Thread #2728

>>2861
Self publicising? By refusing to give out my Chaturbate account, my tumblr, or to take pictures specifically for this board? Boy, what a desperate, desperate whore.

>>2862
Do you realize how fucking ridiculous it sounds to cite a CHATURBATE account as proof that you are not self-publicizing? I can't imagine that anyone who gives a fuck - a category that will mostly consist of ex-/b/tards who want to mock and revile you - will have the least difficulty in finding you on Chaturbate. The whole POINT of Chaturbate, for God's sake, is shoving your ugly tits in people's faces.

>>2863
Do you realize how ridiculous YOU sound?

I didn't bring it up, someone asked me about it and I DECLINED to give it out.

But by all means, keep repeating the same tired old lies. Maybe someone will believe you and then you might be so happy as to forget for a moment how sad and pathetic your life is.

>>2864
You are missing the point - surely deliberately. The idea of you "keeping your Chaturbate account secret" is a ridiculous idea because you know perfectly well that anyone who is interested in watching you there will find you within 24 hours anyway. All your "nostalgic paedophile" fanbase already know that you perform on MyFreeCams so it won't take long for the word to get around that you are also on Chaturbate. And just in case there were a possibility that it WOULD take a while, well lookee here, you have just gone and ANNOUNCED - "by accident", I'm sure - that you are now performing there too.
This was news to me - though not any news that I give the tiniest fuck about. I will say, though, that there is no doubt in my mind that you will be pushing yourself on Chaturbate on the basis of the same Conspicuous Selling Point that you pushed yourself on on MyFreeCams, namely: "Look, it's me, the 'famous' ex-pin-up-girl for the global paedophile community". In this light, needless to say, I find it absolutely disgusting to see you pretending to shiver with moral disgust over paedophilia.
If you are really sincere about not feeding or encouraging such perverts, the only rational and decent thing for YOU to do - given that your experience at MyFreeCams should have taught you that you will ALWAYS be "Loli-Chan", no matter how fat and bosom-y you get - is just DON'T WHORE YOURSELF ABOUT ON THE INTERNET. But you are never going to stop doing that, are you, whatever consequences it might have for "the wider society" as well as yourself? It feeds your ego and feeds - if only at breadline levels - your bank account. Then cut the fucking crap about sexual ethics and politics, will you?
Or rather, as I said above, just fuck off altogether.

>>2865
dude, why does it bother you so much that Dolly posts here. This is a disturbing brand of obsession

>>2865
>pretending to shiver with moral disgust over paedophilia.
I'm with you there except for the disgust pert. I find it hypocritical and annoying

>>2866
I'm a funny old guy that way. ANY example of sustained hypocrisy and two-faced moral playacting annoys the hell out of me and I speak out against it. (If you have been part of this Cracky thing for more than a couple of weeks you should know this. I have conducted years-long battles on Cracky boards against other people besides Dolly).
She is a nasty, two-faced, pathologically self-obsessed person who has - a quick glance over the past few pages of the board will confirm this for you - been using this place to carry on her endless boring campaign of "I'm a sweet happy girl with a wonderful wondeful life and everybody loves me" campaign of bullshit. That alone is reason enough to oppose her.
And once again, I suppose, whoever you are Anon, we are coming up against this problem that - just because it takes you a day and a half to squeeze out three lines of text - you assume it takes me that long too.
Dolly and her crap are a fly I can swat in passing - and I intend to continue doing so.

Please love me, Alex.
It means so much to me.

>>2867
Yes, although I tell myself that it is not wise to do this even as I set about doing it, I am too personally honest a man to pass over what you are saying in silence (assuming, that is, that you are the guy who has been pointing out in this thread that, before the 1920s, male sexual attraction to pubescent girls was not generally perceived as a problem) or to deny that your point is basically well taken.
The current atmosphere of moral panic and growing mob hysteria about "paedophiles" IS annoying and disgusting to me too.
I suppose that it can be fairly strongly argued that, even if what you say is true (and as I say, I think it is) that no such sensibilities about sexual attraction to early teenage girls existed 100 or 200 years ago, the last 100 or 200 years have brought important progress and enlightenment in this matter as in, say, matters of race.
The main problem I have with that, though, is that, if we accept the argument that there is, today, a new and strictly binding - even legally enforceable - "moral consensus", how can we be sure where and how far the "moral consensus" will go on shifting and "evolving" in the next ten or twenty of fifty years?
I think (I hope) that we can all agree that there is a "moral problem" with, say, a sixty-year-old man having sexual relations with a twelve-year-old, even if she has begun to develop secondary sexual characteristics and so on. And I think (and hope) that we can also all agree that there is NO "moral problem" about, say, a forty-year-old man having sexual relations with a twenty-two year old, if both parties are consenting. Those, I'd say, would roughly mark the limits of what reasonable people can agree on in metropolitan countries in 2014. It woukd be as ridiculous to be "morally outraged" by the latter case and to try to push through state legislation against it as it would to FAIL to be morally outraged by the former and to oppose state legislation to stop it.
The problem is that, when you are dealing

