Is this movie poster in poor taste?

no it's a lollipop...

>>82620951
Why would it be?

>>82620951
Is it still pedophilia if he isn't attracted to all little girls but just one? Wouldn't that be more of an obsession than just general pedophilia? I mean in the book, he spent years of his life searching for her. And he still loved her even after she "grew up." Wasn't this story more about a man's obsession than actual pedophilia?

File: blade runner.jpg (493KB, 843x1192px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 843x1192px

Is this movie poster in poor taste?

>>82621081
delores is 12 in the book, so, it would actually be hebephilia, if anything.

its pretty silly if anything

>>82621373
My point still stands. Although my memory of the beggining is a bit hazy so i don't remember if he was attracted to girls before he met Dolores.

>>82620951
yeah, if I went to a dudes house and he had that poster w/ no gf or family or anything I would assume he is a fucking weirdo pedo fuck.

>>82621452
No he always had a remnant in his mind from his first love who died when they were both young.

>>82621497
Yeah, people tricked me into reading this. I thought it was going to be sexy loli time. Instead I got one man's obsession and a deeper look into his psyche than I wanted. Oh well, I never got around to watching the movie because the book was kind of boring. Then I heard there was like three different versions. I don't even know where to start.

>>82621081
The book is commentary on how contemporary courtship behavior in women was acting like little girls. Then a guy who doesn't see that often (or ever) comes into contact with an actual little girl and thinks shes trying to seduce him.

The kubrick movie is just a teenaged gold digger and the '97 version is about a sexy little girl acting like an adult.

>>82621373
The term "hepephilia" is completely redundant as there is already a term for sexual attraction to people with developed primary and secondary sexual characteristics. N O R M A L

>>82621582
The prose is fucking GOAT, you uncultured swine.

>>82621618
Millennials and under can't into prose.

>>82621618
English isn't my first language so I can't appreciate prose. All I know is the core story is actually pretty boring and the ending is kind of out of left field.

File: 1490399721127.jpg (15KB, 255x245px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 255x245px

>>82620951
BENIS IN BAGINA :DDD

IMPLIED UNDERAGE XRAY HARDCORE PORN WITH PENETRATION LITERALLY ON THE POSTER

KUBRICK DOES IT AGAIN THE MADMAN

>>82621116
NO JUST SHIT TASTE

>>82621726
Oh, ok then. I forgive you. It's difficult to appreciate it as a translation.

>>82621601
That actually makes a lot of sense. Guess I'll watch the more modern one if they're both kind of the same. Thanks, anon.

>>82621452
Nigger he's got all sorts of stories. What about when he went to France and paid to fuck some little girl at a whorehouse run by a fat old woman and the girl wasn't young enough and the fat old woman blackmailed him into paying anyway?

>>82621497
Annabel Lee was a Poe work though

No wonder he was in a dolorous haze, Delores Haze fucked that stinky little redhead kid on the beach. Then Quilty ran a train on her and 400 other little kids.

Humbert is cuck

>>82621081
I thought he liked little girls in the book but was obsessed with lolita

>>82620951
i honestly think its genius.

>>82621601
>12-15 year olds
>fully developed primary and secondary sexual characteristics
Nope. Many girls don't have breasts by that age, don't have pubic hair, don't have wide hips, don't have the voice/height of a woman, etc etc

>>82622093
She was married and had a kid by age 15 so I'm pretty sure she had her blood by then

>>82622132
Irrelevant. Some three year olds menstruate.

>>82622161
Actually it's not irrelevant at all dumbfuck
also filtered for being a tripfag

File: 85473-south-park-NICE-meme-fi0v.png (190KB, 517x316px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 517x316px

>>82622161
>Some three year olds menstruate

>>82622161
I'm sure they also get married and have produced children by that age. Three you said, yes?

>>82622223
No actually the date of menarche is almost totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's "normal" to be attracted to a late juvenile/early adolescent, you fucking rock spider.

>>82622093
Negro, they stopped having sex ed before you were born. And if you're in a flyover state your school likely only taught abstinence only. Why the fuck you even talking?

Puberty in girls can start as early as 8, leaving them fully developed at 10 or 11. But everyone is different so everyone starts at a different time.

And we're not talking about pedophiles here, people are are attracted to completely undeveloped children. We're talking people who are attracted to people with developed primary and secondary sexual characteristics. These people are commonly called "NORMAL" because, shocker, it is normal to be sexually attracted to people with developed sexual characteristics.

