Dear stormfags (assuming we even have that in a place as free as masterchan). When you say you are against 'degeneracy', it means you are in favor of doing what is 'natural'. Well, do I even have to explain myself further? Just look at the picture. If you want women to shave their armpits, you are being a degenerate. In your life you hardly ever do what is 'natural'. Don't use that as an excuse, it makes you look stupid as fuck.
>>4350 Yes, people who shave their pubic areas or armpits are full on degenerates, whats your point
>>4352 This, people who like shaved bodies are usually pedophiles as young girls are hairless. >>4350 You hit the nail right on the head, OP. Shaving is degenerate.
>>4350 Hair on a woman hides something. I need to lick that something.
>>4379 degenerate, pleasing a woman is a form of worship
>>4350 Degeneracy is when you used to have something good/functional but no longer. E.g. whatever is blamed for higher divorce rates is degenerate to those who think the traditional family is good, regardless of whether or not the traditional family is natural. Don't conflate 'natural' with 'degenerate'; it makes you look stupid as fuck.
>>4350 Nice naturalistic fallacy. Civilization is not "natural" but still works in our favor. Actions that damage the integrity of civilization are degenerate,
>>4367 This. So I'm sure that masterchan is all about it. Plenty of women look nice with armpit hair. Plenty don't, as with pretty much anything.
Not a stormfag but neutral on the shaving thing. Hair is a sign that a female is too old. Puberty ruins females and hair is a sign of it.
I see it as a matter of practicality. If you live in a warm environment wouldn't it make sense to shave to stay cooler?
>>5225 Nobody cares about your pedophillic opinions.
>>5238 Then turn a muhammad an go marry little children. >inb4 he already was
anonymity is unnatural
>>4350 so long as it is well trimmed I don't mind hair, id prefer shaved armpits, and your logic is shit. 2/10 thread, terrible bait.
>>4350 there's a difference between the active emasculation of men and the encouragement of masculine traits in females, and the women reprising their roles as natural caregivers in the family, and the encouragement of natural femininity. women advocates for body hair typically do so not out of any genuine interest in the natural order, but as part of a larger agenda. "degeneracy" is addressing the latter.
Poison is natural. Radioactivity is natural. Cancer is natural.
Degeneration = what breaks down our societies. Shitskins might as well reproduce like fish, they don't invest near as much care into their children, and they won't freeze to death every winter because poor planning. If shitskins don't have Arcteryx or North Face jackets in northern latitudes or supermarkets, they will die just like our ancestors who planned poorly. Eventually the genes selected in Europe left an appreciation of beauty, a respect of women, preponderance of ideals, future-time orientation to months and years, and thinking before acting. Something you just don't find in shitskins. They see a blue-blood woman and think "shiksa, toy, impregnate." A white man thinks of courtship first, and most modernly how the anti-white government will fuck him over if he breeds or tries family. Did you never think of what husband means? Animal husbandry? Same shit. It's good to be a shitskin in modern Western nations; but not a Native. And no, Amerindians are not native. They genocided early seafaring European settlers.
>>4367 >Shaving is degenerate Does this turn you on? (yes they are all women)
>>6030 >They genocided early seafaring European settlers. Trufax, evidenced by the complete lack of Europeans in North America today.
>>4350 I think you have that backwards. It seems degeneracy would probably be defined as doing what you want to do rather than what you should do. Or more easily said, acting like an animal.
>>6046 Not the same guy but god damn this turns me on. I would never let my gf shave anywhere if I had one.
Women have much less hair than men and have been losing it faster and faster from natural selection, we have evolved to prefer less hairy mates. The very soft body hair that some women have is much preferred to thick coarse black hairs, were all of your ancestors pedophiles because they preferred softer/paler body hair? No it's just attractive and you people look too much into this kind of thing. Small feet = more estrogen, being a pedophile is being attracted to undeveloped (read as no secondary sexual characteristics) females.
>>5225 Hey I posted that gif on 8chan the other day c: As for the rest of you "chums", it's suprising to see how different everybody's opinions are on what is and isn't degenerate. The fact you aren't all agreeing hairy women are disgusting is almost shocking tbh. I believe women should strive to be feminine and males should strive to be masculine. That being said, body hair is is a male charcteristic. I think women who don't shave are pretty degenerate not to mention pretty damn disgusting. The type of women who don't shave are usually feminists who don't strive for anything, they cry about how they are oppressed and want everything to be handed to them instead of putting in the work to actually excel they choose to to blame their lack of achievement on "muh patriarchy". While I do understand that body hair is natural and every woman has it. We live in the twenty first century... we have evolved from our primal ancestors by striving to be better in every aspect of our lives, grooming included. Women who do not groom are just moving backwards not forward. Which imo is degenerate...