with "feminists" of the sort that Dolly is or pretends to be - I mean the contorted-face, blow-the-trumpets-and-bang-the-drums, any-means-that-gets-the-job-done-is-OK-by-us sort of feminist to whom self-questioning and self-doubt are only ever "psychological traps set by the patriarchy" - it is impossible to say for sure where exacly within this wide expanse of reasonable consensus they are going to decide to try - and to try by means of their accustomed screeching, threatening, manslut-shamimg methods - to "move the goalposts" next. I think I'd be willing, personally, to go pretty far to meet the feminists and male sympathizers with feminism who have a "bad feeling" about sexual relations between young women and older men. Tempted as I personally am by the thought of sex between myself and a teenage girl, I would be willing - ceteris paribus - to go along with the idea that such a thing would be inappropriate and ought to be sanctioned. But if I concede that, am I then going to find myself having to deal, in a couple of years, with Dolly and her ilk screaming for the blood of a fifty-five-year-old who has had sex with a twenty-five-year-old because such a thing is not in accordanxe with "our" new 2014 or 2016 or 2018 sensibilities as to what is "appropriate"? What is to stop us slipping down a slippery slope toward a new "hip, progressive, left-liberal" form of fascism where people like Dolly and her friends prescribe precisely which age-groups are allowed to have sexual relations with which others and drift off thereby into the same crazy scary regions as have given us "stare rape" and similar mad concepts, demanding the imprisonment or castration of a twenty-five-year-old who has had sexual relations with a twenty-year-old or a forty-year-old with a thirty-year-old?
Obviously, the line distinguishing between the sane and the insane here must be oriented somehow by basic physiological reality. It is clearly somehow "wrong" to want to have sex with someone not yet

sexually mature and "right", at least roughly and in principle, to want to have it with someone who is. But the problem is that the current climate of debate has long since left this firm ground of the physiological and has moved into that of the psychological and social-political. "Consensual" moral judgments on who may have sexual relations with whom are being passed on the basis of such considerations as "disparities of power" between the two people concerned etc. That is certainly a valid and useful criterion insofar as it covers obvious abuses of power such as an adult seducing a young child. But in an historical climate in which "power-relations" are seen to exist absolutely everywhere (thank you, Michel Foucault) the potential clearly exists for these "consensual moral judgments" to become fascistic in the sense I described above: an ideal "power-neutral" age-relation - which would have, if "power is everywhere", to be VERY narrowly circumscribed - is established by the consensus of the "right-thinking people" and EVERYONE wil ll have to conform to it on pain of imprisonment or exile.
The only way that one could safely both accept the basic premisses of the "there is a new moral consensus" argument and be confident that one was not stepping onto a slippery slope toward a new form of fascism would be if one could trust that one were dealing with sane and reasonable people who had a sense of proportion and disproportion. Unfortunately, the Tumblr feminists and moral panickers who are most vocal in the "beware the paedophiles" campaigns have shown themselves to be signally lacking in just these qualities.

DON'T KINK SHAME ME YOU SLUT SHAMERS! I CAN'T HAVE SEX WITH 15 YEAR OLDS?! WHAT'S NEXT, I WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE SEX WITH 22 YEAR OLDS EITHER?

FUCKING FEMINISTS.

>>2873
Sorry, but I don't see how repeating a coarsened version of what I just said in "heavily ironical" upper-case letters furthere the debate.

Yes. My worry is that - since the discussion about what is to be legal or illegal is being ever further divorced from biological guidelines and "power" and politics is being brought into it more and more - there does indeed seem no foreseeable limit to what might be declared "sick".

