Hey /lit/, let's make a list of pedo/hebe writers. I'd

>Ann Frank

>>7258451

John Ruskin I believe wouldn't fuck his wife because he realized that past the age of about 9 women start growing hair and menstruating

>>7258451
>>Edgar Allan Poe (he married his 13 year old cousin, Virginia Eliza Clemm, when he was 26, and lied about her age on the marriage certificate.)
He wasn't really a pedo though, He was just being Southern.

>>7258650
Damn, he never consummated his marriage...

File: 1411930537804.jpg (488KB, 2000x1300px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 2000x1300px

Does this count?

>>7258451
No Thomas Mann ?

>>7258489
Gee Anne, it would be a shame if someone reported you to the Gestapo.
Now pull off those panties and let me see you piss.

>>7258889
Death in Venice?

>>7258901
Yes, even if it doesn't represent his feelings, it's still the cliché of pedoliterature.

>>7258907
Even if I was searching for books about little girls, I'll remember it. Thanks.

>>7258451
>Lolita
>A sympathetic portrayal of a pedo

If I unironically liked young girls I would be shivering with rage at the end of it.

>>7258878
Probably just let her take it by other guys. It's the only fair thing to do, the cuck.

>>7258915
Also, Ginsburg OP.

>>7258915
>unironically liked young girls
Kek

>>7258451
>>Lewis Carroll
What the fuck

>>7258926
Huh? Pretty well known.
>>7258451
>>7258915
Ol' Nabby is on there not for just Lolita bud.

>>7258930
sources on lewis carroll?

>>7258940
Aren't his photos self-explanatory ?

>>7258915
I nearly cried with the end, mate.

>>7258940
Not him, but you should investigate about Carroll's hobbie of taking photos of little girls (also, there are new pics of nude little girls attributed to him).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11368772/BBC-investigates-whether-Lewis-Carroll-was-repressed-paedophile-after-nude-photo-discovery.html

>>7258920
Could you explain a bit more? Maybe a complete name?

>>7258930
Ada or Ardor too. When you like little girls, and don't care about morals, incest becomes a stupid taboo.

A possible pedo might be Tarjei Vesaas. Check "The ice palace" (and the movie of the same name).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr0rYtams0w

(there are some really nice nude little girls)

>>7258953
Not poster, but allen ginsberg was a huge advocate of NAMBLA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

File: Pedo-bear-seal-of-approval.png (387KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 3000x3000px

This thread is pedobear-approved.

Also, I don't know where, but I've heard that Hans Christian Andersen was a pedo too. Does somebody know if it's true?

>>7258966

well he looks like one so that's proof enough for me

>>7258967
It's because of his jew nose?

>>7258972

yeah that thing was ginormous, reached from one end of the block to the other, probably a fucking pedometer in length

I should have known this board would be full of pedos, what with all the religion nuts.

I think people with religion are really just projecting their irreconcilable paraphilias onto others by claiming universal sinfulness.

>>7259007
Do you really think that we believe in religions, Mr. Bond?

>>7258958
>advocate

https://youtu.be/IuRLGdGnqSU?t=50s

>>7259010

>The laser will sever your penis, unless you can suppress your boner

If you expect to arouse me, you have to try harder.

>>7258957
hmm

>>7259014
Little girls aren't enough for you?

>>7258888
quads for the holy grail

>>7258878
Yeah, and he got cucked by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (who also cucked William Morris).

>>7259050

They might if they tried harder.

File: download.jpg (7KB, 195x258px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 195x258px

>>7259145

Rossetti was p based

I wonder if he went for the swinburne boipuss

more likely they just acted as wingmen and were partners in cuckoldry, fucking and cucking everywhere they went

>>7258961
this is 4chan, what the fuck did you expect?

I wish I could be a cute little girl ;_;

>>7259334
Are you a man or a woman? I ask because that's creepy in the first case, but really hot in the latter.

>>7259345
odd that the gender matters.

>>7259334
>>7259345
>>7259346
Who wouldn't want to be a little girl?

>>7259348
me. i wouldn't want to be the object of you disgusting neckbeards' fantasy, or even worse, actions.

>>7259351
>2015
>Judging by stereotypes

>>7258451
>>7258926
>>7258930
>>7258940
>>7258946
>>7258953

LEWIS CARROL ISN'T A PEDOPHILE, I WROTE AN HONORS THESIS THAT INCLUDED HIM AND I SERIOUSLY LOOKED INTO THIS

The nude photos are nudes, not pornography. They were done with the permission of the parents and locked away so the girls wouldn't be embarrassed. All child nudity being pornography is anachronism. There were plenty of child nudes being painted at the time. The camera was an interesting novelty at the time, seen sort of like shitty painting. Lewis Carrol idolized children for their purity and simplicity, and so did many of his contemporaries. This is often called the "cult of innocence." Sexualizing children would be heinous to Carrol, it would foul them. Look to the Alice books, they're about a little girl navigating an absurd, defamiliarized version of adulthood with simple politeness and pleasentness.

Really look into it and don't pay attention to the BBC et al with their sensationalized view of them.

Somebody said that JD Salinger was because of "A Perfect Day for Bananafish." I never finished reading that though, so can't confirm

>>7259368
I call bullshit. Established interpretations are established for a reason.

>>7259368
THe man is dead he needsnt a lawyer

>>7259376
In the historical and literary work, it isn't established. Carrol is guilty in only the court of public opinion.

>>7259371
>"A Perfect Day for Bananafish." I never finished reading that though
huh?

>>7259368
Huh. Sounds like a typical lolifag though tbh

>>7259381
In what way? You say that 'the cult of innocence' is ignored, where can I read more about it?

>>7259386
>>7259376

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lewis-carrolls-shifting-reputation-9432378/?all

Here is a very clear, reputable source for my statements.

>>7259383
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Perfect_Day_for_Bananafish

>>7259394
I know what it is, but it's a very short story, how could you not finish it

Nine Stories is my second favorite collection from him tbh. Very nice.

File: 13882604241.jpg (323KB, 1366x2048px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1366x2048px

For anyone looking for pedo/hebe novels, check out The Belvedere Field. It isn't a great book (certainly not literary fiction), but it is the only proper love story between an adult man and a preteenaged girl that I've come across.It's well worth reading for the first half. Confirmation by Gianni Segre is also good.
>>7259371
I would agree that Salinger was a pedophile.

>>7259393
>http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lewis-carrolls-shifting-reputation-9432378/?all
seems like a legit source but https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ is a documentary that's equally convincing. How would you respond to the documentaries points?

>>7259345

I'm a man and forty-three. Age gives you perspective, pal.