Trying to nail down to an arbitrary year what a person should be attracted to is idiotic and the only reason people think there needs to be another term for "NORMAL" is because of laws surrounding consent.

>>82622093
i knew 3 girls in grade school aged 11 -13 that were pregnant

>>82620951
NO ITS ART

>>82622309
are you the based pusy poster from iran?

>>82622337
i'm from chicago

>>82622288
>>82622161
>>82622093
Aren't you a pedophile? I remember seeing someone post screenshots of you asking for pedo shit

>>82622337
puberty tends to not start that early in third world countries. As its linked to body weight which is a corollary to hormonal production/control. As in, girls start as soon as they have sufficient body weight to carry a pregnancy to term, boys start as soon as they have enough muscle to produce sufficient extra testosterone to awaken their junk, etc.

>>82620951
This poster is fucking great

Somebody post it without the girl from behind

>>82622308
>They stopped having sex ed before you were born. And if you're in a flyover state your school likely only taught abstinence only
This is such a load of shit lmao. There's like barely any schools that teach abstinence only, and they definitely still reach sex ed. Kill yourself liberal scum.

>>82621601
>the book is commentary on how contemporary courtship behavior was acting like little girls

Uh no it's not, stop acting like you know what the fuck you're talking about

>>82622477
Teach*

>>82622093
they have really small breasts, i give you that.

hips are almost normal, because the bones can't grow up in 6 months like tits do. hips size/direction affect the silhouetthe, the way to walk, and the whole body posture.

they act girlish and have heavy mannerisms since much younger. 12 yo girls objectively feminine

File: blood-drop.jpg (28KB, 624x416px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 624x416px

>Lolipop
>Loli(ta)Pop(ped hymen)

>>82622308
1. I'm Australian
1a. I'm older than almost everyone on /tv/

2. I'm not trying to nail down an arbitrary year (although drawing a line in the sand is essential for the rule of law), I'm simply pointing out that almost no 12 year olds are developed in the relevant way. You're saying, well, some 12 year olds (shit, some 7 year olds even) have developed breast tissue, possibly fully developed it. What I'm saying is that almost no 12 year olds have womanly features that men are conventionally attracted to, which explains the observation that almost all adult males are not attracted to 12 year olds.

So here's the difference between my view and yours. I'm saying X is not normal because almost no people do X. You're saying X is normal because, despite whether or not X is done, X should be done for certain reasons.

Those certain reasons are stupid. But even if they made perfect sense, which they clearly don't, you'd still be wrong because if something is done by an extreme minority of a group (adult males attracted to 12 year old girls), we call that extreme minority abnormal, not normal.
>>82622388
No.

>>82622477
sexual education as a requirement for all schools managed by the department of education ended in the early 90s as a hard-core kneejerk reaction to a surgeon general thinking it'd be a good idea to teach kids masturbation.

>>82622093
! BEWARE !
! DANGEROUS PEDOPHILE !

http://archive.foolz.us/tv/thread/23212937/#23213836
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/mu/thread/S47148224#p47148635
http://archive.foolz.us/tv/thread/23212937/#23213984

! BEWARE !
! DANGEROUS PEDOPHILE !

>>82621452
delores hayes-y?

>>82622537
>almost all adult males are not attracted to 12 year olds
kek. care to share the source of your blatant bullshit?

>>82622537
>tripfag
>posts tons of stupid shit

and the stereotype is reinforced

What I'm talking about is specifically people sexually attracted to people with developed sexual characteristics. People with developed sexual characteristics can be as young as 8. 12 isn't even that uncommon. It doesn't dip into "sufficiently rare to be considered an outlier" until maybe 6.

Hepephilia specifically means "sexual attraction to people with developed primary and secondary sexual characteristics." This is absolutely redundant because it is perfectly normal. The only reason idiots think there needs to be a special term for sexual attraction to girls with is law (age of consent law, specifically) coming to influence moral leanings.

>>82622643
outside of /tv/

>>82621452
Yeah, he always had a thing for nymphets because of his first love.

>>82620951
makes D tingle

>>82622579
72% of American private and public high schools teach sex ed/pregnancy prevention. It's not as high as it should be, but acting like schools teaching sex ed is somehow not the norm is fucking retarded. And the "abstinence only" thing is complete utter bullshit. Schools teach that abstinence is the only way to guarantee that no one gets pregnant, but it's not the only form of birth control that is taught.

>>82622643
Common experience. I am not attracted to 12 year olds. Neither are any of my friends.

