[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
BADASSES

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 70212)
Message
File  []
close
>> No. 70212 Anonymous
11th January 2022
Tuesday 5:09 pm
70212 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ1uG91Bbls

It feels like everything will Smith has done since at least ~2010 has been a series of extremely poor decisions.
Expand all images.
>> No. 70213 Anonymous
11th January 2022
Tuesday 5:36 pm
70213 spacer
Same here tbh.

Anyone got a time machine they can lend me?
>> No. 70214 Searchfag
11th January 2022
Tuesday 5:40 pm
70214 spacer
Why would anyone close to someone with that much money ever tell him something is a bad idea when they can profit from it?
>> No. 70215 Crabkiller
11th January 2022
Tuesday 5:42 pm
70215 spacer
he needs to get his missus under control, even twitter can't stand her constant over-sharing of their dirty laundry, that should say something.
>> No. 70216 Searchfag
11th January 2022
Tuesday 5:43 pm
70216 spacer

ailf.png
702167021670216
There is more that unites us, than that which divides us.
>> No. 70217 Searchfag
11th January 2022
Tuesday 7:51 pm
70217 spacer
>>70212
OK, so it's the Fresh Prince of Bel Air but every single member of the Banks family is a cool gangsta type basically. OK
>> No. 70218 Samefag
11th January 2022
Tuesday 7:59 pm
70218 spacer
>>70217
It's gritty and real.
>> No. 70219 Searchfag
11th January 2022
Tuesday 8:28 pm
70219 spacer
Will Carlton be gay? If not, that's a real missed opportunity. If so, that's embarrassing woke tokenism that I'll probably complain about.

If I need to pay money for some streaming service to watch this, I won't watch it, but I can think of one way that would make a Fresh Prince of Bel-Air reboot watchable, entertaining, uniquely different from the original and thrillingly modern:
>I got in one little fight and my mum got scared
>And said you're moving with your aunty and Uncle Louis in the Nation of Shamanism

In other words, I wish they'd bring back The Boondocks.
>> No. 70220 R4GE
11th January 2022
Tuesday 8:30 pm
70220 spacer
>>70219
>THE NATION OF SHAMANISM
Bloody wordfilters. I knew I should have gone with the Five-Percent Nation.
>> No. 70221 YubYub
11th January 2022
Tuesday 8:48 pm
70221 spacer
I think a modern fresh prince should subvert the concept, and instead of sending a hood rat to live in bel-air, it should send a black trust fund brat to live in compton. it wouldn't be comedy, it would be gritty and relevant.
>> No. 70570 Searchfag
28th March 2022
Monday 8:00 am
70570 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myjEoDypUD8

Completely batshit.
>> No. 70571 Moralfag
28th March 2022
Monday 10:06 am
70571 spacer
>>70570
That was quite upsetting tbh, but i don't know the context moist dicks in my face
>> No. 70572 R4GE
28th March 2022
Monday 10:07 am
70572 spacer
>>70571
I'm glad to enough of an impact on Britfa.gs to have earned my own wordfilter <3
>> No. 70573 Moralfag
28th March 2022
Monday 10:12 am
70573 spacer
>>70572
That filter is older than you are.
>> No. 70574 Paedofag
28th March 2022
Monday 11:20 am
70574 spacer
>>70570

I don't like listening to Christ Rock's voice so I just skipped to the punch. What did he say to so aggrieve Will Smith? Was it summat about his bird?

because Will Smith's missus is mental, in fairness.
>> No. 70575 R4GE
28th March 2022
Monday 11:32 am
70575 spacer
>>70574

He asked if she was working on GI Jane 2, I think the joke is that the female lead in GI Jane had her head shaved and Will Smith's missus has alopecia. GI Jane came out over twenty years ago so it's a bit of a stretch.
>> No. 70576 Crabkiller
28th March 2022
Monday 11:51 am
70576 spacer
Why is nobody talking about how Will was laughing at tbe joke, then suddenly he's storming the stage? Is he that under the thumb that his wife not liking the joke was enough to send him into a rage? Maybe I just don't understand love.

Moreover, people are defending him because it's apparently now bad to make fun of a hair loss condition, yet bald jokes about men are perfectly acceptable? dolphin rape.
>> No. 70577 YubYub
28th March 2022
Monday 11:55 am
70577 spacer
>>70576
>it's apparently now bad to make fun of a hair loss condition, yet bald jokes about men are perfectly acceptable? dolphin rape.

>> No. 70578 Moralfag
28th March 2022
Monday 11:59 am
70578 spacer
>>70575

Fuck me, is that all? bitch-ass n-word.

>>70576

my ex's mum had alopecia and she took it in her stride. She used to go to parties dressed as uncle fester.

Mrs will smith is clearly just a humourless cunt.
>> No. 70580 Searchfag
28th March 2022
Monday 12:24 pm
70580 spacer
>>70576
>Why is nobody talking about how Will was laughing at tbe joke, then suddenly he's storming the stage?
The joke relies on such an obscure reference I think he just, reasonably, didn't get it right away and was just laughing to be polite/acting.
>> No. 70581 Are Moaty
28th March 2022
Monday 12:34 pm
70581 spacer
>>70570
That looks so fake. I wonder how long it'll be until their 'feud' is resolved for this or that event, maybe the next Oscars that nobody will watch.
>> No. 70582 Searchfag
28th March 2022
Monday 12:39 pm
70582 spacer

fgjms9kqx1q81.jpg
705827058270582
>>70576
Because she gave him the look of "if you don't do something I'll sleep with someone else and then film you crying and apologising for it again."
>> No. 70584 Moralfag
28th March 2022
Monday 12:41 pm
70584 spacer
>>70575
Oh that's worse than I thought. I assumed she was in GI Jane 1, which I assumed was a critical and commercial flop, so for Chris Tucker to say she's working on the sequel was more a comment on Jada's poor choice in movie roles. If it's the alopecia then that's a low blow.
>> No. 70585 Searchfag
28th March 2022
Monday 12:48 pm
70585 spacer
>>70584
>WHICH I ASSUMED WAS A CRITICAL AND COMMERCIAL FLOP, SO FOR CHRIS TUCKER TO SAY SHE'S WORKING ON THE SEQUEL WAS MORE A COMMENT ON JADA'S POOR CHOICE IN MOVIE ROLES

He effectively did that when she boycotted the 2016 Oscars because will wasn't nominated.

“Jada got mad, said she’s not coming. Jada boycotting the Oscars is like me boycotting Rihanna’s panties. I wasn’t invited.”
>> No. 70586 Searchfag
28th March 2022
Monday 2:12 pm
70586 spacer
>>70584
It's inclusive to joke about these things tho, otherwise they get all solemn and super serious and people end up holding it sacrosanct. People need to get a sense of humour about themselves, especially celebrities.
>> No. 70587 Anonymous
28th March 2022
Monday 2:18 pm
70587 spacer
>>70584
Demi Moore was in GI Jane. I've seen it. It was okay, but the main thing is that famous sexy Hollywood actress Demi Moore shaves her head and is therefore a manly hideous monster. For the film, she makes herself, gasp, masculine and unattractive. But Jada Pinkett Smith got alopecia and that's why she's shaving her head. So Will Smith, presumably, thought the joke was fine because everyone loved Uncle Phil and he was bald too, but Jada got angry so he stepped up. And because he is more likeable than Chris Rock, and does not sound like Cartman from South Park, most people are now on his side. If it was Jay-Z or Floyd Mayweather attacking someone, I think Chris Rock would get a lot more sympathy.
>> No. 70588 YubYub
28th March 2022
Monday 2:23 pm
70588 spacer
>>70584
Isn't it much more likely that he just took a second for the joke to click and then he got angry? Heard he's been on the roids and was crying at some point afterwards.

Either way the worst part about this is the shit takes and confident dissection of exactly what was going through his head at that moment.
>> No. 70589 Auntiefucker
28th March 2022
Monday 2:38 pm
70589 spacer

Untitled.png
705897058970589
>>70588

Will's attitude suddenly changed when Jada gave him the look.

He has a lot of pent-up anger because of all the men fucking his wife on a regular basis. He feels like he has to compensate because of his admitted inability to satisfy her insatiable sexual appetite.
>> No. 70590 Samefag
28th March 2022
Monday 2:59 pm
70590 spacer
>>70589

It is a rough position to be in. Do you think there's a secret cuckold fetish thing going on there?

Frankly i have long suspected that many cuckold relationships aren't really as voluntary as they try and make it seem, but in reality the bird effectively says "i'm going to fuck other blokes and if you don't like it I'll just leave and do it anyway" and so as a response, the man tries to rationalise it to himself that he actually likes it.

I mean you very rarely see it where it's the bloke fucking a load of other birds, that only happens when it's the kind of religious marriage polygamy that treats the women like property, or when it's the bloke being a serial cheater and she end up leaving when she finds out.
>> No. 70591 Ambulancelad
28th March 2022
Monday 3:07 pm
70591 spacer
>>70590
I know women who are like that. They're never actually really like that, and after a few threesomes they decide they hate it and want the man to stop shagging around after all. If you ever meet these women, ask them about their mental health diagnoses; I guarantee you they have several.
>> No. 70592 Samefag
28th March 2022
Monday 3:18 pm
70592 spacer
>>70591
>IF YOU EVER MEET THESE WOMEN, ASK THEM ABOUT THEIR MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSES

See; this is why we don't invite you to any of our parties.
>> No. 70593 Crabkiller
28th March 2022
Monday 3:27 pm
70593 spacer
>>70591

My last relationship did break down in small part thanks to the fact she wanted to meet and sleep with a lad they/them she met on discord, but didn't seem to like it when I fucked off for a week to have sordid furry sex with another lass.

i doubt she will reflect on this and stop insisting she's poly, though. all the cool kids are poly nowadays aren't they, and you wouldn't want to look like a loser in front of all your cool lgbtq+ poly pansexual mates, would you.
>> No. 70594 Are Moaty
28th March 2022
Monday 7:47 pm
70594 spacer

277569108_5138250019575781_2137255729114058106_n.jpg
705947059470594

>> No. 70595 Auntiefucker
28th March 2022
Monday 10:02 pm
70595 spacer
I'm increasingly confused by the strength of reaction to both Rock's middling joke and Smith's very shit bitch slap. You'd think the former had called Plinkett Smith a "whore on the 24/7 cock carousel" before the latter whipped out a sawn-off, winged Christ Rock with an initial blast and was only stopped from finishing the job by security wrestling the weapon out of his hands.

It's also very hard to use only Chris Rock's surname without putting "The" infront of it.
>> No. 70596 Anonymous
28th March 2022
Monday 10:19 pm
70596 spacer
>>70595
In fairness, it was one of the biggest stages in the world that he casually sauntered onto to slap someone.
>> No. 70597 Paedofag
28th March 2022
Monday 10:47 pm
70597 spacer
>>70596
I know. It's not that everyone has an opinion though, it's the strength of feeling some people have about it.
>> No. 70598 YubYub
28th March 2022
Monday 11:03 pm
70598 spacer
>>70597
>strength of feeling

How do you know they feel strongly about it? Just having an opinion on something these days is enough to have the accusation that you feel strongly about it thrown at you.
>> No. 70599 Moralfag
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:02 am
70599 spacer
>>70596
>ONE OF THE BIGGEST STAGES IN THE WORLD

Do people still watch the Oscars?
>> No. 70600 Crabkiller
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:26 am
70600 spacer
>>70576

>BECAUSE IT'S APPARENTLY NOW BAD TO MAKE FUN OF A HAIR LOSS CONDITION, YET BALD JOKES ABOUT MEN ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE?

Over half of all men suffer hair loss at some point in their lives. It's about as much a part of the male human experience and of the aging process as saggy tits for women.

