What is it about them?
The familiarity? Sense of commonality?
The innocence?
Not having to say much? Understanding without words?
Common ground in gender, in existence?
Printable View
What is it about them?
The familiarity? Sense of commonality?
The innocence?
Not having to say much? Understanding without words?
Common ground in gender, in existence?
Mabye something a little less pure? mabye something ulterior, you might just want to be diffrent?
or mabye its just the way youre wired, with no way to to change it, and no real reason why...
i think its just because we can, so we try it. and suddenly were hooked. :)
just my opinion, nothing to be taken seriously.
This thread would be funnier if a catholic priest started it.
Edit: nn, you're into boys?
No mercy for the Catholics... We all know thats a free masonic conspiracy, an attempt to discredit Catholics.
Of course, they forced priests to touch little boys.
I don't blame you, girls are psycho.
This is the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Everyone's into everything.
I can't personally get how one can be attracted to boys.
I suppose I'm just wired tighter than you. But I think it probably comes from some kind of fetishist turn on by being different to what is expected, and a little bit naughty in that sense, combined with an association of boys and sexuality, probably rooting from your own experiments.
Don't get me wrong, I just pegged him for a straight as an arrow romantic metrosexual. I didn't know he was bi-sexual. :whyme:Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
Girls are extremely complicated. I honestly can't tell you why, unless I really got to know you, but to just throw it out there- It's probably the familiarity.
I wish I liked them more :( but either boys arent showering enough or forgetting to put on deodorant!
Are you hispanic? If so, I'll add you to my list of crushes. :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Cause.
You're just a little straight boy dipping into the cookie jar. For the entire male homosexual community I say this to you. Get out. We don't want male "bisexuals" slumming it up so they can choose women one day and be like "yeah, when I was younger I experimented."
Sandform, at first glance, my original inclination was to respond to you by saying, you can't speak for all homosexuals, and people can do what they want. And to an extent that's true. However, you have a point..
To ClouD..
I do not know your age, so perhaps this doesn't apply to you, but it seems to me that a large portion of the youth of both American and European, and hell, even Australian society, male and female alike have really begun dabbling into the rather controversial topic of homosexuality, and a lot of that has nothing to do with their genuine interest in the opposite sex.
A lot of it is following a trend. Before you blow this off, hear me out. Even if on a subconscious level, young people are falling into "bisexuality" and "bicuriousity" because it has become the new "in" thing. Even for those young people to whom this concept doesn't apply, it is widely known that a large portion of silly fools (primarily in the previous generation) have determined that being a homosexual makes you some sort of outcast, or "messed up" person, which is obviously untrue.
However, as I said before, even if only on a subconscious level, young people "become" curious about same-sex relations because it's rebellious. It's controversial and "different" and thus becoming the new "in" thing for young people to do, just so that they can feel like they belong to something. To me, that's called being a poser, which don't get me wrong, I am not saying about you at ALL.
Just take a real close look at yourself. Don't answer this question out loud. Answer it completely in your mind. I'm a stranger on the internet, whose opinion doesn't matter. But do you REALLY like boys because you are actually interested in them, or because it's experimental, exciting, new, and rebellious?
If you are genuinly bisexual or even homosexual, awesome, more power to ya. Just don't try to be bi or gay just because it's the new trend. Homosexuals suffer a LOT of hardships, and I'm sure must take offense to people saying they're bi or gay when they really aren't just because they think it's "cool".
Just my two cents.
I was really just being silly. I don't care what ClouD does lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainman
He can sleep with as many little boys as he wants, as long as he and his boy are of legal age.
In fact, my initial thought to this post was about him liking "little" boys, because when I think boy I think child, and when I think guy or man I think adult or at the legal age limit.
I think ClouD may have been talking about his pedophilia tendency.
The question is more general, not only for opinion from someone's inference into my attraction, but also how they feel about their own, and others.
I am myself, that's enough for me to be than worrying about what sexuality I am defined by what I am and am not attracted to, which does change constantly.
I'm not for pedophilia, nor against it, nor really know what the definition actually consists of. To be honest it doesn't really bother me.
Brilliantly written, and a manner of thinking that I wish more people had in common with you.Quote:
I am myself, that's enough for me to be than worrying about what sexuality I am defined by what I am and am not attracted to, which does change constantly.
I guess simply put, pedophilia is generally speaking any sexual act with children. Now that I think of it, I guess it was a bit unclear as to if you were referring to your sexual orientation in terms of gender or if you meant "boys" as in children.
I was under the impression that pedophelia was classified as sex with a minor, when you are not a minor yourself.
Of course, this doesn't count for instances where 19 year olds have sex with 17 year olds. That's why it gets a lot of people confused as to where to cross the line.
Both girls and guys can be very complicated or easygoing.
Yes I've encountered some of the typical man-woman miscommunications before with female friends and lovers, but then again I can't say the male friends I have have all been very easygoing, respectfull people either.
In general I guess you'll always have more male friends and mates, than female lovers. Cuz love isn't as common as friendship. So I guess many men look at their 5 love relationships with women, of which 3 were problematic and then look at their male 27friends and mates, of which 4 are problematic.. and then draw the conclusion "women suck"
Well I can say the same for men. But then there are enough men I really like. That are really kind, honoust people. And there are also enough female friends and lovers I like and that are kind, honoust people.
And that's how you oughta look at it. As people. Forget judgement by gender.
There's crap people, and there's nice people, and everything in between.
Strictly speaking, pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescents, however many people use the term for sexual attraction towards any minor. Hebephilia is the proper term for sexual attraction to children during puberty. Teleiophilia is the proper term for sexual attraction to adults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maroon_Sweater
No it isn't. It's the sexual attraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainman
No it isn't. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maroon_Sweater
Hah, I didn't know about the last one XDDQuote:
Originally Posted by John11
That can be pretty hard to answer, actually... Dream guide!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainman
I must add to it, then, I do get thrills from being a pedophile, I mean talking to people about it is thrilling, "how will they react", sort of exciting.
