"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

[Sweetie]

Quoting godfry n. glad on the thread title, if I may.




Which augmented my surprise when I sat down to eat it and I doscovered that each bite was like an orgasm while having sex with a petite teenage girl just out of puberty.

-Does anybody else see problems with comments like these? I guess I see that girls just out of puberty are ten to thirteen years old. Petite, small, young and tight is what is implied. Teenaged is specified. Do thirteen year olds qualify as teenagers?

I guess what I'm thinking is the men might have these desires, but I'm wondering if perhaps they might be better kept to themselves? Will I be attacked or disliked for having a BIG PROBLEM with any sort of what I see as pedophilia? Did I read the comment wrong or read more into it than is there?

I'm a mother btw.

I understand that these girls would be almost physically women, but I don't consider them women, not mentally for a certainty. I don't think that it should be socially acceptable to talk about them as if they are women, or are appropriate objects of a man's desires. Just some free thoughts.

[Beth]

Actually, yes, these comments make me a little ill. I was sexually abused most of my childhood and deflowered before I hit second grade. Needless to say, I endured a horrible childhood and spent many years in adulthood coming to grips. I still have many sexual issues that I probably would not have if I had not been introduced to adult sex at such a young age.

I have a young daughter. I would have no qualms about kicking the living fuck out of some man if he ever did a fraction of the things that was done to me to her. (But hopefully if it did, I could restrain my emotions for the sake of my children and allow for authorities to handle the situation.) My daughter should be allowed to mature away from some perverts predatory lust and come into her own sexually with someone who is her peer.

So to me, men who fantisize about younger girls kinda disgust me. I mean, if I made that statement, but instead spoke of a young boy just out of puberty, I think it would be much less socially acceptable.

(For the record, if some female predatorily seduced my son, my reaction would be just as hostile)

[Godless Dave]

I don't approve of the quoted comment either. But I read "just out of puberty" as being 15 or 16. Not that that's OK either, but better than 10-13.

[Sweetie]

My sister-in-law hit puberty at 9, so did my sister. Normal is 12 but these days girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier. My eldest is eight, and let's just say....she's almost as tall as me and she's developing. That's just to say, puberty and girls is 9-12.

[Ex-zombie]

I guess what I'm thinking is the men might have these desires, but I'm wondering if perhaps they might be better kept to themselves? Will I be attacked or disliked for having a BIG PROBLEM with any sort of what I see as pedophilia? Did I read the comment wrong or read more into it than is there?

As the parent of two daughters I also find that such comments make me uncomfortable. I certainly don't dislike you for having a problem with such comments as I react the same way. Pedophilia is not something I find amusing.

[Roland98]

I don't approve of the quoted comment either. But I read "just out of puberty" as being 15 or 16. Not that that's OK either, but better than 10-13.

I agree. Hell, I didn't even start my period until I was almost 15 (genetics I'd guess, coupled with little body fat at that age). I don't know how long it takes to get "out of puberty," but I would assume as well it means an older teenager. As Sweetie says, "normal" is 12, and I'd add several years to get "out." I'm no fan of pedophilia and have a daughter myself, but I'm pretty sure that's not what A.A. intended.

[livius drusus]

My sister-in-law hit puberty at 9, so did my sister. Normal is 12 but these days girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier. My eldest is eight, and let's just say....she's almost as tall as me and she's developing. That's just to say, puberty and girls is 9-12.
The 9-12 range is for the inception of puberty, not the end of it, and Abe specifically said a teenage girl just out of puberty. Does it make me uncomfortable? Sure. Does it outrage me? No.

The lolita fantasy (Nabokov's title character was 12, iirc) is a staple of the sexual landscape, along with a myriad other anti-social impulses which would be both immoral and criminal to actually perform. As long as it remains a fantasy or as in this case, a metaphor, I'd rather expend my outrage on the real rapists and child molestors.

[Beth]

Maybe it wasn't, perhaps my personal idea of puberty is different than his. I has fully developed breasts by age 13, I started getting them at around nine, as my daughter is. I started my period at 14, but I also had an eating disorder that caused me to go on spurts of eating enormous amounts of food, to eating only toast and water on alternate weeks. Therefore, I think I delayed my menses. By the time I was 13, I had older men, complete strangers, come up to me in stores and hit on me most vulgarly, or propose marriage to me. So maybe my experience in dealing with dirty men and my personal experience with adolescent development has tainted my interpretation of this statement.

[Sweetie]

The lolita fantasy (Nabokov's title character was 12, iirc) is a staple of the sexual landscape, along with a myriad other anti-social impulses which would be both immoral and criminal to actually perform. As long as it remains a fantasy or as in this case, a metaphor, I'd rather expend my outrage on the real rapists and child molestors.

-the fantasy indicates small and young. He likes Asian girls. Now, with this Yaoi stuff having been brought to mind, what I see when I see a Asian young adult male, is a white young boy because accross cultural barriers, that is how it comes accross. Asians are smaller, older teenagers look like young children to us.

Anyways, it's out there in cyber-space and I think the impact is greater than one thinks. This morning on the news, seven or nine teenagers dead in cars in two different places in Japan, a suicide pact from online meetings.

I'm just saying, I think it's necessary to respond to such comments with the normal social disapproval because some of these people could be pedophiles. I'm saying that it offends me as a parent.

[pescifish]

I would imagine 'just out of puberty' would mean anywhere from 13 to 17, but more like 15-16, as Godless Dave suggests. Apparently, to many men, lusting after barely-post-pubescence is A-O.K.. I wonder how many of them would feel that way if the young ladies were their nieces or even their best friend's daughters when interaction with the young woman reminds them of who that individual really is. I.e., the young woman was not just a sexual object.

FWIW, I cringed at Abe's remark when I read it. But, hey, the folks on this board tend to like well crafted sexual remarks which may seem semi-outrageous in jest or otherwise and livius praised him for his praise, so 'go with the flow' and all. I assumed it was just for the shock-drama effect, not a real let's-go-do-it sort of comment.

If I understood you correctly Sweetie, like you, I'm well aware that some men have a tendency to encourage their own just-barely-post-pubescent fantasies in private, but when a casual comment is made such as the one above it does seem to take it to another level. It gives me the impression the expectation is that most of society would understand the experience Abe had to be the most wondrous of all amazing and wonderful things. That sort of comment, in my opinion, encourages that pure objectification of our most vulnerable young adults.

[Sweetie]

By the time I was 13, I had older men, complete strangers, come up to me in stores and hit on me most vulgarly, or propose marriage to me. So maybe my experience in dealing with dirty men .....

-Me too.

I just know alot of people the victim of pedophilia. I've known a few pedophiles. My sister was a victim, some of my friends were victims. I've been a mild victim in the above way. I know a guy with two kids, the eldest a pedophile. The older son was sleeping with the younger son unbeknownst to the parents for years. It's just all very ugly and I don't find it the least bit funny even any intimation to such things.

[lisarea]

I didn't see the OP, but I'd tend to take a pretty generous view in interpreting it, and simply ask what he meant.

I could see, particularly as it's an offhand comment, interpreting 'puberty' as 'adolescence,' which is a broader range, encompassing physical puberty plus the transition to adulthood, probably ending in the late teens or even early 20s.

If anything would bother me, it's that the term puberty didn't set off an alarm causing more careful wording or something, but even that doesn't bother me too much as it stands.

Again, I'm not qualified to explain what someone else meant by something they said, but my policy would be to assume the most generous explanation, and then just ask.

[seebs]

Is it a tasteless metaphor? Yes. But does it communicate effectively? Probably.

Unless his intent wasn't to say "each bite made you feel your were probably a felon, and with good reason". :P

[livius drusus]

Anyways, it's out there in cyber-space and I think the impact is greater than one thinks. This morning on the news, seven or nine teenagers dead in cars in two different places in Japan, a suicide pact from online meetings.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that naked teens porn on the internet leads to child abuse, or that child predators find victims online or ...?

I'm just saying, I think it's necessary to respond to such comments with the normal social disapproval because some of these people could be pedophiles. I'm saying that it offends me as a parent.

That's a fair point, and I'm glad you started a thread to express your disapproval. I'm not a parent and was raised in Italy where I was hit on and whistled at by men on the street as soon as I sprouted breasts (ca 12). I just blew it off, never felt unsafe or the target of people who would harm me, so perhaps my idea of normal social disapproval differs significantly from yours and Beth's.

There's certainly a line to cross here, but for me, lusting after teenagers doesn't cross it. For one thing, a pedophile by definition is sexually attracted to children with no secondary sex characteristics, not post-puberty teens.

[Beth]

That's a fair point, and I'm glad you started a thread to express your disapproval. I'm not a parent and was raised in Italy where I was hit on and whistled at by men on the street as soon as I sprouted breasts (ca 12). I just blew it off, never felt unsafe or the target of people who would harm me, so perhaps my idea of normal social disapproval differs significantly from yours and Beth's.I would have men pin me to the shelves, old men grab my ass, find a reason to grope my breasts, I even had a few reach up my skirt. I think that is plenty reason to feel threatened. Even in the Strawberry Festival Parade, there would always be some nasty Shriner pirate that would tell me to give him a kiss or flash my bra for the beads, which shocked me to no end they would try such debauchery in a fundy town's parade.

The marriage proposals, well, I just thought pathetic and I would laugh about with others. Some compliments flattered, and were kind. Even cat calls, like, "Hey Baby!", or, "I've died and gone to heaven!",- stuff like that only made me smile. But when a man entered my personal space, violated it, I was very scared.

[Sweetie]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that naked teens porn on the internet leads to child abuse, or that child predators find victims online or ...?

-no, what I meant basically that laughing stuff like that off, or ignoring it is not something I can do. This is the internet after all. You assume that people on the internet would never do, nor have ever done stuff that they fantasize about. Innocent until some reason to suspect guilt. I understand that. All I'm saying is that there could indeed be pedophiles and people who commit sex crimes here online with us anywhere we go and why I bothered to say all that is because it occurs to me that if I laugh about it, I could be laughing along with a man who is stalking my child, or someone else's child. I could be joking and laughing about young girls and such with someone who spends their afternoon parked alongside a place where children play. I'm just saying that you never know.

That's a fair point, and I'm glad you started a thread to express your disapproval. I'm not a parent and was raised in Italy where I was hit on and whistled at by men on the street as soon as I sprouted breasts (ca 12).

-I wasn't just hit on, but I wasn't officially abused either. It got to the point where I felt completely dirty by the men who were looking, with that ugly to me then look in their eyes. It was just very ugly. I was young, I felt tainted. I still think it's ugly. Fine guys, have your reaction, your impulses, but that doesn't mean that they are good or funny, people actually get hurt by them, and yes, imagine if another adult is looking at your young daughter that way.

I just blew it off, never felt unsafe or the target of people who would harm me, so perhaps my idea of normal social disapproval differs significantly from yours and Beth's.

-your experience was different than mine. Perhaps you have not experienced the ugly side of it. I just think that it's becoming way too common, this pedophia stuff. There's no real way to see if the rates are increasing because at any time there could have been the same amount but less people coming forward, but....it seems to be all around me at least, too common in the people I've met and the things that have happened to people I know.


There's certainly a line to cross here, but for me, lusting after teenagers doesn't cross it. For one thing, a pedophile by definition is sexually attracted to children with no secondary sex characteristics, not post-puberty teens.

-I understand that. I said in my first post that I understand that these girls after having hit puberty are physically women, but they are not mentally women. And once again, I find the small and young combination not so great.

[Beth]

Is it a tasteless metaphor? Yes. But does it communicate effectively? Probably.

Unless his intent wasn't to say "each bite made you feel your were probably a felon, and with good reason". :PAh, I did not think of this. Perhaps so. :)

[Sweetie]

Is it a tasteless metaphor? Yes. But does it communicate effectively? Probably.

Unless his intent wasn't to say "each bite made you feel your were probably a felon, and with good reason". :P

-sinfully delicious and criminally delicious is one thing. Orgasm with a small, tight, and young girl is another. The "just after puberty" part was unnecessary. He could have said "teenager" and I wouldn't even have thought twice. Virgins are just as tight after puberty as they are at sixteen and seventeen, but maybe not as small, who knows.

[Beth]

-no, what I meant basically that laughing stuff like that off, or ignoring it is not something I can do. This is the internet after all. You assume that people on the internet would never do, nor have ever done stuff that they fantasize about. Innocent until some reason to suspect guilt. I understand that. All I'm saying is that there could indeed be pedophiles and people who commit sex crimes here online with us anywhere we go and why I bothered to say all that is because it occurs to me that if I laugh about it, I could be laughing along with a man who is stalking my child, or someone else's child. I could be joking and laughing about young girls and such with someone who spends their afternoon parked alongside a place where children play. I'm just saying that you never know.Ifeel the same way. It is very hard for me to get past the ickyness of it and see the humor. But I think Seebs probably did get it right, what the true meaning of the statement was supposed to be.

[Sweetie]

Ifeel the same way. It is very hard for me to get past the ickyness of it and see the humor. But I think Seebs probably did get it right, what the true meaning of the statement was supposed to be.

-I allowed for that possibility in my first post. But I find the combination of young and small to still be a tad disturbing.

[Sweetie]

and once again, that was assuming that puberty is in between ages 9-12, and right after puberty is 10-13.

"The pedophile must be above age 16, and the sexual attraction must involve a child of age 13 or younger who is at least 5 years younger than the adult."

http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/issues/pedophil.html

I had asked if whether or not a 13 year old would fit into his idea of teenager.

Basically, I was just saying, if puberty is considered this, and 13 year olds qualify as a just after puberty teenager, then it's disturbing. To say such about a 16 year old wouldn't bother me, which is why the "just after puberty" was so disturbing. He could indeed have been meaning a 16 year old, I don't know but as it was with my definition.

[Dingfod]

I must not be paying attention because I'm not outraged. There was a time, not so long ago her in the US, where a 14 year old girl would have been considered of marriage age and by 17 or 18 be considered an old maid and virtually unmarriageable. In fact in some parts of the world today it is still the case. A hundred years ago girls were not reaching puberty nearly as early as they are now, many were probably just reaching puberty by that age. Ironically, we've extended adulthood in the other direction (with the exception of the death penalty).

Modern western society is demanding they stay children far longer than what they used to. We don't expect the children to be adults, or heaven forbid, act like adults (including sexual activity) much later than was expected in the past. We don't put that kind of responsibility on them today. We don't want them to have that kind of responsibility. Why is that? Because we can? Or is there some good reason not to? How did the societal norm change? When did it change?

My own mother got married at age 15, had me at age 16 and had three children by the age of 19. It wasn't that unusual back then. After my experience raising two daughters through their teen years, I'm inclined to think my grandparents avoided lots of the typical teenager-parent relationship problems, or at least farmed them out to my dad.

[lisarea]

-your experience was different than mine. Perhaps you have not experienced the ugly side of it. I just think that it's becoming way too common, this pedophia stuff. There's no real way to see if the rates are increasing because at any time there could have been the same amount but less people coming forward, but....it seems to be all around me at least, too common in the people I've met and the things that have happened to people I know.

This is a fairly minor point, but it's one I've always thought is important.

I expect that pedophilia is not on the rise at all, and is probably even in decline. It is, however, being reported more, and you're hearing about it more for several reasons:

1. It's more an issue now than it has been in the past. Child pornography wasn't even specifically illegal in the US until 1982 or something.

2. It used to be considered a 'family matter' in many circles, and is far less so now. This is compounded by the very divided nature of (at least) American society up until recent decades. So, a sheltered suburban child of the 50s may have been far more unaware of what was going on outside his or her city limits than a sheltered suburban child today. In some rural communities, father-daughter incest was common. For example, in some families, if the mother died, the eldest daughter was expected to assume her mother's duties in the bedroom as well as the kitchen, and nobody did anything about it.

3. Just in general terms, people talk about sex more now than they did in the past, and there are few taboo subjects really left for general discussion.

I do find it interesting how we've worked out this newfound horror at 'pedophilia,' as it implies any sex with a minor, in context of the cultural and probably biological standard of young women being universally desirable. There's very little gray area, it seems. Because of the laws and the broad disapproval of pedophilia, it's considered perverted and criminal for a grown man to be attracted to a girl two days short of her 18th birthday, but 48 hours later, she's up for grabs, and it's generally considered A-OK for vile old men to publically and openly lust after her. It's necessary for laws to draw what seem like arbitrary lines, but it's just interesting to see how public perceptions have fallen so closely in line with the legal definitions like that.

I remember being about 11 when men started coming on to me in various ways. (This was about 30 years ago, AKA 'in ye olden times' for lack of a better font.) There was something of a transition period at first, when I'd see some man approach me--anywhere from late teens on up through the 40 to 105 demographic (that was one inclusive age category to me at the time)--and, as they got close enough to discern how young I really was, a lot of them would turn heel. But by the time I was about 13, just about nobody turned around anymore. And it was very, very common, even when I was at the lower end of that age range. Men are attracted to young girls for some reason. I thought it was gross. Old men just turned my stomach, and I even yelled at them sometimes and told them so. But gross as it is, I didn't really see it as pedophilia. I saw it as a little fucked up, and I see it as even more fucked up now, but I wouldn't call it pedophilia. It's just stupid, obnoxious, presumptuous old fucks acting gross.