Hair loss is doubly devastating for women, not just because women don't normally really have it as such, but because hair is such an important part of a woman's self image, in a much more fundamental way than for most men.

You're going all manospherelad on an issue that clearly isn't the same for men.
>> No. 70601 YubYub
29th March 2022
Tuesday 1:06 am
70601 spacer
Here's the thing. A large proportion of black women wear wigs purely for convenience. Every afro hair salon does a weaves, extensions and braiding that could perfectly conceal Jada Pinkett-Smith's alopecia.

Is she actually that sensitive about her shaved head, or is this really about something else?
>> No. 70602 Billbob
29th March 2022
Tuesday 1:16 am
70602 spacer
>>70600

So it's okay to make fun of alopecia, but only when a bloke has it, because lots of blokes do?

Is it okay to make fun of old people for no longer being able to get up the stairs? That's common, a part of life.

You don't get to tell me whether I'm allowed to be offended by something while explaining how offensive it is to someone else. You have no idea how important my hair might have been, that has nothing to do with gender. One look on a male pattern baldness forum would tell you that many men are absolutely devastated by it, to the point of suicide. Go fuck yourself for assuming I'm a sexist for not wanting to be made fun of for having a genetic condition.

I was pretty obviously being glib, too, but you managed to miss that because you wanted to further make fun of a man, didn't you?
>> No. 70603 Anonymous
29th March 2022
Tuesday 1:41 am
70603 spacer
>>70602

Take a chill pill for Christ's sake, lad.

If you ponder suicide because you're going bald, then there's clearly more wrong inside your head than on top of it.

I don't doubt that going bald can be a traumatic experience for us lads too. But ultimately, it's not an illness, and it only has the amount of significance that you allow it to have.

One of my mates was almost completely bald by his late 20s, and he was still pulling more tail than a retarded kid at the petting zoo.
>> No. 70604 Anonymous
29th March 2022
Tuesday 2:12 am
70604 spacer
I remember reading many years ago about Pierluigi Collina, the football referee with alopecia, being a guest on some TV programme. To introduce him, they had a comedy sketch about alopecia and he went absolutely apeshit at everyone. He didn't think it was funny at all. The only source I have been able to find is in the Daily M*il and therefore not worth posting, but I am confident this did happen; apparently it was an Italian chat show. Pierluigi Collina not only prefers to talk about his stellar refereeing career, but he also knows that around the world, there are children with alopecia being bullied and looking up to him as an inspiration, so he will kick your head in if you point out that he looks like a porno scrotum. Because it's enormously important to all those freakish hideous children that there has to be someone in the world who has alopecia but doesn't get bullied.

And he's a man. A man who is actually good at his job, rather than just being a deranged and militant female DJ Jazzy Jeff. So imagine how offensive any alopecia comments at all must be for Jada Pinkett Smith.
>> No. 70605 Anonymous
29th March 2022
Tuesday 2:32 am
70605 spacer
>>70603

>IF YOU PONDER SUICIDE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING BALD, THEN THERE'S CLEARLY MORE WRONG INSIDE YOUR HEAD THAN ON TOP OF IT.

But if you get your husband to commit battery during a live televised event because you're bald, that's fine?

>I DON'T DOUBT THAT GOING BALD CAN BE A TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE FOR US LADS TOO. BUT ULTIMATELY, IT'S NOT AN ILLNESS, AND IT ONLY HAS THE AMOUNT OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT YOU ALLOW IT TO HAVE.

But to be clear, it's still much worse if you're a woman? You're basically telling me to man up, for fucks sake.
>> No. 70606 Billbob
29th March 2022
Tuesday 7:36 am
70606 spacer

cd8fcb387e647484553bbb513605070e.jpg
706067060670606
>>70601
Hair is a significant factor of identity for many people and for such an apparently proud person as Jada, covering alopecia would be to admit embarrassment and a lack of faith in their identity.
You could say Will Smith was emulating this attitude in his performance - while walking back from the stage there's a mix of proud chestiness and sheepish lowered head coupled with side glacing eye movements apparently checking for reactions.
Confidence and social validation is restored once he regained a seat within the aura of his queen.

Jada Smith entirely reminds me of a tyrant Xerxes, which I find scary.
>> No. 70607 Ambulancelad
29th March 2022
Tuesday 8:19 am
70607 spacer

linney santoro 1.png
706077060770607
>>70606
He was the hunky one in love actually. Don't think I've seen him in anything else.
>> No. 70608 Auntiefucker
29th March 2022
Tuesday 11:05 am
70608 spacer
>>70605

>BUT IF YOU GET YOUR HUSBAND TO COMMIT BATTERY DURING A LIVE TELEVISED EVENT BECAUSE YOU'RE BALD, THAT'S FINE?

Will Smith made his own decision. It's unlikely that Jada told him "Get up there and knock that fucker's lights out!". Maybe you don't go around punching people for saying insensitive things about your partner, which is good, but don't try to tell me you wouldn't be massively offended and wouldn't try to rectify the insult.

>YOU'RE BASICALLY TELLING ME TO MAN UP, FOR FUCKS SAKE.

And if I did, would that be so wrong in this case?
>> No. 70609 Ambulancelad
29th March 2022
Tuesday 11:09 am
70609 spacer
>>70608
>MAYBE YOU DON'T GO AROUND PUNCHING PEOPLE FOR SAYING INSENSITIVE THINGS ABOUT YOUR PARTNER, WHICH IS GOOD, BUT DON'T TRY TO TELL ME YOU WOULDN'T BE MASSIVELY OFFENDED AND WOULDN'T TRY TO RECTIFY THE INSULT.

I don't think will Smith has much in the way of credibility in the alpha male stakes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTe0_Z0vlc
>> No. 70610 Ambulancelad
29th March 2022
Tuesday 11:38 am
70610 spacer
>>70605
>BUT IF YOU GET YOUR HUSBAND TO COMMIT BATTERY DURING A LIVE TELEVISED EVENT BECAUSE YOU'RE BALD, THAT'S FINE?

That's not what happened though. Displaying obvious bias through your assumptions just undermines any point you might be driving at.

>BUT TO BE CLEAR, IT'S STILL MUCH WORSE IF YOU'RE A WOMAN? YOU'RE BASICALLY TELLING ME TO MAN UP, FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Man up as in 'pull yourself together'. It's not an explicitly toxic phrase unless you think masculinity is explicitly toxic. It's just misused by some people (like you).
>> No. 70611 YubYub
29th March 2022
Tuesday 11:46 am
70611 spacer
Looks like the men's rights subrudgwicksteamshow.co.uk is having an absolute field day with this:

https://www.rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk.com/r/MensRights/comments/tqpctr/will_smith_megathread_posts_not_in_this_thread/

>Will Smith Megathread

chronic masturbatorlads on top form again.
>> No. 70612 Billbob
29th March 2022
Tuesday 11:51 am
70612 spacer
>>70610

>UNLESS YOU THINK MASCULINITY IS EXPLICITLY TOXIC.

It can be, in fishperson speak/in the minds of many fisherpersons. Which is one reason why I don't subscribe to feminism as such. An ideology that tells me I am an inherently bad person because of my gender will never have my support.
>> No. 70613 YubYub
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:02 pm
70613 spacer
>>70598
See thread.
>> No. 70614 Anonymous
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:08 pm
70614 spacer
>>70608

>AND IF I DID, WOULD THAT BE SO WRONG IN THIS CASE?

Yes, particularly as we were talking about male suicide too.

You'll never get it, because you refuse to see men in any way other than the traditional.
>> No. 70615 Moralfag
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:09 pm
70615 spacer
>>70613

Nobody has ever trolled or exaggerated on this website, especially not /iq/.
>> No. 70616 R4GE
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:15 pm
70616 spacer
>>70615
I don't see how people having a big discussion about what happened is "trolling". I wasn't even being negative about anyone who was. If you still doubt my claim that some people have strong feelings about Smith slapping Rock, go to any newspaper's opinion section or browse social media for half-an-hour. I don't know why my original claim was doubted in the first instance, it's not like I suggested blood fueds were being born out over it.
>> No. 70617 Are Moaty
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:16 pm
70617 spacer
>>70614

>PARTICULARLY AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MALE SUICIDE TOO

It was mainly you who started it.

If going bald drives you to suicide, then you obviously need professional help. But you're insinuating that somewhere deep down, every lad who has hair loss wants to off himself. Which is patently false, and it's an overly extreme argument which helps in no way.

I went to see a dermatologist for my little bit of hair loss, who was completely bald, and he told me he accepted it a long time ago, and that even if I became like him, which he assured me wasn't likely in the near future, it would not make me less of the person that I am.
>> No. 70618 Moralfag
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:24 pm
70618 spacer
>>70617

I'm not doing either of the things you're suggesting.

What I'm doing, or was doing, was replying to someone who claimed that hair loss is awful for women, a deeply rooted psychological trauma, but sort of fine for men, something they just have to get over. Every response to that has really just proved my point further - I'm apparently invoking the manosphere for suggesting that men might have just as many hangups about their appearance as women? Howay lads.
>> No. 70619 YubYub
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:32 pm
70619 spacer
>>70617

Why didn't Will tell Jada that being upset about her hair meant she needed help? He should have strode up to Chris Rock and asked him for a nunber for a good therapist. It's her problem to sort out.
>> No. 70620 Crabkiller
29th March 2022
Tuesday 12:36 pm
70620 spacer
>>70618

>THAT HAIR LOSS IS AWFUL FOR WOMEN, A DEEPLY ROOTED PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA, BUT SORT OF FINE FOR MEN, SOMETHING THEY JUST HAVE TO GET OVER

Women are bombarded with messages and expectations about their physical appearance every day, in a way that men simply cannot fathom. Quite the contrary, as there are many positive male role models who are balding, or completely bald, e.g. ARE William, or Jason Statham, Bruce Willis or even Patrick Stewart.

Male hair loss isn't just something you are told to accept - it *is* accepted. No man gets a funny look on a train for a thinning head of hair. But a balding woman gets those looks everywhere she goes.

I'm the lad who just said he doesn't subscribe to feminism as such. But if you've spent any time with women at all, then you should have come to similar realisations.
>> No. 70621 Are Moaty
29th March 2022
Tuesday 1:10 pm
70621 spacer
>>70614
That's simply not true. Telling someone to pull themselves together and not focus on superficial issues is exactly the sentiment shared by the dermatologist in >>70617, they just dressed it up nicer because they're acting in a professional capacity, whereas you're on /IQ/ on .gs, so the tone will differ despite the sentiment remaining the same; positive and supportive of internal validation.

The sentiment is the exact same, but fuck me...

>YOU'LL NEVER GET IT, BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO SEE MEN IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN THE TRADITIONAL.

That's bollocks, they could easily already get it but just be communicating differently to how you would communicate the same information/sentiment, but the actual problem here is that you will never understand them as long as you continue to lack empathy, otherwise you would make an effort to see things from their perspective and not pigeonhole them so you can make a vapid grandstand. Moron.
>> No. 70622 Anonymous
29th March 2022
Tuesday 1:44 pm
70622 spacer
Jada Pinkett Smith's alopecia isn't like my hair falling out, and I can assure you it does upset me that I will never be permitted by nature to ever have a mullet no matter how badly I want one. It's really more like if my arms fell off and I needed to ask strangers to wipe my bum for me. Appearances are for women what competence is for men. Women don't like being unable to solve their own problems either, but it hurts us a lot more. And similarly, when a woman's hair falls out, that's like a worst nightmare come true. Remember that Gail Porter got alopecia and went from being hailed as one of the sexiest women in the country to being as fancied as Simon Weston. And she handled it amazingly well. You can't expect everyone to be as inspirational as her, and Jada Pinkett Smith undeniably is not.
>> No. 70623 Are Moaty
29th March 2022
Tuesday 1:45 pm
70623 spacer
>>70620

>Women are bombarded with messages and expectations about their physical appearance every day, in a way that men simply cannot fathom.