File: 1434681723154-1.jpg (753KB, 2000x2694px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 2000x2694px

>>7259407
>For anyone looking for pedo/hebe novels, check out The Belvedere Field.
Thank you for the info. Does it feel realistic?

>>7259393
>> article on the smithsonian
>> article split over 4 pages to get dat ad revenue
>> article deliberatly hides it's evidence behind clickbait till the third page.

fuck that. How about you defend your claims yourself?

>>7259393
"Annie’s lovely form and face"
unexplained problems with the object of his obsession's family
perpetual bachelor
"References to him hugging and kissing girls"

mmmmmmk sure

File: 138826042561.jpg (1MB, 2099x3149px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2099x3149px

>>7259438
It feels a lot more realistic than Confirmation (the characters are more multidimensional (the girl in the book really does behave like a child) and real), and it has a balance of love and sex.They have sex a fair bit if I remember correctly.

File: 1434139421189.jpg (2MB, 2784x1856px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2784x1856px

>>7259470
I see... Any pdf link out there? English is not my first language, but I might give it a try.

File: 37615044ggb.jpg (52KB, 402x604px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 402x604px

>>7259490
Can't help you there. You could always buy it.

>>7259368
I know, I just wanted to troll
(>>7258946)

André Gide, specifically L'Immoraliste

File: 1417788317386.jpg (66KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x640px

>>7259687
Straight pedophilia only pls

File: 1404553133811.jpg (273KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1024x768px

bump

>>7258451
This thread is disturbing

File: 142681489118.jpg (929KB, 2112x2816px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 2112x2816px

Garcia Marquez should be added to the list (Memories of my Melancholy Whores, Of Love and Other Demons)

File: Nadzam_Lamb otherpress.jpg (180KB, 1067x1600px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1067x1600px

Has anyone else read this? I've never seen anyone mention it before.

>>7259368
>I WROTE AN HONORS THESIS THAT INCLUDED HIM AND I SERIOUSLY LOOKED INTO THIS

oh wow, an honors thesis! I guess that solves everything then. World-class essayist here has clearly ended the notion permanently

>>7259756
fuck off faggot

>>7259368
m8, there's no way you found anyone to cite to back that thesis. he took pictures of girls past the age of consent which did not fall into the cult of innocence dynamic and it would have been clear to anyone in the era the 14 year old was an adult engaging in public nudity.

File: 1435774301815-1.jpg (192KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1280x853px

>>7259614
Thank you anyway, mate.

>>7259889
Hania?

>>7259902
Damn, you're right. Maybe "One Hundred Years of Solitude"?

>>7259931
Added to my personal list, thanks!

File: 1370653222973.jpg (361KB, 2047x1536px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 2047x1536px

>>7260051
Yes indeed. <3 Hania

>>7260086
yes, because posting pictures of dead children is much more representative of a healthy mind!

>>7260086
disgusting, why do you have a pic like that saved in your pc?

>>7260090
implying i claim that
>>7260095
to post it here

File: tumblr_m5ox4cbAme1rx636vo1_1280.jpg (527KB, 770x1024px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 770x1024px

So... this is the current list of (possible) writers of pedo books:

>Straight:
John Ruskin
Lewis Carroll
Vladimir Nabokov
Edgar Allan Poe
Hans Christian Andersen?
Tarjei Vesaas?
Gianni Segre?
Anthony Nobbs (The Belvedere Field)
Bonnie Nadzam (Lamb)

>Gay:
Allen Ginsberg
Thomas Mann
André Gide (The Immoralist)

>>7260067
Nice taste.

>>7260086
Damn, how can you live saving pics of dead kids? Do you masturbate to that?

Thomas Pynchon?

thread
delete
thread
delete

Kill this thread with fire, nuke it from orbit, whatever but just destroy it !!!

>>7260158
>people in power have killed innocents so pedophilia is ok and also it's somehow your fault

powerful argument

What a great thread with my fellow anons. We are the anonymous legion, right? Please keep posting gentlemen, nothing going on here, certainly not any IP logging by government agencies.

>>7258451
I can't believe I wrote a paper about this board. Fuck all of you guys.

File: 1419109176485.jpg (172KB, 1039x1600px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1039x1600px

>>7260158
Don't post when you don't have any knowledge of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Your view on American foreign policy is also naive as fuck. Don't bring your stupid politics into this thread please

This thread is what happens when /b/ and /lit/ meet.
Now kill that eltdrich abomination !!!

>>7260117
Andersen's mostly bi forever alone, I think
Ruskin isn't a pedo, the story about pubic hair is apocryphal and he fucked a lot of whores
Add Beauvoir and Sartre, especially their letters to each other.

>>7260200
That's your own fault you fucking retard.

>>7260206
!!1!!!1!!

>>7260210
>Simone de Beauvoir
>Jean-Paul Sartre
Both straight?

>>7260200
What do you mean?

Me

>>7260227
No, Beauvoir liked girls

>>7260233
dubs can lie sometimes

>>7260233
you're acting like it's 100% sexual. that's just ignorant.

File: 1326334322697.jpg (61KB, 550x452px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 550x452px

>>7260233
If you cant appreciate the beauty of children then I would say that's a personal problem, pedo or not you should see the attraction.

File: 1398189968610.jpg (238KB, 800x744px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 800x744px

>>7260248
I totally agree with this.

jesus christ this board is fucked

>>7260282
which board is not fucked?

>>7260287
none of them but my god this is a new low.

>>7260292
forreals. i've never seen it so blatant. this board needs jesus.

>>7258896
lmao

>>7260305
i'd rather have repressed pedos tearing themselves apart internally rather than ones that trot it out in the open on /lit/ and act like there's nothing wrong with it.

so for once, yeah I'd say this board needs fucking jesus.

>>7258889
you're retarded

File: 137221002863.jpg (62KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 768x1024px

>>7260233
You are way off the mark with your post here. Besides the physical attraction (little girls are more aesthetically appealing than women), I find their personalities much more attractive too. It is their innocence and joy for life that makes them partly so appealing. Women are boring.

>>7260314
>muh feelings
You heretic

>>7260314
Yes, or at least have them get off this fucking board. Mods, can you please ban these fucks? this whole thread is barely, barely related to literature.

>>7260305
Nah, better pedos than christfags tbqh

>>7260321
They're children, you realize that right? Their personalities haven't even formed yet, and if you fuck them you do irreparable damage to their psyche. It's a pretty heinous fucking crime.

>All these moralfags
Mods, ban anyone who thinks that we should censor everything before 1980s female writers, they're trying to kill literature. Thnx

Ausonius swung both ways but mostly towards teenagers
>Collige, virgo, rosas, dum flos novus et nova pubes
>et memor esto aevum sic properare tuum.

