What's with the common attraction to young looking girls? I think that any male who publicly denounces any possibility of them finding a young teenage girl attractive is in deep denial. We all find them attractive at one point or another, and no, I don't just mean that point where we are that same age.

And I'm not even talking merely about developed 15 year old girls. Even males attracted to these types are labeled so frivolously as pedophiles. And I'm not even talking about them! To be attracted to a developed 15 year old girl, to me, is COMPLETELY NORMAL, for ANY MALE, at ANY AGE.

What I'm talking about is that really taboo attraction that I know isn't specific to a certain type of male. The kind that you get, but for one thing, you know is wrong, and for another, you don't quite understand, as they aren't physically developed enough to be a proper mate.

Or, maybe I'm just crazy, and nobody else ever gets these occasional confused thoughts. Or maybe I'm just setting myself up to be labeled as a "pedophile".

Anyone here know what I'm talking about?

yah, but once your a certain age you should stop going after significantly younger underage girls

I'm not necessarily talking about going after under age girls... I'm talking about any form of attraction to begin with.

I mean, we don't all pursue to fulfill every single attraction we develop... At least, not those of us with any restraint.

If you look at a women with 32 D cup breasts and an ass so tight you could bounce a quarter off of it in passing that does not make you a child molester if someone says that she's only 16. Any more there is a lot of pressure to grow up, and when you're 16 and wearing you mini skirt and your boobs are falling out of your shirt most people are only looking at that. They are not looking them in the face and seeing that they are still children. I think that a lot of times people think that looking is like touching and I'm a girl and I look at girls like that, BUT I would never touch them. Not only because I don't want to have to spend time as a guest of the state of California but because mentaly they are still children. Sure you can be hot and look in your early twenties but if you giggle and laugh and talk about boy bands I'm running the other way.

^ I see what you're saying, and in most threads of this nature, I would be expanding on that...

But what I'm talking about here is an attraction to the underdeveloped girls. I mean, we can even include those who have a thing for young-looking girls who happen to be of legal age.

There are some men who have such a fetish, and I wonder about the origins of this desire. I don't judge, personally, but I do wonder.

Well (this all seems a bit silly) what age/which day does a woman go from being unattractive to attractive? What obvious change can you point to for before & after?

You're preaching to the choir with this question!

At least, if it was intended to be rhetorical.

I just find it kinda funny how common it is for men to be attracted to girls that look as though they're 13-15, but are actually 18+.

It's quite a common fantasy/fetish.

Why?

Oh the fetish attraction to young girls. Well I like young girls. Sure a sexy developed hottie in a short skirt does wonder for my...mood. And there are features that make a women look younger, smaller breasts, rounder face. Maybe it's the features you are attracted to and not the apperance of youth, I don't know. I think it's when you go out and look for people who don't look young but ARE young that things turn bad. A lot of people get screwed over by the statatory (spelling not sure if that's right) rape deal. A girl says she's 19 and she's 15 and cops find out... the person goes bye bye. There is a whole lot of gray areas in this subject. It's not right or wrong to like young looking women as long as the women you sleep with are of legal age where you live. I don't write the rules I just follow them to avoid jail time.

Jailbait, hell yes there isn't a man alive who wouldn't like to tap that, but pre-pubescent girls? Nope, I fail to see how anyone could find them attractive. The only time's I've ever found underage chicks attractive is if she had attractive femenin features like long tanned legs or whatever.

I actually got the idea for this thread while watching the show "Ready Or Not". Maybe that will help some people get the main idea of this thread...

You're preaching to the choir with this question!

At least, if it was intended to be rhetorical.

I just find it kinda funny how common it is for men to be attracted to girls that look as though they're 13-15, but are actually 18+.

It's quite a common fantasy/fetish.

Why?

It's in our genes/history?

In medieval times whe a girl hit 13 she was ready to start reproducing and get married if I remember correctly.

And when I say reproduce, I mean jus that. She gets fucked, has a baby, gets fucked again, has another baby etc etc.

Plus younger bodies are just more slender and elegant, innocent, and prettier than old, raggedy garbage.

What I'm talking about here is the attraction to girls who APPEAR to be underage. I don't think the question of whether or not they ARE of age, is even of any importance.

I don't care about legalities here.

I want to discuss an attraction to a certain 'look'.

It's in our genes/history?

In medieval times whe a girl hit 13 she was ready to start reproducing and get married if I remember correctly.

And when I say reproduce, I mean jus that. She gets fucked, has a baby, gets fucked again, has another baby etc etc.

Plus younger bodies are just more slender and elegant, innocent, and prettier than old, raggedy garbage.

So then why is it so wrong in modern times? Why is it seen as the worst of taboos, when, at one point, it was considered completely normal?

Well (don't bring up looking at porn/knowing about penises & V's it's irrelevant. Like saying because you've lived near an airport & been on airliners many times: you can be a pilot) being naive & easily led is an attractant. Not having the baggage from life that they'd have in ten more years.

Not being in long term relationships. Being less used Having more free time. In S. Africa it's not uncommon for men to believe that they are more likely to be disease free.

All of them being poor. Mummy's money doesn't count.

What if you grew up in a town of a 100 people. Quiet far from everywhere. No one with many serious problems. Never going anywhere until you were 18 & went to college. This is an extreme example, but kids don't get to do a lot of stuff until they're older, thus they don't know much. Even city kids. Don't take at face value all the kid bragging. Whatever core of truth there is is blow way up with hot air.

Reading books & seeing vids is Not. Real. Life.

Ok, this might just confuse people unless taken in it's intended context...

Laura Bertram inspired this thread for me... HINT HINT, NUDGE NUDGE.

Q: What's the leading cause of pedophilia?
A: Sexy children.

Stay safe,
Bos

Pedophilia is a taboo only because of a relatively small percentage of extreme cases of old guys fucking 5 year old kids.

The truth is that most people who get 'caught' by pedophilia laws are 18, 19, 20, etc. who are having sex with people that are 14, 15, 16.

As long as no one is being hurt in the relationship it should be allowed.

As long as no one is being hurt in the relationship it should be allowed.

Well, not to start a whole other discussion here, but...

Many will argue with you on the definition of "being hurt".

Many people think that, until a certain age, a human being cannot distinguish between themselves having sex or being hurt.

Sounds nice in theory. Take yourself. Were you drinking like a fish/smoking weed & crack using H/driving drunk when you were 15? Didn't hurt you did it.

Are relationships where there is sex/love. Only about sex/love?

Are relationships where there is sex/love. Only about sex/love?

What??


I think a lot of the negative views on being attracted to the "jailbait" aged girl centers around the invention of the car.

Societies for the most part HAD to put an age limit on car operation, and its become such an intregal part of everyday life for such a large amount of people. Gradually, I want to say thats the collective conciousness of society has drawn the line for what consitutes an adult by things like alcohol, driving, tobacco and the ilk.

The argument supporting the legal "pedophile" laws usually draws on the fact that two 15 year old kids, arent viewed as competant enough to support a child. And that they arent mentally competant enough to make a life changing decision like pregnancy at that age.

personally, i think the males who turn their noses up at anyone who expresses interest 13-18 year old girl are in denial.

I know a LOT of girls who hit their prime in that 13-16 age range. Skin looks better, everythings as tight as it will be and girls that age tend to be more bouncy and less mature.

I find "mature minded" women tend to be a bore.

Eg ^^^ If she's 15 & hasn't been around much? Is it cool to introduce her to H/JD & drunk driving? As an 18 year old is more likely to being doing things that a younger person ain't.

I think it has something with an inherent desire to corrupt. it is my personal belief that girls who are glaringly naive and innocent are very attractive because it allows the man to have dominance, the upper hand in the balance of power. Guys love to feel like they've gotten away with something, and I doubt there is much that's more appealing than corrupting an innocent girl; one who is, as dictated by society, supposed to be pure and virginal.

If the girl is older

Treat her like a trooper

If she's young & naive

Put it up her pooper

What happened in the episode :S

The main girl in that show is pretty decent, but her friend is fucking butch >_<

As far as I'm concerned, if they're old enough to know they're attractive, and old enough to flaunt it, the they're old enough to handle what comes with looking like that.

Now, I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but just for the sake of discussion, what about the influence media has? When progressively younger and younger girls are sexualized and are taught to dress and act provocatively, does that mean they're equipped, emotionally and physically, to handle the consequences of behavior they emulate without truly understanding it? Should young girls have handle the consequences of actions that are pushed upon them, without their true comprehension of those actions and the consequences they incur?

Well.. I cant say I agree with the under developed girls being sexy thing, but I am a girl, so...

Anyways, I just wanted to point out that "in medieval times" girls were ready to marry as soon as they could have children, which I believe was often indicated by their first period.

In todays world that would be about 12 years old, on average, but!

Even in the past century, girls have been getting their periods earlier and earlier. Back then, it probably wouldve been common for a girl to be "infertile" til she was around 17.

Poorer nutrition and lack of added hormones and whatnot slowed development.

GOD I love me some jailbait. But I am the same age so it doesn't count. But come on, tell me any man wouldn't just LOVE to fuck this girl..

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5214/1004530anonibqg3.jpg

She's 14. She's developed. Physically, she's good to go. But her myspace.. is another story. You can tell she's a child. But just from looks. God yeah.

So the argument is bullshit, any man would fuck her, barring any consequences.

First of all, BAHAHAHAHAHA.

Second of all, yeah man, who doesn't wanna fuck jailbait? I'm not really into underdeveloped girls, but recently developed girls... Mmm, there's something about being the first to get to it, the first to corrupt it, the first to make her cum and scream for more... Yeah man, that's fucking hot.

Third, I think it has to do with the classic Madonna/whore complex. Think about the ideal girl for American men (perhaps more, I'm just speaking from sociology based in America): A girl who hasn't fucked anyone else, isn't going to fuck anyone else while she's with you, but will do anything you ask her to. For most guys, it's really easy to make an underage girl absolutely devoted to you and willing to do anything for you.

I totally agree with you, OP.

Every other sunday, our nightclub has a "kiddy night", or 14 and over night. Well, as you can guess, there are usually atleast 250-300 ppl that show up, and there are PLENTY of underage, sexy, hot girls. My boner rises because they will come over and dance all up on me, and I love it.

Im not having sex with them, so I could care less if someone calls me a pedo.

IMO, a pedo is one that has sex with a YOUNG girl/boy, like under 14. Anything over 14 should be legal. ALL 14 yr olds know what they want, and the govt cant prove me wrong.

Soooo...a young, tough guy? Likes to think he can handle hisself at 14/15? A guy out drinking of a night? Say a guy just back from Iraq? Likes to get pissed & look for a fight?

He should be able to call the 15 yr old out if he thinks the young tough looked at him wrong. Little bastard!

Yo, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

And to whoever said that 14 year olds know what they want, a lot of 14 year olds want sex, but they don't want to be used. A lot of them think they're gonna find someone who likes them, but they realize that the person really just wanted to fuck them and it makes them feel like nothing but a cum dumpster.

Which isn't to say some chicks who are way underrage don't know what they want, 'cuz plenty just wanna get fucked. Usually, though, they've already been fucked. Consent is a fucking tricky thing to understand--plenty of 18+ year olds (who are used to comfort with sex and/or no sex) are gonna be fucking disappointed when they realize that a lot of guys just want to use them to get off.

^^^I can't help it if you skipped school a lot? Not My Fault!

A girl presents & flaunts = ready to sex a Man

A young guy acts tough = ready to fight a Man

I live in thailand right now and I have been here for like 10 months. I like the asian girls because they have the same body from 15-20 years old then the same body from 23-30 its great....

Youth and purity, unfettered by the marks of age or time?

Ie, small pert boobs, little unpleasant body hair, no flab or fat and no wrinkles or stretchmarks yet?

Lolita is a subculture in Japan. It'd be pretty cool to take part in the fashion aspect of it but it takes too much commitment. Those girls make a boat load of money though, there's quite a large market for it over there.
<3

For sure!
Look at this stuff! (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200175893424&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RCRX_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=200185660608&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=CrossSell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget)




*counts pennies*

For sure!
Look at this stuff! (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200175893424&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RCRX_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=200185660608&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=CrossSell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget)




*counts pennies*

Well, I'm part Jap so that's probably it. Mum bought me a dress 2 years ago, it's pretty cool *_*

Westerners aren't used to seeing that kind of thing as a norm I suppose. Probably why the lolita thing is so taboo.
<3

Well, I'm part Jap so that's probably it. Mum bought me a dress 2 years ago, it's pretty cool *_*


Neat. Better keep an eye out for Rabbhimself, then..

What's with the common attraction to young looking girls?

I'm a pedo, wtf did you expect? ;)

What I'm talking about is that really taboo attraction that I know isn't specific to a certain type of male. The kind that you get, but for one thing, you know is wrong, and for another, you don't quite understand, as they aren't physically developed enough to be a proper mate.

Well, I'd suggest skipping that "know is wrong" bit. Autodysphoria isn't healthy.

...but, yes... Nagayama, '95, pretty successfully established that while only 1/3rd of males prefer a partner... less physically developed than you're talking about, about 9 in 10 will get turned on to varying degrees.

Or, maybe I'm just crazy, and nobody else ever gets these occasional confused thoughts. Or maybe I'm just setting myself up to be labeled as a "pedophile".

Well... have these 'confused' thoughts occured for a period longer than six months in duration? ;)

Seriously.... I don't give a fuck if you're adolph hitler assfucking hilary clinton... learn to love and accept yourself as you find yourself, and make that a positive force in the world. Yes, you, like the occasional moldavian singer, likes the girls of thirteen years. Love yourself and live well....

...and, yes.... your post does just make you a more honest person than all the people trying to deny it in public. Science says so.

I wonder? Does he want to go back to Surrey to see his friends or...his lolita sister's friends? She 16 yet Gaddie? :p

I'm 16 and totally legal for bonage

But no one ever believes my ages and I get constantly told I look about 12

mebe my boyfriend is a paedophile

*strokes beard thoughfully*

Has anyone seen Lolita ? As in the recenter film of it
Jeremy Irons = scar voice = hawt

and the girl isn't bad either
she's supposed to be 14 in the movie
the actress was 17 though I believe.

I think it is a confusion between attraction, and sexual attraction. I can be attracted to a girl or a boy, but not be sexually attracted to them. Does that make sense? I see them as a good looking person, or a cute kid, but not as anything sexual. On the same sense that humans are naturally drawn to someone they deem handsome or beautiful.

If you look at a women with 32 D cup breasts and an ass so tight you could bounce a quarter off of it in passing that does not make you a child molester if someone says that she's only 16. Any more there is a lot of pressure to grow up, and when you're 16 and wearing you mini skirt and your boobs are falling out of your shirt most people are only looking at that. They are not looking them in the face and seeing that they are still children. I think that a lot of times people think that looking is like touching and I'm a girl and I look at girls like that, BUT I would never touch them. Not only because I don't want to have to spend time as a guest of the state of California but because mentaly they are still children. Sure you can be hot and look in your early twenties but if you giggle and laugh and talk about boy bands I'm running the other way.

Huh? Are you a guy or girl? Yes, I do look at the face and even if the girl is 15 and I can tell I am still going to ogle the goodies. It is a fertility thing, guy's in their 20's are at their sexual peaks. That means they are driven by hormones and a natural urge to procreate with anything that looks fertile and has a hole. That means the 14 year old with B's and a cute face is getting fucked.

^ I see what you're saying, and in most threads of this nature, I would be expanding on that...

But what I'm talking about here is an attraction to the underdeveloped girls. I mean, we can even include those who have a thing for young-looking girls who happen to be of legal age.

There are some men who have such a fetish, and I wonder about the origins of this desire. I don't judge, personally, but I do wonder.

I saw an episode on a talk show on time about this guy who married a women who looked 12. She had some type of disease that made her look extremely young, and she was extremely small. This guy's favorite asset on her he says? "Her ass."

I'm like what the fuck? That ass had to be the size of an 8 year old boy's....so I know exactly what you mean, no one is going to admit at one point they wondered what it would be like...everyone delves into dark sexual fantasies at times. It's just you don't talk about them....*shhh*

Well (this all seems a bit silly) what age/which day does a woman go from being unattractive to attractive? What obvious change can you point to for before & after?

To me most girls from 14 - 40 look good. You can find an attractive girl or woman at any of those ages. The factor that separates them is their life experience and maturity. Not only physically, but mentally. I can be attracted to more than one woman or girl from those individual groups.

Even to include girls as young as 8 years old into that category wouldn't change anything. Your brain is complex enough to put weights on different levels of attraction.

I can be attracted to an 8 year old, but the amount of weight I put on sleeping with her is near 0. Which means it would never happen, where as someone else would put their weight on 50 out of 100.

There are two types of men in my eyes. Let's say you took every man on the planet and isolated him with a little girl, let's say she is 5.

Two types of men will arise here, either the one that falls in love with her raising her and becomes the surrogate father. Or the guy who falls in love with her and then sleeps with her, despite her being younger than 10. Shit, I would bet that a huge majority would sleep with her before the age of 12.

It's in our genes/history?

In medieval times whe a girl hit 13 she was ready to start reproducing and get married if I remember correctly.

And when I say reproduce, I mean jus that. She gets fucked, has a baby, gets fucked again, has another baby etc etc.

Plus younger bodies are just more slender and elegant, innocent, and prettier than old, raggedy garbage.

Lol at your raggedy garbage comment. Throw them away dude, that just leaves more women for the men. Oh and it was a lot younger than 13. The legal age for prostitution was 9 in London not too long ago.

What??


I think a lot of the negative views on being attracted to the "jailbait" aged girl centers around the invention of the car.

Societies for the most part HAD to put an age limit on car operation, and its become such an intregal part of everyday life for such a large amount of people. Gradually, I want to say thats the collective conciousness of society has drawn the line for what consitutes an adult by things like alcohol, driving, tobacco and the ilk.

The argument supporting the legal "pedophile" laws usually draws on the fact that two 15 year old kids, arent viewed as competant enough to support a child. And that they arent mentally competant enough to make a life changing decision like pregnancy at that age.

personally, i think the males who turn their noses up at anyone who expresses interest 13-18 year old girl are in denial.

I know a LOT of girls who hit their prime in that 13-16 age range. Skin looks better, everythings as tight as it will be and girls that age tend to be more bouncy and less mature.

I find "mature minded" women tend to be a bore.

I agree on everything except the "mature minded" part. The only reason I don't fuck girls younger than 18 is because most girls that age are fucking idiots. 20+ please for me.

I'm 16 and totally legal for bonage

But no one ever believes my ages and I get constantly told I look about 12

mebe my boyfriend is a paedophile

*strokes beard thoughfully*

Has anyone seen Lolita ? As in the recenter film of it
Jeremy Irons = scar voice = hawt

and the girl isn't bad either
she's supposed to be 14 in the movie
the actress was 17 though I believe.

Was there a point to your post?

Was there a point to your post?

I don't have an opinion :[ I just wanted to feel involved.

sign me up

Nature has it's own way of telling you whether she's ready to get dicked down. It's called puberty. Some people hit it in 5th grade, some people hit it in high school.
Anything before that isn't meant to happen the way our bodies were designed.

The book "Lolita" is one of my favorite novels.