>>2871
tHE WHOLE THING is ridiculous. There's no real reason to set ANY limit except the approximate age evolution didn't prepare a girl for sex, that being before about mid puberty. The entire creep shaming thing, the entire "anyone who wants a 15 year old is a monster" is invented and forwarded by "all sex is bad" feminists and Christians. People

>>2876
like Loli do it because it gives. them. power. That's the only reason and that's the whole reason. I, for one, am NOT ready to declare any coupling "sick" unless it's actually likely to cause harm.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD SHOVING MY COCK IN A 12 YEAR OLD HURT HER THAT'S ABSURD

>>2880
First it's 15 then it's twelve. You're trying to blur the line and no one is buying it. I believe it's morally okay to want and/or fuck someone whose body has grown to the point of wanting and beingable to accept it and not okay otherwise. You've brought no evidence to the table that suggests otherwise.

And I'm still waiting for that slut set. I want to see it, you want to post it so what's the problem?

I can't believe this is what has become of the Crackyverse. Nothing but a bunch of pedophiles wanking each other off.

There aren't enough hardcore Cracky fans left to support many discussions about her work. Talk about stalking her is immediately suppressed. The religious stuff is drowned in a chorus of trolls and hatred. The only thing sure to create conversation is the drama. You want to fix it? Go hand out Cracky fliers IRL.

>>2884
If the "work" really was so significant, I'm sure it's time will come. For the present, thiugh, yes, this board at least is a "Cracky board" only inasmuch as the people quarrelling and (very occasionally) civilly discussing on it are people who happen to know each other from Crackyhouse. But I don't see that that is a problem, really. 4Chan itself is no longer about what it was about originally and similar things happen to many such forums If you really want to do more "religious stuff" - by which you mean, I suppose, taking chunks of the King James Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or whatever, crossing out "God"/"Krishna" and writing in "Sky Queen" - you can try to start up Bounceme again, I suppose. I think the death of that board, though, proves that crap like that doesn't need to be "drowned" in anything. People just get bored with its infantile repetitiousness.

>>2881
Yes, I think the poster of "heavily ironical" upper-case variations on the position s/he is attacking just proves my point above. A lot of people would be happy to go some considerable way to meet them on such issues as the morality or immorality of sex between, say, older men and girls in their teens. The problem is just that you CAN'T "go some way to meet them" because they never stay in the same argumentational position from one screeched-out, hand-flailing, all-upper-case insult to the next. You engage them on the issue of the sexuality of sixteen-year-olds and they are already talking about twelve-year-olds, having invented on the spot some category of "juveniles aged between seven and twenty-four" that is "molested" IN ITS ENTIRETY if anyone "molests" someone falling ANYWHERE within this age-group. The following week they will be marching up and down waving banners that divide - on the basis of some dubious "social science" - the human population of the world into the "under-40s" and the "over-40s" and calling for the castration or imprisonment of anyone who transgresses THESE arbitrary demarcations ( the "sick creep" of a 43-year-old, for example, who is sleeping with a woman of 35.) In the end, indeed, all you can say to them is: "I'll desire whoever the fuck I want. Keep your inquisitorial ffucking fascist noses out of it."

> taking chunks of the King James Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or whatever, crossing out "God"/"Krishna" and writing in "Sky Queen"
No, there's a good deal of original writing.

>>2887
As you can imagine, I never folllowed it closely enough to be able to say whether there was or wasn't a good deal of it, or whether it was "original" in any meaningful sense. If the stuff that you are talking about is the stuff I'm thinking of, it was "original" only in a very limited sense.

Dolly was 13, I cannot believe Alex and this other guy are arguing that there's nothing wrong with finding 13 year olds sexually attractive. This board insults the memory of Cracky.

>>2889
Again this begging of the question. Put this in historical context: It's 1850 and 14-year-olds are marrying left and right. There as an attractive and developed 13 year old. A man wants to fuck her. Is there something wrong with that man? If so, what?

>>2890
And you have nothing to say about Alex's ridiculously slippery slope? Shocking.

