[Oscar] Wilde took a key out of his pocket and showed me into a tiny apartment of two rooms… The youths followed him...

>[Oscar] Wilde took a key out of his pocket and showed me into a tiny apartment of two rooms… The youths followed him, each of them wrapped in a burnous that hid his face. Then the guide left us and Wilde sent me into the further room with little Mohammed and shut himself up in the other with the [other boy]. Every time since then that I have sought after pleasure, it is the memory of that night I have pursued. […] My joy was unbounded, and I cannot imagine it greater, even if love had been added.

>How should there have been any question of love? How should I have allowed desire to dispose of my heart? No scruple clouded my pleasure and no remorse followed it. But what name then am I to give the rapture I felt as I clasped in my naked arms that perfect little body, so wild, so ardent, so sombrely lascivious? For a long time after Mohammed had left me, I remained in a state of passionate jubilation, and though I had already achieved pleasure five times with him, I renewed my ecstasy again and again, and when I got back to my room in the hotel, I prolonged its echoes until morning.

What did he mean by this?

I think that he had a rare good time, and meant to express 'the what' of it.

He meant

>I fucked a child and enjoyed it thoroughly

yo, what the fuck? i just read hindoo holiday and have also watched that doc about afghani boys. is this some normal shit in central asia? how tf is this pleasant?

wtf i hate oscar wild now

homosexuals are repulsive pedophiles and the worship of Oscar Wilde you see today is disgusting

Dunno

he had a wilde time

Go back to /pol/. Bigotry is unkempt here.

kekked and checked

...

I don't care about your rules, homo. Blow it out your ass

Your post reeks of machoism.

Being anti-pedophilia is not bigotry.

Uh, yes it is. You denounce the idea on your conceived notion of its validity, but it is not in disagreement with any moral held in the spirit.

...Klaus?

That's because I'm a big man, I got big plans. You know what rhymes with machoism? Masochism. That's you, Jack. Time to turn the other cheek.

Machoism isn't a good thing, senpai.

>hungry, eager
though actual hunger probably had more than a little to do with whatever eagerness was on display that day.

Pedophiles deserve death. I don't care if the racist cocksucker says it, it's still true.

Irrational moralising and anti-intellectual dogma have no place where knowledge dwells.

>No moral held in the spirit.

Moral 1: the child doesn't want to do this

Moral 2: I am disrupting this child's ability to live a normal life so that I can cum

Moral 3: I am recklessly engendering a new rapist like myself to go after other innocent children.


If you are a pedophile, please kill yourself. For the children.

>irrational moralizing.

>There's nothing inherently wrong with fucking children who don't understand and don't want to have sex with you.

>the child doesn't want to do this
So?
>I am disrupting this child's ability to live a normal life so that I can cum
How is this bad?
> I am recklessly engendering a new rapist like myself to go after other innocent children.
Again, what is the problem?

>You know what rhymes with machoism? Masochism
Does it?

You have a preconceived idea of right and wrong and you're acting irrationally because of it.

Take your bait and tie it around your neck until you die.

Where was my idea preconceived.

How do you know it was preconceived.

Where is the morality in fucking children.

You think intercourse with children is morally wrong, but you can't show why. Legally wrong? In most countries, yes. But morally wrong? You tell me.

I've just given you three reasons it's immoral. Please give me one for why it is moral, or at least respond to those without one word non answers.

I'll play devil's advocate.

>Moral 1: the child doesn't want to do this
1. What if they do?
2. So what if they don't? There are many things forced on children that they don't want to do, like eat their vegetables, be quiet, do their chores, etcetera

>Moral 2: I am disrupting this child's ability to live a normal life
1. [citation needed] (you won't actually find a convincing anything, so don't bother, concede this point and stick to defending the first moral)

>Moral 3: I am recklessly engendering a new rapist like myself to go after other innocent children
1. This is only a problem if the first two are a problem. Also 'rapist' isn't true if the first two are not a problem, and 'innocent' is emotional bait.

Read Richard Burton, user. see what he wrote about the Sotadic Zone...

par for the course.

No you haven't. You gave me platitudes with no reasoning.

He showed them the picture of Dorian Gay

>you have to give me a reason
>why
>why
>why
>why
>why
>but you never gave me a reason waaahhhh

off yourself

>I'll play the Devils advocate.

Why, because you can't justify it as actual moral argument?

>forced things.

Those forced things are minor, don't hurt, are for their betterment, and aren't ridiculously altering! Most of all, they understand why adults want them to be done.

>Citation needed

Just like you can't show a picture of the earth to a flat earther, you will nitpick any study I give you.

>3
Well, number one is true. Boys don't like getting fucked in Thier ass. Number 2 is true. Part of that sexual abuse is what allows them to become rapists.

OK, you keep saying this. Give me one reason why it's moral and you win.

Nothing is moral or immoral.

>Leading the whole thing to your philosifaggotry.

If nothing is immoral or moral, why do we stop ourselves from doing anything we want?

Do you retrain yourself at all?

>I have no argument and I must meme.

>the old morality doesn't exist when it suits me card

Yawn

I wish he would have just come out with it in the first place instead of being a fag.

