Thread: "Why do I like boys?"

Originally Posted by Kromoh

As normal as being sexually attracted to 22yo girls with big boobs and ass, it's not.

Normal died in a fire, man.

Liar. It died of AIDS.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

As normal as being sexually attracted to 22yo girls with big boobs and ass, it's not.

Normal died in a fire, man.

Sigh....

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Liar. It died of AIDS.

I had said that originally, but then edited it thinking the mods wouldn't like it. lulz

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I had said that originally, but then edited it thinking the mods wouldn't like it. lulz

I know you did.

Once again, this becomes relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzN-uIVkfjg

"Natural" and "Normal" are both stupid words.
It may not be normal, and it may not be natural either. But it IS. So obviously for that one person - It is natural, and it is normal. Things only become unnatural and abnormal when you compare it to the ideal.

On an almost related note, I went to the psychiatrists again. So I might update my old Help! thread.

Also, this is now a pedophile party thread.
But it's infested with boylovers ;_;
Moar girllurvers! Btw I hate those words. "boylover"... "girllover"... "childlover" It's basically the same as when PETA tried to make people call fish "seakittens".

Actually, "natural" would be "that which benefits the reproduction of one's genes". Being gay doesn't help, as men can't reproduce with other men, or women with other women.

But natural or unnatural has no positive of negative connotation. it's not a choice, and nothing in nature is good or bad.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Actually, "natural" would be "that which benefits the reproduction of one's genes". Being gay doesn't help, as men can't reproduce with other men, or women with other women.

But natural or unnatural has no positive of negative connotation. it's not a choice, and nothing in nature is good or bad.

I do not see how reproduction is natural. It's only what survives with time.

The only natural is to not exist at all.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Actually, "natural" would be "that which benefits the reproduction of one's genes". Being gay doesn't help, as men can't reproduce with other men, or women with other women.

But natural or unnatural has no positive of negative connotation. it's not a choice, and nothing in nature is good or bad.

Yah yah, you're actually right. Just imagine that I never mentioned "Natural".
Only "Normal."


:U

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I do not see how reproduction is natural. It's only what survives with time.

The only natural is to not exist at all.

The only real evolutionary imperative is to spread your genes. What you say "to not exist at all" is what life (and its system of evolution) is trying so hard to prevent. It's about "survival of the genes"... not "survival of you". That's the great misconception of evolution.
Sorry :p

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

The only real evolutionary imperative is to spread your genes. What you say "to not exist at all" is what life (and its system of evolution) is trying so hard to prevent. It's about "survival of the genes"... not "survival of you". That's the great misconception of evolution.
Sorry :p

Not really.

Life isn't trying anything. Species who fight for life tend to survive over time, species who don't tend to die. It doesn't mean either one of them is right, or better, or natural. Natural selection is a scheme of logic, not a consciousness with intent - it isn't trying to do anything.

And next time, don't try to prove me wrong with concepts from high school. I know my biology.

It's not about survival of the species either.
And I don't know this from high school, but by reading one of Richard Dawkins' books. I assume that man knows what he's talking about. he book is called "The Selfish Gene" for a good reason. And even if that was high school stuff, that wouldn't make it any less true.

Please don't feel offended. I DID say that the survivability of a gene has nothing to do with the carrier, or he or she being "right" or "better".
It just makes you less likely to reproduce, that's all. Actually, genetic aberrations happen all the time, sometimes in the carrier's advantage, sometimes not. It really is natural, yet not necessarily an advantage.

BoyLovers are the MASTER RACE. It will be ghetto in the future.

Reproduction can go reproduce with itself.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

The only real evolutionary imperative is to spread your genes. What you say "to not exist at all" is what life (and its system of evolution) is trying so hard to prevent. It's about "survival of the genes"... not "survival of you". That's the great misconception of evolution.
Sorry :p

Instead of just saying "not really" I will actually critique what you said. Your initial statement "The only real evolutionary imperative is to spread your genes" Is what I have the biggest problem with. When you are a parent, you may want your kid to have "x" and "y" genes, naturally because it resembles you. If we are talking about natural selection and survival of the fittest, than fundamentally the imperative of evolution is being adapted with the ability to survive. Things that may derive from that include physical strength.. a healthy body, a intelligent mind.

