Thread: "Why do I like boys?"

This thread just became quite funny when a typical anti hopped in.

Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand

adult m/f + adult m/f = harmless
adult m/f + child m/f = harmful

Just for the fun and games, tell us why it is like this, and then prove it.
Please?

(avoiding the term "pedo" for political correctness)

We need a good word for it.
There's no clear definition of the word "pedophile", or even if there is, everyone seems to find their own definition.
Childlover is just silly, because it sounds like a desperate attempt to make it seem like a harmless, loving thing. Which I think we can all admit it isn't. We are all perverts.
I say we use the term "Pedosexual" because it clearly shows that it's related to pedophilia, but is still different than the word "Pedophilia", so there's more room for having a clear definition: A person who is sexually attracted to children.

Hoop hoop.

I have a dirty secret too.
I like death.

EDIT:
That's not very dirty though, imo.
That's just kinda odd and really interesting.

Mmmhh.. aaaahh... Yes! Yes! Yeeeees!!! ... that was good.

Hahaha just kidding
But no, really, I like death, and not just in the "like" sense of the word. It's hard to explain. But know this: that doesn't mean I murder people for kicks, ok?

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Mmmhh.. aaaahh... Yes! Yes! Yeeeees!!! ... that was good.

Hahaha just kidding
But no, really, I like death, and not just in the "like" sense of the word. It's hard to explain. But know this: that doesn't mean I murder people for kicks, ok?

Exactly, I did read your thread where you explained it.
And I kinda understand how it would be hard to explain.

Maybe your thing will be what society will hate next :V
Good luck.

xP

Originally Posted by Maeni

We need a good word for it.
There's no clear definition of the word "pedophile", or even if there is, everyone seems to find their own definition.
Childlover is just silly, because it sounds like a desperate attempt to make it seem like a harmless, loving thing. Which I think we can all admit it isn't. We are all perverts.
I say we use the term "Pedosexual" because it clearly shows that it's related to pedophilia, but is still different than the word "Pedophilia", so there's more room for having a clear definition: A person who is sexually attracted to children.

Hoop hoop.

We totally need a word for it. Maybe we should make a thread about the topic.

I really like "childlover" just as I like "homoaffective", but you're right, it is kinda too sugary. Pedosexual is just total awesome. Maybe we should brainstorm for more ideas, but I really like pedosexual.

The only arguable thing about it: 'pedo' comes from greek and 'sex' comes from latin. I've tried many latin radicals and the ones I like best are:
"juvenosexual" (latin juvene - young);
"infantosexual" (latin infant - infant xD)
"puerisexual" (latin puer/puera - boy/girl)

Men used to marry young woman... just do some reading of history..

So now it's time for pedophilosophy?
EDIT:
I shall be off to, uh, deliver newspapers in the good weather.
And just for the anti, i'll oggle at some 7 year old girls while doing so.

Be back later.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You may have been honest just like everybody else, yet no-one else here but you was prejudicial. What are you gonna say next? That gay marriage isn't right? That transsexuality is harmful? Likes don't harm anyone, actions do. Maybe I want to kill you, but that doesn't make me a killer.

And the harmful point is very debatable, really. Don't just state things, explain why you believe so. I see more harm in forced heterosexual marriage than many other stuff. I'm 18, I don't see why on earth I'm no supposed to like someone on their 12s. But that is just me.

Maybe you're just in the pedo closet xD

What a pathetic response. Yeah right, it's my fault I am so mainstream isn't it? It seems that you are trying to comfort and re-assure yourself by saying these things. I can see through your comments. It's sad really, because if I were you I wouldn't even be attempting to accept the horrid thoughts you're experiencing, but it seems you don't think it's a big deal?
You have a mental disorder.
I would be smothering myself with a variety of adult pornography until I found something I enjoyed. Have you tried this or are you exclusively attracted to little boys?
It is clear from my last two posts that I'm not homophobic. I saw that one coming... I don't have any problems with gays - simply because it is two adults who give consent. Do you honesty believe that a 7 year old kid would want to be with you? I'm telling you, they wouldn't. This is a scientific fact. Your self identity is severely impaired if you think otherwise. This is THE reason why it's wrong - and yes, it is still terrible even if you aren't out there raping children - because no doubt (if not already, in the future) you'll be buying some abusive shit online and supporting the criminal industry and the sexual exploitation of children. So yeah; get a fucking grip, of course it is harmful.