Now, I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but just for the sake of discussion, what about the influence media has? When progressively younger and younger girls are sexualized and are taught to dress and act provocatively, does that mean they're equipped, emotionally and physically, to handle the consequences of behavior they emulate without truly understanding it? Should young girls have handle the consequences of actions that are pushed upon them, without their true comprehension of those actions and the consequences they incur?

I think it's important for parents to keep an eye on what their children are being exposed to. Say a 12-13 year old girl, who is, on average, probably already head-first into puberty, and who is naturally going to be curious, sees something provocative in the media (MTV music videos, for example, which certainly have a ton of booty-shakin', well-developed babes). She's probably going to assume that this is what is acceptable and such. IMO parents need to step in at this point and say "While your body is developing very quickly, your brain is not. It will be a few years until your brain is fully developed and prepared for things of this nature."

The problem is a lot of parents are unfit for children anyway. Dont get me started on the hordes of unfit parents

I don't really care about taboos and what society thinks. If I like a younger looking girl I just do. If I wanna fuck some jailbait and their consenting then I do it.


I don't know why everyone puts so much fucking thought into such simple shit.

Can't say the same, the overly verbose and pretentious writing style, supposed to sound like an autobiography of an "intellectual", was just too much. I read it, but didn't love it.

Really? I don't know...I thought it was beautifully written and I was impressed with how he made Humbert Humbert a sympathetic, yet totally disgusting character at the same time.

lettin your dick do the thinking FTW!

no sarcasm

Men are attracted to young women because bitchiness and age are directly proportional.

Inside every sweet young girl is a fat old shrew waiting to get out and ruin a man's life.

Attraction is based on subconsciously judging the person's survival and replication values. The younger the girl is (I'm not talking about eight year olds) the higher probability of her not having a man and being suitable for breeding. Menopausal women are technically worthless. Trolling aside, I can't stand jailbait. They usually wear too much makeup and are clingy.


- Todd

I don't have an opinion :[ I just wanted to feel involved.

Ah, continue on then :)

The book "Lolita" is one of my favorite novels.

Now can you tell me why I'm not surprised?

I think it's important for parents to keep an eye on what their children are being exposed to. Say a 12-13 year old girl, who is, on average, probably already head-first into puberty, and who is naturally going to be curious, sees something provocative in the media (MTV music videos, for example, which certainly have a ton of booty-shakin', well-developed babes). She's probably going to assume that this is what is acceptable and such. IMO parents need to step in at this point and say "While your body is developing very quickly, your brain is not. It will be a few years until your brain is fully developed and prepared for things of this nature."

The problem is a lot of parents are unfit for children anyway. Dont get me started on the hordes of unfit parents

This is the stupidest shit I have ever read in regards to raising a kid. Honestly, how intelligent were you at 13 years old? Did you at least know what you wanted to wear? I sure as hell did, and hated being talked to or treated in anyway other than an adult.

Your kid is intelligent, a 13 year old can understand what sex is, what the media is portraying and why girls dress like that. It isn't hard to explain, it isn't a complicated subject, and IGNORING sex education is what got us these messes in the first place. This is kind of derailing from the topic though. Since you are not really talking about shit here, except some misinformed view on another way to "censor" information.

I don't really care about taboos and what society thinks. If I like a younger looking girl I just do. If I wanna fuck some jailbait and their consenting then I do it.


I don't know why everyone puts so much fucking thought into such simple shit.

Maybe it's the fact that you view complicated matters in simplistic means?

Men are attracted to young women because bitchiness and age are directly proportional.

Lol, funny. I chalk it up with having to live with inept men their whole lives...

Attraction is based on subconsciously judging the person's survival and replication values. The younger the girl is (I'm not talking about eight year olds) the higher probability of her not having a man and being suitable for breeding. Menopausal women are technically worthless. Trolling aside, I can't stand jailbait. They usually wear too much makeup and are clingy.


- Todd

I thought you were having trouble making friends, let alone finding 8 year olds to fuck....

Anyways, the brain is complex. Saying that all your decisions are based strictly on subconscious instincts, is ridiculous.

I thought you were having trouble making friends, let alone finding 8 year olds to fuck....

Anyways, the brain is complex. Saying that all your decisions are based strictly on subconscious instincts, is ridiculous.

Desires are based on instinct usually. And what are you talking about, you blithering fat faggot with man titties?

I'm attracted to a very young girl. It's not her body, it's her mind.

Seek help.

Seek JoePedo.Fixed.

Seek help.

You can tell me what to do when I know who you are. Until then, kindly fuck off.

Desires are based on instinct usually. And what are you talking about, you blithering fat faggot with man titties?

Read your name three times over and you'll have my reason for why you fail at life.

Fixed.

Lol, fucking priceless.

You can tell me what to do when I know who you are. Until then, kindly fuck off.

Man shut the fuck up. You set yourself up to look like a faggot when you say on totse, "I like a young girl...but because of her mind!"

P.S. .....just no.

Eh I didn't read too many of the posts in the threads, so I don't know if someone already said this...

But for me personally, I think it may have something to do with the fact that when I was 13-17, no girl would touch me. I was horny as hell with the whole puberty thing and every day I'd see these slamming hotties developing, their young tight soft breasts that I wanted to eat up...

The thing is, now when I go out, into situations where you're likely to end up hooking up with someone, I still tend to look at those girls :/
It's sick, but it's reality... And no I'm not actually a pedo, I don't like kids, but I like a young girl with a hot body. Don't get me wrong, I look at girls my age and older all the time, but it seems my friends have gotten over hot 15-16 year olds. I haven't.

I will honestly admit I have been attracted to young girls before, but I wouldn't act on it because I don't want to go to prison, especially for that. When I say young, I mean 10+, but only to ones that I notice certain traits like emerging boobs and the shaping of the hips. I don't want to fuck them, but I have the urge to take them under my wing and protect, and help them mature for future breeding purposes. I can't just shut it off either. I've even caught myself staring at my fiance's little sister who is 13, but she's 5'7" and a "B" cup.

I don't think preteens are too young to understand sex and sexuality. In fact, most reasons that have been given here are that young people are unknowledgeable and it's taking advantage of them to have sexual experiences with them. However, the double edge sword of it all is that they are unknowledgeable because they don't get the chance to have a healthy sexual experience. When I was 10, I wanted and persued sexual experiences with anyone that was willing. I wish an older woman would have let me finger her pussy, eat her out, touch her boobs, and dump my first load.

I think that as a result of this sheltering, people these days are becoming sexually repressed. Even though I'm getting married, my fiance's friends want to have sex with me because I can give a women multiple orgasms because I'm experienced. See, these women want this because they never learned how to fuck from someone more knowledgeable than them when they were younger teens. They actually suffer because of this lack of experience. As a result their sex lives become strained with their partners and they have trouble maintaining their relationships. I have this experience because I went out of my way and studied sex and learned about the female body so that I could please a women. However, if I were to teach a young lady to enjoy sexuality and sex in a respectful manor, they could then teach their boyfriends later on how to please them properly. However, I don't run the world and I won't go against the grain to help others if it could ruin my life.

Young people? They are very mature.

I know that I'd feel a lot safer on an A-310/747-400 etc. if a fast-reflexed 12 year old was at the stick. 15? Old enough to run for office. Wouldn't you rather look at a 16 yr old babe running rather than reeky old Billary?

But for me personally, I think it may have something to do with the fact that when I was 13-17, no girl would touch me. I was horny as hell with the whole puberty thing and every day I'd see these slamming hotties developing, their young tight soft breasts that I wanted to eat up...

The thing is, now when I go out, into situations where you're likely to end up hooking up with someone, I still tend to look at those girls :/
It's sick, but it's reality... And no I'm not actually a pedo, I don't like kids, but I like a young girl with a hot body. Don't get me wrong, I look at girls my age and older all the time, but it seems my friends have gotten over hot 15-16 year olds. I haven't.
I came in this thread to post this. Same shit here, man. I was trying to figure it out some time ago: my age climbs, the girls I look at first are the same age. At ages 12-16 I was extremely horny but I never even got to talk to a girl about sex. As a result, the things at turn me on are still those same fantasies that sustained me: 12-16 year old girls, female masturbation (*stares at popular girl, imagines her fingering herself at home* - I was completely floored when I discovered this actually happens), first/uncertain sexual situations, etc.

I now have found the love of my life and nothing turns me on so much as she does, so I'm content... but still, like you said, my friends seem to have moved on in their sexual preferences. I still look at borderline lolita hentai.

@moonmeister: You're making very good points in that unique and hilarious way of yours. I agree, don't get me wrong. I'm just (un)naturally sexually attracted to the young 'uns; but I have a fiancee whom I'd never cheat on even if I did actually intend to sex up that 12 year old over there.

Well...considering that a shallow relationship based on the thexxth with a 40/30/20/17/15/13 yr old would each be unique in how that shallowness played out with each person of any age? They'd still be shallow physical dealies...

Outside of moral considerations, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference (in theory) if both sides knew that they'd been thrown together on vacation for 10 days & afterwards would be 7,000 miles apart. (Just for example) Would be more weird if she was your 13 >>> 40 year old neighbor.

I think it might indeed be different, in that the younger 'uns might inadvertently develop some sort of attachment... though anyone might, really. Which is why I chose my mate through mental means... the Internet helps a bit with that, y'know? Didn't even see her for a loooong time...

And... is you a fan of the enterprising starships? :o

It is said...men who must fly to distant star systems, when they can't even hit LEO > L5 > Luna > Mars...

Must most excellently & capably polish the rocket to an extraordinary shine... ;)

This thread is useless without

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c63/IWorkFBI/Misc-Porn.jpg

You're love and sex deprived. If you weren't, you wouldn't be attracted to the young ones. You're getting desperate for affection, and kids give it easily. You can either cave into the temptation and get on the sexpred list, or wait until a woman comes along that wants you more than once. :)

You're love and sex deprived. If you weren't, you wouldn't be attracted to the young ones.

...I'm not sure your theory always works.

I like thinking of it from a biological perspective. If she's had her first period, she's good to go. Of course it doesn't mean I'm attracted such a girl, it'll depend on how she's developd. It was completely normal for 13 or 14 year old girls to marry back in time. Nowadays we got this wierd sort of sex restraint on society, where they try to tell us its unnatural to have sex before 18, and 16 in some places. Of course it has its effect, on me including. Sex is a really sensitive issue.

It's just the same as yer men attracted to 13/14 yr old boys. After a boy has had his first period: he's good to go!

Exactly, never.

LMFAO!!!! Hahahaha.

ahh young girls me and my friends call them baldies i personally love them and kinda am addicted to them. i find myself only attracted to younger girls or girls who look real young. when i go on the computer and look at porn im looking for barley legal shit or girls who just look real young like leah luv(shes great she has braces). I find myself always thinking about young girls and how much i love them and how sexy a young girls body is and i like them smaller than me. Ive had my share of baldies and they were all great and way more satisfying than a girl my age. I will say one thing ive found myself attracted to girls 13-14 but i still wouldnt do it no matter how developed they are. im 19 and i tend to go for the 15-16 year old girls. For me its gotten bad though my friend and i run a talkshow and we had a discussion about underage girls that explains exactly how i feel and we also cover how to catch a predator ruins peoples lives. I also made a song about it called baldies where i rap and my friend sings which is pretty damn funny you can check out both here http://www.myspace.com/theryguyandmikegshow

the song is the default song and the video is the first one.

...I'm not sure your theory always works.

The ability to be attracted to young children usually results from a scarred childhood. The ACTUAL attraction to young children results from the lack of love in one's life, especially their love of themselves...which sadly, in the case of pedophiles, is usually lacking because of knowledge of their ability to be attracted to children. The perpetuation of self-loathing only makes them more prone to seeking sexual relations with children.

The only known methodology of treating pedophilia is for the pedophile to forgive themselves and find the ability to love themselves as they are...pedophilia-prone and all. In some cases, the pedophile is known to entirely lose the ABILITY to find a child sexually attractive. However, pedophilia, like alcoholism, anorexia, and most other problems of obsession and allergy, are never cured, but are put into remission.

If the driving force of the obsession, which is fear, manifests as hatred, guilt, shame, or self-pity, (and goes untreated through the facing of the underlying fear) the obsession will return. Once it is succumbed to again, the allergic reaction of the mind which produces craving through GABA returns and the mentally sick is then again in the grips of his disorder.

This knowledge is from my own experience. I'm prone to pedophilia. I'm also an alcoholic. I also have an eating disorder. I'm also addicted to pornography.

The attraction to a developed teenager...well shit, she has tits, hips, snatch fuzz. She IS physically a woman. That's not pedophilia by any definition. Statutory, yes, in some places...but never pedophilia if the individual has reached puberty.

The ability to be attracted to young children usually results from a scarred childhood.

Really? 'cause I'm pretty sure I remember being a raging pedo before shit went bad...

The ACTUAL attraction to young children results from the lack of love in one's life

Really?

'cause I deeply and profoundly love a wide array of men, women, children, and nonhuman animals. Most of which I would kick out of bed if they tried to get in it.

...in fact, I've long said that if you aren't madly in love with several people you wouldn't sleep with, with the most profound of passion, you're doing something wrong.

especially their love of themselves...

:) Luckily, in my case, psychedelic use helped along what already wasn't doing too poorly. ;) It's great... we love various things because they most reflect ourself, and guess what - nothing reflects one's self like... one's self!

...an anarchist will love themselves for individualism. A rationalist will love themselves for logic. A humanist will love themselves for their compassion... and the best part is, they're all right.

which sadly, in the case of pedophiles, is usually lacking because of knowledge of their ability to be attracted to children.

I, otoh, love myself more because I recognize that true beauty is a pint-sized loli. Then again, I've never had the problem of "thought independent from society" that some people have...

The perpetuation of self-loathing only makes them more prone to seeking sexual relations with children.

Hmm. Well, I know that this is often true of the nonpaederotic. 'ware the hetero father looking for a quick emotional pick-me-up, and/or who realizes that his wife isn't giving him any tonight and he'll have to settle for something else.

The only known methodology of treating pedophilia is for the pedophile to forgive themselves

I do!

...admittedly, in my case, it's more for sometimes failing to be a strong enough soldier for ideals which include, among other things, the rampant celebration of paedosupremacy... but I've come to terms with the fact that both early-childhood fear regarding confronting fairly large and violent mobs, as well as a limit to the perfection one can embody in doing so, is a natural part of the human experience, and all we can do is do the best we can with a clear conscience, when risking one's life in taking on the whole world.

and find the ability to love themselves as they are...

<3 I do. :)

pedophilia-prone and all.

...one of the qualities I'm most proud of!

In some cases, the pedophile is known to entirely lose the ABILITY to find a child sexually attractive.

lol... nope!

However, pedophilia, like alcoholism, anorexia, and most other problems of obsession and allergy, are never cured, but are put into remission.

Luckily, I've avoided the "obsession" bit, for the most part. It just didn't seem the healthiest way to have an exclusive sexual orientation, y'know? Hobbies and interests are like the stock market - diversification is key. 'n while I'm sure as hell not putting any part of myself into any different field in the "sexuality" sector (yuck! You can like whatever, and you even have my blessing, though you need it not - but I don't have to)... that doesn't mean that a healthy balance alongside sciences and culinary arts and graphic arts and music and the like isn't much better than, well, monomaniacal focus. Balance is a happier life... and it works both ways - trying to repress one's natural interest also kills happiness and health, by altering the natural balance, IMO.

<3 One of the reasons I love myself is my success in staying out of 'remission.' ;)

If the driving force of the obsession, which is fear,

I've become much, much shorter on "fear" since learning to forgive myself for not standing up to the masses as much as I should, even if it risks my own life. :) I'm glad of that.

manifests as hatred, guilt, shame, or self-pity, (and goes untreated through the facing of the underlying fear) the obsession will return.

Well, there's actually a saying in the pedo community (which started with the str8 allies, in fact), that one should only trust the self-secure kiddiefucker, if anyone.

Once it is succumbed to again, the allergic reaction of the mind which produces craving through GABA returns and the mentally sick is then again in the grips of his disorder.

o.O Gaba, you say.

...you know, I can play with paedoneurological hardware with a high degree of precision and experimental control at any time...

This knowledge is from my own experience. I'm prone to pedophilia.

:) Rock on!

Y'know, there's a social revolution on, if you'd like to join the war for the liberation of your people.

I'm also an alcoholic. I also have an eating disorder. I'm also addicted to pornography.

...any good CP?

On a serious note, that's an impressive list. Either you've been reading way too many self-help books, or I don't envy your path in life.

The attraction to a developed teenager...well shit, she has tits, hips, snatch fuzz. She IS physically a woman. That's not pedophilia by any definition. Statutory, yes, in some places...but never pedophilia if the individual has reached puberty.

I NOES! That's why I avoids it!!

Just out of curiosity... between your eating disorder 'n alcoholism 'n such, have you looked into the role of serotonin in obsessive-compulsive tendancies and the wide spectrum of related effects?

Joe, if you don't mind me asking, I have four questions for you.

One, how many DFC's have you been with?

Two, how long was your longest pedo relationship?

Three, have you ever had legal problems because of it?

Four, I can never get a read on you, do you prefer girls or boys? Your last post specifically mentions lolis, but I swear I've seen you mention boys on occasion, too... Or are you a 'best of both worlds' kind of guy?

Apologies if these are too personal :)

Joe, if you don't mind me asking, I have four questions for you.

Y SHOR!!

One, how many DFC's have you been with?

Oh, 'bout 5 or 6 or so....

Two, how long was your longest pedo relationship?

Two or three years...

Three, have you ever had legal problems because of it?

Nope! I've actually always been pretty well insulated by vast community support.

Four, I can never get a read on you, do you prefer girls or boys? Your last post specifically mentions lolis, but I swear I've seen you mention boys on occasion, too... Or are you a 'best of both worlds' kind of guy?

heh... girls, actually, 100%... but I'm more than secure enough that I'll bust off a "This is shota!!" or random comments about a 12yo chinese boy if that's what the thread calls for. ;)

Apologies if these are too personal

Pssh, no worries. I lost my boundaries in a traumatic communal living event involving hippies...

WTF? JoePedo is actually pedo?

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/6692/pedobear26et5.jpg

edit: I was going to try to dig up what I think was my first S&A post... which pretty much involved me talking about living and facing life together with this preschooler I'd lived with for about a year (rh - different one)... to help him, well, freak out a little less in wondering how to constructively work with the fact that someone he cared about very deeply had been raped fairly recently, and was still having trouble with it... but it didn't survive the bajillionfold board reinstalls...

...so, yeah, sorry... but I've never really made a secret what I am and who I bang with, usually. Didn't start 50,000 humanities threads, but I've been pretty open. 'n SN's right where the name came from - corporate mediajamming of disney. ;) Think "pinnochio meets RealBoy(tm)."

...not that I don't like disney. Eris just demans a monkeywrench of tribute from time to time...

What the fuck are you talking about? You're half a stupid bitch. You just said you catch yourself staring at them, yet you don't want anything sexual because you'll go to jail?

That isn't protection dude, well the cops are protecting her from your ass. Under your wing? Lol, more like take her under the covers. Wanted to fuck at 10? Finger pussy? Tell me...how did you even know about pussy? What fingering was, what blowing a load was, what fucking was, what sex was? Exactly, so shut your mouth bitch. Repressed? Look at who founded AMERCIA, Jesus. Take a history class, retards!