Srsly though, no Wilde? He was tried for corruption of a minor ffs
Ginsberg joined NAMBLA

Burroughs and Byron fucked a lot of boy pussy but that was kind of the feature of a lot of grand tours so we might as well say The Greeks/Flaubert

ITT: dried up old hags getting mad at beautiful young girls

File: 1369389656710.jpg (74KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x800px

>>7260335
I never argued in favor of having sex with children. I am primarily attracted to little girls; I find them sexy and beautiful but that doesn't mean I would have sex with one (unless there was a situation where she was perfectly willing). In fact I am in favor of keeping sexual relations between adults and children legal. There is certainly nothing heinous about posting innocent pictures of cute little girls on this board and discussing what is purely fantasy.

>>7260383
>doesn't want people to fuck children
>same as wanting censorship

Watch out everybody we got a bonafide logician over here.

>>7260388
As long as you're keeping it fantasy we've got no problem.

>>7260388
>mfw frequently jerk off to the memory of fooling around with a 12 year old girl when I was 13 or 14
it was amazing. their bodies are literally perfect

>>7260397
>doesn't want a thread about fucking children in literature on a literature board
>thinks this wouldn't censor important parts of canon
you're retarded and illiterate so who you want to fuck is irrelevant because you should be sterilized for the sake of future library patrons

>>7260388
it's impossible for them to be perfectly willing, because they don't understand what the act is, how it will fuck them up in life. If a banker said he was going to give a 9 year old a million dollar loan with 20% interest, would it be okay because the 9 year old was "perfectly willing"?

>>7260416
sure, it's not termed, the kid doesn't have to pay back the interest ever, legally speaking. kid would be dumb financially speaking to not take that, it's practically a gift with a better tax profile. guess you don't read much

>>7260423
fine you dumbass, let's say laws weren't in place that protected the kid.

File: 133.jpg (203KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1600x1071px

>>7260370
Not him, but... how many kids you've met? It all depends of the education that they receive. Out there are lovely kids, with more common sense than lots of adults. Kids that respect you if you treat them with the same respect they deserve. But what do you expect when you expose them 24/7 to political correctness, Disney serials, and the contempt of adults who fear to hurt their underage "property"...?

Kids aren't stupid, as many people believe. They're just less experienced (they have had less obstacles in their lifes). And despite of this, they have their own criterion. Don't judge kids for their adolescent phase (all these hormones transform them in a different person).

Believe me when I say that kids under 10 have sexual interests. It's in our nature. I don't mind how long you guys try to deny it.

>>7260427
your analogy would still be retarded because the point is it doesn't invoke any law which would protect the lender. seriously, get an of age advocate to read and sign any legal documentation for you until your reading level improves. also, leave

File: 1395448629659.jpg (76KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 960x960px

>>7260416
Children are interested in and can enjoy sex just like adults. The trauma from consensual relationships with children comes from the stigma attached to it; children are taught that if they have that experience that it's wrong and they've been used, regardless how they felt about it at the time. It's entirely possible that a child could have a consensual relationship with an adult man, but it would have to be one with mutual affection and trust on the child's part. I wouldn't advocate using a child for sexual gratification. I am only interested in having a romantic-sexual relationship with a little girl. But I realize that is unlikely, and most likely pure fantasy.

>>7260434
>Believe me when I say that kids under 10 have sexual interests. It's in our nature. I don't mind how long you guys try to deny it.
Then how did I not have any sexual interests until puberty? (Inb4 freud-tier psychoanalysis)

>>7260463
>And they respect being treated well because they are yet to understand facades, back stabbing, intentions, their moods are yet to be complex and accordingly act to what is done to them.
I can't agree with that. Of course they understand things like back stabbing. They can do that, they can lie... It's related to what I said before about education. If their parents lie and cheat, that's what they learn. Also, the most aggresive kids i've met are those who have problems with their parents.

>>7260471
What I said is not a rule. Depends on a lot of facts. If you're interested, I started developing sexual feelings around 7yo.

File: 1374801397461.jpg (359KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1365x2048px

>>7260489
What does the end of your post even mean?

Also I don't see how we are disagreeing on anything here. I have already said I'm in favor of keeping child sex illegal.

>>7260462
I wish I could reach through this post and strangle you.

>>7260510
you shouldn't be left near children

The real tragedy is that Woman/boy love is the purest, most tender form of affection there is.

>>7259371
Who the fuck was a loli in that dreadful Bananafish story?

>>7260508
cruel picture. I was listening to jazz. stared at her with such a vague expression. felt like a distant dream, of some world not this. god im sad

but why isn't this thread deleted already?

>>7258451
Do you guys know of any books about pedophilia from the female perspective, specifically female pedos?

I ask for purely academic reasons.

>>7260117
Often the argument against distribution CP is a fundamentally anti-capitalist one where distribution of existing cheese pizza necessitates more demand for it but I know many of you guys are staunch communists here so what is the ideal policy on CP in your vision of a communist utopia?

File: tampa alissa nutting.jpg (88KB, 460x734px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 460x734px

>>7260533

>>7260524
Because everybody here secretly enjoy little girls look, hair smell, cute voices...

>>7260495
>What I said is not a rule.
So, why did you even bring that up in the first place?

File: 204365.jpg (101KB, 1067x1600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1067x1600px

>>7260510
You sound like a violent bigot m8

>>7260540
Damn what a cover

>>7260542
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSSLQf95-Nc

>>7260538
CP is the rebuttal against piracy in intellectual property. If creative works are stolen there's no impetus to create new works.

>>7260538
Its wrong, you fucking moron. Would you want a bunch of dudes wanking off to your 5yo gaping asshole?

>>7260522
Read it again dumbass

>>7260154
>>7260180
>>7260190
>>7260206
fucking normalfags

>>7260564
Now why would I subject myself to that?

>hurrdurr, I'm a psychopath with the mind of a child, let me tell you about my lolsorandom fish story

>>7260233
3dpd tbh

>>7260576
Thats pretty accurate actually

>>7260596
>supposed to be
you can be attracted to whatever you want, fam

>>7260341
>>7260233
i imagine this formed some of the impetus for lolita

>>7260538
Before the illegalisation headed by the USA, CP was like any other pornography. There is a market, and people paid for it. Nobody made a big deal.
It's similar to what happens with strong religions countries. Porn is forbidden "because it's bad and wrong", and you can't discuss that, because you'll become a bad person in the eyes of the society.

