Sup Yea Forums, I want to make a chart about literature with little girls as the protagonists, the girl age should be between 4-14 years old and the thematic can be about anything as long it have a little girl as the protagonists.
The titles I'm currently thinking about:
Lolita
The Belvedere Field
The Enchanter
Mouchette
Tiger Tiger
Little women
Alice in Wonderland
The ice Palace
Dream Children
What Katty Did
Bastard out Of Carolina
What else title should I add?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
psycnet.apa.org
twitter.com
Sorrows of Young Werther
fuck you
lol nice
I Capture the Castle
The protagonist is too old, but thanks for the recommendation
Wtf is this Humbert Humbert shit you have going on, OP?
What Maisie Knew
true grit
OP get some fucking counseling you nigger
Lolita is not the protagonist. Humbert is.
Dolores is the protagonist, humbert is the antagonist
Humbert did nothing wrong
Not at all. The lead is Humbert and his story, not Lola.
Based and paedopilled
I just want to make a chart about strong and brave little girls who play the protagonic role
Thanks dude, I just finished it two weeks ago
Excellent, I've never read about this one
>being this insecure
Good point broh, I think I will include some titles that involve the girl as the main point of the plot
Northern Lights aka The Golden Compass
Stop typing the words "little girls" you fucking creep, jesus. How tf do you manage to make a technically clean thread seem so unwholesome? "Strong and brave", why'd you start your list with Lolita you fucking freak?
Thanks for dude
Why so upset?
>The Enchanter
Thats an adolescent here, though.
seriously, get help. you feed the pedo inside you, you are going to end up raping children. and then you are going to ruin your lives, and theirs. thats the path you are going down, and all you other Yea Forums pedo fucks. get fucking counseling, people want to help you if you will let them, before you really hurt someone and destroy your life. why don't you go talk to someone who is already convicted about how difficult it is to get a normal life after a conviction, about how tough it is to get a job, and about how you have to go door to door every time you move and tell all your neighbors you are a pedophile so that they know to keep their children away from you
this is no fucking joke m8. get help.
>tell all your neighbors you are a pedophile
Do they really do this in America? lmao
Calm down broh, I'm just trying to make a chart about young female protagonist, I think there's no one around
>pedo in denial
There's a pedo/hebe chart that occasionally gets posted here. I haven't saved it, though.
bruh wtf
most good people have no idea the sheer evil that lurks in the dark places of the internet, breeding the impetus of unspeakable acts to come. seeding a generation of soul eaters unlike any before
I fear for the human race
The secret Garden
YOUR HOSTILITY BETRAYS YOUR PERVERSION.
All the ugly and wonderful things
Perilous waif
How I Became a Nun - except the protagonist might be a little boy: not trans, just an unreliable little narrator
imagine not being a pedophile lmao
Great, thanks for the contributions
that which is forced to be hidden by shame is where the festering occurs
only a person with a severe inferiority complex would ever fantasize about sex or relationships with children. they fear rejection by people their own age, while the younger are still too young to think as easily that there might be something wrong with them. they fantasize about taking advantage of this misplaced trust. if only they could take proper care of themselves to heal their wounds they could see that equal relationship with someone of equal maturity, intelligence and development is the most enriching and empowering type of romance
maybe you should read books about the psychology of pedophile instead of books about little girls user
chart when?
Give me more time man, I need to add more titles and I haven't come with a title for the chart, any suggestions?
Nah, I want to read about little, cute and innocent little girls, not about your psychology shit
>Yea Forums can't imagine wanting to read about someone they don't want to fuck
Anne of Green Gables.
魔女の宅急便 (Kiki's Delivery Service)
Pippi Longstocking
Most are going to be kids' books.
Only people with severe inferiority complex would ever go on the internet and start arguing with strawmen to feel superior to imagined pedo boogeymen.
Did you somehow miss his Nabokov mentions
Oh fuck you, fucking count how many times this chester the molester motherfucker gratuitously says "little girls" throughout his posts. This thread is fucking disgusting.
SWEET LITTLE GIRL
Stay mad faggot
Yeah, most of the books will be from the kid's section
Lolita in particular is an incredibly well known book that comes up all the fucking time on Yea Forums.