>>6124 >masterchan chums not pedo's >site gets shut down for stalking loli I'm assuming your joking and that interpols is just a dank MC meme.
>>6131 >>site gets shut down for stalking loli explain?
>>6046 I dont know why but that's so fucking cute and I'm not even a furry
>>6123 >masterchan's opinion You're on a forum of anonymous individuals not a single hivemind called Anonymous.
>>6131 No one from here was stalking anyone. It was some German who went on his creepy little trip of his own volition and without encouragement from anyone before the first board dedicated to who you're talking about was made. You make it sound like there was some site-wide effort to stalk them.
>>6124 Nigga, I think you the minority around here. And sex with children helps them become mature and well groomed for adulthood - childrens first words are from adults, first potty, first real food, probably first exposure to wine, first exposure to art...why would we say "sex is too important to have with kids, so lets let them fuck and figure it out and post pics on the internet - that follows all the other milestones we have helped her through." The master race will allow for sex with children.
>>6162 this is what chesters actually believe
>>6162 >>6163 I've heard it happens in Japan between mothers and sons. No idea how accurate the info was though.
Most chesters were actually raped themselves as kids so they want children to experience the pain they felt.
>>6165 False, but also maybe they are just trying to share an awareness they gained. Lots of people have sex with other kids or adults at a young age and grow up just fine. You act like there has to be violence or there is some spiritual element to sex - when horses or crackheads have sex, is god smiling down upon them blessing their righteous bonding as god breathed and a blessing?
>>4350 >Being against degeneracy means you are for doing what is natural You are wrong. Being against degeneracy (what is inherently bad for a people) means you are for what is good. Shaving pits has fuck all to do with degeneracy. This particular trend varies from culture to culture (among all races, not just us whites) depending on what that culture sees desirable in a woman. Being against degeneracy means I will do what is good for my people, a subset of my race. Shaving pits has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Storm fags are opposed to men marrying female children. Yet they claim "tradition" >In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895). Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920. >Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate) Why are storm faggots opposed to man+girl instinctively? They are all celts and gauls. Their women think for them. Always have, 2000 years ago, today, same. ----- That is because they, and all northern europeans were always pro-woman and pro-nature (and anti-unnatural). The woman shitting out 1000 kids, that is natural and pro-woman and is what the woman wants to do. The man dying for the woman: again what the woman wants. The man with a cute young girl: not natural (better than nature), the woman doesn't want this. The white man (that is the gauls, celts, not the Mediterranean people etc) has "always" been nothing more than a golem of the white woman. In his element the white peoples only managed to construct mud and straw huts. During the wars between Rome and the barbarians in Gaul, it was written that the women in Gaul would block the men from fleeing battle with their ox carts. The women decided that the men would fight or die: the men were not to have the agency to save themselves to live to see another day. The women decided this. The men obeyed (you're not a MAN if you don't! (not a white man anyway)). The white man is a golem of the white woman. He follows her directive. He always has. He was then. He is now. The same spirit resides within the white nationalists. They always have been allies of women and enemies of men. Marry Little Girls. Kill Feminists. Remeber: At the end of Rome, when the had barbarians more and more influence, it was said "Rome rules the world. Women rule Rome". A civilization is the outward projection of the soul of the race that runs it. Once the white man (the barbarians, the gauls, etc) took over rome, it was their genetic predisposition that shown: to be a vessel for the enforcement of the will of women: No Child brides. Man Dies for the woman. Pedo is the worst thing. Men are "beasts" (animals), not thinkers, drawn only by natural urges, not beauty. To aspire to anything greater than nature is unnatural and must be surpessed: >Where there is the choice between the Doric column and the rock. >The white man chooses the rock.
>Europe left an appreciation of beauty, a respect of women, >a respect of women, Fuck you. This is why stormtards must go.
>Did you never think of what husband means? Animal husbandry? Same shit. The hebrew in the Bible doesn't say "husband" retard. It says: Ba'al: __Master__ Go read Deuteronomy I hope the muslims destroy your woman culture. You just worship the white woman, and make sure no white man can ever get a young white _girl_
>were all of your ancestors pedophiles because they preferred softer/paler body hair? No Yes they were. Men could marry girl children until feminism (mid 1870s on)
>>6439 lol feminism has truly destroyed families now females carry sperms of all kinds of chads and betas microchimerism won.
>>4350 so is murder, rape, thievery, incest, and a handful of other things god you're retarded
>>6456 are you really from 'pol' ? >what are timestamps
Ooohhhh nnnooooo your invading my safespace la la la not listening.