But it has also gotten me into sitting around, worrying about how fucked up I might be, and that is honestly not fun.
I still can't say for sure, maybe it's just for the thrills and giggles.
Hopefully. I would like to revert some day and go "Oh haha, I was so stupid back then. Tsk tsk."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
I'm sorry, did you just admit you like little kids? Bro, that is pretty fucked up.
Yeah, and I've done that a few times already here on Dreamviews...
Actually, I think I'm polluting too many threads with it...
But I can't really talk about it anywhere else.
Also, you're the first person ever to tell me it's fucked up. I don't quite get that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
I think it's pretty messed up, because children don't naturally have sexual desire. So, they are pretty much raped to please a couple of weirdos with hairy asses. I'm sorry but pedo's sicken me.
plz make a thread about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
:3
I normally get along much better with girls. I feel like they are about 17% more likely to laugh at my jokes, for whatever reason.
That's why I stick to lolicon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zera
Don't worry, I won't do anything to anyone.
This is why we have lucid dreams.
EDIT: *stares at his "Lucid Dream Count" and sighs heavily*
EDIT2: Actually, sex with children is far from my first priority when I get lucidity working, that would be a waste atleast for the first few ones... I'm not that perverted.
EDIT3: Now that I think about it, I might not even want to do that.. At all.
Wut? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
About pedophilia? Or me being one?
... Or about lolicon maybe? *perverted face*
.. Or not, rules and all.
<3Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
This is something you should probably go talk to a therapist about. Don't fool yourself, it is wrong no matter how you look at it. Get some help to put an end to it now before it escalates into something that could really screw up your life. Admitting you have a problem is the fist step, now do something to fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
But lolicon is illegal in Denmark :D
While "Erotic Pictures of children" is not.
Which makes absolutely no sense at all. Flawed laws <3
Which holds no place in this thread.
I shall shut up.
And perhaps create a thread, at some point. Meh, I dunno.
Advice taken, I've found someone in Denmark called "Save the Child" or Red Barnet in danish, they offer telephone help to pedophiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot_Butler
Problem is that they are only open like 2 days a week, and I'd rather talk with these while my family is NOT home :P
I'm a pretty young pedophile, so parents are around, that would be pretty awkward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
plz.
The drama that would ensue.
Well I'm excited just thinking of it.
Maeni, I'd suggest not calling yourself a pedophile, people get a different idea from what you might mean.
I personally think laws against art are ridiculous. A drawn cartoon of a boy, suggestively sexual in Australia, can get you into serious trouble. :?
I think it's stupid!
Just bear in mind that some art can evoke feelings that may possibly lead to the abuse of another human being. Political art with an intended hateful message can do this. I know it seems wrong to censor any form of art, but there are some social conditions that do have to be considered when it comes down to it. Some societies are more accepting of some forms of art than are others. You know how it goes.
That's not to say that all censored art deserves to be censored, or even most of it, just to make that perfectly clear on where I stand.
I think it's wrong to censor anything, alas, when one person starts, another person follows. Censoring the censorship, pime taradox.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
prime taradactyl
Messages with racist inclinations?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Hardcore pornography on channels that your children can access?
Blatant lies over the media?
I'm not trying to badger you, I only wanted to make sure that you were in fact serious about not censoring anything, being that it's a very, very broad term.
Censorship is not the correct means to go about that. You can't make a slippery slope argument here because everytime someone goes too far there's public outcry against it and the only reason the FCC exists is because the public demands it. When people lie in journalism usually it's the fact checkers that end up getting censored. The thing is, you have to look at who's doing the censoring, and I'd prefer to know that there's freedom of information and then take it in my own hands to protect my (illegitimate third world) children from watching things I don't think are appropriate.
People can say what they want, and do what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
If children want to view pornography, fine.
People lie blatantly - including you, what is the matter with the media, unless you actually consider it a valuable source of information?
I meant everything, it's all life, and what I said was obviously hypocritical, and I pointed that out.
That anything is censored in the miracle of existence, makes it an attractive perversion.
That's fine, just wanted to know your take on the issue. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
As a society, there are some things we all agree are wrong. Not to say they should be set in stone. As long as we continue to have the freedom to discuss right and wrong, and change our standards, we will maintain our freedom.
Censorship is a similar thing. We need to censor some things. We just need to make sure the system is transparent. We need to stay aware of the censorship, and change our standards when necessary.
Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say whatever you want. It means you are free to speak for or against the standards and laws we all share.
I for one, as an artist, would prefer all my work be banned in a very public way in order to maintain demand.
Can't men be with women that are simply "friends"? Does a man's view of women always have to be sexual or romantic?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKA
Yes they do. I don't condone pedophilia in any way whatsoever, but human beings have a sexual drive starting from the womb itself. Even fetuses masturbate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zera
Kind of like John Locke's philosophy that we should have the freedom to do what we want but also the protection of rules and government. It's wrong to do something that harms others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot_Butler
I don't think so, as hormones don't develop until early teens/teens.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
Yeah, I think he or she is confused slightly because males when in the womb can have an erection. However, I may be mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by SyluxJr
This is what I'm talking about.Quote:
The following quote was printed in the book The Clitoral Truth by Rebecca Chalker; it originally appeared in a letter in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 175, Sept 1996 page 753.