I direct this to all the crazy paedo's here who think liking little kids is cool. I realise I am out numbered.

Have any of you told your friends/family yet? Let me know how it goes.

Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand

What a pathetic response. Yeah right, it's my fault I am so mainstream isn't it? I understand you are trying to comfort yourself by saying these things. I can see through your comments. It's sad really, because if I were you I wouldn't even be attempting to accept the horrid thoughts you're experiencing, but it seems you don't think it's a big deal?
You have a mental disorder.
I would be smothering myself with a variety of adult pornography until I found something I enjoyed. Have you tried this or are you exclusively attracted to little boys?
It is clear from my last two posts that I'm not homophobic. I saw that one coming... I don't have any problems with gays - simply because it is two adults who give consent. Do you honesty believe that a 7 year old kid would want to be with you? I'm telling you, they wouldn't. This is a scientific fact. Your self identity is severely impaired if you think otherwise. This is THE reason why it's wrong - and yes, it is still terrible even if you aren't out there raping children - because no doubt (if not already, in the future) you'll be buying some abusive shit online and supporting the criminal industry and the sexual exploitation of children. So yeah; get a fucking grip, of course it is harmful.

I direct this to all the crazy paedo's here who think liking little kids is cool. I realise I am out numbered.

Have any of you told your friends/family yet? Let me know how it goes.

Man, don't call it horrid, it just shows your prejudice.

Once again, liking children doesn't mean doing things to children.

Saying something is a scientific fact doesn't make it so. A 7 yo doesn't even know what he/she likes, and that's exactly why it's unethical to do anything to them, or it'd change who they'd become. It is comparable to giving alcoholic drinks to a child.

And telling friends or family would be as accepted as telling we're gay, especially because of prejudicial people like you out there. Give up the prejudice, and I'll be willing to discuss with you. Too bad you grew to dislike things which you make you be seen as unconventional. They call it hard-headedness.

---

Finally, in my book, I don't see why being straight isn't a mental disorder, too.

In all honesty, I would rather not have a discussion with you anyway. Good luck!

I'd been expecting that. Just too hard-headed about something to even discuss it. No news, really, most people are like you.

Can we all take a chill-pill, sort out our genes and "be happy". Thanks.

Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand

You have a mental disorder.

Not proven, that's your belief.

I would be smothering myself with a variety of adult pornography until I found something I enjoyed. Have you tried this or are you exclusively attracted to little boys?

Yes. Except replace boys with girls.
EDIT: Actually, flat chested women CAN in rare cases arouse me. But damnit, it's just so rare, and it really takes a fucking effort. And there'd still be alot of "adulty" things that would just ruin it. So yeah. Exclusive here.

Do you honesty believe that a 7 year old kid would want to be with you? I'm telling you, they wouldn't. This is a scientific fact.

Completely irrelevant. None of us think this. And you have no reason to think that we think so.
EDIT: Again, this is not always true, children are sexually developing, so they are quite prepared to explore things. Now, I don't have experience with this myself, but they flirt. And ofcourse there's the things with playing doctor and stuff like that, but ofcourse that's with other children - Or should be. But anyways, how is this a scientific fact? Source?
That absolutely no 7 year old would be interested in ANY form of sexual interaction with an adult is quite a bold statement. I think if you give them the chance, you'll be sure to find one who wants to, even without manipulation. I'm not saying it wouldn't be wrong then, actually it still would, alot. There's still just too many things wrong with it to list.
But for some reason, even though there are so many things wrong with it, you choose the stupid arguments that aren't even true, and then state that it's a scientific fact. Cool.

And really, it depends on what you mean with "be with you". Still, don't take this Edit too seriously because I don't know what I'm talking about, but alteast I admit it, while you don't.
I'm not sure how related this is, but I think it is, and it's interesting. And I think you need it, because my impression is that you've gotten caught up in the mainstream opinions. (It's not a bad thing in itself, the bad thing is that you just team up with the majority, without even CONSIDERING that you MAY be more or less wrong on maybe just some of it.) Anyways, here it is:
http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/yat...ame.html#32267

and yes, it is still terrible even if you aren't out there raping children - because no doubt (if not already, in the future) you'll be buying some abusive shit online and supporting the criminal industry and the sexual exploitation of children.