>>7260579
>but you overestimate highly on how much they can know being such little age.
Maybe it's you who underestimate them. Not having the proper tools (words) doesn't mean that they don't think/feel it.
Out there are scientific studies that prove that there's no real problem with kids having sex with adults, but if you talk about it, you'll be fucked and exiled. What do you expect of our times, when Nobel prizes must retract their own words because the truth can "offend" stupid people?

>>7260546
It's just fantasies ;) why can't I fantasize about stabbing you in the kidneys and curb stomping you outside your moms house? :) I'm not hurting anyone

>>7260610
Well I think having a market for it is wrong but in a centrally controlled economic system maybe it is best to let previously produced stuff be watched to prevent more serious things from happening

File: 1406570545891.jpg (116KB, 768x866px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 768x866px

>>7260579
I had to google to find what "snek" is. Apparently it is a reddit meme.

My point was that child sex is not wrong because it is harmful, it is harmful because it is wrong. I agree there is good reason for the stigma; children's innocence should be protected, and part of that innocence is ignorance of sex.

>>7260596
Unconventionally attractive but I'm pretty fond of that picture.

>>7260406
I never said I wanted this thread on the board you fucking cuck. I said I have a problem with people fucking children. You bitch about reading comprehension when you have none, fucking kill yourself.

>>7260646
>children's innocence should be protected
For us, "innocence" is wonderful, and something to save. But honestly, it's just unexperience combined with expression incapacity. Is this kind of behaviour (innocence protection) so applauded nowadays, what hurt kids.
How do I know this? Once I've been a kid.

>>7260687
>I said I have a problem with people fucking children.
The problem is yours. Let the others live in peace.

>>7260646
>it is a reddit meme.
it started as a screencap of an indian woman on facebook, and it's been on 4chan, tumblr and reddit fam

>>7260706
It's literally effecting the lives of my friends and family, why would I let people wantonly fuck children and scar them for life?

>>7260617
post it tbh

>>7260706
Protecting innocence is in fact the most important reason child sex is shunned in our society, but that's a conversation for another time, I'm going to bed.

>>7260722
I don't know why you think your friends are more relevant than literature, but I do like how you're using their supposed pain to try to win an argument on a literature board. One of us :D

>>7260734
Test

File: 1434932459802-2.jpg (332KB, 1177x1762px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1177x1762px

>>7260722
>fuck children and scar them for life
I'd need some proofs for that affirmation.

>>7260730
Me too. Good night.

Nice conversation, guys.

>>7260734
Wait, I just realized I mistyped that last post. It was supposed to say "I never said I didn't waant this thread on the board you fucking cuck. I said I have a problem with people fucking children. You bitch about reading comprehension when you have none, fucking kill yourself."

Sorry for the confusion, but I'd still like it if you promptly blew your brains out you smug pile of human garbage.

>>7260741
>The existing literature on the long-term sequelae of child sexual abuse is reviewed. The evidence suggests that sexual abuse is an important problem with serious long-term sequelae; but the specific effects of sexual abuse, independent of force, threat of force, or such family variables as parental psychopathology, are still to be clarified. Adult women with a history of childhood sexual abuse show greater evidence of sexual disturbance or dysfunction, homosexual experiences in adolescence or adulthood, depression, and are more likely than nonabused women to be revictimized. Anxiety, fear, and suicidal ideas and behavior have also been associated with a history of childhood sexual abuse but force and threat of force may be a necessary concomitant. As yet, there is insufficient evidence to confirm a relation between a history of childhood sexual abuse and a postsexual abuse syndrome and multiple or borderline personality disorder. Male victims of child sexual abuse show disturbed adult sexual functioning. The relation between age of onset of abuse and outcome is still equivocal. Greater long-term harm is associated with abuse involving a father or stepfather and abuse involving penetration. Longer duration is associated with greater impact, and the use of force or threat of force is associated with greater harm.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014521349290011F

Stop fucking pretending that children aren't hurt by this shit you fucking moron.

>>7260744
>telling rape victims to blow their brains out because rape victims you're friends with are important
>on a literature board
>while getting the quote chain wrong
now i think you're three kinds of dangerous idiot. the one that's relevant is that you think any of this opinion piece is about books. hell, i've been raped and i can still tell you're not here to talk about literature, maybe it didn't scramble my brains enough for this to be a fair exchange. not getting raped obviously did you some damage

It is pretty interesting though, is it not, pedophilia.

>>7260617
You can tho. You will just sound like 14 yo shota boipussy ripe for pounding by doing so

>>7260755
>Longer duration is associated with greater impact, and the use of force or threat of force is associated with greater harm.
You're talking about rape, mate. I'm talking about consensual relationships.

>>7260617

lmao were on 4chan what do you expect, take your silly fantasies elsewhere, i'd say the same to them but atleast they arent talking about curb stomping people. thread shoulda been removed.

>>7260755
>relationships formed on a basis of fear, pain, and an inherent inequality of power produce within the lesser psychopathology
I don't think that was what he was talking about.

>>7260788
you're worse than the people who want sci-fi threads removed because >genre fiction

>>7260400
tfw I have a 19 yo qtpi gf that weighs 88 lbs and is exactly the body type you are talking about :^)

>>7260765
>getting the quote chain wrong
>implying that post was intended for you

I think you're legitimately retarded.

>discussing rape in a thread where claims are made that raping kids isn't harmful is stupid

Yeah, definitely retarded.

>>7260784
Eight year old kids can't consent.

>>7260816
>I don't know how to quote
>it's your fault
So I heard you can't triforce?

>>7260809
((((((>_<))))))

>>7260051
>"One Hundred Years of Solitude"
Pooir Remedios. She deserved a happy life with his husband.

>>7260117
the immoralist was lame. he didnt even do anything with kids. its was like 3 pages out of the entire book he even hinted towards liking little arab boys

>>7260540
>alissa nutting

Can someone sauce me who this qt cunny is?

>>7260152
Came here to post this. Didn't read any of his works but I heard about controversial chapters involving pedophilia

Does anyone else use redundant pleonasms to make themselves sound smart?

>>7258676
what a failure of a joke kek

>>7259012
underrated

>>7260388
>Perfectly willing
Just because the other assents, it doesn't absolve you morally.

File: 1314999037018.jpg (57KB, 700x650px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 700x650px

This thread would have probably be dead by now if not for moralfag outcry. fucking moralfags

>>7260388
>Packaging
>In fact I am in favor of keeping sexual relations between adults and children legal.
>Packaging

Posting pictures of children in a sexualizing context is, in fact, heinous.

If you, plural, actually cared for children, as individuals, or as an idealized group, you would use your "mature" knowledge and experience to nurture and protect them.

Rather than creating the typical pornographic objectified stereotype of the mindless, adoring, incarnation of your own desirability and gratification.

