It's such a retarded and inconsistent rule
How long were you lurking prior to registering 3 days ago OP?
You're probably going to come across as mods as someone's alt.
Need is never absolute, it is subjective to a purpose - what would changing the rule accomplish? Make a complete argument.
Advocating for rape, Talking about going ER and celebrating tragedies = Ok
Talking about Age-Cucks and Age-cuckoldry = 100% ban
That is because sub-18 women are less corrupted than post-18 women
We must protect them.
Less of consequence is lost if post-18 roasties are raped or killed so mods do not prioritize protecting them as they do protecting minors from sexualization.
Due to the heroism of the mods, since we do not "sexualize" sub-18 women, this keeps them pure virgins and elevates society.
We are heroes purifying the world.
How does that make sense? If you're worried that the forum might get shut down if you allow it then I don't see why you don't just go full reddit and censor all "Hate speech"
give them time
but prob because they're prioritizing what they think will unify normies against us, which is "think of the chillins"
normies share our apathy to roasty sluts and don't care if we allow some members to glorify ER because secretly the normies glorify ER too
I wish they wouldn't, I dislike ER personally.
Leftist groups will still be unhappy with this forum regardless, Kiwifams had a similar rule and that did not stop them from being shut down, Leftist groups will still campaign for this forum to be shut down for "Hate speech" Or "Promoting rape and violence"
yes but they won't be able to argue we are pedophiles since pedophilia has always been banned here, and that is good, because the left glorifies homosexuality and child molestation enough without us adding to that problem
Age-cucks are also foid worshippers and white knights
I don't agree with that. Ragecucks do not necessarily worship women, they just recognize that sub-18 women maintaining their precious virginity to give to us is important.
With the mods heroically standing against sexualization we have supported female innocence being maintained so we can marry virgin women.
They white knight and simp for JB's
Bro you look like a moron putting an apostrophe there.
and demonize the men who date them as "Pedos" And "Groomers" How is that not white knighting and foid worship?
Calling men groomers is pretty rare around here, I've only seen it when they went after that 23yo dude who seduced a 13yo girl from IT, forget his name but he had an impressive Steam collection.
They basically just want men to date used up roasties and betabuxx, They are huge cuckolds
A cuckold is someone who doesn't know he's being duped - someone willingly engaging in degeneracy is not a cuckold so we call them BIDAES here.
You are contradicting yourself by having such a rule.
Explain contradiction please.
Just change it to "Do not sexualize pre pubescent children" That makes a lot more sense.
@Sheogorath @basementLDARcel
They changed it to that and had it that way for several months but then reverted it back.
I expect they did not realize at the time how early it is that puberty started, or perhaps were under the misconception that "pre-pubescent" referred to "before puberty completes" rather than it's actual definition which is "before puberty begins".
It may have been the intent of mods all along to outlaw "sexualizing" girls who were mid-pubescent and the wording was meant to allow sexualizing post-pubescent minors, such as girls who were 16/17 who were minors but had completed puberty with tanner 5 characteristics.
The current wording also bans sexualizing these post-pubescent minors (17 year olds who have been physical adults for years) and I don't know how important they think it is to legalize that.
I do think however that what is meant by the term "sexualizing" would benefit from elaboration.
I believe it means 'to render sexual' which begs the question - can you render sexual something which is already sexual?
Or does sexualize possibly mean "to render MORE sexual" in which case it can imply to overemphasizing sexuality for a sexual being?
I don’t have a problem with it because I’m not a pedophile. Go back to ***
It is IT tier argument to label men pedophiles for having a problem with a rule.
Pedophilia is a fixation on pre-adolescent boys, like the Jew Rabbi Mohels who suck their penises in their Metzitza ritual.
We are not talking about pre-adolescent boys (homosexuality is banned here)
We are also not talking about pre-adolescent (Tanner 1) girls (they would still be banned by the previous "no pre-pubescent minors" rule).
What we are talking about here are two more normal categories of things for men to be attracted to:
1) mid-adolescent minor women (preteen to mid-teens foids who are Tanner 2-4)
2) post-adolescent minor women (mid-teen to late-teen foids who are Tanner 5)
The tactic of calling attraction to either of these categories "pedophilia" is a tactic by the lefties who took over the APA in the 1940s after the influx of Jews from Europe after NSDAP expelled them for promoting pedophilia and transexuality in Germany.
They wanted to make actual pedophilia (IE the mohels sucking the little boy cock) seem more prevalent by labeling a wider variety of things pedophilia.
This is why they got the APA to reclassify normal male heterosexual spectrum (korophilia and parthenophilia) as pedophilia.
Those who co-operate with that change in nomenclature are supporting the pedophile agenda.
