"I'm a straight guy, but..."

"I'm a straight guy, but..."
"I'm not even gay, but..."
"As a straight male, I find this..."

Have you ever caught yourself saying something delusional like this?

There, there, user.
It is okay.

Please have a sit with me, and considering the following lesson:

no, im gay

these two images were taken in the same spot, on the same day, in the same clothing, but yet.. something is amiss.

We all need this lesson.

I will post a series of images, each photo will have a twin-brother photo, one for normal, and one for faggot. We will dive deeper into our lesson.

Same clothing, lul. Fucker is not even wearing socks in the first pic. Obviously different clothes

...

The only change I made was removing the socks. I felt that thigh-highs were too obvious to use.

...

Traps aren't real!

...

...

Sexuality is irrelevant.

You are not straight
You are not gay
You are not pansexual

You are a human being with desires, and an ego-driven mind that is happy to bar you from ever experiencing those desires.

What have we learned so far class?

...

thats what u repet to urself at night to feel better? u're just a faggot

No im a human my dood

I happen to have a desire for cock, and vagina, so like.. why choose? Why limit?

Who are you proving to? Are you winning something? Have you retained your purity points? Is your god happy?

just taste one

How about pedophiles?

Are they also human being with desires and an ego-driven mind that is happy to bar them from ever experiencing those desires?

If your premise isn't consistent, your premise is shit.

What? Pedophelia is fine. As you said, its an attraction.

However..

There is evidence that undoubtedly says that sexual relations with adolescents can scar them both physically and emotionally.

In this case, there is no clear answer that I can give. I was consenting at the age of 10.

Most people are attracted to women, but they dont going around raping every woman they see. Rapists do that. Just as pedophiles have desires, most understand that the desire will not be fulfilled. Pedophiles are just people until they decide to molest a child.

>There is evidence that undoubtedly says that sexual relations with adolescents can scar them both physically and emotionally.

You do realize this "evidence" you speak of is extremely tampered in order to push a narrative, right?

This is gay buddy......some of it.... I think....

I agree and disagree. The narrative being "think of da childurn" but I disagree because sexually molesting a child, does, without any doubt, damage that child.

Like I said, I was consenting at age 10, I had a lot of experience at that young age, but I won't sit here and pretend like we can legalize it.

A conversation needs to be started, and the fear-mongering and pedo-lynch culture needs to stop. Until those things happen, itll continue to be humanities "lets sweep this under the rug for thousands of consecutive years"

>beauty marks
Grow up faggot
Actually, scrap that - stop aging right now by sealing the deal. You know the drawer pa kept his pistol in.

>sexually molesting a child, does, without any doubt, damage that child.
Do you think the damage done by the sex, or is the damage done by the exposure, the torture from psychiatrists, the invasion of privacy, the fear of being outed, the shame and reprehension from the parents, and so many other shitty consequences derivative from the extreme exposure of their intimacy, instead of the desired secrecy that was intended in the first place?

My dad doesnt own a gun, but my roommate has a P2000.

wow, you spend much time doing the..... wait a second i know that necklace

This is walking on eggshells.

I am not denying the existence of young + old relationships, in whatever form. I've been in one. They exist. They're not inherently evil, you're correct.

But I would say there are more abusive relationships than positive ones, for the simple fact that kids mature slower, and are heavily gullible, and feeble. Kids are vulnerable, they have no concept of consent. But they do have a concept of "If you tell, ill kill mommy"

Can we go back to the thread now? Pedophelia is a landmine

itsa meeeeee

how you doin' you magnificent faggot ?

i saved this pic back in January

wow, that's.. thats right when I took that photo

huh..

Im doing good, trying to teach people the myth of traps and how everyone is gay and GAY IS OK

I don't know, man. If you're going to school anyone on their sexuality, you better be ready to defend your position against actually difficult questions, not the usual "bi/gay/straight" softballs that every tumblr retard can vomit on a monday morning.

Do you want to be convincing across the spectrum? You'll have to master those landmines you're trying so desperately to avoid.

I don't have anything against gays. My Dick does.

it was from your WWYD thread back then, it's not often that you see cute blonde boys on Sup Forums

>>how everyone is gay and GAY IS OK

t b h it's like shouting into a canyon, a better philosophy be to teach people "live and let live", let everybody do their own thing and don't judge others, because they don't fit your ideology, but that won't happen, especially since radical Islam and hardcore conservatism is on the rise in the west.

What am I to be mastering here? What am I defending? I told you already that pedophelia is exactly the same as gay/straight/whatever
its an attraction with no merit beyond a thought; a desire.