Bollocks. Men have exactly the same, you just don't notice it because you thoughtlessly conform to it. A lad with long hair will certainly get funny looks and snarky comments about it. Nevermind if he wants to paint his nails or put a bit of eyeliner on, people will shamelessly gawp and stare, and feel absolutely uninhibited to make remarks, in ways they are altogether less likely to at bald woman. unless he just happens to be at Whitby goth weekend, a bloke is definitely held to much more rigid expectations.

I haven't been following the rest of the cunt off but this particular line of argument doesn't hold up at all.
>> No. 70624 YubYub
29th March 2022
Tuesday 2:12 pm
70624 spacer
I think we can all agree that Jada and Will calling their offspring Jaden and Willow is proof that the Smiths are cunts, regardless of their balding heads and half hearted attacks on aging comedians.
>> No. 70625 Paedofag
29th March 2022
Tuesday 4:34 pm
70625 spacer
>>70620

>NO MAN GETS A FUNNY LOOK ON A TRAIN FOR A THINNING HEAD OF HAIR

But they get the piss taken out of them.
>> No. 70626 Ambulancelad
29th March 2022
Tuesday 6:02 pm
70626 spacer
What's been absent from this cunt off is a proper class analysis of why a lover quarrel between two old and impossibly rich black men has us so transfixed, especially one that exists solely for rich creatives to wank each other off.

Is this the most pressing issue of the day? How can we talk about either of them being right when they're both rich pricks whose job is precisely to prop up the status quo with propaganda?
>> No. 70627 YubYub
29th March 2022
Tuesday 7:27 pm
70627 spacer
>>70626

We're just enjoying a news story that isn't completely depressing.
>> No. 70628 Are Moaty
29th March 2022
Tuesday 7:55 pm
70628 spacer
Wouldn't it be nice if we treated all jokes about physical characteristics as potentially offensive, and physical violence as a response to a potentially offensive joke as equally unacceptable.

Also eat the rich
>> No. 70629 Ambulancelad
29th March 2022
Tuesday 9:10 pm
70629 spacer
>>70626
But there's a valid identity politics angle to this story for once, with analysis of the differences between black culture and white culture. Why didn't Chris Rock hit Will Smith back? There are clearly moments where Chris Rock shows a level of interpersonal understanding that many white celebrities might not show.

By the way, Chris Rock has said that black actors should never do drag for comedy purposes. It's part of white society's innate desire to emasculate black men to stop them from feeling as threatening. It is offensive pandering to him, almost similar to the old-fashioned cakewalks. Now let's all watch this video from very early in Chris Rock's career.

>> No. 70630 Are Moaty
30th March 2022
Wednesday 11:13 am
70630 spacer
>>70629

>BUT THERE'S A VALID IDENTITY POLITICS ANGLE TO THIS STORY FOR ONCE

You can find identity politics in a tin of dog food if you really put your mind to it.
>> No. 70631 Auntiefucker
30th March 2022
Wednesday 12:23 pm
70631 spacer

Wokies.png
706317063170631
>>70630
Top result for "woke dog food".
>> No. 70632 Paedofag
30th March 2022
Wednesday 4:54 pm
70632 spacer
>>70631
>the usual meaty chunks
>> No. 70633 YubYub
30th March 2022
Wednesday 8:27 pm
70633 spacer
>>70631

Both dogs and cats are obligate carnivores. I'm not sure how you can prevent malnutrition with vegan cat or dog food, but you are really not doing your pet a favour. It's just to feed your own selfish self importance as a smug cunt who isn't content just preaching veganism to all your friends, if you have any.
>> No. 70634 R4GE
30th March 2022
Wednesday 9:02 pm
70634 spacer
>>70633

Pretty much straight up animal cruelty, and one of the most bizarrely ideologically inconsistent things about any of these insuffereable modern day moral yuppies.

the thing is if you're a vegan, a position that is largely held out of an absolutist committment to preventing animal suffering, surely you should be self aware enough to realise that keeping a pet (in the modern world where you are presumably out at work at least 8 hours a day) is essentially the same thing as owning a slave. they are a permanent hostage without even the freedom to control their own shitting and pissing habits, who serve only our interests, and they usually get their bollocks cut off for the privilege. in a lot of ways that's a far more inhumane way of life than, say, a free range chicken. yeah, the chicken gets killed in the end, but at least it didn't have to live as a mind-broken sentient cuddle toy under complete subordination to some neurotic vegetable nazi.

I hope the lad who hates the term "the shipping forecast" is around here tonight, because this is one of those cases that's absolutely what it is.

As one of the local furrylads I do feel particularly strongly about animal rights. but at the same time it serves the canis genus right for being such massive pussy bitch gay boys, unlike the eternally implacable and indomitable chad vulpes genus
>> No. 70635 Crabkiller
30th March 2022
Wednesday 9:15 pm
70635 spacer
>>70634
>the thing is if you're a vegan... surely you should be self aware enough to realise that keeping a pet ... is essentially the same thing as owning a slave

Plenty of vegans who agree with that and find it abhorrent.
>> No. 70636 Anonymous
30th March 2022
Wednesday 9:17 pm
70636 spacer
>>70635
Every vegan/vegetarian I know owns at least one cat or dog.
>> No. 70637 Crabkiller
30th March 2022
Wednesday 9:20 pm
70637 spacer
>>70636
and?
>> No. 70638 Paedofag
31st March 2022
Thursday 10:55 am
70638 spacer
>>70635

But we're not talking about those ones are we, we're talking about the ones who both have a pet and see fit to force into a vegan diet.
>> No. 70639 YubYub
31st March 2022
Thursday 10:59 am
70639 spacer
>>70638

The person I was responding to was talking about vegans in general. See where he said
>the thing is if you're a vegan
and didn't say
>the thing is if you're a vegan who owns a pet
?
>> No. 70641 Anonymous
31st March 2022
Thursday 1:46 pm
70641 spacer
>>70639

Did he have to, considering the context? No, he didn't.

I could be equally as ridiculous as you and parse the post to mean all vegans buy vegan food for pets they may not even own, but that would be retarded.

Stop being retarded. Retard
>> No. 70642 Samefag
31st March 2022
Thursday 4:08 pm
70642 spacer
>>70641

Conversations change and move on, like you should.
>> No. 70643 Samefag
31st March 2022
Thursday 4:44 pm
70643 spacer

Pfizer Oscar Smith Rock scam.jpg
706437064370643
What're you're thoughts on this, then? Evidence is dubious at best, but who'd lie about something like this?
>> No. 70644 Moralfag
31st March 2022
Thursday 4:54 pm
70644 spacer
>>70643
>Who'd lie about something like this?
Anyone in any comments section anywhere on the internet.
>> No. 70645 Anonymous
31st March 2022
Thursday 5:14 pm
70645 spacer

30a.jpg
706457064570645
>>70643

Total coincidence. Ritlecitinib is also undergoing trials for ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease and vitiligo. It's one of a dozen similar immunomodulators being developed by Pfizer. It's just the usual suspects freaking out about VAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXERS.

https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/product-pipeline/Pipeline_Update_02FEB2021.pdf
>> No. 70646 Anonymous
31st March 2022
Thursday 6:14 pm
70646 spacer
>>70643

I can imagine 'doing security at the Oscars' is probably the most lucrative gig her husband gets, on a basic human level, it seems unlikely that either of them would blab about this, and if indeed it was a shady pharma marketing campaign, there'd be NDA's involved, so doubly unlikely.

Also, it's the USA. Drug companies hardly need stealthly subliminal marketing tricks, they simply just need to make a drug, say it costs $3000 a pill, and thats that.
>> No. 70651 YubYub
4th April 2022
Monday 1:19 pm
70651 spacer
>Kerry Katona has shared the surprising news that she has a secret friendship with Will Smith – and says she wishes he had pulled Chris Rock aside for a chat instead of slapping him at the Oscars.

>The 41-year-old former Atomic Kitten star says she has met 53-year-old Oscar winner Will many times on the showbiz circuit and that he was always ‘lovely’ to her. But now she finds herself disappointed in her showbiz pal after he smacked 57-year-old Chris square across the face at last months’ Oscars ceremony after taking offence to an ill-judged joke about his 50-year-old wife Jada Pinkett-Smith.

>Kerry says she wishes that Will had just had a cordial chat with Chris after he joked about Jada’s alopecia – and says she would never condone violence.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/kerry-katonas-surprising-friendship-smith-26628339

We've officially scraped the bottom of the barrel.
>> No. 70652 Paedofag
4th April 2022
Monday 1:28 pm
70652 spacer
>>70651

>Kerry Katona has shared the surprising news that she has a secret friendship with Will Smith

>The 41-year-old former Atomic Kitten star says she has met 53-year-old Oscar winner Will many times on the showbiz circuit and that he was always ‘lovely’ to her


That hardly qualifies as a friendship of any description. Looks more like a former girl band singer's attempt to fight her own growing insignificance by resorting to A-list name dropping.
>> No. 70653 Moralfag
4th April 2022
Monday 1:43 pm
70653 spacer
>>70652
It's kerry katona. She'll use any excuse, no matter how tenuous, to try and generate a bit of publicity.
>> No. 70654 Paedofag
4th April 2022
Monday 1:44 pm
70654 spacer
>>70651
>But a string of upcoming projects have been cancelled at Netflix and Sony in light of Will’s controversial actions – with plans for Bad Boys 4 and a sequel to Bright cancelled.

The biggest shock of this interview is that Bright was getting a sequel.
>> No. 70655 Moralfag
4th April 2022
Monday 2:05 pm
70655 spacer
>>70654
Netflix have never seemed to me to know what to do with all the money they have.
>> No. 70656 R4GE
4th April 2022
Monday 3:25 pm
70656 spacer
>>70655
There's a South Park episode with that exact premise. Anyway, I think Kerry Katona has had such an appalling life at every stage apart from maybe getting rich from Atomic Kitten that there's every chance she might not really understand what friendship even is. She grew up so scrotey that eventhe Scouse children at her school probably didn't want to hang out with her , and once she became famous and people fancied her on a wide scale, everyone she met just wanted to either exploit her for money or tell all their friends they'd shagged Kerry Katona. It's possible that she's never had a friend who liked her for her more than Will Smith ever did.

Of course, being that much of a scrote could also mean she's a scheming bitch. I wouldn't know. But she never comes across as malicious on TV.
>> No. 70657 Crabkiller
4th April 2022
Monday 3:54 pm
70657 spacer

k02eh9qu809eccgprg1wobial38sr6m.png
706577065770657
>>70656
The thing I've never got about Kerry Katona's fame is that she left Atomic Kitten right before they made it big. She dropped out during the recording of Whole again and was replaced with Jenny Frost. The songs they're actually known for - Whole again, covering Eternal Flame, covering The Tide is High, etc., are all post-Katona.
>> No. 70658 YubYub
4th April 2022
Monday 4:23 pm
70658 spacer

Untitled.jpg
706587065870658
>>70657
She got her waps out for the papers.
>> No. 70659 Anonymous
4th April 2022
Monday 5:45 pm
70659 spacer
>>70657

>The thing I've never got about Kerry Katona's fame is that she left Atomic Kitten right before they made it big.

It happens occasionally. Pete Best was replaced by Ringo Starr before The Beatles fully broke. Vince Clarke left Depeche Mode after their first album.

The difference being that at least in Vince Clarke's case, he made oodles of money with pleasant upbeat synthpop after he left and is still one of the most respected electronic musicians of that era.

And I digress, but it also made Depeche Mode take on their darker, existentialist, Industrial bent which made them such an influential 80s band. Music for the Masses would never have happened with Vince.