-I understand that. I said in my first post that I understand that these girls after having hit puberty are physically women, but they are not mentally women. And once again, I find the small and young combination not so great.

Yeah, but are 20 year olds really mentally women, either? In a lot of cases, I don't think so.

I just don't think you can draw some arbitrary post-puberty line at which it's acceptable. I think it's only slightly less gross when middle-aged men pursue 19 year old girls than it is when they pursue 17 year old girls.

[Sweetie]

I must not be paying attention because I'm not outraged. There was a time, not so long ago her in the US, where a 14 year old girl would have been considered of marriage age and by 17 or 18 be considered an old maid and virtually unmarriageable.

-perhaps, but a hundred years ago slavery was also acceptable, and when did females get the vote? Nowadays, parents are outraged and take their children to have abortions if they are pregnant at 12 and 13. Maybe we learned something in the last fifty years?

In fact in some parts of the world today it is still the case. A hundred years ago girls were not reaching puberty nearly as early as they are now, many were probably just reaching puberty by that age.

-right, it used to be regularily 13 and 15. Now they figure because of chemicals and sexual exposure, I was just reading on the net, girls are developing earlier.

Ironically, we've extended adulthood in the other direction (with the exception of the death penalty).

-I'm not for the death penalty either.

Modern western society is demanding they stay children far longer than what they used to.

-in some ways, in other no. Do you think even a developed 13 year old is mentally a woman?

We don't expect the children to be adults, or heaven forbid, act like adults (including sexual activity) much later than was expected in the past. We don't put that kind of responsibility on them today.

-I agree with that.

We don't want them to have that kind of responsibility. Why is that? Because we can? Or is there some good reason not to? How did the societal norm change? When did it change?

-which is why I don't spoil my children and am trying to raise them to be resposible.

My own mother got married at age 15, had me at age 16 and had three children by the age of 19. It wasn't that unusual back then.

-But was it good for her?

After my experience raising two daughters through their teen years, I'm inclined to think my grandparents avoided lots of the typical teenager-parent relationship problems, or at least farmed them out to my dad.

-yes, but that would just cause more problems in the children of today because marriage isn't seen the same as it was back then. The chances of a couple being married young, 14 and 15 and actually staying together in this day and age is slim. Chances are, by 18-23, they will have questioned that decision intensely and most will have found that they didn't know what they were doing or getting into, weren't old enough to make an informed and responsible decision.

[Dingfod]

[QUOTE=warrenly]I must not be paying attention because I'm not outraged. There was a time, not so long ago her in the US, where a 14 year old girl would have been considered of marriage age and by 17 or 18 be considered an old maid and virtually unmarriageable.

-perhaps, but a hundred years ago slavery was also acceptable, and when did females get the vote? Nowadays, parents are outraged and take their children to have abortions if they are pregnant at 12 and 13. Maybe we learned something in the last fifty years?And what would that be?

Slavery wasn't acceptable 100 years ago, not anywhere in the modern world anyway, and U.S. women gained suffrage in 1920, beating most of the rest of the world in that regard, many by quite a few years, but neither on of these has anything at all to do with post pubescent teens and the men that lust after them.

In fact in some parts of the world today it is still the case. A hundred years ago girls were not reaching puberty nearly as early as they are now, many were probably just reaching puberty by that age.

-right, it used to be regularily 13 and 15. Now they figure because of chemicals and sexual exposure, I was just reading on the net, girls are developing earlier.And yet, to my unaddressed point, we expect them to stay a child even longer.

Ironically, we've extended adulthood in the other direction (with the exception of the death penalty).

-I'm not for the death penalty either.I really only referenced the death penalty thing because the SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case related to that subject and I wanted to appear well-informed.

Modern western society is demanding they stay children far longer than what they used to.

-in some ways, in other no. Do you think even a developed 13 year old is mentally a woman?No, but I know one 23 year old young woman in my own family that isn't mentally a woman either. I know one that is 29 and isn't a woman mentally. I would say that some 13 year olds are lot closer to mental maturity than many that are quite older than that. It is very difficult to nail down a specific age standard because of that.

We don't expect the children to be adults, or heaven forbid, act like adults (including sexual activity) much later than was expected in the past. We don't put that kind of responsibility on them today.

-I agree with that. Why is that the case?

We don't want them to have that kind of responsibility. Why is that? Because we can? Or is there some good reason not to? How did the societal norm change? When did it change?

-which is why I don't spoil my children and am trying to raise them to be resposible.I'm sure you do the very best you can in that regard. Some of us have coddled them a bit, only to regret it later. That goes to my point, coddling them and treating them like they're children only delays childhood. In my grandparent's day, children were expected to be doing farm work after about age 8. I think making them take that sort of responsibility led to earlier mental maturity.

My own mother got married at age 15, had me at age 16 and had three children by the age of 19. It wasn't that unusual back then.

-But was it good for her?Who knows, she nucking futs as it is.\

After my experience raising two daughters through their teen years, I'm inclined to think my grandparents avoided lots of the typical teenager-parent relationship problems, or at least farmed them out to my dad.

-yes, but that would just cause more problems in the children of today because marriage isn't seen the same as it was back then. The chances of a couple being married young, 14 and 15 and actually staying together in this day and age is slim. Chances are, by 18-23, they will have questioned that decision intensely and most will have found that they didn't know what they were doing or getting into, weren't old enough to make an informed and responsible decision.Again, we don't typically allow them to get into those situations until they're older and more mentally mature, yet we still have the problem of marriages not lasting. Doesn't say much for age being an indication of mental maturity, does it?

[Sweetie]

1. It's more an issue now than it has been in the past. Child pornography wasn't even specifically illegal in the US until 1982 or something.

Have we improved in society, and protected our children better by making it illegal? I'm not sure if you see that as a good or bad thing.

2. It used to be considered a 'family matter' in many circles, and is far less so now.

It also used to be ignored I think, and children weren't getting the help they needed, something that the families even of today, cannot provide.

This is compounded by the very divided nature of (at least) American society up until recent decades. So, a sheltered suburban child of the 50s may have been far more unaware of what was going on outside his or her city limits than a sheltered suburban child today. In some rural communities, father-daughter incest was common. For example, in some families, if the mother died, the eldest daughter was expected to assume her mother's duties in the bedroom as well as the kitchen, and nobody did anything about it.

That's terrible. However, I do get the impression even though there are always exceptions, and there is always good and bad, but I think people had a stricter moral code. Society just did. Good and bad went with that, but I think laxer morals means more sexual liscentiousness, which means that people are more exposed to more extreme things of a sexual nature and people may be more likely to act on them in this day and age. Before I think it occured less, but was kept quiet. I don't have an substantiation for that, I've never looked for some, just my impression at present.

3. Just in general terms, people talk about sex more now than they did in the past, and there are few taboo subjects really left for general discussion.

I do find it interesting how we've worked out this newfound horror at 'pedophilia,' as it implies any sex with a minor, in context of the cultural and probably biological standard of young women being universally desirable. There's very little gray area, it seems. Because of the laws and the broad disapproval of pedophilia, it's considered perverted and criminal for a grown man to be attracted to a girl two days short of her 18th birthday, but 48 hours later, she's up for grabs, and it's generally considered A-OK for vile old men to publically and openly lust after her.

I don't think it's criminal where I live. 16 is the cut-off for statuatory rape.

It's necessary for laws to draw what seem like arbitrary lines, but it's just interesting to see how public perceptions have fallen so closely in line with the legal definitions like that.

I think if a girl hits puberty at 13, by 15 and 16 she is mentally ready to makr some responsible and adult sexual choices. I think 13 year olds are way, way more likely to have unprotected sex, way, way less ready to deal with the emotional and physical consequences related to sexual activity. The backlash from being used, pregnancy, etc.

I remember being about 11 when men started coming on to me in various ways. (This was about 30 years ago, AKA 'in ye olden times' for lack of a better font.) There was something of a transition period at first, when I'd see some man approach me--anywhere from late teens on up through the 40 to 105 demographic (that was one inclusive age category to me at the time)--and, as they got close enough to discern how young I really was, a lot of them woul turn heel. But by the time I was about 13, just about nobody turned around anymore. And it was very, very common, even when I was at the lower end of that age range. Men are attracted to young girls for some reason. I thought it was gross. Old men just turned my stomach, and I even yelled at them sometimes and told them so. But gross as it is, I didn't really see it as pedophilia. I saw it as a little fucked up, and I see it as even more fucked up now, but I wouldn't call it pedophilia. It's just stupid, obnoxious, presumptuous old fucks acting gross.

-fuckin dirty old men still hit on me, it is gross.

Yeah, but are 20 year olds really mentally women, either? In a lot of cases, I don't think so.

-I think they are mature enough to make more informed choices and take responsibility for the consequences. Yes, I think there is a big difference in maturity from a 13 year old to a 20 year old. One is an adult who hasn't had the experiences to grow from to become an official woman, that's usually at 25 or so I hear, the other is seven years of development off.

I just don't think you can draw some arbitrary post-puberty line at which it's acceptable. I think it's only slightly less gross when middle-aged men pursue 19 year old girls than it is when they pursue 17 year old girls.

-I think there needs to be a line, and that you can draw one.

[viscousmemories]

I think your opinion is reasonable, Sweetie, and frankly I think it would have been perfectly acceptable to express your disapproval with the metaphor in that thread. I suppose you didn't to avoid de-railing it. Anyway I agree that while the phrasing technically referred to an older teen, the combination of the words petite, teenage, girl, and puberty evoked an image of a much younger girl. Still while his choice of words startled me a bit, I just interpreted his meaning as "tasted as good as eating forbidden fruit" and moved on. Which isn't to say I don't understand or appreciate your and other's disapproval, but that's why I didn't experience or express any great discomfort of my own.

I do wonder, though, if the answer to the question "should it be socially acceptable to make such comments?" serves any purpose. Which is to say it seems to me that the measure of a things social acceptability is the people's response to it. I'm inclined to say if most people don't express any outrage then the thing probably isn't considered socially unacceptable. But again I don't think that's any reason not to put it under the microscope, so I appreciate your having brought it up.

[Sweetie]

And what would that be?

Maybe more about childhood development and psychology? How to raise strong and independent women instead of ones that get to be married off. Maybe that 13 is too young and not good for a woman to be married and pregnant. It is actually bad for a child, or so I've heard, in that their bodies haven't finished solidifying as their adult bodies, even if they have reached puberty by that age, obviously, if they are getting pregnant.

Slavery wasn't acceptable 100 years ago, not anywhere in the modern world anyway, and U.S. women gained suffrage in 1920, beating most of the rest of the world in that regard, many by quite a few years, but neither on of these has anything at all to do with post pubescent teens and the men that lust after them.

It has something to do with what was socially acceptable back then and what is now. What was socially acceptable back then isn't necessarily what is good in the sense of good and healthy for the 13 year olds involved.

And yet, to my unaddressed point, we expect them to stay a child even longer.

I understand what you are saying in that back then they were devloping later and married (considered marriageable/adults) earlier, and now they are developing earlier and are marrying later. You are implying however, that that was fine, and in this day and age we are perhaps doing something wrong in expecting them to be sexually active later.

What I am saying is that I reject the former thoughts, I don't think they are good. No, I don't think it's right for a child to marry when she isn't even a woman yet, I think that was wrong of the people of the past to do that to children, and society to pressure them that way.

No, but I know one 23 year old young woman in my own family that isn't mentally a woman either. I know one that is 29 and isn't a woman mentally. I would say that some 13 year olds are lot closer to mental maturity than many that are quite older than that. It is very difficult to nail down a specific age standard because of that.

I'm not going to argue the point if you think that 23 and 29 year olds aren't more mentally ready for sex and marriage than 13 year olds. I just flat out think that's ridiculous and my experience dictates that I wasn't ready to make an informed and responsible choice, and that what I did encounter at that age, hurt me mentally and emotionally.

Why is that the case?

Because if most adults are spoiled brats, why not raise their children that way? :wink: However, to counter your point, their lack of responsibility coupled with their early development does not show that they are then ready for what adults are ready for, what it indicates is that they are physically ready but not mentally ready. So the situations have reversed. In the past they may not have been physically mature, but were more mentally mature. In the present they are physically mature, but not mentally mature. I was both physically and mentally mature at age 13, but still not ready for some of the pressures and responsibilities of adulthood such as an active sex life.

I'm sure you do the very best you can in that regard. Some of us have coddled them a bit, only to regret it later. That goes to my point, coddling them and treating them like they're children only delays childhood. In my grandparent's day, children were expected to be doing farm work after about age 8. I think making them take that sort of responsibility led to earlier mental maturity.

I wrote the above before I read this, so I think we agree.

Again, we don't typically allow them to get into those situations until they're older and more mentally mature, yet we still have the problem of marriages not lasting. Doesn't say much for age being an indication of mental maturity, does it?

If you get married thinking there's always divorce if it doesn't work out and as soon as things start getting difficult, then divorce it is. That is a product of our society.

[Sweetie]

I think your opinion is reasonable, Sweetie, and frankly I think it would have been perfectly acceptable to express your disapproval with the metaphor in that thread. I suppose you didn't to avoid de-railing it.
Right, I didn't want to derail a food thread with a discussion of pedophilia.

[lisarea]

1. It's more an issue now than it has been in the past. Child pornography wasn't even specifically illegal in the US until 1982 or something.

Have we improved in society, and protected our children better by making it illegal? I'm not sure if you see that as a good or bad thing.

Oh, I definitely see it as a good thing. I mean, the laws against kiddie porn and not kiddie porn itself.

I just get a little tired of self-righteous old people who say things like, "We never heard about child pornography when I was young" as a way of casting the 1950s as some kind of pinnacle of human achievement.

I like to remind them that the reason they never heard about it is because it was legal.

That's terrible. However, I do get the impression even though there are always exceptions, and there is always good and bad, but I think people had a stricter moral code. Society just did. Good and bad went with that, but I think laxer morals means more sexual liscentiousness, which means that people are more exposed to more extreme things of a sexual nature and people may be more likely to act on them in this day and age. Before I think it occured less, but was kept quiet. I don't have an substantiation for that, I've never looked for some, just my impression at present.

That's not the kind of thing we'll ever see reliable data on, regardless. The fact that the culture has changed so significantly in, say, the past fifty or so years means affects what data is available.

I will concur that kiddie porn and the like are more readily available now then they were then, simply because pornography delivery technology has advanced so far.

And I would argue about morality. Yes, there were stricter standards for public behavior once upon a time, but the standards and criteria for moral behavior were very different from what they are now. Wife-beating was really A-OK until fairly recently, racism was the norm, and I distinctly remember the big controversy over whether marital rape was even possible. This must've been in the 70s, at least, because I was arguing about it.

Sex is a much more public subject now than it was then, so most people probably have more information about others' sexual behaviors than they did in the past, and people who have lived through this change in attitudes would understandably get the impression that 'deviant' sexual behaviors are on the rise. I'm just not entirely sure that the actual bad type of sexual behaviors are all that more common now than they used to be.

While, on the one hand, people are probably more likely to be able to get kiddie porn, and that may serve to legitimize it somewhat; on the other hand, little children are far more likely to know that this behavior is unacceptable, and to have been taught how to resist it. They're also probably more likely to tell someone about it, and that someone is more likely to do something about it once the kid does tell.


I don't think it's criminal where I live. 16 is the cut-off for statuatory rape.

Yeah, the state laws differ pretty significantly, and they're generally at least a little nuanced in terms of recognizing age differences and such. I was thinking in terms of porn and the like in that example.


-I think there needs to be a line, and that you can draw one.

There does need to be a line legally, because the law can't really make individual judgments, except in practice somewhat.

But I don't see a huge black and white difference between one randomly selected 17 year old vs. a randomly selected 18 year old.

I see more grey areas there. I would have less of a problem with a 25 year old looking at naked pictures of a 17 year old than I do with a 50 year old looking at naked pictures of an 18 year old. (I've intentionally made it 'looking at naked pictures of' because, as I understand it, there is a relatively clear legal line there.)

I'm not saying the law isn't worthwhile. I'm saying that, personally, it doesn't automatically become acceptable after some etched in stone cutoff point.

Mostly, I'm saying that I think it's strange that more people don't think it's weird and kind of gross for 50 year old men to pursue teenaged girls sexually, regardless of legality.

[Dingfod]

You are implying however, that that was fine, and in this day and age we are perhaps doing something wrong in expecting them to be sexually active later.I did not mean to imply that it was fine for them to marry at 14 back when. But, because of earlier maturation and later adulthood, I think we might have unrealistic expectations about teenagers and those expectations, or the lack of, are one of the problems we have in modern society.

What I am saying is that I reject the former thoughts, I don't think they are good. No, I don't think it's right for a child to marry when she isn't even a woman yet, I think that was wrong of the people of the past to do that to children, and society to pressure them that way.Many states allow 16 year olds to get married, some even as young as 14. Are they wrong? Maybe, but what I'm saying is, you have to take it on a case-by-case basis because they're not all the same. Some may never be mature enough to have a decent long-lasting relationship and some may at a fairly early age. So, why draw an arbitrary line?

