Monday, August 10, 2026

Qualia research on ephebo girls

I was spoiled rotten by a barely legal ephebo girl during the covid pandemic. She enthusiastically met all my needs that entire time (or as often as lockdowns permitted) and made me feel so special and privileged that I would hardly look at a girl over 18 for years even though I was in my 40s. I didn’t envy anybody at the time including teenage boys and billionaires because I knew I had as good or better sex than them. When at first meet she kissed me like she would boys her own age -- deep french kisses almost smothering, I knew I had struck gold: I was in teen heaven for three years with her, the perfect relationship I look back on as ne plus ultra bliss, the reason I can die happy no matter what happens from here and which gives me the confidence to be fearless and write anything I damn well please because no one can take the past away from me.

My ephebo girl is now a beautiful young woman in her early 20s. Still beautiful, to be sure, but honestly there is a striking difference that I might express as going from a ten to nine. The difference is just one on a ten-point hotness scale, but the scale is exponential, so she truly made me ten times happier than she could typically make a man now, and therein lies our cultural undercommunication of the hotness of ephebo girls. If you are looking for a definition, ephebo girls are between sexual maturity and the current conception of adulthood, typically aged 13-17 and also called nubile girls, with absolute peak nubility at 15 when they reach full skeletal growth on top of their sexual maturity which occurred two years prior. I do not for a moment believe the average normie man requires full skeletal growth to feel attraction, but I will concede that his ideal bride has reached full height and I pretty much agree with this myself. At any rate this creates a weird situation where the definitely most nubile girls from 15 to 17 are barred from living up to the meaning of nubility since they are now supposed to be unmarriageable “children” and often below the age of consent as well depending on your jurisdiction.

This is insane, because in my experience the qualia related to nubile girls so far exceed all other experiences on the pleasure scale that it’s weird how the normies can move on so “happily” to an existence without any hope of reaching such highs again when they quickly become “too old” for nubile girls and even help cement that reality by participating in the current feminist age gap hysteria.

To investigate how this can happen I now don my qualia researcher hat, not in a pretentious or serious way like the Qualia Research Institute (QRI) but as a way to signal that qualia are worth talking about, and much more so than society appears to believe. Or as an aside if you don’t believe in qualia, then illusionism should be a much bigger topic to explain how the hell a zombie can claim to have all these rich experiences! I still believe in qualia, but I also hone my rational arguments by letting the illusionists like Keith Frankish try their best to convince me otherwise.

So… how can the normies gloss over the heavenly delights of nubile girls to such a surprising degree to a qualia researcher and qualia believer like me? Humans as a species famously outlive their sexual relevance, regularly living half their lives or more beyond actively reproducing. This is mostly sugarcoated whenever it is mentioned, with normies being like, “Isn’t it cute that there are all these grandparents around to help care for children?” Um, as a qualia researcher I say no, especially when you don’t have a role to play as a grandparent anyway because I am still at the bachelor stage. I don’t sugarcoat it like the normies: I call it the grandmother curse. Bachelors do not seek grandmothers even if we are chronologically at their level. We want nubile girls, of course, or at least young women!

And yes, women get much of the “blame” here, not in a moral sense since they can’t help it but much of it has to do with their menopauses, which in turn has shaped male psychology to not be very sexually attracted to older women. How we can nonetheless have so much monogamy going on through middle age is frankly a mystery to me on qualia grounds, because this is where qualia really, really shine! Young women overpower all other qualia whenever they are in sensory range and the rest of the time I fantasize about them! Socially I should be a grandparent but my qualia are perfectly tuned to nubile girls. As they damn well should be for a bachelor with no commitments. Libido is a vital sign, and as long as I am still vital I am going to act the part.

I can empathize with how monogamy sort of “works.” Sure, I was attracted to 50+-year-old women too as a teenager, which I think is when male attraction to old women peaks in an absolute sense, and then when we get old ourselves, old women are all we can typically get, so we fall back on this low baseline attraction and consider ourselves “happy” with it. We don’t “develop” an interest in older women as we age, but what was always there (even though that too has probably faded with age) can be enough to go through the romantic motions of sustaining, and sometimes even forming new relationships with postmenopausal women. Evidently some older men are even so learnedly helpless about attracting young women that they convince themselves that they prefer old women, or may even genuinely prefer them? Who knows?