Don't mind me, I'm really all over the place today, I'm in bed with a cold and feeling like shite
>> No. 70660 Auntiefucker
4th April 2022
Monday 6:12 pm
70660 spacer
>>70659
Do you think Dave Gahan would be lovely to Kerry Katona? I bet he wouldn't. I bet he's a bastard. Once again proving that Will Smith is the nicest man on the planet.
>> No. 70661 Searchfag
4th April 2022
Monday 7:58 pm
70661 spacer
>>70660

Don't talk that way about ARE DAVE. He's lucky to be here at all, he was a walking drug experiment during his Jesus phase in the mid-90s and was clinically dead at least once. By his own words, he wanted to see just how much drugs a person could take. If you look at any pictures or footage of him with long hair and a beard, that was circa 1993-96, where he was at his worst.
>> No. 70662 Crabkiller
5th April 2022
Tuesday 12:01 am
70662 spacer

dave gahan 1994.jpg
706627066270662
>>70661
You're not kidding. But I have seen pictures of Kerry Katona looking even rougher than this. I can't bring myself to feel anything other than pity for her.
>> No. 70666 Are Moaty
6th April 2022
Wednesday 5:44 am
70666 spacer
>>70658
Christ, she looks like she's about to sit her GCSEs. How was Page Three allowed to go on for so long?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77B1dCNnYc0
>> No. 70667 Anonymous
6th April 2022
Wednesday 8:43 am
70667 spacer

_96205042_poster.jpg
706677066770667
>>70666
The age of consent wasn't taken as seriously in them days. Rita, Sue and Bob too was about a couple of schoolgirls sleeping with a married man.
>> No. 70668 R4GE
6th April 2022
Wednesday 11:06 am
70668 spacer
>>70667
It wasn't about the age of consent being taken seriously, we just had an influx of puritanical American influence in the past decade.

Even watching Shameless I found myself initially uncomfortable with Frank oggling Karen in season one, but then everyone on the show was fine with it so I decided I'd crack one out, and it was good.
>> No. 70669 Are Moaty
6th April 2022
Wednesday 11:35 am
70669 spacer
>>70666
It clearly says in the box that she's 20 which makes it wrong but only in the eyes of God and the local community. I made sure I was well protected from your diddly accusations, Herr. General.
>> No. 70670 Anonymous
6th April 2022
Wednesday 12:07 pm
70670 spacer

page3-04feb2004.jpg
706707067070670
>>70668
If you're on about why did the sun get rid of page three then it would have been a purely commercial decision. Some bimbo with her wabs out is never going to compete in the attention for teenage boys and white van men when up against unlimited access to porn through their smartphones, so there's little point in continuing to do it and risk putting off advertisers.

If we're on about why did page 3 stop counting down to lasses turning 16 so they could legally get their wabs out, the law changed in 2003 because their was heightened paedo awareness as the news at that time was full of children getting killed and diddled like Sarah Payne, Milly Dowler and the Soham murders.
>> No. 70671 Anonymous
6th April 2022
Wednesday 12:50 pm
70671 spacer
>>70666
Have you actually seen a 16 year old? She looks like a 20 year old woman normally looks. I'd understand if you were from Hull or similar, but outside of such impoverished areas most people who sit their GCSEs aren't old enough to have worked in your local for several years.

Where were you in that Freshers night thread on /x/?
>> No. 70672 Ambulancelad
6th April 2022
Wednesday 1:10 pm
70672 spacer
>>70671
>HAVE YOU ACTUALLY SEEN A 16 YEAR OLD?
Have you?! And why? I think you've got some explaining to do.
>> No. 70673 Paedofag
6th April 2022
Wednesday 1:39 pm
70673 spacer
>>70670

>the law changed in 2003 because their was heightened paedo awareness

That was one part of it, but it really stemmed from an EU directive which ordered member states to raise the minimum age for pornographic pictures to 18. Which did happen due to the Americans pressuring European legislators. That pressure in itself was a mixture of religiously motivated moral colonialism and the fact that the minimum age for nudity had always been 18 in the U.S., and with the rise of the Internet in the late 90s, it became increasingly difficult for American law enforcement to keep Internet users from just downloading the stuff from European web sites which legally offered that kind of content.

More radical drafts of the directive called for a blanket age of consent for sexual activity of 18 in the EU, which would have been even more restrictive than much of the U.S. where a lot of states have an age of consent of 16, but that didn't go through.
>> No. 70674 Are Moaty
6th April 2022
Wednesday 1:51 pm
70674 spacer
>>70673
>MORE RADICAL DRAFTS OF THE DIRECTIVE CALLED FOR A BLANKET AGE OF CONSENT FOR SEXUAL ACTIVITY OF 18 IN THE EU, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN MUCH OF THE U.S. WHERE A LOT OF STATES HAVE AN AGE OF CONSENT OF 16, BUT THAT DIDN'T GO THROUGH.

I'm now picturing a world where we had Are nige campaigning for the right to sleep with 16 and 17 year olds.
>> No. 70675 YubYub
6th April 2022
Wednesday 2:04 pm
70675 spacer
>>70674

>I'm now picturing a world where we had Are nige campaigning for the right to sleep with 16 and 17 year olds.

Funnily enough, it was mainly gay adults campaigning for an equal age of consent for gays in the 1990s. Same-age homosexual sex under the age of 18 hadn't been prosecuted in a meaningful way for decades by that point.
>> No. 70676 Crabkiller
6th April 2022
Wednesday 2:06 pm
70676 spacer
>>70674
It can only really go one way, can't it? Unless the counter movement is led by women, there's absolutely no way it would get lowered because everyone in favour of lowering it would immediately be thrown into a bath of sulphuric acid.
>> No. 70677 YubYub
6th April 2022
Wednesday 2:23 pm
70677 spacer
>>70676
When I observe what the pearl-clutching Mumsnet TERFs are chatting about any given week, they occasionally remark that "the brain hasn't fully developed until the age of 25", with the implication that every single age-related restriction should be raised to this.
>> No. 70678 Samefag
6th April 2022
Wednesday 2:32 pm
70678 spacer
>>70676

>Unless the counter movement is led by women, there's absolutely no way it would get lowered

There's a whole current in the men's rights movement whose usually fully grown, mid-30s to mid-40s members spend all day in their mum's basement having a moan on the Internet that middle aged women want to keep them from rightfully having sex with underaged girls because of some sort of sexual jealousy.

Being in my 40s myself, I can honestly say that even 18 seems incredibly young to me. Many 18 year olds may be stunning to look at, if just for the complete absence of all the marks of physical aging that you bear yourself, but I would just feel incredibly weird being in the sack with one of them. And then what do you even talk to them about once you're done.

I'm all in favour of closeness in age exceptions where a 17 year old having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend doesn't become the subject of criminal investigation and prosecution, which would quite likely do infinitely more harm to the couple's age-appropriate psychological development than the fact that one of them is under the magic age of 16. But when you're 40 and your main object of desire is 16-year-old schoolgirls or even below that, then you absolutely need to have a fucking word with yourself. For your own good, before the police will.
>> No. 70679 Samefag
6th April 2022
Wednesday 3:22 pm
70679 spacer
>>70677
>occasionally
come now. You occasionally get people here saying certain things. Below a certain level of frequency, ideas are no longer dangerous. And as >>70678 says, the frequency with which I see men saying it's weird that 15 years and 364 days old is a crime but 16 years and 1 day old is fine (which, to iterate the poster I agree with, it absolutely is not; it might be legal but it's still creepy) is far higher than that frequency.
>> No. 70680 Ambulancelad
6th April 2022
Wednesday 4:03 pm
70680 spacer
>>70679
"creepy" is possibly one of the most loaded words on the modern internet. It's basically a longer way of saying "my knee is spasming" without providing any actual reasoning, which is just as poignant as it sounds.

What's actually wrong with it, other than you're being socialised to find it repulsive? Someone who shags women for power or to be abusive or whatever is going to do that regardless of the age of their partner, and vice versa.

Unless there's evidence that people become worse human beings as they get older, why is it any worse for a 40 year old to still be shagging 18 year olds than when they were 20 year old? What is going to be worse about that person over those 20 years?
>> No. 70681 Auntiefucker
6th April 2022
Wednesday 4:04 pm
70681 spacer
>>70680
Oh, lad. Come on, now.
>> No. 70682 YubYub
6th April 2022
Wednesday 4:30 pm
70682 spacer
>>70681

Explain why it's bad.
>> No. 70683 R4GE
6th April 2022
Wednesday 4:37 pm
70683 spacer
>>70682
Because being a much older man preying on drunk 18 year olds during freshers week with the justification "They need an older man to show them the ropes" is creepy and trying to take advantage of their vulnerabilities due to them being not old enough to know any better.
>> No. 70684 R4GE
6th April 2022
Wednesday 5:08 pm
70684 spacer
>>70683
You realise every single qualification beyond "older man" and "18 year old" in your post was just made up by you?

What's wrong with someone on the pull pulling someone who is also on the pull, even if there's a 20 year age gap? Do the younger ones need to go to the Children's Bar where you're only allowed to buy alcohol served in sippy cups?

Come on, put some effort in. You're only conning yourself by making shit points.
>> No. 70685 YubYub
6th April 2022
Wednesday 5:13 pm
70685 spacer
>>70684
If they are both happy with the outcome, nothing will be reported and nobody will get in trouble. If someone gets in trouble, that means one party was unhappy at the outcome. They probably thought they had been molested, for example. And in these cases, the only cases where it is ever discussed, your assertion that everyone was fully satisfied clearly does not apply.
>> No. 70686 R4GE
6th April 2022
Wednesday 5:24 pm
70686 spacer
>>70680

>What's actually wrong with it, other than you're being socialised to find it repulsive?

Sexual mores have always been subject to changing cultural ideas throughout history. For example, in ancient Sparta, its army's warriors were often recruited as early as age seven, and a well-known part of the training was that these young boys had to engage in frequent sexual relations with their adult instructors. It rightly seems horribly disgusting to us today, but in those days, having your sprog in the Spartan Army was a great honour and no harm was seen in it. Moreover, the Abrahamic religions from their beginnings have considered 14 the age of majority, a rule that is still adhered to in many Jewish as well as eskimo or even a few Christian denominations.

The concept of when somebody is an adult and/or old enough to have sex was therefore even less rigid over the course of hisory than it is today. But what we've seen since the Sexual Revolution and in our modern times is that a moral-based approach to governing sexuality has been replaced by a negotiation-based approach. Simply put, what is permissible in the sack is determined not primarily by what a silent majority may think is somehow morally harmful or not, but by what two or more individuals in that moment agree to do with each other consensually. Most of today's anti-rape and anti-sexual abuse legislation is centered around that idea.

The reasoning behind age of consent laws (most of which were enacted in past centuries to protect the virtue of unmarried young girls, while often containing no statutes at all for young boys) has also changed as a consequence. It's now believed that you cannot consent to sex below a certain age because of a lack of maturity or life experience or whatever else. The sexual act therefore becomes illicit because it was not initiated as a result of two consenting individuals making a valid willing decision towards it. While that may sound pretty technical, I think it's reasonable to argue that the average 12 year old is in no way ready to make an informed decision to have sex, let alone with an adult.