I'm not going to argue the point if you think that 23 and 29 year olds aren't more mentally ready for sex and marriage than 13 year olds. I just flat out think that's ridiculous and my experience dictates that I wasn't ready to make an informed and responsible choice, and that what I did encounter at that age, hurt me mentally and emotionally.I'm saying that some 23 and 29 year olds are not mentally mature, many if not most 20 year olds are not and most, but not all, 14 (I didn't use 13) year olds are not. However, I think that some 14 year olds are more mentally mature than some 23 or 29 year olds. Do you disagree? We have some teenagers at IIDB, maybe even here at F-F, that are much more mature than some 49 year olds. Fact.

Brought to you by the DRD

Why is that the case?

Because if most adults are spoiled brats, why not raise their children that way? :wink: I represent that remark. ;) But, how did I get that way? My parents placed quite a lot of responsibility on me at a fairly early age and I met that responsibility head on. I was pretty much independent mentally and fiscally by age 17 thanks to their rearing.
However, to counter your point, their lack of responsibility coupled with their early development does not show that they are then ready for what adults are ready for, what it indicates is that they are physically ready but not mentally ready.Now we're getting somewhere. I think the lack of responsibility of teens and young adults today tells more about parenting and societal expectations than it does of teenage mental maturity. People, including teenagers, tend to live up to or down to expectations. So, if we expect them to remain children up to that magical age of 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, or 25* we should expect they will meet that expectation. But, if they don't, what then? Those expectations I just mentioned are the ones that may be unrealistic. Ever wonder why most teens are rebellious? That's them trying to express their independence. Ever wonder why so many parents of teenagers have fights with their teenagers? That's them trying to keep the teenager a child. Just my opinion, of course.

*Various age milestones: NC-17 movie age, voting age, tobacco purchase age, drinking age, handgun purchase age, and insurance discount age.
So the situations have reversed. In the past they may not have been physically mature, but were more mentally mature. In the present they are physically mature, but not mentally mature. I was both physically and mentally mature at age 13, but still not ready for some of the pressures and responsibilities of adulthood such as an active sex life.Then you weren't really mentally mature, were you?

If you get married thinking there's always divorce if it doesn't work out and as soon as things start getting difficult, then divorce it is. That is a product of our society.Which hasn't gotten one bit better by making them wait until they're older.

[Beth]

I tend to agree with Lisa that it seems pedophilia might be on the decline, maybe not the urges, but the actual acting out on those urges. It could be because it is less socially accepted, that children are those who possess a bill of rights instead of being mere property of adults to be used a reared at the whim of an adult. I honestly think my kids are safer from predatory family members than I was.

Now, if a man groped my daughter or pinned her or spoke obscenely to her, the police just might do something about it. If a shriner in a country parade made suggestions similar to the ones I received till I was 18, she could possibly raise a stink about it, possibly sue for sexual harrassment, or make a misconduct claim to the media?...

I am more concerned about predatory strangers getting at my kids than those we know. My kids are open with me because I spoke about appropriate sexual touches and behaviors since they were old enough to start talking and I think I have drilled into them that they must always tell me, even if it supposed to be a secret, and I have always carefully screened who they visit or come in contact with, as far as adults go.

[Adora]

-Does anybody else see problems with comments like these? I guess I see that girls just out of puberty are ten to thirteen years old. Petite, small, young and tight is what is implied. Teenaged is specified. Do thirteen year olds qualify as teenagers?

What kind of weird alien women do you have on your planet? I was always under the impression and the pratical experience that "just out of puberty" meant around the 14-16 age. I hit puberty around 10-11 and didn't stop properly until I was 13-14. By that time I could pass as an 18 year old because of both physical and mental maturity. It wasn't a blessing though...

Maybe you should ask Abe to explain himself. Perhaps he was just using a turn of phrase when remembering his own teenage experiences and first-time?

Dirty old men will always be dirty old men. My mother is 55 and still gets hit on in really vulgar ways by dirty old 60 year olds.

And when we say "paedophillia is on the decline", are talking about only the US again, or the whole world? Because the rising rates of child-porn coming out of Russia and China tend to speak differently if you step outside your borders.

[Beth]

I am using a more isolationist speak when I am speaking of pedophillia is on the decline. I do realize that it is much worse in the world. I have started many threads in another board on this heart wrenching subject. Sometimes just wanting to get people to understand the crisis overwhelms me, so I step back and simply look at the world through an isolationist box, once again.

[Dingfod]

I am more concerned about predatory strangers getting at my kids than those we know. Which, as I'm sure you know, is pretty darn rare, much more rare than being molested or raped by a trusted family member, even today.My kids are open with me because I spoke about appropriate sexual touches and behaviors since they were old enough to start talking and I think I have drilled into them that they must always tell me, even if it supposed to be a secret, and I have always carefully screened who they visit or come in contact with, as far as adults go.Bravo, Beth! You're a good mother.

[Dingfod]

Why is a dirty old man worse than a dirty young man? Isn't it ageism and lookism to discriminate on the basis of age or wrinkles (or paunch)?

[Beth]

[QUOTE=Beth]I am more concerned about predatory strangers getting at my kids than those we know. Which, as I'm sure you know, is pretty darn rare, much more rare than being molested or raped by a trusted family member, even today.Yes I know. I am rather cautious about this. But the stranger thing, well, you know, it presents a more frightening image simply because of the unknown person. But I am well aware that a child is more likely to be sexually abused, kidnapped, or murdered by someone they know.

Bravo, Beth! You're a good mother.Thank you. I don't always feel it, but I try.

[Sweetie]

What kind of weird alien women do you have on your planet? I was always under the impression and the pratical experience that "just out of puberty" meant around the 14-16 age. I hit puberty around 10-11 and didn't stop properly until I was 13-14. By that time I could pass as an 18 year old because of both physical and mental maturity. It wasn't a blessing though...

-I still can pass for an eighteen year old and often people are suprised when I say I'm nearly ten years older than that, lol which means that when I was 13, I looked young so the men who hit on me knew I was that young.

No, I can't imagine it was a blessing for you though. Mature body but not ready to deal with all that came with that?

Maybe you should ask Abe to explain himself. Perhaps he was just using a turn of phrase when remembering his own teenage experiences and first-time?

-He's free to explain himself if he feels like it. I left the door open and offered my definitions and why it bothered me. His definitions may indeed be different.

And when we say "paedophillia is on the decline"

-I didn't.

[Sweetie]

Why is a dirty old man worse than a dirty young man? Isn't it ageism and lookism to discriminate on the basis of age or wrinkles (or paunch)?

-Haha. Let's just say a fifteen year old's tongue in your mouth and hand on your breast is alot better at 14 then an old man's tongue in your mouth and hand on your breast. And when I say old, I mean like late 60's in my case. *gag* That's just wrong. :D

Now, if I was 50, sounds good that he's still frisky and can still get it up, lol.

[lisarea]

And when we say "paedophillia is on the decline", are talking about only the US again, or the whole world? Because the rising rates of child-porn coming out of Russia and China tend to speak differently if you step outside your borders.

I don't think you can say whether pedophilia itself is declining or expanding or what. You will never find reliable data on that subject.

As far as individual incidents, there is probably more child pornography available now than there has been in the past, but that would likely apply to all types of porn, and is at least in part because of improved delivery methods and technology. You don't need a darkroom anymore. There are any number of reasons for an increase in child porn coming out of China or Russia, of which an increase in child exploitation is just one possibility. Are people in China and Russia really sexually abusing children more often, or are they taking more pictures of it now? Are there really more pictures now, or is the distribution of those pictures just wider and more public than it was before?

As far as I'm aware, pedophilia has only been recognized as a disorder for about a hundred years. But China has a very long history of child marriage, for example. I'm not quite as sure about Russia, but I'd be surprised if the situation were wildly different there than it is pretty much everywhere else. How long have they had laws against sex with children? How long has pedophilia been considered really abberant? And why would anyone keep records of perfectly legal and common behaviors?

My point being that this stuff has been happening for a very long time, but people have only really been paying attention to it in recent years.

As such, any data you see is likely to be skewed toward making pedophilia/child porn/child rape appear to be a recent phenomenon. It is not. It is the criminalization and public discussion of the subjects that's recent.

I won't argue that there may be a slight upsurge in incidents of situational pedophilia as a result of the influence of pornography or something, but if you look at the big picture, I would argue that the situation is probably improving overall.

[lisarea]

Why is a dirty old man worse than a dirty young man? Isn't it ageism and lookism to discriminate on the basis of age or wrinkles (or paunch)?

EWWW! Old man post! OLD MAN POST!

GROSS!!!!

:balls3:

[beyelzu]

on the subject of puberty, early puberty in the western world is the product of having a high energy balance. Lots of calories consumed compared to amount of exercise.

from http://viradium.mpl.ird.fr/cepm/SiteWebESS/Fr/deMeeus/Thomasetal2001HumBiol.pdf

A closer examination of the data revealed that
among several variables reflecting living conditions, the factors best explaining
the variation in age at menarche were adult illiteracy rate and vegetable
calorie consumption. Because adult illiteracy rate has some correlation with
the age at which children are involved in physical activities that can be detrimental
in terms of energy expenditure, our results suggest that age at menarche
reflects more a trend in energy balance than merely nutritional status.

in short chicks bleed earlier than they used to cuz they eat more in relation to the amount they exercise.


that is all.

[Dingfod]

Why is a dirty old man worse than a dirty young man? Isn't it ageism and lookism to discriminate on the basis of age or wrinkles (or paunch)?

EWWW! Old man post! OLD MAN POST!

GROSS!!!!

:balls3:Look here, woman. I could take you. I could. Really, I could. I think.

[Adora]

I won't argue that there may be a slight upsurge in incidents of situational pedophilia as a result of the influence of pornography...

Really? I wouldn't. I was simply referring to the incidence of actual child-porn now becoming an industry for crime syndicates in these parts of the world, which I am told, was not as big as industry 70 years ago when the society was under certain social rule. *shrugs*

Apparently, certain hormones used in hair-straightening products also bring on puberty earlier.

[beyelzu]

-Does anybody else see problems with comments like these? I guess I see that girls just out of puberty are ten to thirteen years old. Petite, small, young and tight is what is implied. Teenaged is specified. Do thirteen year olds qualify as teenagers?

What kind of weird alien women do you have on your planet? I was always under the impression and the pratical experience that "just out of puberty" meant around the 14-16 age. I hit puberty around 10-11 and didn't stop properly until I was 13-14. By that time I could pass as an 18 year old because of both physical and mental maturity. It wasn't a blessing though...

Maybe you should ask Abe to explain himself. Perhaps he was just using a turn of phrase when remembering his own teenage experiences and first-time?

Dirty old men will always be dirty old men. My mother is 55 and still gets hit on in really vulgar ways by dirty old 60 year olds.

And when we say "paedophillia is on the decline", are talking about only the US again, or the whole world? Because the rising rates of child-porn coming out of Russia and China tend to speak differently if you step outside your borders.


please prove that there are rising rates of child porn coming out of russia and china?

also any links on where I can download some* cuz nothin says lovin like russian child porn







*anyone who has a problem with the above fucked up joke is welcome to try to lecture me on the subject. I wont sit around and be vilified let aa has.

[Dingfod]

*anyone who has a problem with the above fucked up joke is welcome to try to lecture me on the subject. I wont sit around and be vilified let aa has.Remarkably, this very thread is supposed to be about the propriety of just such remarks.

[beyelzu]

*anyone who has a problem with the above fucked up joke is welcome to try to lecture me on the subject. I wont sit around and be vilified let aa has.Remarkably, this very thread is supposed to be about the propriety of just such remarks.
:innocent:

really???

[Ex-zombie]

cuz nothin says lovin like russian child porn

That's a joke?
Can you explain it to me, cause I think I missed the punch line?

[beyelzu]

cuz nothin says lovin like russian child porn

That's a joke?
Can you explain it to me, cause I think I missed the punch line?
lets see, I used the catch phrase of the pillsbury dough boy and ended with child porn which is ironic and unexpected, also I wasnt meant to be taken seriously.

furthermore, I was using joking in the loosest possible sense, as in fucking with, joking around, etc..

[Ex-zombie]

cuz nothin says lovin like russian child porn

That's a joke?
Can you explain it to me, cause I think I missed the punch line?
lets see, I used the catch phrase of the pillsbury dough boy and ended with child porn which is ironic and unexpected, also I wasnt meant to be taken seriously.

furthermore, I was using joking in the loosest possible sense, as in fucking with, joking around, etc..

Thanks. I knew there was a joke in there. I just wasn't seeing it. I couldn't figure out where the phrase "nothing says lovin" was from.

Been a long day.

[beyelzu]

cuz nothin says lovin like russian child porn

That's a joke?
Can you explain it to me, cause I think I missed the punch line?
lets see, I used the catch phrase of the pillsbury dough boy and ended with child porn which is ironic and unexpected, also I wasnt meant to be taken seriously.

furthermore, I was using joking in the loosest possible sense, as in fucking with, joking around, etc..

Thanks. I knew there was a joke in there. I just wasn't seeing it. I couldn't figure out where the phrase "nothing says lovin" was from.

Been a long day.


but now you do recognize the phrase right, because if people dont then the joke is not only offensive but not funny and offensive, which would really be waste?

[viscousmemories]

*anyone who has a problem with the above fucked up joke is welcome to try to lecture me on the subject. I wont sit around and be vilified let aa has.
I don't personally think he's been villified at all. There seem to be a few people who take issue with his choice of words in this instance, but I hope anyone posting in a public discussion forum is prepared for that eventuality.

[beyelzu]

*anyone who has a problem with the above fucked up joke is welcome to try to lecture me on the subject. I wont sit around and be vilified let aa has.
I don't personally think he's been vilified at all. There seem to be a few people who take issue with his choice of words in this instance, but I hope anyone posting in a public discussion forum is prepared for that eventuality.
I don't know, there is a whole lot of vilification going on considering that the comment was innocent.

its not like he said hey I want to go out and watch kiddie porn right before I go to the jr. high school to pick my date.

I will defend him as he isn't here to do it himself, and I think what he said is pretty fucking innocuous all things considered.

[lisarea]

I won't argue that there may be a slight upsurge in incidents of situational pedophilia as a result of the influence of pornography...

Really? I wouldn't. I was simply referring to the incidence of actual child-porn now becoming an industry for crime syndicates in these parts of the world, which I am told, was not as big as industry 70 years ago when the society was under certain social rule. *shrugs*

Well, my original sentence was pretty mangled, so I'm not entirely sure in context what your response means, but I think I understand what you're saying.

In the post I replied to, you said:

And when we say "paedophillia is on the decline", are talking about only the US again, or the whole world? Because the rising rates of child-porn coming out of Russia and China tend to speak differently if you step outside your borders.

To me, that implies that you believe that rising rates of child porn in Russia and China imply that pedophilia is, if not on the rise, at least not on the decline. To answer directly, no. I wasn't just talking about the US, although I do tend to refer to US laws and culture more frequently because I am most familiar with it.

Situational pedophilia isn't actually pedophilia. It's convenience child rape, basically. I assume that most child pornography involves putting children in sexual situations in order to produce pornography. Therefore, the manufacture of child pornography would like result in a situational increase in child molestation.

So the simple fact that there is an industry would imply that, in that social sphere, there would have to be some amount of child molestation going on.

And I would argue that there are likely instances in which kiddie porn provides inspiration to action, much as S&M material might embolden someone with existing proclivities to give it a shot.

In those ways, I suppose that child porn might cause a slight increase in cases of pedophilia. In fact, if its prevalence could be seen as some degree of societal acceptance, it could be responsible for non-slight increases as well, similar to societal acceptance of the child bride phenomenon.

However, I would not assume an overall increase in child sex just because there's an increase in child pornography, except in a pretty limited sense.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm sure you do the very best you can in that regard. Some of us have coddled them a bit, only to regret it later. That goes to my point, coddling them and treating them like they're children only delays childhood. In my grandparent's day, children were expected to be doing farm work after about age 8. I think making them take that sort of responsibility led to earlier mental maturity.


I had an economics professor point out that the role of children in American society and the economy had undergone a tremendous change in the 20th century - they had gone from farm labor to household pets.

I'm not qualified to judge.

godfry

[Dingfod]

I had an economics professor point out that the role of children in American society and the economy had undergone a tremendous change in the 20th century - they had gone from farm labor to household pets.And then we wonder why they're not ready for the world mentally without lengthy training and psychological counseling.

Am I advocating a return to thinking of them as a labor force? Not at all, I merely think us parents in modern society most probably are not raising children to become the responsible, hard-working adults that they could be. I don't know what the answer to this is. I wish they would've come with an owners manual.[/derail]

[ApostateAbe]

You people are entertaining! :popcorn: I just saw this thread, and I wouldn't have figured that one of my many candidly-expressed thoughts would be such a pisser, especially here.

I love this place because it is a "freethought" forum where everyone can freely expresss their views. So there is no reason to squirm and be shocked at an offhand analogy that reflects the nature of most adult heterosexual males. Although we may not admit it openly, we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty. Girls are at their prime as soon as they are ready to reproduce. And it makes good evolutionary sense, although it has trouble colluding with the protect-the-children-at-all-costs mentality of modern-day society.

[Sweetie]

Although we may not admit it openly, we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty. Girls are at their prime as soon as they are ready to reproduce.

Thanks for showing that I was right in my thoughts about what you meant by puberty. Thumbs up.

You may have the impulses and desires, but it's only a dispicable sick fuck who would talk about young girls that way, as if they were merely pieces of meat. I object as a parent, as a woman, as the girl I used to be.