"We recently observed a female fetus at 32 weeks' gestation touching the vulva with fingers of [her] right hand. The caressing movement was centered primarily on the region of the clitoris. Movements stopped after 30 to 40 seconds, and started again after a few moments. Further, these light touches were repeated and were associated with short, rigid movements of the pelvis and legs. After another break, in addition to this behavior, the fetus contracted the muscles of the trunk and limbs, and the climax, clonicotonic movements [rapid muscle contractions] of the body, followed. Finally she relaxed and rested. We [several doctors and the mother] observed this behavior for about 20 minutes."
This raises the possibility that infant girls, as well as boys, may have some sexual awareness at birth. They may already know what sexual pleasure is and how to obtain it. Is it possible that fetal thumb sucking and masturbation are equally necessary and beneficial to the developing fetus? When an infant girl touches her vulva is she just then becoming aware of it or is she demonstrating what she learned or knew prior to birth? What are the psychological consequences of pushing her hand away? Would we do the same if she were sucking on her thumb? This one obscure record of fetal sexuality challenges our perceptions of human sexuality, if it does not in fact destroy them.
Almost every gay man I've ever met desired (sexually, if not romantically) straight men above all else, and I've known a lot of gay men. My own evidence says you are far from speaking for he entire male homosexual community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Why exactly do we need to censor some things? Aren't you just relieving people of the ability to make their own decisions about what it is they wish to be exposed to? Why should the government have any say at all in what I can and cannot look at?Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot_Butler
I'd really like to know exactly why pedophilia is wrong. Also, what makes you think their will be any escalation? Does an attraction to women necessarily escalate towards rape?Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot_Butler
Pedophilia is really an extreme cultural faux pas and not a disease at all. Our culture is against being attracted to young people but it is by no means an illness. In reality, it is natural. I think this website presents a clear example of how this is true.
I think what this really stems from is the physical and mental ease with which someone can over power and control a young person, thus making it easier for those with ill intent to take advantage of them. Basically our culture has decided that its so easy to rape a child that anyone showing attraction to children at all must be suspected of possibly wanting to rape one. Being a pedophile is not actually the same as being a rapist though, even though in our culture the words have been associated with each other.
It also shows our cultures opinion on a child's ability to make choices for his or her self. In many cultures, children are believed to make decisions, but in ours you are incapable of deciding anything for yourself until you are 18.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
So, your point is? Because some kids might have a sexual desire, does that make pphilia right? What's your deal?
First of all, I wasn't serious, you didn't have to look but two posts down to see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Second of all...
I would like to know how you could possibly know what all, or even a majority of all these men wanted. Are you sure you weren't just projecting BS fantasies of your own (that gay men want straight boys SOOO bad. Yeah, straight guys are so enticing. :roll: )? Above all else? Being straight was the end all of what they wanted? There was nothing else that these men you speak of sought for more in a partner than them being straight?
Yeah, OK, I believe you. I'm certain you aren't just making stuff up. Or at least you aren't grossly exaggerating your sample.
Most of them told me. The others I judged based on who they hit on, and whether or not they dressed up like a woman to try to fool straight marines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Also, I didn't say anything about a partner. I thought I made it clear that I was talking about purely sexual desires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zera
The argument "they have no sexual desires" and "they can't make decisions for themselves" is grossly overused.
They are usually both true, to a degree. But they seem to be used as an attempt to stop the entire discussion...
"THEY HAVE NO SEXUAL DESIRES, YOU'RE HORRIBLE, THREAD OVER!"
I just know that when a child has been sexually abused, it usually destroys their life completely.
That's the argument against abusive pedophilia, IMHO, and not those silly ones about what children can and what they can't.
^^ I agree that the main argument against pedophilia is the psychological damage it causes the children.
And children DO have sexual desires. Most people just don't want to admit it. :roll: Because for some perverted reason or another, sexuality is seen as something evil and dirty and children are oh much too pure for it... Christ.
Maeni, how old are you btw?
You really should start a thread. I'm extremely curious about you.
Hehe, pedocurious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
:P
Yo mama's pedocurious.
Don't you be talking about my pedocurious momma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Hah! xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Anyways, I'm 16.
I had a nice chat with Xyster in the DV chat yesterday about all this, and for once, it was actually a serious chat, and not just LOL LOLICON HURR DURR.
I don't really know what I should write in the thread :S
Some time ago, I was pretty close to making a thread in the Help section about it, but now I'm close to getting help from my teacher.
(This means she knows I have a problem, but I have to take the initiative to tell her about it all ;_; )
And now we're working on a project in school. And I have to write a report about homosexuality vs. pedophilia.
The problem about creating a thread is that I don't know shit about it myself. I'm pretty confused about all this myself.
Am I a control-type pedophile?
Is it because I'm going through omigawd-hormones-Phase?
Is it a disorder?
When did I become this? And have I always been like this?
Me: Oh come on, me, I'm me, I would never hurt anybody
Doubt: O'rly now...?
Me: Oh fuck I don't know now!
Me: Oh come on, me, I'm me, I would never hurt anybody...
Rinse and repeat.
Please say it ends when I exit puperty ;;
PS. I might make a thread, but I'll need ideas about what to say in it, then xP
I think everything I could fit into a thread has already been scattered about on the forum by myself.
Maeni, all I have to say is that you have the final say over your actions, even if not your attractions.
You're 16? You're not an adult yourself, so I don't think it'd be fair to label you as a pedophile. :? (Not an adult by U.S. standards, that is.)
Well the (silly) definition of 'Pedophile' is this:
* A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
* B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
* C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
(taken straight outa Wiki)
The real, the simple and good definition of 'Pedophile' is this:
One who is sexually attracted to children. (Children as in before puperty.)
And let me just say, that there's a big gab between a 16 year old and a 7 year old...
So saying that just because I'm young, I can't be a pedophile is silly.
I've had someone here on DV tell me it's pretty normal to be sexually attracted to people on my own age.