It still gets difficult when you try to set a legally binding cutoff age from which you're good to go, because at age 16, 15, or even 18, you'll always have individuals who are ready while others just aren't, and won't be for some time. But you have to draw a line somewhere, and I don't think 16 is massively unreasonable. As long as you make sure that consenting same-age couples aren't typically affected by it. Because the vast majority of what you could call age of consent violations happen in that age group without any harmful intentions at all. On the other hand, it's very questionable if a 15 year old is mature enough to consent to sex with somebody who is 25 years older. The law says they aren't, and for the most part, knowing 40 year olds and knowing 15 year olds, I have to say I agree. The obvious caveat is then that just a year later, the law makes them free to have sex with 40 year olds all they want, but that still doesn't fully solve the problem. Which is why in some ways a cultural norm that says 40 year olds shouldn't pursue 16 year olds seems once again reasonable to me.
>> No. 70687 Anonymous
6th April 2022
Wednesday 5:43 pm
70687 spacer

Will-Smith-as-Will-Then.jpg
706877068770687
Don't mind me, just checking if this is still a Fresh Prince thread.
>> No. 70689 Searchfag
6th April 2022
Wednesday 6:20 pm
70689 spacer
>>70684
>YOU REALISE EVERY SINGLE QUALIFICATION BEYOND "OLDER MAN" AND "18 YEAR OLD" IN YOUR POST WAS JUST MADE UP BY YOU?

See. >>70671
>WHERE WERE YOU IN THAT FRESHERS NIGHT THREAD

If you're going to take part in the discussion it helps if you follow it.
>> No. 70691 Samefag
6th April 2022
Wednesday 7:11 pm
70691 spacer
>>70683

So is it fine if they meet in a coffee shop and are both sober, or is the older man still a manipulator? Is it okay for a 40 year old women to go on the prowl for younger lads? Is it okay for an 18 year old girl to go to the nearest cigar lounge in the hope of wooing an older man, or even manipulating him into paying her rent - should there be an upper limit on age of consent, to prevent this sort of thing? Should it be illegal for you, who is probably beetween 25 and 35, to shag my 85 year old grandma? She's not as sharp as she used to be, so is it manipulative?

If your only problem with age gaps here is that you think older man plus younger woman is creepy, then you need to examine why.
>> No. 70692 Samefag
6th April 2022
Wednesday 7:12 pm
70692 spacer
>>70691

Additionally, is it impossible for an 18 year old to have a silver fox fetish?
>> No. 70693 YubYub
6th April 2022
Wednesday 7:13 pm
70693 spacer
>>70691
Being an older man going after younger women isn't necessarily creepy, but I've never seen a man doing it who didn't look like a wrong 'un.

Likewise, when you see middle aged women coming onto much younger men they almost always look desperate.
>> No. 70694 Anonymous
6th April 2022
Wednesday 7:31 pm
70694 spacer
>>70693

>Likewise, when you see middle aged women coming onto much younger men they almost always look desperate

When I was 17, a friend's aunt was coming on to me, who was 31 herself. And I mean, she was actually making a pass. She was fit and everything, but even then, the thought of it seemed more than a bit icky. She was a single mum with loose morals, so she probably really would have been up for it. But something just seemed repulsive about the idea.
>> No. 70695 Searchfag
6th April 2022
Wednesday 7:35 pm
70695 spacer
just broadly commenting on this topic, it has always felt to me that your perception of age is always directly related to your own. when i was 18 anyone above the age of 25 seemed frighteningly old, and my own age was the peak of human maturity. but now i'm above that age myself, an 18 year old honestly looks entirely adolescent. uni students look more like high schoolers to me. i don't exactly feel like i have changed much but if I look at photos of me from 10 years ago... christ, I haven't half.

>>70685

I'm sure we've all had unsatisfying sex that we regretted afterwards. I would consider it extremely problematic if you're going to use that as pretty much the sole qualifier for if that sexual engagement was inherently immoral and/or criminal or not.

>>70693

same principle, but nobody sees it as inherently wrong when it's a woman doing it. we view her as desperate, call her a cougar, that sort of thing, but nobody seriously considers her as a sexual predator.

it seems to me this is just another one of those contradictions we cling to in modern society. despite all the progress of fisherfolk, we still treat women as though they're lacking agency. when it's an 18 year old lass and a 45 year old man we automatically assume that woman was devoid of responsibility, and find ourselves constantly backtracking on the premise to find a way in which the woman was unaccountable- The man must have been manipulating her in some way, she must have felt too intimidated to refuse, there was an imbalance of power, something like that.

we don't do that when it's an 18 year old lad shagging a 45 year old woman, because we don't see men as perpetually defenceless children like we do with women. it's quite revealing, i think, how so much of the empowerment and equality we claim to champion for women these days is nothing of the sort, we're just patting them on the head and patronisingly playing along; because when it comes down to it we still view them as weak, vulnerable, and infantile.

>>70692

Just anecdotally I've matched with lasses on dating apps who tell me it's a big fantasy of theirs to be with an older man, but i'm only 31 so it's not like i qualify as silver fox. personally i avoid them, though, because in truth, 18 year old birds nowadays are just fucking annoying. all they talk about is fucking tiktok.
>> No. 70697 YubYub
6th April 2022
Wednesday 7:49 pm
70697 spacer
>>70695

>same principle, but nobody sees it as inherently wrong when it's a woman doing it. we view her as desperate, call her a cougar, that sort of thing, but nobody seriously considers her as a sexual predator.

That does hold true even when it comes to woman teachers having sex with pupils. What was the name of that one male teacher who fled to France with a 15-year-old girl who was his pupil and lover, anyway, when he came back, he was given a five-year custodial sentence. You don't hear much of that about women who get nicked for that sort of thing.
>> No. 70698 R4GE
6th April 2022
Wednesday 7:52 pm
70698 spacer
>>70695
>WE VIEW HER AS DESPERATE, CALL HER A COUGAR, THAT SORT OF THING, BUT NOBODY SERIOUSLY CONSIDERS HER AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR.

Depends. There's a world of difference between a cougar, say Stifler's mum, and the kind of 40-something woman in a Yates on a Friday night who has a figure like the Michelin man.
>> No. 70700 Ambulancelad
6th April 2022
Wednesday 8:04 pm
70700 spacer
>>70698

Is that the true heart of the matter? It's only bad if they're ugly?
>> No. 70701 YubYub
6th April 2022
Wednesday 8:13 pm
70701 spacer
>>70700
Pretty much. I can guarantee that the lads talking about how it's fine for much older guys to target drunken freshers because they want someone to show them the ropes aren't exactly Brad Pitt.
>> No. 70704 Are Moaty
6th April 2022
Wednesday 8:31 pm
70704 spacer
>>70699

>What made you uncomfortable about her?

I guess the whole thing was just too overt. There was no subtlety, she let my friend know that she'd "bonk my brains out" if she got the chance.

She also had a bit of a reputation as a spunk receptacle. Being a single mum, she was very frequently going on dates with men (who were closer to her age), and in all honesty I would have felt better about myself giving a proz 50 quid to do the same job. Not to mention the awkwardness of shagging a good friend's aunt to begin with.
>> No. 70706 Samefag
6th April 2022
Wednesday 9:10 pm
70706 spacer
>>70699

As the other resident furlad, experiences like you describe are exactly why I am quite picky with my partners when I feel inclined to do a bit of the old type-fucking these days. I'm not sure what the legality is of having unintentional cyber-yiff with minors, but i don't exactly want to risk it, because I'm sure there are just as many, if not more, people out there today in exactly the same situation you were back then.

that said, there's a couple of furs with whom my online pretend sexual exploits have evolved into more or less what you could call long distance relationships, by this point. people with whom I've been cyber-yiffing for probably at least a decade, and we've kept track of each other from the days of IRC and MSN up to today's world of Telegram et al. i even met up with one of them earlier this year, and spent a week having some of the best sex I've ever had.

surprisingly we didn't even cross into any of the weird kinks we usually indulge in roleplay either, beyond a vague dom/sub dynamic, but it was as though we were both just quite thrilled to be shagging someone with whom we really understood one another. and yet that sexual connection is really all we had to go on, we never spent much time getting to know each other in depth, and I think in some respects we really didn't want to. it would break the spell of being the respective fursona alter-ego characters we have always presented to one another, so in theory our relative ages really wouldn't have mattered, if there was a gap.

but that situation is pretty niche, and quite far removed from the norm of more casual sexual encounters like I think we're discussing ITT. I guess my point is that it all depends very much on circumstances and what you have to offer one another. it's certainly not going to work in all cases, and there are many where it would certainly be wrong, but there are definitely situations where it can.

i bet there's some french film that only comes in subtitles about a 16 year old self-harming young lass becoming complete soulmates with a 56 year old alchie or something and they save each other's life.
>> No. 70707 Searchfag
7th April 2022
Thursday 12:11 am
70707 spacer
>>70706

Christ, just dress up as a fox and get shot, will you.
>> No. 70708 Billbob
7th April 2022
Thursday 1:20 am
70708 spacer
>>70706
>SOME FRENCH FILM THAT ONLY COMES IN SUBTITLES
You know, I think there is, and I've seen it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_on_the_Bridge
>> No. 70717 Samefag
7th April 2022
Thursday 2:22 pm
70717 spacer
>>70707

now now lad, there's no need to be so jealous. you'll never know true pleasure until you've had a nice buxom lady scratching your chin and calling you a good boy while she wanks you off.

give it a try, more lasses are into it than you'd ever expect, if my experience is anything to go by.
>> No. 70725 Auntiefucker
7th April 2022
Thursday 4:51 pm
70725 spacer
>>70717
You're making me regret not being furry adjacent anymore, stop it.
>> No. 70726 YubYub
7th April 2022
Thursday 5:54 pm
70726 spacer
>>70706
How do you even carry your fursuit to location? Trenchcoat and an oversized briefcase? It looks seedy as fuck in my mind. While i'd absolutely love to celebrate your example of an apparently healthy sexual liberation it's much easier (and self serving) to ridicule. Be well you fantastic wanker.
>> No. 70727 Ambulancelad
7th April 2022
Thursday 6:20 pm
70727 spacer

furandfuraccessories.png
707277072770727
>>70726

>How do you even carry your fursuit to location?

You don't, you just use something like these, a set of programmer socks, and your imagination. Far more practical.

I remain convinced the fursuit sex thing is a meme. i don't doubt people do it, but i do doubt it's any fun at all.
>> No. 70728 Samefag
7th April 2022
Thursday 6:23 pm
70728 spacer

d4e11abee4a4ac7ad79da3fb19d33e72.jpg
707287072870728
>>70726

Wheely suitcase.
>> No. 70729 Anonymous
7th April 2022
Thursday 6:28 pm
70729 spacer
>>70727
I have a friend who got into the furry scene a couple of years after I knew her. She absolutely did go bowling in the suit with a bunch of others who were dressed similarly. I saw the pictures on Facebook.
>> No. 70730 Are Moaty
7th April 2022
Thursday 6:33 pm
70730 spacer
>>70729

Well sure, but that's bowling. I'm talking about having sex.
>> No. 70731 Ambulancelad
7th April 2022
Thursday 7:52 pm
70731 spacer
>>70727
>>70728
aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh! Dudes you're definitely going to have to share your lifestyle with us here, you're like the most entertaining and interesting thing to come out of britfa.gs of late.
>> No. 70732 YubYub
7th April 2022
Thursday 9:13 pm
70732 spacer
>>70729
How the fuck can you bowl in a fur suit? For one thing you wouldn't be able to get the fingers in the holes. I imagine there'd also be a skid risk on the slippery floor.
>> No. 70733 Paedofag
7th April 2022
Thursday 9:21 pm
70733 spacer
>>70732
I imagine they just use the assist ramp, but then I imagine furries as the kind of people that would use the assist ramp at bowling even without the suit.
>> No. 70734 Crabkiller
7th April 2022
Thursday 9:21 pm
70734 spacer
>>70706
Hey I'm the 2nd furlad so you're obviously an imposter
>> No. 70735 Samefag
7th April 2022
Thursday 9:23 pm
70735 spacer
>>70732
Comically.