>>2891
Note that I never expressed agreement with it. But as usual you're trying to avoid challenges to YOUR claim. For the third time do you have any evidence that it's harmful or any philosophical argument behind the claim that it's wrong to be

>>2892
to a person past puberty?

there was a perfectly good thread out there with the hypothetical question "wud u fok a 1k year old vampire looking like a 12yo?" but instead you chose to bring up that subject in this thread? By using the hypotethical question you can easily write out your rational or irrational thought about why u wud fuk her or not

I thought it might be worth mentioning that case of the slenderman stabbing. These twelve year old girls who stabbed a school mate in order to please a fictional character are being tried as adults for attempted murder. The courts who in a different case would see these girls as innocent and naive and incapable of consenting to any kind of sexual relations.
>>2899
I'm ont so sure about "preventing sex" I think it's like enforcing this weird demonizing of the act>

>>2894
To be fair it's a natural topic when discussing Dolly.
>>2897
It's bog standard social hypocrisy but it's easy to understand. Moralists see all sex as bad and all crime as worse. Thus sex is punished as much as possible and so is crime. Their rage over "pedophilia" isn't about protecting children, it's about preventing sex.

>>2892
Children don't have fully developed frontal lobes. Not only that, their limited life experiences and willingness to trust adults makes it incredibly easy for them to be manipulated by adults.

>>2900
Fully developed frontal lobes? That's what you're going with? Do you not realize there is NO credible research suggesting this part of brain development is required before sex isn't harmful? As for being naive I'll give you that as long as you admit an 18 or 20 year old can also be entirely naive.

>>2900
using words like "manipulated" is weird. I think the "severe damage" caused to young people who engage in normal consenting sexual relations is mostly a consequence of society telling them that something very bad happened to them. that they were victimized and hurt.
like Dolly's case. She is a smart girl and always has been. She knew what she was doing. I think she just grew a different understanding of social sex stuff that caused her to have internal turmoil.

>>2901
Comparing the minds of 18 and 20 year olds to the minds of 13-15 year olds is fucking absurd.

>>2897
>preventing sex
>demonizing the act
I fail to see the difference

>>2900
if you take frontal lobe development as ruler of wether humans are childrens or adults, then most will be children till they are 24-25, some shorter, and some longer
and tbh, i agree that your average 20 year old is still very much child

>>2904
I dispute that. Brain development continues throughout a person's life. The arbitrary line of 18 is as silly as the same line drawn at 13, 15, 20, or 22.

>>2903
So when it suits you, she's a smart girl, and when it doesn't suit you, she's a junkie whore who can't pass a course or read a book? Interesting.

>>2909
I'm not him but neither case harms the argument that sex as young as 13 isn't likely to be harmful in most cases.

>>2909
this board has more than 2 persons in it you know

>>2903
do you have personal experience in this subject?

>>2912
If he doesn't I do and I agree.

>>2912
I do, but not on the end you're thinking.

>>2869
your floor is kinda dirty

>>2915
When you say A, you gotta say B...

>>2918
Wait is that actually her?

>>2920
obviously, alex latests posts were too effective, and now .., well, i don't know what will happen
i just wish everyone would be able to find their way in life
and that we would be nicer to each other sometimes, even if they say really stupid things

>>2921
Mon dieu! Anything could happen! I guess that gives Dolly carte blanc to manipulate me however she wants.
On a serious note Dolly if that's really you 1: I like it, which probably isn't the effect you intended 2: I'll feed you all the attention and support you want as long as you feed me back 3: please don't go. Now that I know how desperate you are I'm very much interested in continuing our conversations. and 4: regarding post topic it's a start but not quite what I had in mind

>>2922
Ironically I consider the chances that -- , the chances somewhat high that the anon who wanted to leave was dolly, and the anon who said something about hitting doors you (since i don't see anyone else posting atm)

>>2923
I said it, but I didn't see the person spewing endless negativity as Dolly and I didn't think that picture may actually be real.

>>2924
I'm not the kind of person who would sniff dolly's panties but you may be, and her panties are visible in that picture, so what'dya think?

>>2925
Euuuchh......Alex here

>>2926
Have I missed something?

>>2925
Anonymous Coward here and I'm happy to see underwear, and that style turns me on.

>>2928
how do find the right balance on the "objectivating" scale between asking for pics of her in this brutish way, and on the other end of the scale i guess, wanting to talk to her? From this position as board lurker we just see the former.

>>2929
It's one and the same for me, but that's because I'm a misogynous asshole. I can see her as a complex object good for intellectual conversation, sexy talk, sexy times, sexy pics, and whatever else I may want from her. Yet an object all the same.