If your wife was a supermodel, but a complete dumb ass, would you find it evolutionary imperative that your son/daughter would inherit her intellect? The complexity theory of evolution with respect to natural selection has it that inheritance of survival instincts would be without doubt the most important. If we didn't inherit those instincts as well as a body suitable for survival, we would cease to survive. If I am being overly analytical you can always link me to your source for your reasoning. That way I could be a little more objective and see where you are coming from

Anyway, about this "being normal" conversation, normal literally means "a lack of significant deviation from the average". The average for human being is to be attracted to the opposite sex, namely heterosexual. That is not to say that your morally at fault, however you do differ from the norm, and that is fact. You may feel apposed to the fact of not being normal, but that is all subjectively psychological. However you are biologically at fault. if everyone was homosexual that would fundamentally be a defect for survival, because we would cease to exist with that rationale. A fireman dying in a fire while having sex with some girl has no relevance to be normal, I don't even know why you used that as a example. What we could have talked about is your fetish for plunging you self the man's harry orifice of death and decay versus the "norm". Bu suit yourself ha ha, be who you want to be.

Originally Posted by Maeni

Also, this is now a pedophile party thread.
But it's infested with boylovers ;_;
Moar girllurvers! Btw I hate those words. "boylover"... "girllover"... "childlover" It's basically the same as when PETA tried to make people call fish "seakittens".

A little boy could kick a little girl's ass anyday. They are also hornier and smell more inticing. They also make a good crowd to rally for your cause, which girls are more reluctuant to do.

So keep your little seakittens away from me. I'm not into that

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Instead of just saying "not really" I will actually critique what you said. Your initial statement "The only real evolutionary imperative is to spread your genes" Is what I have the biggest problem with. When you are a parent, you may want your kid to have "x" and "y" genes, naturally because it resembles you. If we are talking about natural selection and survival of the fittest, than fundamentally the imperative of evolution is being adapted with the ability to survive. Things that may derive from that include physical strength.. a healthy body, a intelligent mind.

If your wife was a supermodel, but a complete dumb ass, would you find it evolutionary imperative that your son/daughter would inherit her intellect? The complexity theory of evolution with respect to natural selection has it that inheritance of survival instincts would be without doubt the most important. If we didn't inherit those instincts as well as a body suitable for survival, we would cease to survive. If I am being overly analytical you can always link me to your source for your reasoning. That way I could be a little more objective and see where you are coming from

Anyway, about this "being normal" conversation, normal literally means "a lack of significant deviation from the average". The average for human being is to be attracted to the opposite sex, namely heterosexual. That is not to say that your morally at fault, however you do differ from the norm, and that is fact. You may feel apposed to the fact of not being normal, but that is all subjectively psychological. However you are biologically at fault. if everyone was homosexual that would fundamentally be a defect for survival, because we would cease to exist with that rationale. A fireman dying in a fire while having sex with some girl has no relevance to be normal, I don't even know why you used that as a example. What we could have talked about is your fetish for plunging you self the man's harry orifice of death and decay versus the "norm". Bu suit yourself ha ha, be who you want to be.

Look - I'm butt ugly and dumb as hell, and there is this really hot and intelligent girl I fancy. My genes tell me to "get it on with her" because they wish to survive (by bonding with the desirable traits of the girl, into your child). But, because I'm so ugly and dumb, the girl is much more likely to tell me to piss off. Which means I'm less likely to spread my genes. Or, if I can't separate up from down, the likelyhood of falling down from a building (stupid example, but you get the point) would be bigger. Dead people can't have sex, henche your crappy trait won't be spread. This is also how species adapt to enviroments... A mutation accurs, and if enough individuals with that trait do well contrary to the "normals", it will spread and eventually be present in that entire species.
If your "attraction to men" gene is too strong as a man, you won't want to have sex with women, which means you can't spread your genes.