Also I've got a gut feeling that one of you is a purple tiger on telegram.
>> No. 70736 Auntiefucker
7th April 2022
Thursday 11:08 pm
70736 spacer
>>70734

That can't be right, otherwise that would mean we're all furries. it's not called furfa.gs, last I checked.
>> No. 70737 YubYub
7th April 2022
Thursday 11:12 pm
70737 spacer
As an anecdote, I saw a furry couple in full gear in the street in London once, and a woman with a German Shepherd was walking by, and the dog completely and utterly lost his shit at the sight of the furries. It was a strange mix of terrified fear and, weirdly, the desire to hump one of them. As the dog then proceeded to attempt. Never saw anything like it.
>> No. 70738 Crabkiller
8th April 2022
Friday 10:31 pm
70738 spacer
>>70736
>FURFA.GS

That site did actually exist for a while and think it was ran by someone from here, but they never paid the bills and it disappeared.
>> No. 70739 Moralfag
8th April 2022
Friday 11:23 pm
70739 spacer
>>70737
I bet those weirdos were fucking loving that.
>> No. 70740 Anonymous
9th April 2022
Saturday 2:13 am
70740 spacer
>>70739

A furry acquaintance of mine assures me that most furries aren't actually zoophiles and that the community usually roots out the carpet-baggers and rapists eventually. Not a particularly strong defence tbh.
>> No. 70742 Billbob
9th April 2022
Saturday 6:12 am
70742 spacer
>>70740

it's very similar to how gays and trannies feel about pedos and groomers. it's an unfortunate fact that those exist within their ranks, and something detractors will often use as a bludgeon, but you could only say the community at large encourages or fosters it if you're acitively trying to misrepresent them.

i think i've made a similar point before but i'm willing to bet you'd find a higher incidence of zoophilia in the general population than amongst furries, just by sheer weight of numbers. furries are a relatively small, niche population of internet nerds who get a lot of attention for their sexuality, but there's millions upon millions of wronguns out there amongst the normie populace; not to mention all the third world shitholes where shagging a goat is probably seen as perfectly ordinary.

i'm not sure what the term is for the logical fallacy at play there but there has to be one.
>> No. 70744 YubYub
9th April 2022
Saturday 8:05 am
70744 spacer
Question for the furries. How do you feel about bronies?
>> No. 70745 Paedofag
9th April 2022
Saturday 8:22 am
70745 spacer
>>70742
>a higher incidence of zoophilia in the general population than amongst furries, just by sheer weight of numbers
What? That's not how incidence works.
>> No. 70746 Moralfag
9th April 2022
Saturday 8:32 am
70746 spacer
>>70744
They used to be pretty despised and/or ridiculed but bronies really aren't anywhere near as common or as irritating as they were a few years ago and no one really cares now.
>> No. 70747 Paedofag
9th April 2022
Saturday 10:57 am
70747 spacer
Bel air? More like bell end
>> No. 70748 Auntiefucker
9th April 2022
Saturday 12:20 pm
70748 spacer

x.jpg
707487074870748
>I'M WILLING TO BET YOU'D FIND A HIGHER INCIDENCE OF ZOOPHILIA IN THE GENERAL POPULATION THAN AMONGST FURRIES
>> No. 70749 Ambulancelad
9th April 2022
Saturday 4:18 pm
70749 spacer
>>70745
>>70748

he's probably right though. I have an easy time believing the reality of zoophilia is more often dirty slag housewives letting the family dog lick peanut butter off their fanny, than people in animal costumes sneaking into petting zoos to molest zebras.

The vast majority of paedophiles are actually close family members taking advantage of a position of trust. It's only because that's not as salacious, we prefer the tabloid image of the greasy fat carpet-bagger hanging about playgrounds offering kids sweets.
>> No. 70750 R4GE
9th April 2022
Saturday 5:57 pm
70750 spacer
>>70749
>the reality of zoophilia is more often dirty slag housewives letting the family dog lick peanut butter off their fanny
Wait, that doesn't count a zoo. Does it?
>> No. 70751 YubYub
9th April 2022
Saturday 6:40 pm
70751 spacer
>>70749
No. The number of people in or outside of the fur community does not mean there's a higher incidence of zoophiles in one or the other. Incidence means something like percent or ratio - there being more people who aren't furs can't in itself be a reason a higher ratio of them are zoophiles. That doesn't make any sense.
>> No. 70752 Are Moaty
9th April 2022
Saturday 8:10 pm
70752 spacer
>>70750

Ah here we go. Should have known dot gs would rather make exception for that kind of bestiality.
>> No. 70753 Moralfag
9th April 2022
Saturday 10:36 pm
70753 spacer

paedofinder_04.png
707537075370753
>>70749

>The vast majority of paedophiles are actually close family members taking advantage of a position of trust. It's only because that's not as salacious, we prefer the tabloid image of the greasy fat carpet-bagger hanging about playgrounds offering kids sweets.

I've often thought about this. the "traditional" paedo, paedo classic if you will, has got to be vanishingly rare nowadays. you'd have to be daft to attempt it, because i can't think of a faster way to get your head kicked in. even on the internet, only the really thick or desperate ones are going to be cruising about the chatrooms trying to solicit kids.
>> No. 70754 YubYub
9th April 2022
Saturday 10:40 pm
70754 spacer
>>70753
>EVEN ON THE INTERNET, ONLY THE REALLY THICK OR DESPERATE ONES ARE GOING TO BE CRUISING ABOUT THE CHATROOMS TRYING TO SOLICIT KIDS.

IIRC, they target single mums on dating sites instead. I believe plenty of fish was the website of choice for the discerning diddler.
>> No. 70755 R4GE
9th April 2022
Saturday 10:55 pm
70755 spacer
>>70754
Are you a carpet-bagger or do you just hang around with carpet-baggers?
>> No. 70756 Billbob
9th April 2022
Saturday 11:15 pm
70756 spacer
>>70753
I think like with animal-bothering we only have the tip of the iceberg. Unless you bum a parrot you're not going to have the victim tell anyone just as I don't doubt for a minute that the real paedo factory is insular religious communities where it's hushed up like the recent Jesus Army scandal. I guess in a way that's what makes the stories so quick to catch-on in the public consciousness, to a degree it's pervasive and hidden where every scandal is seemingly unpredictable.

On the Mk.I paedo these days they probably just employ different methods what with chatrooms just being all police officers. Discord seems to be mostly employed to convince kids to self-harm but I bet there's some sex scandal that will come out soon about it just like we're soon to learn all the talk of 'mind worms' on here is underground carpet-bagger-speak for the paedo-wing of Sid Mier's Alpha Centauri game.
>> No. 70757 Ambulancelad
9th April 2022
Saturday 11:32 pm
70757 spacer
>>70753

>EVEN ON THE INTERNET, ONLY THE REALLY THICK OR DESPERATE ONES ARE GOING TO BE CRUISING ABOUT THE CHATROOMS TRYING TO SOLICIT KIDS.

It still happens loads. Channel 4 had a documentary series just last year where they shadowed a police special unit and showed what happens when you pose as a child in certain chat rooms. They still nick plenty of people almost every day, I remember they arrested one of them on the programme who had travelled several hundred miles because he thought he'd get to have sex with an eleven year old.
>> No. 70758 Anonymous
10th April 2022
Sunday 1:32 am
70758 spacer
I was thinking the traditional paedophile must be largely extinct just this week too. The thing that made me think that was, when did the country last mobilise itself to find a missing child? Kids don't really go missing any more. Obviously that's great, but it suggests nobody is kidnapping them. There used to be probably one a year with posters everywhere and parents crying on TV, but if you have a fetish for sobbing mothers on ITV News, these are lean times indeed.
>> No. 70759 Ambulancelad
10th April 2022
Sunday 3:38 am
70759 spacer
>>70758

As we so tragically saw in Rotherham, the trick is to target kids who won't be missed by anyone. There are no end of kids who run away from their children's home every other week, kids being raised by a single mum who is too off her head to know or care where her kids are. After more than a decade of austerity, public services have become purely reactive. The police, social services and mental health services are constantly in crisis mode, constantly prioritising only the most dire emergencies; they don't have the time to check up on people who might be vulnerable or follow a hunch when something just seems off.

On a related note, tens of thousands of kids stopped going to school after lockdown and nobody knows where they've gone. They haven't been suspended or expelled, they haven't moved to another school, they haven't been registered as home-schooled, they're just gone. They might turn up eventually, but nobody is looking for them. In the olden days a truancy officer would be out knocking on doors and checking the parks and shopping centres for kids who should be in school, but today it isn't the responsibility of the council and schools are quite happy if poor academic performers are off their books and out of their statistics.

The sheer vulnerability of people at the bottom end of society doesn't bear thinking about.
>> No. 70760 YubYub
10th April 2022
Sunday 7:29 am
70760 spacer
>>70755
It's been well known for years that paedos use dating sites to target single mums to get at their kids.

>The site says 44 per cent of female members are single mums. It allows men, who do not have to be parents, to tick an option ­saying they only want to date women with kids.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brazen-paedophiles-using-popular-dating-9054279

>Paedophile hunted for single mums on online dating websites so he could abuse their children

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-hunted-single-mums-online-788713

>A convicted paedophile - released early from a 15-year sentence - tricked his way into the home of a Strood mother-of three. Devious Billy Robinson met his victim on the dating site Plenty Of Fish after being allowed out of jail.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/my-internet-date-turned-out-to-be-rapist-210876/

>A PAEDOPHILE convicted of a grooming offence is back behind bars after he used his mobile phone to join dating website Plenty of Fish.

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/18071049.paedophile-jailed-joining-dating-website-plenty-fish/

>The court heard Jacobs met the woman earlier this year on the Plenty of Fish dating site. The woman has four children aged under 13. Jacobs and the woman made regular contact with each other before the defendant began visiting her home.

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/crime/leeds-sex-offender-met-mum-of-four-on-plenty-of-fish-dating-site-then-defied-court-order-by-sleeping-at-her-home-3393523

Plenty of fish is full of single mums, so it's full of paedos. This has been a notorious issue for years.
>> No. 70761 Paedofag
10th April 2022
Sunday 11:09 am
70761 spacer
>>70760

Problem is, you can't keep paedophiles from having a social life entirely. With many rehabilitated criminals, letting them become part of the community again is key in keeping them from reoffending. Probably not as true for somebody who committed serious sexual offences, as that is based on sexual urges and harder to overcome than making a conscious decision to no longer nick cars or rob service stations. But while it's only reasonable to bar them from schools or playgrounds, it gets difficult to persuade them that they're jeopardising their freedom by reoffending if they aren't allowed to do the things a normal free person is allowed to do. That doesn't answer the question what you are supposed to do with paedos on adult dating sites, but I guess with anybody you get to know as a single mum with kids, just keep your safeguards up until you know the person you've met well enough to potentially leave them alone with your kids.
>> No. 70762 Samefag
10th April 2022
Sunday 11:36 am
70762 spacer
>>70761
You can't rehabilitate paedos. I know we have apologists here, but it's a fact.
>> No. 70763 Are Moaty
10th April 2022
Sunday 1:53 pm
70763 spacer
>>70762

>You can't rehabilitate paedos

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-july-to-september-2019/proven-reoffending-statistics-july-to-september-2019

>The lowest rate of reoffending in the adult cohort was observed amongst those with a sexual offence as their index offence, with a rate of 10.5%.

What skews this statistic is probably that a significant number of sex offenders receive indeterminate sentences, meaning that while murderers are often free to go after somewhere around 12 to 15 years with good conduct, there is a reluctance to release paedos who have committed serious offences against children.

The key with paedoism is close monitoring and mandatory therapy. But even then, there's naturally no guarantee they won't reoffend. Because in therapy, it basically gets drummed into them that they must never live out their sexuality. And they can't even make do with pornography, because that's illegal too.