>Why, because you can't justify it as actual moral argument?
Because your reasons are unconvincing.

>Those forced things are minor, don't hurt, are for their betterment
Subjective. You have already judged the act to be significant, hurtful, and not bettering, but haven't shown why.

>Boys don't like getting fucked in Thier ass.
Again, you've just assumed this, without showing why. Also what if Mohammed didn't like it, but Gide promised he'd buy him a Playstation?

Anyway I don't care at all about this to debate it further, my only point was your reasoning was shit so don't act surprised that people ITT called you out on it.

It's up to you, really. Unless you can name a criteria for morality and show why that criteria applies to the universe, then I have to tell you that morality is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Patricians throughout the ages have always been awake to the joys of the boipuss.

Hating boipussy is a Jewish invention.

Before you can do that you have to show there is criteria for anything in existence and why that criteria applies to the universe, otherwise I have to tell you that existence is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

You only play Devils advocate because you can't justify it as your own position.

>You haven't explained why shoving your cock into a child's ass is hurtful.

Alright. Why then, do you not allow people to do it to you. Please let me invade your asshole. Daily.

>Le everything is subjective.

>What if I offer something for my forced rape. What if I buy your mother for the night.

>Anyway I feel disgusting for trying to defend pedophilia but I'mean enlightened by my own euphoria and wanted to feel good.

It may be. So I guess you just disproved yourself.

>rips bong

Woahhhhhh.

There is a criteria to morality. Go fuck children, or else fuck off.

The point is we always simply operate on an assumption of objective validity. Otherwise it would be impossible to make any truly valid statement.

Its on you to assert why we should take statements of morality as any less legitimate than statements on any objective reality

Sorry, meant for

Only stupid people operate like that. Realise that there is nothing right or wrong about your actions.

>ur stoipod.

What drives your actions. What influences your hardest decisions?

My intellect.

Boi!!!!

Holy shit this thread sucks

>not discerning that Oscar Wilde is gay from reading Dorian gray

You can't read people

You just fixed it.

>Realise that there is nothing right or wrong about your actions.

Is there based on what?
I don't even know if the world is real, how am I meant to know my actions don't matter?

Because no matter matters in this sense. Matterance is a human invention.

Is it, how do we know this?

It is self evident

Based on what axioms?

Fuck off, Anglo. That isn't how qualia works.

What the fuck is a qualia?

Why are you here?

I ask myself that question all the time

>so wild
hehe WildE

For a guy who's antipedophilia, you sure seem fine with raping strangers on the internet.

Wew

>Sex is wrong
This is the misconceived axiom that keeps your (irrational) argument

Sex is disgusting though, you're literally sticking body parts into shit and piss holes

the same guy was posting then replying to himself, good thing this thread died over an hour ago

>be village muzzie who isn't allowed to stick his dick into a girl until he is married off to his fat cousin at 28
>can't rape women because women aren't allowed outside of the house without their male guardians
>go apeshit and fuck little boys because they are the next best thing
Simple as that.

Thats too simple, I think they actively preferred little boys

this
greece, japan and afganistan cant be wrong

Fucking children is like eating raw meat: they're not developed enough.

Also, to you niggas saying there's nothing hurtful about fucking a boy in the ass, go out and get your ass fucked and come back telling me it's not hurtful.

> go out and get your ass fucked and come back telling me it's not hurtful.
nigga i had been triying to get buttfucked for ages

this, it's the same reason Catholic priests fuck boys. it's the next most feminine thing nearby, and if they're gay, it's, again, closer-at-hand than a gay club.

The aristocracy had always a taste for the vulgar and forbidden and all sorts of debauchery. It's what Nietzsche called master versus slave morality and this phenomenon transcends cultural borders as points out. In Christian Europe we find examples such as the open homosexuality of Edward II, the atrocities of Gilles de Rais, the institutionalised mistresses of kings and emperors, the mad fantasies of Sade. All who willingly and sometimes even actively laboured against the established moral norms of their society.

With the emerging industrialization at the end of the 18th century the nobility integrated itself into the budding bourgeoisie which became the new ruling class. Of course ,the bourgeoisie valued a more strict (protestant) work ethic which was an inheritance of the aforementioned slave morality. Victorian prudery was the subsequent product.

This is why total sexual repression is the best option. If heterosexual sex is treated as vulgar and forbidden you safeguard society from the most degenerate depths

>Fucking children is like eating raw meat
It's an acquired taste.

>Bigotry is unkempt here.
lel

t. child fucking priest

>fucking children is like sushi, steak tartare and carpaccio

Some people develop a taste for literal shit. Acquired tastes can be morally reprehensible.

those aren't aquired tastes, they're delicious

get all these ghosts out of my sight

However warped your judgment might be, they are still acquired tastes.

went wilde on a child

Only to Ameriplebs raised on microwave meals.

>not being an omophage in 2017

even babbies like raw meat

Missing the point retard

Gilles de Rais did nothing wrong

From the sound of it he and Wilde raped children for sexual pleasure. Odd how this guy is a celebrated figure in the west.

>ctrl+f boner
>0 results

A-am I really the only one?

>Gay people are pedophiles
what a fucking surprise.

the only slippery slope here is the semen filled arseholes of these children.