That's true. But if you consider 7 year olds "around my age" then that's just silly :V
Oh okay, I thought you were talking about being attracted to like 13 year olds, which in your case would seem fine to me.
But yes, it's clear to me now that you have a problem. But you realize this too, so I think there's hope for you yet.
That's nice :D
I'm still working on telling somebody, though...
Now I'm writing this project, yay finnally the snowball got rolling.
I'd show you peeps some of it.. But it's in Danish =_=
Thats cool, I speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
Did you even read what I wrote? All I was arguing against was the misguided notion that kids can't possibly have sexual thoughts. I am not arguing for pedophilia. Those are two different things. Get it straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zera
A man wants a woman, but he doesn't understand how anyone would want him.
It's a double double standard. Both straight and gay people (maybe) don't understand how one can be sexually attracted to the same or opposite sex, respectively; both straight men and women (maybe) can't understand how the other sex could love their own sex.
This thread is incredible comedy.
It's amazing how people can't even define the word paedophile. It's even more amazing that people can't tell the difference between a paedophile and a child molestor.
I'm sorry I just had to bump this, but utter stupidity in action is always very funny.
I don't see what's so stupid about it, nor how fine line semantics are very applicable.
Fuck it, who really cares? This thread hasn't received too many of the mature and insightful posts about the original topic, compared to the abundant sideline comments about offshoot definitions.
Gloom gloom.
Re: the OT,
ClouD, it's probably the last thing you want to hear, but there's a good chance that if you don't make an effort to sustain your interest in boys, you'll grow out of it. Just anecdotally, I've known a few people (including me) who were bi or even gay in their teens and early 20s and are now more like a .5 on the Kinsey scale (0/6 being exclusively hetero). One of my close relation's ex-bfs is now pretty much his wingman. Some people are very solidly homo or hetero, but for a lot of us who have spent some time in the middle, it's more about where life takes you.
Women think on a completely different plane in my opinion. They don't like video games, gorey movies, computers ect. I would have no similiar interests. (of course I'm only speaking of the chicks I know)Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Males are familiar in their thinking process, because I am a male as well. The sex drives are also familiar because I have them too. (OMG!! you jerked off while looking at porn???..... aren't I.... pretty enough????)
Love of beer helps, I don't know many chicks that love beer, but my partner does and will drink it with me. I just think chicks make better friends. I have never had much success living with one for long.
What's the problem? That in today's modern societies his sexual preference is not accepted? That's his problem? Not so long ago me and my partner would have been stoned to death for being gay. So, not that many years ago, would I have had a problem Mes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
How about also not that long ago, the white guy who was attracted to black women, he would also have a problem? Correct?
Our sexual norms are defined by the society that we live in. Back in the day, sex was common among boys and their teacher. (you know that greek stuff) Do we think that it was destructive back then? Or since it was the society norm, maybe it wasn't?
Mes, it just seems really insulting for you to say that he has a problem. How do you know what would be a problem now, if the religious leaders over the last 100s of years didn't demonize sex? We don't know.
Right now his only problem is how to live life without giving into urges. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating child abuse whatsoever. But sex is completely based on the way the society has evolved. This society has evolved to demonize sex.
BTW, Mes, not trying to pick on you, but I would love to hear your thoughts :)
Self righteous prudishness may exacerbate the stigma upon pedos, but that hardly means it's not a problem in any other sense. Among other things, Maeni has the problem of lacking a healthy sexual outlet. For him to have expression, even via pornography, someone has to be grievously harmed (the vast majority of people who have sexual contact with adults during childhood have plenty of problems).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakjavik
True. But he has already said he has at least one outlet which is drawings (loli). I guess what I meant was that he doesn't have a mental disease. It is a problem, but a problem in the same way that being born a jew in Germany was during Hitler's reign. Not something you can control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Ah, well yeah, 19 days 'till therapy.
And when Mes said I had a problem, I kinda took it as the problems paedophilia brings with it.
Either it's a teenage phase, and I will be normal by the end, or
It's just how my sexuality is, in which case I'll learn to live with it
It's impossible to change a persons sexuality, so my paedophilia is not what I'm trying to "cure", but it has brought me other problems, which I wish to be rid of, and learn to cope with in the future.
(Stress, anxiety when children are present, sudden lack of motivation, random depress-attacks, rage attacks - Stuff like that.)
And to Rakjavik, I partly agree :P
I think the media enhances what's happening.
Child abuse was probably still harmful back when nobody gave a shit - But now the media is here to enhance the harmfulness, which makes it seem worse now than it was back then.
But other than that, yeah, Gays have gotten acceptance, it should be us next :V
It might be impossible to move purposefully from point A to point B (i.e. declare "I'm going to like adult women only"), but neither is sexuality a fixed quantity, especially during adolescence. Sexuality develops and changes over time, and who attracts you now is not necessarily who will attract you ten years from now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping for ;D
Especially because I'm in puperty, so there's alot of potential for getting back to "normal".
However, that's out of my control - So if it's going to change, cool. If it doesn't, so be it.
always? really? so when you were like 3 months old you were attracted to...fetuses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
HAHA sry sry
anyway, boys...so confused, so lost, the world against them, expecting so much from them, so sweet, caring, almost angelic...
trampled on by modern day american society, and ugly, baseless prejudices, despicable thoughtless hatred...like a big black military boot crushing a tender young daisy.
that is why I like boys. well, the particular type that I like.
:)
nature/nurture?
bit of both?
i can be attracted to a bowl of snot -- i don't see why you can't 'change' sexuality.
