Personnaly, I couldn't have a hard-on for a pre-pubescent girl, because I have empathy and, let's talk concretely, I just couldn't bear the idea of hurting a little girl's vagina by putting my penis into it because it would just be oversized for her, the mere idea that she could be in pain and in distress would just immediately suppress any lust.
I also imagine what she would go through if a sexual intercourse was discovered : her intimacy would be deeply examined by various medical tools and then, she maybe would have to go to talk to tons of psychiatrists, maybe she would be hated by some members of her family and all these things would be traumas, she would feel so different from the others and what kind of life would she be able to build after ?
I think that before acting, if you are ever tempted by having sex with a little girl, just think about her before thinking about you. Maybe in a way, you have to move your body, your feelings and your mind into hers an just ask yourself concretely "If I was a little girl, how would I feel ?".
Though, I can be attracted to 16 year old girls just like by adult women, I can be turned on by a teen, included one of illegal age in many states of America. I'm not from the religious right-wing or prude or anything. And I'm also not denying at all that a little girl can have some sexual desire or sexual pleasure, and concretely be aroused, wet, feeling to be hugged, caressed, kissed and I think there should be much more openness and accurate information given to them about these subjects.It would be much more clever to inform girls about their feelings, including sexual ones, than to sell them lolita-style clothes or bombarding them with video clips on teen or preteen tv cannels, showing girls in chains bending their back doggy-style, and then telling them at the same time that sex doesnt exist for them and that they shouldn't even think about it.
But, as far as pre-pubescent girls are concerned, for the reasons I mentioned above, I don't think that these totally natural desires they are legitimately feeling, should be fulfilled by an adult man, because of the consequences. I'm not talking about what would happen to you, but about what would happen to HER.
ADULT WOMEN ARE MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN 16 YEAR OLDS AND NOT AS RETARDED OR DIRTY
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-17 1:20
New study indicates pedos are brain damaged. their brains don't work very well and have physical/structural defects. hey ho, let's go, euthanasia!
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-18 13:06
Ah, yet another man bashing thread. Why do I get the feeling that the OP will suddenly return and beat all us guys into the dust with something unintelligent like "All men are naturally pedos and should be shot"
In 27 days this thread will be two years old.
OP is probably married with kids by now...oh boy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-18 19:11
Why does every fucking question have to ASSume the false dichotomy between so-called "nurture" and so-called "nature" except for the stupid en alliteration? Have you ever thought that biological organisms and the societies they form are systems, that ecology is a branch of biology, that abuse of reductionism is for idiots, and that so-called "society" is but another continuum of so-called "nature". Fuck this question with this retarded dualism and dichotomy between the concepts of "societal" and "natural".
Name:
Rather anonymous, I think2007-12-20 8:06
Whether the present psychiatric perception of paedophilia is correct or not, it is as following: Paedophilia isn't a true sexual orientation. That means that it is caused by something other than a biologically inherent tendency ("nature"). It also means that it doesn't preclude attraction to adults. However, due to the shame, the damage paedophile preferences can cause if acted upon and extreme social condemnation, anyone who thinks of themselves as paedophiles will be extremely preferential to children; that is the only thing that can force a person to accept this about themselves. The exeption will be psychopaths/sociopaths. These care about neither damage to children, nor social condemnation. Many of them are also willing - even eager - to take risks to themselves.
Most who act on their paedophile preferences are either psychopaths or have a substance abuse problem or a psychiatric, psychologic or neurologic condition which severely lowers their judgement. Probably most paedophiles do not act on their preference. Since these people are likely to be extremely conditioned towards denying their leanings, they probably wouldn't show up in any form of research, short of questioning with a polygraph...
As to the question of child pornography:
I cannot see how the viewing and possesion of cp in itself is a problem. The problem occurs if it causes people to sexually abuse children. whether this is the case is contoversial. The mere coincidence of the two acts (looking and doing) are not sufficient to prove anything. Additionally you would need to examine the possibility that it prevents some abuse as well.
Another and connected problem is the production and the financing of the producton of cp. Both cause children to be severely harmed. No doubt those who pay for cp encourage and contribute to these. However, those who do not pay for it does not. The logical consequence should be to distiguish betwen the two, since they are two distinctly different things. In practice, though, most arrests for posession of cp are the consequence of tracking payments to cp sites.
As to the moral depravity of indulging perverted fantasies, this is hardly the proper domain of law or state, unless someone gets hurt as a consequence of the indulgence. That is the case, no matter how many people are disgusted and outraged at the perversion, and no matter how deep this outrage is.
I do not claim that the prosecution of paedophiles can be compared to the persecution of suspected wiches, homosexuals, suspected communists and countless other groups in the past. The reason that such comparison is unjustified is the significant difference between acting on these things and acting on paedophilia. However, the concept that persecution is justified on the basis of outrage is the same, and is always unjustified.
Pubescent-girl lusters-after are not a problem. Kikes are the problem.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-28 15:59
>>700
Pubescent-girl lusters are kikes. Problem solved.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-28 23:35
>>701 No, it's not the same. Kikes are kikes. Period. No need to call them anything else. A kike is a kike. Is a kike. You fucking kike-lover. Go suck kike dick.
it's wrong because children don't understand it and it fucks them in a completely new way later. it's even more wrong when it's the kid's own parents.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-18 21:48
nature. it's also wrong, and pedos should be thrown in a deep dark hole and left to rot.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-19 11:18
The ONLY reason that human breasts are so large is to act as a fertility signal to males. Their inflated size, highly unusual amongst primates, serves no other purpose.
The point about Pedophilia: nature or nurture? is that it's a choice, and that choice is enabled by payments, and those payments are assisted by being as rich as Michael Jackson ... who has basically purchased access to children from their parents for YEARS.
If somebody wanted to basically feel up your little boy or girl, for $100K, would you do it? The statistics say that a lot of people would take the deal.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-19 13:09
Paedophilia as it today is a relatively new concept. Obviously baby fucking is sick and always has been, but teenagers have only become off-limits quite recently.
Being imprisoned for being attracted to teenage girls is wrong, If they've gone through puberty then they're obviously meant to be having sex right?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-19 18:50
pedos are the slime of humanity beyond any hope of redemption. The only cure for them is castration or killing.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-25 5:41
Shit, I'd let my child get feel up for $100k. I'd be like, how many times, when, and where. $100k up front each time.
Pedofags are blowing these laws out of proportion. They are a deterant to stop exploitation which can ruin people's lives. Without the deterant there is nothing to stop malicious individuals from taking advantage of vulnerable people. If your magical fantasy pedoland is somehow a reality and all pedos are upstanding members of society oppressed for their love of someone else then you shouldn't have a problem since if your target loves you and you have done nothing to wrong them then they won't call the cops, but if you ever do hurt them be sure you won't get away with it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-29 13:26
>>715
I'd have multiple children, basically I would prostitute one or two to put the others through college and buy myself an M5 - too bad I can't get laid.