That's just a lie. Get a grip.
EDIT: Besides, most of the time, you don't pay for it. Someone picks it up from A, then uploads it to B to share it with the others, who then download it and upload it to C. If you happen to be one of those that want to download it, and pick it up from C, the original creator has no way to find out you downloaded it, and he won't gain shit from it.
But that's a completely different talk, and I in no fucking way support child pornography at all, since there's just so many reasons why it is/can be wrong to list. I mean, one thing is that they are being sexually abused, but they're being FILMED at the same time. That can't be healthy even to adults.
EDIT2: There's lolicon aswell, you know, drawn stuff. In which no actual children were hurt, only some perverts wrist was hurt in the making. Why is it that you jump to the conclusion that we'll "no doubt" go all the way to jumping into sharing and buying real child pornography?

I direct this to all the crazy paedo's here who think liking little kids is cool. I realise I am out numbered.

Even if you weren't outnumbered, the arguments you have been using so far, we've all seen atleast 50 times before, so if you'd been 50 anti-pedo's, it'd still be the same old arguments that don't hold ground.

Have any of you told your friends/family yet? Let me know how it goes.

I have, both my parents know, and they seem to try and ignore it.
Some of my old classmates know, and my best IRL friend knows aswell. We joke about it now and then.

EDIT:
Ah, I didn't realize he fled. (I realize the wording is quite provocative, but come on, that's what it is. You feel that you can't get through to us with your arguments. In other words, your arguments don't work, so you decide to go away instead. Tip for next time, find some actual intelligent arguments instead of just spouting out stuff we've already heard so many times before.)

Originally Posted by Maeni

Not proven, that's your belief.

Well, it's a genetic "aberration". Or mutation if you will.
It certainly is not a disorder, as a disorder means you do something "abnormal" because of trauma, or something that happened to you after birth.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Well, it's a genetic "aberration". Or mutation if you will.
It certainly is not a disorder, as a disorder means you do something "abnormal" because of trauma, or something that happened to you after birth.

I don't really know, but he was implying that it was something curable, or a disease so to speak. But that's simply not proven.
It's an ongoing discussion, mainly focused on homosexuality; "Is it genetic? Is it something in childhood? Something went wrong in the womb?" The same questions can be asked about pedophilia. And it really doesn't matter why, because it just is. And the common opinion is that you can't "cure" either of them.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, now that we're there. I've bookmarked some sites that are interesting about pedophilia.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pedophile.htm This one has some interesting points. It's about tolerating pedophiles. Read it, biatches.
http://newgon.com/wiki/Research:_Nonsexual_aspects Research on the non-sexual aspects of pedophilia. Just like there are non-sexual aspects of being a homosexual or heterosexual.

And here's a guy who is just awesome, talking about pedophilia (and sexuality): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G862Kh88gQw

Originally Posted by Maeni

I don't really know, but he was implying that it was something curable, or a disease so to speak. But that's simply not proven.
It's an ongoing discussion, mainly focused on homosexuality; "Is it genetic? Is it something in childhood? Something went wrong in the womb?" The same questions can be asked about pedophilia. And it really doesn't matter why, because it just is. And the common opinion is that you can't "cure" either of them.

It has been proven to be genetic, actually.
All humans, men and women, have an "attraction to men" gene. In the case of men, this is generally quite low. In case of homosexual men, it is stronger.
Not sure about pedophilia, but it could be similar.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

It has been proven to be genetic, actually.
All humans, men and women, have an "attraction to men" gene. In the case of men, this is generally quite low. In case of homosexual men, it is stronger.
Not sure about pedophilia, but it could be similar.

As far as I know, yeah, they found a gay-gene in men. But there's a problem. They haven't found a gay-gene in women.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
^First thing that popped up on searching for "gay-gene".
Scientists are FAR FROM done with finding out why sexuality works the way it does. It's really not proven yet.

EDIT: By the way I've edited my past posts like an edit-whore. In case you didn't notice.