Well...considering that a shallow relationship based on the thexxth with a 40/30/20/17/15/13 yr old would each be unique in how that shallowness played out with each person of any age? They'd still be shallow physical dealies...

Outside of moral considerations, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference (in theory) if both sides knew that they'd been thrown together on vacation for 10 days & afterwards would be 7,000 miles apart. (Just for example) Would be more weird if she was your 13 >>> 40 year old neighbor.

How can you seriously even be trying to put an opinion out there when your shit starts out using "thexxth"?

...I'm not sure your theory always works.

You don't think that on some level that is the reason?

The ability to be attracted to young children usually results from a scarred childhood. The ACTUAL attraction to young children results from the lack of love in one's life, especially their love of themselves...which sadly, in the case of pedophiles, is usually lacking because of knowledge of their ability to be attracted to children. The perpetuation of self-loathing only makes them more prone to seeking sexual relations with children.

The only known methodology of treating pedophilia is for the pedophile to forgive themselves and find the ability to love themselves as they are...pedophilia-prone and all. In some cases, the pedophile is known to entirely lose the ABILITY to find a child sexually attractive. However, pedophilia, like alcoholism, anorexia, and most other problems of obsession and allergy, are never cured, but are put into remission.

If the driving force of the obsession, which is fear, manifests as hatred, guilt, shame, or self-pity, (and goes untreated through the facing of the underlying fear) the obsession will return. Once it is succumbed to again, the allergic reaction of the mind which produces craving through GABA returns and the mentally sick is then again in the grips of his disorder.

This knowledge is from my own experience. I'm prone to pedophilia. I'm also an alcoholic. I also have an eating disorder. I'm also addicted to pornography.

The attraction to a developed teenager...well shit, she has tits, hips, snatch fuzz. She IS physically a woman. That's not pedophilia by any definition. Statutory, yes, in some places...but never pedophilia if the individual has reached puberty.

HELLO! Ladies...how you dooooin'? That nigga crazy...don't say nothing to emmm'!

Really? 'cause I'm pretty sure I remember being a raging pedo before shit went bad...
Really?

'cause I deeply and profoundly love a wide array of men, women, children, and nonhuman animals. Most of which I would kick out of bed if they tried to get in it.

...in fact, I've long said that if you aren't madly in love with several people you wouldn't sleep with, with the most profound of passion, you're doing something wrong.

:) Luckily, in my case, psychedelic use helped along what already wasn't doing too poorly. ;) It's great... we love various things because they most reflect ourself, and guess what - nothing reflects one's self like... one's self!

...an anarchist will love themselves for individualism. A rationalist will love themselves for logic. A humanist will love themselves for their compassion... and the best part is, they're all right.

I, otoh, love myself more because I recognize that true beauty is a pint-sized loli. Then again, I've never had the problem of "thought independent from society" that some people have...

Lol, boy I hate when this guy breaks shit up. Oh...so you remember being sexually attracted to children before you were a child? Pfff....moving onto the next hole.

Huh? You love men, women, children, animals, and dirt. Yet you would kick them out of your bed if they tried to get in it?
Still making no sense....

Ahhh, now you are being even more amusing. Finding one person to love passionately is difficult enough. Seems like you really don't know what true passion is...you even go on to say that you love yourself. When your posts are all spattered with insecurities.


Hmm. Well, I know that this is often true of the nonpaederotic. 'ware the hetero father looking for a quick emotional pick-me-up, and/or who realizes that his wife isn't giving him any tonight and he'll have to settle for something else.

I do!

...admittedly, in my case, it's more for sometimes failing to be a strong enough soldier for ideals which include, among other things, the rampant celebration of paedosupremacy... but I've come to terms with the fact that both early-childhood fear regarding confronting fairly large and violent mobs, as well as a limit to the perfection one can embody in doing so, is a natural part of the human experience, and all we can do is do the best we can with a clear conscience, when risking one's life in taking on the whole world.

<3 I do. :)

...one of the qualities I'm most proud of!

lol... nope!

Luckily, I've avoided the "obsession" bit, for the most part. It just didn't seem the healthiest way to have an exclusive sexual orientation, y'know? Hobbies and interests are like the stock market - diversification is key. 'n while I'm sure as hell not putting any part of myself into any different field in the "sexuality" sector (yuck! You can like whatever, and you even have my blessing, though you need it not - but I don't have to)... that doesn't mean that a healthy balance alongside sciences and culinary arts and graphic arts and music and the like isn't much better than, well, monomaniacal focus. Balance is a happier life... and it works both ways - trying to repress one's natural interest also kills happiness and health, by altering the natural balance, IMO.

<3 One of the reasons I love myself is my success in staying out of 'remission.' ;)

I've become much, much shorter on "fear" since learning to forgive myself for not standing up to the masses as much as I should, even if it risks my own life. :) I'm glad of that.

Well, there's actually a saying in the pedo community (which started with the str8 allies, in fact), that one should only trust the self-secure kiddiefucker, if anyone.

o.O Gaba, you say.

...you know, I can play with paedoneurological hardware with a high degree of precision and experimental control at any time...

:) Rock on!

Y'know, there's a social revolution on, if you'd like to join the war for the liberation of your people.

...any good CP?

On a serious note, that's an impressive list. Either you've been reading way too many self-help books, or I don't envy your path in life.

I NOES! That's why I avoids it!!

Just out of curiosity... between your eating disorder 'n alcoholism 'n such, have you looked into the role of serotonin in obsessive-compulsive tendancies and the wide spectrum of related effects?

This shit is ridiculous...trust a self-secure kiddie fucker? Huh? Why don't I trust a self-secure rapist? The character of the person is not based on his sexual appetite. You seem to me to be over the top effeminate at times. Why is that?

Plus constantly boasting about loving yourself on the internet. Seems trite...no?

How can you seriously even be trying to put an opinion out there when your shit starts out using "thexxth"?
I took you seriously until this bit.

You don't think that on some level that is the reason?

Nope. The theory revolves around a desire to pork fish, which makes it extremely not applicable.


Oh...so you remember being sexually attracted to children before you were a child?

Nope, that's not what it says. At all. Sorry.

Huh? You love men, women, children, animals, and dirt. Yet you would kick them out of your bed if they tried to get in it?
Still making no sense....

So, do you often have sex with your father? 'cause, personally, I'd kick my father out of bed... but hey, if doing so doesn't make sense in your world - whatever floats your boat, fat boy.

Ahhh, now you are being even more amusing. Finding one person to love passionately is difficult enough.

Then you're doing it wrong. Serious.

Every human being on this planet is, in some form or another, their own unique representation of the full beauty of soul that is the human potential. Find yourself, then find it...

The character of the person is not based on his sexual appetite.

Well, I'm glad you've finally figured out one of the fundamental truths.

I took you seriously until this bit.

I give a shit?

Nope. The theory revolves around a desire to pork fish, which makes it extremely not applicable.

....right. Pretty clear to anyone without their head up their ass, you're desperate. Period.

Nope, that's not what it says. At all. Sorry.

The ability to be attracted to young children usually results from a scarred childhood.

Really? 'cause I'm pretty sure I remember being a raging pedo before shit went bad...

A raging pedophile before shit went bad. So exactly how old were you when you realized you were a "raging pedo"? Oh, or is "shit went bad..." the phrase you coined to express law enforcement and the 300 yard restraining order?

So, do you often have sex with your father? 'cause, personally, I'd kick my father out of bed... but hey, if doing so doesn't make sense in your world - whatever floats your boat, fat boy.


Really?

'cause I deeply and profoundly love a wide array of men, women, children, and nonhuman animals. Most of which I would kick out of bed if they tried to get in it.

I guess by "most" you meant women....that leaves...as for me having sex with my father? Lol...good question. I ponder the perverts who would make such a weak query.

Then you're doing it wrong. Serious.

Every human being on this planet is, in some form or another, their own unique representation of the full beauty of soul that is the human potential. Find yourself, then find it...

Hmmm, doing it "wrong". That's rather presumptuous of you...mind telling me how you can compare the quality of my life to yours? Your advice is as skewed as your logic to repressing obsessions.

Well, I'm glad you've finally figured out one of the fundamental truths.

Excuse me? Did you just quote my statement contesting your "inside saying"? Then try and switch roles as if YOU are the one telling me what's what?

Lol...you are extremely fake. Even tried to hit me with a fat joke, after all this time and effort that you put into coming off as an intellectual. Please...you're getting more pathetic by the word.

...as for me having sex with my father? Lol...good question. I ponder the perverts who would make such a weak query.

Well, hey... you come up with some bullshit about not liking anything you don't want to sleep with, I ask you if you want to sleep with your father.

...I notice you still haven't changed your story about not sleeping with family members you like, either.

Well, hey... you come up with some bullshit about not liking anything you don't want to sleep with, I ask you if you want to sleep with your father.

...I notice you still haven't changed your story about not sleeping with family members you like, either.

Ignores my entire post and says some random bullshit...

When did I ever say that I sleep with family members? Please quote me. Maybe you just find it hard to believe there are people out there who don't sleep with their fathers?

I guess I should now make a low ball comment connecting childhood trauma with your own infatuation with children, but that would be wrong and taking advantage of personal information. So carry on about your business...pfff, I was almost disappointed for a second. Then realized all along I was right.

Ignores my entire post and says some random bullshit...

When did I ever say that I sleep with family members? Please quote me. Maybe you just find it hard to believe there are people out there who don't sleep with their fathers?He didn't say you slept with your father, he asked if you did because of your own statements in a previous post.

Allow me to explain.

Hexadecimal said that the root cause of pedophilia is not having enough "appropriate" love in your life.

Joe said that that wasn't correct, because he has plenty of love in his life. He loves a lot of people/animals/things. He then went on to make the distinction that just because you love something, doesn't mean you want to sleep with it. He loves his father. He loves his dog. He loves his labware. However, that doesn't mean he would sleep with his father, or his dog, or his labware. Hence, he can love someone or something, but that doesn't mean it is a sexual love, and as such, he would kick them out of bed if they tried to get in it.

You misunderstood him/misread his reply, and interpreted it as him saying he has sexual love for "men, women, children, animals and dirt", but would not go to bed with any of them, which could be interpreted as a paradoxical statement. The problem being, of course, that Joe was referring to non-sexual love, and you were referring exclusively to sexual love.

Joe then countered that your own argument amounts to saying that anyone or anything you love, you must be willing to sleep with, since you were arguing (by way of your misunderstanding) that there is no distinction between sexual and non-sexual love. He then asked if you slept with your father because, if you love your father, and there is no distinction between sexual and non-sexual love, you must be willing to sleep with him.

/steps back out.

Lunar-Master, find you humor in the proceedings above?

Threads like this are always filled with dullards arguing semantics.

He didn't say you slept with your father, he asked if you did because of your own statements in a previous post.

Allow me to explain.

Hexadecimal said that the root cause of pedophilia is not having enough "appropriate" love in your life.

Joe said that that wasn't correct, because he has plenty of love in his life. He loves a lot of people/animals/things. He then went on to make the distinction that just because you love something, doesn't mean you want to sleep with it. He loves his father. He loves his dog. He loves his labware. However, that doesn't mean he would sleep with his father, or his dog, or his labware. Hence, he can love someone or something, but that doesn't mean it is a sexual love, and as such, he would kick them out of bed if they tried to get in it.

You misunderstood him/misread his reply, and interpreted it as him saying he has sexual love for "men, women, children, animals and dirt", but would not go to bed with any of them, which could be interpreted as a paradoxical statement. The problem being, of course, that Joe was referring to non-sexual love, and you were referring exclusively to sexual love.

Joe then countered that your own argument amounts to saying that anyone or anything you love, you must be willing to sleep with, since you were arguing (by way of your misunderstanding) that there is no distinction between sexual and non-sexual love. He then asked if you slept with your father because, if you love your father, and there is no distinction between sexual and non-sexual love, you must be willing to sleep with him.

/steps back out.

Lord.............you just made yourself look like a huge ass. I think Pedo is the only one here that understands what is going on. Which is why he is scarce.

Lord.............you just made yourself look like a huge ass. I think Pedo is the only one here that understands what is going on. Which is why he is scarce.

No, 'hoody got it pretty much exactly right... which brings to mind a question, carbon : english, motherfucker, do you speak it?

'cause it looks like everyone else can read just fine, while your abilities, were, umm... sub-par. On a near-boolean scale.

Man shut the fuck up. You set yourself up to look like a faggot when you say on totse, "I like a young girl...but because of her mind!"

P.S. .....just no.

You're imbalanced, Carbon.

No, 'hoody got it pretty much exactly right... which brings to mind a question, carbon : english, motherfucker, do you speak it?

'cause it looks like everyone else can read just fine, while your abilities, were, umm... sub-par. On a near-boolean scale.

I never questioned if what he explained was right. You are still creating arguments to avoid the questions. I completely understood what you said when you first said, you could love anything and it doesn't necessitate the feeling to sleep with it.

You were clear, it was clear. I would still of said exactly what I said, and you still would of avoided the questions to pick-up a pissing match because you feel the need to insult me.

Which is HILARIOUS! Simply I found you to be an interesting specimen Pedo, do you honestly think I give a shit about any of the dialog that goes on here? I wonder if anyone is ever going to put the facts together.

However you agreeing with something that I never disagreed with, funny. Then trying to insult me over it? Amusing. I simply said he was an ass for trying to explain the situation to me.

Robin isn't my Mother, Father, friend, or anything of importance. Why did he feel the need to try and break something down to me? I hadn't lost the situation Robin, trust me on that. Dude comes racing in at the sight of a helping hand. He is exactly how I labeled him before...desperate.

You're imbalanced, Carbon.

Often times things look skewed from an obtuse angle...think about it. Fag.

I completely understood what you said when you first said, you could love anything and it doesn't necessitate the feeling to sleep with it.

Yes... of course... which is why you asserted that such a proposition didn't make sense to you in the slightest, because of your perfect understanding...

I wonder if anyone is ever going to put the facts together.

Go ahead. Spell them out if you must... while I admit it may be as nonsensical as your "I don't understand that/I knew that all along" dualism, ~shrug~ I'm bored.

Yes... of course... which is why you asserted that such a proposition didn't make sense to you in the slightest, because of your perfect understanding...

Huh? You love men, women, children, animals, and dirt. Yet you would kick them out of your bed if they tried to get in it?
Still making no sense....

So, do you often have sex with your father? 'cause, personally, I'd kick my father out of bed... but hey, if doing so doesn't make sense in your world - whatever floats your boat, fat boy.

I guess by "most" you meant women....that leaves...as for me having sex with my father? Lol...good question. I ponder the perverts who would make such a weak query.


Do you see the progression of the conversation? Yes, I knew exactly what you said. Yet you think it is strange for someone not to act according to what the "Pedo" would do...

If you can't see the obvious sarcasm in my posts mocking you, then by God all that passion in your life must have you blind. I guess that is what happens when the main partners for conversation are below the age of 10...and male.



Go ahead. Spell them out if you must... while I admit it may be as nonsensical as your "I don't understand that/I knew that all along" dualism, ~shrug~ I'm bored.

Huh? I say you're making no-sense and all of a sudden I can't grasp at any rationalism in an irrational statement? Stop being so short sided, it's unbecoming of someone so detestable as is...

Do you see the progression of the conversation?

Yes. It's what has me worried for you.

Huh? You love men, women, children, animals, and dirt. Yet you would kick them out of your bed if they tried to get in it?
Still making no sense....

Quick! Go read robinhoody's patient explanation to you again - you still haven't figured it out.

link time
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm

Pssh, no worries. I lost my boundaries in a traumatic communal living event involving hippies...

How old are you?

Man, I've been talking to a lot of people born in the 1950s and 60s recently and the like. Greasers and former hippies and shit. I realize that the past was awesome in some ways

Yes. It's what has me worried for you.

Lol, mother fucker please.

Quick! Go read robinhoody's patient explanation to you again - you still haven't figured it out.

What the fuck are you babbling about? I quoted myself and you are using that as a basis for repeating the same shit you already said? That I already addressed? You're becoming more transparent with each passing moment.

I don't need an explanation, you're quoting irrelevance and changing the argument to suit something that fits your ideal. Stop beating around the bush you desperate wanker.

How old are you?

Man, I've been talking to a lot of people born in the 1950s and 60s recently and the like. Greasers and former hippies and shit. I realize that the past was awesome in some ways

I can understand the temptation to want to live in the past, but if you can't see the future you're nothing.

I can understand the temptation to want to live in the past, but if you can't see the future you're nothing.

I can see the future. I predicted the usage of the internet in radical change. I see Project Chanology being history

I can see the future. I predicted the usage of the internet in radical change. I see Project Chanology being history

You are still fixated on something material. The future...? Do you really think it is based on something as trivial as the internet?

Broad strokes, but not enclosed to just the technological.

How old are you?

:| I dunno - if I give you my SS#, can you tell me the year it was issued? 'cause I forgot my birthdate. rly.

Man, I've been talking to a lot of people born in the 1950s and 60s recently and the like. Greasers and former hippies and shit. I realize that the past was awesome in some ways

Yeah. :) I actually make it a point to collect media from before operation rollback. It was an interesting time - speech was much freer then.

Now, mediajamming is all that remains.

I can see the future. I predicted the usage of the internet in radical change. I see Project Chanology being history

God damn it SWF, you and your autofrenzied nutsack-bouncing Chans...

In addition to that satirical, hallucinogen-induced story you wrote about the Internet being seized and people gettin' banned for denying the holocaust or whatever. Get this motherfucking clue: UseNET is the internet, superior to WWW, a free network where content is not regulatable and completely run by the users. The WWW (and even pre-WWW on the older-fashioned BBSes and P2P networks) was a playground created for the more impotent, fucktarded, UseNet-reject population who draw/trade shota testes for a living or plain Jews who demanded a more idiot-appealing interface.

I'll admit your Chans have had an influence on media exchange technologies during the "conception of the Otakus" circa 1985-1995, which marked the first sign of a wave of fucktardery flooding the Internet. But, they were nothing more than disturbed, agoraphobic children who've accustomed to being in a 4x4m room and outta boredom, learned to type on daddy's computer one day...

In short: if UseNet was NYC, then WWW would be a club/playground designed by a gang of retarded 5-year-old Brazilian children.

Lastly, the prediction of a dystopian society dominated by technology and the Internet in general has already been speculated like 50 years ago by various cyberpunk writers who've successfully predicted i.e. "leetspeak" and the like. Roots even go as far as 150 years back where Tesla made abstract future descriptions about everything we're doing now.

So your "predictions" ain't nothin' new, bud. And 4chan is a vastly insignificant entity that can be junked tomorrow.

P.S. Why the fuck was this stickied? Did one of the mods wager money on this cockslap competition between Tits (Carbon) and the gas-huffer?

:| I dunno - if I give you my SS#, can you tell me the year it was issued? 'cause I forgot my birthdate. rly.

I'm not that good of a hacker. But fine...estimate your age :p

Don't be Coy..


Yeah. :) I actually make it a point to collect media from before operation rollback. It was an interesting time - speech was much freer then.