Through a qualia lens there are a couple things to note here, and I want to emphasize that I am not denying men’s preferences if they say they are happy with older women. Instead I bring in qualia research and try to evaluate their qualia objectively. I can’t argue with a man’s stated preference, but I can bring valence-realism to bear on how happy he actually is compared to how happy I subjectively and I think also objectively was with an ephebo girl. Relevant here is where the average normie romantic relationship sits on the hedonic scale. Qualia researcher Andrés Gomez Emilsson of the QRI rates (in a video I lost the link to) “an average day hanging out with your girlfriend” at five out of ten, and he is probably thinking of a 30-year-old woman, being too normie to imagine that he could get an ephebo girl. So let’s take the normies at their word and attribute 5/10 happiness to them with their milf wives and girlfriends. I suspect that drops to 3/10 (at best) after menopause, but whatever. Either way it is spectacularly far off from ephebo girls, keeping in mind that the scale is exponential, which is a key insight from the very same qualia research institute that gives such a middling score to the average sexual relationship.

Now we have an explanation jumping out at us, which is a sort of societal denialism which is not unheard of for qualia. Consider anesthesia and the still undercommunicated pain at the higher ends such as for cluster headaches. When anesthesia was invented it was considered far less urgent to implement than the badness of surgical pain qualia would suggest, reportedly taking a hundred years or so, and the medical establishment is still not in a hurry to effectively treat cluster headaches which are some of the worst pains imaginable even though we have a safe and effective treatment in vaporized DMT.

Given such historical mismatches between qualia and cultural values and practices it is not so surprising that nubile girls can be downvalued due to cultural forces such as the current feminist normativity and pedo panic. It is of course true that in a sense nubile girls “must” be only transiently available to most men, and it makes sense to rationalize that somewhat. Unlike DMT for cluster headaches which can easily be synthesized in sufficient quantities for all sufferers, nubile girls will remain in short supply for obvious reasons. Even so, the qualia are what they are, and valence-realism is what it is. This used to be better culturally communicated before the feminist hegemony, for example by Schopenhauer who spoke of nubile girls’ “striking effect” in his essay On Women from 1851:
With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a fullness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honorable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime — a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter. Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons.
Although I disagree with many other things in that essay which is overall frankly misogynistic, I think Schopenhauer is right about the difference between nubile girls and milfs being just as dramatic as an ant shedding its wings. This is just a fact, and cannot be faulted on moral grounds, because it is a valence-realistic fact that cannot be denied without claiming we are zombies (which, to be sure, people like Daniel Dennett and Keith Frankish claim, but I think they are wrong). We can blame nature’s economy for not equipping men with so wonderful qualia for mature women, and that’s how it must be given human nature: the qualia associated with the “striking effect” of young girls is a limited resource. Things could only change at the margins, but some of those are highly significant, like the current insanity of locking men up for no good reason when they get lucky with a nubile girl. Men could and should congratulate each other on getting lucky with an ephebo girl instead of trying to demonize and punish.

And that’s my activism in a nutshell, just so marginal, just trying to change attitudes a little bit and the laws that go along with them. It is pretty absurd that I should be so hated for this. As for myself personally benefiting from legal reform, maybe and maybe not; I am at the transition point where I still have some hope to hit it off once more with an adorable girl or might not, and that’s okay, partly because I have already been there so I can die happy.

And no, I won’t share more details about the girl, so don’t ask, but am happy to discuss qualia in the comments. My most important rule is: practice sincere speech. No trolling allowed. Sincere speech can often make one feel a little uncomfortable, and that’s okay, it’s how we make meaning. Also if you sincerely disagree with me about the striking effect of young girls, or when it occurs, I would love to hear your perspective. I realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but have yet to see older women described in striking terms. Of course it is also possible to fail to appreciate the striking beauty of nubile girls. I think it takes a certain amount of male maturity and young boys regularly fail to see it, kind of like teenagers getting drunk of for the first time probably don’t appreciate the value of fine wine, but that does not mean the qualia don’t exist for connoisseurs, does it? The connoisseurs in question are just normophilic men like Schopenhauer and myself and probably the QRI qualia researcher too, because surely he can imagine better than a 5/10 sexual experience?