[Sweetie]

I don't know, there is a whole lot of vilification going on considering that the comment was innocent.

-I read that there were no moderators here, that it's a freethought forum, and that the goal is to have moderation via peers and social disapproval.

I would like to say that I've invited three friends here, two atheists and one theist and none were interested because it's slow, it's clique and some of the comments are truly offensive such as the one I mentioned which no one seems to object to. I'm objecting and I'm not alone.

What you said was a joke, clearly, what AA said was different. It's better than half of us having a big problem with what he said but saying nothing which just means seeming agreement via silence. I have already said, I cannot be silent about such a big thing.

[livius drusus]

You people are entertaining! :popcorn: I just saw this thread, and I wouldn't have figured that one of my many candidly-expressed thoughts would be such a pisser, especially here.

I wouldn't have figured that you'd see reduce this thread to people finding your candidly-expressed pissers. Some thought your joke offensive, others didn't and the thread itself is a rich, interesting discussion, not prudish whimpering.

I love this place because it is a "freethought" forum where everyone can freely expresss their views. So there is no reason to squirm and be shocked at an offhand analogy that reflects the nature of most adult heterosexual males.

I don't know what makes you think you are somehow exempt from social disapproval just because there are no rules here against you expressing your more anti-social desires. I'm not in the least amused by your caricaturing this discussion. Everyone in this thread is freely expressing their views and they have every reason to do so.

Although we may not admit it openly, we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty. Girls are at their prime as soon as they are ready to reproduce. And it makes good evolutionary sense, although it has trouble colluding with the protect-the-children-at-all-costs mentality of modern-day society.

If you had any idea how many times I'd heard this hoary old chestnut of an argument... Despite the self-sustaining justifications that pass for discussion in teen/kiddie porn circles, you and your pals are not every man and not every man shares your tastes. Not everyone who objects to your analogy or wider proclivities has a "protect children at all costs" mentality, although, as a side point, you not be allowed to score teenage pussy hardly counts as a terrible cost, imho.

The evolutionary argument is also less than convincing given that we are social animals with ethical strictures and complex psyches. Besides, pregnant children hardly particularly make good evolutionary sense.

[ApostateAbe]

Although we may not admit it openly, we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty. Girls are at their prime as soon as they are ready to reproduce.
Thanks for showing that I was right in my thoughts about what you meant by puberty. Thumbs up.

You may have the impulses and desires, but it's only a dispicable sick fuck who would talk about young girls that way, as if they were merely pieces of meat. I object as a parent, as a woman, as the girl I used to be. I gotta admit--pretty young girls are nothing more to me than large chunks of meat. They don't have brains, they have annoying personalities, and you go to jail if you screw them. They serve only as sexual fantasy material (but not if you have pictures, because, again, you go to jail). Anyone here disagree?

[Beth]

Um, I'm a little dissappointed.

If all men have such impulses or longings, I am certainly glad I am female.

One thing, though, my husband met me when I was 14. he was 23. I was a little bitchy shit, kinda mean to him, so we cut up some, but that was it. He would comment that he "felt sorry for the man who ended up with her". -or so a friend tells me.

He came back from school when I was 16, nearly turning 17. Apparantly he fell in love with me and we began just to talk, him trying to get up the nerve to ask me out when I turned 17.

Now, my mom saw no problem with this. I still see no problem, although I do not believe that my family situation should have basically forced us to marry three years earlier than planned, and it would have been better marrying at an age older than 17. I do not think I was objectified or that I fell victim of a predator, although my husband was nine years older than I. (The age gap has caused problems, but as I became more mature, the age difference is no longer an issue.

I wonder if Abe could clarify what exactly he means by 'just out of puberty'. Is it a 13 year old girl who tickles his fancy, or is it the 16 year old that is his fantasy? Because I looked at his profile and see that he is ten years younger than I, so I can understand a 16 year old girl being attractive to him. Girls that age often match men of his age in emotional maturity.

[ApostateAbe]

You people are entertaining! :popcorn: I just saw this thread, and I wouldn't have figured that one of my many candidly-expressed thoughts would be such a pisser, especially here.
I wouldn't have figured that you'd see reduce this thread to people finding your candidly-expressed pissers. Some thought your joke offensive, others didn't and the thread itself is a rich, interesting discussion, not prudish whimpering. Sorry, I was only talking about the prudes.

I love this place because it is a "freethought" forum where everyone can freely expresss their views. So there is no reason to squirm and be shocked at an offhand analogy that reflects the nature of most adult heterosexual males.
I don't know what makes you think you are somehow exempt from social disapproval just because there are no rules here against you expressing your more anti-social desires. I'm not in the least amused by your caricaturing this discussion. Everyone in this thread is freely expressing their views and they have every reason to do so. Don't get me wrong, I love this place just for that reason.


Although we may not admit it openly, we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty. Girls are at their prime as soon as they are ready to reproduce. And it makes good evolutionary sense, although it has trouble colluding with the protect-the-children-at-all-costs mentality of modern-day society.
If you had any idea how many times I'd heard this hoary old chestnut of an argument... Despite the self-sustaining justifications that pass for discussion in teen/kiddie porn circles, you and your pals are not every man and not every man shares your tastes. Not everyone who objects to your analogy or wider proclivities has a "protect children at all costs" mentality, although, as a side point, you not be allowed to score teenage pussy hardly counts as a terrible cost, imho.

The evolutionary argument is also less than convincing given that we are social animals with ethical strictures and complex psyches. Besides, pregnant children hardly particularly make good evolutionary sense. OK, you win.

[Beth]

Oh, I just saw his latest post. I kinda agree with Sweetie on her assertation, then.

[Sweetie]

I wonder if Abe could clarify what exactly he means by 'just out of puberty'. Is it a 13 year old girl who tickles his fancy, or is it the 16 year old that is his fantasy? Because I looked at his profile and see that he is ten years younger than I, so I can understand a 16 year old girl being attractive to him. Girls that age often match men of his age in emotional maturity.

-He already said "as soon as they are able to reproduce," which means as soon as they menstruate which means like I said, 9-13 years of age.

[ApostateAbe]

I wonder if Abe could clarify what exactly he means by 'just out of puberty'. Is it a 13 year old girl who tickles his fancy, or is it the 16 year old that is his fantasy? Because I looked at his profile and see that he is ten years younger than I, so I can understand a 16 year old girl being attractive to him. Girls that age often match men of his age in emotional maturity. Basically, it is as soon as they have pronounced breasts, typically around 14. Most heterosexual men are that kind of pervert, regardless of how old they are. 60-year-old men secretly lust after 14 to 18-year-old girls.

[livius drusus]

I gotta admit--pretty young girls are nothing more to me than large chunks of meat. They don't have brains, they have annoying personalities, and you go to jail if you screw them. They serve only as sexual fantasy material (but not if you have pictures, because, again, you go to jail). Anyone here disagree?

Having been a teenage girl, yes, I disagree most vehemently. I can't believe you'd actually think anyone would agree with your cruel and vicious assessment of a girl's worth.

[Dingfod]

...Despite the self-sustaining justifications that pass for discussion in teen/kiddie porn circles, you and your pals are not every man and not every man shares your tastes.You got that right. I may like to look at young women, but women is the key word, not young.

Abe, my posts and questions for Sweetie were not meant in any way to be defending you or your sexual proclivity, which I find to be abhorent.

[ApostateAbe]

I gotta admit--pretty young girls are nothing more to me than large chunks of meat. They don't have brains, they have annoying personalities, and you go to jail if you screw them. They serve only as sexual fantasy material (but not if you have pictures, because, again, you go to jail). Anyone here disagree?
Having been a teenage girl, yes, I disagree most vehemently. I can't believe you'd actually think anyone would agree with your cruel and vicious assessment of a girl's worth. I'll change my mind as soon as I see reasons that such girls are worth any more than any large chunks of flesh. They could even be worth less than that, because I can have a much more enjoyable time with a young girl's weight in beef than I can with a young girl.

[Godless Dave]

Basically, it is as soon as they have pronounced breasts, typically around 14. Most heterosexual men are that kind of pervert, regardless of how old they are. 60-year-old men secretly lust after 14 to 18-year-old girls.
I don't think you speak for most heterosexual men. I was turned on by 14-year-old girls when I was 14, but less so now, because they don't look fully grown.

There are still girls 16 and even younger who I find sexually appealing, but that doesn't mean I would take pleasure in having intercourse with them.

[Godless Dave]

I'll change my mind as soon as I see reasons that such girls are worth any more than any large chunks of flesh. They could even be worth less than that, because I can have a much more enjoyable time with a young girl's weight in beef than I can with a young girl.
Their "worth" comes from the fact that they are human beings, just like you, and that they will one day be adult human beings shaped in part by the experiences they had when they were teenagers.

[livius drusus]

No human being is a nothing but a chunk of flesh. We all have thoughts, feelings, aspirations, desires: a brain, iow, which makes our flesh human. If you need to convinced of this incredibly obvious point, then you'd better hope there's nothing about you that someone else considers a sign of subhumanity.

[beyelzu]

Oh, I just saw his latest post. I kinda agree with Sweetie on her assertation, then.

me to now.

[Beth]

I seriously doubt any argument will ever convince him to change. The man needs help. Hopefully he gets it before he becomes an abuser, either to girls, or to women.

[beyelzu]

I gotta admit--pretty young girls are nothing more to me than large chunks of meat. They don't have brains, they have annoying personalities, and you go to jail if you screw them. They serve only as sexual fantasy material (but not if you have pictures, because, again, you go to jail). Anyone here disagree?
Having been a teenage girl, yes, I disagree most vehemently. I can't believe you'd actually think anyone would agree with your cruel and vicious assessment of a girl's worth. I'll change my mind as soon as I see reasons that such girls are worth any more than any large chunks of flesh. They could even be worth less than that, because I can have a much more enjoyable time with a young girl's weight in beef than I can with a young girl.
I initially thought your comment to be kind of funny and not intended at all seriously, I thought that's what you would say when you got here. So after a couple of pages I made that point for you. Turns out I was wrong, sort of. I dont mind the off color humor, but your point that they are chunks of meat is way fucked up.


My brother's stepdaughter just turned 16, she is fun to talk to, incredibly responsible and a great kid. In short she does have value as a human being.

[beyelzu]

I don't know, there is a whole lot of vilification going on considering that the comment was innocent.

-I read that there were no moderators here, that it's a freethought forum, and that the goal is to have moderation via peers and social disapproval.

I would like to say that I've invited three friends here, two atheists and one theist and none were interested because it's slow, it's clique and some of the comments are truly offensive such as the one I mentioned which no one seems to object to. I'm objecting and I'm not alone.

What you said was a joke, clearly, what AA said was different. It's better than half of us having a big problem with what he said but saying nothing which just means seeming agreement via silence. I have already said, I cannot be silent about such a big thing.


see my post to aa,

in short, I was wrong. I took his comment as a joke, much like the one I made, it did not occur to me that he would defend the comment in any other way.

you were right I was wrong.

peace.

[ApostateAbe]

I knew that would rattle a lot of cages.

I am not a humanist. To me, a person is not worth anything just by being human. It is not just young teenage girls I am prejudiced against. I am prejudiced against anyone who doesn't have anything interesting to say or useful to do for me.

A person's worth comes out of having great ideas, aspirations, creativity, strength, skills, charm, beauty, sexual availability, etc. If a person doesn't have the qualities I value, then he or she is nothing more to me than any carcass.

If a young teenage girl is interesting and friendly, then she is worth something to me, but most of them have nothing to offer.

[Beth]

I knew that would rattle a lot of cages.

I am not a humanist. To me, a person is not worth anything just by being human. It is not just young teenage girls I am prejudiced against. I am prejudiced against anyone who doesn't have anything interesting to say or useful to do for me.

A person's worth comes out of having great ideas, aspirations, creativity, strength, skills, charm, beauty, sexual availability, etc. If a person doesn't have the qualities I value, then he or she is nothing more to me than any carcass.

If a young teenage girl is interesting and friendly, then she is worth something to me, but most of them have nothing to offer.Then by your standards, you have no worth to me.

How amuzing that you think that a person must in some way entertain you or hold your interest!

To me, a person's worth is based on the simple fact that they are alive and are human beings.

[godfry n. glad]

I knew that would rattle a lot of cages.

I am not a humanist. To me, a person is not worth anything just by being human. It is not just young teenage girls I am prejudiced against. I am prejudiced against anyone who doesn't have anything interesting to say or useful to do for me.

A person's worth comes out of having great ideas, aspirations, creativity, strength, skills, charm, beauty, sexual availability, etc. If a person doesn't have the qualities I value, then he or she is nothing more to me than any carcass.

If a young teenage girl is interesting and friendly, then she is worth something to me, but most of them have nothing to offer.


I would think that the ability to stomach your blatant narcissism would be a trait you'd find of high value. Otherwise, I suspect you'll spend a lot of time alone.

godfry

[ApostateAbe]

I knew that would rattle a lot of cages.

I am not a humanist. To me, a person is not worth anything just by being human. It is not just young teenage girls I am prejudiced against. I am prejudiced against anyone who doesn't have anything interesting to say or useful to do for me.

A person's worth comes out of having great ideas, aspirations, creativity, strength, skills, charm, beauty, sexual availability, etc. If a person doesn't have the qualities I value, then he or she is nothing more to me than any carcass.

If a young teenage girl is interesting and friendly, then she is worth something to me, but most of them have nothing to offer.Then by your standards, you have no worth to me.

How amuzing that you think that a person must in some way entertain you or hold your interest!

To me, a person's worth is based on the simple fact that they are alive and are human beings. No, by my standards, I would have some worth to you. To illustrate, you have some worth to me, because you provide some stimulating ideas. You also contribute to the well-being of the rest of society, like any parent or person with an honest job.

[ApostateAbe]

I would think that the ability to stomach your blatant narcissism would be a trait you'd find of high value. Otherwise, I suspect you'll spend a lot of time alone.

godfry Yes, absolutely.

[pescifish]

I knew that would rattle a lot of cages. I had thought your previous shock-fucker posts were just more joking around to get outraged reactions from all of us. I still wasn't ready to villify you as dehumanizing creep, but instead as a mere troll.
DNFTT
But the rest of your post demonstrates that it is your true viewpoint. I can understand this worldview, and for what it is worth (nothing: my opinion is not necessary nor important) your viewpoint does actually disgust me. Not just for the attitude about young women, but to all people. As you say, you aren't a humanist. Which apparently means humans are dehumanized until you personally know them as being of value to you.

So, I recant the DNFTT and appreciate that now I know more about who you are. Thanks for contributing to this discussion, Abe, I am glad you clarified your position.

(Oh yeah, and my profound thanks to Sweetie for opening this thread and giving us all an opportunity to express our opinions!)

[ApostateAbe]

I knew that would rattle a lot of cages. I had thought your previous shock-fucker posts were just more joking around to get outraged reactions from all of us. I still wasn't ready to villify you as dehumanizing creep, but instead as a mere troll.
DNFTT
But the rest of your post demonstrates that it is your true viewpoint. I can understand this worldview, and for what it is worth (nothing: my opinion is not necessary nor important) your viewpoint does actually disgust me. Not just for the attitude about young women, but to all people. As you say, you aren't a humanist. Which apparently means humans are dehumanized until you personally know them as being of value to you.

So, I recant the DNFTT and appreciate that now I know more about who you are. Thanks for contributing to this discussion, Abe, I am glad you clarified your position.

(Oh yeah, and my profound thanks to Sweetie for opening this thread and giving us all an opportunity to express our opinions!) Thanks, pescifish, it is an honor. And I contribute my thanks to Sweetie for this wonderful discussion.

[livius drusus]

Ditto to everything pesci said and :bow: to the way she said it. :bow: also to Sweetie for being dead-on, for giving Abe the benefit of the doubt anyway, for taking it to a new thread and for belying with her every articulate and well-thought out post the accusation that prudery was her motive.

[ApostateAbe]

I knew everything would turn out right in the end.

[Beth]

I knew that would rattle a lot of cages.

I am not a humanist. To me, a person is not worth anything just by being human. It is not just young teenage girls I am prejudiced against. I am prejudiced against anyone who doesn't have anything interesting to say or useful to do for me.

A person's worth comes out of having great ideas, aspirations, creativity, strength, skills, charm, beauty, sexual availability, etc. If a person doesn't have the qualities I value, then he or she is nothing more to me than any carcass.

If a young teenage girl is interesting and friendly, then she is worth something to me, but most of them have nothing to offer.Then by your standards, you have no worth to me.

How amusing that you think that a person must in some way entertain you or hold your interest!

To me, a person's worth is based on the simple fact that they are alive and are human beings. No, by my standards, I would have some worth to you. To illustrate, you have some worth to me, because you provide some stimulating ideas. You also contribute to the well-being of the rest of society, like any parent or person with an honest job.No, by your standards you really are of no value, any more than the fly that buzzes around my head. A pure annoyance. I tried to back off and give you the benefit of the doubt against my better judgement.

People like you incite hatred and sheer disgust within me. People like you have harmed me, killed the girl I was, took away my joy and sheer love of life. People like you consumed me and spat me out to appease your narcissistic desires and whims. People like you are like the leech that sucks my blood when I walk through the mud. People like you are parasites that prey on society and devalue human life.