In a way yes, in a way no. Back then the media was more one-sided and there was now indymedia to counteract, just local anarchist and the like newspapers which were slower and didn't catch everything, wasn't accessible to all and not so quick.

Now, mediajamming is all that remains.[/quote]

God damn it SWF, you and your autofrenzied nutsack-bouncing Chans...

Lolol

In addition to that satirical, hallucinogen-induced story you wrote about the Internet being seized and people gettin' banned for denying the holocaust or whatever.I modified it somewhat to be more 'futuristic', trying to add in some 'never' things for the U-RIB now:p

I'm trying to make the future less focused on that; and add in some focus on the gay niggers LOL....i'll update it on http://www.warsie.deviantart.com/

Get this motherfucking clue: UseNET is the internet, superior to WWW, a free network where content is not regulatable and completely run by the users. I read about how they would share bootleg/warez files back then and still now. IIRC, the only problem is that the larger files are had to come by as they're divided into smaller pieces and any complications of doing it wrong (putting the pieces together)

[quorw]The WWW (and even pre-WWW on the older-fashioned BBSes and P2P networks) was a playground created for the more impotent, fucktarded, UseNet-reject population who draw/trade shota testes for a living or plain Jews who demanded a more idiot-appealing interface.
[/quote]

draw/trade shota testes...you know what shota is LOL..then again you just rephrased what I Said earlier lol

I'll admit your Chans have had an influence on media exchange technologies during the "conception of the Otakus" circa 1985-1995, which marked the first sign of a wave of fucktardery flooding the Internet. But, they were nothing more than disturbed, agoraphobic children who've accustomed to being in a 4x4m room and outta boredom, learned to type on daddy's computer one day...
uh..4chan stated in 2003. They weren't in existance before then, but the conception of the Otakus and American Anime Fandom IIRC started with the fansubs in the late 1970s-1980s of Anime by volunteers who gave showings to other people


In short: if UseNet was NYC, then WWW would be a club/playground designed by a gang of retarded 5-year-old Brazilian children.hahaha

Lastly, the prediction of a dystopian society dominated by technology and the Internet in general has already been speculated like 50 years ago by various cyberpunk writers who've successfully predicted i.e. "leetspeak" and the like. Roots even go as far as 150 years back where Tesla made abstract future descriptions about everything we're doing now.
Correct. My point is that IT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN RL. An actual Stand-Alone Complex. Scary isn't it! We're witnessing history today when those l scientology protests occur (hopefully I'll try to witness it myself and be neutral)

Am I one of the few people who is jittery/happy/excited at the fact that this is the fist massive example of hacktivism; there were others, see the 2004 internet liberation front defacing of 6 republican websites (some of them still have those pages up lol) the Zapistas and the like but this could be the largest one yet!

So your "predictions" ain't nothin' new, bud. And 4chan is a vastly insignificant entity that can be junked tomorrow.
uh...the Alexa rating puts it at 299...holy shit earlier it was ~400
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/4chan.org



P.S. Why the fuck was this stickied? Did one of the mods wager money on this cockslap competition between Tits (Carbon) and the gas-huffer?uh-oh....stating up the fire again

EDIT: LOL I saved the 'moonie-carbon butt' thing

:| I dunno - if I give you my SS#, can you tell me the year it was issued? 'cause I forgot my birthdate. rly.

I'll take you up on this challenge, SS# please?

God damn it SWF, you and your autofrenzied nutsack-bouncing Chans...

In addition to that satirical, hallucinogen-induced story you wrote about the Internet being seized and people gettin' banned for denying the holocaust or whatever. Get this motherfucking clue: UseNET is the internet, superior to WWW, a free network where content is not regulatable and completely run by the users. The WWW (and even pre-WWW on the older-fashioned BBSes and P2P networks) was a playground created for the more impotent, fucktarded, UseNet-reject population who draw/trade shota testes for a living or plain Jews who demanded a more idiot-appealing interface.

I'll admit your Chans have had an influence on media exchange technologies during the "conception of the Otakus" circa 1985-1995, which marked the first sign of a wave of fucktardery flooding the Internet. But, they were nothing more than disturbed, agoraphobic children who've accustomed to being in a 4x4m room and outta boredom, learned to type on daddy's computer one day...

In short: if UseNet was NYC, then WWW would be a club/playground designed by a gang of retarded 5-year-old Brazilian children.

Lastly, the prediction of a dystopian society dominated by technology and the Internet in general has already been speculated like 50 years ago by various cyberpunk writers who've successfully predicted i.e. "leetspeak" and the like. Roots even go as far as 150 years back where Tesla made abstract future descriptions about everything we're doing now.

So your "predictions" ain't nothin' new, bud. And 4chan is a vastly insignificant entity that can be junked tomorrow.

P.S. Why the fuck was this stickied? Did one of the mods wager money on this cockslap competition between Tits (Carbon) and the gas-huffer?

Idiot...WWW is the internet? Since when....? UseNET is for faggots buddy. Maybe you just like beef in your back tunnels?

I'm not that good of a hacker. But fine...estimate your age :p

Don't be Coy..

Hacker? Uh.........

This lolita thing is cool.

It looks illegal but is legal, hahah. How often do you see 18 yo girls looking like they're 14 ?

Wtf...

Wtf...

Yeah I know...I'd rather a 14 year old look 18. More curves = better.

Hacker? Uh.........

a hacker is anyone who explores and tinkers with things (in this case, computers!)

And my internet hacking skills are shitty (Read: no actual experience but knows the theories)

a hacker is anyone who explores and tinkers with things (in this case, computers!)

And my internet hacking skills are shitty (Read: no actual experience but knows the theories)

So in a nut shell you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

So in a nut shell you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

I know what I'm talking about (the basics and such) but I have jack shit in real world experience in internet hacking (as in passwords, phishing and the like). I can find all sorts of shit with google, caches and the like and has some informations there.

But the classic 'hey let's get that guy's password by going around it' not so much.....unless social engineering is applied...again know the idea and theory but not so much about experience....due to me sucking at socializing and such :p

I'm learning body language and some sociology so that should help me with various things (socializing for one!)

EDIT: and will try to learn C maybe...complicated as fuck though...:shudders:

EDIT 2: again, a novice in many ways..

I know what I'm talking about (the basics and such) but I have jack shit in real world experience in internet hacking (as in passwords, phishing and the like). I can find all sorts of shit with google, caches and the like and has some informations there.

But the classic 'hey let's get that guy's password by going around it' not so much.....unless social engineering is applied...again know the idea and theory but not so much about experience....due to me sucking at socializing and such :p

I'm learning body language and some sociology so that should help me with various things (socializing for one!)

EDIT: and will try to learn C maybe...complicated as fuck though...:shudders:

EDIT 2: again, a novice in many ways..

Fishing and "passwords" isn't very descriptive. Especially since fishing isn't hacking, it's just playing off people's stupidity. The same thing with social engineering, only a little bit more complicated if you are dealing with someone who isn't a retard.

Funny that you said Google? Lol, I mean come on man, just admit that you have no idea what hacking is, where it starts, or what processes are involved. I'll encourage you to continue with your Body Language and Sociology study. If you really want to know what "hacking" is continue to learn programming.

If you get proficient with C you should be able to start picking up most languages. Since after you understand how to program logically the syntax is the only thing you have to learn.

Fishing and "passwords" isn't very descriptive. Especially since fishing isn't hacking, it's just playing off people's stupidity. The same thing with social engineering, only a little bit more complicated if you are dealing with someone who isn't a retard.


Social Engineering is how many hackers get in. Some simply snoop in at night and the like..

Some hack people, others hack things. Those who hack people often end up being politicans...not dissing all politicans, and I want to be one.


Funny that you said Google? Lol, I mean come on man, just admit that you have no idea what hacking is, where it starts, or what processes are involved.


If I don't, you do :p

I'll encourage you to continue with your Body Language and Sociology study. If you really want to know what "hacking" is continue to learn programming.

If you get proficient with C you should be able to start picking up most languages. Since after you understand how to program logically the syntax is the only thing you have to learn.

k

Social Engineering is NOT how many hackers get in...please. Please...tell me you didn't say that, I think you have seen Hackers too many times.

War Games, that is a better look at how actual "hacking" takes place. Plus why are you talking about politicians? The reference to hacking has been agreed upon to be strictly adhered to the inanimate.

The basics of C can be learned in a day.

[...

Quit condescending just 'cuz SWF is full of shit.

For someone who denies the Internet is Unix-based, you got no idea what the fuck you're talkin' about.

You're fat and got manboobs, so stfu.

The basics of C can be learned in a day.

wow... I heard people bitching about the code being so weirs..thx



Quit condescending just 'cuz SWF is full of shit.


LOL WUT? Prove me wrong.

As I said, I'm a novice. I'm trying to learn

EDIT: encryption and the like too. I didn't say it's all that way

The basics of C can be learned in a day.



Quit condescending just 'cuz SWF is full of shit.

For someone who denies the Internet is Unix-based, you got no idea what the fuck you're talkin' about.

You're fat and got manboobs, so stfu.

Funny, accusations with no quotes. Please tell me where I denied the Internet is Unix-based....

I have no idea what I'm talking about? QUOTE ME MOTHER FUCKER! AHAHAHAH! Empty threats from a dickless penguin. You're a fucking bird and can't even fly, go fuck yourself.

wow... I heard people bitching about the code being so weirs..thx

He's a programming God...so he can get it in a day? Lol, unless he considers the basics...initializing variables?

LOL WUT? Prove me wrong.

He isn't in the business of credibility, he is in the business of acting like a retard. However if you refer to my reply above that post, you'll have your answer.

I think it's that primal urge to get your sperm in a young and ripe girl.

You're fat and got manboobs, so stfu.
People still bring this up?

I mean, CarbonB is full of shit, sure :p, but I don't think this is a very effective retort. Especially because I don't think it's true anymore.

I think it's that primal urge to get your sperm in a young and ripe girl.
HOLY SHIT HOLD IT WHOA NOW ON-TOPIC POST WHAT THE HELL

:D

Yup, but for some reason I don't think this is what it is for pedophiles. Since if it was an impulse from something to do with procreation, then you would want the girl to at least be hitting puberty.

Which is not a 5 year old. For some reason I think it has something to do with the innocence of children. Some emotional appeal, because when you hear pedophiles talk about their "relationships" it seems like they are talking about an equal partner. Except not really...even the ones kidding themselves will never be able to acknowledge the child as an equal.

That is where the rift takes place, and why I don't understand the fixation. It's false love from a source that gives it to anyone. As if the child could only love you...lol. The same creepy reason that people dress up their pets and talk to them like humans. Easy love, and easy loyalty. Pedophiles are weak, but that is only one type of pedophile. There are pedophiles where the habit was learned from practices in their own childhood.

Who knows though, only time will reveal more about whether this is a chemical or psychological occurrence. Could even be both...or a combination. No telling, let's ask the Pedo though what he thinks the root is of his sexual attraction to children.

Hey, little girl, or really are you a little girl?
I remember meeting you on the scene, I fell for you though you're just fourteen.
Hey Lolita, if you ever need a place to stay,
if you ever just want to get away, come on with me, a runaway.

I had her back here with me. I remember her face.
Then someone squealed to the pigs, now she's gone away.
And there's no time for fun and there's no time for anyone
and there's just time to run and I'm asking you--
who are you to judge morality? I had her so safe and sound here with me.
But when you're walking down the street who are you to smile at who you meet?
Who are you to look too close at me? Who are you to go on judging me?



Every time I visit S&A I see this thread and think of this song. Forgotten Rebels ftw.

I'll see your Forgotten Rebels and raise you Deadsy (not by choice, mind you...)

Oh itty bitty titty girl, where are you?
Oh itty bitty titty said our love was true.
Oh my itty bitty titty, so young and so unused.

Now itty bitty titty plays a mean hopscotch,
As she does her little ditty, I can stare at her crotch.
Oh my itty bitty titty, little queen of double dutch.

Now itty bitty titty girl, where are you?
Oh itty bitty titty, with those eyes so blue.
Oh I love how itty bitty titty's little blouse is so see through.

So itty bitty titty now you're off to camp,
Well I bet those itty bitty undies still are damp.
I'll be waiting for September in the playground outside your class.

Now itty bitty titty quit when I wasn't through,
I found a place to keep her hid where nobody knew.
And now my itty bitty titty lines up all of my afternoons.

Oh itty bitty titty, as I came she blew,
She doesn't hold a candle to her black silk suit.
As she clutches itty bitty titty now we're three from two.

He's a programming God...so he can get it in a day? Lol, unless he considers the basics...initializing variables?

k


He isn't in the business of credibility, he is in the business of acting like a retard. However if you refer to my reply above that post, you'll have your answer.

hmmm

also robinhoody and xxombie, what's the name of the songs..

also; I forgot. Oingo Bongo-Little Girls

also robinhoody and xxombie, what's the name of the songs..

also; I forgot. Oingo Bongo-Little Girls

On the Run. I saw them play it live last night. :)

Yup, but for some reason I don't think this is what it is for pedophiles. Since if it was an impulse from something to do with procreation, then you would want the girl to at least be hitting puberty.

Which is not a 5 year old. For some reason I think it has something to do with the innocence of children. Some emotional appeal, because when you hear pedophiles talk about their "relationships" it seems like they are talking about an equal partner. Except not really...even the ones kidding themselves will never be able to acknowledge the child as an equal.

That is where the rift takes place, and why I don't understand the fixation. It's false love from a source that gives it to anyone. As if the child could only love you...lol. The same creepy reason that people dress up their pets and talk to them like humans. Easy love, and easy loyalty. Pedophiles are weak, but that is only one type of pedophile. There are pedophiles where the habit was learned from practices in their own childhood.

Who knows though, only time will reveal more about whether this is a chemical or psychological occurrence. Could even be both...or a combination. No telling, let's ask the Pedo though what he thinks the root is of his sexual attraction to children.

They all have a different Age of Attraction (AOA). There's a class called Hebephiliacs that have an AOA of about 14-18, and these girls are potential breeders. "True" pedos can be attracted to children as young as babies.

Keep in mind that many "pedos" go for boys as well, and there's no breeding potential there.

The baboon just wants to stick his dick in something soft and warm. Real baboons go for the smell that comes out of a fertile female's cunt, and real baboons don't check the age of the female baboon in question, so you got that there too.

Is...is young baboon poon any good?

They all have a different Age of Attraction (AOA). There's a class called Hebephiliacs that have an AOA of about 14-18, and these girls are potential breeders. "True" pedos can be attracted to children as young as babies.

Keep in mind that many "pedos" go for boys as well, and there's no breeding potential there.

The baboon just wants to stick his dick in something soft and warm. Real baboons go for the smell that comes out of a fertile female's cunt, and real baboons don't check the age of the female baboon in question, so you got that there too.

Yes, and with the fact that they also go for boys it seems even more like less of a procreation issue and more of an impulse on the part of the male. Since you really don't see a ton of female pedophiles.

Also which culture do you think stimulates the most pedophiles, or maybe a better word would be produces?

Is...is young baboon poon any good?

Ask Dave Chapelle :P

Since if it was an impulse from something to do with procreation, then you would want the girl to at least be hitting puberty.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/9356/posterqy9.jpg

No telling, let's ask the Pedo though what he thinks the root is of his sexual attraction to children.

Capitalized for a reason, I presume?

Well... let's start with a paradigm shift...

As if the child could only love you...lol.

Alternately, there are those who hold that love is a thing whose value is in itself, and that its very real, tangible human benefits are based not in the heartlessness and absence of love, but on the warmth of its presence.

Personally, I'd be far less interested in someone who was so cold that they could not love freely.

Speaking of paradigm shifts...

even the ones kidding themselves will never be able to acknowledge the child as an equal.

Except that they are an equal - as is every living thing, really. The subjective experience of another living thing is no more, nor less, valid than mine or anyones. Each is its own view, each is its own perspective, and each is infinitely important to them - which is all that matters. 'n in terms of interpreting their own subjective experience - they are more than my equal, they are soverign. It is theirs by right.

Now, I figure you won't rapidly switch your perspective... and for the moment, I'll spare you the boredom of introducing you to the large bodies of psychology which revolve around describing your early relationship with your parents on the sole basis of this single perspective shift. It's actually become a major field in its own right, and a major study of interest.

What is somewhat important to this conversation, however, is that this other perspective exists. There are large bodies of people, paederotic and nonpaederotic, who view the world through this lens, and for all you know, they might even be right. Whether or not you choose to follow this alternate point of view, you may have to acknowledge that it exists if you want to see a different point of view.

Incidentally...

It's false love from a source that gives it to anyone.

I can promise you from experience that it's not that easy. ;) Courtesy out of fear of parental punishment is not the same thing as genuine affection, and you might want to look to all the people who bullied you in elementary school - or all the people you bullied - if you want a more realistic view than "giving love to everyone."

Nonetheless, since you asked...

No telling, let's ask the Pedo though what he thinks the root is of his sexual attraction to children.

Well, that's a set of interrelated questions... the question of mechanisms, and the question of how things came to be, are two that such question could be driving at...

...as for how things came to be, every single familial study to date - Gaffney's '84 study, or Blanchard's '93 commentary, for instance - have found heritability to be present. This, as well as demographic distribution, case studies, and the remarkable absence of other correlates - have fairly well established a genetic basis... and what is more interesting is that the data suggests a simple genetic basis. This is not a combination of alleles per se, though God only knows how subvariants are sorted out; there's some tenative indications of intrauterine hormonal influences on androphilia/gynephilia selection for all sexual orientations... but instead displays a crisp-edged boolean recessive character.

This leaves the question of how such could be, the architecture by which such could reliably manifest... especially since the genetics are so clean-cut and reliable, down to the thousandth of a percent. It doesn't simply create a disposition which could increase the tendancies of this or that, it reliably and uniformly cranks out the paederotic with high reproducability. Yet, in order for a preference or aversion to a stimulus to occur, that stimulus has to be recognizeable. We can only have baseline genetic tendancies to avoid pain and seek warmth because we have the architecture to sense - and innate initial responses to - things such as pain and warmth.

Well... it turns out that humans (and a few other species) do have an innate recognition of neotenous paedomorphism... and studies of "cute" have shown that this recognition is essentially identical in a cross-cultural fashion, making it a part of our genetic heritage, our recognition - and love for - the young of (usually) our species, a charming genetic impulse which prevents the urge to just stomp on the babies in our tribe and instead care for them.

Neotenous paedomorphic stimulus has been shown to attain this evolutionary goal - and a useful one it is, for the survival of the species - through the immediate release of oxytocin at the stimulus of the genetically-defined markers of "cute kid."(1 (http://www.academyleadership.com/news.asp?page=article30)).

Now, oxytocin is more-or-less the sole mediator of bonding and pro-social behavior(2 (http://blogit.helsinki.fi/lombardi/post-176.htm)), including remarkable and extreme pro-social behavior (3 (http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14173)), so it is perfectly natural that when there is an evolutionary advantage to not killing/abusing the young, that one would want the ability to both recognize the young as a seperate class instinctively, and the release of large amounts of oxytocin should some young child of the species happen to be around...

...but oxytocin has one other effect : not only is it involved in bonding, but it is involved in the sex drive as well (4 (http://www.oxytocin.org/oxy/erection.html))(5 (http://www.bioportfolio.com/LeadDiscovery/PubMed-020302.html))(6 (http://www.morgenwelt.de/futureframe/9908-oxytocin.htm)).