19 comments:

  1. “Escaping Descartes’ prison” is the most flattering way to put illusionism:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTO-A1lw4JM

    If the private world is a “prison” it sounds better not to have it and instead be directly connected to the world. The illusionists believe there is no inner world, no “world that is just for me” which is to say no qualia. The problem is that this direct connection is the stuff of zombies and then we wouldn’t feel anything at all so there would be no “freedom” either. If our experiences can be reduced to the same sort of connection to the world that a thermostat or computer has, just more complex, then we shouldn’t have more awareness than a thermostat either because there is no awareness from within to work with. I don’t see how adding complexity helps because if you add up a bunch of zeros you still get zero. I would agree that mechanical gadgets are not “imprisoned” in any mental world because they don’t have any, and that’s how Keith Frankish and his late hero Daniel Dennett will have us believe humans are too. The lights never came on, you never woke up, you are a zombie deluding yourself that you are conscious. I still don’t understand what subject is supposed to be having the illusion, aside from a zombie who is unable to feel any illusion either.

    If we are zombies, then it is less surprising that qualia are so undervalued and subordinate to social norms. It then becomes surprising that culture cares about inner feelings at all. Why bother with something like anesthesia if pain is unreal anyway? Also why bother with retributive punishment if there is no one to feel penalized? Well, then these practices become ways to placate or manipulate an illusion to affect behavior, but nothing more. Sexual pleasure also becomes nothing more than an illusion serving to adjust behavior in accordance with natural selection. If there are no qualia then qualia research is pointless too and we might as well get with the normie program.

    This is not what I believe, but I am exposing myself to the best arguments for illusionism to see if my belief in qualia survives.

    By the way, the CSA hoax also heavily assumes qualia are real, but it makes so bizarre claims about sexual qualia that it makes me wonder whether those who believe in CSA are zombies after all, especially the female sex offender charade, which has oftentimes made me question whether other people are conscious, at least in anything near the same way I am. To me, the existence of the female sex offender charade is better evidence for illusionism than Keith Frankish’s arguments, because when social practices can be so absurdly disjointed from qualia that our culture says the most obvious sexual enjoyment is abuse I have to wonder whether true qualia are just a solipsistic thing for me and a select few others.

    Perhaps this is the world I am living in, surrounded by a bunch of NPCs. When a culture goes insane in a way which directly contradicts the most salient qualia of those who can actually feel, the hordes of zombies do nothing and the few conscious people try to pull the emergency brake, to no avail because we are so outnumbered by zombies. That’s how I feel about the CSA hoax and also the Epstein panic to which only Michael Tracey pulls the emergency brake of anyone who is in a position to be noticed, so perhaps only he is conscious out of all the journalists in the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I find absurd is the very concept of “childhood” and “adulthood”. People act like childhood is this magical innate special stage of life when its literally just an artificial legal creation thats propped up by culture. It has jack shit to do with biology, and literally only exist because the government wrote it into law.

      You dont “grow up and loose your childhood whimsy”. You become legal and are forced to adapt under a new set of laws and cultural expectations. Theres nothing biological or special about “growing up”, your a little kid because the government says you are, and your an adult because the government says you are.

      No one assess you on your 18th birthday and goes “hmm, you have adult brain and adult legs and adult arms, so your all grown up and mature and your childhood is gone”. Nope, you are a “grown up” because the government says that you are. “Hold on to your childhood!” They say. My WHAT?! My artificial legal state as a forced dependent??

      So much cultural value is assigned to complete and utter legal bullshit its baffling. Every single glorified aspect of childhood is a fabrication, even the “innocence”, which is just ignorance from being denied access to information and opportunities to learn and grow as a person because its “age inappropriate”(based on law and cultural norms of course)

      Delete
    2. Tbh the pedo hysteria and all the things that go along with it(the childhood/adulthood binary, laws, cultural norms) make even less sense than other forms of bigotry or cultural norms.

      Of course not saying that misogny or slavery is ok or justifiable, its not, but at least you could argue that a male and a female are different biologically, or a black person and a white person, but an innocent little 17 year old child and a big grown up 18 year old adult??

      The separation is entirely artificial and only truly exist in law and our cultural immagination, yet everyone treats it as an innate biological fact to the point were its even in our healthcare! Which should be only/mainly about biology?!

      They have pediatric medicine, treatments, and diagnoses for children 17 and under and adult medicines, treatments, and diagnoses for adults 18 and older. Whats the fucking difference?! Whats so different about a 17 year old “child” and an 18 year old “adult” biologically that they need different fucking medicine?!? Does your biology change on midnight when the government makes you legal that your body requires different medicines and healthcare treatments?!