>>6456 No, women not shaving their armpits is not only not aesthetic, which is something we typically enjoy in people, but it is also not traditional. Seriously niggas. I was told this was better than the actual /pol/.
>>6463 >outlander >>6467 I couldn't say it better. SJWs and nazis have exactly the same mindset.
>>4350 degenerate doesn't mean unnatural ya' dummy go get pegged by harry armpit girls
>>6467 >Tribes, gangs and shamans is as traditional as you can get. Do you not know what tradition is? There is no "human" tradition, different countries have their own traditions. Please tell me when the west has had shamans, to my knowledge we have had christian priests for the entirety of our civilization. Perhaps you are thinking of africans. Tribes and gangs are pretty much the same thing, and ultimately we still have them. Nations are really just large tribes. >You know, before we had civil rights, liberties and civilization. Civilization isn't a tradition, but something a group of people can obtain. It's not "we're going to be a civilization because it's tradition" but "we do these things, and that leads to us being a civilization" As for civil rights and liberties, those are very much tradition. Tradition isn't set in stone, if it were then all nations would have the same traditions, but that's not what happens. The magna carta was written in 1215, the idea of liberty is very much a tradition, at least for the west. >You're just a SJW-type of person trying to force others to do what you are not offended by. How is that person trying to force anything? Arguing in favor for or against something is not forcing anyone to do something. >>6469 Interesting out the outlander is able to present a refutation, while all you can do with your account is fire off ad hominems.
>>4350 The problem with this is that being "natural" has essentially nothing to do with this woman's actions. Traditions change, become culturally outmoded, etc; but fundamentally, the issue is not so much what specific behaviors are culturally accepted as the fact that a given culture HAS acceptable and unacceptable behavior expectations. Today, in modern Western culture, we have adopted the idea that armpit hair on a woman is unattractive. What this woman is doing is not so much an attempt to be more "natural", but an attempt to deliberately defy accepted cultural beauty standards for no other reason than to do it. If she succeeds in overturning our beauty standards and hairy armpits become the new standard, this woman's granddaughter will probably rebel by SHAVING her own armpits. The irony is that this girl is probably a lot more obsessed with the concept of tradition than any of the "stormfags" you're attempting to bait. The problem is that we "stormfags" get focused on the degeneracy of this sort of thing and react to it, which means all we end up doing is giving this girl the attention she is seeking in the first place. Make no mistake, this girl's behavior is degenerate. However, the degeneracy has nothing really to do with whether or not she chooses to shave her armpits; neither hairy armpits or shaven armpits have any significance on their own. The degeneracy here is less her armpit hair and more the way in which society currently indulges this kind of crap and gives credibility to it by addressing it as if it were an intellectual statement of some kind. The truth is there is no intellectual statement here; this photograph is this girl's way of saying "Pay attention to me, guys!" There is literally nothing more to it than that.
>>6472 >outlander opinion discarded
>>5205 Good job confusing the naturalistic fallacy with the appeal to nature fallacy. One is "Anything that is not natural is not good". The other states that an ought doesn't follow from an is.The naturalistic fallacy is applicable to anything that is, such as civilization. "Civilization is, there for it is good and ought to be". I know your post is old as shit, but I threw up a little in my mouth when I read it. Degenerate fuckwit.
>>6473 1) Golden Rule: When discussing anything, use arguments to explain your position. Saying an opinion is right/wrong or that something is good/bad without justification is frowned upon. This rule exists to inspire a culture where users expect arguments from posters, to prevent viral marketeers/shills and also to prevent people from making accusations of them.
>>6476 Nobody cares about the rule 1 newfag, there are no repercussions for breaking it.
>>4350 I am a str8 white male who finds 12 yr olds attractive. not all of them of course dont like niggers muslims or any lesser stock. i think it is a prime age for a relationship with a female, still fun not jaded and still act like girls,they havent been brainwashed by fat hairy butch lezbos yet.
TLC will weigh in here, all arguments like this are POINTLESS
>>7342 Back to your containment board spammer!
>>7344 what board is that?
>>7338 A racist pedo huh? You are just sub human trash. Glad you can't get any young pussy.
>>7346 Found the nigger
>>7346 Fuck you Outlander degenerate, go back to worshiping kikes and burning coal you mongoloid.
>>7352 >replying to an 8 month old post Is you bored?
>>7353 You almost make it sound as if that’s a weird thing to do here on Masterchan chum.
>>7354 why even try at this point?
>>7355 Try what at this point?