This means, basically, that any species which does not mistreat its young is basically going to be comprised of pedophiles. It's how evolution chose to wire the brain of all higher mammals, and it is an entirely unavoidable and intrinsic side effect of not mistreating one's young.

We are just the hypertrophied essence of the genetic checks which - hopefully - keep you from mistreating your kids. 'n I'm rather glad of that.

You know, I have to say, I'm not attracted to girls who aren't developed, but I like girls who I can talk to about things yet has cute/innocent/young mannerisms. Does that count?

If she's had her first period, it's biologically not pedophillia.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/9356/posterqy9.jpg


I wonder how many pictures with captions you have where a relation between pedophiles can be drawn...


Capitalized for a reason, I presume?

Who else who I be talking about?

Well... let's start with a paradigm shift...

Alternately, there are those who hold that love is a thing whose value is in itself, and that its very real, tangible human benefits are based not in the heartlessness and absence of love, but on the warmth of its presence.

Personally, I'd be far less interested in someone who was so cold that they could not love freely.

You mean like some of the people who are products of child molestation? Who have a hard time even dealing with being touched?

Speaking of paradigm shifts...

Except that they are an equal - as is every living thing, really. The subjective experience of another living thing is no more, nor less, valid than mine or anyones. Each is its own view, each is its own perspective, and each is infinitely important to them - which is all that matters. 'n in terms of interpreting their own subjective experience - they are more than my equal, they are soverign. It is theirs by right.

Did you just say they are "soverign"? Lol, then start off saying that you are equal, and end saying that they are actually MORE THAN your equal? So which is it? Anyways let's press on...


Now, I figure you won't rapidly switch your perspective... and for the moment, I'll spare you the boredom of introducing you to the large bodies of psychology which revolve around describing your early relationship with your parents on the sole basis of this single perspective shift. It's actually become a major field in its own right, and a major study of interest.

What is somewhat important to this conversation, however, is that this other perspective exists. There are large bodies of people, paederotic and nonpaederotic, who view the world through this lens, and for all you know, they might even be right. Whether or not you choose to follow this alternate point of view, you may have to acknowledge that it exists if you want to see a different point of view.

Incidentally...

What alternative point of view? You haven't said anything...of any value...or merit.

I can promise you from experience that it's not that easy. ;) Courtesy out of fear of parental punishment is not the same thing as genuine affection, and you might want to look to all the people who bullied you in elementary school - or all the people you bullied - if you want a more realistic view than "giving love to everyone."

Nonetheless, since you asked...

It doesn't matter, you are never going to be on equal footing as a child when you are an adult. PERIOD!


Well, that's a set of interrelated questions... the question of mechanisms, and the question of how things came to be, are two that such question could be driving at...

...as for how things came to be, every single familial study to date - Gaffney's '84 study, or Blanchard's '93 commentary, for instance - have found heritability to be present. This, as well as demographic distribution, case studies, and the remarkable absence of other correlates - have fairly well established a genetic basis... and what is more interesting is that the data suggests a simple genetic basis. This is not a combination of alleles per se, though God only knows how subvariants are sorted out; there's some tenative indications of intrauterine hormonal influences on androphilia/gynephilia selection for all sexual orientations... but instead displays a crisp-edged boolean recessive character.

This leaves the question of how such could be, the architecture by which such could reliably manifest... especially since the genetics are so clean-cut and reliable, down to the thousandth of a percent. It doesn't simply create a disposition which could increase the tendancies of this or that, it reliably and uniformly cranks out the paederotic with high reproducability. Yet, in order for a preference or aversion to a stimulus to occur, that stimulus has to be recognizeable. We can only have baseline genetic tendancies to avoid pain and seek warmth because we have the architecture to sense - and innate initial responses to - things such as pain and warmth.

Well... it turns out that humans (and a few other species) do have an innate recognition of neotenous paedomorphism... and studies of "cute" have shown that this recognition is essentially identical in a cross-cultural fashion, making it a part of our genetic heritage, our recognition - and love for - the young of (usually) our species, a charming genetic impulse which prevents the urge to just stomp on the babies in our tribe and instead care for them.

Neotenous paedomorphic stimulus has been shown to attain this evolutionary goal - and a useful one it is, for the survival of the species - through the immediate release of oxytocin at the stimulus of the genetically-defined markers of "cute kid."(1 (http://www.academyleadership.com/news.asp?page=article30)).

Now, oxytocin is more-or-less the sole mediator of bonding and pro-social behavior(2 (http://blogit.helsinki.fi/lombardi/post-176.htm)), including remarkable and extreme pro-social behavior (3 (http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14173)), so it is perfectly natural that when there is an evolutionary advantage to not killing/abusing the young, that one would want the ability to both recognize the young as a seperate class instinctively, and the release of large amounts of oxytocin should some young child of the species happen to be around...

...but oxytocin has one other effect : not only is it involved in bonding, but it is involved in the sex drive as well (4 (http://www.oxytocin.org/oxy/erection.html))(5 (http://www.bioportfolio.com/LeadDiscovery/PubMed-020302.html))(6 (http://www.morgenwelt.de/futureframe/9908-oxytocin.htm)).

This means, basically, that any species which does not mistreat its young is basically going to be comprised of pedophiles. It's how evolution chose to wire the brain of all higher mammals, and it is an entirely unavoidable and intrinsic side effect of not mistreating one's young.

We are just the hypertrophied essence of the genetic checks which - hopefully - keep you from mistreating your kids. 'n I'm rather glad of that.

Seriously is that it? Over productive "be nice to children" syndrome? Lol, even if it could be proven that there is some genetic tendencies that could relate to the production of paediatric behavior, it still doesn't mean that all primal impulses are acted upon with the conscious brain.

So tell me why is it pedophiles can be attracted to boys and girls? Girls and women? Specific age groups? Surely you are not going to try and claim that all this is encoded in a mutation of DNA? Improper malfunctioning of the brain?

Since really that is what it seems like you are saying. If I am not a pedophile and I do not find children attractive. Is my brain working normally? As opposed to yours? Could I in essence comparatively show you as a broken version of me?

Lol, I pegged you as weak and desperate the moment I read your first post on totse. This is not helping your case by any means. Plus since this thread was adhering more to the Psychological aspects of pedophilia, why did you not choose to delve into your child hood experiences with sex?

Instead you try and give a basis that you are a product of Mother Nature, and that your attraction to children is through no fault of your own, but a mere evolutionary side effect. Then let me ask you this, are there two types of pedophiles, the natural and the synthetic?

Then let me ask you this, are there two types of pedophiles, the natural and the synthetic?

I'm going to simply assume that the rest of that fluff is an attempt at snark. If not, well... that's sad... but you can always ask for a tutor in the english language.

In the interim, I'll just assume you speak it better than you let on, and adress the only thing you said.

The answer, quite simply, is that the "synthetic pedophiles"... aren't 'pedophiles.' Rape is a crime, committed virtually solely by heterosexual men (1 (http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm))(2 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm#note66)), which revolves around the desire for power and control rather than sexual orientation or the sex drive(3 (http://www.coolnurse.com/rape.htm))(4 (http://www.theranger.org/news/2005/11/04/News/Rape-About.Power.And.Control.Not.Sex.Director.Says-2000374.shtml))(5 (http://media.www.theranger.org/media/storage/paper1010/news/2005/11/04/News/Rape-About.Power.And.Control.Not.Sex.Director.Says-2000374.shtml))(6 (http://www.snopes.com/crime/prevent/rape.asp)).

In short, the only "synthetic pedophiles" or "synthetic homosexuals" are merely expressions of the heterosexual pathology which have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

I'm going to simply assume that the rest of that fluff is an attempt at snark. If not, well... that's sad... but you can always ask for a tutor in the english language.

What? I need to ask for help in the English language (Get that capitalization?) because you assume my post is fluff and or snark? Sorry, I don't speak pederast. Can you tell me what the fuck snark is?

In the interim, I'll just assume you speak it better than you let on, and adress the only thing you said.

The answer, quite simply, is that the "synthetic pedophiles"... aren't 'pedophiles.' Rape is a crime, committed virtually solely by heterosexual men (1 (http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm))(2 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm#note66)), which revolves around the desire for power and control rather than sexual orientation or the sex drive(3 (http://www.coolnurse.com/rape.htm))(4 (http://www.theranger.org/news/2005/11/04/News/Rape-About.Power.And.Control.Not.Sex.Director.Says-2000374.shtml))(5 (http://media.www.theranger.org/media/storage/paper1010/news/2005/11/04/News/Rape-About.Power.And.Control.Not.Sex.Director.Says-2000374.shtml))(6 (http://www.snopes.com/crime/prevent/rape.asp)).

In short, the only "synthetic pedophiles" or "synthetic homosexuals" are merely expressions of the heterosexual pathology which have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Just no...how can you construe the power trips of rapists to the molestation of children? You think the molestation of children that occurs with pedophiles (Look that definition again up Pedo, you should know what it means especially considering your name.) unlike yourself who are "deemed" products of nature, are simply hell bent heterosexuals?

Then explain the underage attraction to little boys, because that really doesn't seem to fall under a "heterosexual pathology". And you question my grasp of the English language? Little girl fucker please....

Just no...how can you construe the power trips of rapists to the molestation of children? You think the molestation of children that occurs with pedophiles unlike yourself who are "deemed" products of nature, are simply hell bent heterosexuals?

'statistics since mid-1990 had shown 304 persons involved in known or suspected child sex offences. Of these... only 45 (ie. 14.8% of the total) had "been identified as paedophiles or suspected paedophiles, with all the classic indicators". '

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm#note66

You know... the refs?

Incidentally, that actually puts us... under capita.

Then explain the underage attraction to little boys, because that really doesn't seem to fall under a "heterosexual pathology".

'The vast majority of men who sexually assault other {males} identify themselves as heterosexual.'

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

You know... the refs?

And you question my grasp of the English language?

Yup.

'statistics since mid-1990 had shown 304 persons involved in known or suspected child sex offences. Of these... only 45 (ie. 14.8% of the total) had "been identified as paedophiles or suspected paedophiles, with all the classic indicators". '

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm#note66

You know... the refs?

Incidentally, that actually puts us... under capita.

"Had been identified as paedophiles or suspected paedophiles, with all the classic indicators".

No it doesn't put us under capita. Also why are you linking me to Australian parliament when I asked for the definition of a pedophile?

How many times are you going to avoid questions? You are talking about new studies in the area of defining pedophiles and what drives their urges. Then you quote something that specifically states "classic" indicators.

Are you really telling me that your sample size is 304? Mind telling me how that compares to the population the sample came from? Eh? Anyone want to tell this dip shit what percentage 304 is of about 6.5 billion?


'The vast majority of men who sexually assault other {males} identify themselves as heterosexual.'

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

You know... the refs?

Please don't tell me you just said "male" rape. Do you understand the context of this argument, or are you really this dense? Now you are trying to compare the completely different topic of male rape, and the reasons that most are aware of, and compare them to a fixation with young boys?

Do you honestly think that men have sex with young boys, for the same reason that they rape other men? Do you think that all pedophiles rape the younger boys, or is it possible that some willingly partake in sexual acts with the older men? Are the intentions still the same then when the younger boy is compliant? Still the same as rape? Stop avoiding the direct topic of being sexually attracted to young children.

Yup.

You're embarrassing...go pick out a toy for some kids or something.

Also why are you linking me to Australian parliament when I asked for the definition of a pedophile?

Oh, you'd like to ask the definition now?

~shrug~ Okay. Since your infinite brilliance has successfully done so for the first time, 'pais' is "youth," and 'philkein' is "a platonic attraction."

Why the fuck do you think I pretty much always put it in quotes in the topic of sexual orientation, when not using the erastes conjugation?

You are talking about new studies in the area of defining pedophiles and what drives their urges.

No, that was several posts ago. Your last question involved whether "the molestation of children that occurs... are simply hell bent heterosexuals?"

I know it's hard for you to figure out what is going on around you, or speak and/or read english, but... try to do better. It's not fair to the rest of the class that you're always holding them back.

Are you really telling me that your sample size is 304? Mind telling me how that compares to the population the sample came from? Eh? Anyone want to tell this dip shit...

Accurate to plus or minus two and a half percent (http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm).

Unfortunately, since the rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever, there's really no point in adressing irrelevance. Yes, the rape of males by males, irrespective of age, is primarily a heterosexual phenomenon. Deal with it.

Oh, you'd like to ask the definition now?

~shrug~ Okay. Since your infinite brilliance has successfully done so for the first time, 'pais' is "youth," and 'philkein' is "a platonic attraction."

Why the fuck do you think I pretty much always put it in quotes in the topic of sexual orientation, when not using the erastes conjugation?

I think there is a misconception here about how much I actually follow the common phrases and saying amongst pedophiles. So by all means, if you are referring to some other definition other than the one defined in a dictionary. Then, tell me what you mean...

If you say, "cat" and actually mean "dog" when the common consensus is that a cat is a feline. What am I to do? Youth, and a platonic attraction? Wow, did you just avoid about 4 questions? First time I asked...nay, I believe that wasn't the first time.

No, that was several posts ago. Your last question involved whether "the molestation of children that occurs... are simply hell bent heterosexuals?"

I know it's hard for you to figure out what is going on around you, or speak and/or read english, but... try to do better. It's not fair to the rest of the class that you're always holding them back.

Please your posts are formulaic at best. Point out a technicality in your hidden agenda, avoid a question, and then question my competency when you are obviously being vague on purpose. Does this work on all the little girls and boys? Pfff...you're sad.

Several posts ago? Oh, so I guess that means it lost it's relevancy. You were trying to compare the feeling of "power" over someone in raping another man, as the same as a synthetic pedophile molesting a child. I called you on it, you avoided the question. You are still avoiding the question, you still have refused to talk about when you first realized you were attracted to children. You have expressed interest in boys and girls.

I have also accused you of being an under cover cop, which you never responded to. The most trustworthy individual is a secure pedophile? Ha!

Accurate to plus or minus two and a half percent (http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm).

Unfortunately, since the rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever, there's really no point in adressing irrelevance. Yes, the rape of males by males, irrespective of age, is primarily a heterosexual phenomenon. Deal with it.

Dear Lord tell me you did not just try and use an internet calculator to determine how many naturally occurring pedophiles and pseudo ones exist. At least compare a sampling size of 304 and generalize it to the World population. Oh wait.....do you really fool people with this shit? Statistics are laughable at best, quote some real studies please.

I think it is odd that you brought up male on male rape, and that you are almost aggressive with it's "acceptance" by me. Can you tell me what this topic is about again? Why you are talking about male on male rape, when I was questioning the correlations between age and gender fetishes of pedophiles. And if that would separate them from a "natural" pedophile, and I use that word loosely.

I think there is a misconception here about how much I actually follow the common phrases and saying amongst pedophiles.

If by "common phrases and sayings amongst pedophiles" you mean "common languages about 2-4,000 years ago which you are hell-bent on using"...

If you say, "cat" and actually mean "dog" when the common consensus is that a cat is a feline. What am I to do?

I have no blinking idea what a mental defective such as you would do. I would point out the definitions of both words in the original language.

Please your posts are formulaic at best. Point out a technicality in your hidden agenda, avoid a question, and then question my competency when you are obviously being vague on purpose. Does this work on all the little girls and boys? Pfff...you're sad.

No, most little girls and boys speak teh ingles, motherfucker. Do you?

Several posts ago? Oh, so I guess that means it lost it's relevancy.

Not at all.

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9617905&postcount=133

...read it as many times as you wish. It's exactly the answer you got to your only question to date, before you changed the subject and started ranting incoherently.

You were trying to compare the feeling of "power" over someone in raping another man, as the same as a synthetic pedophile molesting a child.

Yes, people commiting rape outside their orientation are pretty similar to people commiting rape outside their orientation. I have no idea why tautology is beyond your mental grasp.

I called you on it, you avoided the question. You are still avoiding the question,

No, actually, the last several posts have adressed the question in detail. You have been avoiding them, while blabbing about questions you didn't ask.

you still have refused to talk about when you first realized you were attracted to children.

No I haven't. I presume you're now actually asking this? I would've been about 2 or 3; I've made other S&A posts thereabout, I believe.

You have expressed interest in boys and girls.

lol. Tell me more.

I have also accused you of being an under cover cop, which you never responded to.

Yup. I'm an undercover on your &t. Next question?

Dear Lord tell me you did not just try and use an internet calculator to determine how many naturally occurring pedophiles and pseudo ones exist.

With pleasure - I did not use an internet calculator as a sample polling of sexual orientation in an undifferentiated mixed pool of sexual activity and sexual assault.

Happy now?

At least compare a sampling size of 304 and generalize it to the World population.

Instead, I used a standardized calculator of confidence interval to point out that the confidence interval of the sample size you whined about in an uneducated fashion happened to be accurate to plus or minus a little under 2 and a half percent.

...dodge the issues much, Carbon?

If by "common phrases and sayings amongst pedophiles" you mean "common languages about 2-4,000 years ago which you are hell-bent on using"...

No, the way I was using the word was in relation to describing an adult who is attracted to young children. That would be you Pedo.

I have no blinking idea what a mental defective such as you would do. I would point out the definitions of both words in the original language.

Focusing on technicalities, Greek, Latin, who gives a shit. The definition of the word that has been used, and is being used is simply referring to an adult who is attracted to young children. Except...you are still avoiding questions and relying on technicalities to disperse any confrontation.


No, most little girls and boys speak teh ingles, motherfucker. Do you?

It should be clear to everyone on totse by now that my grasp of the English language is at least decent. So what is this? Every single comment you post in here is simply questioning what? My use of the ENGLISH language, yet you are constantly pointing out the Greek and/or Latin roots of words? Come on dude...pedophile, someone who likes young children. Is that you? Yes or no?

Not at all.

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9617905&postcount=133

...read it as many times as you wish. It's exactly the answer you got to your only question to date, before you changed the subject and started ranting incoherently.

No, you didn't answer anything that is exactly my point. Also that post #133 is ON THIS VERY PAGE. I guess you failed to realize that all totse settings are not created equal. Which is why it's so amusing for you to link me to your post that is still my the very page I'm referring to, and the only difference between #133 and this post is that you ARE STILL AVOIDING QUESTIONS! DUH! You didn't answer shit buddy, I've read, I've read it through plenty of times. Probably more times than you yourself have read it, which is why I posed the questions I did, and which is why you responded with, "You don't know English."



Yes, people commiting rape outside their orientation are pretty similar to people commiting rape outside their orientation. I have no idea why tautology is beyond your mental grasp.

So glad you said this, because it is exactly where I drew a distinction. If you are telling me that all molestation between an adult male and a young boy falls under the category of "committing rape outside their orientation" you are full of shit. Also, start spell checking yourself because I find it baffling you still don't know how to spell "committing", and/or "commit". Spend less time reading about pederasts in Ancient Greek.

No, actually, the last several posts have adressed the question in detail. You have been avoiding them, while blabbing about questions you didn't ask.

Yeah, babbling about questions I DIDN'T ask....right. In detail? The conclusions you are drawing from statistical analysis of populations is BOGUS. Period, anyone who has taken a Statistics course understands why. Yet you and every pedophile under a blue moon want to chalk it up to "evolutionary" side effects. Which is BULLLSHIT.