Your statements as to my value as a human only make me feel objectified, quite like those who value me simply because I am astheticly pleasing.

[ApostateAbe]

No, by your standards you really are of no value, any more than the fly that buzzes around my head. A pure annoyance. I tried to back off and give you the benefit of the doubt against my better judgement.

People like you incite hatred and sheer disgust within me. People like you have harmed me, killed the girl I was, took away my joy and sheer love of life. People like you consumed me and spat me out to apease your narcissistic desires and whims. People like you are like the leach that sucks my blood when I walk through the mud. People like you are paracites that prey on society and devalue human life.

Your statements as to my value as a human only make me feel objectified, quite like those who value me simply because I am astheticly pleasing. Those are your standards, and I respect that, but my standards are quite different, and you don't have my standards. According to your standards, I am a worthless human being, the same way I feel about the young teenage girls. So I hope you see from that fact that most people, including you, judge the worth of human individuals on a wide spectrum. It isn't just me.

[Goliath]

we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty.

Please speak for yourself.

[Godless Dave]

According to your standards, I am a worthless human being, the same way I feel about the young teenage girls. So I hope you see from that fact that most people, including you, judge the worth of human individuals on a wide spectrum. It isn't just me.
But her judgement of your worth to her is based on your behavior as an individual, specifically posts you've made in this thread.

Your judgement of the worth of teenage girls seems to be entirely based on their age and sex.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty.

Well, in my book you're barely out of puberty yourself at 21, so I don't think you can speak for all men...especially those who may have daughters just out of puberty and be disgusted by the thought of them as sexual objects and those who have matured to the point where lust is tempered with human feeling and empathy


You have a lot of growing up to do judging by this thread, emotionally for sure.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty.

Well, in my book you're barely out of puberty yourself at 21, so I don't think you can speak for all men...especially those who may have daughters just out of puberty and be disgusted by the thought of them as sexual objects and those who have matured to the point where lust is tempered with human feeling and empathy


You have a lot of growing up to do judging by this thread, emotionally for sure.

Wow, for once we agree! :)

Of course, none of this will matter to LadyShea, seeing as that I'm on her ignore list.

[ApostateAbe]

According to your standards, I am a worthless human being, the same way I feel about the young teenage girls. So I hope you see from that fact that most people, including you, judge the worth of human individuals on a wide spectrum. It isn't just me. But her judgement of your worth to her is based on your behavior as an individual, specifically posts you've made in this thread. Yes, that's right, and don't forget that she also has life-experiences that affect her judgments of guys like me.

Your judgement of the worth of teenage girls seems to be entirely based on their age and sex.
Not really. Like I said, if a young teenage girl is interesting and friendly, then she is worth something to me. Or even if she contributes to society in any way, she has some value to me. The problem is that most of such girls are useless, specifically the ones around where I live.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty.
Well, in my book you're barely out of puberty yourself at 21, so I don't think you can speak for all men...especially those who may have daughters just out of puberty and be disgusted by the thought of them as sexual objects and those who have matured to the point where lust is tempered with human feeling and empathy


You have a lot of growing up to do judging by this thread, emotionally for sure.
Wow, for once we agree! :)

Of course, none of this will matter to LadyShea, seeing as that I'm on her ignore list. Maybe she will see what you said in my post. But I could be on her ignore list already as well. LadyShea, you really shouldn't ignore people you strongly disagree with. Those are the people you should pay the most attention to.

[Godless Dave]

The problem is that most of such girls are useless, specifically the ones around where I live.
Will they always be "useless", or will some of them mature into adult women?

And do they have an obligation to be "useful" to you?

[ApostateAbe]

Will they always be "useless", or will some of them mature into adult women? Most of them will remain useless, but some of them will eventually contribute more to the wealth of society than they drain out of it.

And do they have an obligation to be "useful" to you? No, they don't. But if they want my respect, then they must make themselves useful somehow.

[Godless Dave]

Were you useful as a teenage boy? If not, did you deserve respect?

[ApostateAbe]

Were you useful as a teenage boy? If not, did you deserve respect? I wasn't useful at all. I contributed nothing to society. I was useful to some people, like my small group of friends. But if I met my past teenage self, I would have no respect for him.

[Farren]

I definitely think there's some truth in AA's premises, but I also feel his reaction to those premises is immature and the values they engender harmful to society.

I feel sexually attracted to 16-20 year olds. I've examined my feelings and realised I would feel attracted to younger women if a certain revulsion to the principle of sex with too-young women weren't firmly inculcated in me.

I've had the experience of sitting drinking coffee, absent-mindedly and lustfully turning my head as some ambiguously-aged mall rats pass, then feeling shocked and guilty when their face or some other cue makes me realise: Oh my God. She's, like, 13! Wham! A door slams shut in my mind. Lust departs. My thoughts turn elsewhere.

"It's natural" isn't a good reason to indulge those feelings. As irrational as some taboos are, others have their foundation in sound principles of social good. "It's natural" to think I'm so mad right now I could kill you. Thank god a large number of people who have that flash through their minds don't act on it. Thank god people don't say "Yeah, go with it. Imagine all the ways you can torture and butcher them before they die" in all earnestness.

I'm certain that every adult who ever went down the road of sexually accosting someone too young, too small and weak to prevent them and too scared to tell, started out by stripping away the habit of self-censorship wisely inculcated in them by society.

I'm not claiming that everyone who allows those thoughts free reign is by extension a molester, but I am saying that defiantly proclaiming such thoughts not worthy of self-censure is endorsing and encouraging a mental habit that increases the risk of such behaviour in society, which is surely a bad thing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty.
Well, in my book you're barely out of puberty yourself at 21, so I don't think you can speak for all men...especially those who may have daughters just out of puberty and be disgusted by the thought of them as sexual objects and those who have matured to the point where lust is tempered with human feeling and empathy


You have a lot of growing up to do judging by this thread, emotionally for sure.
Wow, for once we agree! :)

Of course, none of this will matter to LadyShea, seeing as that I'm on her ignore list. Maybe she will see what you said in my post. But I could be on her ignore list already as well. LadyShea, you really shouldn't ignore people you strongly disagree with. Those are the people you should pay the most attention to.


I don't ignore Goliath because we disagree, I ignore him because our disagreements seem especially volatile and upsetting to us both. I would like to be able to discuss with him, but we simply have never been able to find a common language. I am just trying to keep the peace.

[Goliath]

I would like to be able to discuss with him,

I don't believe this for an instant.

But then again, I'm not the one here who's convinced that calling someone crazy is a good way to go about honest communication.

[ApostateAbe]

I definitely think there's some truth in AA's premises, but I also feel his reaction to those premises is immature and the values they engender harmful to society.

I feel sexually attracted to 16-20 year olds. I've examined my feelings and realised I would feel attracted to younger women if a certain revulsion to the principle of sex with too-young women weren't firmly inculcated in me.

I've had the experience of sitting drinking coffee, absent-mindedly and lustfully turning my head as some ambiguously-aged mall rats pass, then feeling shocked and guilty when their face or some other cue makes me realise: Oh my God. She's, like, 13! Wham! A door slams shut in my mind. Lust departs. My thoughts turn elsewhere. That is a very insightful thing to say, and that gets me thinking that I was overly simplistic when I said that almost all of us heterosexual men lust after girls just after puberty. Lust can be inhibited by personal morals. I would like those men who say that they have no sexual lust for girls as young as 14 to at least admit that they their minds operate the same way your mind does.

"It's natural" isn't a good reason to indulge those feelings. As irrational as some taboos are, others have their foundation in sound principles of social good. "It's natural" to think I'm so mad right now I could kill you. Thank god a large number of people who have that flash through their minds don't act on it. Thank god people don't say "Yeah, go with it. Imagine all the ways you can torture and butcher them before they die" in all earnestness.

I'm certain that every adult who ever went down the road of sexually accosting someone too young, too small and weak to prevent them and too scared to tell, started out by stripping away the habit of self-censorship wisely inculcated in them by society.

I'm not claiming that everyone who allows those thoughts free reign is by extension a molester, but I am saying that defiantly proclaiming such thoughts not worthy of self-censure is endorsing and encouraging a mental habit that increases the risk of such behaviour in society, which is surely a bad thing. I don't know if giving thoughts on the matter free reign is bad for society (maybe it is, maybe it isn't), but it is my opinion that those who call themselves "freethinkers" should NOT self-censure their own thoughts. If your thoughts are free, then you would not inhibit any thoughts for the sake of morals.

[ApostateAbe]

I don't ignore Goliath because we disagree, I ignore him because our disagreements seem especially volatile and upsetting to us both. I would like to be able to discuss with him, but we simply have never been able to find a common language. I am just trying to keep the peace. LadyShea, even though people have been flaming me backwards and forwards, I think I have managed to keep the peace in this thread and even get something productive out of it. If there is a disagreement between two people online, it takes only one person who is willing to be patient and forgiving in order to make something good come out.

[viscousmemories]

It seems to me that AA has made three fundamental assertions in this thread.

1. Most heterosexual men are sexually attracted to post-pubescent girls
2. People have no inherent value except that garnered through their actions, and
3. Most post-pubescent girls have no value except as fodder for fantasy

I was under the impression the first was a simple fact of biology, so I don't personally find it shocking or disgusting. On the other hand I believe the social taboo around talking about such realities exists to protect girls from what would most likely be damaging sexual relationships, so I think a certain degree of outrage at casual references along those lines is warranted and appropriate.

The second point sounds a bit to me like an objectivist stance, although I admit that I don't know much about objectivism. In any case while I disagree with it, it doesn't seem completely outrageous to me either. What does it mean to say a person has value if we aren't weighing their level of contribution to us personally or society as a whole?

On the last point I vehemently disagree, both because it is a completely unsupported generalization about a group of people, and because my own experience of interacting with post-pubescent girls has been the opposite of that. I have not found post-pubescent teenage girls to be any more or less interesting on the whole than any other group of people I have interacted with. They may not have the same intellectual or experiential pool to draw from that an adult woman has, but in my experience they typically excel in other areas where adults often fail, such as creativity and emotional expressiveness.

I agree with the opinion of some that AA's conclusions with regard to young girls are ill-informed and very likely the result of emotional and/or intellectual immaturity, and that the logical consequences of action based on such opinions and ideas are dangerously anti-social. However I don't personally feel that I can make any assumptions about his character beyond that, and I really don't have any interest in doing so. As far as I know he's just testing the limits of free speech here (as often happens on free speech forums) and his comments don't reflect his character at all.

[LadyShea]

LadyShea, even though people have been flaming me backwards and forwards, I think I have managed to keep the peace in this thread and even get something productive out of it. If there is a disagreement between two people online, it takes only one person who is willing to be patient and forgiving in order to make something good come out.


I'd rather not discuss this on this thread anymore AA. But, suffice it to say I have had weeks-long knock down, drag out flamewars, snipefests, and email battles, with some people right here, that have been worked out. Sometimes, personality clashes cannot be worked out, and those people I ignore.

[Farren]

I'm not claiming that everyone who allows those thoughts free reign is by extension a molester, but I am saying that defiantly proclaiming such thoughts not worthy of self-censure is endorsing and encouraging a mental habit that increases the risk of such behaviour in society, which is surely a bad thing.

I don't know if giving thoughts on the matter free reign is bad for society (maybe it is, maybe it isn't), but it is my opinion that those who call themselves "freethinkers" should NOT self-censure their own thoughts. If your thoughts are free, then you would not inhibit any thoughts for the sake of morals.

The importance of being accurately labelled, IMO, is secondary to a wise philosophy. I allow myself a lot of mental latitude so I can call myself a "freethinker". The word approximates my relationship to social consensus.

It's wise to allow your thoughts as much latitude as is beneficial and in a society with so many foolish taboos, a person who affords themselves that latitude can fairly call themselves a "freethinker".

Obviously, in order to ascertain the wisdom of taboos, you have to consider the unthinkable at some point. But by that process you can arrive at the conclusion that it should forthwith stay unthinkable.

And their are some pretty compelling reasons why giving the thoughts discussed free reign should, considering wisely, merit such judgement. The individuals being lusted after are generally not legally independent in any sense, for a start, so propogating an idea that encourages the indulgence of lustful fantasies about the young increases the risk of people being unwillingly abused by their legal guardians, to whom they are especially vulnerable.

On a tangential topic, I've no objection to people of that age having sex willfully, which is why I approve of Dutch laws allowing minors as young as 13 to have sex with other minors, with parental consent.

[ApostateAbe]

It seems to me that AA has made three fundamental assertions in this thread.

1. Most heterosexual men are sexually attracted to post-pubescent girls
2. People have no inherent value except that garnered through their actions, and
3. Most post-pubescent girls have no value except as fodder for fantasy

I was under the impression the first was a simple fact of biology, so I don't personally find it shocking or disgusting. On the other hand I believe the social taboo around talking about such realities exists to protect girls from what would most likely be damaging sexual relationships, so I think a certain degree of outrage at casual references along those lines is warranted and appropriate.

The second point sounds a bit to me like an objectivist stance, although I admit that I don't know much about objectivism. In any case while I disagree with it, it doesn't seem completely outrageous to me either. What does it mean to say a person has value if we aren't weighing their level of contribution to us personally or society as a whole?

On the last point I vehemently disagree, both because it is a completely unsupported generalization about a group of people, and because my own experience of interacting with post-pubescent girls has been the opposite of that. I have not found post-pubescent teenage girls to be any more or less interesting on the whole than any other group of people I have interacted with. They may not have the same intellectual or experiential pool to draw from that an adult woman has, but in my experience they typically excel in other areas where adults often fail, such as creativity and emotional expressiveness.

I agree with the opinion of some that AA's conclusions with regard to young girls are ill-informed and very likely the result of emotional and/or intellectual immaturity, and that the logical consequences of action based on such opinions and ideas are dangerously anti-social. However I don't personally feel that I can make any assumptions about his character beyond that, and I really don't have any interest in doing so. As far as I know he's just testing the limits of free speech here (as often happens on free speech forums) and his comments don't reflect his character at all. It is comforting to see that you agree with the first two points at least in part.

My comments in this thread refect only a small part of my character, and that part can be described as uncaring and narcissistic.

But I wouldn't say it is the result of intellectual or emotional immaturity. Perhaps I am intellectually or emotionally warped, but maturity has nothing to do with it. The way I think and feel now is much different from the way I was as a youth. My system of thought has led me to a stable, constructive, and fulfilling way of living.

[Farren]

I'd like to add that there is body language that's more or less undisguisable, which is why trained secret service agents can easily spot through simple observation if someone is lying.

If the mall rats I described above were to come over and sit on my knee, I would have no fantasies swirling in my head. I would have only the love and nurturing instinct I feel for the young.

Someone who allowed fantasy free reign, however, could not, however much esteem they have for their own acting ability, prevent their thoughts from being communicated via body language.

Children are astute enough that many recognise those signals and for many, such attention from an older man would be construed as threatening.

[edit]
Cross post. I'll respond tomorrow because I have a mornings only contract now and must force myself to get enough sleep.

[2nd edit]
Oh I see the response was to vm in any event.

[Godless Dave]

I would like to be able to discuss with him,

I don't believe this for an instant.

But then again, I'm not the one here who's convinced that calling someone crazy is a good way to go about honest communication.

Goliath, are you familiar with the expression "beating a dead horse"?

[ApostateAbe]

I'm not claiming that everyone who allows those thoughts free reign is by extension a molester, but I am saying that defiantly proclaiming such thoughts not worthy of self-censure is endorsing and encouraging a mental habit that increases the risk of such behaviour in society, which is surely a bad thing.
I don't know if giving thoughts on the matter free reign is bad for society (maybe it is, maybe it isn't), but it is my opinion that those who call themselves "freethinkers" should NOT self-censure their own thoughts. If your thoughts are free, then you would not inhibit any thoughts for the sake of morals.
The importance of being accurately labelled, IMO, is secondary to a wise philosophy. I allow myself a lot of mental latitude so I can call myself a "freethinker". The word approximates my relationship to social consensus.

It's wise to allow your thoughts as much latitude as is beneficial and in a society with so many foolish taboos, a person who affords themselves that latitude can fairly call themselves a "freethinker".

Obviously, in order to ascertain the wisdom of taboos, you have to consider the unthinkable at some point. But by that process you can arrive at the conclusion that it should forthwith stay unthinkable.

And their are some pretty compelling reasons why giving the thoughts discussed free reign should, considering wisely, merit such judgement. The individuals being lusted after are generally not legally independent in any sense, for a start, so propogating an idea that encourages the indulgence of lustful fantasies about the young increases the risk of people being unwillingly abused by their legal guardians, to whom they are especially vulnerable.

On a tangential topic, I've no objection to people of that age having sex willfully, which is why I approve of Dutch laws allowing minors as young as 13 to have sex with other minors, with parental consent. You have me convinced that those who value taboos could still justly be called freethinkers after all, but I still think that those who value taboos aren't as freethinking as those who discard them.

There is possibly some merit in taboos, but I doubt it. Even if greater freedom of thought aided by lack of taboos leads to some destructive behaviors, then I would still think that there would be more benefits than deficits to it.

[Goliath]

It seems to me that AA has made three fundamental assertions in this thread.