Thats my entire point, is that its intangible, and therefore shouldn't influence your decision on your sexual activities.

BUT we're not talking about criminal offences, we're talking about sexuality. A pedophile cannot physically express their attraction without incredible legal repercussions, and for good reasons

what do you want from me dood? I haven't avoided pedophelia at all, you're just trying to get a definitive answer from me, and there isn't one to give. society wont even look at pedophelia, how am I, just some random user, supposed to know?

>a better philosophy be to teach people "live and let live", let everybody do their own thing and don't judge others, because they don't fit your ideology

>especially since radical Islam and hardcore conservatism is on the rise in the west

If I face palmed any harder I would black out

But I agree, Live and Let Live or w/e is the concept, I would never say GAY IS OK in a serious context...

I dont advocate for sexuality of any nature, or labeling at all, its easier to just be like "I ENJOY THIS, I WILL DO IT" instead of

"what would thousands of random humans think if I did this? better not..."

You are the one who brought up your definitive answer to "delusions" of being straight.

I want to see how consistent your arguments really are with some really difficult questions. Anyone can argue that bisexuality is universal, without facing much resistance, I want to see you defend your position about the fluidity of your point against something that holds real implication, not some bullshit about random guys finding dudes attractive.

tell me about OP, why does he paint his nails ?

>I ENJOY THIS, I WILL DO IT
Basically this. If you're feminine enough to convince my dick, I'll absolutely treat you like a girl.
I'm not really attracted to dick, so it's not going into me, but it's not a boner kill. I'm indifferent to the existence. It's one less hole, and a much simpler way to tell that you're turning them on.

>Anyone can argue that bisexuality is universal
If you mean "everyone is bisexual", fuck off.
If you mean "many species on earth have bisexual individuals", sure.

Im not arguing for bisexuality, you still misunderstand, im arguing for the freedom FROM sexualities. Stop limiting yourself to baseless culture views. Emphasis on baseless, because pedophelias legality does have a basis.

I believe that any person can have sexual thoughts about a younger person. Thats not limited to any human, age, gender, race. Does this make them a pedophile if they think about it once?
Twice?
fifteen times?

If I like people of my age, elderly, and dogs, and kids, what am I then? A zoophile? A pedophile?

tl;dr IT DOESNT MATTER, drop the labels, they are pointless.

If someone molests a child, then you can use your labels to call them a sexual predator, and I hope they get the help they need.

I like you
a little bit from column A and B

I'm not arguing for anything, I'm saying people can argue for that very easily.

I liked it after I cosplayed as Len one year

I don't think you understand how sexuality works, then.

Labels exist to facilitate a delimitation of a clear distinction of what your preferences are, since without them, people are subject to advances from those who are NOT at all within the threshold of acceptance an individual subjects himself.

If your "no label" drivel holds any water, it should be used, and it should be valid, across the board, not only to fit your preconceived notions and bias.

Where doesn't it fit the board? I don't think we're on the same page.

my 'no label drivel' does hold water, thats what ive been telling you over and over. You threw pedophelia at me, it works the same way. Its a label with no use.

People can have thousands of labels. Why are you choosing one at that point? Im white. I have hair. I am under 6ft. I have a tattoo.

wow. descriptive titles!

Glad to hear it. I'd like to think it's a reasonable place to be.

It being a scale doesn't mean bisexual is the default. On the Kinsey Scale, 0-1 = straight, 2-3 = bi, 4-5 = gay.
It's not binary, you can be straight basically anywhere to about 1.5, but there are still leanings.
Bisexual isn't "not 100% straight", it's EXPLICITLY attracted to BOTH genders.

If a pedophile molests a child, is he a child molester, or a pedophile? Or a human? Or is he blue? Is he green?

Does it matter? He hurt a child.

But lets say you've "fallen on that scale" somewhere. If a feeling or situation arose, which contradicted your nifty little chart, chances are, youll deny yourself that desire, because "its not who you are" becauyse you've chosen to limit yourself by these numbers

My point is if pedophiles are just "human being with desires", why is it that they must have a special label to themselves, while the other types of "sexualities" don't?

If you don't think they need a special label, then why do you discriminate against this specific type of relationship, considering that the "abusive nature" you mentioned can happen across the spectrum?

Either you're being intentionally deceptive with your logic, or you are being inconsistent with your non-sense.

If "no-label" is necessary when it comes to sexuality, then "no-label" should be the rule when it comes to sexuality. Right?