Get your head out of your ass.

>>7261537
we do nurture and protect you, sweetie. we don't even point out when you don't talk about books in case it hurts your childish ego to be cancer.

>>7261550
You can push your head up as far as it can go, it doesn't make your child-fucking fantasies literary, nor non-malignant.

File: 1444964901529.png (102KB, 1264x471px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1264x471px

there is nothing wrong with being a pedo

>>7261612
Actually, several books by Nabokov do make them literary. You being enraged isn't going to eradicate a rich history of pederasty from Western Canon. Go be pissed off about reality elsewhere.

>>7261284
It does if your imaginary moral spooks allow you to have sex with children given that they assent. But nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral so it doesn't matter.

>>7261624
>When you can only defend it anonymously, online, through obviously constructed charicatures, it is inherently and obviously healthy.

>>7261630
If you read your fantasies into Nabokov and use Lolita or Ada to idealize them as being serious and "literary", you are not only deluded, you are a poor reader.

Colette
esp Claudine at School

>>7261654
Most of Nabokov's works contain literary descriptions of hebephilic fantasies. What the fuck are you talking about? Nabokov's practically the definition of literary in those fantasy scenes.

>>7261670
>Reducing literature as pornography to feel validated.

Come back when you grow up.

>>7261683
m8 it's like you're having a seizure or something. Nabokov is intentionally, painstakingly literary to make it not make it simple pornography. Saying that Nabokov isn't "literary" or serious is more wrong than fucking children. You're wrong and you can learn to deal with it; it's part of growing up.

>>7261690
>make it not* simple pornography
sorry

>>7261690
Because clearly I was claiming Nabokov wasn't literary, as opposed to you being obviously incapable of reading him?

But hey, if you can't parse a two-sentence post, he's clearly in good company.

>>7261711
Kid, have you ever thought the reason you need to prove so badly you're so against pedophilia existing anywhere in literature despite a whole list of examples might point to something slightly off about your personality? I mean, besides being emotionally retarded around Lolita's age.

>>7261722
>half the thread is "moralfags" bitching
You hypocritical voyeurists are worse than the fucking pedophiles, and could use some self awareness. You nigs act like this shit is shocking.

>>7261722
>The mature reader is not only the ablest of irresistible child-fuckers, he is the glorious vanquisher of even the least worthy imaginary foe.

I thought you were discussing actual literature, with arguments and insights, since, as you know me so well, from a mere couple of sentences, you must have some actual insight into Nabokov to share with us all?

Rather than just being sick and in denial.

>>7260610
>Out there are scientific studies that prove that there's no real problem with kids having sex with adults,
source?

File: effects of islam.jpg (42KB, 599x385px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 599x385px

>>7258451
Mohammad.

>>7259933
More inclined to believe someone who actually spend time doing research. Unlike 99% of journalists.

>it's on 4chan?? Must be true! Run with it

>>7262210
Mohammed was illiterate you fucking idiot.

>>7262258
>you have to write your book with your hands

You are the idiot.

>>7262382
Oh come on, that's just grasping at straws. He couldn't read or write. Name me some authors that can't read and/or write yet managed to write books that aren't completely shit.

>>7262390
You are being autistic mate. If he didn't who wrote the quran?

>>7262397
In Islam, it is said that Mohammed was told wait to write by God, and since Mohammed couldn't read or write he told his most trusted followers/friends what to write and they just wrote it down. That's why he's the Prophet known as the 'Messenger', all he did was deliver messages from God to the humans, no magical supernatural shit like Jesus and Moses.

>>7262405
*was told what to write. Not wait to write. Fucked that up.

>>7262405
Yeah i know all of these i used to be a muslim but are you really bringing this as an argument?

>>7262410
Well, yeah. I've never heard of an author who couldn't read or write, so if Mohammed couldn't read or write then he isn't the author of the Quran. In fact, no human is the author of the Quran, god is. So yeah.

>>7262413
>muslim logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Dede_Korkut

>>7262415
What I am I looking for here.

>>7262418
A book written by an illiterate person.

Most of ancient epics and stories were told by illiterate people and written centuries later.

It is not rocket science.

>>7261858
For example...

>In their study “A Meta-Analytic Review of Findings from National Samples on Psychological Correlates of Child Sexual Abuse,” Rind and Tromovitch (1998) came to the following conclusion:

> “CSA [child sexual abuse ] is not associated with pervasive harm and that harm, when it occurs, is not typically intense.”

>This peer reviewed article appeared in the most prestigious psychological journal in the US.


https://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm

>>7258451
/lit/ I need your help.
there is this book, but I don't remember the title...
was written by a anglophone woman in late 1800, start 1900.
protagonist is a man, that with a ship has to reach his girlfriend/future wife.
almost all the story is placed on the ship
during the travel he found a young bully girl that with her gang
he falls for the bully and is uncertain, at the end of the jurney, if go to his loyal girlfriend or run away with younger girl

File: asdf.jpg (388KB, 1436x599px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1436x599px

>>7262783
Probably not, but might it be related to this?

>>7262811
no.
additional info. I've found the wiki to that book in a thread like this 2 years ago

>>7262413
>>7262424
You know, I think Mohammed is burning in Hell at this very moment, but there's a pretty long tradition of illiterate poets, storytellers, etc. having their works written down by scribes. This isn't something novel or hard to grasp at all.

>>7259368
So he was /c/instead of /l/, that's just different kinds of pesos tbh

File: 1443707248389.jpg (33KB, 637x383px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 637x383px

>>7258888
>mfw I see my uni library has a translated copy

>>7263370
You can't be serious! /lit/ searched for a copy to scan for a long time!! Will you be our hero?

>>7263468
Possibly, looks short enough. I'll start a thread if there's no /pedolit/ up

>>7261745
You could use some self awareness when on a literature board you try to claim that Nabokov isn't writing literary hebe fantasies. You'll get called out on that shit based on literary theory and nobody will care about your moral posturing.
>>7261753
The insight is that if you want to claim that Nabokov isn't literary, you'll look like you're below the reading level required for his prose.

>>7263523
We really thank you, mate. I'll be waiting.

test

>>7265363
upvoted

>>7263523

>/pedolit/

The illegitimate child of /lit/ and /b/

OP here. I add the Wikipedia info of the section called "Pedophilia in literature". IT's not about pedo writers, but about pedo related literary works.