1. Most heterosexual men are sexually attracted to post-pubescent girls



Actually, he said a bit more than that:


we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty.


Since I do not, he is, of course, demonstrably wrong.

[ApostateAbe]

we all lust after pretty girls just out of puberty.

Since I do not, he is, of course, demonstrably wrong. Yes, I am wrong because I oversimplified. Sorry about that. I shouldn't have said "all" heterosexual men (I suspected that would come back to bite me in the ass). And I should have known that lusts can be impeded by morals.

Farren said this:
I've had the experience of sitting drinking coffee, absent-mindedly and lustfully turning my head as some ambiguously-aged mall rats pass, then feeling shocked and guilty when their face or some other cue makes me realise: Oh my God. She's, like, 13! Wham! A door slams shut in my mind. Lust departs. My thoughts turn elsewhere.
Would you predict that your brain would behave similarly?

[Adora]

Girls are at their prime as soon as they are ready to reproduce. And it makes good evolutionary sense...

Except not, because evolution and survival isn't just about genetics and biology. To limit it to that is to limit yourself to evolutionary death, and ignore the entire Nurture aspect that has led humans to the top of the global pyramid currently. Yeah, that makes sense. ¬_¬ To quote a male friend who read this thread over my shoulder once...

"Dude. That's sick. Not cos some teenage girls aren't hot and stuff. But they act like disgusting little bitches. How can you get turned on by a rabid chihuahua? What about emotional, mental and social evolution, before you go sticking your dick in?"

a(n) Asian young adult male, is a white young boy because accross cultural barriers, that is how it comes accross. Asians are smaller, older teenagers look like young children to us.

This just sounds so weird to me, because I've grown up in a city that's so culturally diverse, and has an especially high population of people of Asian descent. I once got homesick when visiting relatives in the Hunter Valley because I couldn't stand walking down the street and just seeing White Anglo-Saxon people everywhere. Drove me crazy. It was totally foreign to me, and I don't think I could live in a city that didn't have a high multi-cultural component to it.

Anyway, I think Abe's just twisted cos he got knocked back too many times as a teen. Them pesky just-out-of-puberty chicas can be vicious sometimes, especially to still-to-catch-up neanderthal teenage boys. I know I was! (just take the quote above about teenage females and apply it to teenage males and you have my reasons for being vicious, before anyone starts).

[ApostateAbe]

Girls are at their prime as soon as they are ready to reproduce. And it makes good evolutionary sense...
Except not, because evolution and survival isn't just about genetics and biology. To limit it to that is to limit yourself to evolutionary death, and ignore the entire Nurture aspect that has led humans to the top of the global pyramid currently. Yeah, that makes sense. ¬_¬ To quote a male friend who read this thread over my shoulder once...

"Dude. That's sick. Not cos some teenage girls aren't hot and stuff. But they act like disgusting little bitches. How can you get turned on by a rabid chihuahua? What about emotional, mental and social evolution, before you go sticking your dick in?" Sexual attraction in males is mostly about looks. Your male friend would want to screw any young teenage chick he thinks is hot, especially if her mouth was sewn shut. I advise that you distrust what your male friends say about sex. They will say whatever makes them have a better shot at getting into your pants. That is likely the reason they are your "friends" to start with.

Anyway, I think Abe's just twisted cos he got knocked back too many times as a teen. Them pesky just-out-of-puberty chicas can be vicious sometimes, especially to still-to-catch-up neanderthal teenage boys. I know I was! (just take the quote above about teenage females and apply it to teenage males and you have my reasons for being vicious, before anyone starts). I never had much luck with women. I got my ass kicked by women as a teenager quite frequently. But it was never by anyone under 16. In fact, I was more likely to go after women older than I.

[wade-w]

I've been trying to compose a fitting reply to this thread all day. However, I was not able to express my thoughts as clearly as I would like, and as this is a pretty loaded topic, I didn't want to make more enemies than I already have.

So I want to say thanks to Farren, whose posts have explained my position much better than I ever could.

[Goliath]

Your male friend would want to screw any young teenage chick he thinks is hot, especially if her mouth was sewn shut.


Since you probably don't know Adora's friend, I seriously doubt that.

Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't want to screw a preteen or young teenage girl (less than 19), whether or not her lips were sewn shut (actually, especially not if her lips are sewn shut...I'm not into that kind of thing. :D ).

[Dingfod]

I sense another ass kicking coming on. :popcorn:

[ApostateAbe]

Your male friend would want to screw any young teenage chick he thinks is hot, especially if her mouth was sewn shut.

Since you probably don't know Adora's friend, I seriously doubt that.

Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't want to screw a preteen or young teenage girl (less than 19), whether or not her lips were sewn shut (actually, especially not if her lips are sewn shut...I'm not into that kind of thing. :D ). If you think she is hot, then it follows that you want to screw her. Are you telling me that you have complete control over your sexual desires?

[Goliath]

If you think she is hot,


And this is where your argument fails yet again. You may think that preteen girls are hot. I do not.

[ApostateAbe]

If you think she is hot,

And this is where your argument fails yet again. You may think that preteen girls are hot. I do not. OK, I believe you. I don't think preteen girls are hot unless they are already out of puberty, which they seldomly are.

If you think a girl is hot, does it follow that you want to screw her?

[Goliath]

I don't think preteen girls are hot unless they are already out of puberty,


And I don't think preteen girls are hot, [/i]whether they are out of puberty or not[/i].

If you think a girl is hot, does it follow that you want to screw her?

Yes, but guess the hell what? I'm not a pedophile. I don't think preteen or young teen girls are hot (maybe a 19 year old...maybe). Period.

[Adora]

I advise that you distrust what your male friends say about sex. They will say whatever makes them have a better shot at getting into your pants. That is likely the reason they are your "friends" to start with.

Except... wait for it... NO!

I hate to break it to you Abe, but how it works in your head is not reality, and never has been. Believe it or not, not all men are shallow disillusion little fucks like you are. *pats* There there. It's okay. Just keep thinking you're special and everything will work out.

We met as friends, and have always remained that way. He has never tried to get into my pants, though I occasionally flirted with him in the early days and tried to get into his. We've been close for over 5 years now though, and I consider him like a brother to me. Y'know, real friendship? Ever experienced it? Probably not. But wow. Revelation- I know my friend better than you do! Who would've guessed it? SOMEONE CALL THE PRESS!

And I think he would currently rather shag his boyfriend than me, anyway (he's bi, before anyone asks). Frankly, I'd rather shag his boyfriend than him. I'm not really into incest and all.

Sexual attraction in males is mostly about looks. Your male friend would want to screw any young teenage chick he thinks is hot, especially if her mouth was sewn shut.

Except for the fact that if he can't get turned on by general human characteristics at that age, you think he'd get turned on by something that could be considered torture or rape? Right.

Really, please, for the sake of all our sanity, please stop projecting, Mr Freud.

I never had much luck with women. I got my ass kicked by women as a teenager quite frequently.

NO! REALLY?!?! *faints from teh revelation!!!1one* I WOOLD HAVE NEVA GESED.

[ApostateAbe]

I don't think preteen girls are hot unless they are already out of puberty,

And I don't think preteen girls are hot, [/i]whether they are out of puberty or not[/i].

If you think a girl is hot, does it follow that you want to screw her?
Yes, but guess the hell what? I'm not a pedophile. I don't think preteen or young teen girls are hot (maybe a 19 year old...maybe). Period. Alright, I believe you.

Now let's review something.

Adora's male friend said: "Dude. That's sick. Not cos some teenage girls aren't hot and stuff. But they act like disgusting little bitches. How can you get turned on by a rabid chihuahua? What about emotional, mental and social evolution, before you go sticking your dick in?"

Note that Adora's male friend concedes that some teenage girls are hot.

I said to Adora: "Your male friend would want to screw any young teenage chick he thinks is hot, especially if her mouth was sewn shut."

You said: "Since you probably don't know Adora's friend, I seriously doubt that."

But I can't see why you doubt it. If you think that an opinion of hotness necessitates a desire to screw, as I do, then you must see some inconsistency in Adora's male friend's statement. And I think it indicates a cover-up of what he really thinks.

[viscousmemories]

Sexual attraction in males is mostly about looks. Your male friend would want to screw any young teenage chick he thinks is hot, especially if her mouth was sewn shut. I advise that you distrust what your male friends say about sex. They will say whatever makes them have a better shot at getting into your pants. That is likely the reason they are your "friends" to start with.
Honestly I used to think almost exactly the same way when I was in my late teens and early 20's, and I used to make some of the exact same arguments. I don't anymore, because I eventually "grew up" (for lack of a better phrase) and came to appreciate women for their personalities and character as much as their sex appeal. Now the idea of having sex with a woman with no personality and no voice is fairly repulsive to me. Not that I am incapable of objectifying women for the purposes of fantasy and self-stimulation, but the idea of actually having a sexual encounter with a cardboard cutout has absolutely no draw for me.

[ApostateAbe]

I advise that you distrust what your male friends say about sex. They will say whatever makes them have a better shot at getting into your pants. That is likely the reason they are your "friends" to start with.
Except... wait for it... NO!

I hate to break it to you Abe, but how it works in your head is not reality, and never has been. Believe it or not, not all men are shallow disillusion little fucks like you are. *pats* There there. It's okay. Just keep thinking you're special and everything will work out.

We met as friends, and have always remained that way. He has never tried to get into my pants, though I occasionally flirted with him in the early days and tried to get into his. We've been close for over 5 years now though, and I consider him like a brother to me. Y'know, real friendship? Ever experienced it? Probably not. But wow. Revelation- I know my friend better than you do! Who would've guessed it? SOMEONE CALL THE PRESS!

And I think he would currently rather shag his boyfriend than me, anyway (he's bi, before anyone asks). Frankly, I'd rather shag his boyfriend than him. I'm not really into incest and all. There's a good way to find out. Get him alone and say that you would like to have sex with him. See if he complies.

Sexual attraction in males is mostly about looks. Your male friend would want to screw any young teenage chick he thinks is hot, especially if her mouth was sewn shut.
Except for the fact that if he can't get turned on by general human characteristics at that age, you think he'd get turned on by something that could be considered torture or rape? Right. Torture or rape wasn't my point. If your friend thinks that some teenage girls are hot, then it follows that he would want to screw the ones who don't act like rabid chihuahuas.

Really, please, for the sake of all our sanity, please stop projecting, Mr Freud.

I never had much luck with women. I got my ass kicked by women as a teenager quite frequently.
NO! REALLY?!?! *faints from teh revelation!!!1one* I WOOLD HAVE NEVA GESED. It is easy to guess such a thing. Guys like me are everywhere.

[livius drusus]

If you think she is hot, then it follows that you want to screw her.

It doesn't follow, actually. Have you never heard anyone say "yeah, she's hot, but I wouldn't fuck her with Abe's dick."?

[ApostateAbe]

If you think she is hot, then it follows that you want to screw her.
It doesn't follow, actually. Have you never heard anyone say "yeah, she's hot, but I wouldn't fuck her with Abe's dick."? I don't get it.

[LadyShea]

If you think she is hot, then it follows that you want to screw her.
It doesn't follow, actually. Have you never heard anyone say "yeah, she's hot, but I wouldn't fuck her with Abe's dick."? I don't get it.


Many men look for more than "hot" in a sex partner. So, even if they think someone is hot to look at, they would never have sex with her because of her personality or some other aspect.

[ApostateAbe]

Many men look for more than "hot" in a sex partner. So, even if they think someone is hot to look at, they would never have sex with her because of her personality or some other aspect. That is the mentality of women, but not of men. Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality.

[LadyShea]

Many men look for more than "hot" in a sex partner. So, even if they think someone is hot to look at, they would never have sex with her because of her personality or some other aspect. That is the mentality of women, but not of men. Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality.

Um, you're simply wrong. Most men are not like that. Certainly some, maybe many, but not the majority. Maybe you will grow out of it too.

[livius drusus]

If you think she is hot, then it follows that you want to screw her.
It doesn't follow, actually. Have you never heard anyone say "yeah, she's hot, but I wouldn't fuck her with Abe's dick."? I don't get it.

You seriously haven't heard that expression? It means that hotness is not always enough. Check out any of the Anne Coulter threads on II to see that sentiment expressed many, many times. Sure, some dudes say they'd would fuck her anyway, but most of them find her ideology so repulsive that her hotness translates into zero on the fuckability scale.

[wade-w]

Many men look for more than "hot" in a sex partner. So, even if they think someone is hot to look at, they would never have sex with her because of her personality or some other aspect. That is the mentality of women, but not of men. Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality.

No, that's not just the mentality of women. That is also the mentality of men. Where "men" is defined as males who are emotionally mature. Unfortunately some males never do become men.

[ApostateAbe]

Many men look for more than "hot" in a sex partner. So, even if they think someone is hot to look at, they would never have sex with her because of her personality or some other aspect. That is the mentality of women, but not of men. Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality.
Um, you're simply wrong. Most men are not like that. Certainly some, maybe many, but not the majority. Maybe you will grow out of it too. Since you are a woman, you project your sexual mentality onto men.

Trust me on this one. Men have sex based on looks, though they often choose relationships based on personality along with looks. As evidence, look at how many men hate Britney Spears, but they would still hit it. She was the most sexually appealing woman in America despite the widespread opinion that she had annoying music and no brains.

[ApostateAbe]

Many men look for more than "hot" in a sex partner. So, even if they think someone is hot to look at, they would never have sex with her because of her personality or some other aspect. That is the mentality of women, but not of men. Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality.
No, that's not just the mentality of women. That is also the mentality of men. Where "men" is defined as males who are emotionally mature. Unfortunately some males never do become men. In that case, there are very few men in this world.

[wade-w]

Many men look for more than "hot" in a sex partner. So, even if they think someone is hot to look at, they would never have sex with her because of her personality or some other aspect. That is the mentality of women, but not of men. Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality.
Um, you're simply wrong. Most men are not like that. Certainly some, maybe many, but not the majority. Maybe you will grow out of it too. Since you are a woman, you project your sexual mentality onto men.

Trust me on this one. Men have sex based on looks, though they often choose relationships based on personality along with looks. As evidence, look at how many men hate Britney Spears, but they would still hit it. She was the most sexually appealing woman in America despite the widespread opinion that she had annoying music and no brains.

Bullshit.

Yes, in general looks has more to do with sexual attraction for men than it does for women. However, as a single, heterosexual male I can tell you in uncertain terms that you are the one doing the projecting here. Britney Spears the most sexually appealing woman in America??? Not even close. Nor has she ever even close.

Abe, you may be an adult legally, but based on your statements here I can unequivocably say you are not yet a man.

[seebs]

If you think she is hot, then it follows that you want to screw her.

I don't think this is true.

Are you telling me that you have complete control over your sexual desires?

I don't think I have complete control over them (although they're probably more reigned in than most; I have sexual dreams fairly often, and only once in the last 7-8 years has anyone but my wife figured in them, and the circumstances for that one are unusual). But I don't think that's at issue. "Hot" is not the only component of sexual desire!

For instance, I can tell you that a lot of skinny women are "hot", but that I would personally be repulsed by the idea of them having sex; they look too skinny and bony, and the idea turns me off. I can recognize hot men, but I'm not interested in 'em.

Maybe we're using the word "hot" differently? Not all people whose bodies are pretty are sexually attractive, but "hot", to me, implies looking only at the physical characteristics.

[ApostateAbe]

Bullshit.

Yes, in general looks has more to do with sexual attraction for men than it does for women. However, as a single, heterosexual male I can tell you in uncertain terms that you are the one doing the projecting here. Britney Spears the most sexually appealing woman in America??? Not even close. Nor has she ever even close.

Abe, you may be an adult legally, but based on your statements here I can unequivocably say you are not yet a man. I thought it was common knowledge that Britney Spears was, for a time, the most lusted-after woman in America. The search engine Lycos listed its top searches for each year. This year, Paris Hilton is #1. Britney Spears was #1 for 2002 and 2003. Check this out: http://50.lycos.com/120503.asp

[ApostateAbe]

If you think she is hot, then it follows that you want to screw her.
I don't think this is true.

Are you telling me that you have complete control over your sexual desires?
I don't think I have complete control over them (although they're probably more reigned in than most; I have sexual dreams fairly often, and only once in the last 7-8 years has anyone but my wife figured in them, and the circumstances for that one are unusual). But I don't think that's at issue. "Hot" is not the only component of sexual desire!

For instance, I can tell you that a lot of skinny women are "hot", but that I would personally be repulsed by the idea of them having sex; they look too skinny and bony, and the idea turns me off. I can recognize hot men, but I'm not interested in 'em.

Maybe we're using the word "hot" differently? Not all people whose bodies are pretty are sexually attractive, but "hot", to me, implies looking only at the physical characteristics. Maybe we do have differing definitions of "hot." I define it as "sexually attractive; sexually stimulating" (Macquarie Book of Slang (http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/anonymous@F461255721+0/-/p/dict/slang-h.html?)). A girl is not hot if she is TOO skinny and bony to be sexually attractive.

[viscousmemories]

Bullshit.

Yes, in general looks has more to do with sexual attraction for men than it does for women. However, as a single, heterosexual male I can tell you in uncertain terms that you are the one doing the projecting here. Britney Spears the most sexually appealing woman in America??? Not even close. Nor has she ever even close.

