You're viewing part of a thread.
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?
Fuck man. You are literally making up shit to put in this person's mouth. Just drop it and touch some grass.
being attracted to pubescent teens is ... perfectly normal
Tell me what this means if not that
Like "teen" is the most popular searched term in pornhub? 3rd most for women and "twink" for the gay community?
What are you doing when you're watching porn of someone if not fantasizing about fucking them? Hmm?
Gosh that's a weird response.
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.
Again, blatantly lying about what I said.
Let's take a look at what you said.
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.
How am I supposed to interpret that, if not to mean that you think it's not only okay but perfectly normal to want to fuck anyone who's started puberty so long as you don't actually do it?
I've already explicitly stated it.
Last I checked, "pubescent" wasn't a number, and when I called you out on the number the person you were replying to (and largely agreeing with) said, you accused me of putting words in your mouth. So what is it?
How am I supposed to interpret that, if not to mean that you think it’s not only okay but perfectly normal to want to fuck anyone who’s started puberty so long as you don’t actually do it?
www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/hebephilia
Primary physical attraction to tanner stage ii and iii adolescents is perfectly normal and healthy. In the same way being gay is normal and healthy: its rarer, but it doesn't represent a sexual disorder. Almost certainly at some point in your adult life you've found one physically attractive, although this does not make you a hebephile, as that requires a primary attraction.
It's interesting because whenever I have this debate it reminds me of how the homophobes who are the loudest when condemning homosexuality, are often the most turned on by gay porn. I question why you have such a visceral reaction to the facts.
Last I checked, “pubescent” wasn’t a number,
Omg, you're so close! You can get there, I have faith.
Primary physical attraction to tanner stage ii and iii adolescents is perfectly normal and healthy.
And the difference between this and what I said is... what? Their age? Stage one adolescents aren't cool to fantasize about, but stage two are? Physical attraction meaning something different than fantasizing about sex? "Honest, I didn't wanna fuck her, officer, I just said she was hot!"
I also can't help but notice that that link you posted specifically talks about children between 11 and 14. The very number you said was ridiculous earlier.
It’s interesting because whenever I have this debate it reminds me of how the homophobes who are the loudest when condemning homosexuality, are often the most turned on by gay porn. I question why you have such a visceral reaction to the facts.
Why am I not surprised that the guy who has contradicted himself twice in a row is now defending himself with an ad hominem attack instead of stating his position?
What does surprise me, though, is that someone whose position is that pedophilia isn't necessarily bad is attacking me by calling me a pedophile.
Lol he did the same to me too