If that is true there is probably something wrong with your brain, ClouD I'm serious. After brain injuries people have been known to hump pavement.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
I hate people like you. You think just because your sexuality is different than other sexualities you think everyone else in the world must have the same sexual framework as you. You're like those religious numbnutz who are mostly straight but have slight homosexual tendencies and then think because they "fight off" their slight attraction to the same sex that gay people are like them, able to be straight but choosing to be gay. When I was a teenager I spent hours trying to be attracted to women.(Also, I don't hate you, I just mean I hate that that mentality is out there. "Oh my sexuality isn't fixed and is easy to change therefor everyone elses must be too")
I have a question for Maeni though, are you just not attracted to older girls (your age or older I mean) at all?
i'm not fighting any urge!
just saying that if i can make that choice, what is stopping others?
it seems more a limitation than a benefit.
No, but like them your sexuality is different than someone else's and you think everyone's sexuality must be like yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
When I was in high school I really wanted to be straight and I tried really hard to even just like women, I didn't care if I was still attracted to guys, I just wanted to like women so I could lead a heterosexual life. I spent countless hours trying to like women and it never happened.
What is stopping others? Other people aren't like you. We can't find a bowl of snot sexually appealing.
i'm saying i think that's a limitation and not a benefit.
sexuality is labels for preference, not a limitation on free will. (or if you will, 'definition' for preference -- let's not argue semantics)
i can choose to enjoy celery, or to not enjoy it, saying that i don't have a choice whether to like it seems a great way to shift responsibility. sort of like that idea of god existing.
just a change in perspective. you can change likes/dislikes through hypnotherapy too.
it's not ZOMGIMPOSIBBLESESES
Maybe for you it isn't. But for me it is. Trust me, my parents sent me to a shrink for quite a while to turn me straight. Didn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
I think he likes girls Sandform ;)Quote:
I have a question for Maeni though, are you just not attracted to older guys (your age or older I mean) at all?
shrink and hypnotherapy aren't always so synonymous
Of course, how could I not have seen it. Being gay, straight, or bi, is just like believing in God. Everyone can enjoy any kind of food just by wanting to. And everyone who is gay or straight or bi was first labeled that and that is why they now follow what those words describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
I never argued that labels are meant to be a limitation. What you don't get is that your label changes whenever you change. When I get old and my hair turns grey (although if I have my dads genetics that wont happen) I'll be a grey haired guy instead of a brown haired guy. But there are some labels that never change. For example, if my hair never turns grey, I'll still be brown haired. If I never lose my arms I'll never be armless. If I keep my eyesight I wont be blind. Just because your label is like an etch-a-sketch doesn't mean everyone else's is. I'm not even really sure why you call it a label, like being green eyed is a "label."
As for hypnotism, no offense but even mythbusters busted that BS.
I don't know the name for grey haired people. Brunette, blonde, etc.
@rak and maeni, lul that is my bad, I meant girls.
hypnotism busted by mythbusters lmao...
hypnotherapy is accepted medically. /fin
and the god comment was relating to shifting responsibility.
pepepepe
Past life regression. /finQuote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
But I'll go on.
Tests that prove it doesn't help memory at all.
The various studies that prove it provides false memories.
fucking, i'm so not arguing the validity of hypnotherapy.
you're such a nit picker too!
ClouD, I find it really strange that you can change your sexuality like that. You sure you arent just pretending, or consciously trying really hard to find the good parts about these things? Could you induce a boner by making yourself sexually attracted to any random object? If you can, that's awesome - But I can't.
And as for the labels... If my sexuality changes, I'll rip off the label and put a new one on.
I don't really understand your fight about these labels.
I haven't always been exclusive, as in, I've been able to find both adults, teenagers and children sexually attractive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
But nowadays, I find children to be the most, and then teenagers a slight bit, and adults not at all.
I used to be able to jerk off to woman when I was young because it was the first piece of porn I'd ever come across. So just the fact that it was sex was enough to turn me on. But as we grow in our sexuality, I think we find out our preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
I haven't jerked off to women in a verrrrrrry long time. Hehe.
Haha oh god I can do that too. ClouD and I are exactly alike :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
You can find anything sexually attractive? You could enjoy sex with a zebra or a decaying corpse? You could enjoy it thinking about the objects in question? Like...OH yes, OH YES! you hairy zebra, check out those stripes, oh yes, your rear end is so warm and tight, oh yeah, ZEBRA SEX! Or, oh yes, check out those maggots, yes oh maggots. DECOMPOSING BODYYYYY! You could enjoy it to the same extent you enjoy anything else? Could you find an infant attractive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Can you also not find something attractive? If a hot guy or girl crosses your path you could find them equally unappealing as a 500 pound gorilla? This seems to be at odds with the vast number of teenage boys who have an erection when exposed to exposed boobies and just can't seem to make it go away unless they think of something other than boobies or the boobies go away. In some cases it only goes away when the boobies go away, regardless of if they try to think of something else.
I find it hard to understand this mentality since I have tried to find something unappealing attractive, and not even something as absurd as bestiality, and failed.
It isn't so much that I don't imagine it is possible, it is just that I know for a fact that it doesn't apply to everyone (since it doesn't apply to me). For the majority of people I have met, as well, this ability is not present.
Are you really enjoying it at this moment? Or are you forcing a feeling that doesn't belong in the first place? Because attraction and the emotions and the feeling that comes along with it, are more natural rather than something fabricated. Forcing a feeling isn't really a true feeling, you're just trying to convince yourself consciously of a feeling that your subconscious doesn't agree with, which means it's unreal anyway. Just a thought. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
If you consider something "unappealing" I don't see how it could be appealing at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
That is the dis-ability, imo.
Really, we're all just talking shit though, no?
It's all about semantics of free will blah blah blah, that anything could be a choice, and I'm not about to argue nature vs nuture like a youtubefag watching bestiality, which isn't really what this thread was about in the first place.
