Topic: Eric Hufschmid on the gender double-standard between inherent female pedophilia & male rape hysteria
+Dr. Autphag !MLHqI35Srs — 12.9 years ago #27,152
Our favourite conspiracy theorist is back with some more illuminating opinions about the nature of our world.Women enjoy looking at babies, but we don't ridicule them for it. We don't describe women as looking at "pornography" when they titillate themselves with babies. What is the difference between a woman who is titillated by a baby, and a man who is titillated by a woman? I don't think there is much of a difference.
I don't think there is a dividing line between men and women. Our bodies are built according to the same blueprint, but there are subtle differences in the manner in which our parts develop. I think our brains are also built according to the same blueprint. However, different parts of our brain develop slightly differently. The emotion that causes a woman to be attracted to a baby seems to be the same emotion that a man has, except that in a man, it is directed towards women.
I think women will get a better understanding of men if they can consider that a man's attraction to a woman is very similar to their attraction to a baby. Women enjoy looking at babies, smelling babies, and playing with babies. Women want to touch babies and hug babies. Women want to show their babies to other women. I think that men have the same emotional cravings, but it is directed towards adult women instead of babies. The main difference between us is that when we start touching and smelling women, we may become sexually titillated. A woman could understand the difference between us if she imagines herself touching and playing with a baby and suddenly finding herself becoming sexually attracted to the baby.
I have the impression that many women believe that the reason men want to look at them and touch them is because of our sexual cravings, but I don't think that is true. I think the emotion that causes us to enjoy looking at and touching women is the same emotion that women have that causes them to want to look at and touch babies. It is not our sexual emotions that causes us to enjoy women. Our sexual emotion is very crude and "stupid". It doesn't care what we have sex with. Men can be sexually satisfied with animals, watermelons, robots, other men, or inflatable dolls. I think that if we could remove the sexual emotions from a man's brain, he would continue to enjoy looking at pretty women and still have a craving to touch them.
Since there is only one blueprint for a human mind, it is conceivable that the portion of our brain that gives women a strong attraction to children accidentally develops too much in a man. This will cause him to have us abnormally strong desire to look at, touch, hug, and kiss children. He would not have a sexual attraction to children, but a man's penis is "stupid", so it will response to virtually anything that is soft and warm. Therefore, even though his attraction to children would be the same, harmless attraction that women have, if he doesn't have good control over his sexual cravings, he could become what we refer to as a "pedophile".
I don't think there is a dividing line between men and women. Our bodies are built according to the same blueprint, but there are subtle differences in the manner in which our parts develop. I think our brains are also built according to the same blueprint. However, different parts of our brain develop slightly differently. The emotion that causes a woman to be attracted to a baby seems to be the same emotion that a man has, except that in a man, it is directed towards women.
I think women will get a better understanding of men if they can consider that a man's attraction to a woman is very similar to their attraction to a baby. Women enjoy looking at babies, smelling babies, and playing with babies. Women want to touch babies and hug babies. Women want to show their babies to other women. I think that men have the same emotional cravings, but it is directed towards adult women instead of babies. The main difference between us is that when we start touching and smelling women, we may become sexually titillated. A woman could understand the difference between us if she imagines herself touching and playing with a baby and suddenly finding herself becoming sexually attracted to the baby.
I have the impression that many women believe that the reason men want to look at them and touch them is because of our sexual cravings, but I don't think that is true. I think the emotion that causes us to enjoy looking at and touching women is the same emotion that women have that causes them to want to look at and touch babies. It is not our sexual emotions that causes us to enjoy women. Our sexual emotion is very crude and "stupid". It doesn't care what we have sex with. Men can be sexually satisfied with animals, watermelons, robots, other men, or inflatable dolls. I think that if we could remove the sexual emotions from a man's brain, he would continue to enjoy looking at pretty women and still have a craving to touch them.
