- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2632 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
615 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 33450
1 in 3 school girls dress like an absolute little fucking slag though, so swings and roundabouts. They know exactly what they're doing.
I remember when I was in school and the teachers getting extremely distressed at the way every time they implemented some new uniform rule to curb such behaviour, the girls would find some new creative way to be provocative little sluts.
I can imagine the behaviour of some teenage girls in that phase of development being extremely distressing to try and deal with- They do it consciously and knowingly but they don't understand the repercussions.
|>>|| No. 33452
> They do it consciously and knowingly but they don't understand the repercussions.
Do you get how that's an oxymoron?
|>>|| No. 33454
I mean okay I can believe that statistic, I saw enough of it when I was hanging out with girls at that age, but what are they asking us to do about it exactly? I'm not a carpet-bagger, I'm just worried when you see popular movements like these springing up that can use terms like sexual harassment when really they want to ban car horns to solve aggressive honking or push something completely unrelated to the actual harassment teens are thinking of.
I-I can kind of see what you mean of the 2000s but think:
1. Kids are much more conservative these days. Or rather chavette culture died, the hipsters won and kids can't find dodgy pubs that will serve them underage.
2. These girls were never facilitating abusive honking from cars or the lads who wanked off outside the girl's school in their cars*. It was all an act to look cool and impress Kevin - like that cheerleader in American Beauty where she pretended to be a sex fiend. Saying that a minor, who by definition cannot consent, is seducing adults is pedoism that doesn't reflect the memories of women I've spoken with about school days nor what kids actually look like when you're an adult.
*is Gary Numan a wrong'un?
|>>|| No. 33455
>*is Gary Numan a wrong'un?
Probably, but not criminally so. Third tit sort of business I reckon.
|>>|| No. 33456
He married one of his own superfans which is a bit sus if you ask me. Not in the sense that I don't expect celebrities to screw their fans but when you're a superstar it seems a bit wrong, especially as she famously stalks his fans.
Let's hope we can't guess his computer password.
|>>|| No. 33458
Listen, you terminal divs. I'm not condoning schoolgirls being abused, because adults should know better. If you took that conclusion away from my post, you're projecting it, read it again and try find the bit that condones it.
But nevertheless. What I posted was absolutely true and you can't deny it. There's a perfectly valid argument that a woman should be able to dress how she likes and not be objectified, but I think it's equally valid to argue back that you shouldn't dress in a sexually provocative manner unless you intend to sexually provoke. That should go doubly for underage fucking girls.
>Kids are much more conservative these days
I'll take your word for that then. I don't hang about playgrounds enough to have noticed, I just remember the birds from my high school going out dressed like prostitutes and getting served in basically any bar they went to when they were 14-15.
The fact they're too young to consent is only a technicality- They were doing that out of their own free will. They WANT to do it. The fact they don't understand why it's a bad thing is evidence we're failing in our responsibility as adults to stop them doing things they don't understand, not evidence men are too rapey.
|>>|| No. 33459
>seducing adults is pedoism that doesn't reflect the memories of women I've spoken with about school days
I don't want you to think I am I am advocating something I am not. But people have very selective memories about who they were in their school days, that don't reflect reality. Every generation does it like clockwork.
|>>|| No. 33460
> read it again and try find the bit that condones it.
> I can imagine the behaviour of some teenage girls in that phase of development being extremely distressing to try and deal with- They do it consciously and knowingly but they don't understand the repercussions.
You may not have intended it to come out that way, but the way you phrased it states that the targets are asking for it and that should lower the culpability of the actor. If a fucking school uniform doesn't put someone off then they need to have a word with themselves.
|>>|| No. 33461
Mate you literally used the "shes asking for it" argument, even if you think you didn't.
|>>|| No. 33462
I did, what I'm saying is that the asking for it argument isn't entirely invalid.
If I wore a t-shirt saying "I HATE laplanderS" on the front of it, you wouldn't credibly attempt to argue I'm not asking for a punch in the face.
|>>|| No. 33463
>I'll take your word for that then. I don't hang about playgrounds enough to have noticed, I just remember the birds from my high school going out dressed like prostitutes and getting served in basically any bar they went to when they were 14-15.