It's about why boys are attractive, looking for some 'nature'-side reasons, even though that is hypocritical of me.
Depends whether you like androgenous boys or muscle-ridden boys.
If you like androgenous I guess you could argue that they remind you of chicks.
If they're muscular you could argue that you're attracted to the image of 'a provider' and the alpha male.
Or, maybe, you like ugly muscle-y women, too.
I haven't ever really thought of any guys as sexually attractive, though i joke around. I think that a straight man can find one guy they are attracted to, but not sexually attracted.
Why does anyone give a damn about what other people like or don't?
Just do what you want - but if you harm someone or abuse someone, then the law should blast your sick brains out.
+100Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Maybe the fact that they are care free..simple. Just guessing that might have a psychological attraction, desiring to be around what you mentioned is completely normal, except manifest in children. But I'm sure if you wait around long enough you will find a girl that will share those sort of attributes. If you find that you like boys more than girls, whatever. Do what ever makes you happy man, that's my advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Oh my, this thread.
Marisa, Marisa tasukete Marisaaaa~
I'm just thinking.
Don't mind me.
I know why I like boys. Many reasons for that, the most important ones being: quick sexual development, playing with male cousins too much, getting a 'no' from a girl too early.
I like boyish boys, not manly ones. Not really because they remind me of chicks, but because they look younger. I think society and raising managed to put the dislike for males in me partly. I also dislike crossdressers for the matter.
That said, I'm kinda bi-curious about girls.
So Kromoh and ClouD are boylovers?
I thought I was the only one here before I found this thread.
8 - 14 years old
I love them in every way possible.
Hah I prefer them older. Anywhere from 12-17. Might sound normal, but I've always like boys younger than me; as I aged, so did my likes.
As normal as being sexually attracted to 12 year old children may sound, it's not :(.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
No it is not. Be very very careful. Admitting to being a "failed creation" may lead to you being labeled a child molestor. :roll:
As normal as being sexually attracted to 22yo girls with big boobs and ass, it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
Normal died in a fire, man.
Liar. It died of AIDS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Sigh....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I had said that originally, but then edited it thinking the mods wouldn't like it. lulzQuote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
I know you did. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
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.
I do not see how reproduction is natural. It's only what survives with time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
The only natural is to not exist at all.
Yah yah, you're actually right. Just imagine that I never mentioned "Natural".Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
Only "Normal."
:U
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Sorry :p
Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
So keep your little seakittens away from me. I'm not into that :P
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
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. :)
Yeah, you make sense really. I just didn't like your wording.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
Unfortunately nothing I wrote was subjective. Anyway that was my input, now I'll leave you guys to it :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand
The fact that gays don't choose to like the same sex is reason enough to force anyone to accept them, regardless of religion or belief. I do not see how this is different at all from people who like children (avoiding the term "pedo" for political correctness). Only because I'm gay it doesn't mean I'll go out and rape the first boy I see. Same thing with liking children.
This thread just became quite funny when a typical anti hopped in.
Just for the fun and games, tell us why it is like this, and then prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand
Please?
We need a good word for it.Quote:
(avoiding the term "pedo" for political correctness)
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.
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/n...eenshot-16.jpg
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 :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
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
We totally need a word for it. Maybe we should make a thread about the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand
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.
Not proven, that's your belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by theyearthreethousand
Yes. Except replace boys with girls.Quote:
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?
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.
Completely irrelevant. None of us think this. And you have no reason to think that we think so.Quote:
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.
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
That's just a lie. Get a grip.Quote:
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.
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?
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.Quote:
I direct this to all the crazy paedo's here who think liking little kids is cool. I realise I am out numbered.
I have, both my parents know, and they seem to try and ignore it.Quote:
Have any of you told your friends/family yet? Let me know how it goes.
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.)
Well, it's a genetic "aberration". Or mutation if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
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
It has been proven to be genetic, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.
I didn't understand that at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
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.
Debate scares you?
I suppose not, I just lost track of my own arguments and forgot where I was heading. And why I wanted there not to be a gay-gene.
I think, initially, I was just trying to say that nobody really knows why some people are attracted to different things.
Why are scientists wasting their precious time and money researching for the gay gene, anyway? They could be searching for the allergy gene, the aggressive gene, the ethics gene, the intelligence gene, etc.
Obviously because aggression is an instict, and we already know what it is.
And because science researches everything, and doesn't run away from the topics certain people don't like.
They are researching all of those "genes", as well as scientists have particular fields. It makes sense to be as broad in the medical field as possible, rather than putting all of our scientists on any select gene whilst neglecting research in another. Knowledge is power :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Not to mention you can't such say "[insert anything here] gene".
That is because we don't know if it's a single gene, a combination of genes, a combination of genes and environment, or environment purely. That's what I meant in my post. Allergy gene? There are so many different types of allergy it's even dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Girls aren't complicated, they just try to be. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maroon_Sweater
Random statement of the day. I'm not so sure I completely, actually at all, agree with this. Big generalisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
Eight-year-olds, Dude.
http://i523.photobucket.com/albums/w...s_quintana.jpg
I agree with it, actually. Maybe because I've grown up amidst so many women (maybe not), I don't think women complicated at all. As in, they aren't complicated to analyse, but like to complicate things for themselves. Nothing like the straightforwardness and logical intuition of a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
The only reason, at least in my opinion, to say that women are complicated/more complicated than men is if you haven't really tried to understand the opposite gender as well as you could. If you truely take the time to understand the way women think, it's not all that complicated.
right.. so without reading anything not on the first page, I will attempt to solve everyone's problems in this thread.
Cloud: So you like boys, good on ya. If you decide you don't later on, its all good too.
No-name: Really? You're gay? No offense but didn't see that one coming.
