https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTears/comments/7m3lu9/incel_tells_a_story_about_acting_rude_to_a_woman/
@grotesque
The title of that thread on IT is "...incel admits to masturbating to child porn [teengallery]".
They know that saying "child porn" evokes an emotional, whiteknighting, protect-the-females! response. The "child porn" that they are referring to is at the very worst, beach pics that girls send to each other or upload to their Facebook profiles but because a man is looking at those pics, suddenly, it's child porn.
You can have a model/statue of a girl in a science-class schoolroom to look at, point out where the heart and kidneys are (just kidding, women don't have hearts), but if a man wants to fuck that model of a girl, then suddenly, the girl becomes real and it's paedophilia. See the case of a man jailed for his "teen sexbot".
I'm not defending guys who sexually abuse underage girls. I'm outraged by the emotional response you can elicit and that whiteknights and femoids SEEK to elicit by labeling females who are (post)pubertal and are having more sex than any incel "children".
This is why I see anti-JB posters here as no better than IncelTears whiteknights. Your views come from the same place: demonizing male sexuality. Note: No one is saying you should act on it, but that pretending it doesn't exist - the majority of men's attraction to (post)pubertal females - is to deny male sexuality. Millions of years of male sexuality haven't caught up with feminism and the recent SJW movement.
This is "child porn" according to IncelTears and Whiteknights:
OK, I cheated a little. This isn't a pic from teengallery but it is an example of a picture you'd find there. This is actually an 18 year old. But I can assure you that the "PWOTEKT DA FEEMAILS" instinct in many of you has already been triggered and now you think the above picture is "paedophilia" and "degenerate".
It's not so important if the picture is paedophilia but if a femoid or whiteknight thinks it is. It's more important if a man is getting sexual gratification from it. Then it's vile or at the very least, shameworthy or that man is a loser for oggling the picture.
@grotesque
The title of that thread on IT is "...incel admits to masturbating to child porn [teengallery]".
They know that saying "child porn" evokes an emotional, whiteknighting, protect-the-females! response. The "child porn" that they are referring to is at the very worst, beach pics that girls send to each other or upload to their Facebook profiles but because a man is looking at those pics, suddenly, it's child porn.
You can have a model/statue of a girl in a science-class schoolroom to look at, point out where the heart and kidneys are (just kidding, women don't have hearts), but if a man wants to fuck that model of a girl, then suddenly, the girl becomes real and it's paedophilia. See the case of a man jailed for his "teen sexbot".
I'm not defending guys who sexually abuse underage girls. I'm outraged by the emotional response you can elicit and that whiteknights and femoids SEEK to elicit by labeling females who are (post)pubertal and are having more sex than any incel "children".
This is why I see anti-JB posters here as no better than IncelTears whiteknights. Your views come from the same place: demonizing male sexuality. Note: No one is saying you should act on it, but that pretending it doesn't exist - the majority of men's attraction to (post)pubertal females - is to deny male sexuality. Millions of years of male sexuality haven't caught up with feminism and the recent SJW movement.
This is "child porn" according to IncelTears and Whiteknights:
OK, I cheated a little. This isn't a pic from teengallery but it is an example of a picture you'd find there. This is actually an 18 year old. But I can assure you that the "PWOTEKT DA FEEMAILS" instinct in many of you has already been triggered and now you think the above picture is "paedophilia" and "degenerate".
It's not so important if the picture is paedophilia but if a femoid or whiteknight thinks it is. It's more important if a man is getting sexual gratification from it. Then it's vile or at the very least, shameworthy or that man is a loser for oggling the picture.