Abe, you may be an adult legally, but based on your statements here I can unequivocably say you are not yet a man. I thought it was common knowledge that Britney Spears was, for a time, the most lusted-after woman in America. The search engine Lycos listed its top searches for each year. This year, Paris Hilton is #1. Britney Spears was #1 for 2002 and 2003. Check this out: http://50.lycos.com/120503.asp
Interesting stats. It makes sense that Paris is on the top of that list these days, but I never would've guessed the second most lusted after woman in the world would be Christmas, the third KaZaA or the fourth Thanksgiving. Oh wait. That's just a list of top Internet searches!? I thought it had something to do with the discussion about who is supposedly the most sexually appealing woman in the world.

[wade-w]

Bullshit.

Yes, in general looks has more to do with sexual attraction for men than it does for women. However, as a single, heterosexual male I can tell you in uncertain terms that you are the one doing the projecting here. Britney Spears the most sexually appealing woman in America??? Not even close. Nor has she ever even close.

Abe, you may be an adult legally, but based on your statements here I can unequivocably say you are not yet a man. I thought it was common knowledge that Britney Spears was, for a time, the most lusted-after woman in America. The search engine Lycos listed its top searches for each year. This year, Paris Hilton is #1. Britney Spears was #1 for 2002 and 2003. Check this out: http://50.lycos.com/120503.asp

I never thought Britney was all that. She's certainly not ugly, but I have personally known several women who were much better looking. I had no idea what Paris Hilton looks like, so I searched for some images. She's not very appealing at all.

[ApostateAbe]

Interesting stats. It makes sense that Paris is on the top of that list these days, but I never would've guessed the second most lusted after woman in the world would be Christmas, the third KaZaA or the fourth Thanksgiving. Oh wait. That's just a list of top Internet searches!? I thought it had something to do with the discussion about who is supposedly the most sexually appealing woman in the world. You got me there, viscous.

FHM conducts yearly polls of its readers for the "sexiest women in the world." In 2002 (http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/top100_women_tattoos.htm), #1 was Anna Kournikova, and #2 was Britney Spears. I think it is reasonable to believe that Britney topped the list for Internet searches that year because of her (fading) musical popularity among young girls that year but especially all the males looking for jerking-off material.

[ApostateAbe]

I never thought Britney was all that. She's certainly not ugly, but I have personally known several women who were much better looking. I had no idea what Paris Hilton looks like, so I searched for some images. She's not very appealing at all. I never thought much of Britney Spears' or Paris Hilton's looks either. But the masses of males everywhere do not share our opinions.

[Blake]

Anecdotally, let me add my voice to the men telling Abe that his generalizations about men lusting after post-pubescents, and fucking based primarily on looks, are garbage. Yes, we've all had something like the mall experience that Farren described. Probably in cases where you had to peer through a few layers of makeup to realize that you were looking at a child. Except to differ with Farren, there wasn't necessarily any social conditioning at work; I haven't been turned on by teenagers since I was a teenager. It's just gross.

However, to the main point at issue: it's rein, not REIGNS, in all cases in which it has been used in this thread. It derives from the metaphor of reining in a horse, or giving said hypothetical horse free rein. Not fucking REIGN. That's only appropriate in phrases like "reign of terror." Where somebody reigns, as opposed to a horse being reined in.

The first one to bring up Caligula making his horse a senator gets one in the nads.

[godfry n. glad]

Since you are a woman, you project your sexual mentality onto men.

Ahem...

Interesting little assertion there.
Would you please provide some evidence for it?

godfry

[ApostateAbe]

Since you are a woman, you project your sexual mentality onto men.
Ahem...

Interesting little assertion there.
Would you please provide some evidence for it?

godfry OK, I can't give evidence for what is merely a suspicion about LadyShea.

This thread seems like an episode of the Twilight Zone. In my everyday experiences in the rest of the world, men are sexually attracted to women based, overwhelmingly, on looks. And women are sexually attracted to men based on things other than looks. Then I come here and every man thinks personality matters as much as looks or more than looks. I gotta confess that it feels ridiculous trying to prove what seems to be a very obvious principle.

[wade-w]

OK, I can't give evidence for what is merely a suspicion about LadyShea.

This thread seems like an episode of the Twilight Zone. In my everyday experiences in the rest of the world, men are sexually attracted to women based, overwhelmingly, on looks. And women are sexually attracted to men based on things other than looks. Then I come here and every man thinks personality matters as much as looks or more than looks. I gotta confess that it feels ridiculous trying to prove what seems to be a very obvious principle.

This is a common stereotype. I don't think it's a very accurate one however, in that it grossly overstates the differences between men and women in sexual attraction. Many men do consider things other than looks, and many women are influenced by looks.

[Dingfod]

Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality.Now that is hard up. And absolutely untrue. Some of us have standards and looks is only one of the several standards that may apply in search of a sex partner. In my sample of one, I find personality and intellect can overcome less than perfect looks in almost every case.

What is the margin of error in a sample of one?

[ApostateAbe]

Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality.Now that is hard up. And absolutely untrue. Some of us have standards and looks is only one of the several standards that may apply in search of a sex partner. In my sample of one, I find personality and intellect can overcome less than perfect looks in almost every case.

What is the margin of error in a sample of one? God help me. I must be living on a planet different from the rest of you.

[Blake]

God help me. I must be living on a planet different from the rest of you.
No, you're just young and inexperienced.

Anectodotally, again, I know by personal experience that I'm simply not built for one-night stands; so the question of going for one because I think the woman is "hot" is moot.

[Goliath]

I want to clarify something that I had said earlier.

ApostateAbe had asked:


If you think a girl is hot, does it follow that you want to screw her?


And I had answered yes, but that I don't find preteen girls hot. I want to add that to me "hot" means more than mere physical attraction. I have to also admire a girl's mind and personality before she's hot to me. That is one reason why I'll never find young teen or preteen girls "hot".

Edited to say: Paris Hilton?! The supposedly most lusted after woman right now is Paris Hilton?! Ick...she's so damn dog-faced (not that I'm a Brad Pitt or Fabio by any stretch of the imagination).

[ApostateAbe]

I want to clarify something that I had said earlier.

ApostateAbe had asked:


If you think a girl is hot, does it follow that you want to screw her?

And I had answered yes, but that I don't find preteen girls hot. I want to add that to me "hot" means more than mere physical attraction. I have to also admire a girl's mind and personality before she's hot to me. That is one reason why I'll never find young teen or preteen girls "hot". That's great, I believe you. I made a point about Adora's male friend, who said that he finds some young teenage girls hot but still doesn't want to screw them because of their personality. You can go back and read it, then comment on it, if you so care.

[Goliath]

I made a point about Adora's male friend, who said that he finds some young teenage girls hot but still doesn't want to screw them because of their personality. You can go back and read it, then comment on it, if you so care.

No, I think that the comments of the others on this thread prettymuch cover what would've been my comments. I'm happy to just pick things up from here.

[viscousmemories]

This thread seems like an episode of the Twilight Zone. In my everyday experiences in the rest of the world, men are sexually attracted to women based, overwhelmingly, on looks. And women are sexually attracted to men based on things other than looks. Then I come here and every man thinks personality matters as much as looks or more than looks.
Like Blake said, all this proves is that your experience of the world is limited. It may very well be the case that every man you know feels this way (although I doubt you've actually asked every man you know) but that's still a relatively small amount of data. Why you would assume that your experience and that of the few people in your social circle is the norm for all men is beyond me.

I gotta confess that it feels ridiculous trying to prove what seems to be a very obvious principle.
I believe there is evidence that men are more attracted by visual stimulus than women, but that isn't the same as being predominantly attracted by the physical appearance, which you seem to be saying. Which is to say that a woman's looks are probably more important to a man than a man's to a woman, but that's nowhere near the same as saying that looks are the only or even the most significant factor.

Honestly I think you and the people in your social circle are just shallow, and as I said before it's probably because you're emotionally immature. I know you don't think you are, but then I think that's one of those things you can't see until you're past it. And I realize that may or may not ever happen. I've met a lot of men older than I am now who never learned to see women as anything but a potential fuck. But of course there are some beliefs I think are wrong despite the fact that billions of people subscribe to them.

And incidentally I find millions of women sexually appealing, including Britney and Paris. But that doesn't mean I actually want to have sex with all of them. The appeal of the vast majority of them is severely diminished for many various reasons that have nothing to do with their physical attractiveness.

[Lauri D]

Abe, you seem to be missing the point people are trying to get across when you make assertions like "most men WOULD" (have sex with someone they find attractive and who was willing).

There are plenty of men who wouldn't have sex with a particular female, even if they found her attractive, and even if she were willing, for any one of many potential reasons. What is so hard to understand about this?

*Edited to add - it is this statement specifically that I refer to: Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality. As difficult as this seems for you to comprehend, it simply ain't true.

[beyelzu]

aa,

one of my best friends is seriously hot, she was in playboy and I wouldnt have sex with her if she wanted to.

she has got some serious emotional baggage and I wouldnt want to be in a relationship with her because she is incredibly flighty.

so do you think I am atypical?


also,

when I was 18 I turned down a very attractive and well developed 14 year old who threw herself at me.

again, do you think I am atypical?

[viscousmemories]

Hell, I went on a few dates with a 17 yr. old when I was 24. She was stunningly beautiful, really smart (had graduated early from a prestigious private school), and very creative and interesting. However, the one time we made out it was just creepy to me. Her facial features and mannerisms were so immature as to be nearly childlike, and I found it massively disconcerting to the point that I just stopped seeing her. It's just a fact that recognizing someone's sexual appeal does not equate to wanting to have sex with them.

[ApostateAbe]

aa,

one of my best friends is seriously hot, she was in playboy and I wouldnt have sex with her if she wanted to.

she has got some serious emotional baggage and I wouldnt want to be in a relationship with her because she is incredibly flighty.

so do you think I am atypical?


also,

when I was 18 I turned down a very attractive and well developed 14 year old who threw herself at me.

again, do you think I am atypical? You are seriously misunderstanding me. I hope the rest aren't misunderstanding me as much, though it is just now dawned on me that that may be.

Firstly, I am not talking about serious relationships. Secondly, I would not advocate sex with 14-year-olds and I would do the best that I can to avoid it.

I am really talking about whether or not males have sexual fantasies or inclinitions about such girls.

[Ex-zombie]

I am 41 years old. No, my sexual fantasies do not involve 14 year olds.

My sexual fantasies generally involve intelligent women who like to get down and dirty. Their age is approximately 32. :cool:

[beyelzu]

aa,

one of my best friends is seriously hot, she was in playboy and I wouldnt have sex with her if she wanted to.

she has got some serious emotional baggage and I wouldnt want to be in a relationship with her because she is incredibly flighty.

so do you think I am atypical?


also,

when I was 18 I turned down a very attractive and well developed 14 year old who threw herself at me.

again, do you think I am atypical? You are seriously misunderstanding me. I hope the rest aren't misunderstanding me as much, though it is just now dawned on me that that may be.

Firstly, I am not talking about serious relationships. Secondly, I would not advocate sex with 14-year-olds and I would do the best that I can to avoid it.

I am really talking about whether or not males have sexual fantasies or inclinitions about such girls.



how do you reconcile the above statements with this

Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality.

[Goliath]

My sexual fantasies generally involve intelligent women who like to get down and dirty. Their age is approximately 32. :cool:

:yup: :D

Not to name anyone in particular, though.... :innocent:

[Ex-zombie]

My sexual fantasies generally involve intelligent women who like to get down and dirty. Their age is approximately 32. :cool:

:yup: :D

Not to name anyone in particular, though.... :innocent:

:blush3: Whatever do you mean? :innocent2:

[Goliath]

My sexual fantasies generally involve intelligent women who like to get down and dirty. Their age is approximately 32. :cool:

:yup: :D

Not to name anyone in particular, though.... :innocent:

:blush3: Whatever do you mean? :innocent2:

Why, I have no idea. :drooleek: :pant: :inlove:

Hmmm...why is my t-shirt so wet?

[Adora]

There's a good way to find out. Get him alone and say that you would like to have sex with him. See if he complies.

Been there. Done that. And... wait for it... I said wait... no.

Torture or rape wasn't my point. If your friend thinks that some teenage girls are hot, then it follows that he would want to screw the ones who don't act like rabid chihuahuas.

Except, not. I don't see why finding someone physically attractive is naturally a point that you want to shag them. Some people, who aren't you Abe, males included, need more than just that to get turned on and in the mood.

It is easy to guess such a thing. Guys like me are everywhere.

Yeah. Right, er, keep telling yourself that. I have only met one... maybe two males in my life that are on the similar wavelength you are. One was another disillusioned pimply little fella who got turned down too many times as a teenager by said pretty and bitchy chihuhuas (which just goes to show he had bad taste in women, because he only thought with his dick, funnily enough), and the other's mother didn't love him enough when he was a baby.

Pathetic, much?

As for the polls- Somehow, I don't think 13 year old boys looking for porn on Lycos and FHM readers are good representatives of the males in society, but hey, that's just me. I also don't think Abe is a good representative when it comes to generalisations about male sexuality. But hey, again, just me.

[ApostateAbe]

You are seriously misunderstanding me. I hope the rest aren't misunderstanding me as much, though it is just now dawned on me that that may be.

Firstly, I am not talking about serious relationships. Secondly, I would not advocate sex with 14-year-olds and I would do the best that I can to avoid it.

I am really talking about whether or not males have sexual fantasies or inclinitions about such girls.

how do you reconcile the above statements with this

Most single heterosexual men would be willing to have one-night-stands with any woman who looks hot regardless of her personality. beyelzou, I don't see how those statements conflict. I see nothing to reconcile. One night stands are neither sex with friends nor serious relationships.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. Sex with minors would be an exception. My point was that the desire exists.

[The Lone Ranger]

I've had the experience of sitting drinking coffee, absent-mindedly and lustfully turning my head as some ambiguously-aged mall rats pass, then feeling shocked and guilty when their face or some other cue makes me realise: Oh my God. She's, like, 13! Wham! A door slams shut in my mind. Lust departs. My thoughts turn elsewhere.



I've had similar experiences, where I've seen some shapely young woman and the reptilian part of my brain has thought "she's nicely put-together" before I realized how young she was, and instantly lost interest. But I don't think it's just conditioning that makes that happen.

Like others, I find that I need more than just visual stimulation to find a woman attractive. Sure, the primitive part of your brain can't help but register the presence of a pretty woman, but that's not the same as being attracted to her. I simply don't find myself at all attracted to women who don't show clear signs of sufficient maturity, intelligence, and personality.


I used to work as a naturalist at a Girl Scout Camp. Most of the girls at the camp were in the 10 - 14 range, I'd guess, though some were as old as 16 or so. One evening I was planning to give a talk on amphibian ecology, so I had told the counselors to have everyone ready at 9:00 and I'd show up with some tadpoles, frogs, and salamanders for them to look at while I talked.

So, at about 7:00, I got a couple of buckets with lids on 'em and a big net and headed down to the pond to catch some critters for the show. As I passed by the campsites, some girl approached me to ask what I was doing. She was, I'd guess, 14 or 15. She asked if she could come along and help.

Now I thought:
1.) it's my job to introduce these kids to the natural world, and besides, I really enjoy doing it, and
2.) Oh goody! somebody who can help carry these buckets!

So I said, "Sure, let's go."

We caught several frogs for the presentation. I had fun telling her all sorts of interesting things about amphibian biology, and she seemed to really enjoy the experience of catching frogs. (Something that not every young girl gets to do, apparently.) Later, at the presentation, she was bragging to everyone about how she had caught several of the frogs they were looking at herself.


A few days later, I casually mentioned the incident to Lee, one of my supervisors, and she was simply livid. "Don't you ever do that again!" she told me.

I was confused. "Do what?"

"Take some girl out alone. Do you know what would have happened if she had gone home and told her parents about the Nice Ranger who took her out in the woods alone!?"


I understood Lee's point, and never again did such a thing. But fercryinoutloud, this girl was a child! It simply never occurred to me that anyone might have thought that I'd have had any sort of designs on her -- because it would never have occurred to me to have any sort of designs on her.

-- Michael

[seebs]

Maybe we do have differing definitions of "hot." I define it as "sexually attractive; sexually stimulating" (Macquarie Book of Slang (http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/anonymous@F461255721+0/-/p/dict/slang-h.html?)). A girl is not hot if she is TOO skinny and bony to be sexually attractive.

But the skinny girls are definitely attractive.

So, basically... If a girl changes my localized blood pressure upwards sharply, she's "hot". But I might not want to screw her. I might have such an impulse, but I don't want to follow all my impulses; some of them are stupid!

[ApostateAbe]

Maybe we do have differing definitions of "hot." I define it as "sexually attractive; sexually stimulating" (Macquarie Book of Slang (http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/anonymous@F461255721+0/-/p/dict/slang-h.html?)). A girl is not hot if she is TOO skinny and bony to be sexually attractive.
But the skinny girls are definitely attractive.

So, basically... If a girl changes my localized blood pressure upwards sharply, she's "hot". But I might not want to screw her. I might have such an impulse, but I don't want to follow all my impulses; some of them are stupid! I was afraid of this. I wouldn't want to follow such impulses either. My point was that such impulses exist, and I am not sure if all the rest of the men here are denying the existence of such impulses in yourselves, or if you are simply misunderstanding me.

