You're viewing a single thread.
Nothing gets the pedophiles riled up quite like a hypothetical
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
as a graphic designer, i try to remind fellow graphic designers that apart from circumstances and conversations specifically related to your craft, colloquial use is totally acceptable and that you shouldn't be insisting on pointing out the difference between a font and a typeface, because no one cares and it's annoying as fuck.
not to mention everyone knows what people mean when they say "font" so there's no point in pedantic "ackshually"s. they just make you sound like a dick.
now that's what i think about designers being pedantic about designer terms.
idk what i can even say about your comment.
Precisely.
As a graphic designer you don’t deal in life or death situations.
when people talk about pedophiles they clearly mean people who act on it; no one cares what's in your heart or brain, that's between you and your psychiatrist. it's not even a legal term so it doesn't matter in "life or death" situations.
I know that there's a difference between a pedophile and a hebephile. I know that the differences is that pedos are attracted to prepubescent kids and hebes are attracted to pubescent kids. There is a difference between the two.
That being said, there's no way to say this online without sounding like someone who is attracted to kids.
I don’t care
Just to point out, colloquially you are wrong, and there is a colloquial use of the term pedophile. We are not discussing this in an academic setting and it also doesn't change the content of this discussion to redefine terms to academic ones, so no need to change it. Everyone understands what's being referenced here because it was specified as being a 14 year old in the OP.
What exactly is your purpose in making this distinction between these terms?
Can't even discuss serious mental disorders anymore without being dogpiled smh
People who are afflicted with these need help but people would rather just talk about how they deserve to be killed instead for something they never chose to have
Everyone loves to talk about how they would hurt others if they could and how their version is the only one that is just and fair.
I know I'm running full on into the blades of pedophilic panic here and I'm going to be accused of being a pedophile, but being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal.
I am all for protecting minors and 100% support laws that criminalizes adults having sexual contact with them, but I think we do a disservice to people's mental health to paint normal, healthy physical attractions as being deviant, and I don't think it does anything to protect minors.
I’m going to be accused of being a pedophile
Proudly declaring yourself a guy who draws the line at fucking 10 year olds.
I am all for protecting minors and 100% support laws that criminalizes adults having sexual contact with them, but
I explicitly stated that it should be illegal to have sex with minors, yet you still accuse me of saying it's okay to have sex with minors.
Thanks for demonstrating, so succinctly and clearly, how irrational those gripped by pedophile panic have become.
I explicitly stated that it should be illegal to have sex with minors
being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when you're of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
how irrational those gripped by pedophile panic have become
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how he's being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said he'd never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when you’re of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
Noone said 11 year olds. I said pubescent. Notice how, to make your point, you have to lie about what was said. It makes it appear that even you realize it's bs. Hell, especially considering you've swapped one lie out for another. How many different lies will you tell about what was said before you admit you might be wrong?
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how he’s being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said he’d never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
This literally makes no sense. Noone is talking about puking or overdrinking. We're talking about normal, healthy physical attraction. I've explicitly excluded action from my claim if what is acceptable.
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
Sure sounds like you said 11 to me!
I didn't make that post, I was correcting it.
May I suggest not playing gotcha and trying to actually think about it logically and objectively?
Oh, my apologies. It appears you didn't actually give a number, only replying to someone who did. All you said was that it was "perfectly natural" to fantasize about fucking anyone who was old enough to know what masturbation is.
What would you say is the lower bound for normality then?
fantasize about fucking anyone who was old enough to know what masturbation is.
Again, blatantly lying about what I said. It never ceases to amaze me how much people will just deny reality in order to cling to irrational beliefs.
What would you say is the lower bound for normality then?
? I've already explicitly stated it. Right in the first post. You had to have read it to get here. Can you explain to me exactly what you don't understand say I can phrase it better for you? I don't see how just repeating myself will get it through to you this time.