>>2930
that's not a very adult view on other human beings you have there. Did you also suffer from a traumatous upbringing, a father figure who despised you or something.

>>2931
I do so badly want to grow up. Won't you teach me?

>>2932
i yet have to find a more complete definition of being grown up, maybe there is a better word out there for what i have in mind, but at this moment i'm thinking about broadening your "views" in all ways. These ways are to other people, yourself, things like responsibility, future planning, worldview, etc. A child can have all of these, but the difference lies in the broadness and depth . If you are unable to see another person and not also see that they are as complex as you, with their own upbringings, teachings, problems, talents, memories, emotions and so on, then in my eyes you're either unexperienced or stupid.

>>2933
You are an idiot. Maturity has nothing to do with sexism, ignorant or otherwise. I've seen your view and I disagree with it. Your type

>>2934
disagreeing proves some lack of capacity. The fact is my worldview represents a great deal of introspection, experience, and knowledge. I'm not saying yours doesn't but the very fact that you discount someone disagreeing with you as immature shows a willingness to take intellectual shortcuts.

>>2933
What I think you're trying to say is that maturity involves recognizing others agency as equal to oneself. Actually it requires recognizing that as a possibility. I grew beyond that point of view and see a nuanced version of society.

>>2936
and how does your, let's call it "sexism", fit into this "nuanced" view? Sexism is the opposite of nuance, and so is seeing other people as objects fit only to please you, or rather, relevant only when they're pleasing you
sexism is what you see on /r9k/, a bunch of "nice guys" who can't interact with women and grabbed for an easy way out

>>2937
Sexism is an appropriate word. As an autonomous entity I have the right to seek my pleasures and needs as I will and am limited by my morals, not by a worldview (rather morals which are not based on a worldview) of each person having equal rights to myself. As long as it's ethical I can treat others as I will. I want to treat women as objects. I don't see treating women as objects as inherently immoral. The shortcut I'm making is to say I view them as objects. Imprecise but only on the highest level of definition, and not a practical difference.

There are many ways to be sexist. I'm not the "nice guy" type. Yet I am sexist.

>>2938
>treating women as objects as inherently immoral
don't you think women don't like being treated as objects? If i was dolly, i wouldn't like reading the OP. If you do agree, what is the point of your morals, if they aren't to "do good"?

>>2939
>don't you think women don't like being treated as objects?
It depends on the woman but that isn't an absolute moral limitation. I'm a utilitarian so the golden rule does not apply.

>>2931
So if I were somehow injured as a child that would invalidate my arguments?

>>2941
no, but it would explain your views
>>2940
does that mean "greatest happiness of the greatest number"? i believe the golden rule would be very nice starting point towards that

>>2942
>no, but it would explain your views
you men to imply that rational thought could not creat my point of view. Stop ad homming.

>>2942
I'm a weak rule utilitarian to be precise. Treating others as they immediately enjoy is best as long as a greater goos cannot be created by acting otherwise. In this case I believe the total good is best benefited by the way I do act.

>>2944
and who are you? you're cogent, rational, and thoughtful like Alex but you lack his bitter, impotent rage. You argue well like Dolly but you lack her sarcasm and relentless focus on herself. You're too thoughtful to be anyone I'm familiar with on this board.

>>2945
I often don't find the need to comment, or continue a discussion, thinking it's a waste of time. But on the other hand since I noticed the point isn't to change the opposite's party their point of view to yours, but more to bounce of your thoughts to other sentient beings for feedback, I've come to enjoy it more. I'm Ely

>>2946
You're the German.

>>2945
but thanks for the compliments
>>2947
not german

You run .71 right?

>>2949
no i run this board

>>2950
you're doing Goddess's work

>>2951
Reading a bit up on utilitarianism, reminds me of this other interesting article i read some weeks ago, http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1820&re=1

>>2938
I don't know if "sexism" is really the appropriate word here. Seeing as how your morals are personal and not a direct product of social conditioning, You are probably not a person who was trained to have the same pavlovian sense of "injustice" at the words "object" and "women" I mean "woman", in the same sentence. I agree that seeing people of your corresponding sexual orientation as "objects" (I'm also assuming you mean sexual objects.) is not inherently immoral. nor is it inherently sexist. I believe in your previous post you acknowledged one of these women objects as an object with properties/uses other than sexual ones.
I am sorry for this lack of agreement with grammar stuff my writing abilities are a bit impaired presently.
So it seems like you're capable of seeing women as "multi-faceted." I am thinking that it is not that unusual for a person to assume that another person is a neutral object until they have demonstrated some kind of quality that is beneficial to you. It's then not really so far-fetched to say that a person of corresponding orientation is a neutral object but one with which you could engage with sexually. This seems entirely just to me.