Do I need a source for the proposition that most people don't enjoy hitting their pinky toe on the corner of a table as well?
>>82622673
It's abnormal because most people don't do it. If it was normal to be attracted to the minimum amounts of sexual development a minority of 12 year olds have undergone, you'd see more people attracted to 12 year olds. But you don't. The only people attracted to 12 year olds are other 12 year olds.

>>82622741
Son, if sexual attraction to people under the age of consent (which is lower than 18 in more places than it is equal to or higher) the term JAILBAIT would not exist.

So sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

>>82622741
>empirical evidence is enough to support illogical statement

liberals, everyone.

>>82622741
All of your "friends" are liars and you're in denial. Get help.

>>82622782
>if sexual attraction to people under the age of consent the term JAILBAIT would not exist.
what's the missing conjunction, is it "wasn't prevalent"? "didn't exist"?

If the former, that's untrue, the term could exist without a majority or significant minority.

If the latter, it doesn't prove your point.

And speaking as someone from a country where the age of consent is 16, I happen to think that 18 is a bit too high. 16 is about right. 12 is nonsense though, that's your abnormality, not society's normality. You'd do well to learn the difference.
>>82622816
>empirical evidence isn't enough to support illogical statement
kek. care to share the source of your blatant bullshit?

>>82622876
>claim something is abnormal based upon anecdotal evidence

>can't keep up with the context of his own idiotic statements

... I usually don't even respond to tripfags but goddamn man.

>>82622816
I think you mean anecdotal. As empirical would be sourced studies and shit. Not a tripfag's imaginary friends.

>>82622917
The thing is, I don't think there are real, peer-reviewed studies on the subject. Science is subservent of the zeitgeist, and smart scientists don't want to be ostracized for publishing anti pc stuff.

>>82623004
Its kinda one of those studies that don't even need to happen.

Its not like a guy's boner is going to go down when its revealed the hot sexy girl with fully developed sexual characteristics who's grinding on him is a day under the age of consent.

There are strict and clearly defined definitions for all of this shit and the only mud in the water was thrown there by people allowing laws to dictate morality, rather than the other way around.

>>82622917
The estimates I find based on a cursory google search are 1 in 35. That's data from the NCA corresponding to the proportion of the male British public that have a sexual attraction to children aged 12 and under. The number is presumably smaller than that, because the guy itt is talking about people attracted to 12 year olds who are developed enough that they resemble sexually mature women. So I'll go with "less than 1 in 35".

But that burden shouldn't lie on me, for two reasons. Firstly, he made the initial claim that it was normal to be attracted to "developed" 12 year olds, so it's his duty to support that claim. Secondly, common experience is an argumentative device that is sufficient here to contradict that claim, because we're talking about a normative matter here rather than a strictly logical one. It's like being in an anti-vax thread and being accused of making an argument from authority for citing peer reviewed studies. Or saying "correlation doesn't imply causation!" when someone posts a graph plotting the relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric carbon concentrations. Logical fallacies don't apply in all contexts, and in a thread on social norms, my social experiences are valid evidence. It's non-determinative, that's a good point. But it's relevant. I don't occupy a world that's totally different to his, I don't live in a prison or a mental asylum, I inhabit a social universe that's pretty cross sectional.

>>82623172
all meaningless as when someone thinks of "12 year old girl" they'll think of a child and say "no, not attracted to children."

Its a definitions game that you're entirely on the wrong side of because for some reason or another you've allowed your definitions of real things to be subverted by abstract concepts.

File: 14887323341990.png (29KB, 938x561px)

29KB, 938x561px

>>82623141
the results of such studies would be outrageous in this politic climate

The book, although good, was extremely poor taste. The movie will be poor taste. So why not a poster in poor taste?

I knew a pedofile named frank s., never would have guessed..

>>82623242
There is no definitions game going on here lol...

I expect data analysts to account for factors like "lying because something is socially shameful". I expect the 1 in 35 number to be incorrect. I do wonder how old you are though. I'm anonymous, I run no social risks by saying I am not attracted to any 12 year olds and haven't been since I was a 13 year old 7th grader a few months older than my crush from 6th grade.

Question - how old are you? I'm 25. I think you're somewhere between 16 and 19 and think that your mindset is typical of adults everywhere when really it's just a vestige of your recent adolescent experiences.

>>82623264
... uh, yea, "DON'T FUCK MY KIDS" is not a recent development.

>>82623365
>Hi I'm defining what is and isn't a child by arbitrary criteria

>lol no i'm not playing a lost defintions game lol!