Maeni: Stand up for yourself more. Don't let people judge you, its not their business.
Jeff: I KNOW RIGHT? WHO WOULD HAVE KNOW NN LIKED GUYS!
Kromoh: You don't have problems, except your avatar.
See, now wasn't that helpful?
I feel straight most of the time, but I see where you're coming from. I feel I can connect better with guys. Woman can be a pain.
Im not gay. But i do find it easier to make friends with another male rather than a female. That's because guys dont talk as much/show as much emotion so theres really not a whole lot of drama, just good old fashioned companionship
You're all faggots
My opinion on this is that human sexuality can be attracted to anything it wants to. There are humans who are sexually attracted to horses. Does that mean their attraction is natural? The FOS I use is that if you were a feral child who was raised by cows, then you'd certainly be sexually attracted by cows. The same can apply to everything... sometimes I got aroused when my mother carressed my hair. Does that mean I was attracted to her? Likewise, some people get aroused when they carress children. The point I'm trying to make is that if you fixate on that feeling, if you fixate on the feeling of being aroused, then you're gonna trap yourself into a psychological prison of rigid lines and you're gonna make yourself believe that you can only feel attraction for this, and not for that, while in reality, sexuality is more like water than like stone.
This is the biggest problem for people to realize, to stop being guilty over what they feel, to stop fixating on what they feel for, and understand feeling for what it simply is: feeling itself. If you can do this, then you can have peadophilic feelings, animalistic feelings, incestual feelings, and everything else under the stars, but keep yourself under control in the understanding that although the feelings are expressed in the mind, they should stay within the mind as well. In the end, sexual feelings are very innocent and go back to the time when we are children, being carressed by our parents and loved ones. The problem starts when you mature, and sexual feelings develop a physical outlet (erect penis/vagina). The problem, of course, is more difficult for men to control because the penis is an exerting force, while the vagina is more of a force of innertia, which is why men are more prone to sexually abuse people or rape. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to control desires if you are a man... it just means it is harder.
So what is the solution: to retain that innocence, retain the innocent feeling of childhood sexuality without letting it be overwhelmed by the more sinful changes that come with maturity, and to try and controll one's desires unless they are used on a person who is suitable and won't do him/her anyone any deep psychological harm.
If we understand human nature for what it is (much more complicated than anyone knows, and much less structured than what people make it out to be), then we can control ourselves and reach a point of equilibrium with our individual natures. That balance, that equilibrium, for me, lies when the positive force of manhood and the negative force of womanhood combine into one through sexual act. Any other sexual connection, to me, will never reach the level of purity and equilibrium as that when a man and a woman converge. But each to his own.
Fixation will make a person believe anything he/she wants to, and overlook the fact that they are anything they want to be, and not one thing in particular.
An amazing first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Siblesz
Welcome to DV.
Amazing 1,010th post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fableflame
Please continue
hahaha, the words of a budding lesbianQuote:
Originally Posted by juroara
im not homo sexual, i dont find any attraction to guys, but i think i would do a M>F tranny if she had looked enough like a girl
Hmm. Seems pretty homosexual to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheogorath
No, not really. If you look away from the DNA it's pretty much a girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshoppa
you would probably like a hentai called "bible black"Quote:
Originally Posted by sheogorath
and maybe you, too, khh - lol
back on topic answering your question "Why do I like boys" you can only know try putting some work into it on figuring why you do. In my case I do to and thats because of their personality and appearance too :P.
Though anyways I'm into younger guys 12 -> and up (also animals) I've had a very hard time accepting it specially because I always went to religious schools, and anyways I was this way since I have memory o.O but now I can cope with it, I have some theories why it can happen yeah.
Children can and do have sexual feelings. Often these feelings aren't associated with actual acts, like sex itself. Often they're only feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by SyluxJr
Even if you argue that children should be allowed to make their own decisions, an adult having sex with a child is wrong. Most children think of all adults as authority figures who are supposed to protect them, and even if a child seems to willingly have sex with you it may be out of fear, or out of some idea that they have to do whatever adults tell them to do, and they'll probably have to deal with extreme feelings of guilt and shame later. It's taking advantage, and it will lead to psychological issues in those children later in life.
Is it wrong to be sexually attracted to children as long as you don't do anything? If that's the way you feel, you can't help it. Just make sure you don't end up obsessing over that feeling to the point when your desire to satisfy it outweighs your courtesy for the wellbeing of others.
Dude, I'm a lesbian and I think some MtF trannies can be really hot. For example, Isis, a transgendered contestant that was on America's Top Model (not that I watch that show, btw-- no hetero). You couldn't even tell she used to be a man.Quote:
im not homo sexual, i dont find any attraction to guys, but i think i would do a M>F tranny if she had looked enough like a girl
I love you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebullere
Haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
I like boys as well.
SecondedQuote:
Originally Posted by CarmineEternity
I'm really suprised... I figured this thread would be full of 'fa*got!' and 'f**kin pedo'... yet it turns out this board is relatively understanding.
As far as I go, I'm not sure how I feel about this... I'm pretty good with kids, and most call me the big curly guy... or just curly (I'm real tall, with long curly hair)They're fun loving, funny, kinda cute... but i'm not sure I could say, even to myself, that there is any REAL atraction to boys... I just couldn't see my self doing anything like that, even if kid was into it... it would be super wierd... it's really wierd and kinda disturbing for me to even comprehend.
p.s. even before puberty males and females can reach orgasm... just to clear up that argument. And I remember even when I was young (7-12) kinda messing around with me and others. So the potential is there IMO, but it still a very VERY touchy subject... expecially if the child is hurt emotionally or physically. 'Cause I know of 'couples' who are 11 or 12 yo and already kinda dipping into experiences like that.