>The 120 Days of Sodom (Marquis de Sade)
>Acid Row (Minette Walters)
>Avoidance (Michael Lowenthal)
>Demons (Fyodor Dostoyevsky)
>Dream Children (A. N. Wilson)
>The End of Alice (A. M. Homes)
>Gravity's Rainbow (Thomas Pynchon)
>The Great Mirror of Male Love (Ihara Saikaku)
>Hannibal (Thomas Harris)
>Hogg (Samuel R. Delany)
>International Journal of Greek Love
>Justine (Marquis de Sade)
>Little Children (Tom Perrotta)
>Lolita (Vladimir Nabokov)
>Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons (Tom O'Carroll)
>Paedophilia: The Radical Case (Tom O'Carroll)
>Tampa (Alissa Nutting)
>Teardrops on My Drum (Jack Robinson)

The Deadly Space Between, Patricia Duncker [straight]

>thread which openly supports pedophilia
>lasts for several days
>thread which slightly supports right-wing ideals
>deleted after ten minutes

>>7265512
Because pedophilia is not wrong, unlike right-wing ideals.

>>7265512
>he thinks nabokov wasn't right wing
uwotm8 he was fuxcking nobility

File: 13622716681.jpg (483KB, 800x1226px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 800x1226px

>>7265526
>tfw right-wing and a pedophile

>>7265547
It's ok, mate. We don't hate like pedophobes do.

File: 1432321934845.jpg (145KB, 786x1524px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 786x1524px

a girl who has no breast is not interesting

File: 1436537925271.jpg (51KB, 346x346px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 346x346px

>post innocuous thread tangentially related to literature
>get banned
>post thread where pedos can share their spank banks and get huffy about others having the audacity to think fucking little girls is wrong
>234 replies, 67 posters

I hate this site so fucking much.

>>7265899
this thread is literally literature related

>>7265922
fuck you pedoshit

>>7266242
hehehe

File: ped_lit.jpg (2MB, 2480x3800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2480x3800px

So... OP here. This is a very basic version of what I have in mind. With some collaboration, we'll make it bigger, guys.

>>7268327
Holy shit just fuck off

>>7268327
Nabokov also has an early novella The Enchanter pedo panics and get caught Still straight.

Lewis Carroll doesn't have kid fucking in the books so I don't know if that matters.

Other suggestions in thread which have kiddie fucking, with good and bad endings for them:
>>7265499
>>7265484
^mix of straight and gay and not all are fiction
>>7261658
^straight and gay, from 15 y/o perspective
>>7261005
>>7260540
^straight female adult male child
>>7260383
^mostly gay
>>7260227
Beauvoir's L'invitee (gay, based on their relationship with two sisters) or Sartre and Beauvoir's letters

Should we consider Fanny Hill or other education of a prostitute books?

Is Lost Girls /lit/ or /aco/?

>>7268372
W-what?

>>7268375
>Lewis Carroll doesn't have kid fucking in the books so I don't know if that matters.
Well, pedo lit don't need to include sex. Carroll liked little girls, and any pedo might enjoy his writings.

Alos, thanks!

Anais Nin has some pedo porn in Delta of Venus

>>7258451
>(he must be, you just need to read "Alice". There are things that normal-fags wouldn't understand or feel).
lol that and all of his child models were nekkid

>>7268443
>Lost Girls
>Lost Girls is a graphic novel depicting the sexually explicit adventures of three important female fictional characters of the late 19th and early 20th century: Alice from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, Dorothy Gale from L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz, and Wendy Darling from J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan. They meet as adults in 1913 and describe and share some of their erotic adventures with each other. The story is written by Alan Moore and drawn by Melinda Gebbie.
wow

>>7268556
It's a beautiful book, imitates the style of artists from the era in a meta-book within the narrative. Recommend it highly if possession won't get you imprisoned

File: 1433528989347.png (160KB, 261x271px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 261x271px

>>7259422
when suddenly it is 2007

>>7259658
kill yourself

You moralfags realize no one here is actually committing the act right? So why the fuck are you getting all butthurt

>>7268577
Probably because they want the same, but can't.

You're all stupid and ugly. All of you.

>>7258901
Isn't pederasty pretty well established as its own separate thing?

>>7268556
That sounds like a wild ride.

>>7268655
WWI is approaching outside the resort it's set in too, so it gets wilder as it goes on.

>>7268577
>>7268614

kill yourselves

>>7268694
if you hate this kind of mentality so much just go back to reddit

>>7268775
>not wanting pedos flaunting their proclivities on a literature board is reddit

stupid memey fucking faggot

>>7268782
>flaunting
why are you so intimidated by this thread? nothing is forcing you, or anyone else to take part in it.

>>7268782
>I'LL BE THE ONE TO CHANGE FOURCHAN
stupid motherfucker tbh

>>7268786
get this fucking garbage off my board

kill yourself

>>7268789
and you still masturbate to completion to photos of little girls

sick nasty burn bro

>>7268791
Nabokov is not garbage: Neither is Colette, nor Byron, nor Carroll. You have no taste.

>>7268791
>my board

Then block it. No one here is hurting anybody. All the anons are actually being productive instead of shitting up a healthy discussion with "hurr durr kill yourself"

>>7268797
>assumptions
m8, I'm not even pedo, I'm just not retarded enough to think that a lot of writers weren't deviants. You're here to judge people not books- heaven knows why when they're all anons-, but the judgment of canon is that pedo shit is legit. Get over it.

>>7268811
>dude we just want to talk about how sticking your dick in an 8 year old's asshole is how God wants us to live, can't you respect that :^)

KILL
I
L
L

YOURSELF
O
U
R
S
E
L
F

File: nabokov.png (145KB, 346x450px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 346x450px

>>7268824
Can someone ban this spammer?

>>7268815
>one book by le reddit russian author that's only really on the list because of the controversy
>heh the canon has spoken, pedo shit is okay

read more faggot

File: CQUlHAWUwAQ-Q1k.webm (721KB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 240x180px

>>7260646 >>7260741 >>7260462 >>7260434 >>7260321 >>7260248 >>7259756 >>7260388

>>7268829
cry more pedoshit

Reality check - most of the people on here you would call "pedos" have never done anything illegal, don't distribute illegal material, and would never touch an underage girl in an inappropriate manner.

>>7268830
It's most of his books because he spent his life mourning the peasant loli he fell in love with at his estate in Russia. Nabokov is renowned on this board as the grandfather of greentext because of his succinct and scathing reviews of canon, and, outside of 4chan, one of the greatest reviewers of canon. I'm unconvinced you know how to tie your shoes, velcroboy.

>>7268840
nabakov is fucking reddit-tier and faggy hipsters like you only read it because "omg it's supposed to be literature but it's about a guy who wants to fuck a 12 year old! scandaloussssssss"

>>7268835
lulz this faggot cannot really be this mad books about things he doesn't like exist. this is pure gold compared to the reddit fedoras trolled by the bible's existence. 7.4/10

>>7268847
>not appreciating nabokov's prose
>even if you're a teen
is there something broken in the pleasure centres of your brain? or do you just really like revisionism?