Well that's the thing, its different now and has been for a long time. When's the last time you saw youths up to no good that wasn't in a protest? When's the last time you saw kids smoking for that matter? Fucking nerds the lots of 'em.
>The fact they're too young to consent is only a technicality- They were doing that out of their own free will. They WANT to do it. The fact they don't understand why it's a bad thing is evidence we're failing in our responsibility as adults to stop them doing things they don't understand, not evidence men are too rapey.
I don't see why "don't molest this obvious child wearing a school uniform" is so hard. What you're saying is that they WANT to dress slutty, but there's a disconnect between that and flashing your cock at them ignoring your own responsibility as an adult to not be a carpet-bagger.
|>>|| No. 33464
Not him but/and
>your own responsibility as an adult
I'd be curious to know if that statistic takes into account the age of their assailants. I could well be wrong but I'm guessing it's mostly their peers doing it.
Not that this makes it acceptable necessarily but it's a different conversation to talking about adults flashing them or whatever the general molester-tropes are.
|>>|| No. 33465
The thing is we don't live in a black and white world. It's all well and good to say that no adults should have to think twice about the fact it's a schoolgirl and therefore obviously underage, there will always be someone out there who doesn't give a fuck. It's not unreasonable to suggest young lasses could do their bit too by not dressing like complete tarts. Reality always ends up favouring a bit of both.
My mathematical proof here, like reversing an equation, is that you could make essentially the same argument in the opposite direction and it'd still be wrong. If all schoolgirls covered themselves head to toe that would prevent anyone ever assaulting them because they can't see anything to tempt them. Is sexual assault any less common in countries where women have to wear a full hijab and live in cupboards to separate them from the men? Probably not, but I bet you a tenner they don't get wolf whistled at on the way home from school.
|>>|| No. 33466
You have actually hit a nail on the head. I Remember a few years back reading some stat put out by the NSPCC about sexual child abuse, and on further inspection it turned out a lot of that was 'peer to peer' abuse on a further deep dive it turned out that a lot of that included what I would consider healthy developmental exploration. Children playing "kiss chase" and teens showing porno to their mates. There really is no limit to the shameless as to how these groups will distort the truth for money.
|>>|| No. 33467
Even if a 15-year-old girl feels like showing off her recently developed feminine features, then she definitely doesn't do it to attract a 40-year-old Jimmy Savile wannabe. Even if you somehow manage to argue with any amount of substance that teenage girls are attracted to older men, then no, you cannot possibly assume that that should include the middle-aged you, and that that gives you any right to go in on it.
It's a vulnerable age, one where as a teenager you develop a sex drive and sexual behaviours, but where you can fall victim to adults who don't know any better and would have an all too easy time preying on you and taking advantage of you, if it weren't for certain laws.
There is also the idea of closeness in age in British law, i.e. there isn't much chance you will be prosecuted if you're 17, even 18, and have consensual sex with a 15 year old. It's a bit of a grey area, but normally you will be fine. So you can't really argue that the age of consent of 16 restricts anybody's freedom at that age to have age-appropriate romantic relationships. The law only shuts out you as a full adult, as well it should.
>there will always be someone out there who doesn't give a fuck
They won't be "out there" for long though. Not with the heightened awareness we've seen the last 20 years or so.
|>>|| No. 33468
>then she definitely doesn't do it to attract a 40-year-old Jimmy Savile wannabe.
Depends, I don't doubt that if you were their teacher, an athlete, in a band, or of course the actual Jimmy Savile at the age of 40, there wouldn't be some possibility of interest.
of course they don't want the billy no mates trainspotter peado with no looks, but that is a strawman and is probably the idea that is what a peadoes is the reason why the celeb ones were able to fly under the radar for decades.
|>>|| No. 33469
>I don't doubt that if you were their teacher, an athlete, in a band, or of course the actual Jimmy Savile at the age of 40, there wouldn't be some possibility of interest.
Even so, you'll be the responsible adult in that scenario, and besides doing your best to avoid a prison term, you should take a good look at yourself.
And just because some in-shape, still somewhat youthful 40-year-old singer or actor gets butterflies going in a 15 year old's stomach, doesn't mean a) that she's really going to think about shagging him, and b) that that is something we should allow to happen. From what I remember about being that age and trying to figure out girls, for most of them it's really 90 percent vague romantic fantasy, and ten percent of tantalising speculation what it'd be like to touch a knob for the first time. Yes, there are some slags at 15 who have seen it all and done it all, but it's not really reasonable to assume that they represent the majority, or that they aren't still vulnerable to adults abusing them. Maybe they are even more at risk.