      Maybe thats why childhood and adulthood are defended so hard? Because antis know that unlike other forms of bullshit, this bullshit has zero biological backing and is entirely fabricated and therefore needs more effort to conceal?

      Delete
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOqYIVKfV-U

    This might be the funniest documentary ever. You'll really have a laugh at this one, Eivind!

    He is not a pedophile at all (quite the opposite, judging from his AI "girlfriends"), just a desperate and ugly man who has no filter, no impulse control and loves controversy. Is anyone really buying that he's a threat to anyone but himself? The best part is that Chris Hansen himself has a cameo, where he calls out "predator hunters" for being unprofessional clowns more concerned with clout than protecting minors!

    This lays bare the absurd cultural hysteria better than anything else! They try to morally grandstand by donating all profit to RAINN and by including a short interview with an anonymous VirPed-esque man, probably to avoid backlash. However, this just comes across as very tonally inconsistent. I don't know if the documentary maker went into this intending for it to be a comedy, but that's what it very much is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched three minutes and am not sure I want to subject myself to more of this. Asked “Why do you think you wanted to have sex with a 13-year-old,” the “pedophile” says “Fucking a bitch’s innocence away, you know.” This does not look like a documentary about a man with no filter but rather a carefully scripted fiction to make MAPs look bad, as usual. I could be wrong: perhaps “EDP445” is a real person who got caught in a sting and presents like this, but it doesn’t really matter. Until we get a documentary stating that men are just simply naturally attracted to nubile girls regardless of character, it’s just more of the same, even if they managed to catch a somewhat unsavory guy in this sting (but again, I think you are pulling my leg calling it a documentary).

      Delete
    2. Definently scripted, only antis care about “innocence”(culturally/legally forced ignorance and asexuality). Pedos dgaf about “innocence”, we just think their bodies are hot.

      The minute I hear someone claim that pedophillia is about “innocence” and not fat kiddy ass I know they are just another retarted anti talking just to say words. I know that antis would LOVE for pedophillia to be about “innocence” because the truth is much scarier to them(that kids have soft jiggly thighs)

      Delete
  3. I watched some more of this “documentary” including the parts you mentioned.

    Chris Hansen does exactly what I described in my status games post, posing as a true justice warrior to the extent that he seems to believe his own lies while accusing the other predator hunters of playing for status.

    There is a clinical psychologist old lady who authoritatively states attraction to 13-year-olds would not be pedophilia (which is just 0-10), but then trots out “child molestation” and the teen brain myth to nonetheless achieve the normie level of hysteria.

    The token VirPed adds nothing beyond serving as a cliché for how “good” pedos are supposed to hate themselves and not even think about questioning the hysteria.

    The decoy was a real minor girl who says she felt like a victim of the pedo hunters rather than the pedo, plus she is also an opportunist who admits that she too would do anything for status and actually spells out for us how the cultural belief that she was “young and dumb” makes it easy to manipulate people. All she has to do is pose as having the retarded teen brain of myth, which is shown to be such a sham that now even the pedo hunter is accusing her of being smart after she turned on him!

    Yes, the film is tonally inconsistent, at times seeming to willfully expose predator hunting as a fraud and at times falling back to the usual sanctimonious pedo-hating culminating in the nauseating promise to donate the profits to RAINN, which is the filmmaker’s way of pretending he is not playing status games.

    Definitely a comedy, and yes it does expose the cultural hysteria at multiple levels regardless of intent.

    Still not sure how much is based on real events, but if EDP445 is anything like this I give him props despite his flaws for a fair amount of defiance against the law and public hysteria.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The virped is an idiot, he thinks that flagellating himself will get their approval? No, antis will just see it as an invitation to join in on the whipping. Virpeds just want to trade in their prisons cells for insane asylums, its pathetic

      Delete
  4. I find it funny when underaged teens brag about being able to sneak into clubs and pass themselves off as adults. They act like it makes them “special” and “mature” that they, as “children” are able to successfully blend in with “adults”, as if they arent biologically identical to adults?

    Like duh, no shit you as a 16 year old could easily pass as a a young adult and fool all the other adults, you two have the exact same post pubescent brains and post pubescent body types, so obviously you can easily “fool” adults with your looks and behavior into thinking that you are the same(because you are?!?) and according to nature, you two are the exact fucking same.