Must be a pretty shit life, but of course that's no excuse to harm and abuse children.
>> No. 70764 Paedofag
12th April 2022
Tuesday 12:39 am
70764 spacer
>>70762
>>70763

The thing I think we've got to grapple with is that it pretty much is a sexuality, in a similar way to being gay or asexual or whatever is. it's a deviant and obviously unacceptable sexuality that we shouldn't be in any way trying to excuse or normalise, so don't mistake me for saying that; but in dealing with people who exhibit it, we must understand that that's what it is. if conversion therapy is inhumane and doesn't work on gays, it's inhumane and won't work on paedos. what I'm trying to say is I don't think we can honestly expect to "cure" them, we have to deal with them as they are.

so the question remains of what to do with them. there's places in america where they use chemical castration for sex offenders but the number of ethical issues that brings up is completely unacceptable to me, ranging from the obvious question of wrongfully convicted innocents, to the fact it only works on males, to the fact it could just plain not work at all and they will still indulge their carpet-baggery habits even if they can't get it up. i mean I don't know about you but I wouldn't surrender my libido without a fight. so what options are there?

should we just ship them all off to an island where there aren't any kids for them to fiddle, and let them jack it to hentai? do we just give them all little real dolls so they don't have to take their urges out on real kids? or would simply executing them be a lesser evil, a mercy killing even?
>> No. 70765 Anonymous
12th April 2022
Tuesday 7:43 pm
70765 spacer
>>70764

>conversion therapy is inhumane and doesn't work on gays, it's inhumane and won't work on paedos. what I'm trying to say is I don't think we can honestly expect to "cure" them, we have to deal with them as they are.

The way I understand it, behavioural therapy for kiddie fiddlers doesn't try to convert them to fancying adults of whatever gender. They are told in a matter-of-fact way that that's their sexuality, but that unlike in many settings with adult sexual partners, there is no way for them to live it out besides wanking. So the key then is to learn how to avoid situations or behaviours which could lead to more abusive situations.

But I wonder what you are told in case that your paedo tendencies are just opportunistic or occasional. You know, the way some straight men now and then fancy a bit of shemale action. I think I read somewhere that that kind of thing exists in a similar way as bisexuality, so if you fancy both adult partners and now and then also children, maybe one therapy goal can be to get that person to seek all their release from being with adult partners instead.

Other than that, it's probably pretty shit in terms of your opportunities for sexual release. But it's the only way for you as a paedo to keep from committing new offences.


>there's places in america where they use chemical castration for sex offenders

I think that's only voluntary. I seem to remember that some states offer that option in exchange for being taken off the public sex offender register. Chemical castration seems to work really well, but it's not just your sex drive that will plummet, but you'll probably lose most of your energy for other things as well. Testosterone doesn't just make you want to have sex, after all, but it's also an important hormone for your overall physical and mental energy. Both in men and women, by the way.

Mandatory castration, on the other hand, even if only chemically, seems like it should be a violation of the UN charter of human rights, because it was used by other governments in the past as punishment or as part of euthanasia programmes, the latter of which even the U.S. took part in at some point before the Nazis ruined that for good. The Americans also have the Eighth Amendment which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.


>should we just ship them all off to an island where there aren't any kids for them to fiddle, and let them jack it to hentai? do we just give them all little real dolls so they don't have to take their urges out on real kids?

I think child sex dolls are more and more being made illegal in many countries. Hentai could be an alternative, but those, too, have been banned in many countries because it's feared that they normalise child sexual abuse and could have the opposite effect.
>> No. 70766 Paedofag
12th April 2022
Tuesday 8:45 pm
70766 spacer
>>70765
enlightened countries have state sanctioned shooting galleries for controlled, monitored and safe(r) drug use.
I, for one,welcome anonymous facilities where paedos can go and crack one out to state provided hentai or shag a grey, worn-out state provided small realdoll.
Once they've provided 3 forms of ID, signed the register, smiled for the local newspaper photographer, and anything else possible to completely negate the point, of course.
It does seem unfortunate that nothing's legal for paedos except abstinence and denial. I'm not at all saying that kids should be involved in any way, but banning dolls and pics feels counterproductive. If everything's illegal, they're going to do illegal things, given how powerful a diver sex can be. Obviously the ones that want to degrade & exert power over actual kids can fuck right off.
Ah, fucked if I know, but hysteria will surely be looked back on unkindly when we work out what the sensible answer is.
>> No. 70767 Billbob
12th April 2022
Tuesday 9:52 pm
70767 spacer
>>70766

>Ah, fucked if I know, but hysteria will surely be looked back on unkindly when we work out what the sensible answer is.

Hysteria always makes for good tabloid sales, but should never be the basis of laws which aim to protect vulnerable members of society, like children. Some child protection laws in the last 20 years were not necessarily made based on sound empirical evidence and solid legal theory, but by pandering to the angry mobs with torches and pitchforks. In that respect, if you were a politician running for (re-)election, passing ever harsher child protection laws was low-hanging fruit.

For example, I believe that while it can be a good idea to keep tabs on the sex offenders living in a community, the way the Americans have done it where all the personal details of a registered sex offender are freely accessible online to anyone, with a mugshot and a symbol on a street map, are the wrong way to go. Most importantly, there is proof they don't reduce recidivism. It may seem like a no brainer that by not allowing your children near a sex offender's house you'll keep them out of harm's way, but it just doesn't work that way. And also, if you actually bother to look at their offences, which can range from rape of adult victims (most states require the age of the victim to appear) to public indecency to downloading indecent pictures of a minor, or age of consent violations. The latter can be particularly misleading and pernicious when somebody had a consensual relationship in their youth with somebody of similar age but just shy of the age of consent, so that when a concerned citizen pulls up your profile and sees you as the middle aged person you are now, it'll still say you're a sex offender for sex with a minor. Because the date of the offence is often not listed, but the requiremet to register for a past offence can last 20 years or more. Some states deliberately omit clarification despite repeated appeals to change pertaining laws.

It's all well and good to say you violated society's laws and norms by sexually abusing its most vulnerable members. For the most part, well, you very probably did, unless you're on the register for accidental public urination in front of a minor (that, too, is an offence that'll get you registered in some states). But nobody wins if you add social punishment to legal punishment.
>> No. 70768 Anonymous
12th April 2022
Tuesday 10:27 pm
70768 spacer
>>70767

The only morally justifiable position is to pursue evidence-based policies that minimise harm. Anything else is just hollow the shipping forecast - they don't actually care about preventing kids from getting diddled, they just want to prove to everyone how much they hate carpet-baggers.
>> No. 70769 R4GE
13th April 2022
Wednesday 12:27 pm
70769 spacer
>>70768

>they don't actually care about preventing kids from getting diddled, they just want to prove to everyone how much they hate carpet-baggers.

That, or they'll use THINK UV THAR CHILDRENS for any number of things that some people may not agree with but which really do no harm. For example, adult pornography is lumped together with child pornography by some radical fisherpersons in order to denigrate the former as being somehow the same thing. They know it isn't, but it doesn't stop them from using various verbal sleights of hand to further that myth. One way is that they'll be deliberately imprecise when talking about child pornography on the one hand and adult pornography that is shown to children on the other hand, to the point that they are used virtuall interchangeably in some of their position papers. Very arguably, you really shouldn't make adult pornography accessible to children, but what's really the ensuing disingenuous move is to insinuate that legal adult pornography hurts children in a similar way as child pornography.

They do the same with voluntary prostitution and forced prostitution. To a lot of fisherpersons, there is no separation between one and the other, and all prostitution is forced. Which again just isn't completely true. But they then throw around slogans like "no woman chooses to be a prostitute", which denies women any kind of agency to decide for themselves if, given a choice and with an absence of coercion or force, they want to offer sexual services to strangers in exchange for money.

You wouldn't call all labour forced and not distinguish between legal gainful employment and slave labour or labour that is against the person's will. On the bottom line, there is always an element of necessity to a job you have, as most people have no choice but to work for money to pay their monthly living expenses. But you wouldn't call that forced labour just because some unfortunate people are actually held as work slaves against their will.
>> No. 70770 Are Moaty
13th April 2022
Wednesday 1:05 pm
70770 spacer
>>70769

>You wouldn't call all labour forced and not distinguish between legal gainful employment and slave labour or labour that is against the person's will

you would if you're of a more marxist bent. all labour under the system of capitalism is coerced because there is no realistic alternative for them to freely choose- Starving to death is not a realistic alternative to freely choose. you even realise and pretty much backtrack all the way around in your next sentence, lad.

you're right that the rhetoric a lot of fisherfolk tend to use is very disingenuous though, and ripping off a solid bit of marxist theory and twisting it towards abstract gender concepts instead of material circumstances is one they have got a shitload of mileage out of over the years.

in general i do disagree with prostitution, personally. but my perspective is kind of the diametric opposite of the one fisherpersons usually come from. the anti-prozzy fisherfolk see prostitution as a form of male power over women because having money is part of their essentialist view of the male gender, and we can use our magic ability to obtain money to force women to offer out their sacred pussy hole. what they fail to realise is that the truth is far more like the opposite, and that women have long realised their ability to gatekeep the fish finger palace is their most potent form of power and can also be used for material gain. sometimes men muscle in on that as pimps, but that can't be helped I suppose because as dudes, we just can't help but rock. but I digress.

my point is rather that whatever way you try to look at it, from a trad-con, neo-con, liberal, progressive, swerf, swirf, whatever. It always comes back to the commodification of sex. the commodification of sex is what truly stands between the genders and prevents them from acheiving equality. when you allow sex to be commodified, wether it by the traditional methods of the oldest profession, or by the modern meat market of dating sites, oinly fans, and what have you; you create an environment where the sexes have competing interests. they cannot acheive harmony because a man's interests in the sex marketplace directly oppose a woman's.

i have had people tell me that the "sexual marketplace" perspective is somehow inherently sexist but it's not, it's just the reality of the modern world. capitalism has sunk it's tendrils into the very act of human courtship and it's not letting go any time soon. it's a marketplace, like it or not, that's how it works now. but to make a very overdue tl;dr- it's unhealthy.
>> No. 70771 Moralfag
13th April 2022
Wednesday 1:55 pm
70771 spacer
>>70770

>you would if you're of a more marxist bent. all labour under the system of capitalism is coerced because there is no realistic alternative for them to freely choose- Starving to death is not a realistic alternative to freely choose. you even realise and pretty much backtrack all the way around in your next sentence, lad.

Now, now. You're twisting my words.

By and large, we've had to fight for a meal every day since we were lizards. Every higher species must make an effort every day to feed itself, from leopards to bonobos. And as self preservation is ingrained in all higher species as well, simply stopping to eat is not an option. The difference between us and leopards is just that as arguably the highest developed species, we make quite a faff about it and go about it in a very roundabout way. When we were still hunter-gatherers or even early farmers, there was still a very direct connection between the effort we put in every day and the amount of food we were able to eat. With milleniae of social evolution and division of labour, you don't have to sow grain anymore or hunt gazelles in order to come home to a wholesome dinner table every night.