>lol!

... and the stereotype is reinforced.

>>82623264
Source/methodology? I mean I'll fuck a 16-year-old in a heartbeat if it's legal but I have a hard time believing that 11-year-old girls are more attractive than 29-year-olds to the average male.

>>82623427
Its putting 11 and 29 year olds at equal levels.

As goddamn a lot of 29 year olds look fucking rough.

>>82623401
I don't care what is and isn't a child. I care about what is and isn't normal to be attracted to. I care about putting a fence around that category. If you want to call that a "definitions game" and in that respect say it's an unproductive discussion I'm not sure why we're even still talking.

File: regina.jpg (52KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x480px

>>82623457
So it's just a bullshit graph you made in excel 5 minutes ago?

Stop trying to make pedophilia happen. It's not going to happen.

>>82623401
>double space
>...
Back to plebbit you underage nucon

>>82623498
That would mean you would consider it normal to be attracted to someone with fully developed sexual characteristics no matter what age they were and you're having an argument with someone who's already said as much.

For attention.

Because you're a fucking tripfag.

>>82623570
>you made

negro I didn't even post it.

>>82623374
That's a fair point but there's been a recent trend of pedophile witch hunts that spiral out of all semblance of control.

Fact of the matter is that women peak very very early because hard-coded genetic instructions will always override societal norms. It's perfectly normal to find 14 and 15 year-olds attractive but society has (rightfully) imposed restrictions.

>>82623631
>recent

Only if you're sane and marking as "recent" events as far back as the 90s.

>>82623592
>That would mean you would consider it normal to be attracted to someone with fully developed sexual characteristics no matter what age they were
We've been going back and forth for over an hour and you still think this. That just confirms in my mind that firstly, you haven't been paying attention to what I'm saying and don't know what I think, and two, I've just wasted an hour of my life.

Good chat anon.

>>82623684
The advent of the internet has exacerbated it a great deal, and it's the kind of accusation that sticks no matter what the evidence does or doesn't support.

Then again, I live in Europe. Maybe it's been worse for longer Stateside.

>>82623727
ALSO you haven't replied to my post asking about your age and you haven't provided a source for the bullshit excel graph you posted upthread.

You're a 16 year old that wants to fuck someone four years younger than you and is buckpassing that shame by arguing that adults think the same way as you. Fuck off. Lose your virginity then come back and hold court over sexual ethics.

>>82623631
The pedophile witch hunts were about situations where people were lining up preteens for sex. Not teenagers of any age. Barely even tweens. Looking for legitimate pedophiles, people sexually attracted to people who'd yet to even start developing primary or secondary sexual characteristics.

and the instant you say anything about "hard-coded genetic" you're a announcing you're a fucking moron.

Unless you're talking about hansen. Then you're just a double retard. As even hansen has to admit hes not going after pedophiles.

>>82623780
>tripfag replies to itself
>ALSO YOU HAVEN'T REPLIED TO ME

... for the love of fuck tripfag...

>>82622083
This, it's fucking genius. You don't get that level of creativity now a days. That's what made Kubrick one of the greats.

>>82621601
Haha what the fuck are you talking about nigga can you even read.

>>82623727
Again, you're defining as "child" people who can be only children as defined by law and claiming it is abnormal to be attracted to these people despite the fact the term "JAILBAIT" is in the common parlance.

You're playing a definitions game that you lost by entering into it at all.

And like I said, negro, I didn't even post that shit.

>>82623878
I haven't defined child as anything. Go ahead. Quote where I did that.

>>82620951
Kind of a brilliant poster to be honest

File: LOLita.jpg (146KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 600x800px

>>82622475

>>82623791
Are you denying that the average healthy male mind finds certain aspects of the female body automatically attractive?

>>82622537
>1. I'm Australian

Stopped reading right there

>>82623961
Then you're equivocating in desperate attempt to get out of the corner you've argued yourself into.

But you're still stuck there, no matter how much you quibble, as by bringing age into this you're defining something as normal/abnormal by completely arbitrary criteria.

For it is scientific fact boys and girls can be fully developed (or not developed at all) over a huge range of ages and the only time we get to statistical outlyer territory is almost halfway down single digits.

>>82624031
anyone who knows anything about psycho-sexual development would deny that.

>>82621754

It's written by a russian, but in english. So it's already one step separated from the writers mother tongue.

Having that further separation of reading it as english being their second language must be a mindfuck.