    The only thing that makes teenagers, specifically post pubsecent ones, special wittle baby children is the government saying that they must be treated like special wittle baby child and sending anyone who doesnt to prison. The only thing that makes them special is the law and our society's collective fear and worship of it, at least compared to young adults…

    Seriously, whats the difference between an ephebophile and a teliophile? Oh right, none whatsoever, because theres no difference between a teenaged “child” and a teenaged/20s “adult”, especially once puberty is complete, which it is for most “girls” by 15. Just legally fabricated hysteria and bullshit created to deny biological grown ups rights and send legal grown ups to prison.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We have covered on my blog before how Tucker Carlson stupidly said the same thing. He is a true believer in the Epstein panic, of course, like all normies, and went beyond that to say he has it all figured out: pedophilia is about the “destruction of innocence” (including the Epstein kind which is not really pedophilia).

    And now this documentary has a supposedly real MAP saying the same thing, which rings incredibly false to those of us who live in the real world. We know this is not how we think and it is instead the antis who obsess over childhood innocence which is their own false construct. So they just took their own silly fear and projected it onto their own cartoonish bogeyman which has nothing to do with real life. MAPs are attracted to attractive people just like everyone else. We just have a different age of attraction, or not even that with regard to teens. If a MAP happens to have some special fascination with innocence it’s not because he is a MAP. I see normies obsessing over body count and virginity far more than MAPs do. MAPs can have fetishes like anyone else and some of them nasty, but they don’t come with the age of attraction.

    I am startled by such statements that MAPs must be motivated by something other than beauty and horniness and positive, loving feelings because it indicates a faulty theory of mind. The antis have explained our attraction away and replaced it with an evil impulse. Evil is all the “pedophile” is allowed to feel. This denial that we have the same positive feelings as everyone else means there is no common ground whatsoever, no way to have a debate in good faith with the normies, when they can’t even acknowledge something so basic as the most obvious reason we are attracted, and not even with regard to the same nubile girls that all normal men are attracted to. It is a metaphysical invalidation and relegation of us into objects of pure hate and that’s all we can be in this ongoing panic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Despite being attracted to younger kids, I have never, in my entire life, been attracted to a child with down syndrome. “But why?” An anti may ask, “down syndrome children are so childish and innocent, even more so than other kids their age.” Because, and I mean no offense to these children, they are fucking ugly. And I say that in a crass and rude way to get my point across. Once again, they are wonderful children and I have nothing against them as people but if I had a choice between fucking an 8 year old with down syndrome and an 80 year old women I would fucking kill myself.

      I have also never been into a morbidly obese child. “But why?” An anti might say. “Morbidly obese children are just as innocent and childish as other kids their age.” Because they are grossly and unhealthily fat to the point where their bodies are unappealing.

      Ive literally seen morbidly obese 5 year olds desperately toddle to mcdonalds behind their parents, too out of breath to play and run around like a normal child, and thought “poor kids parents are feeding her to death, she has a nice face, she wouldve been so hot if she was 40 pounds and not 80.”

      Like when we catch a quick glimpse of kiddy ass while at the beach, no pedo is thinking “ahh yes, innocence”. We are thinking, “ahh yes, tight firm little ass barely covered by a wet swimsuit.”

      Antis value childhood “innocence” more than they value the lives and safety of the child themselves, to the point were they consider the child “ruined” and less than if their culturally imposed “innocence” is tainted in any way, shape, or form. It is the myth that keeps the victim industry and the mandatory legal status and cultural values of childhood upheld and therefore must be shoved into everything, even when it makes no sense.

      Which begs the question, if they think pedophillia is just an obession with “destroying innocence”, and they also want virpeds to submit to “treatment”. How do they expect to give “treatment” to virpedophiles?

      If pedophillia has no biological or neurological basis and is just an obssession with “innocence” then things like therapy/“help” for pedophiles and prevention project dunkfeild and even the classification of pedophillia as a mental illness makes zero sense since, in their own words, its not biological and is just a fascination with innocence.

      How do you give “treatment” to someone if you believe their “illness” isnt even rooted in objective biology? How do you “treat” a fascination with “destroying innocence”? Why give virpedophiles “medicine”, which aims to treat biology, if their “disorder” has zero biological basis and only exist as an “evil” fascination with innocence?

      Delete
  6. Well said, thanks. The idea that pedophiles are driven by a wish to "destroy innocence" makes less sense the more we think about it, and the more testimonies we hear from real people who are attracted to children.