Good job white knighting for imaginary kids. Woudln't want them to come to any imaginary harm when OP reads about them with his dirty, dirty eyes.
Eat my shit, I'm not white knighting for anybody, real or imaginary, I'm just pointing out that OP comes across as a deeply unwholesome, lecherous freak, which he undeniably does.
We're doing it great guys, just give me some more books so I can start making the chart
A Little Princess
More like Yea Forums can't imagine someone not wanting to fuck little girls.
There already is a pedo chart but you might instead want to contemplate chemically castrating yourself.
sauce me up fampai
I thought you said you weren't a pedo
no.
There's literally nothing wrong with being a pedo, you 45 IQ rats.
what's wrong with pedophilia?
bump
Its degenerate and you should be shot that's what.
Ok, now this is epic
no, but for real, can you give any arguments that don't depend on common sense?
Why is it degenerate?
>no Madeline
>no Ramona Quimby
kys OP
>CTRL F no results for ‘The Princess and the Goblin’
NANI!?
Dunno if it's degenerate or anything, but it is nowehere an equal relationship. You're exploiting the kid. You bet your ass most of the pedo bait don't have close enough maturity to be fucking adults.
The fact that Lolita is the first one you thought about reveals your intentions.
Stop watching anime.
Coraline should be perfect for your pedo tastes, OP
Why must adult-child sexual relationship must always be unequal? What makes it unequal? Why is it exploitation? Let's say you want to fuck 13 year-old girl, what difference does it make to fuck her and 16 y/o? 18 y/o?
I'm a simple man.
If it ain't gonna affect my personal life and my well being as an individual, I'd fuck anyone and anything that I feel attracted to.
Sup boys, I just go back from work so I'll start making the chart right now,
How should it be named?
I'm thinking of:
"Yea Forums guide to Little Girls" and
"Little Girls and the stories around them"
Thanks!
Because we presume she is not aware of the weight of the action. At the end of the day, I suppose it's just moralfagging for the current climate.
In the same breath, part of current climate is also innocent little girls. So with fucking with one, you could fuck up the other.
Well yeah, it somewhat boils down to the question if the child can consent. Of course they can, when for example father asks his son if he wants to go out for a walk. But with sexuality its something else--something a priori presumed to be more "serious" and spooky.
>At the end of the day, I suppose it's just moralfagging for the current climate.
I think so too. What is really weird for me is that even the progressives of the XX century fought for child sexuality and against moralizing tendencies that were against it. But today, no one is so much against adult-child sexual relations than progressives.
Politically correct moralfagging was predicted in a way by Foucault:
"But what is emerging - and indeed why I believe it was important to speak about the problem of children - what is emerging is a new penal system, a new legislative system, whose function is not so much to punish offenses against these general laws concerning decency, as to protect populations and parts of populations regarded as particularly vulnerable. In other words, the legislator will not justify the measures that he is proposing by saying: the universal decency of mankind must be defended. What he will say is: there are people for whom others' sexuality may become a permanent danger. In this catagory, of course, are children, who may find themselves at the mercy of an adult sexuality that is alien to them and may well be harmful to them. Hence there is a legislation that appeals to this notion of a vulnerable population, a "high-risk population,"as they say"
- The Danger of Child Sexuality
citation continued:
"We're going to have a society of dangers, with, on the one side, those who are in danger, and on the other, those who are dangerous. And sexuality will no longer be a kind of behavior hedged in by precise prohibitions, but a kind of roaming danger, a sort of omnipresent phantom, a phantom that will be played out between men and women, children and adults, and possibly between adults themselves, etc. Sexuality will become a threat in all social relations, in all relations between members of different age groups, in all relations between individuals."
In a way, metoo movement was the symptom of this phenomena Foucault is talking about
Calling your boss to get you fired as we speak. I'm reading your posts out loud.
let us not forget Foucault died from aids after fucking underage boys in SF bathhouses and acid and meth
is it inconceivable that someone could be driven by their sexual urges to such a degree that they could spend quite a bit of effort building up a philosophical rational justification for having unlimited expression of their impulses?
Yeah, among other things, like you said it shows how we understand sex.
That Foucault quote is weird to me.
what about the personal life and well being of other people? do you always come first in this equation? how much of someone else's potential suffering is your notion of pleasure worth?
absolutely conceivable. but you can misuse this and try to resentfully "psychoanalyze" everyone's work trying to find some flaw in biography. plato talked about love of boys! all his philosophy is just hidden pedophilia! da vinci's art is sublimated pedophilia too! marx didnt work a day in his life, his arguments are non existent!
I just hope you can move past such ridiculously low ad-hominems and look at the argumentation/product itself.
>That Foucault quote is weird to me.
why's that?
im not saying that someones entire body of work would be fueled by their sexual urges. maybe for someone, but it wouldnt be the rule.
just, if someone is already an intelligent, philosophically minded person, then theres a good chance they will use that tool of mind they have developed and apply it to something coming from SOMEwhere within themselves that they maybe haven't sufficiently questioned, like a sex impulse (and because they know they are intelligent, then comes the danger of hubris and arrogance). intelligence and virtuousness have no correlation.
>we presume she is not aware
>"moralfagging"
have you ever heard of the idea of the precautionary principle? if there's even a chance, a risk, that something is harmful, then is it worth messing around with?
if someone is holding a gun to your head and you plead for your life, would you support them saying for you to quit your "moralfagging"? I bet you'll care about "moralfagging" when it's in defense of your own self and well being
Self interest isn't really moralfagging
yeah, I get this idea, Nietzsche in similar vein said that "drives philosophize" and that the philosophy is just rationalization of our inner instincts. But what's wrong with that? Let's say Foucault was pedo and intelligent at the same time, and used his intelligence to question notions of pedosexuality. Still, what's wrong with that? When you say intelligence and virtuousness have no correlation it sounds like you want to just moralize, and accept that philosophy derived from sexual impulse (which brings us to plato) is somehow a worse version of philosophy.
kek
I love the book and what it stands for
>if there's even a chance, a risk, that something is harmful, then is it worth messing around with?
sexual relations among adults have a chance of risk too, there can be manipulations, abuse of power, potential traumas etc. following your logic we should prohibit them too. unless you say children have underdeveloped "special" psychic states that are so so vulnerable that any contact with adult is potential trauma, which takes us back to foucault's quote and text mentioned above.
thinking is in itself neither moral or immoral. actions are what become moral or immoral. certain thinking may or may not lend credence to some actions over others, so thinking can affect actions, and should we weigh the thoughts considering the actions that it might promote
and guess what faggot, I believe in morality. I believe that seeking to not harm others is an essential part of the operating system of every human being, and people leaving behind that part of themselves is the only reason we have developed oppressive systems in the first place. they wouldnt be justified if people just did the right thing. we would be so much more free, and, no man is free who cannot control himself. you want to fight against that notion, that's your bag, but I consider it to be fundamental. creating oppression under the name of morality is a separate issue and should not deface the importance of morality in the first place
people think they are somehow liberating and freeing themselves by destroying any allegiance to any sense of morality, when they are actually fucking up the thing that is trying to be their barometer and wants to create true happiness and harmony in humans and human communities. unless you are a sociopath or psychopath, you are born with a conscience, and it's there for a reason
not all risks are equal, the same thing isn't at stake. I get the distinct feeling that you yourself are being driven by an illogical desire and are willing to jump gigantic philosophical hurdles and act like they aren't there to justify it. the risk of fucking up someone's psyche and emotional brain that is still developing is incredibly higher for children than it is for already developed adults. is there something preventing you from even considering that to be true? because it seems like you don't even want to consider it for a moment. you already know what you want to believe.
>I believe that seeking to not harm others is an essential part of the operating system of every human being
so romans feeding christians to lions is not the effect of cultural determination? how would you explain canibalism and other types of culturally accepted harming of other people? are they underdeveloped humans or are their conscience somewhat damaged?
And getting back to pedosexuality, I presume you say that child-adult sexual act is inevitably harmful to children, and if it is harmful, then it follow that pedosexuality (realized in act) is immoral?
I argue, that there can be adult-child sexual relations, that are positive for both parties, and that the traumatization of children is the cause of prevailing negative narratives that frame adult-child sex as wrong and shameful things. So, by your definition, pedosexuality would not be immoral.