>>7356 to get dubs >>7355 CHECKED!
>>7357 LMFAO!!! Okay now this is epic!!!
sometimes all a man can do is shit post
>>4350 based nigger, it's not just about naturality, it's about human naturalism. It is natural for a woman to shave her armpits
The body of a little girl is more easily damaged by (attempts at) sex from an adult male partner than that of an adult woman. her soft, developing bones will break or permanently deform, her tissues and nervous system will tear and sustain lasting damage in response to (attempted) penetration of any of her orifices, her weak and undeveloped immune system will contract diseases so easily it is possible for her to become very sick by an adult male who is by all normal standards completely healthy. Her body is weak and undeveloped, far less than an adult woman who is already at a significant disadvantage to you, the difference in strength, weight, and size is so large that it becomes easy to seriously harm her by accident outside of situations where you are in the course of trying to have sex with her while trying to take the limitations of her youth into account. going full-bore and trying to have your way with her as if she were a willing adult woman will absolutely destroy her and pose very significant threat to her health and life, you could fucking cripple her for life, or kill her without intending to, and if she freezes up in response to fear, she will not tell you when she is in pain even when you ask her to.
what's more, before her brain develops to the point where true sexuality manifests, she will have no cognitive ability to comprehend the full implications of sex that even a low-IQ adult woman would be able to understand. - And yes, this does mean that she will suffer lasting psychological damage and trauma from even the most gentle and well-intended adult male partners, not as a result of the intolerance of society to adult-child relationships, but precisely because of the reasons this intolerance has come about in out societies in the first place, as an adult, she would not have consented to things she gave her consent to in the past, and this means that she will retroactively understand her experiences as rape, even in a society that discourages such thinking, because she will do so on a very basic and fundamental level, and to do otherwise is to willing delude herself as to the reality of what had actually happened ("I would have consented now to what I consented to then" "I was as capable of consenting as I am now", etc.)
Her brain's lack of a sexual component also provides significant limitations to what she can do as well, a woman can enjoy gagging on a cock because her brain's sexual center is using her sexual excitement to interpret the experience as pleasurable, a little girl's brain has no sexual center, at least, not one anywhere near as well developed as an adult woman, so her brain is just going to perceive this as her being choked to death, same when a woman's brain reinterprets the stimulation of being penetrated vaginally or anally, to her it's just pain, overwhelmingly terrifying pain, to be resisted on an instinctual flight-freeze-or-fight level, she will cry and scream and kick and bite and do whatever she can to either bear through this or get herself away from it, and she will do so from a primal animalistic level. This extends to her brains reaction to anything that could potentially cause her harm, such as being eaten out or anything that involves her exposing her system to another human's bodily fluids, which carries the risk of contracting disease, and thus the basic evolved neurological reaction of disgust and fear, her brain telling her "avoid this", all because she cannot process this form of experience pleasurably due to the as-of-yet-underdeveloped sexual center of her brain.
All this without going to the central matter of the opposition: that human children are designed by evolution to possess the tendency to follow the instructions of their surrounding adults without resistance, to the point where they will be likely to believe things they were told to be true by adults as children for the rest of their lives even when they have to ignore the most obvious evidence that these things they had learned are complete falsehoods. This is what we get from having a long period of gestation and maturation to make up for our large and complex brains, and highly specialized bodies, we must be protected for most of our existence and so it is best that we develop to follow and internalize the orders of adults without questioning as a matter of life or death. All this means that a little girl will be very lacking in neurological ability to resist your commands, even those delivered in the most uncertain and open-ended ways will strongly influence her to cooperate with what she perceives you as desiring from her. You hold more sway over her little undeveloped brain than you can possibly realize, and you say much more than you think you do when she is evolutionary adapted to read your every whim and adapt her behavior to it accordingly, most of what you will say to her verbally will come in the form of subtext or implication, and the large majority of what you communicate to her as a whole will come from non-verbal communication and subtle non-verbal cues that not even you may be aware of.
fuck you pedofags, the science itself refutes you. yes, sex with children is inherently harmful to them, and this is why the more k-selected races of humanity have an instinctual moral and physical reaction of disgust to this, this is because we have few children and invest heavily in them, so the loss of one girl is far greater to us than to other types of humans. r-selected types of humans, however, have lots of kids and invest very little into them, so they are much more permissive to the idea of an adult man rubbing his junk against a little girl's cunt or bum due to the fact that she is so small he cannot get his cock into her, even in cases where it's smaller than a normal adult males (looking at you, Pajeet), and has to settle for hot-dogging the vaginal slit or anal crease as his closest remaining option. There is a reason most people think Muhammad molested Aisha for as long as he was in contact with her, despite being said to have first had sex with her at nine, because sex is defined strictly as penis in vagina penetration and nine was the earliest age at which he could manage to get his little thingy inside of her.