    And yes, this supposed motivation makes "treatment" even more absurd. The fact that virtuous pedophiles are already "morally" cured yet remain pedophiles means pedophilia was never a moral deviance to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In America these people succeed because they embody the ideal of the average American: obsessed with sex, indifferent to violence and suffering except in the context of entertainment, and blind to love and human relationships. And naturally, in their videos, they choose people who validate their agenda; if Chris Hansen and his buddies were to interview someone like Tom O’Carroll on an equal footing, they would slink away with their tails between their legs and take three years of sick leave.

      Delete
  7. Is it that difficult for anynomouses to choose a pseudo out of mere politeness so that people who read them know who is who ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is staged of course, but I want to comment on the concept it promotes:

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LJr7XloZdGY

    Harassing a 14-year-old girl for being too young and sexy in shorts, and hands-on “helping” her cover herself more up by tying a bandana around her.

    And the normies love it judging by the comments and likes. “Keep them protected and pure!”

    What is mindboggling to me here is that all this interest in how sexy she looks somehow does not count as “sexualizing.” Only predators do that, and the rest are merely “protecting” as if they are vicariously modeling predators and feel none of that attraction themselves, only a drive to “help” and never mind how harassing that is too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Y’all gotta see this legendary video! I don’t think anyone here has seen it, but it’s oh so satisfying.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLnzpHn-3eg&ra=m

    A daycare owner calls Chris Hansen “evil”, “a demon”, and “a piece of shit” before kicking him out for disrupting his business.

    I’m so glad that there are sane people out there who don’t buy into Chris Hansen’s bullshit, let alone call him out for who he really is: A fickle, sanctimonious bastard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was good to see. So, besides catching “predators” Hansen was at some point also into harassing men who worked with children for having old irrelevant criminal records. Even the YouTube commenters are not all kissing his ass for this but instead mostly calling him out too. He has the normies’ blessing to dish out any and all troubles to “predators” identified by a strict formula of deceit but not gratuitously bring up criminal records and try to construe predators that way:

      This is awful....acting like u gave him a chance to explain...he didn't need to...he did all he had to ...it's Chris Hansen after money trying to destroy lives that have been rebuilt....how can ppl change if years after their still dragged down by someone just for money....I like Chris Hansen...this has put me off him....so catching the predators not out of a good heart like I thought....he cashing in.

      This is a very different reception than the ritual pedo hunting that the normies love, showing us clearly the importance of the ritual itself, so I guess Hansen wisely stuck to the usual formula from then on, obviously seeking status by whatever will please the normies and not at all caring about “justice” like he says. With regard to actual justice there is clearly a moral expectation that one is entitled to be rehabilitated after serving one’s sentence for non-sexual crimes and does not deserve endless tormenting by self-appointed sanctimonious pricks like the pedos do just for thinking about breaking the law. I wish the normies could snap out of the pedo panic too and see it as even more baseless than criminal records, but anyway, it’s still satisfying to see Chris Hansen kicked out of that daycare:

      I'm embarrassed for you, you're a slug. All of you, get the hell off my property! Good day from Storybook Ranch, you guys are pieces of fucking garbage, and hell awaits!

      Delete
  10. Hansen really looked like a fool in that clip! I'm sure it's not the first time Hansen was made to look like a complete fool also by p3d0s. He just dont want you to see those confrontations so it's never released to the public.
    I know p3d0s can be tough as nails, but that is never portrayed in the media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To tell you the truth…

      I’m adamant that 99% of the men caught in Hansen’s shows aren’t actual, legitimate pedophiles.

      And just like those real sex stings where the decoys are never actually minors, the men arrested in the shows (TCAP, Takedown, etc.) are probably just naive, emotionally immature and socially awkward — while dealing with unrequited intimacy in their personal lives. Clearly not the “mastermind predators”, as much as the world wants you to believe. They are the type of people who lack some social intelligence (clairvoyance) to see that they are easily being duped, which is why they fall for these things without a second thought.

      I’m just shocked that anyone caught hasn’t attempted to attack Chris Hansen (at least not that I know of) in retaliation. If I knew that my life was being ruined and humiliated for the entertainment of millions, I wouldn't hesitate to strike back. But alas, they just sit there, begging, crying, or denying —thinking the police and Chris Hansen are gonna have a change of heart and let them go. Clearly not of course, which is why, if I was in their shoes, I would take my chances to avenge and bring honor to the real victims (the men caught in these stings).

      Delete