>but that is a strawman and is probably the idea that is what a peadoes is the reason why the celeb ones were able to fly under the radar for decades.
The celeb paedos got away with it because they were in a position of power and because they successfully instilled a sense in their victims that nobody would believe them anyway. Do you think you would have been in an emotional position at that age to bring down a national icon like Savile, who was at the time the most revered children's philantropist in the country? A lot of times, it takes victims decades to even come out against a lowly PE teacher who touched them all the way back in year 10.
|>>|| No. 33470
This is the worst fucking discussion I've seen on this site in a long time.
|>>|| No. 33472
>And just because some in-shape, still somewhat youthful 40-year-old singer or actor gets butterflies going in a 15 year old's stomach, doesn't mean a) that she's really going to think about shagging him, and b) that that is something we should allow to happen.
I don't know how old the lad from My Chemical Romance was in their heyday, but teenage girls definitely and seriously wanted to fuck him. I know this because my first girlfriend was obsessed with him, and our very first sexual interactions with each other (and the first real ones that would lead anywhere for both of us) were me teasing her over the erotic fanfiction I'd caught her reading about him. I think we were about 13 or 14.
I'd be extremely surprised if he hasn't had one or two who definitely said they were 18, m'lord. Either that or he will have had to go completely chaste for about five years, because the only people who wanted to shag him were tweens with have self-harming problems.
|>>|| No. 33474
Sorry to interject. However, according the photograph's filename the man who took it is called "Gage Skidmore", is this correct?
|>>|| No. 33475
I suppose this was around 2004-5, just before their peak and then fade. It was around the time American Idiot was the hottest shit. Everyone wore converse and skinny jeans. I was the world's biggest Metallica fan. I hope I'm painting a strong mental picture.
Either way, he was in the latter half of his 20s, so I suppose it's less worse than a proper 40 year old Gary Glitter case. But it's still pretty sickening if I think about it in relation to the actual girls I knew at that time, who still only exist in my mind as the daft young girls I knew them as back then. There were definitely some of them who would have fooled you if they lied about their age.
This sort of thing is disturbingly common really when you think about it, there's a whole generation of girls who got their first wet fanny over Robert Pattinson in Twilight, probably going all the way back to the Beatles. I just think it's a naive attitude to totally discount the agency of teenage girls.
Do you think they ever gave some sort of primer to those like, manufactured boybands like Busted and McFly? Come to think of it I bet this sort of thing is half the reason they only ever played big well managed gigs where you'd never bump into them backstage having a fag, like you do at "real" gigs. The suits behind the acts knew exactly what they were doing with their marketing and they probably had to sign some sort of contract forbidding them to interact with the fans outside of staged appearances, because 100% of that fanbase was jailbait.
|>>|| No. 33476
>even so, you'll be the responsible adult in that scenario, and besides doing your best to avoid a prison term, you should take a good look at yourself.
I don't know why you are incapable of telling the difference between someone telling you how the world works and someone advocating for it, but you seem to be. It feels like over compensation to me like a homophobic closeted hate preacher.
>Do you think you would have been in an emotional position at that age to bring down a national icon like Savile
Short answer yes. It is only when I have gotten older I have given enough shit about the consequences of social pressure to not speak my truth all the time. When I was young I was entirely fearless in that regard, to the point I was in retrospect probably a bully, he would have to chop me up and bury me in the woods to stop me telling everyone. I might not have been normal in that respect but such ideas never phased me. I wanted to be a martyr.
|>>|| No. 33478
He wouldn't have pursued you then. Jim only fixed it for kids who wouldn't do that. This was why he hung out around orphanages and hospitals; nobody would listen to some sickly Tiny Tim who showed up in this country strapped under a lorry and had to beg for food outside supermarkets. You can do whatever you want to such people, if that's your scene, and it's much easier than noncing some righteous militant.
|>>|| No. 33479
>nobody would listen to some sickly Tiny Tim who showed up in this country strapped under a lorry
Did Saville carpet-bagger any of the brown eyed swarms? I've never thought about it before but I can't remember anyone with a darker complexion being in the news. I'm not saying he wouldn't but the 40 year old unaccompanied minors seems more like a modern phenomenon.
|>>|| No. 33480
One reason why all those programmes who teach children how to fight off paedos emphasize assertive posture. carpet-baggers often have an all too easy time overpowering a scared 12 year old who doesn't put up a fight. But if that 12 year old suddenly starts kicking and screaming and calls for help, then that's going to catch many paedos off guard, and there is actually a good chance it'll stop them dead in their tracks, which can give that child a decisive few seconds to escape.