[seebs]

I was afraid of this. I wouldn't want to follow such impulses either. My point was that such impulses exist, and I am not sure if all the rest of the men here are denying the existence of such impulses in yourselves, or if you are simply misunderstanding me.

Hmm.

I wouldn't call the impulse "wanting to screw her".

[ApostateAbe]

I was afraid of this. I wouldn't want to follow such impulses either. My point was that such impulses exist, and I am not sure if all the rest of the men here are denying the existence of such impulses in yourselves, or if you are simply misunderstanding me.
Hmm.

I wouldn't call the impulse "wanting to screw her". Sorry about that. I had trouble clearly articulating what I really meant.

[Dingfod]

Nothing to see here, move along.

[ApostateAbe]

Nothing to see here, move along. And you still wonder why you are a thread killer?

[JoeP]

No, that's the point. He's a wannabe thread killer.

[Nil Desperandum]

It is easy to guess such a thing. Guys like me are everywhere.

Yeah. Right, er, keep telling yourself that. I have only met one... maybe two males in my life that are on the similar wavelength you are. One was another disillusioned pimply little fella who got turned down too many times as a teenager by said pretty and bitchy chihuhuas (which just goes to show he had bad taste in women, because he only thought with his dick, funnily enough), and the other's mother didn't love him enough when he was a baby.

Pathetic, much?

I certainly hope that you are not insinuating that a male who wasn't loved enough as a child and seeks this attention in other females, sexual or other, is pathetic, because I am one of those males.

[seebs]

Sorry about that. I had trouble clearly articulating what I really meant.

I think, given that, we're probably mostly in violent agreement. There's a pretty generic "hey, THAT could be fucked" response in the primate brain, which goes off pretty much at random, and has very little to do with anything I'd normally think of as "desire".

[Adora]

I certainly hope that you are not insinuating that a male who wasn't loved enough as a child and seeks this attention in other females, sexual or other, is pathetic, because I am one of those males.

Er, no. I was saying that men who have bitter, misogynistic, devaluing or generally not-nice attitudes towards females, in my experience, either have hang-ups about their mother, or can't get the hell over their teenage years. That is what I consider pathetic.

[Socratoad]

When it comes to paedophilia and related subjects there was no golden age where all was better, Not when I was young and I suspect not now.

When I was a young boy raised on a farm as a ward of the Children's Aid Society I was repeatedly sexually abused by older males, and I might add abused in every other way. I come to think that it was the normal way of the world.

Years later I was talking to a female cousin, during our conversation she told me that at about age ten an uncle started to come on to her big-time. When she went home she tried to tell her parents what had happened. Her father told her to shut up and not try to bad mouth her betters. As you probably all know I am the king of the old men here on this board and on IIDB. so things were just so very much different then. The term "teenager" just did not exist. You were either a child or when big enough to carry your weight in the adult world you were considered an adult. I really should know this because I ran away from the slave farm when I was thirteen and have earned my own way ever since.

That said, it do not think young people have it made today, so to speak; on one hand we protect them from work and other such nasties of life such as early marriage , etc, while on the other hand we have thrown them into a wide open world of market manipulation, sexually exploitive fashion, etc. I see all around me little girls that have nose rings belly rings, sexually exciting clothes and so forth. And yet in so many ways these young girls are even more immature than any generation this old toad has witnessed. One of the mistakes many doting parents make is mistaking/confusing the precociousness of their daughters with maturity. I see this everywhere. So though the young girls today are so much better off in many ways, the pressure placed upon them is pretty damned cruel.

Have I any experience on this subject? I certainly hope so as I have raised three girls.

And on the subject of mature men of any age coming on to young girls ...... personally I find it disgusting because its about insecure old bastards who cannot relate to intelligent mature women, instead can only get it up by playing power games with those they hope or wish to manipulate.

So sayeth the Toad

[ApostateAbe]

Socratoad, I wish we could bring back some of those ways of the old times. When I become an old man, I hope the times I am living in now will not be the "good old days." Children are awful. They are undisciplined, uneducated, rude, lazy, and misled. Unfortunately, I suspect it will only get worse.

[Roland98]

Socratoad, I wish we could bring back some of those ways of the old times. When I become an old man, I hope the times I am living in now will not be the "good old days." Children are awful. They are undisciplined, uneducated, rude, lazy, and misled. Unfortunately, I suspect it will only get worse.

Y'know, perhaps if you weren't so misanthropic you'd have better luck with the ladies, or with people in general. Don't you think that every generation bitches about this same kind of shit? Yet somehow, society survives. Perhaps you should try not painting all groups with such a wide brush (teenage girls are stupid and a waste of your time; children are awful; men are drooling idiots who only want to get into a woman's pants, etc.) and instead focused on a few of the positive aspects of your fellow human beings for awhile.

[Socratoad]

Socratoad, I wish we could bring back some of those ways of the old times. When I become an old man, I hope the times I am living in now will not be the "good old days." Children are awful. They are undisciplined, uneducated, rude, lazy, and misled. Unfortunately, I suspect it will only get worse.

ApostateAbe, I sincerely hope that my post does not lead people to perceive that I believe that "children are awful", etc

I really do believe that "we" society in general, empathetic persons in general should be somewhat alarmed at the pressure children are under in the world of homo consumens

[Beth]

I really do believe that "we" society in general, empathetic persons in general should be somewhat alarmed at the pressure children are under in the world of homo consumensI could not agree with you more, dear.

[ApostateAbe]

Socratoad, I wish we could bring back some of those ways of the old times. When I become an old man, I hope the times I am living in now will not be the "good old days." Children are awful. They are undisciplined, uneducated, rude, lazy, and misled. Unfortunately, I suspect it will only get worse.
Y'know, perhaps if you weren't so misanthropic you'd have better luck with the ladies, or with people in general. Don't you think that every generation bitches about this same kind of shit? Yet somehow, society survives. Perhaps you should try not painting all groups with such a wide brush (teenage girls are stupid and a waste of your time; children are awful; men are drooling idiots who only want to get into a woman's pants, etc.) and instead focused on a few of the positive aspects of your fellow human beings for awhile. Roland, it is only in this thread that I have been especially misanthropic. If you get to know me a little better, you will find that I do have heros, a few good friends, valuable principles, and that sort of thing. But I do have a generally pessimistic view of human beings in general. There needs to be people like me who point out the bad stuff instead of the good stuff. Other people may not like to hear it, but the problems can only be solved when they become aware of the problems. If society is in poor shape and destined to get poorer, then it hardly matters that society survives.

[ApostateAbe]

Socratoad, I wish we could bring back some of those ways of the old times. When I become an old man, I hope the times I am living in now will not be the "good old days." Children are awful. They are undisciplined, uneducated, rude, lazy, and misled. Unfortunately, I suspect it will only get worse.
ApostateAbe, I sincerely hope that my post does not lead people to perceive that I believe that "children are awful", etc

I really do believe that "we" society in general, empathetic persons in general should be somewhat alarmed at the pressure children are under in the world of homo consumens Don't worry, socratoad, my views on children originated with me, not you.

[viscousmemories]

But I do have a generally pessimistic view of human beings in general. There needs to be people like me who point out the bad stuff instead of the good stuff. Other people may not like to hear it, but the problems can only be solved when they become aware of the problems.
It's not that you're wrong to point out the bad stuff instead of the good stuff, but that your interpretation of things is colored by your pessimism and a tendency to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people. Misanthropy isn't some kind of revolutionary approach to social studies in 2004, it's passe. If you want to shake people up and say the things people don't want to hear, try a real challenge: Try promoting respect for all others regardless of race, sexual preference or religious belief.

[Roland98]

Roland, it is only in this thread that I have been especially misanthropic. If you get to know me a little better, you will find that I do have heros, a few good friends, valuable principles, and that sort of thing. But I do have a generally pessimistic view of human beings in general. There needs to be people like me who point out the bad stuff instead of the good stuff. Other people may not like to hear it, but the problems can only be solved when they become aware of the problems.

I'm all about constructive criticism, not only for myself but society in general. But there is a difference between "pointing out the bad stuff" in an effort to change it for the better, and just whining about it to no avial. How do statements like

I gotta admit--pretty young girls are nothing more to me than large chunks of meat. They don't have brains, they have annoying personalities, and you go to jail if you screw them. They serve only as sexual fantasy material (but not if you have pictures, because, again, you go to jail).

assist anyone in solving the so-called "problems" you see with teenage girls, for instance? Seems to me like you're just making excuses for your behavior.

If society is in poor shape and destined to get poorer, then it hardly matters that society survives.

And again, this idea goes back likely as far as "civilized" society does. I suppose the argument could be made that it's gotten "poorer" (many Christian fundamentalists certainly do) but that depends on your POV. For instance, the same reasons many of them think society has gone downhill are the same reasons I feel it's gotten better over the past century or so. And I choose to aid in raising, educating, and hopefully even inspiring the next generation rather than just bitching about their flaws. What do you do to help?

[The Lone Ranger]

Children nowadays are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food and tyrannise their teachers.
-- Socrates, circa 400 B.C.E.


I suspect that people in every generation have complained about how badly-behaved is the next generation. Maybe it's human nature. Maybe it's that society changes, and not everyone's happy about those changes.


While I certainly don't approve of all societal changes, I do think that things are generally a lot better today than they were just a generation or two ago, much less a century or two.

Women have a say in their own lives, for instance. It's no longer the case that a woman's only real option for living a comfortable life is to find a rich man and convince him to marry her. She can live independently. She can control her own fertility. She can vote.

Children are no longer treated as property. At least in "First World" countries, children have a better than 50% chance of living to see their first birthdays. Eight-year-olds aren't working all day in coal mines.

If you happen to have been born with dark skin, you can no longer be bought and sold as property. There's relatively little danger that you'll be strung up from the nearest tree should you make the mistake of making eye contact with "one of your betters" (i.e., someone with light skin), which is, of course, proof that you're "uppity" and in need of being "taught some manners." Heck, you can even drink from the same water fountains that lighter-skinned people do.

If you suffer from some sort of mental disability, you can get sympathy and treatment, instead of a one-way ticket to the "madhouse."

And so on, and so on.


*****

Ours is anything but a perfect society, but I think it's quite clear that the general trend has been a positive one, at least over the past couple of centuries. In general, I think we're a far more egalitarian, tolerant, and compassionate society than we used to be.

It's important to point out the problems with society, because it's all too easy to sweep them under the rug otherwise. On the other hand, let's not pretend that progress hasn't been made. Things don't get better if people just throw up their hands and claim that "people are no damn good." Remember: social progress is not irreversible.

Cheers,

Michael

[Socratoad]

Well I certainly agree with every point you have made Michael. I do think that this is no time for complacency. While we certainly are more compassionate in general, more aware, better educated, etc, than our ancestors I tend to think that due to population growth, pollution, misuse of resources, weapons of war and so many other things we really are using the wrong measurement if all we do is compare ourselves with past generations. Our ancestors could afford to remain ignorant, rape and plunder at will etc ..... There were so few of them in comparison. Our education of and understanding of most things in general is just not keeping pace with our misuse of most everything on the planet. Progress is only progress if it is not ultimately destructive.

I'm getting tired so I hope that my thoughts are translating to the screen in a somewhat understandable manner.

[The Lone Ranger]

While we certainly are more compassionate in general, more aware, better educated, etc, than our ancestors I tend to think that due to population growth, pollution, misuse of resources, weapons of war and so many other things we really are using the wrong measurement if all we do is compare ourselves with past generations. Our ancestors could afford to remain ignorant, rape and plunder at will etc ..... There were so few of them in comparison. Our education of and understanding of most things in general is just not keeping pace with our misuse of most everything on the planet. Progress is only progress if it is not ultimately destructive.

There's the rub. We, unlike our ancestors, have the power to pretty-much ruin the planet. Not just for ourselves either, but for future generations as well. Now is most definitely not the time to be complacent!

Our knowledge has grown far faster than has our wisdom. Knowledge is important, but we need a lot more wisdom, in my opinion.


I'm getting tired so I hope that my thoughts are translating to the screen in a somewhat understandable manner.

Makes perfect sense to me!

Cheers,

Michael

[ApostateAbe]

Roland, it is only in this thread that I have been especially misanthropic. If you get to know me a little better, you will find that I do have heros, a few good friends, valuable principles, and that sort of thing. But I do have a generally pessimistic view of human beings in general. There needs to be people like me who point out the bad stuff instead of the good stuff. Other people may not like to hear it, but the problems can only be solved when they become aware of the problems. I'm all about constructive criticism, not only for myself but society in general. But there is a difference between "pointing out the bad stuff" in an effort to change it for the better, and just whining about it to no avial. How do statements like

I gotta admit--pretty young girls are nothing more to me than large chunks of meat. They don't have brains, they have annoying personalities, and you go to jail if you screw them. They serve only as sexual fantasy material (but not if you have pictures, because, again, you go to jail). assist anyone in solving the so-called "problems" you see with teenage girls, for instance? Seems to me like you're just making excuses for your behavior.
Roland, this thread has covered way too many topics and moods to expect any sort of discernable consistency on my part. There is no use taking something I said days back and contrasting it with something I said recently. The reason for all my rants in this thread is not to convince anyone else to adopt my twisted ways of thinking. I am much more selfish than that. It is all about education and fun for me. It is mostly to see if my own mind needs to be changed. I have stopped trying to improve the world a few months ago. It would be useless to try without the proper knowledge.

[ApostateAbe]

But I do have a generally pessimistic view of human beings in general. There needs to be people like me who point out the bad stuff instead of the good stuff. Other people may not like to hear it, but the problems can only be solved when they become aware of the problems. It's not that you're wrong to point out the bad stuff instead of the good stuff, but that your interpretation of things is colored by your pessimism and a tendency to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people. Misanthropy isn't some kind of revolutionary approach to social studies in 2004, it's passe. If you want to shake people up and say the things people don't want to hear, try a real challenge: Try promoting respect for all others regardless of race, sexual preference or religious belief. viscous, I don't base my opinions on what is popular or unpopular. It is about what I perceive to be the truth, through reasonable and emotionless judgment.

You say that my interpretation of things is colored by my pessimism. I have been trying to think of a way to solve that problem, but I don't really know what to do about it. It seems to be an inextricable part of who I am.

You say that I have a tendency to make broad generalizations. I think your real beef is that I make broad generalizations that are wrong or at least strongly disagreeable. We all make broad generalizations. But I am trying to be careful not to say "all" when I really mean "most" (occasionally I goof).

[pescifish]

{Edited all content after reading Socratoad's post that follows.

It's not that my original post did any real kicking, but Socratoad introduces a real possibility of cause. In which case, there's no point in discussing the actual content of the posts here.}

[Socratoad]

ApostateAbe, are you perhaps suffering from a rather deep depression?

I ask this in all seriousness as your postings recently here (and I am a recent arrival) seem to be the thinking of a depressed person, and if this could be so I do not wish to kick you when you are down. As a person who has suffered from rather severe doubts of depression at various times I think I recognize the symptoms.

[Dingfod]

"...severe doubts of depression..."

Boy, you sure got that one right. Wait, I don't mean I doubt Abe is depressed. I mean depressed people have doubts. Oh, well, I'll shut up now.

[pescifish]

"...severe doubts of depression..."

Boy, you sure got that one right. Wait, I don't mean I doubt Abe is depressed. I mean depressed people have doubts. Oh, well, I'll shut up now.Heh, I caught that, too.
I thought perhaps Socratoad intended the usual "bouts of depression", but I am betting he meant it exactly as written. :yup:

[Socratoad]

"...severe doubts of depression..."

Boy, you sure got that one right. Wait, I don't mean I doubt Abe is depressed. I mean depressed people have doubts. Oh, well, I'll shut up now.Heh, I caught that, too.
I thought perhaps Socratoad intended the usual "bouts of depression", but I am betting he meant it exactly as written. :yup:

You win the bet. :yup:

Ya see when one is severely depressed one looks at life through shit- coloured glasses

[ApostateAbe]

I am not depressed. I know because I have had such a time in my life, which gradually ended over the last three years. I have been through the therapy, taken the anti-depressants, bought the t-shirt. Now it is over. I know because I think very highly of myself, I don't have any depressed fits, my life seems to be going well, and I have taken the psychological tests to confirm it. Before, the tests said I was severely depressed, and, afterwards, they said I was emphatically OK. But if you want to say that my poisoned outlook is a holdover from the time when I was depressed, go right ahead. But it seems to me that I have less value for the world now than I did when I was at the height of my depression.

[Socratoad]

I am not depressed. I know because I have had such a time in my life, which gradually ended over the last three years. I have been through the therapy, taken the anti-depressants, bought the t-shirt. Now it is over. I know because I think very highly of myself, I don't have any depressed fits, my life seems to be going well, and I have taken the psychological tests to confirm it. Before, the tests said I was severely depressed, and, afterwards, they said I was emphatically OK. But if you want to say that my poisoned outlook is a holdover from the time when I was depressed, go right ahead. But it seems to me that I have less value for the world now than I did when I was at the height of my depression.



I was not pointing fingers but rather just trying to reach out so that if perhaps you were depressed I and others might possibly be of help.

Thats all.

[ApostateAbe]

I was not pointing fingers but rather just trying to reach out so that if perhaps you were depressed I and others might possibly be of help.

Thats all. Thanks for the offer.