Since there is only one blueprint for a human mind, it is conceivable that the portion of our brain that gives women a strong attraction to children accidentally develops too much in a man. This will cause him to have us abnormally strong desire to look at, touch, hug, and kiss children. He would not have a sexual attraction to children, but a man's penis is "stupid", so it will response to virtually anything that is soft and warm. Therefore, even though his attraction to children would be the same, harmless attraction that women have, if he doesn't have good control over his sexual cravings, he could become what we refer to as a "pedophile".
+Morbid !lXogePA8Q6 — 12.9 years ago, 13 minutes later[T] [B] #318,820
ffs motherfucker looks like an alien·Dr. Autphag !MLHqI35Srs (OP) — 12.9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #318,822
@previous (Morbid !lXogePA8Q6)
Average sized braincase for a full-blooded German. Sorry that your brain is all microcephalically celtic.
Average sized braincase for a full-blooded German. Sorry that your brain is all microcephalically celtic.
+Anonymous C — 12.9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #318,824
@previous (Dr. Autphag !MLHqI35Srs)
You have scientific data to support this claim? You have taken measurements yourself and compared them to Morbid's? Please share the data with everyone or, better yet, point us to the scholarly publication in which your study was published.
Please reply with nothing else but your findings or link to published work, otherwise everyone might think you are just firing out insults like some type of autistic closeted tranny lover.
You have scientific data to support this claim? You have taken measurements yourself and compared them to Morbid's? Please share the data with everyone or, better yet, point us to the scholarly publication in which your study was published.
Please reply with nothing else but your findings or link to published work, otherwise everyone might think you are just firing out insults like some type of autistic closeted tranny lover.
·Dr. Autphag !MLHqI35Srs (OP) — 12.9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #318,825
@previous (C)
I've measured my own skull, its circumference stands at 60.5 cm.
I can judge the distance of Eric Hufschmid's skull, who has posted a full craniofacial profile over on the Neanderthal section of his website, to be around 63 cm.
I'm a Celto-Germanic hybrid whilst he is fully German, it stands to reason.
I've measured my own skull, its circumference stands at 60.5 cm.
I can judge the distance of Eric Hufschmid's skull, who has posted a full craniofacial profile over on the Neanderthal section of his website, to be around 63 cm.
I'm a Celto-Germanic hybrid whilst he is fully German, it stands to reason.
·Anonymous C — 12.9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #318,826
@previous (Dr. Autphag !MLHqI35Srs)
Thank you for the data about you and Eric. How does this compare to the measurements you took from Morbid? I find it interesting that you rely on your eyes as an instrument to measure distance of a person's skull. Please tell us more about your calibrated eyes as well as what the word circumference means to you.
Thank you for the data about you and Eric. How does this compare to the measurements you took from Morbid? I find it interesting that you rely on your eyes as an instrument to measure distance of a person's skull. Please tell us more about your calibrated eyes as well as what the word circumference means to you.
·Dr. Autphag !MLHqI35Srs (OP) — 12.9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #318,827
@previous (C)
The perimeter of the head, from the supraorbital frontale brow to the midpoint of the occipital ridge across the bitemporal walls. That seems pretty commonsensical to me, I can't imagine why you asked for clarification except in the hope that you could make me appear stupid when I doubt you've even looked into phrenology as thoroughly as I have. Morbid's skull will be of decreased circumference again in commensuration with the increase in Celtic blood.
The perimeter of the head, from the supraorbital frontale brow to the midpoint of the occipital ridge across the bitemporal walls. That seems pretty commonsensical to me, I can't imagine why you asked for clarification except in the hope that you could make me appear stupid when I doubt you've even looked into phrenology as thoroughly as I have. Morbid's skull will be of decreased circumference again in commensuration with the increase in Celtic blood.
+Anonymous D — 12.9 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #318,828
+*insert random faggot here* — 12.9 years ago, 31 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #318,829
not really a double standard if the gender is designed for it
·Dr. Autphag !fvna3QzWVM — 12.9 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #318,830
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 12.9 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #318,832
·Anonymous C — 12.9 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #318,837
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.