>>7835 We'll break her bones? I know plenty of people who've had sex as kids, and even been raped as kids, and they're - at least physically - fully functional. Even their little pussies work as they should. You sound pretty psychotic, so I'm going to have to ask you for some sources for your claims. >>7836 >true sexuality >full implications of sex This is a No True Scotsman fallacy. >she will suffer lasting psychological damage and trauma Speaking from my own experience, the only think I suffer from, is anti-pedos like you. >not as a result of the intolerance of society to adult-child relationships, but precisely because of the reasons this intolerance has come about in out societies in the first place, No, there's a study in the Amos thread that refutes exactly this claim. Do you want me to link it? >as an adult, she would not have consented to things she gave her consent to in the past, and this means that she will retroactively understand her experiences as rape, So what? Have you never done weird and stupid things as a kid? I don't care that some guy fucked me. I was just a kid. I didn't know any better. I've also been raped as an adult, and that something completely different. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you absolute lunatic. >to do otherwise is to willing delude herself as to the reality of what had actually happened So YOU define it as rape, and so SHE has to define it as rape. "She just has to." You're so full of bullshit.
>>7837 >Her brain's lack of a sexual component also provides significant limitations to what she can do as well, a woman can enjoy gagging on a cock because her brain's sexual center is using her sexual excitement to interpret the experience as pleasurable, a little girl's brain has no sexual center, at least, not one anywhere near as well developed as an adult woman, so her brain is just going to perceive this as her being choked to death, Then don't gag kids on your cock, if she doesn't want to? After all, there's two people involved here. Even as adults, you ask before you ram your cock into a woman's mouth. Some people don't like that, and I - for one - don't like to be rough in bed either. >same when a woman's brain reinterprets the stimulation of being penetrated vaginally or anally, to her it's just pain, overwhelmingly terrifying pain, to be resisted on an instinctual flight-freeze-or-fight level, she will cry and scream and kick and bite and do whatever she can to either bear through this or get herself away from it, and she will do so from a primal animalistic level. Look: Even two year olds gasp in pleasure from being fingered. They literally beg for more. They're not screaming or crying. They're genuinely loving it and feeling pleasure. You're just making shit up.
>>7838 >human children are designed by evolution to possess the tendency to follow the instructions of their surrounding adults without resistance, to the point where they will be likely to believe things they were told to be true by adults as children for the rest of their lives even when they have to ignore the most obvious evidence that these things they had learned are complete falsehoods. So what you're saying is that if you have sex with her, and she likes it, then she'll like sex as an adult. ...and the problem is... ..what exactly? The problem is that this form of sex doesn't fit into your narrow worldview, and that sounds more like a you problem. >All this means that a little girl will be very lacking in neurological ability to resist your commands, even those delivered in the most uncertain and open-ended ways will strongly influence her to cooperate with what she perceives you as desiring from her. Children have been known to initiate sexual contact of their own free will. I've initiated sexual contact myself as a kid. What is this schizophrenic bullshit you're spewing, and why is there just no end to it? Everything that you're saying here, is a bunch of lies. None of it is true. Even scientific studies disproves you.
>>7839 >fuck you pedofags, the science itself refutes you. Source, please. ...not that I've got time to read them, but at least you'll sound a bit more credible. >the more k-selected races of humanity have an instinctual moral and physical reaction of disgust to this, this is because we have few children and invest heavily in them, so the loss of one girl is far greater to us than to other types of humans. ...or more likely, we're more overprotective of our kids, because we don't want to let them elope with serial killers or actual rapists. ...and so we see predators where there are none. >has to settle for hot-dogging the vaginal slit or anal crease as his closest remaining option. I hear that even adults love doing this with eachother, but I guess "that's not the true white christian way". >There is a reason most people think Muhammad molested Aisha for as long as he was in contact with her, despite being said to have first had sex with her at nine, because sex is defined strictly as penis in vagina penetration and nine was the earliest age at which he could manage to get his little thingy inside of her. As I said: From my experience, pleasuring a two year old is just fine: They love it. I'm an actual expert on this subject. You're not.
It's amazing what a delusional fantasy world antipedos live in, where kids just explode if you poke them in the pus. I wonder how the human race survived back in medieval times, when having kids of your own at the age of 15, was perfectly normal. People must have just exploded left and right. "They're just rigged to explode, I'm tellin' ya! Don't poke 'em in the pus - they'll die!"