>>2952
It's interesting but I have several problems with it.

>>2954
No no, I'm sexist, in the unjust sense of the word. I don't see women as objects until they prove otherwise I see women as objects period.

>>2956
Oh maybe this is a weird question. Do you feel like women have little potential value or like they are just things that are existing or do you also have some kind of contempt for them?

>>2956
why do you make the distinction at women?

>>2959
that's kinda what I was getting at here. I could see all humans being equally worthless but the added sexual potential seems like it is more inherent value to me.

>>2957
>>2959
>>2960

I think women are very valuable. I think they should be protected and guided. The other side of that coin is that I think they should earn protection and follow. I make the distinction along the lines of sex because historically that's been the way of the most survivable and successful cultures.

>>2962
I'm not so sure that the distinction is relevant in our present social conditions. Unless maybe your thing is that you would prefer social conditions more similar to the relationship you just mentioned. I feel like right now after I had lunch in a nice part of town where there tons of these hot successful women who are doing a lot better at life than me, I can't comfortably assert any kind of superiority based exclusively on my masculinity.

>>2963
I understand the

>>2964
of view that modern society is inherently different but I cannot agree with it. People are people are people and natural selection hasn't had the time to change the way we think and act. Take a child from the year 2000 BCE and raise him in modern society and he'll act just like modern people. It's true that I would prefer certain social conditions which are no longer the norm but I also feel those social conditions would lead to happier, more cooperative people and more successful and peaceful societies.

>>2965
how is our society's peace and cooperation impacted by the current female's more involved role in society? It's like double the man-power. The ladies pick up slack. being doctors and shit so i can continue to work my minimum wage job and sit on my ass

>>2966
Double the man power is a sad trade for happy families, children with mothers, and stable homes.

>>2967
you feel as though happy families and successful moms are mutually exclusive? why?

>>2968
Of course they're mutually exclusive.
By "successful" you mean "have good careers". A career takes time away from home. Spend more time working, better career, more success, more money, less time for kids and husband. If women tended to choose one or the other I wouldn't have a problem with it. But they often try to do both at the same time or worse start a family and then ignore it and go be successful at the cost of their children.

>>2969
what's the cost?

>>2969

dude. this is so tough for me to follow. So you see women generally as if they are "objects." Like, less than men. Only it's not like that in real life. You wish it still was. for...the good of our society... I would personally rather marry a career minded woman and look after the kids myself. because I am inherently lazy. Why designate that role exclusively to women? I think there are probably a i dont know disregard. it is just that i do often fnvdihgidrgdrf

>>2971
>So you see women generally as if they are "objects." Like, less than men.
yes
> Only it's not like that in real life.
I believe it is that way in real life. Women are wasting their talents doing things they're not as good at.
>Why designate that role exclusively to women?
Because they're better at it. The idea that women and men are good at the same things is hogwash.

>>2972
b-b-ut some women are really good at stuff and some men are really bad at stuff and I don't know if those things are determined by
wait a minute.
you's trollin me

>>2972
I'VE BEEN PLAYED FOR YOUR KICKS I AM A FOOL

>>2973
>>2974
My dear sir I am arguing in good faith and stand behind my statements.

>>2975
would you be offended if
okay wait. would you not long for more than doing motherstuff if you
okayy wait again
so I googled this
negative impacts of two working parents
but i am not finding anything really satisfactory. Did both of your parents work? did you always feel this way about women or just as you got older

>>2976
This belief isn't about my own experience. My primary computer died and my statistics are on its hard drive and unrevocerable until I get a new cable but having two working parents results in a good deal of harm.

>>2977
This will help a little
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/apr/13/20000413-011102-8484r/
Also look for correlations between two working parents and divorce.

>>2978
http://theweek.com/article/index/242059/9-negative-effects-divorce-reportedly-has-on-children
fuck

>>2978
I was imagining that non traditional families that were less child-centric would generate more autonomous people.