It's already a bit dry to read, and honestly a bit sparse and whimsical with it's word choice. It must seem incredibly unnatural for someone who's still learning the ins and outs of english.

>>82624078
okay

>>82622093

My first girlfriend had D-cups at 15.

File: twig.png (39KB, 772x681px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 772x681px

anyone have a picture of the loli twig from /a/? can't remember how it went

>>82624134
fucking ariel winter had D-cups at 14.

>>82623427

I'm 29 and anyone shy of 24 tends to look like a kid to me. 21 is the lowest I'll go because I can't imagine having a date without alcohol involved. And I'm not going to be that "cool guy" giving all the underaged kids booze.

>>82624216
>I'm a moralfag redditor

>>82624059
The conversation was originally about what was normal to be attracted to and what wasn't. I see now that all along you wanted that to be a jumping off point so that you could move to the point you really wanted to talk about, the reasoning behind having an age of consent. But that didn't go your way so now you're trying to move it there despite your ineptness in proving your original point.

Fine. We'll talk about age of consent instead of whether it's normal to be attracted to 12 year olds as an adult male.

There is a need for rules around what categories of children you can have sex with. That's because there's an abundance of evidence that below a certain stage of development (NB: stage of development does not necessarily equal age, though the two very closely correlate), sexual intercourse can be a traumatic experience, both physically (because their anatomy may not be appropriately equipped to handle intercourse) and mentally (because they may be unable to understand the nature of the act and therefore unable to consent).

Part of the rule of law is that law must be both certain and discoverable. This is true in every formulation of RoL I'm aware of. Law must be certain. By framing the matter of whether or not a person can provide consent for a sexual act as a question of physical development, firstly, you neglect the mental element of the act, and secondly, you remove that certainty. Ascertaining the ability of one person to provide consent by reference to how sexually attracted a majority of society is to them is ridiculous because a court does not have the resources to make such a judgment in every instance of a controversy over consent. Setting it at, for instance, 16, makes sense from a judicial efficiency point of view. It's very easy to determine whether the law has been contravened, just check the date.
>>82624134
Cool.

>>82624235

Have you been around teenagers? Fucking hell they're dumb. I don't care how hot they are, they're dumb as fucking shit.

I have a career, a mortgage, and enough real stress of my own. I don't need some 18-20 year old who doesn't know shit about life causing drama.

I dated a girl who was 23 a year or so ago and it was a constant stream of drama, memes, bullshit, not being able to pay for basic living stuff, and social media. We couldn't have a single conversation without it jumping between 4 social media platforms that I had no clue even existed.

Fuck that, I want someone my own age, as jaded with life as I am.

>>82624319
Wow tripfag, thats a really long a stupid post.

Especially considering I have always been talking about the flaws in defining as children people who ostensibly are not and how additional terms to describe sexual attraction to people with developed sexual characteristics is idiotic.

I never claimed fully developed 12 year olds were just raining down from the sky, as is the crux of the arguments of your strawman of me, more along the lines of defining a fully developed person as a child because they're 12 and thus claiming it is abnormal to be attracted to a fully developed person due to a completely arbitrary factor is pretty stupid.

But hey, you're a tripfag. Your head is so far up your ass you can't see daylight.

>>82624503
It's like talking to a brick wall.

>>82620951
Thought it was suppose to be a giant dick shooting out sperm at first.

>>82622161
I love adding another tripfag to my filter list

bye forever!

>>82624551
Its kinda what happens when you try to argue a semantic, abstract position with an objective one.

>>82623264
What an outrageous "poll". I refuse to believe 9 is so low.

>>82620951

that poster is pure kino

>>82624785
Most 9 year olds tend to still be pretty androgynous.

Which can be hot as fuck in boys but not so much in girls.

>>82624765
I'm done with you. Don't talk about law again.
>>82624785
It's not a poll, it's literally somebody's opinion plugged into excel.

You think somebody did an assessment of what percentage of sexually attractive females is associated to a particular age?

>>82624859
No you're not.

Because law does not define what is normal or abnormal, only what is legal or illegal.

>>82624859
Its funny how you're assuming to know the exact source of that image despite the fact you're pulling your information on the source of that image directly from your own ass.

>>82624834
Fag.

>>82624911
God you're really testing my patience anon, I wasn't going to reply to this but I'm going to say one more word on this and then I'm getting dressed and attending some committments I have today.

