Same here tbh.

Anyone got a time machine they can lend me?

Why would anyone close to someone with that much money ever tell him something is a bad idea when they can profit from it?

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.

There is more that unites us, than that which divides us.

>>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

>>70217
It's gritty and real.

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.

>>70219
>THE NATION OF SHAMANISM
Bloody wordfilters. I knew I should have gone with the Five-Percent Nation.

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.

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

Completely batshit.

>>70570
That was quite upsetting tbh, but i don't know the context moist dicks in my face

>>70571
I'm glad to enough of an impact on Britfa.gs to have earned my own wordfilter <3

>>70572
That filter is older than you are.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>70576
>it's apparently now bad to make fun of a hair loss condition, yet bald jokes about men are perfectly acceptable? dolphin rape.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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."

>>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.

>>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.”

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>70595
In fairness, it was one of the biggest stages in the world that he casually sauntered onto to slap someone.

>>70596
I know. It's not that everyone has an opinion though, it's the strength of feeling some people have about it.

>>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.

>>70596
>ONE OF THE BIGGEST STAGES IN THE WORLD

Do people still watch the Oscars?

>>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.

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?

>>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?

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70606
He was the hunky one in love actually. Don't think I've seen him in anything else.

>>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?

>>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

>>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).

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.

>>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.

>>70598
See thread.

>>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.

>>70613

Nobody has ever trolled or exaggerated on this website, especially not /iq/.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>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.

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.

>>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.

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?

>>70626

We're just enjoying a news story that isn't completely depressing.

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>70630
Top result for "woke dog food".

>>70631
>the usual meaty chunks

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>70635
Every vegan/vegetarian I know owns at least one cat or dog.

>>70636
and?

>>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.

>>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
?

>>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

>>70641

Conversations change and move on, like you should.

What're you're thoughts on this, then? Evidence is dubious at best, but who'd lie about something like this?

>>70643
>Who'd lie about something like this?
Anyone in any comments section anywhere on the internet.

>>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

>>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.

>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.

>>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.

>>70652
It's kerry katona. She'll use any excuse, no matter how tenuous, to try and generate a bit of publicity.

>>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.

>>70654
Netflix have never seemed to me to know what to do with all the money they have.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70657
She got her waps out for the papers.

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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/?

>>70671
>HAVE YOU ACTUALLY SEEN A 16 YEAR OLD?
Have you?! And why? I think you've got some explaining to do.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>70680
Oh, lad. Come on, now.

>>70681

Explain why it's bad.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

Don't mind me, just checking if this is still a Fresh Prince thread.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70691

Additionally, is it impossible for an 18 year old to have a silver fox fetish?

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70698

Is that the true heart of the matter? It's only bad if they're ugly?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70706

Christ, just dress up as a fox and get shot, will you.

>>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

>>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.

>>70717
You're making me regret not being furry adjacent anymore, stop it.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70726

Wheely suitcase.

>>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.

>>70729

Well sure, but that's bowling. I'm talking about having sex.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70706
Hey I'm the 2nd furlad so you're obviously an imposter

>>70732
Comically.

Also I've got a gut feeling that one of you is a purple tiger on telegram.

>>70734

That can't be right, otherwise that would mean we're all furries. it's not called furfa.gs, last I checked.

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.

>>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.

>>70737
I bet those weirdos were fucking loving that.

>>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.

>>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.

Question for the furries. How do you feel about bronies?

>>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.

>>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.

Bel air? More like bell end

>I'M WILLING TO BET YOU'D FIND A HIGHER INCIDENCE OF ZOOPHILIA IN THE GENERAL POPULATION THAN AMONGST FURRIES

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.

>>70750

Ah here we go. Should have known dot gs would rather make exception for that kind of bestiality.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70754
Are you a carpet-bagger or do you just hang around with carpet-baggers?

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70761
You can't rehabilitate paedos. I know we have apologists here, but it's a fact.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70771
You don't need to eat every day, not when you have nutritionally complete Sarah Millican's Squelchy Fanny Custard® drinks at hand.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70776

Oh, so you just actually didn't understand what you were reading. fair enough.

>>70775>>70777
I guess being a prick for no reason is one way of being alone in any society.

>>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)

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>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.

>>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.

>>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.)

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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...]

>>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

>>70928

>British Bung Company

>>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.

>>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

>>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?

>>70932
If even the Russians are calling it "illegal acts" you know it's something serious.

What about slaphead? Is that also discrimination?

>>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: