>>25171325
OP, what would you be if you collected little risque photos of children?
Obviously pedophilia is more complicated than the public attitude of KID FUCKER,. Meaning it is generally much more emotionally involved than you would think
So yeah, probably
And imagine how much easier that kind of thing would have been to get away with back then

>>25171327
>OP, what would you be if you collected little risque photos of children?
But kids weren't inherently sexualized in the past, especially the Victorian period when nude photos of children were seen as Edenic and put on postcards. There was an obsession with innocence and they explicitly started a cult of childhood, a bit like Peter Pan, where they thought children were the perfect beings. No one reasonably thinks a nude depiction of Jesus is sexual or pornographic; instead, it just shows a religious reverence of his body and spirit.

>>25171330
I repeat, imagine how much easier that kind of thing would have been to get away with back then
Unfortunately anon, children are not Jesus Christ. But you're right. The attitude was definitely different back then
Who's to say about Lewis.
I mean, if we're getting into it, do we consider the Spartan soldiers gay pedophiles? I honestly don't think I would.
Back to it though. I think this is an interesting thing to bring up, because the pedos of today are kind of, how you would say, almost entirely malevolent. You know, really self serving. But I can imagine people with these proclivities before the modern age (whenever that actually started) were much more interpersonal with their younglings.
Besides Albert Fish and real monsters like him. Those types are consistent

>>25171332
Most modern paedophiles, the ones we think of when we hear "sex offender," are actually just sadistic and just use children because they're silent victims who don't have power. They are malevolent and get off on the power imbalance and being able to use people like props or sexual objects; it truly is disgusting and lacks any meaningful amount of mutual pleasure or consent. That's why I think people find paedophilia so disgusting now, but in the past, when an older man married a teenager, it was probably more mutual and "normal" in the sense he was supposed to provide for her and give her food, housing, love, attention, and more. I wouldn't personally want to marry a teenager but I doubt some landowning duke marrying a girl because she's the daughter of someone important, to create an alliance, was trying to sexually abuse her. That's the key distinction modern feminists don't understand; they blur the lines and think all sexual contact or sexualisation of people under the age of 18 is the same as an evil baby-fucking rapist. The truth is complex and harder to communicate.

>>25171325
>Was he a, uh, you know...
A feminist? Yeah. Unleashed female main character as heroes upon us.

>>25171339
For me personally it feels like some society wide mental illness to try and convince everyone to pretend that 16 year olds aren't attractive. They obviously are. They are prime biological breeding age
But of course women don't really act like women anymore in the first world so we're shit out of luck either way. Hadn't thought of it before but this might be an underlying psychological reason why there are more pedos than ever now

>>25171348
When did it start? You were allowed to sexualize teenagers up until the 2010s, in my experience. And all the art in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, heavily featured school girls as the sexiest, sluttiest whores... Every girl I've been with was fucking and sucking guys when they were underage, usually guys who were in their 20s or 30s.

>>25171352
Yeah it was pretty recently. Probably 2018. It's just that these pent up barren women suddenly have much more of a platform than they ever did, and their neuroses isn't as laughed at and ignored as it was before. Too bad. Doubt it'll last long. Seems to be fading already