>>7268850
lmao nah seriously, kill yourself

>>7268856
ive been reading for pleasure since i was a kid you stupid faggot but keep trying to die on a hill for le literary pedo man because writing prettily about a repugnant subject = IT'S OKAY NOW, MORALITY IS JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT ANYWAYS

>>7268859
but wouldn't my death just spread my pedo books out to more people? you're really not thinking this through. some innocent will wind up with all kinds of sexual content from sade to nabokov. think of the children.

>>7268870
le literary pedo man because writing prettily about a repugnant subject = IT'S OKAY NOW, MORALITY IS JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT ANYWAYS
you really missed the point of nabokov if you think he believed in that shit. you are one mad and dumb nigger

>>7268871
haha that's so epic how you're characterizing me as a hysterical soccer mom for not wanting a bunch of greasy degenerate cunts like you swapping pics of children obviously meant to be sexually appealing on a literature board, esp when said literature board will delete and ban infinitely more tame shit in a hot second but let garbage like this go on unabated

fucking mong

>>7268876
i'm talking about the arguments being made in this thread you retard

>>7268882
i really don't mind pushing this thread to bump limit if you can keep your sperger /pol/tard shit going. i haven't posted any pics in the thread, i might as well blame you for posting those pics. you're confusing politics for literature when you come out with shit like
>e you swapping pics of children obviously meant to be sexually appealing on a literature board, esp when said literature board will delete and ban infinitely more tame shit
that shit gets banned because, like all of your posts in this thread, it's not related to literature.
>>7268884
then you're too retarded to understand an internet literature board *and* nabokov. don't worry, it was already obvious

so which politics thread getting deleted caused this guy to meltdown here?

File: rindetal.png (34KB, 942x540px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 942x540px

>>7260462

This is correct

Rind et al demonstrated that sexual contact with a child does not result in trauma or psychological damage ipso facto. Rather, it was the presence or absence of coercion which determined whether there was any lasting negative effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

The social stigma associated with such contact it is twofold:

1. It is traditionally abhorred by parents because it destroys the girl's marriage prospects
2. More recently, feminism has imposed its spurious interpretation of reality in such a way that all intercourse is exploitative, much as, in the last century, Marxism held that all employment is exploitative

>>7268903
>>7268899
>everyone who doesn't like what i like is from /pol/

lmfao

>>7268904
>muh feminist cultural marxist boogeyman won't let me fuck kids

oh my god fucking kill yourself

>>7268830
>>one book by le reddit russian author that's only really on the list because of the controversy
>one book
>le reddit russian author
disgusting kys tbh

>>7268870
aesthetics > ethics, always and forever

>>7268905
No, it's because you're making a political argument not a literary one. Your literary arguments thus far have been retardo tier like trying to minimize Nabokov's impact on canon. You argue more from politics than literature but it doesn't matter your politics are retarded because talking about them if they weren't retarded would still be against the rules.

File: 1409553234038.jpg (8KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x184px

>>7268911

sorry honey I forgot the trigger warning

>>7268904
>...and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved

In other words, the harm to a child is greater if they are forced, or physically tormented. What a surprise.

This is the same with rapes. Clearly non-consensual sex between married couples is not as harmful as sexual assaults.

That study is a joke, and doesn't prove a damn thing.

>>7268921
>he hasn't read Devils of Loudon
kek

>>7268927
>not having read one specific book completely negates my assertion

Kill yourself.

>>7268921

>reading comprehension

"The authors stated their goal was to determine whether CSA caused pervasive, significant psychological harm for both males and females, controversially concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive,[3] that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved"

>concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive
>and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on OTHER FACTORS such as the degree of coercion or force involved"

i.e. such sexual contact is not inherently traumatic

Juliet was 14 so Shakespeare

>>7258888
I got this book, in German though.
Nice quads.

>>7268930
>I proudly haven't read starter chart authors
lel, why would I kill myself when I have illiterates like you to laugh at? It's a survey of sexual mores around the hysteria epidemic in Loudon, which makes an argument that the invention of corridors is the only thing which made children stop seeing sex regularly. It also describes the different childhood sexualities of monarchy and lower classes at the time, noting that like sexologists contemporary to its writing, these children seemed to have little trauma arising from unimpeded sexual contact.

>>7268937
>i.e. such sexual contact is not inherently traumatic

And? So what? Just because something isn't intrinsically harmful, doesn't mean it should be legal to do.

>>7268965
Nobody's arguing that it shouldn't be illegal. Unless you're arguing that pedophilia in literature should be illegal?

>>7268965

nigga nobody is talking about legality. there are plenty of good reasons why it should be illegal to have sexual contact with a child. that's not the point we're arguing here

>>7268971
No, but this attempt at making pedophilia seem morally "clean" and not disgusting, lends me to believe that there are several people in this thread that want it legal.

>>7268983
you're bad at making assumptions and a complete sperger. stop making assumptions and derailing threads about literature into discussions of your fantasies about other anons and mods.

>>7258489
This book is on my list of things I never want to read again.

>>7268988
Shut the fuck up faggot. The thread is already derailed by pedos like you who have to post studies about fucking children to validate your disgusting worldview.

End yourself.

>>7268919
i dont want this thread on this board. how the fuck is that political you absolute fucking retard?

>>7268920
epic

>>7268960
>defending fucking kids

you lost before you started m8

>>7268988
heh yeah dude why would anyone ever vehemently defend their right to fuck a child? nigga you're skirting the fucking autism singularity with your posts itt

>>7268991
Actually I quite enjoyed it. Not the awkward lesbian fantasies, I mean the whole thing generally.

>>7268918
>he thinks wanting to fuck little girls is him just being an aesthete
>he also thinks aesthetics and ethics are not intrinsically linked

who u fuckin fooling m8

Back in ye olde college days, my best friend told she had first time sex at 13 with a 24something year old dude at a camping concert thingy, as a one night encounter. She had nothing but good things to say about the ordeal, which made me less strictly opinionated on the matter. Some kids are dumb, other kids mature faster as individuals. She was a smart girl.

So the lesson here is, dont rape kids, but fuck the ones that want to be fucked.