It's all in the good man's book.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

It's not about survival of the species either.
And I don't know this from high school, but by reading one of Richard Dawkins' books. I assume that man knows what he's talking about. he book is called "The Selfish Gene" for a good reason. And even if that was high school stuff, that wouldn't make it any less true.

Please don't feel offended. I DID say that the survivability of a gene has nothing to do with the carrier, or he or she being "right" or "better".
It just makes you less likely to reproduce, that's all. Actually, genetic aberrations happen all the time, sometimes in the carrier's advantage, sometimes not. It really is natural, yet not necessarily an advantage.

Yeah, you make sense really. I just didn't like your wording.

Unfortunately nothing I wrote was subjective. Anyway that was my input, now I'll leave you guys to it

I'm not sure how serious I should take some people's comments here. tbh, I'm surprised how open you are about liking small children/boys... I am repulsed, disgusted and ashamed for you! Like, damnit man! You like 7 year old boys! THE FUCK. That's just horrible. I seriously hope your head sorts itself out and you can enjoy the grown human body, m or f - because otherwise you're going to live a very, very miserable life.

Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand

I'm not sure how serious I should take some people's comments here. tbh, I'm surprised how open you are about liking small children/boys... I am repulsed, disgusted and ashamed for you! Like, damnit man! You like 7 year old boys! THE FUCK. That's just horrible. I seriously hope your head sorts itself out and you can enjoy the grown human body, m or f - because otherwise you're going to live a very, very miserable life.

You are ashamed for us? You should be ashamed of yourself for writing such a mean post. Maybe you find it disgusting that we like 7 year old boys, but that's how we are, and your mean posts and "shame for us" won't change that.

Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand

I'm not sure how serious I should take some people's comments here. tbh, I'm surprised how open you are about liking small children/boys... I am repulsed, disgusted and ashamed for you! Like, damnit man! You like 7 year old boys! THE FUCK. That's just horrible. I seriously hope your head sorts itself out and you can enjoy the grown human body, m or f - because otherwise you're going to live a very, very miserable life.

I'm not sure how serious I should take some people's comments here. tbh, I'm surprised how prejudicial you are about other people's sexuality... I am repulsed, disgusted and ashamed for you! Like, damnit man! You like 22 year old girls! THE FUCK. That's just horrible. I seriously hope your head sorts itself out and you can like something that you really do, not what you were taught to - because otherwise you're going to live a very, very miserable life.

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? I am only being honest, like everybody else here. Finding small children attractive is not right and I am not going to sit back and pat you guys on the head and say: "Oh, you can't help how you feel" - and in ref to the person who mentioned people will accept pedo's in the future like gays (jokingly or not) - that'll never happen, because simply:

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

Good luck.

Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? I am only being honest, like everybody else here. Finding small children attractive is not right and I am not going to sit back and pat you guys on the head and say: "Oh, you can't help how you feel" - and in ref to the person who mentioned people will accept pedo's in the future like gays (jokingly or not) - that'll never happen, because simply:

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

Good luck.

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

Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand

and in ref to the person who mentioned people will accept pedo's in the future like gays (jokingly or not) - that'll never happen, because simply:

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

Good luck.

I'd be willing to bet that most pedophiles know that their desires if acted upon would be harmful, but that doesn't mean other people can't be understanding of the fact that they have those desires and accept them for who they are. Just because the attraction is there doesn't mean they are going to go out and rape children. Likewise, just because normal people are attracted to adults doesn't mean they are going to go out there and rape adults. Sure, on both sides it happens, but that's because there is some other physchological issue at work.

But I know what you mean in that acceptance will probably never be at the same level as gays. I don't see the legal age being dropped lower than it is.

Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? I am only being honest, like everybody else here. Finding small children attractive is not right and I am not going to sit back and pat you guys on the head and say: "Oh, you can't help how you feel" - and in ref to the person who mentioned people will accept pedo's in the future like gays (jokingly or not) - that'll never happen, because simply:

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

Good luck.

There is no right or wrong subjective feeling, you may dignify their attraction to younger males as morally or ethically inappropriate, but still "not right" is invalid.