EDIT: If you think the answer is just "It's genetic."
Then why is this thread 6 pages long? (Assuming that there's both a gay-gene, and a pedo-gene.)

Originally Posted by Maeni

As far as I know, yeah, they found a gay-gene in men. But there's a problem. They haven't found a gay-gene in women.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
^First thing that popped up on searching for "gay-gene".
Scientists are FAR FROM done with finding out why sexuality works the way it does. It's really not proven yet.

EDIT: By the way I've edited my past posts like an edit-whore. In case you didn't notice.

EDIT: If you think the answer is just "It's genetic."
Then why is this thread 6 pages long? (Assuming that there's both a gay-gene, and a pedo-gene.)

First of all, take it easy - I just read an article somewhere where I got that information. Sorry if you found something that contradicts it.

Second, why would this thread be 6 pages long? Answer: Ignorance, prejudice, and straying from the main topic.

"Third, if the authors are correct, we're not really talking about genes for homosexuality. We're talking about genes for "androphilia," i.e., attraction to men. The importance of the genes lies in what they do not to men but to women, by increasing reproductive output so powerfully that these women compensate for the reduced output among their male relatives. You can't isolate gay men as a puzzle or problem anymore. You have to see them as part of a bigger, stronger, enduring phenomenon."

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/

"Fourth, this larger phenomenon can't be dismissed as a disorder. The study's press release concludes that "homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits."

Let's keep the topic to what it was originally intended be about, and not about the support of pedophilia. Kthnxbai.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

First of all, take it easy - I just read an article somewhere where I got that information. Sorry if you found something that contradicts it.

Second, why would this thread be 6 pages long? Answer: Ignorance, prejudice, and straying from the main topic.

"Third, if the authors are correct, we're not really talking about genes for homosexuality. We're talking about genes for "androphilia," i.e., attraction to men. The importance of the genes lies in what they do not to men but to women, by increasing reproductive output so powerfully that these women compensate for the reduced output among their male relatives. You can't isolate gay men as a puzzle or problem anymore. You have to see them as part of a bigger, stronger, enduring phenomenon."

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/

"Fourth, this larger phenomenon can't be dismissed as a disorder. The study's press release concludes that "homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits."

I didn't understand that at all.
Either way, genetic or not, it's not something you can or even should try to cure. Atleast when you talk about homosexuality. And I personally believe the same holds true about pedophilia. Soon, I'll be able to talk about that from experience, since I'm currently trying. (Or the psychiatrists and psychologists are.)

But yeah, I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. But I still think you could say that you were "born that way", in the sense that after you're born, there's still alot of time before you're going to fully be yourself. And during that time alot can influence you. Very very tiny and subtle things can have a huge effect later on. Perhaps you saw a beautiful orange leaf, and you grew a liking to the color, orange. And later you saw blah blah blah. And so on. Gettit?

Yeah. That. I lost my words~
EDIT:
We are discussing that >:O
Atleast, this post does. We're discussing wether it's genetics now.

Don't read the following. tl;dr: I'm sorry for going off-topic.
Otherwise, I'm sorry. Do you know how it feels, do you? DO YOU? To be attacked like that, plumbed into a narrow stereotype as a monster and child molester. Hated by many, attacked for being open about it. Shunned, unaccepted. Doomed to live on the outside. It's as if it's determined from the beginning. Young in body. Evil at heart. The witch-hunt of today.
We live in the shadows. The shadows being the internet. The normal people seek the shadows and attack us with numbers and might. This time around, it was possible to fight back because the opposing force had no big numbers, neither any might. It was only natural that this would bring out the hidden away hate that lives deep down, that otherwise never comes out. Only in the shadows.

OK, I'm done. Sorry.
Disclaimer: Above small-texted message is a joke.

I didn't say it could be cured.
And not understanding an article is no valid reason to claim it to be wrong.
What you're getting at sounds a lot like the butterfly effect. But you do realize that children growing after birth, even into puberty, are STILL busy becoming what their genetic code dictated them to be? In other words, if it "happens" after birth, it could still be genetic.

I suppose you may be right...

:[

This thread is a perfect example of why I refuse to disclose personal details on this forum.