It's not "normal" to be attracted to 14 year olds. It's not "normal" to be specifically attracted to any age group. It's honestly all a kink. Are you attracted to elderly people? No? That's because you have a different kink. And don't get into stupid biological bullshit of reproductive success etc, a woman in her 40s who's given birth before is in some cases much less likely to die in childbirth than a 14 year old who hasn't done it before, arguably. That some people have breeding kinks with their pedo kinks is on them. Like seriously stop being so sexually narcissistic, there are thousands of kinks that combines in thousands of ways. Why do you think your kink is the "normal" one? Like get over yourself.
Whether kinks are disorders or not is a separate topic. Where kinks come from - we don't know 100%. There's some evidence certain brain conditions can cause disorders and sexual dysfunction, so it's possible pedophilia could be induced. Personally I am curious if oxytocin plays a role in pedophilia. You can get oxytocin (note: this is not OXYCONTIN) compounded in a nasal spray from compounding pharmacies. Just need a doctor's prescription for it, it has been used experimentally for social anxiety. I think some pedophiles likely get extra oxytocin from children (and other groups get it from animals in some cases) which is part of what triggers their attraction even if they don't want to harm children.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesn't entitle you to fucking them. Even if you can convince them to say yes somehow.
Consent cannot be given if it's not safe to give dissent. Meaning a "yes" doesn't count if a "no" wouldn't count either. Most kids cannot readily say "no." They cannot consent.
It’s not “normal” to be specifically attracted to any age group.
I said nothing about age, but about development.
Why do you think your kink is the “normal” one?
I said nothing about my own personal attractions. If you're asking, I'm not a hebephile. I would be lying if I were to claim I've never found one physically attractive, but my general physical sexual attraction is probably about as vanilla as it gets. My actual kinks, not so much. But that's a completely different topic.
Just like I defend homosexuality as a normal, healthy attraction, I defend this. That doesn't make me gay, or a hebephile.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesn’t entitle you to fucking them.
And I pretty clearly said explicitly otherwise. Literally this whole thing about consent is just completely pulled out of your ass as it has nothing to do with anything I've said. Hell, you're whole rant is completely detached from the reality of anything I've said.
Yeah "development" what a creepy word and again, "development" has nothing to do with it. That's why I brought up the breeding kink part - the classic argument every libertarian creep who does the "It's hebephile not pedophile" dog whistle says this EXACT thing. Like you all are clearly watching the same porn. It's so weird of you. Idk how I have had this exact conversation with so many of my male peers. The other points I made are entirely relevant when it comes to fucking children. Many people think rape is a turn off, ya know?
"Development" is meaningless. It doesn't make it okay because the person looks a certain way. A "developed" body is not an "adult" body; many adult women have no breasts and no curves, and many young girls, some as young as 9!! get breasts. Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not "developed"?
That you associate "development" with sexual attraction is a YOU kink. It's not an EVERYONE kink. It's not the "natural" state for people. It's a kink. That you're justifying it with "well she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to me" with no self awareness is... yikes.
Yeah “development” what a creepy word and again, “development” has nothing to do with it.
lol. It literally has everything to do with it. That's the whole point: when children enter into and finish puberty, they become capable of reproduction, so from an evolutionary perspective, that is a normal time to start finding them attractive. Just labelling it as "creepy" is an attempt to undermine the point because it's hard to actually address it.
Like you all are clearly watching the same porn.
I tell you I'm not into it, and what do you do? Lie, and claim I'm into it. I'll state it again, it never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to deny reality to hold onto their irrational beliefs.
Many people think rape is a turn off.
Agreed. Which is why, as I've already stated, it's 100% wrong to have sex with them.
Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
The fact that you need to ask this question just goes to show how absolutely ignorant you are of the topic, and probably shouldn't even be discussing it at all.
That you associate “development” with sexual attraction is a YOU kink.
Holy shit, this insane. lol This debate never ceases to crack me up. You're literally arguing that being attracted to people who have gone through puberty is a "kink." Even if you think that the stage of development that it's "appropriate" to become attracted to them is full adult, Tanner stage V, you still are arguing that development is important. But you are claiming this is nothing but a kink.