You're arguing that for everyone, there's a situation where what they wanted would (hypothetically) explicitly contradict their alignment.

Whereas I say that just means the previous alignment wasn't as accurate as it could be. Scientific method.

Pedophiles do not need a special label, we're using this label for the sake of this discussion. They are people, unlike any other people, with unique thoughts and desires.

We seperate this from irregular people who act on desires that are unknown, and then can cause great harm.

Pedophelia doesn't need a label for me to understand that there is a undoubtable possibility that a Young+Old relationship can harbor horrible abuse. I am not discriminating against these relationships, I am making clear note of what we know about this dynamic. as I outlined earlier, kids are gullible, feeble, naive..etc

>If "no-label" is necessary when it comes to sexuality, then "no-label" should be the rule when it comes to sexuality. Right?

Yes, this is my point.

I like this idea! But essentially, yes, there will come a time/place where your "identity" is challenged, and humans almost always ere on the side of protecting their willingly held identity.

You pick up a label and wear it like a hate, you bet your ass youll never change until you decide to take the hat off.

I can't be bald, im wearing a hat. (fun fact: hes bald underneath)

ma i would rather fuck with girls then with boys but im jut too hard pussy ive never grown up sadly

Any sort of relationship can "harbor horrible abuse", mate. That's the point you're not getting.

You insist into this fallacy that no labels should be used to describe sexuality, yet still insist in discriminating against one specific because your narrative assumes that relationships within this group are intrinsically abusive, while ignoring the fact that abusive relationships exist across the board.

If you are going to exclude one, or several, expressions of sexuality from your little "no-labels allowed" bullshit, then your "no-labels allowed" bullshit is flawed by default.

>I am not discriminating against these relationships
>I am making clear note [...] kids are gullible, feeble, naive..etc
You ARE discriminating, dude. Just admit it, and get over with it. I'm not asking you to accept, defend, or to be against pedophilia, I'm merely pointing out how your reasoning is deeply flawed.

makes me sad i dont want sexual interactions with girls

>Any sort of relationship can "harbor horrible abuse", mate.

I am not denying this. But you're ignoring me when I assure you that children are less developed, gullible, feeble, naive, weak. They are literally immature. This is a higher risk for abuse, by a purely brain-developed standpoint

>because your narrative assumes that relationships within this group are intrinsically abusive,

I have actually told you twice now that I agree with you on this. They are NOT intrisically abusive. I was consenting at age 10. I had meaningful relationships at that age. I was not abused. Can we settle that one now?

>You ARE discriminating, dude.
discrimination goes by the descriptor "unjust". There is nothing just about a fully developed human taking advantage of a human who has no physical concept of what mental abuse is, what lies are, what grownups are capable of.

Am I discriminating against a bridge if I understand that it is made of stone? Perhaps you are the one with a narrative hellbent on being proven. You won't accept anything I say regarding this topic, you just keep ignoring my words,

also op where do u take the confidence to accept urself ? Dont u just search a lazy answer for certain things? Its cool u like urself but like most people in this world want to archive more then this and not just sit on their faggotry. think about it

>But you're ignoring me when I assure you that children are less developed, gullible, feeble, naive, weak. They are literally immature. This is a higher risk for abuse, by a purely brain-developed standpoint
So that means pedophiles CANNOT be part of your "no-label" thing, correct? Since their relationships with children is intrinsically abusive and stuff.

>I have actually told you twice now that I agree with you on this. They are NOT intrisically abusive.
They either ARE abusive or they aren't, dude. You can't have it both ways.

>There is nothing just about a fully developed human taking advantage of a human who has no physical concept of what mental abuse is, what lies are, what grownups are capable of.
You're going back and forth with your reasoning. Take a fucking stance.

>Am I discriminating against a bridge if I understand that it is made of stone?
dis·crim·i·na·tion
/dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/

noun
noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

>Perhaps you are the one with a narrative hellbent on being proven.
Nope. I just want to see how consistent your reasoning really is when it comes to something you don't want to include IN your rule for "no-labels should be used whatsoever under any circumstances because I don't like them".

>You won't accept anything I say regarding this topic
On the opposite, I'm trying to figure out where you draw the line between acceptable and non-acceptable when it comes to the "no-labels" rule, if there's any.
>you just keep ignoring my words
What am I ignoring?

btw with that necklace u look like naruto op
no offend

For some things, as sentient beings, we get to CHOOSE our identity. So, sure, on those things, we've already made that choice. Some things aren't really in our control. You can't force yourself to be attracted to something you're not attracted to.
That's why I mean it's not always bi.