Still, super touchy... and SUPER illegal. Child molesters are looked down on even in prisons by their inmates... and many are constantly harrased... or even killed!
Big no no in western society!
I'm not gay, just extremely attracted to transvestites. I like them because of their femine qualities. I am attracted to feminine qualities period.
but one reason why i like guys, is they are much more friendlier to me. I can't even look or say hi to arandom woman without being called a creep or a loser. Guys are generally ok with me just being friendly. which is why i have more guy friends than girls.
I agree. Femininity is hot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Man of Shred
I'm not sure this is about liking boys as much as it is about liking the same sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by mindwanderer
Everywhere except DreamViews :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mindwanderer
<3
Paedophilia is the new gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
:roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idolfan
My thoughts exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
I agree. It's funny, because so many societies practised pederasty in the past, I wonder what made it retreat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idolfan
am i the only one that noticed this?
maybe you should talk to someone about that, bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by mowglycdb
So yeah back ontopic
-------------------
Idk why you like boys jake. I like girls myself but i would imagine you could like boys because of the familiarity.
And ive got no problem with that. You can sex who ever you want. Although if its an animal i might call you a weirdo. and babies are a no no. But if you want to kiss guys, thats fine with me, for for it..
Lack of pederastic relationships = More people get married = Supression of the pederastic archetype = Lack of a male hero figure (fathers suck) = More people develop an attachment to their deity = The church makes more moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
You can narrow down pretty much any cultural change to natural selection by the church.
Or, people just started to find pederasty pretty much disgusting.
I think I must be just a natural born boylover. And provided he loves your touch too, I think it's absolutely beautiful...
Most people who call themselves pederasts or boylovers say it is a completely different sexuality to just being gay. I know where they're coming from.
Most boys aren't interested in having sex with older guys. 90% of them aren't interested in having sex with guys in general. Which means the majority of cases end up being like this:
(Don't listen to this if you are disturbed easily. Some rather disgusting stuff is discussed in this video)
Why don't we practice this in our society? Because it isn't easy to find a child and an adult who can have a relationship that isn't damaging for the boy's mental health.
(Well, at least not at young ages. 16 year olds and 18+ seem to hit it off fine.)
So I take it that the majority of contacts are acts of MOLESTATION? Only because they are the only ones that actually get REPORTED?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Mind you, 'molestation' can mean anything from being fucked up the arse six times a day trapped in a cellar to being kissed by a clergyman these days.
Well, thanks for providing a completely irrelevant example. So, I guess if I were to show you a testimony of a woman who was fondled by a man, we should all start saying that straight people are EVIL? GREAT fucking logic!
So, if an adult and a child had a close relationship (yeah, it's nice to start out with one of those before you start groping people), you think that would play out much the same way would you?
The reason I find this so insulting is because you know you are being ignorant by framing paedophiles under this molestation case, but you are doing it because you KNOW that everyone will agree with you, because of the innately negative stigma associated with paedophiles?
I think that in Ancient Greece if a man were to just come up to a boy and start touching his pee pee parts without consent, THAT would raise a few eyebrows even in those times, and the thing is... YOU KNOW IT!!!
I have never even proposed that it is 'okay' for someone to make sexual advances on a child. It is only 'okay' if it does not harm the child and it is beneficial to both parties. If it is not, then FAIR DOS. The point is you're deliberately and KNOWINGLY generalising child molestors with paedophiles. How would you like it if I generalised rapists with straight people? You fucking wouldn't, so don't do it!
Ps. anyone who was disturbed by that video is seriously weak minded. Welcome to Earth, haven't you fucking seen it before?
Ha ha! Sorry, I have a tendency to post before I watch the whole thing.
(but everything I said in the last posts still counts Sandform the Ssssssssnake)
I pissed myself when he said he kicked the guy in the nuts XD XD XD
If it were me I'd go along with it. Then once he had his cock in my mouth I'd chomp down on it as hard as I could and LACERATE it!
His mother's a FUCKING BITCH. If she said that to me I'd punch the bitch in the face and then piss on her, fucking imboselic prick. No seriously, I hope that she died/s REALLY FUCKING PAINFULLY.
I LOVE fantasising like this! It gets me high!
I mean like the Pope today! You don't have a clue. I hope I am never in any distance of him because if I was it would bring out a part in me that I couldn't live with afterwards. The stuff I imagine myself doing to him scares me...
How can you not follow the logic? Under 10% of boys are even possibly interested in having sex with older men, of this less than 10% men have to decipher which boys are and are not interested, which, if you didn't know, is hard to do even among grown men, and then after all of this once they find a boy that could want them, the kid has to like the guy. Mind you this is all in the hopes of finding one boy.
Meanwhile most child molesters will molest many more than just one boy before getting caught. In fact it goes as high as an average of over 100 boys molested per offender.
I think you're confusing my statements about the people involved and the actual cases involved. I'm not framing anyone, I'm saying that it is quite difficult to find a boy who wants to partake in these kinds of relationships, which is why you don't see these relationships often.
I find nothing weak minded about being disturbed that a young boy has to live for years being raped and constantly sexually abused...
That's fine then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
I just thought you were confusing paedophiles with child molestors; which isn't really that uncommon even for smart people.
I believe that you are right as well. That just leaves the boylover with an insatiable dilemma, that it's just a retard sexuality.
:(:(:(:(:(
I guess then it must just be exercised in different ways. Surely a man and a boy can at least have a loving relationship... even if it's not sexual?
I also have to protest that I do believe kissing is still appropriate. When I was a boy I would kiss anyone; it's just a natural form of affection. Surely we can't go as far as to say that such a proportion of boys only would want that? Taken away from, environmental gayfearing factors, that is.