No I haven't. I presume you're now actually asking this? I would've been about 2 or 3; I've made other S&A posts thereabout, I believe.

That isn't an answer, yet for some reason I believe you think it is...


lol. Tell me more.

Huh? You seem so...confused with your own orientation. This was just the icing.

Yup. I'm an undercover on your &t. Next question?

Figured as much, especially with the quaint way you PURPOSEFULLY misspell words and use short hand to appear like a good ol boy. I wonder how many times you've sidestepped questions in real-life that might put someone near your secret? Since you certainly seem proficient enough at it here...

With pleasure - I did not use an internet calculator as a sample polling of sexual orientation in an undifferentiated mixed pool of sexual activity and sexual assault.

Happy now?

No, because you're an idiot. Who has no understanding of Statistics and it's applications. That is the most bogus use of logic I have ever seen, no wonder you can't comprehend the questions being presented to you. Your knowledge on the subject is severely lacking.

Random sampling in an extremely small population, and then using a simple stats calculator it say it applies to the entire population. It doesn't work, which is why you are an idiot for trying to base an argument on a sample size of 304 people and claim that only 14% of them were actually "pedophiles".

On that page it even says that sample size affects the confidence interval...dumb, you SOO dumb!

Instead, I used a standardized calculator of confidence interval to point out that the confidence interval of the sample size you whined about in an uneducated fashion happened to be accurate to plus or minus a little under 2 and a half percent.

...dodge the issues much, Carbon?

Dodge the issues? You are trying to predict a
statistical analysis of the world population by using a sample size of 304. What are your quantifiers? You are telling me that it is accurate to within 2% of the population. Do you know how accurate 2% is when you are talking about a population size of 6.5 billion? Someone want to tell this jackass what 2% is of 6.5 billion. Are you going to present this to the community of science and say, "Hey guys, I used this cool calculator made for Introduction to Statistics and tried to use a simple sampling to produce a bell curve representing the population." EEERRRR, WHaaa!?

Again, you are getting yourself into deep waters here. There is no way that you can tell me the sampling was accurate, and that it applies culturally across the globe. Which is why statistics is considered to be a bullshit Math, by real Mathematicians...

Focusing on technicalities, Greek, Latin, who gives a shit.


If you do not like greek, perhaps you should find another language?

It should be clear to everyone on totse by now that my grasp of the English language is at least decent.

Oh, something's clear to everyone on &totse.

Also that post #133 is ON THIS VERY PAGE. I guess you failed to realize that all totse settings are not created equal.

The relevance of this is asounding. RLY.

Oh, wait. It's not relevant.

and the only difference between #133 and this post is that you ARE STILL AVOIDING QUESTIONS! DUH! You didn't answer shit buddy... Yeah, babbling about questions I DIDN'T ask....right.

Yup.

For instance, here...

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9621160&postcount=138

...you bitch at me telling me I should know the definition of "pedophile," and tell me to look it up, in some misguided attempt to look 'hard' on the int3rnetz.

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9622402&postcount=140

Here, you bitch at me for not answering your "question" as to the definition of a "pedophile," when it was a definition you never asked for.

There's lots of similar examples... for example, where you go off about how I "refuse" to answer when I first realized I was paederotic in orientation... but you fail to incorporate the fact that you never actually asked "Hey, Joe... when'd you realize you were babyqueer" once in this entire thread.

So... you wonder why we question your comprehension of the english language? 'cause we're starting to question your comprehension of a whole lot more.

If you are telling me that all molestation between an adult male and a young boy falls under the category of "committing rape outside their orientation" you are full of shit.

Au contraire. I'm telling you that rape is rape, that most sexual activity - molestation or otherwise - between adults and children is perpetrated by heterosexuals, and that rape, by virtue of not being motivated by sexual orientation, is the sole form of apparent sexual activity uninfluenced by sexual orientation.

Now, the fact that this very clearly delineates most sexual activity at the moment as a bunch of heterosexuals raping young boys, is simply the inescapable conclusion of the well established facts.

The conclusions you are drawing from statistical analysis of populations is BOGUS. Period, anyone who has taken a Statistics course understands why. Yet you and every pedophile under a blue moon want to chalk it up to "evolutionary" side effects. Which is BULLLSHIT.

HAHAHAHAHA...

Yes. The relation of sample size to confidence interval at a given confidence level obviously exists because of natural selection, as two equations who love each other very much mate like bunny rabbits and have a posse of arithmatic-puppies. What equations will get eaten by the tiger? Who knows...

Umm... yeah. Idiot.

No, because you're an idiot. Who has no understanding of Statistics and it's applications. That is the most bogus use of logic I have ever seen, no wonder you can't comprehend the questions being presented to you. Your knowledge on the subject is severely lacking.

Your ability to make any sort of concrete, empirical statement in that load of tripe is severely lacking. I'm sure we'll see more of your deficiencies in just a few.

Random sampling in an extremely small population, and then using a simple stats calculator it say it applies to the entire population. It doesn't work,

You may be defective. The fact that a sample size of 304 is suitable for a confidence interval of +/-2.5% at a confidence level of 95% for the broader population is inassailiably established.

which is why you are an idiot for trying to base an argument on a sample size of 304 people and claim that only 14% of them were actually "pedophiles".

THIS IS WHY WE WONDER IF YOU SPEAK TEH INGLES.

The finding was established in the original study, moron. The derivation of demographics from the original sampling population has nothing whatsoever to do with the confidence interval. Remember - your inability to understand what is going on around you does not in fact change the universe.

On that page it even says that sample size affects the confidence interval...dumb, you SOO dumb!

^^ quoted for lulz.

So, uhh... tell me... do you have ANY IDEA what a sample size of that magnitude would give as a confidence interval?

lololol...

Dodge the issues? You are trying to predict a
statistical analysis of the world population by using a sample size of 304. What are your quantifiers?

Obviously, the initial sample comprised solely those persons convicted of kiddiefiddling. Duh.

You are telling me that it is accurate to within 2% of the population. Do you know how accurate 2% is when you are talking about a population size of 6.5 billion? Someone want to tell this jackass what 2% is of 6.5 billion.

Uhh... yeah. To within two percent, dumbass.

Again, you are getting yourself into deep waters here.

~shrug~ I can swim. I'm pretty motherfuckin comfortable within the sciences, whereas you have repeatedly shown your redundant inadequacies.

...this should be lulz.

Funny, accusations with no quotes. Please tell me where I denied the Internet is Unix-based....

UseNET is for faggots buddy. Maybe you just like beef in your back tunnels?


I have no idea what I'm talking about? QUOTE ME MOTHER FUCKER! AHAHAHAH! Empty threats from a dickless penguin. You're a fucking bird and can't even fly, go fuck yourself.

You'd better make sure you could even see your own dick beyond that gut before you compare it to my large cockasaurus.

Moreover, I fly thru the water -- an experience of fucktabulous wonders. It's too bad your fat ass drowns you.

He's a programming God...so he can get it in a day? Lol, unless he considers the basics...initializing variables?

Familiarization with the general concept is done in a day. Professional coding comes with experience, learning from other source codes etc. or as some anonymous wanker said, "Every new version released introduces 5 bugs, and every fix introduces 10 more," or some shit like that.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/9356/posterqy9.jpg

FUKKEN SAVED

also.....uh-oh

http://www.logh.net/minglogh/logh1a.gif

http://www.logh.net/minglogh/logh18c_s.jpg

people flaming here. (kudos to who gets the ref)

If you do not like greek, perhaps you should find another language?

It isn't even relevant. The entire point was of an agreed upon definition of "pedophile", you are the one dragging this discussion into a pissing match.

Oh, something's clear to everyone on &totse.

Here you go again...doing the same tactics over and over. I wonder where you learned this social behavior? Is it from being an out cast?

The relevance of this is asounding. RLY.

Oh, wait. It's not relevant.

Whatever you say, it wasn't like you said, "several posts ago" as if that some how negates what I was directly quoting from them. You are flip flopping constantly pedophile.



Yup.

For instance, here...

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9621160&postcount=138

...you bitch at me telling me I should know the definition of "pedophile," and tell me to look it up, in some misguided attempt to look 'hard' on the int3rnetz.

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9622402&postcount=140

Here, you bitch at me for not answering your "question" as to the definition of a "pedophile," when it was a definition you never asked for.

There's lots of similar examples... for example, where you go off about how I "refuse" to answer when I first realized I was paederotic in orientation... but you fail to incorporate the fact that you never actually asked "Hey, Joe... when'd you realize you were babyqueer" once in this entire thread.

So... you wonder why we question your comprehension of the english language? 'cause we're starting to question your comprehension of a whole lot more.

Lol, I had already stated by obvious implication which definition of "pedophile" I was using. Merely the fact that I asked you for clarification in the terminology you were using is not an indication of incompetency. Intentionally you are being unclear and using unfamiliar language to the "pedo" laymen. I do not draw distinctions between "pedosexuality", or some erastes conjugation.

You are never going to draw a picture of bullshit around the specific question I asked. Simple clarification, and you did not present me with any. So asking, "When did you realize you were attracted to children?" is some how different from, "Hey Joe, when did you realize you were a babyqueer?"?

I thought I was being polite, shit excuse me then. I didn't know you wanted to be so crude with it all.


Au contraire. I'm telling you that rape is rape, that most sexual activity - molestation or otherwise - between adults and children is perpetrated by heterosexuals, and that rape, by virtue of not being motivated by sexual orientation, is the sole form of apparent sexual activity uninfluenced by sexual orientation.

Now, the fact that this very clearly delineates most sexual activity at the moment as a bunch of heterosexuals raping young boys, is simply the inescapable conclusion of the well established facts.

Except of course the fact that if we were to remove cases of rape, which is what I initially stated, what would you be left with? All other instances of sexual activity between young boys and grown men, where it isn't rape, but the same type of relationship that pedophiles like yourself claim you can share with young girls.

HAHAHAHAHA...

Yes. The relation of sample size to confidence interval at a given confidence level obviously exists because of natural selection, as two equations who love each other very much mate like bunny rabbits and have a posse of arithmatic-puppies. What equations will get eaten by the tiger? Who knows...

Umm... yeah. Idiot.

Do you even know what you're talking about? Trying to correlate a study sample of 304 people in Australia and apply it to a population is insane. It has no bearing scientifically at all. Anyone with half a brain could tell you all the inescapable control variables in that scenario. There are too many factors to determine.


Your ability to make any sort of concrete, empirical statement in that load of tripe is severely lacking. I'm sure we'll see more of your deficiencies in just a few.

Except you are the one quoting statistical data as evolutionary fact. Which is preposterous...


You may be defective. The fact that a sample size of 304 is suitable for a confidence interval of +/-2.5% at a confidence level of 95% for the broader population is inassailiably established.

Yes you are correct, except this is the part where real life comes in and why no one considers Statistics a real science. First of all you are talking about a percentage of error of plus or minus two and a half percent. What does that mean when you are comparing to a population of six and a half billion? We are trying to talk about the possibility of synthetic and natural pedophiles. That means that environmental factors will play a part in regions of the world as to the amounts of paedoerotic activity. I think that the United States is considered the largest place for pedophilia as well.



THIS IS WHY WE WONDER IF YOU SPEAK TEH INGLES.

The finding was established in the original study, moron. The derivation of demographics from the original sampling population has nothing whatsoever to do with the confidence interval. Remember - your inability to understand what is going on around you does not in fact change the universe.

You just pointed out the flaw in Statistics. It doesn't account for environmental factors. OH, and I already told you that confidence interval is definitely affected by sample size. Want to tell me what that was again? How accurate of a picture can you get of 6.5 billion individuals when you sampled 304? I mean shit, fucking McDonald's samples more than that to test their fucking fries.



^^ quoted for lulz.

So, uhh... tell me... do you have ANY IDEA what a sample size of that magnitude would give as a confidence interval?

lololol...

Magnitude? I don't think you are grasping the complexity of this situation. I hope you realize that your confidence interval is an ESTIMATE, based on a SAMPLING of DATA. How much DATA did you SAMPLE!? With an ESTIMATE based on a SAMPLING of an immeasurable element. It is called BULLSHIT. Since the confidence interval is based on data that could easily be inaccurate.


Obviously, the initial sample comprised solely those persons convicted of kiddiefiddling. Duh.

This is even worse, basing an analysis off stressed individuals and trying to identify their sexual "tastes". Anyone think that is the optimum testing environment for controlled results?

Uhh... yeah. To within two percent, dumbass.

That is plus or minus 130,000,000 people. That seems pretty accurate to me...

~shrug~ I can swim. I'm pretty motherfuckin comfortable within the sciences, whereas you have repeatedly shown your redundant inadequacies.

...this should be lulz.

Yeah, I can see the Math and Sciences are a HUGE area of expertise for you. I think more like social avoidance and defusing are your only real traits. Even talking to you now, you seem so fake. Almost as if you are trying to put some extension of yourself through the computer. Very disturbing to watch, keep going though. I'll be drawing up a case study specifically for you Pedo. Oh, don't you feel special now? :P

You'd better make sure you could even see your own dick beyond that gut before you compare it to my large cockasaurus.

Moreover, I fly thru the water -- an experience of fucktabulous wonders. It's too bad your fat ass drowns you.

Is this even a serious reply? I say USEnet is for fags, and that all of a sudden equates that the internet isn't Unix based? I didn't even say anything about *nix systems dude. Just shut the fuck up before you swim directly into the front of my yacht bitch!


Familiarization with the general concept is done in a day. Professional coding comes with experience, learning from other source codes etc. or as some anonymous wanker said, "Every new version released introduces 5 bugs, and every fix introduces 10 more," or some shit like that.

Lol, you think you could get the "concept" of recursively defining functions if you had no idea how a function acted? Programming concepts come from some of the most rigorous math and logic. How can you tell me that it can be done in a day? If it was that easy, every program would run like a dream due to the simplification of it's code and the mastery of logical steps. That is of course if you can familiarize yourself in a day...lol.

Keep it on topic guys, please.

It isn't even relevant.

Actually, it's astoundingly fucking relevant.

The entire point was of an agreed upon definition of "paederotic"

^fixed. "Oriented towards the preadolescent form" should suffice for the moment. I'll get more specific if it becomes pertinent.


Here you go again...doing the same tactics over and over. I wonder where you learned this social behavior? Is it from being an out cast?

I lol'd.

...anyways, no; what I learned from being an "outcast" are two things - which, admittedly, sort of contradict each other.

- kill.

- no one really cares if you're officially "teh outcast." Not in the slightest.

Whatever you say, it wasn't like you said, "several posts ago" as if that some how negates what I was directly quoting from them.

Umm, you weren't quoting from them, dumbass. Re-read the thread until you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Lol, I had already stated by obvious implication which definition of "pedophile" I was using. Merely the fact that I asked you for clarification in the terminology you were using is not an indication of incompetency.

You're right. The fact that you didn't ask for clarification and tried to pretend you did is what is a sign of either incompetence or senility.

So asking, "When did you realize you were attracted to children?" is some how different from, "Hey Joe, when did you realize you were a babyqueer?"?

No, it's not. 'n incidentally, adjectives are not nouns. English, motherfucker?

I thought I was being polite

No you didn't.

Except of course the fact that if we were to remove cases of rape, which is what I initially stated, what would you be left with?

A lot less heteros in the mix.

Do you even know what you're talking about? Trying to correlate a study sample of 304 people in Australia and apply it to a population is insane. It has no bearing scientifically at all. Anyone with half a brain could tell you all the inescapable control variables in that scenario. There are too many factors to determine.

Luckily, all the inescapable variables are desireable; persons convicted of age-disparate sexual activity happen to be fairly applicable to persons convicted of age-disparate sexual activity. It's one of those "tautology" things you seem to have difficulty wrapping your mind around.

Conversely, it would be very bad for discussing "pedophiles," not the least of which reason being that most of them aren't. Then again, we weren't discussing "pedophiles" in that subthread, but... persons convicted of age-disparate sexual activity. Which is a drastically different proposition entirely.

PRO TIP : there have been less than 6,500,000,000 persons convicted of age-disparate sexual activity who are still living - since you actually had trouble figuring that out on your own.

Except you are the one quoting statistical data as evolutionary fact. Which is preposterous...

ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, CAN YOU READ/SPEAK IT??

Yes you are correct, except this is the part where real life comes in and why no one considers Statistics a real science. First of all you are talking about a percentage of error of plus or minus two and a half percent. What does that mean when you are comparing to a population of six and a half billion?

Approximately 1/50th of any individual person - which is why the size of any given population does not matter worth a damn in applying a known percentage factor.

We are trying to talk about the possibility of synthetic and natural pedophiles.

...which is not a question of evolution - so glad you've finally gotten that through the dense blob of lard which crushed your skull, unlike what you wrote a few lines above in this post.

Please, don't revert your (slow) intellectual progress.

...as to the question of said possibility - it's already been pretty fucking established that your "synthetic pedophiles" are actually not "pedophiles," and are instead your average heterosexual rapist.

Please (a) learn to read, and (b) stop beating a dead horse just to show off your profound intellectual difficulties. If you want to understand something, go back and reread the fucking post. There is no reason to reply until you actually develop a new question aside from the two which were answered so long ago, and no reason to humor a motherfucker just because they have extra difficulties to read the ingles.

Good day.

Actually, it's astoundingly fucking relevant.

Okay.

^fixed. "Oriented towards the preadolescent form" should suffice for the moment. I'll get more specific if it becomes pertinent.

I believe I said "pedophile" not "paederotic".


I lol'd.

...anyways, no; what I learned from being an "outcast" are two things - which, admittedly, sort of contradict each other.

- kill.

- no one really cares if you're officially "teh outcast." Not in the slightest.

Right...are you killing in between pederast behavior and picking out toys for your Mom's friends?


Umm, you weren't quoting from them, dumbass. Re-read the thread until you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Yes I was, it was post #139 where you gave the link to the Australian government's website where they were defining the word "paedophile".


You're right. The fact that you didn't ask for clarification and tried to pretend you did is what is a sign of either incompetence or senility.

I've already pointed it out as simply as I can. I asked you when you first started realizing you were oriented towards children, and you go off on a rant about the definition of "pedophile". After that you tell me the way I should ask is..."Joe are you a babyqueer?"


No, it's not. 'n incidentally, adjectives are not nouns. English, motherfucker?

This is not helping your case by any means. Plus since this thread was adhering more to the Psychological aspects of pedophilia, why did you not choose to delve into your child hood experiences with sex?


Lol, then why are you trying to make it seem like I didn't already ask that question? Post #136, the one you said you didn't read...

I'm going to simply assume that the rest of that fluff is an attempt at snark.

Isn't there a saying? Assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups? :P


No you didn't.

Now he's telling me what I think...

A lot less heteros in the mix.

Obviously...you're dazzling.

Luckily, all the inescapable variables are desireable; persons convicted of age-disparate sexual activity happen to be fairly applicable to persons convicted of age-disparate sexual activity. It's one of those "tautology" things you seem to have difficulty wrapping your mind around.

Conversely, it would be very bad for discussing "pedophiles," not the least of which reason being that most of them aren't. Then again, we weren't discussing "pedophiles" in that subthread, but... persons convicted of age-disparate sexual activity. Which is a drastically different proposition entirely.