And, I mean, on top of that, humans are creatures of habit. We LIKE not changing, because we know what to expect.

ye thats easy mode life
nobody wants to work hard people still do it

That's the vast majority of humans.
Life is never "easy mode". People always have insecurities, and we can't really measure subjective emotional intensity.

u can make ur life easy by telling u things cant bechanged or people dont change or whatever if u can be happy with it. but in fact u just close ur eyes

If you can be happy with it, sure, it'll be much easier. But it's not EASY. Different people have different struggles in life. No one has it "just easy".

If you don't have to worry about something, it automatically makes it "easier" for you to deal with said thing in contast with those who DO have to worry about the thing in question.

Even though different people struggle differently, some of them DO have it easier, that's an undeniable fact.

people are different and depending where u was born u have a more or less difficult life.

Like I said. Easier. No one has everything "just easy", but some definitely have it easier than others.

Why does the idea of some people having it "just easy" bothers you so much? What exactly makes you conclude that it's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to have it "just easy". Also, what do you define as "just easy" and "just hard"? Also, Is it possible for anyone to have it "just hard"?

Do you see how your reasoning remains inconsistent across the board?

the thing i mean is that op prob thinks like that because he grew up in a rich city maybe with better paid parents so u can afford this thinking. doesnt mean its right

It's not inconsistent. Every single human on this planet has challenges, things they have to deal with, and choices to make. There will always be someone who has it better to some degree, in some aspect. No one is at the top of that in all categories, therefore no one has it "just easy". And on the flip side, there will always be someone in a worse situation than you, in some regard. There's no real value in comparing people like that, because there's no empirical measure on how humans feel, and because so fucking what? If you always focus on what other people have compared to you, what does that gain you?

Just focus on yourself, and how YOU feel about things in YOUR life. You'll never really know exactly how someone else feels/thinks. That's just part of the human condition.

u know its everything about what others have ? why do you think states do war? also are u happy there are people that have less then you does it make u feel better?

Precisely.

He believes he has the world figured out from within his little bubble, so he just expect praises and validation, without necessarily having any solid conclusion about anything, other than a few empty talking points he overheard and thought they were cool because he agreed with them superficially.

dont u have an urgent wish for something op?

>There will always be someone who has it better to some degree, in some aspect. No one is at the top of that in all categories, therefore no one has it "just easy".
No one? Really? NO ONE has it "just easy"? Really? That's a bold statement you're making there, I hope you have something to back it up, because I can name a few people who really have it "just easy", and they all happen to be doing pretty well, in comparison to the rest.

>There's no real value in comparing people like that
If you are saying no one has it "just easy" you ARE making a comparison. Your statement in itself is creating the disparity you are trying to avoid.

>If you always focus on what other people have compared to you, what does that gain you?
I'm not doing that, YOU are. You are the one who said 'no one has it "just easy"', so YOU are the one comparing people. You HAVE to make comparison in order to know whether or not they, indeed, have it equal, which is an incredibly stupid premise, since it's a given that some people obviously "have it harder", and from their perspective the people on top of this scale have it "just easy".

You are trying to be philosophical without actually putting any thought on what you are saying.

>Just focus on yourself, and how YOU feel about things in YOUR life
That's a pretty shitty measurement to draw any conclusion about every everyone else's lives, dude.
>You'll never really know exactly how someone else feels/thinks. That's just part of the human condition.
What does this has to do with your premise in the first place? You're arguing something completely different that has nothing to do with the statement: 'no one has it "just easy"'.

wtf

bump

>I can name a few people who really have it "just easy"
So you know everything that goes through their heads daily? They never are upset by anything ever, never have to make uncomfortable choices, don't have to work at anything, only ever do what makes them happy?

My point is that as humans, life is imperfect. There is no one person who has life the easiest in every single aspect. Have you ever played a fighting game or seen a diagram where there are multiple things being measured, one where it spikes and drops to connect to the next point of data? Imagine that with even just 100 different things being measured. That'd be incredibly fucking difficult to read. In order to state the overall standing and say "Person X objectively has everything in their life better/easier than person Y", the amount of nuance there would be makes it almost impossible if you didn't have numbered values for each point, unless the difference was blatantly vast. Most people's differences (for a given similar living area) aren't vast.

The closest to an accurate comparison you can make is your subjective observations of someone else's life. You don't know how they feel or think, and are biased by your own experiences. You can't actually get the numbers for the diagram, you can only assume that your observations are accurate, and estimate how high or low each point is.