That you’re justifying it with “well she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to me” with no self awareness is… yikes.
I have full self awareness of what I'm saying. It's the people who claim that development stages has nothing to do with it and is a "kink" are the ones who lack the self-awareness to understand how little they know of what they talk about... yikes.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not "normal" to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know they will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink. Which I have informed you repeatedly. That it's been normalized by the groups you roll in, is a you thing.
You are narcissistic about your kinks. A lot of men are, because they often keep them secret until they go onto forums for that kink where they can all engage in it together and share porn and ideas. Then they think "I'm vanilla and normal," and project their kinks onto reality as if that's objective. It's not. You're wrong.
It's creepy because of what it implies about your general philosophy to kids.
You are into it. You are saying it's "normal" as long as they are developed. You've admitted finding young teens attractive before. This is about you. Stop being a coward.
Answer me: Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
who have gone through puberty is a “kink.”
You're moving goalposts. First, you say it's because they are developed- which describes a body type. Then you say it's because they can reproduce - which describes their eggs/womb and ability to carry a baby - which a "developed" 12 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy. And 'above puberty' includes people who cannot reproduce and are sometimes not "developed," such as elderly women. So which is it? Which do you mean? Or are you just making shit up because you think your kinks are "normal" and you've never analyzed or critically thought about them?
All sexual attractions are kinks. That's my point - there is no "normal" sexual arousal state. Calling it "normal" justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking. It's the same reason rapists rape and don't realize it - they think their rape kink is "normal." Look at Andrew Tate and his fans.
Being attracted to minors is not "normal" as an adult. It's just "normal" for you.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not “normal” to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know theu will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink.
This whole paragraph is ridiculously bizarre. First, sure, a stallion is probably not thinking about actual reproducing. But the instinct to breed is because of the need of an organism to reproduce. Trying to disconnect the two is laughably ridiculous. So to say that the drive to reproduce has nothing to do sexual arousal is mind-numbingly dumb.
Which leads me to the next bizarre point. I didn't say they were sexual attracted to them because they want to reproduce with them. I'm saying that the ability to reproduce is what makes it natural to be attracted to someone, because that's the whole point. Or do you think the whole point of sexual arousal is just for funsies and serves no evolutionary purpose?
And, third, again, why do you feel the need to continually lie about me? What purpose does it serve? Honestly, it just makes you appear completely unsure in your position.
Stop being a coward.
Whether it is about me makes no difference; the logic of my position holds either way as I've already provided the psychology behind it that talks about how it is normal. I have no need to hide anything from you. You just need it to be about me because you need that to make it easy to ignore my position. Stop being a coward and address what I've said instead of desperately trying to make it about me.
You’re moving goalposts.
Literally the first thing I said was pubescent.
which a “developed” 13 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy.
Curvy is not the same thing as developed. How can you have such a strong opinions about this while being so woefully ignorant about the basic facts?
All sexual attractions are kinks.
By definition this is incorrect, as kink, by definition, means non-conventional sexual acts. This is the second word in this post for which you've gotten the definition completely wrong. Maybe hebephilia is a kink, I haven't given that much thought or research.
Calling it “normal” justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking.
You're confusing two things here. Kink does not mean bad, and normal does not mean acting on it is okay. We are not our thoughts, we are our actions. Unless you are willing to lie to me, you've certainly had thoughts that, if you had acted on them, it would have been woefully inappropriate, at best. This doesn't make you a bad person or not-normal. Everyone has thoughts that acting on them would be inappropriate or wrong.
And, yes, I'm absolutely trying to justify the thoughts. That's my whole point. The thoughts are normal and natural and not the sign of some paraphilic disorder. Just like if someone is into BDSM, this is not a disorder, in and of itself. Just like wanting to have sex with more than one partner is not a disorder. Just like anal play is not a disorder. They are fine, natural, things. Obviously the ones I've listed are okay to act out on with another consenting adult(s), and acting out on it with a minor is not.
