal accounts of MAPs who were in relationships with children, and as time went on and the children grew up it was the children who ended the relationship, not the pedophile. You seem to ignore the reality that the children are still fundamentally people and that people have their own agency. They can choose when they want to be in a relationship. The fact is, as kids grow up they're not the same people they were when they were little—and they don't have the same interests, either. Something (or someone) a child found entertaining or attractive earlier in life isn't going to always maintain that same kind allure later on. So, these relationships can naturally grow apart or change with time like every other relationship. It's not that you meet someone when they're five, and all of a sudden now they can't live without you forever. That's silly. That view simply doesn't conform to reality. People grow apart or their interests change, that's just reality. And in any event, people shouldn't be forced to stay together just to satisfy some social expectation. It doesn't have to be any manipulation or any of that hogwash. You just have to be honest: Are you still attracted to your partner? Do you still love them? Having an honest discussion with your partner, whether they're 8 or 80, is fundamental to a success relationship. If you're very much in love with somebody when they're 9, but you're not so crazy about them at 19, you owe to both you to be honest and work through that. And the opposite is likewise true: Your little partner is going to grow up, and as mentioned they're going to change. They're going to go through puberty and adolescence, and it's just as likely that they're going to want to be with people their own age eventually, or that other circumstances will take you apart. In any event, you have to aware that nothing is permanent. Everything is ultimately subject to change.

>>10990 >I'm sorry Effeminate.

>>10990 >Exclusives can be in long-term relationships with adults I will ask again. How do they sexually satisfy themselves and their partners? Are they happy? >as time went on and the children grew up it was the children who ended the relationship The thing is, if you are a good partner they are unlikely to do that and even if they do it's not really a problem because the priority isn't your happiness but them not getting hurt. >The fact is, as kids grow up they're not the same people they were when they were little That might be the case if you are talking about 5 year olds but 8-9+ year olds don't change as much as you think. Their looks will change, their interests might slightly change but they are definitely still the same person. >when they're five, and all of a sudden now they can't live without you forever Nothing about those relationship should be sudden. You should first spend a lot of time with them and understand how they are changing with time and then decide if a serious relationship is viable. 5 is honestly too young. >And in any event, people shouldn't be forced to stay together just to satisfy some social expectation I agree but you shouldn't ever start a relationship that likely won't last due to you. >other circumstances will take you apart Examples? A relationship that can be broken for example by moving out should never be sexual. Partners in a child-adult relationship aren't equal but it feels as you are treating them as such. The part about becoming a completely different person is weird and doesn't match my experience. Do you take care of any kids? Did you have a younger sibling that you were on good terms with?

>>10993 nice trolling skills, you got me should've known better when you started deflecting questions

>>10995 >>10995 >How do they sexually satisfy themselves? How do you think? They have sex with their partners and fantasize. You seem to be under this misimpression that pedophiles can't have satisfying sex with adults—they do and can. Even exclusive pedophiles can with a bit more effort. I know a couple of exclusive and near exclusive pedophiles; they all have decent sex lives. Yes, it's far from ideal, but it's what we have. It's what we all have at the moment—Democrat activism and adult-posting on /leftypol/ are illegal. You have to make deal with legal porno, legal relationships and fantasizing. That's what's realistic. They're as happy as can be reasonably expected. >The thing is... You're just talking out of your behind here. The kids grow up; they change. So do their interests and who they're interested in. People can move apart without some major rift occuring. That's reality. Don't be silly. Have better counterpoints rooted in how relationships actually work. No? What functional 19-year-old young woman is the same emotionally and intellectually as she was at 8? A college freshman is absurdly different from an elementary schooler in virtually every aspect: emotionally, intellectually, in their interests and pursuits, and so on. Have you ever interacted with minors... at various ages? They're typically immensely distinct from one another at every group. >5 is too young... You're missing the point, maybe purposefully. The issue I was making there was that just because you form a relationship young, that doesn't mean you're the most important person in the world to that young person forever. People can and do move on all the time. And even in relationships that once important, that dynamic can change and the child will be fine. >Shouldn't be in a relationship that won't last... The relationship will go on however long it needs to or should, same as any. Pedophiles aren't know "pumping and dumping" their young friends like teleiophiles do their partners. We respect them, love them and treat them right. But we aren't married to them, and shouldn't be expected to meet your personal standards of whatever. We do the best we can, and that's all that can be asked. Period. >A relationship that can be broken for example by moving out should never be sexual. <That's just, like, your opinion, man. >Partners in a child-adult relationship aren't equal but it feels as you are treating them as such. Who said we were equals? What relationships have you honestly had? You're assuming too much, and it's silly. We know we're not really equals; but we still try and respect children. That's not hard. It's not a mystery to take them seriously.

>>10995 I sexually satisfied your mom, nerd