PRO TIP : there have been less than 6,500,000,000 persons convicted of age-disparate sexual activity who are still living - since you actually had trouble figuring that out on your own.

I love how you keep throwing "tautology" around as if it is some significant buzz word. There is no way you can determine that outcome or that application of Statistics to always be true. Oh, and that's "desirable" pedophile. Funny...because looking down you are asking me if I can read or speak English?

ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, CAN YOU READ/SPEAK IT??

Wow Joe...I kind of thought that was obvious....


Approximately 1/50th of any individual person - which is why the size of any given population does not matter worth a damn in applying a known percentage factor.

The point is even if the study was accurate you can not base a prediction off of it and assume it's precision when applied to the entire population. Which I notice you like to do a lot...assume.

...which is not a question of evolution - so glad you've finally gotten that through the dense blob of lard which crushed your skull, unlike what you wrote a few lines above in this post.

Please, don't revert your (slow) intellectual progress.

...as to the question of said possibility - it's already been pretty fucking established that your "synthetic pedophiles" are actually not "pedophiles," and are instead your average heterosexual rapist.

Please (a) learn to read, and (b) stop beating a dead horse just to show off your profound intellectual difficulties. If you want to understand something, go back and reread the fucking post. There is no reason to reply until you actually develop a new question aside from the two which were answered so long ago, and no reason to humor a motherfucker just because they have extra difficulties to read the ingles.

Good day.

Maybe you don't understand what I am asking you...I was the one who initially brought up synthetic and natural pedohphiles. Haven't you done this before? Repeat what I said, tell me I wasn't talking about it, and then tell me I'm an idiot?

Oh, and no there is a difference between someone being born naturally oriented to children, and someone who was turned onto that behavior through possible molestation as a child. Pedophile is clearly defining an orientation, the discussion is whether or not you can define a synthetic pedophile as naturally oriented to children. Which is why I was originally asking you what you considered yourself, and when you were first attracted to children.

I think you called yourself..."paederotic"? Which doesn't make sense because "pedophile" is considered as an orientation to children which you've claimed, and someone who has committed sexual acts with children, which you've also claimed. Having relationships with not only with boys, but also with girls, and that you find both to be attractive. Can you possibly expand on these inner attractions to children?

I see you are getting overly defensive, yet when someone is presenting you with valid questions about your lifestyle you get "wet".

Maybe you don't understand what I am asking you...I was the one who initially brought up synthetic and natural pedohphiles.

Yup. 'n in this same post...

Obviously...you're dazzling.

...you successfully called my hypotheosis regarding the "synthetic 'pedophile'" assertion obvious. Pretty much a sign of assent, even if you change your position 20 times per post to suit your need to troll.

Since your questions to date have been asked and answered - and, while not neccesary, you even agreed with the proposed hypotheosis...

/thread.

Yup. 'n in this same post...

Is this you wearing down?



...you successfully called my hypotheosis regarding the "synthetic 'pedophile'" assertion obvious. Pretty much a sign of assent, even if you change your position 20 times per post to suit your need to troll.

Since your questions to date have been asked and answered - and, while not neccesary, you even agreed with the proposed hypotheosis...

/thread.

It is possible for the hypotheosis to be true and the conclusion to be false. Making the entire proposition false. This is basic logic, why do you not know this if you know words like "tautology"?

You asserting that there would be "a lot less" heterosexuals in the exclusion of rape victims, does not in anyway refute what I was asking. There is no argument here, you are simply creating confrontation to avoid my straight forward approach to trying to understand you the "pedophile". Why are you being so rash? You even stoop down to call me a troll. The harsh sentiments are not winning my heart over for the cause of pedophiles across the world. Make a step forward, not two steps backward Joe....the Pedo.

It is possible for the hypotheosis to be true and the conclusion to be false. Making the entire proposition false. This is basic logic, why do you not know this if you know words like "tautology"?

Ummm.... no.

It is possible for the premise to be true, and the conclusion to be false, if and only if an elementary error has been made in the application of propositional calculus.

Seeing as a hypotheosis is, in essence, "one possible conclusion" - it is impossible for it to be true and false at the same time.

You asserting that there would be "a lot less" heterosexuals in the exclusion of rape victims, does not in anyway refute what I was asking.

Correct. It is, instead, my answer.

You even stoop down to call me a troll.

Mostly on the basis of your behavior to date in this thread.

lol wut?

Ummm.... no.

It is possible for the premise to be true, and the conclusion to be false, if and only if an elementary error has been made in the application of propositional calculus.

Seeing as a hypotheosis is, in essence, "one possible conclusion" - it is impossible for it to be true and false at the same time.

1. Also, premiss. Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

"An elementary error has been made in the application of propositional calculus." What on earth are you talking about? It's logic, if there is an error here it is with you.

"One possible conclusion"? - Here again, what are you talking about? You have a hypothesis and then a conclusion. You state your hypothesis and then your conclusion. Considering the fact that you cannot even keep your own propositions straight, I am wondering why you are trying to dabble in logic? True and false at the same time? No shit dude.

It doesn't even matter in the end because you are neither using a working "hypothesis", or a hypothesis based off of established facts. The statistical data you provided is not concrete except for in that enclosed study.



Correct. It is, instead, my answer.

An answer to a question that was only necessary to get you to answer ANOTHER question. Which you still haven't, so at the end of this post I'll put up all my questions, and you can either choose to answer or link me to the definition of "pedophile".


Mostly on the basis of your behavior to date in this thread.

Lol, you even concede with the facts of "stooping down". Even here, your assumption of me is based on a singular thread. This one, ridiculous! I see now why you grasp at any straw to make yourself feel "normal".

Now here are the questions still remaining in my mind, that I feel you have not actually answered.

- When did you realize your orientation to children?

- Are you only attracted to children, or are you also attracted to post-pubescent girls as well?

- Post-pubescent boys as well?

- How old are you?

- What is your cultural background?

- Mother and Father? Any issues there?

Ahh okay, if you want to answer them that would really help push this thrilling debate forward. However, I feel it might be at a stand still if you refuse to share any of your vast knowledge on the lifestyle and struggles of the pedophile.

lol wut?

We're just having a discussion man, hop in at any time! :)

- When did you realize your orientation to children?

'bout 2 or 3, same as I told you.

- Are you only attracted to children, or are you also attracted to post-pubescent girls as well?

No fish allowed.

- Post-pubescent boys as well?

Nope.

- How old are you?

"Post-birth." 'n like I was teasing SWF about, you can't have my SSN, either.

- What is your cultural background?

Hard left/libertarian right.

- Mother and Father? Any issues there?

Oh, it worked out pretty well. My mother's a bit nuts, but my childhood was probably more idyllic than, say, yours.

Incidentally, just 'cause I'm fond of the sciences...

Here again, what are you talking about? You have a hypothesis and then a conclusion. You state your hypothesis and then your conclusion.

Ummm... no.

A hypotheosis is one proposed conclusion from the data. One then, as a community, attempts to falsify all conclusions through experimentation.

'cause I hate when people get that wrong. The scientific method is one of the most important inventions in human history.

lol wut?

It's turned to a close-range clusterfuck brawl; i.e. The Battle of Endor. Though still have to say

http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

'bout 2 or 3, same as I told you.

Lol, this right here is funny.

No fish allowed. Nope. "Post-birth." 'n like I was teasing SWF about, you can't have my SSN, either. Hard left/libertarian right.

So does that exclude pre-pubescent boys?

Oh, it worked out pretty well. My mother's a bit nuts, but my childhood was probably more idyllic than, say, yours.

Incidentally, just 'cause I'm fond of the sciences...

Oh ouch, more idyllic than my childhood? What makes you so sure?



Ummm... no.

A hypotheosis is one proposed conclusion from the data. One then, as a community, attempts to falsify all conclusions through experimentation.

'cause I hate when people get that wrong. The scientific method is one of the most important inventions in human history.

Ahhh, so glad you said this, so in essence all you have is a hypothesis and no conclusion to decide on the validity of your original hypothesis. So in essence you have been talking about jack shit, because the community has neither proven or disproved the original hypothesis on pedophilia that you proposed.

So does that exclude pre-pubescent boys?

Actually, yes - I exclude pre-pubescent boys from any sort of sexual activity involving... me.

Oh ouch, more idyllic than my childhood? What makes you so sure?

;) Just a basic study of the psychology of pro-social and antisocial tendancies.

Ahhh, so glad you said this

Sweet!

so in essence all you have is a hypothesis and no conclusion to decide on the validity of your original hypothesis.

A hypotheosis is one posssible conclusion from the data. English, motherfucker?

So in essence you have been talking about jack shit

ORLY? 'n just for shits and giggles - why is that? :)

because the community has neither proven or disproved the original hypothesis.

Want a shocking news flash into the scientific method?

No hypotheosis has ever been, will be, nor even can be, proven.

It's one of the basic premises of the scientific method, actually, upon which all western knowledge is based. The existance of electrons, or atoms, or oxygen, or the sun... all unproven hypotheoses.

Of course, none of the predictions of the hypotheosized existance of the sun have been falsified, either.

Just thought that you - well, everyone, really - needed to know, because, well... I'm a fan of science. It is a thing of beauty, in my personal opinion, and my love for it is eternal. So, naturally, when people go around with blatant and ludicrous misconception, I'm always happy to spread the good word, and bring the methods of science to the masses. 'cause the scientific method, and the critical thinking involved, can really make the world a better place.

As far as attempting to falsify the dual (unrelated) hypotheoses I have proposed in this thread, well - everyone who is not you. 'cause I've seen the quality of your critical thinking throughout this thread, and frankly, it would be a waste of time. I'm sure if it's important, people-who-are-not-you, and have a much better grasp of propositional calculus and the scientific method would jump at the chance to explore the possibilities - if they do not think that my proposed theories have the best chance of being correct. ;)

Of course, Pooter 'n Rizz are the only names I could think of that would be able to propose a contravailing theory from within structural-molecular neuropsychiatry... but as long as it's not you, they're welcome to try.

It's turned to a close-range clusterfuck brawl

Pretty much one-sided, luckily. ;) By the second time someone has seen carbon troll, it's pretty easy to put him on automatic.

Actually, yes - I exclude pre-pubescent boys from any sort of sexual activity involving... me. ;) Just a basic study of the psychology of pro-social and antisocial tendancies. Sweet!

Ahhhh, just making sure it wasn't another one of those darn assumptions again! Good to know that you have solid fact to base your analysis of my childhood :)



A hypotheosis is one posssible conclusion from the data. English, motherfucker?
ORLY? 'n just for shits and giggles - why is that? :)

I don't know, maybe the fact that you never really stated a hypothesis, or a conclusion disproving or proving said hypothesis. You really are afraid to lay down a concrete statement in fear of it being refuted.


Want a shocking news flash into the scientific method?

No hypotheosis has ever been, will be, nor even can be, proven.

It's one of the basic premises of the scientific method, actually, upon which all western knowledge is based. The existance of electrons, or atoms, or oxygen, or the sun... all unproven hypotheoses.

Of course, none of the predictions of the hypotheosized existance of the sun have been falsified, either.

Just thought that you - well, everyone, really - needed to know, because, well... I'm a fan of science. It is a thing of beauty, in my personal opinion, and my love for it is eternal. So, naturally, when people go around with blatant and ludicrous misconception, I'm always happy to spread the good word, and bring the methods of science to the masses. 'cause the scientific method, and the critical thinking involved, can really make the world a better place.

As far as attempting to falsify the dual (unrelated) hypotheoses I have proposed in this thread, well - everyone who is not you. 'cause I've seen the quality of your critical thinking throughout this thread, and frankly, it would be a waste of time. I'm sure if it's important, people-who-are-not-you, and have a much better grasp of propositional calculus and the scientific method would jump at the chance to explore the possibilities - if they do not think that my proposed theories have the best chance of being correct. ;)

Of course, Pooter 'n Rizz are the only names I could think of that would be able to propose a contravailing theory from within structural-molecular neuropsychiatry... but as long as it's not you, they're welcome to try.

"existence", "hypothesis", "countervailing"? Lol, buddy if you have not shown a counterexample disproving your hypothesis, then there is no way you can definitely say whether or not that it is true or false. Now if what you are proposing is that there has yet to be a counterexample to your dual hypothesis in this thread, then they must be true until a counterexample is presented.

Now, would it be possible for you to actually state both hypotheses? You know, numbered, like one...and then two?



Pretty much one-sided, luckily. ;) By the second time someone has seen carbon troll, it's pretty easy to put him on automatic.

Lol, right....what's more amusing is the "if it's important". Avoidance is the only skill you have Pedo.

I didn't read the thread, I just have to say this.

Society decides what's right and wrong. I don't care about morals, Christian ideology, "freedom", etc. None of that matters. Ultimately, it's your peers that make the decision.

Now, that said, fucking children will never be widely acceptable. The nature in every parent will always make them protect their young. Sex before being physically ready can, and does injure the "equipment". It's just not meant to be.

People may be attracted to young people for many reasons. The majority of them being that they seem them as "pure", "innocent", "clean", and "not lying cheating whores of the women that live within their age groups", etc.

It doesn't matter how much you read and learn about this subject matter. It will ultimately be dis proven, and disregarded. Society has proven that fact many times through out history. The only person you're convincing is your self. It's not some noble cause of social-sexual evolution. You feel guilty, and you don't want to.

Hypothesis on Human Beings, both individual and as a whole, will never matter. If there is one thing that is sure to be within us all is a chaos factor that can ruin any theory.

Sure, if society eventually accepts fucking children as ok... there will always be that small chance that one child will be hurt physically and traumatically. No one is willing to take that chance... except those who are being sexually gratified (Joepedo).

No one is willing to take that chance... except those who are being sexually gratified (Joepedo).

Yes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

...it's funny how you have nothing else, isn't it?


Society decides what's right and wrong. I don't care about morals...

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

People may be attracted to young people for many reasons. The majority of them being that...

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

Sure, if society eventually accepts fucking children as ok... there will always be that small chance that one child...

http://www.trisweb.com/archives/2005/06/04/fallacy-of-potential/

So, basically... that's all you have to rely on? If not, why do you believe so strongly in the invalidity of your argument that you run as swiftly as possible to fallacious argument to hide its core? What led you to this belief?

Yes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

...it's funny how you have nothing else, isn't it?




http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html



http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html



http://www.trisweb.com/archives/2005/06/04/fallacy-of-potential/

So, basically... that's all you have to rely on? If not, why do you believe so strongly in the invalidity of your argument that you run as swiftly as possible to fallacious argument to hide its core? What led you to this belief?

The first part you quoted was just a little pun at your expense.

I, of all people, understand how shitty society is. The fact that ultimately, society is what decides everything... is a fact of life.

If you knew me personally... after countless times of me beating the shit out of you... you would realize how much I detest this true fact of life. "Jumping on the bandwagon" isn't what I personally believe in... It's what the majority of the people on this earth believe in.

I calls them how I sees them.

You will never be accepted as a paedophile in your life time and the children you molest and rape will always be hindered in some form because of it.

You will never be accepted as a paedophile in your life time.

Actually, I already have.

In fact, I'll make a bold statement; I have exactly as much chance of being accepted as the paederotic individual I am, right now, as star wars fan has of being accepted as a foine upstanding negro... right now.

There are always a tiny minority prone to bias crime, and the pathology is pretty damned universally identical across them. I could go out right now and find people who want to, say, lynch SWF for being an uppity negro. I could also, if I tried hard enough, possibly find people who wished harm to me.

...but, experientially speaking - most people don't give a shit. Really. Look at &t for a sec - barring carbon, most of the conversation I get does not really involve "OH HAI IS U A FAG I WILL KILL UZ." It involves... neurology, psychology, politics, physics, nanotech, current events, philosophy, whatever. No one's really desperately jumping at the chance to go suicide-bombing because I'm disadvantaged as a class in the eyes of the state, no one's really jumping to suicide-bomb me. 'n similarly, there's not too many people pledging to give their lives to "liberate SWF's negroid bretheren," and not too many people all that hell-bent on lynching him for it.

He and I are basically in the exact same position in terms of social class - for the vast majority of people, it's just a non-issue. We're just individuals. You can find exceptions if you look for them, but otherwise, you generally don't.

Crazy as it is... people are healthier and more intelligent than the society around them, in the vast majority of the time... and generally speaking, that society has a population of roughly zero, and is entirely a byproduct of television fiction.

Everyone assumes that's what everyone else thinks, but no one really thinks that themselves.

It's a sad situation, and much like the "third-party candidate" issue, a solely self-perpetuating one with no actual support.

Tragic, really - but as Ts'ao Ts'ao said, the wise person ponders the dangers inherent in advantages and the advantages inherent in dangers. 'n the situation which I've just described - not only hypotheosized years ago, but repeatedly tested firmly across a wide array of venues of sampling - has one other property; it is a recipie for "ripe for revolution."

'n whether it begins with my people - which it will with or without my people's input by the flow of social pressures - it would be a tragedy were it to end there.

This, I couldn't agree more. Except I am sure he will argue the "sexual gratification" as not being his only reason for messing with children.

The first part you quoted was just a little pun at your expense.

I, of all people, understand how shitty society is. The fact that ultimately, society is what decides everything... is a fact of life.

If you knew me personally... after countless times of me beating the shit out of you... you would realize how much I detest this true fact of life. "Jumping on the bandwagon" isn't what I personally believe in... It's what the majority of the people on this earth believe in.

I calls them how I sees them.

You will never be accepted as a paedophile in your life time and the children you molest and rape will always be hindered in some form because of it.

Can someone please pin this guy with a medal for so eloquently expressing what I've been thinking this entire time?

Actually, I already have.

In fact, I'll make a bold statement; I have exactly as much chance of being accepted as the paederotic individual I am, right now, as star wars fan has of being accepted as a foine upstanding negro... right now.

There are always a tiny minority prone to bias crime, and the pathology is pretty damned universally identical across them. I could go out right now and find people who want to, say, lynch SWF for being an uppity negro. I could also, if I tried hard enough, possibly find people who wished harm to me.

...but, experientially speaking - most people don't give a shit. Really. Look at &t for a sec - barring carbon, most of the conversation I get does not really involve "OH HAI IS U A FAG I WILL KILL UZ." It involves... neurology, psychology, politics, physics, nanotech, current events, philosophy, whatever. No one's really desperately jumping at the chance to go suicide-bombing because I'm disadvantaged as a class in the eyes of the state, no one's really jumping to suicide-bomb me. 'n similarly, there's not too many people pledging to give their lives to "liberate SWF's negroid bretheren," and not too many people all that hell-bent on lynching him for it.

He and I are basically in the exact same position in terms of social class - for the vast majority of people, it's just a non-issue. We're just individuals. You can find exceptions if you look for them, but otherwise, you generally don't.

Crazy as it is... people are healthier and more intelligent than the society around them, in the vast majority of the time... and generally speaking, that society has a population of roughly zero, and is entirely a byproduct of television fiction.

Everyone assumes that's what everyone else thinks, but no one really thinks that themselves.

It's a sad situation, and much like the "third-party candidate" issue, a solely self-perpetuating one with no actual support.