We do not know if another organism can reproduce with us or not, until we go to reprodice with them over time. Many cishet couples are infertile despite being very attracted to each other and thinking the other person was fertile. You can't know by looking. If reproduction really mattered, gay people wouldn't exist. There would be no infertility. People would automatically have sex according to reproduction. They don't. There's your evidence. That we've evolved to reproduce is different than what actually compels sexual arousal.
You have a breeding kink which is why you're conflating these. Idk what else to say. Agree to disagree. You can't see your own narcissism. It's kinda embarrassing tbh.
I'm not lying. You yourself said you found teens attractive and that it's normal.
I have addressed what you said. In full. Go back and read again.
That this is about you is relevant because you are blind to your own biases. You're projecting your experience onto "normal." That's why it's relevant.
Define what you mean by "developed."
There is dissent on sexual health in psychology and terms. I am going with Susan Kaplan's understanding and the idea that there is no such thing as a sex addiction and that sexual attractions have both biological and social causes. The version you're talking about is more Christian-centered, forensic science centered, and less neuroscience and sex health forward.
Kink with this on mind means any specific stimuli that causes sexual arousal, because there is no assumed "normal" state of sexual arousal. To assume so without evidence and controls would be unscientific. And per sociological studies, the classic version of "normal" sex here in the US has changed over time, isn't normal for most people in the US, and isn't normal for most worldwide.
I have never stated any kink is a disorder, although some sexual behavior can indeed be caused by things like Alzheimers and other anomalies. Some kinks do harm people and I am condemning that harm. That includes speech that normalizes having sex with kids as a natural thing for everyone, when it is not. It is just a kink you have. It is not more natural or normal than any other kink including necrophilia. Arguably necrophilia does less damage and is a better kink to normalize than sex with minors who are basically slaves in this country and who would be horribly fucked up by this.
Just like wanting to have sex with more than one partner is not a disorder
Right, it's within described human behavior (and we have anatomical studies backimg this up) to want to have sex with zero people. Or just 1 person. Or to do serial monogamy. Or to engage in any variety of nonmonogamy. However, ethically it is wrong to own your sex partner as a slave, whether thats 1 partner or 20. Even within BDSM contexts, your partner should have safewords. The way the kink is practiced should be with awareness and consent. Nonmonogamy isn't ethical if it's not informed, if everyone didn't consent. And no relationship, monogamous or not, is ethical if there are nonconsensual, not informed power play dynamics.
Eg I have nothing against ageplay with 2 consenting adults. I have a lot against rhetoric that encourages and normalizes sex amd sexual attraction with minors, because they cannot consent.
If reproduction really mattered, gay people wouldn’t exist.
And there we have it folks, we're so removed from reality that reproduction - the basis of perpetuating a species and the primary aspect of one of the most well supported scientific theories of all time (the Theory of Evolution) - doesn't really matter. lol
You have a breeding kink which is why you’re conflating these. Idk what else to say. Agree to disagree. You can’t see your own narcissism. It’s kinda embarrassing tbh.
This is not something we can "agree to disagree" on. I don't have a breeding kink. But I'm beginning to see whats going on here. . .you think you know more than modern psychologists, you think you know more than scientists who have complied a massive amount of information confirming the theory of evolution, you think you know more about my "kinks" than I do. . . you are obsessed with painting me as a narcissist because you are one. Literally, you are so full of yourself that you think you know more than scientists across multiple fields, and me about my own attractions. And I think you can see it which is why you are trying to project it onto me.
Kink with this on mind means any specific stimuli that causes sexual arousal, because there is no assumed “normal” state of sexual arousal.
But your whole point contradicts itself. If there is no such thing as a kink, then there is nothing wrong with being attracted to pubescent teens, or even children for that matter. If nothing is normal, then no attraction can be considered abnormal or wrong. If reproduction doesn't matter, than being attracted to pre-pubescent children makes perfect sense and you can't condemn it. You can't have your cake and eat it too, although I'm sure you'll try. lol