You've shifted the goal posts yet again. You shifted them from the first controversy, the "is it normal?" question when your position started to look shaky onto the "age of consent is ridiculous" position. Now that that's looking precarious we've somehow jumped back to the normal vs abnormal question and you're acting like that was the question all along.

I'm not biting. I'm not gonna fucking do it. We were having an argument about the appropriate measure of when a person is developed enough to consent to sexual acts, and that's what I'm sticking with. Granted, I went into that assuming your position (you never made your position clear at the outset, work on that in the future) wasn't that there shouldn't be laws around consent based on development. Maybe I was mistaken in that assumption, I thought you couldn't be that stupid but you've shown yourself to be pretty dim, so maybe it is.

Regardless, law is relevant to this question because having sex with people at certain stages of physical and mental development should be a criminal act. My position is that the best measure of that development is age, because it makes the courts job a lot easier, from a rule of law perspective it makes the law certain, and from a moral point of view it makes good sense that the majority of people below a certain age are not equipped to have sex and they deserve the law's protection.

IF you're going to confuse the debate further and insist on arguing the point about attraction to partially physically developed 12 year olds being normal, I refer you to my above posts. There's a good 2000, 4000 characters worth of arguments that refute the same two or three points you keep bringing up.

Talk to me when you lose your virginity, kid.

>>82621726
That's a piss poor excuse when English wasn't Nabokov's native language either.

>>82625238
Again, all I've ever claimed is there are flaws with defining as children who are ostensibly not children. There are also always massive flaws in defining normal and abnormal.

Its you who has failed to understand these very simple, very easy to understand claims, and instead talked about literally everything else that's even tangentially related in desperate hopes of looking smart on the internet.

>>82625339
>My position is that the best measure of that development is age, because it makes the courts job a lot easier, from a rule of law perspective it makes the law certain, and from a moral point of view it makes good sense that the majority of people below a certain age are not equipped to have sex and they deserve the law's protection.
What are the flaws? Be specific. Only flaw I see with it is that a tiny minority of people in society don't get to have sex with people they want to have sex with until a point in the future.

>>82625466
Because there are situations where that will be at odds with reality. hence the existence of the term "JAIL BAIT."

Its okay of you can't understand nuances beyond coinflips though. You are a tripfag. No on expects anything from you.

>>82624086
wtf? nabokov's english is more juicy and entrancing than many native speakers

>>82620951
Is it an official one or fan-made?

>>82622721
there are several states that outright ban teaching about birth control

>>82621735
It doesn't depict penetration or a penis. Have you never seen a cunt apart from on cuck porn?

>>82622093
Fuck off pedo trip. EVERYONE hates you here, just like offline.

>>82622308
The pedo doth protest too much.

>>82627032
Right yea. hes a pedo haha, sexually attracted to prepubescents haha, that's why hes talking about people with all the physical characteristics of adults and how sexual attraction to adults is normal haha

You guys don't know shit

>>82621081
He's obsessed with specifically Lolita yes, but he's attracted to all sorts of nymphets who are between 9-14 which definitely counts as pedophilia.

>>82621452
Yes he was

>>82621497
>Annabel Lee was a Poe work though
Her name was just a reference

>>82622691
>>82621497
That part may be an example of him tricking the reader. Read the first page carefully and you can tell he feeds you questions and brings up freudian thinking, making you think that his reason for pedophilia was his first love. He does this to garner sympathy from you. It might still be true that that is the reason but keep in mind he's an unreliable narrator.

>>82622036
You're right.

File: 1458646738574.jpg (24KB, 581x406px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 581x406px

>>82626758
LOOKIN RIGHT AT ONE FAGGOT :^)

FYI IT DEPICTS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IT DEPICTS

>>82627425
if your penis look like that, consult a doctor

>>82627218
Kingdom by the sea these nuts faggit

File: 1494381865877.jpg (30KB, 528x444px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 528x444px

>>82627581
KEK WAS IT AUTISM

DEPICTIONS ARE RARELY LITERAL

THAT STICK IS GOIN DEEP BRUH

>>82627815
is called a vagina.

check some hetero porn someday, and you'll see.

File: 1491349671292.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>82628261
LMAO M8 MUHDICK STILL SMELLS LIKE UR MOMS PUSS

HERES SOMETHING TO ACTIVATE YOUR ALMONDS, WHY IS THE LOLLIPOP SHAPED THAT WAY?

THE COMMON IMAGE OF A LOLLIPOP IS CIRCULAR NOT V SHAPED, IS THERE PERHAPS SEXUAL INNUENDO AFOOT :^)