Tragic, really - but as Ts'ao Ts'ao said, the wise person ponders the dangers inherent in advantages and the advantages inherent in dangers. 'n the situation which I've just described - not only hypotheosized years ago, but repeatedly tested firmly across a wide array of venues of sampling - has one other property; it is a recipie for "ripe for revolution."

'n whether it begins with my people - which it will with or without my people's input by the flow of social pressures - it would be a tragedy were it to end there.

Lol dude shut the fuck up! You are living in a dream world. I have constantly seen people make comments to you after you go on a spiel about your paederotic behavior. I mean shit, even in Reinvent Yourself a guy told you to fuck off.

You refuse to post your age, or a picture of yourself. Suicide bomb you? How could anyone suicide bomb you? You're in hiding. Even on the internet you bask in the effectiveness of anonymity. Ironically you consider me to be an idiot, yet ignore the simple facts that are life. I think that kitty said it best went he mentioned you just don't want to feel "guilty" anymore.

Even though you claim to be "accepted" that is actually the minority, as opposed to the majority who reject you.

Want a shocking news flash into the scientific method?

No hypotheosis has ever been, will be, nor even can be, proven.

It's one of the basic premises of the scientific method, actually, upon which all western knowledge is based. The existance of electrons, or atoms, or oxygen, or the sun... all unproven hypotheoses.

Of course, none of the predictions of the hypotheosized existance of the sun have been falsified, either.

Just thought that you - well, everyone, really - needed to know, because, well... I'm a fan of science. It is a thing of beauty, in my personal opinion, and my love for it is eternal. So, naturally, when people go around with blatant and ludicrous misconception, I'm always happy to spread the good word, and bring the methods of science to the masses. 'cause the scientific method, and the critical thinking involved, can really make the world a better place.

:/

All right, Joe, you've demonstrated your fucktabulous intelligence and intruiging grasp of 'teh sciences' in several posts. Most of 'em looked to me a propense inisght into chemistry -- a trait only one other person I know manifests. And a mutual acquaintance of ours forwarded me to a couple other posts where you address psychological trauma with a paragraph demonstrating highly academic and in-depth knowledge.

Now, confirm your comprehension of 'the sciences' by applying all that knowledge into your neurotic mongoloidish preference of fucking children.

I guess you already know that human pheronomes are triggered by certain features in a pubescent chick which are responsible for the neurochemical "sexual attraction."

The reason neurotypical mofos don't fuck toddlers is 'cuz them pheromones aren't triggered due to the absence of many features in an undeveloped body, hence can't trigger any sexual attraction, (e.g. absence of menstrual cycles, and many chemical components that they don't have before 13-14, not to mention that the cunt lacks a couple muscles designed to safely accomodate the average-sized cock...)

Thus... if you're attracted to that, you must be some birth-defected fuck.

I don't claim to know much. I'm just a c0ke-snorting loser that lives in a historic whorehouse. You know neurochemistry exponentially more than I do, so, ehh... correct me if I'm wrong.

And also apply all that insight of yours into emotional trauma into the next time you boink one of 'em toddlers.

As we both know, a prepubescent cunt would be undeveloped and not naturally designed to be fucked. Doing so would probably cause damage and inflict massive pain. Additionally, you claimed your cock was oversized in that Reinvent Yourself thread. Do you bury the bitches once you're done with 'em too?

Now I think it is pretty motherfuckin' obvious what the emotional trauma would be here... unless of course you bury the bitches where they don't exactly gotta deal with it.

:/

All right, Joe, you've demonstrated your fucktabulous intelligence and intruiging grasp of 'teh sciences' in several posts. Most of 'em looked to me a propense inisght into chemistry -- a trait only one other person I know manifests. And a mutual acquaintance of ours forwarded me to a couple other posts where you address psychological trauma with a paragraph demonstrating highly academic and in-depth knowledge.

Now, confirm your comprehension of 'the sciences' by applying all that knowledge into your neurotic mongoloidish preference of fucking children.

I guess you already know that human pheronomes are triggered by certain features in a pubescent chick which are responsible for the neurochemical "sexual attraction."

The reason neurotypical mofos don't fuck toddlers is 'cuz them pheromones aren't triggered due to the absence of many features in an undeveloped body, hence can't trigger any sexual attraction, (e.g. absence of menstrual cycles, and many chemical components that they don't have before 13-14, not to mention that the cunt lacks a couple muscles designed to safely accomodate the average-sized cock...)

Thus... if you're attracted to that, you must be some birth-defected fuck.

I don't claim to know much. I'm just a c0ke-snorting loser that lives in a historic whorehouse. You know neurochemistry exponentially more than I do, so, ehh... correct me if I'm wrong.

And also apply all that insight of yours into emotional trauma into the next time you boink one of 'em toddlers.

As we both know, a prepubescent cunt would be undeveloped and not naturally designed to be fucked. Doing so would probably cause damage and inflict massive pain. Additionally, you claimed your cock was oversized in that Reinvent Yourself thread. Do you bury the bitches once you're done with 'em too?

Now I think it is pretty motherfuckin' obvious what the emotional trauma would be here... unless of course you bury the bitches where they don't exactly gotta deal with it.

*Stands in ovation*

You know neurochemistry exponentially more than I do, so, ehh... correct me if I'm wrong.

k. The big thing is...

I guess you already know that human pheronomes are triggered by certain features in a pubescent chick which are responsible for the neurochemical "sexual attraction."

The reason neurotypical mofos don't fuck toddlers is 'cuz them pheromones aren't triggered due to the absence of many features in an undeveloped body, hence can't trigger any sexual attraction...

Pheromones would be released by the attractant, not the attracted.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pheromone

This is one of two common mistakes people make; the other is the misequivocation that hormones which cause secondary sexual characteristics actually cause libido - which, for the most part, they don't. Sad that the average person can't keep their mind out of the gutter when discussing biological gender, and I blame our educational system... but that job is actually performed by catecholaminergic neurotransmission (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11477488) and oxytogenic release (http://www.bioportfolio.com/LeadDiscovery/PubMed-020302.html).

...so, those are the two most common errors out there. Incidentally, one of the two groups of neurotransmitters responsible for libido, oxytocin, is specifically released by the physiological markers of childhood (http://www.academyleadership.com/news.asp?page=article30) in neurotypical persons. It's also more-or-less solely responsible for social bonding as well as libido, incidentally - the former probably being a reason why that response became more and more developed as mammals evolved.

And also apply all that insight of yours into emotional trauma into the next time you boink one of 'em toddlers.

As we both know, a prepubescent cunt would be undeveloped and not naturally designed to be fucked. Doing so would probably cause damage and inflict massive pain...

Now I think it is pretty motherfuckin' obvious what the emotional trauma would be here...

I'll readily grant that pain is the leading promoter of fear, which is the common underlying element in trauma.

Of course, I also note that trauma and fear could be entirely blocked by introducing an adrenergic antagonist, or an NMDA antagonist, or a corticosteroid suppressor - and suggest that even if you block trauma, if your partner is screaming in pain and you keep going, there are definately severe problems, regardless of long-term effects. 'n that's determined by your partner, not their birth certificate.

Almost all the physiological differences between the prepubescent and postpubescent female genitalia are actually in the labia minora, and are basically cosmetic. The two that remain are physiological pH and epithelial differences, and are not physiologically different than post-menopausal sexual activity.

So - just from a physical standpoint, pubescence has about jack shit to do with whether the female organ, erm... "performs well in the field." A pubescent and nonpubescent organ of the same relative size will perform about the same, physically speaking, from the perspective of both parties.

Now, size is an issue; there are ways in which a determined couple can overcome this with relative ease with a little patience, but those are somewhat beside the point. What is not beside the point is the importance of listening to and respecting one's partner - which is vital irrespective of whether one is heteroerotic, homoerotic, paederotic, zooerotic, or just about any other permutation of rule 34 that involves another living being. Your partner knows their life and their experience better than anyone.

The other modality of the fear which underlies trauma is feeling that one does not have any say in the course of one's own life - which, again... if this is applicable to you, you probably need to be smacked upside the head until you actually listen to your partner, no matter who you are or what your orientation is. ;)

Incidentally, among the neurological vectors of trauma mentioned above, there is one substance that can block all three - oxytocin, which shuts down the entire fear-related response of the amygdala. 'n aside from cute kids, the stimulus which promote oxytocin are touch (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=3223304&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google) (181% increase), and orgasm (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2401707) (362% increase). The baseline response to healthy sexual activity is emotionally positive, and the opposite of trauma, irrespective of age, gender, species, or other variables. It's just not a good idea to inflict pain or coercion on your partner, as you noted... unless they ask you to.

'n you'll probably have to ask ketch about that last case. I'm the diaper faery expert, he's the go-to guy for asking about a good spanking. ;)

I hope this breakdown of the neurology has answered your questions.

k. The big thing is...



Pheromones would be released by the attractant, not the attracted.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pheromone

This is one of two common mistakes people make; the other is the misequivocation that hormones which cause secondary sexual characteristics actually cause libido - which, for the most part, they don't. Sad that the average person can't keep their mind out of the gutter when discussing biological gender, and I blame our educational system... but that job is actually performed by catecholaminergic neurotransmission (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11477488) and oxytogenic release (http://www.bioportfolio.com/LeadDiscovery/PubMed-020302.html).

...so, those are the two most common errors out there. Incidentally, one of the two groups of neurotransmitters responsible for libido, oxytocin, is specifically released by the physiological markers of childhood (http://www.academyleadership.com/news.asp?page=article30) in neurotypical persons. It's also more-or-less solely responsible for social bonding as well as libido, incidentally - the former probably being a reason why that response became more and more developed as mammals evolved.

I guess this means that a little girl will never REALLY be attracted to you...

I'll readily grant that pain is the leading promoter of fear, which is the common underlying element in trauma.

Of course, I also note that trauma and fear could be entirely blocked by introducing an adrenergic antagonist, or an NMDA antagonist, or a corticosteroid suppressor - and suggest that even if you block trauma, if your partner is screaming in pain and you keep going, there are definately severe problems, regardless of long-term effects. 'n that's determined by your partner, not their birth certificate.

Almost all the physiological differences between the prepubescent and postpubescent female genitalia are actually in the labia minora, and are basically cosmetic. The two that remain are physiological pH and epithelial differences, and are not physiologically different than post-menopausal sexual activity.

So - just from a physical standpoint, pubescence has about jack shit to do with whether the female organ, erm... "performs well in the field." A pubescent and nonpubescent organ of the same relative size will perform about the same, physically speaking, from the perspective of both parties.

Now, size is an issue; there are ways in which a determined couple can overcome this with relative ease with a little patience, but those are somewhat beside the point. What is not beside the point is the importance of listening to and respecting one's partner - which is vital irrespective of whether one is heteroerotic, homoerotic, paederotic, zooerotic, or just about any other permutation of rule 34 that involves another living being. Your partner knows their life and their experience better than anyone.

The other modality of the fear which underlies trauma is feeling that one does not have any say in the course of one's own life - which, again... if this is applicable to you, you probably need to be smacked upside the head until you actually listen to your partner, no matter who you are or what your orientation is. ;)

Incidentally, among the neurological vectors of trauma mentioned above, there is one substance that can block all three - oxytocin, which shuts down the entire fear-related response of the amygdala. 'n aside from cute kids, the stimulus which promote oxytocin are touch (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=3223304&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google) (181% increase), and orgasm (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2401707) (362% increase). The baseline response to healthy sexual activity is emotionally positive, and the opposite of trauma, irrespective of age, gender, species, or other variables. It's just not a good idea to inflict pain or coercion on your partner, as you noted... unless they ask you to.

'n you'll probably have to ask ketch about that last case. I'm the diaper faery expert, he's the go-to guy for asking about a good spanking. ;)

I hope this breakdown of the neurology has answered your questions.

Fairy tales, have your partner communicate with you? Communicate with your partner? Your partner is 5, I doubt that you of all people could "condescend" enough to speak to them on equal terms...which isn't possible...which never will be...because they are an emotionally and physically underdeveloped human being.

No difference between the aspects of a 5 year old vagina and a 20 year old vagina? Hmm...any medical students around here want to take a stab at that?

Here is another straight forward question for you JoePedo. Who initiates the sexual conduct between you and a child?

What is not beside the point is the importance of listening to and respecting one's partner - which is vital irrespective of whether one is heteroerotic, homoerotic, paederotic, zooerotic, or just about any other permutation of rule 34 that involves another living being. Your partner knows their life and their experience better than anyone.

I'm probably the only person who got the reference...with possibly fatkitty420.

And wow, now 3 people are jumping you...raise your shields!

Hey Joe is your real name Jack?

I'm probably the only person who got the reference...with possibly fatkitty420.

And wow, now 3 people are jumping you...raise your shields!

Do you mean the 4chan reference?

I've been meaning to reply to some of your retorts but every time I start to my girl friend side tracks me.

Consider this a reserved post...

Do you mean the 4chan reference?

yeah...rule 34 :D

I've been meaning to reply to some of your retorts but every time I start to my girl friend side tracks me.

Consider this a reserved post...

k.

And wow, now 3 people are jumping you...raise your shields!

Heh. Doctrine from the field data suggests that a 50:1 against ratio is still sufficient for recruitment and win from a lone party. So... I ain't stressin'. ;)

I guess this means that a little girl will never REALLY be attracted to you...

A non sequiteur is when the shit you said bears no fucking relation to the shit it claims to derive from. I just thought you needed to know that.

Here is another straight forward question for you JoePedo. Who initiates the sexual conduct between you and a child?

In a normal world, it'd probably vary back 'n forth a lot, but so far, all the propositions have come from the kids.

Hey Joe is your real name Jack?

...and do I run an events blog for the paederotic singles scene?

No. He's an interesting guy, though...

I've been meaning to reply to some of your retorts but every time I start to my girl friend side tracks me.

You could always tell her that you can't put out right now because you're browsing the latest pedophile content posted to the internet. Honesty is important in a relationship, right?

Then again, telling her you post on &totse might just kill your relationship. Better not.

Consider this a reserved post...

will do!

A non sequiteur is when the shit you said bears no fucking relation to the shit it claims to derive from. I just thought you needed to know that.

You said pheromones were released by the attractant not the attracted. Meaning that an underdeveloped girl will not release pheromones. You're attracted to underage girls right? Do you honestly think it is malfunctioning of the brain?

In a normal world, it'd probably vary back 'n forth a lot, but so far, all the propositions have come from the kids.

Lol, right...

Lol, right...

If you don't like the truth? Quit fucking asking, you stupid bitch. It's one way, or it's the other, and I don't care which.

Do you honestly think it is malfunctioning of the brain?

Nope.

'n the fact that it's not any sort of malfunction can be objectively proven, incidentally. You wouldn't get yourself into these situations if you could just think things out first.

You said pheromones were released by the attractant not the attracted.

Yes.

They also generally have shit-all to do with attraction in higher species, otherwise pr0n would not exist, but that's beside the point.

Meaning that an underdeveloped girl will not release pheromones.

Not only does this not follow implicitly from the prior premise... it also has shit-all to do with your assertion that she'll never be attracted to me. If we ignore their disuse in higher mammals - just to dissect your logic chain - and also ignore that development is not intrinsically dependently causative of release - again, just to dissect the "wtf is carbon thinking" bit...

...even if we assume your false premises - I'm still postpubescent, actually. Which would contradict your assertion that "no girl will ever really be attracted to me" under the phermone-attractant theory even if I were to stipulate all your false premises.

Sorry. But, hey, if you were capable of thinking things through, this wouldn't happen.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/KnightOfBlackness/Mueller.jpg

Heh. Doctrine from the field data suggests that a 50:1 against ratio is still sufficient for recruitment and win from a lone party. So... I ain't stressin'. ;)

*imagines 50 ISDs vs 1 CRS*

LOL

If you don't like the truth? Quit fucking asking, you stupid bitch. It's one way, or it's the other, and I don't care which.

Lol, why are you so persistent that it's the truth, if it's true it should be able to stand alone and infallible. However, it seems that children initiate sexual contact....with YOU!? A bit far fetched for feeling fine.


Nope.

'n the fact that it's not any sort of malfunction can be objectively proven, incidentally. You wouldn't get yourself into these situations if you could just think things out first.

So why are you again not attracted to anything but little girls?


Yes.

They also generally have shit-all to do with attraction in higher species, otherwise pr0n would not exist, but that's beside the point.

This is not relevant.

Not only does this not follow implicitly from the prior premise... it also has shit-all to do with your assertion that she'll never be attracted to me. If we ignore their disuse in higher mammals - just to dissect your logic chain - and also ignore that development is not intrinsically dependently causative of release - again, just to dissect the "wtf is carbon thinking" bit...

...even if we assume your false premises - I'm still postpubescent, actually. Which would contradict your assertion that "no girl will ever really be attracted to me" under the phermone-attractant theory even if I were to stipulate all your false premises.

Sorry. But, hey, if you were capable of thinking things through, this wouldn't happen.

Why are you apologizing? "development is not intrinsically dependently causative of release" now that is a pretty interesting comment. Are you basically saying that releasing pheromones is not dependent on age? That seems off...

Also in the context of what you were saying, the inability of the girl to release pheromones, normally the sign of wanting to attract a mate...kind of makes it seem like you are the one that is imbalanced. What does you releasing pheromones have to do with anything? Chain of logic? I am simply theorizing here and having a discussion. Which is impossible, because of someone with little imagination and the inability to maintain a state of context. No wonder you have such a sickening fascination with children...

Lol, why are you so

When you ask an "honest" question? Either be honest in your question, or don't ask in the first place.

What does you releasing pheromones have to do with anything? Chain of logic?

1. Pheremones are released by the attractant, not the attracted.

2. Your premises were that phermones were age-dependent and causative of attraction.

3. I would still be releasing them.

:. I would still be of the capacity to chemically induce contraction - by your chain of logic.

I'm sorry that simple things are so hard for you.


having a discussion. Which is impossible, because of someone with little imagination and the inability to maintain a state of context.

Well... we're agreed, it seems.

When you ask an "honest" question? Either be honest in your question, or don't ask in the first place.



1. Pheremones are released by the attractant, not the attracted.

2. Your premises were that phermones were age-dependent and causative of attraction.

3. I would still be releasing them.

:. I would still be of the capacity to chemically induce contraction - by your chain of logic.

I'm sorry that simple things are so hard for you.




Well... we're agreed, it seems.

No, my "premises" weren't that "pheromones" were age-dependent or causative of attraction. Read the comment again, and pull your head out of your ass.

No, my "premises" weren't that "pheromones" were age-dependent or causative of attraction. Read the comment again, and pull your head out of your ass.

lol...

I guess this means that a little girl will never REALLY be attracted to you...

You said pheromones were released by the attractant not the attracted. Meaning that an underdeveloped girl will not release pheromones.

Change your lie often?

~yawn~

phailtroll is phail.

lol...





Change your lie often?

~yawn~

phailtroll is phail.

Again, you ignore context. The first comment is an obvious mocking of you and your non-sense. Creating an argument isn't going to happen when I am not arguing any points here. Simply I was teasing you, then drawing into question your area of expertise of the subject on pheromones and when they become active in human beings. Also to what extent they play in attraction.

You can't answer any of those questions with any certainty. This is a dead end, you don't want a discussion you want to become defensive and argue. Blah, just admit you seek emotional refuge in children.