One of my dad's old friends from school got a community sentence for fondling his godchild, and when he then reoffended and did more serious things to another kid, he served a prison term. His method of getting to children was to earn the trust of people his age who had kids, and then either inviting those kids for sleepovers, or creating circumstances where he spent the night at that family's house, and then touched the kids while the parents were asleep.
He tried the same thing with my brother and me when he slept over at our house once, but luckily my dad caught him just in time before he was able to actually do anything. My parents threw him out in the middle of the night at 3 am, and my dad said something like, "If you promise we'll never see you again, I'll call you a cab, but if you don't, I'm going to call the police right now".
This was the 80s, mind. I'm pretty sure parents these days wouldn't fuck around and call police straight away. My point is, there are paedos who are somewhat smart in earning people's trust, and in which case it's also going to be much more difficult for a child to tell their parents that their "family friend" touched them inappropriately.
|>>|| No. 33482
For me, the worst thing aside from the obvious would be that children are insufferable. Best of luck trying to get your abducted child to eat the asparagus lasagne you spent all that time on and if you give in and let them eat sugar all day you'll only have yourself to blame for what happens.
Maybe that's the real cure for pedos. You get 50 odd kids for them to look after over a weekend - initially they're like a dog with too many tennis balls but then the real punishment dawns on them as everything they hold dear is broken. Get them some proper mean ones in all, so when they try putting on a Gary Glitter record they will get bullied and someone will start blaring out the latest mumble rapper.
|>>|| No. 33484
>For me, the worst thing aside from the obvious would be that children are insufferable.
>Maybe that's the real cure for pedos.
I don't know. I find many women insufferable, especially in larger groups, but it has never put me off wanting to shag women in general.
If it weren't for pure lizard brain urges, I'm not sure many men would choose to spend their life with a woman, and vice versa. Look at all the drama you always go through.
|>>|| No. 33485
Oh I don't know, hanging out with the lads is necessary but aside from sex a bird does provide something fresh to life. I'm having trouble putting my finger on what exactly it is but internet people still seem sad despite all the wanking and dakimakura.
Help me out lads, what can I get from a partner that I can't get from a child.
|>>|| No. 33486
>Help me out lads, what can I get from a partner that I can't get from a child.
A clean criminal record.
|>>|| No. 33487
In my experience, women are much nicer than men. Some of them aren't, I guess, but I don't want to have sex with those ones. The niceness is very important. You can be yourself around them and they will be encouraging and supportive. The #lads aren't that nice; if you go to them with a problem, they'll just call you gay, or at least imply it with their smirking glances to each other as you speak. I can't imagine kids are that nice either. Also, in addition to being parasites, you will have very little in common with a child. You will ask them if they remember the 1998 World Cup, and they won't have been born yet. Their favourite YouTuber won't be a normal one like Hydraulic Press Channel or Bald & Bankrupt; it'll be some American with white teeth who screams while opening boxes containing the latest iPhone. There will be absolutely no emotional compatibility there. Even if you fancy kids, you're only going after them for the sexual impulses; you can't possibly want to form a genuine relationship with one. It's just about meaningless sex for paedophiles. And in the end, that's the real crime.
|>>|| No. 33489
>The #lads aren't that nice; if you go to them with a problem, they'll just call you gay, or at least imply it with their smirking glances to each other as you speak.
Get better friends.
Women are the last people I go to with my problems. They can't help it, but showing any kind of weakness to them lowers their estimations of you. Even the nicest ones with the most modern and switched on attitudes to mental health and what have you, they simply can't help it.