>the risk of fucking up someone's psyche and emotional brain that is still developing is incredibly higher for children than it is for already developed adults
citation please
please, when using such concepts as "emotional brain", "psyche" at least define what you mean, does the "emotional brain" fully develops at the age of 18? can you link to any research done? because it seems that you spout these cliche, common sensical answers.
nothing I say is going to change your mind because you have already decided what you want to believe. this conversation is ultimately pointless.
cultural ideas of morality can forego ones personal conscience (the stanford prison experiments show this), especially if someone already doesn't think/feel for themselves much in the first place (which seems to be a common problem with humans). humans have the peculiar ability among animals to override their empathy with the power of their rational mind. there's a great danger in that. see: the modern world.
value arguments are separate from truth arguments. we would also have to get into arguments about what constitutes a child, and what constitutes an adult. it could go on forever. all I'm going to say is, there should be a line somewhere. some people think there should be no line, and to them it represents some kind of sublime symbolic freedom or something. I think that's an ill informed notion.
there are many different parts of the brain. the emotional brain is the limbic system, and there are many other parts of the brain that develop into adulthood and get affected by traumatic experience, as well as addictive behavior, such as porn, masturbation, sex addiction. the part of the brain that gets messed up by that is the frontal cortex, which is responsible for impulse control and executive decision making (including creating plans, and carrying them out, over long periods of time). it is scientific consensus that many different things affect the development of these parts of the brain, including but not limited to trauma, which can be sexual or otherwise.
read a fucking book you dumb fuck
before you go and try to fuck a child, potentially giving them issues they may have to carry for the rest of their lives, at least take a couple hours to watch this documentary
and better than that, why dont you go talk to someone who was raped or molested as a child, and ask them how they feel about it? I was molested and raped and I can tell you it has left me with problems I still grapple with to this day. so, I already know from personal experience when someone is saying adults should be allowed to fuck kids, no questions asked, willy nilly, that someone is really fucked up and they are trying to cope, really, really hard and they really have no fucking idea what the fuck they are talking about
nothing I say is going to change your mind because you have already decided what you want to believe.
I just want to see your argumentation, I have my own data and narrative about the things we talk, but I want to see your side of things, all I currently get are doxas without any argumentation/data to back it up.
You really say that the modern world is devoid of emapthy and morality? When we were really moral then? In ancient times? In medieval, when for stealing you would get your nipples ripped off and burned in public?
>value arguments are separate from truth arguments. we would also have to get into arguments about what constitutes a child, and what constitutes an adult. it could go on forever
we could, and now we discussed if pedosexuality is wrong/immoral/harmful. you stick to your tune that it is, I argued that it is not. there's data to back it up, one research was done in search not of negative after effects of adult-child sex, but of positive:
psycnet.apa.org
and if there are positive experience of adult-child sex, then it is not harmful and bad as everyone tries to paint it
see
"moralfagging"
a word I have only ever seen on a pro-pedophilia thread. fancy that.
moralfagging has been a term on Yea Forums since I can remember
Female hands typed this.
>how much of someone else's potential suffering is your notion of pleasure worth?
As far as I know, little girls do feel pleasure. Pleasure is good. No suffering at all.
watch the posted doc buddy. it's specifically about the first doctor / scientist in the mainstream who started pushing these ideas you are talking about
But the words "moral" and "morality" are extremely common on this board. You should pay more attention to these posts, you brainlet.
you haven't been around then, aren't you?
I'm not watching a 3 hour le based red pilled retard talking about some literally-who pseudo-scientist. just lay out the argument.
alfred kinsey is literally the father of modern scientific and psychological thought of sexuality, you fucking idiot. fucking learn about him and what he did, what he was like, where he was coming from.
your idea of pleasure might be different from someone else's. also, momentary pleasure might come at the great expense of pain later on, and potentially for decades.
why do I need to? I can't talk about pedosexuality without linking to him? you act like peterson, who in attempt to critize marxism read a fucking communist manifesto and thought he can now destroy le evil communists. I'm saying he is pseudo-scientific, because most of his studies were based on accounts of unreliable people, I know what he is, but I dont think he is that important.
god please help us all