In short, if you think all labour is forced, then you could also argue that having to eat every day is something that goes against your will and which you are free to choose not to do.
>> No. 70772 Are Moaty
13th April 2022
Wednesday 2:04 pm
70772 spacer
>>70771
You don't need to eat every day, not when you have nutritionally complete Sarah Millican's Squelchy Fanny Custard® drinks at hand.
>> No. 70773 Ambulancelad
13th April 2022
Wednesday 3:12 pm
70773 spacer
>>70771

The part you're missing, or perhaps deliberately omitting, is that once upon a time there existed sufficient space and resources for a human to plausibly self-sustain if they didn't want to go along with whatever their tribe was doing. indeed that's how different tribes came to be, that's how we spread and propagated across the world, that's how we ended up with this mess of wierd arbitrary lines on the floor where the people on the other side speak in bizarre nonsense sounds like french. Anyway I'm getting distracted again.

point is you can't escape your obligation to eat and breathe air, but you used to be able to take charge for yourself of how you managed that.

but nowadays you can't do that, there are too many of us, there is no open land for you to fuck off to and set up your own little farmstead, or whatever it may be. if you are born in the modern world to anyone but exceedingly rich parents, you are forced to participate in the system of labour exchange. we have always been a social animal dependent to some extent on those around us for survival, but in a bygone (pre-capitalism) era, you did have the choice over whether or not you participated. The industrial revolution was where that all started to change, and while I'm not suggesting pre-industrial life was somehow better, we have to acknowledge that we did make sacrifices in the transition, and part of that was definitely the concept of true freedom.

so to bring it back around to marxism, since we can't give people the freedom which really should be their natural right, then it is our responsibility to ensure the system is fair and non-exploitative. it is our responsibility that if someone must participate in the collective labour that enables our society to function (and they must), then the burden must be shared equally, and freedom from it must be given out to the maximum potential enabled by the surplus of our productivity.
>> No. 70774 Are Moaty
13th April 2022
Wednesday 4:41 pm
70774 spacer

CmLHuMoWQAEzqs0.jpg
707747077470774
>>70773

>we have always been a social animal dependent to some extent on those around us for survival, but in a bygone (pre-capitalism) era, you did have the choice over whether or not you participated.

That's only possibly true for an extraordinarily resourceful and lucky person. The reason we feel shame so acutely is because for most of human history, shunning was a death sentence.

Life for hunter-gatherers is incredibly precarious, but it becomes immeasurably more precarious without the tribe. Nobody to hunt with you, nobody to keep a lookout, nobody to keep the fire going at night.

Capitalism makes it more possible to survive alone because of the extraordinary abundance of our productive capacity. The scraps that fall from the table of capitalism are more nourishing than anything our ancient ancestors could have imagined. Cities have larger animal populations than wild spaces.
>> No. 70775 Are Moaty
13th April 2022
Wednesday 4:49 pm
70775 spacer
>>70774

You haven't actually refuted anything that post said.

capitalism is more efficient than being a hunter gatherer or a feudal serf, no shit. very insightful observation. the fallacy here is to assume that means it's the end of the line, the final point of progress, that there's no way we can improve upon it.
>> No. 70776 R4GE
13th April 2022
Wednesday 5:23 pm
70776 spacer
>>70775

>the fallacy here is to assume that means it's the end of the line, the final point of progress, that there's no way we can improve upon it.

Total non-sequitur. That lad was arguing that capitalism took away our natural freedom to go it alone. I'm arguing that we never had such natural freedom, because the natural state of humanity is abject squalor. Acknowledging that modern capitalism is the best system we've ever had doesn't mean you think it's perfect. Nearly all of the alternatives that people propose are horrendously flawed in ways that aren't obvious, because the free market has a lot of subtle but incredibly useful properties that are extremely difficult to replicate.
>> No. 70777 Are Moaty
13th April 2022
Wednesday 5:28 pm
70777 spacer
>>70776

Oh, so you just actually didn't understand what you were reading. fair enough.
>> No. 70778 Billbob
13th April 2022
Wednesday 5:42 pm
70778 spacer
>>70775>>70777
I guess being a prick for no reason is one way of being alone in any society.
>> No. 70779 Anonymous
13th April 2022
Wednesday 5:49 pm
70779 spacer
>>70778

meh. If someone's trying to argue with you about a point which is only adjacent to the one you were actually making, there's really very little sense engaging. my posts said already what I wanted to say, so (shrug emoji)
>> No. 70780 Auntiefucker
13th April 2022
Wednesday 6:13 pm
70780 spacer
I don't think anyone really had the option to just fuck off and lone-wolf it in communist countries either. But all the positives of capitalism are really just positives of industrialisation, and everyone had access to food grown by someone else in the Soviet Union too (most of the time). So the pair of you sound pretty clueless right now.
>> No. 70781 Searchfag
14th April 2022
Thursday 12:27 am
70781 spacer
>>70780

>But all the positives of capitalism are really just positives of industrialisation

I mean that was part of my point, i wasn't even really criticising capitalism directly until capitalist simplad came along to defend his precious ideology like an insecure videogame fanboy.

there are positives and negatives of the axis of progress we've followed, but what you can't argue with is the fact that a great deal of work is coerced, because it just is. nobody wants to be a bin man or change old people's shitted kegs, but someone has to.
>> No. 70782 Anonymous
14th April 2022
Thursday 2:40 am
70782 spacer

in lieu of posting 'can lloyd george do it�.jpg
707827078270782
>>70781
Taking this opportunity to moan about what annoys me most: That the government makes sure there's not enough work going around. We combine an economy run on the theory of a "Non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" (practical meaning: keep about ~4-5% unemployment so workers are competing for jobs rather than employers competing for workers) with a welfare system that presumes you're a lazy scrounger. Not only are you compelled to take a job that nobody would want to do (at poverty wages!), you're compelled to degrade yourself in tens of interviews before you're "lucky" to get it because there's always someone more desperate out there

But we're going to blame the current inflationary blip on uppity workers, so there's no chance we're going to realise one of the cornerstones of post-1976 economic management is bollocks, stupid bollocks when combined with all the obvious and necessary work going undone, and kafkaesque bollocks when combined with the post-1996 benefits system. Capitalism I can handle, but I've been driven to madness by the way we structure it.
>> No. 70895 Ambulancelad
4th May 2022
Wednesday 9:15 am
70895 spacer
>Stand-up comedian Dave Chappelle has been attacked by a person who ran on stage at the Hollywood Bowl in LA.

>"A man charged and tackled" Chappelle just as the show was ending, according to Brianna Sacks, a reporter at the show. She said security "rushed and started punching and kicking the shit out of Chappelle's attacker".

https://news.sky.com/story/dave-chappelle-attacked-on-stage-during-stand-up-netflix-show-at-the-hollywood-bowl-12605098

I guess attacking stand-ups on stage is a thing now.
>> No. 70897 Auntiefucker
4th May 2022
Wednesday 9:48 am
70897 spacer
>>70782

>We combine an economy run on the theory of a "Non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment"

No we don't. NAIRU was never particularly popular among economists and never particularly widely known by politicians. It was largely discredited by the late 1990s and the only time I hear it mentioned now is by left-wing commentators.

Some central banks (not ours) do estimate NAIRU, but only use it as an indicator of potential inflationary trends in their decision-making over interest rates. Rate changes typically take at least a year to meaningfully impact inflation, so central banks inevitably have to do a bit of educated guesswork about future economic trends. I haven't heard of any politician anywhere in the world suggesting the idea of intentionally suppressing the rate of employment.

NAIRU has become a bit of a bogeyman trope based on a half-understanding, like the Phoebus cartel. Until the second world war, major lightbulb manufacturers agreed to limit the life of lightbulbs to 1,000 hours. This is commonly believed to be an example of planned obsolescence, with the manufacturers conspiring to sell more lightbulbs. The (only slightly) more complicated truth is that the energy efficiency of an incandescent bulb is inversely proportional to its lifespan - long-lasting bulbs produce less light per watt. 1,000 hours happened to be approximately the optimum balance between bulb life and energy efficiency, providing the lowest total cost of ownership.
>> No. 70898 R4GE
4th May 2022
Wednesday 10:19 am
70898 spacer
>>70897
I appreciate it's never fun to get a short reply to a long post, but if-true this somehow makes the fact we abandoned any attempt to get unemployment down with demand management even worse. At least NAIRU offered everyone pre-2007 a fig-leaf for their inactivity.
>I haven't heard of any politician anywhere in the world suggesting the idea of intentionally suppressing the rate of employment.
Well yeah, it wouldn't be a decision for politicians when the central bank is independent. The politician's decision is to not spend more to get employment up, which he doesn't have to justify because he's forgotten that politicians used to do that. You've never heard a politician say NAIRU - but when's the last time you heard a politician say "full employment" and actually mean it?
(And if you want to go "well yeah, that doesn't work anymore" for whatever reason, fine, but that still leaves us with an unemployment system built around an assumption of scrounging and an economy with constant involuntary unemployment which nobody can do anything about.)
>> No. 70899 YubYub
4th May 2022
Wednesday 1:49 pm
70899 spacer
>>70895
It's always happened occasionally. I think most comedians would have a story like that if you asked them. Dave Chappelle just gets in the news when it happens to him because he's famous and has taken up a prominent position in the culture wars. When he gets smacked, we assume we know why. If Michael McIntyre got smacked, we would all pretend to be entirely confused by it.
>> No. 70900 Searchfag
4th May 2022
Wednesday 2:00 pm
70900 spacer
>>70895
I don't understand the logic of using a fake gun to attack someone. Then again I suppose if you're jumping well guarded comics on stage you're probably not big into the whole "logic" game anyway.
>> No. 70902 Crabkiller
4th May 2022
Wednesday 5:02 pm
70902 spacer
>>70900
I read somewhere that it was a fake gun which could dispense a real knife secretly. Sounds kind of stupid now I think about it, but I want to believe.
>> No. 70904 YubYub
4th May 2022
Wednesday 7:00 pm
70904 spacer
>>70902
That seems like it'd make a good comedy prop.
"Wait, don't shoot!" "Okay" [He pulls a large knife out of the gun...]
>> No. 70928 Ambulancelad
14th May 2022
Saturday 10:26 pm
70928 spacer
>>70576>>70577
>Calling a man “bald” is sexual harassment, an employment tribunal has ruled. Hair loss is much more prevalent among men than women so using it to describe someone is a form of discrimination, a judge has concluded. Commenting on a man’s baldness in the workplace is equivalent to remarking on the size of a woman’s breasts, the finding suggests.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/13/calling-a-man-bald-is-sexual-harassment-employment-tribunal-rules
>> No. 70929 Are Moaty
14th May 2022
Saturday 10:39 pm
70929 spacer
>>70928

>British Bung Company
>> No. 70930 Searchfag
14th May 2022
Saturday 10:45 pm
70930 spacer
>>70928
>[The company’s lawyer] was right to submit that women as well as men may be bald. However, as all three members of the tribunal will vouchsafe, baldness is much more prevalent in men than women.
It does sound like they were having a little fun, with that, getting to say "bald cunt" again and again. But the heart of the issue:
>The tribunal therefore determines that by referring to the claimant as a ‘bald cunt’ … Mr King’s conduct was unwanted, it was a violation of the claimant’s dignity, it created an intimidating environment for him, it was done for that purpose, and it related to the claimant’s sex.
Is perfectly valid. Reporting on legal matters gets butchered as badly as science reporting, it's very annoying, especially because understanding legal matters is piss easy. Even those bald cunts can do it.
>> No. 70931 Paedofag
14th May 2022
Saturday 10:46 pm
70931 spacer
>>70928
I guess we'll just have to refer to the bloke that got arrested in Russia as just "Bankrupt" from now on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61373057
>> No. 70932 Searchfag
15th May 2022
Sunday 1:22 am
70932 spacer
>>70931
He's reclaiming the slur. He's clearly very passionate about the men's rights movement, just as everyone always suspected.

Also, I know we assume this is another Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe moment, but didn't Bald & Bankrupt do a gang rape or something once?
>> No. 70933 Samefag
15th May 2022
Sunday 1:31 am
70933 spacer
>>70932
If even the Russians are calling it "illegal acts" you know it's something serious.
>> No. 70934 YubYub
15th May 2022
Sunday 7:58 am
70934 spacer
What about slaphead? Is that also discrimination?
>> No. 70935 Samefag
15th May 2022
Sunday 12:15 pm
70935 spacer
>>70934

Yes. Also "where's the other Mitchell brother?", "Fuckin' 'ell, it's Right Said Fred" and singing anything from Rocky Horror.

I'm pretty sure this video is now a hate crime:


Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password