I genuinely believe this is part of the reason why depression is such a vicious cycle for men. It actively makes them less desirable to mate with.
|>>|| No. 33490
This wouldn't just be true for a child you'll hypothetically try to strike up a conversation with after you've done the deed. Even consenting adults with big age differences run into that problem. The absolute high point of my younglad days were things like Oasis at Knebworth. Somebody who was born that year is now 25, so she'd be an adult and not a clueless teenlass anymore, but still, there would always be half a generation of pop culture missing between us.
I'd shag a halfway fit 25 year old in a heartbeat, don't get me wrong. But I'm not sure we'd have much to talk about besides that, unless she's somehow weirdly into 90s britpop, grunge, or nu metal.
I think it's still predominantly an assumption that women are really nicer than lads. Women can be cruel, conniving and catty in ways that a bloke would never even consider. With guy friends, it's usually all pretty straightforward. And if they won't listen to your problems, you just need different guy friends.
Also, the lasses that you connect with in a way that they'll listen to your problems, and maybe you to theirs, will most likely not want to shag you. Maybe some of them will appreciate your sensitive side and actually take things from there, but in my experience, it's not that likely.
|>>|| No. 33491
>In my experience, women are much nicer than men.
That might just be that we're a dead sexy bunch though. Women certainly don't seem too keen on one another.
>I'd shag a halfway fit 25 year old in a heartbeat, don't get me wrong. But I'm not sure we'd have much to talk about besides that, unless she's somehow weirdly into 90s britpop, grunge, or nu metal.
I suppose it depends on how comfortable you are with being labelled 'vintage'. You'll certainly have to lock the records away or she might nick 'em and go on antiques roadshow.
|>>|| No. 33492
It doesn't even have to be that big of a gap before you feel a bit disconnected I find. My last ex was five or six years younger than me. I think we started going out when I was 25-26, and she was 20 or 21.
It doesn't sound like a lot but it was telling in the totally different attitude she had on things like social media. I'm just old enough to remember the days where it wasn't really a big thing and you still phoned/texted people to organise things, but she'd gone through her whole adolescence with things like Facebook being the norm. I was reaching a point in my life where I wanted to save up for a mortgage and think about the future a bit more seriously; she was still firmly in the #yolo stage and she'd often pressure me towards making financially reckless decisions like an impulse holiday or whatever.
It probably makes less of a difference in the post-30ish age range, where no matter how old you are, the people you date are already going to more or less have their shit together, so to speak. A 35 year old dating a 45 year old probably don't have massively different priorities like a 20 year old and a 30 year old might.
|>>|| No. 33493
>I think it's still predominantly an assumption that women are really nicer than lads.
Women are nice to men because they're always a little bit scared that we'll murder them. They're absolute bitches to each other a lot of the time, because there's not the same physical threat.
|>>|| No. 33494
>women are nice to men because they're always a little bit scared that we'll murder them.
Bit oversimplistic. Let me offer my equally simplistic view that a lot of them are also nice to us because they know we want to shag them, and will do things for them if there's even the slightest hint that it might get us in bed with them. Which it almost never will.
You do go through several developmental milestones between age 20 and 26. Most people are still at uni or in some other kind of training at 20, while that's starting to thin out by your mid-20s as most people will have a job and will start thinking about their future.
As a younglad, I was at uni at that age and was pretty much clubbing off my tits every night of the week. If you'd said something to me like "But what about graduating and getting a job and your own place", I would have said piss off granddad.
Six years age difference is a long time at that age. But from about your late 20s on, it's not going to be that significant anymore when your partner is six years younger or older. You will roughly be at the same stages in life, and because blokes usually take a bit longer to settle down in life than women, it'll come out about even.
|>>|| No. 33499
Anyone know what this is about? There's one on a felled tree in my local park I assumed was just a fuckup with the chainsaws but seeing this I'm wondering if it's deliberate.
|>>|| No. 33501
It's a plunge cut of some sort, but no idea what is about. It's not somthing you'd accidentally do.
|>>|| No. 33502
>It's a plunge cut
Thanks, that was enough information to find out.
>On trees with forward lean, the traditional “race to the hinge” backcut will sooner or later result in an explosive “barber chair,” in which the tree splits at the base, kicking backwards and falling in an uncontrolled manner. On trees leaning backwards or in other undesirable directions, a bore cut allows you to use wedges to control the direction of its fall.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]