>>7269009
>i dont want this thread on this board. how the fuck is that political you absolute fucking retard?
because you're trying to force your politics and world view not just on the board, but on literary canon.
>>7269003
I've been trying to have a literary discussion but it's clear you're more interested in being angry at people for reading different books to you, and claiming books you don't read must be shit even though everyone else in literary history says no.

you're trying to find someone who is defending fucking kids outside of literature so here >>>/b/ knock yourself out, we'll keep Nin and Nabokov in canon, tyvm

>>7269026
Your anecdote aside, most 13 year olds have no fucking idea what they want, and even if they did, what they want would be shit.

>>7269026
Jesus fucking Christ, kill yourself.

>>7269022
yeah everyone knows the law courts ruled against wilde when he made those arguments. fucking homos.

>>7269033
Its not an anecdote. I know its hard to stomach the world isnt black or white. She would easily beat the shit out of most of the guys though. She was a straight tomboy punk girl.

>>7269022
Not him, but how are ethics and aesthetics linked?

>>7269031
>I've been trying to have a literary discussion but it's clear you're more interested in being angry at people for reading different books to you

No I'm not you faggot. Read whatever book you want, I don't give a shit, but don't act like that's your only agenda because it isn't you fucking pedo.

>>7269043
>being a pedoshit
>not having a foundation in the greeks

lmao why am i not surprised

>>7269031
>trading pics of little girls so you can whack off to them later is repugnant
>stop trying to force your politics on me anon!!

stupid cunt

>>7269020

my favorite part was where they all got turned into lampshades

File: 3f2.png (585KB, 750x545px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 750x545px

>>7269026

>So the lesson here is, give her the dick

>>7269041
It's literally an anecdote, mate. That's not saying it's not true, and no offense to your tough tomboy friend, I'm fine with her fucking whoever she likes, but you can't generalise from that one case. Most 13 year olds are stupid kids who are in no way capable of making any serious decision. Which is why we don't let them vote, or drive, or work.

>>7269054
I'm not a pedophile, I was merely curious about your argument about everything ethics and aesthetics, mate. That was my first post in this thread.
No need to get your panties in a twist.

>>7269050
wow all this shame for the kids who turn hypersexual like lolita after being abused
>>7269054
>trading pics of little girls so you can whack off to them later is repugnant
then you should stop trading pics. i haven't

>>7269054
>>being a pedoshit
>>not having a foundation in the greeks
>lmao why am i not surprised
m9 they invented pederasty as a feature of education. what the fuck are you smoking? wilde used them as a defense of his pedoshit after completing a double first in them, your shit's all retarded to make this argument

File: 1385301631151.png (314KB, 368x447px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 368x447px

>>7269069
>wow all this shame for the kids who turn hypersexual like lolita after being abused

Look at this faggot pedo acting like he actually cares about children getting abused.

Fuck off you subhuman piece of shit.

>>7269083
lol, look at this bully who assumes sexual abuse doesn't happen to anyone he's going to ever talk to on the internet. you're not helping kids. i wouldn't let you near one tbh

>>7263539
The insight is that even the dumbest semi-literate person can read "literature" without getting anything of what makes it literary, which is why this thread is flooded with surface readers reading Nabokov simply as pornography in an attempt to validate their own illness.

If this thread was intended as having anything to do with literature, rather than simply being an attempt to create a list of pornography and a sense of validation for oh-so-valiant and insightful anonymous pedo's, I am sure the level of posting would be at least slightly above the "hurr durr you dumb kid".

>>7269066
I didnt mean to generalise anything, but exceptions do exist, and that makes me uncomfortable aswell. People dont like to hear about the odd ones out on this topic. That said i wouldnt let 18 year old myself vote.

>>7269076
you stupid fucking pedoshit if you actually knew anything about the greeks and didnt just parrot what supports your disgusting fucking paraphilia you'd know Socrates and Plato believed that beauty and the good are just different facets of the divine

File: slyvester.png (85KB, 313x291px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 313x291px

>>7269033

>be a 13 year old girl
>want the D
>nobody will give it to me because muh morals muh prison time

>>7269100
>muh morals

kill yourself you fucking trash

>>7269107
moralfags pls go tbh

>>7269107

>getting this blasted

'Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause'

>>7269099
>the divine

>>7269113
>said by a nerdy faggot who'd probably shit himself if he ran a stop sign

>>7269117
kek you want me to sit down and explain morality and what it means to me to some memeing faggot in a pedo thread on a chinese cartoon board

o i am laffing

>>7269121
please tell me more about the true nature of reality, pedoshit

File: Nietzsche187a.jpg (163KB, 750x819px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 750x819px

>>7269130

There are no moral facts whatever, only moral interpretations

>>7269140
w/e u say champ

File: SamuelvanHoogstraten1627-1678-TheSlippers.jpg (413KB, 824x1230px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 824x1230px

This is the worst discussion I've seen in some time, and I visit this site everyday. Not even because I'm disturbed by pedos but nobody's saying anything substantial at all.

Guess it's a sensitive subject. Now can we please talk about literature again, even if it's books about kiddyfucking?

We know it might disturb you already, you don't have to let everyone know how much morally better you are. Just hide the thread or something, or report it if you want to.

>>7269090
>surface readers of nabokov
No, that's the dude who tried to tell everyone that Nabokov didn't make it literature. You're assuming that pedos can't tell he's an unreliable narrator, when that's what they rely on people to treat children as. Lolita doesn't end well it would be hard to see it as not a "chasing the dragon of the first high" book even within the opening and the tragedy implicit in that. You're not a competent enough reader to get that it's not being cited as pornography but literary itt, and that literary works are supposed to be emotionally manipulative. You're not going to convince me through your accusing others that you understood the unreliable narrator in Lolita or you could get over your hang ups to see his more reliable narrator in The Enchanter ends as most moral tales would have him end. You're throwing out flames like you could hold a discussion of this literature any other way, and you patently can't. We get it, you'd like to tell pedo's they're wrong. The problem is that is not what this board or thread is for, and no matter how much you cry for the opportunity to flaunt you basic normality, it's not going to make that literature. Take it from someone who doesn't believe fucking kids is a good thing either, you're actually just someone who likes to tell people to kill themselves, not someone who likes literature or is especially moral. You just sound angry and don't care if you fire that anger at nonpedos either.

>>7269155
>muh substantive proof for why wanting to fuck kids is bad

kill yourself faggot

>>7269161
>being angry is worse than being a pedo

jesus fucking christ.

>>7269169
did you respond to the right thing

>>7269169
What? I didn't say anything about that, are you baiting? I just want the thread to be about lit and not everyone sharing their irrelevant moral views. I didn't even say which view I agree with.

>>7269169
I was referring to how many times you have told people to kill themselves and decided they must be a pedo for knowing shit about literature. If you get your rocks off telling people to kill themselves or making false accusations of pedophilia, no, I don't think you're much better than a rapist.