[Fett]

PREPARE yourself, filthy beast of meat and hair! You're magical LOVE adventure begins NOW!

[Fett]

Please go into detail of how you coloured that. Thank you. ^_^

[Fett]

Please bear in mind that I am foreign and I have absolutely no idea what is going on.

[Fett]

At what point did I say I disagree?

Precisely what you say is disgusting: coercing or forcing children into sexual acts is depraved.

But just thinking about or being turned on by it is a completely different matter to participating in it.

[Fett]

It's one thing to have an urge, or get aroused by something….

This is exactly my point. It's one thing to get an urge, or become aroused by child pornography – but it's a completely different thing to rape a child.

The former is tragic, the latter is perverse.

If you ask a random stranger "Which is worse?"
Child porn
or
Female body builders
You can bet that a huge percentage of them will vote for child porn.

I'd be astonished if it wasn 100%. But my point was exactly this – if you claim that because "a huge percentage" people claim child porn is worse than fbbs that makes child porn qualitavely worse, then surely, if I were to go on the street and ask "which is worse? Hollywood Hotties (for lack of a better description) or fbbs", "a huge percentage" of people would say fbbs are worse. Which would therefore mean being aroused by fbbs is somehow 'worse' than the hotties of Hollywood.

But that's not true. It's not 'worse' to fancy a muscular woman over a glamourous one.

So if the problem is not in what arouses you, then the problem must be in what you do to those who arouse you. In the case of children, you can't do any sexual act with them that isn't molestation. Therefore, the distinction becomes very slight indeed. But it's still there.

"What's right for you might not be right for me (or vise versa)."  Post-modernism shows that there are no REAL moral values and it makes me sick….  Yes, we do have rights….  but there IS a right and there IS a wrong….

I totally agree. "A finer world is a small thing to ask for."

I mean for example I lost my virginity at 14, like that statistic, and I was consenting because I didn't have a fucking CLUE what I was getting into, and for the rest of my life I will regret it…
Though I do agree.. maybe lowering it to 14 means kids would be less scared to ask about it and there'd be less teen pregnancies and STIs and such..

It's what the studies seem to think. Given my own, and most likely your own experiences too, it strikes me the studies may be right.

People are very repressed about sexuality, in general. Every fbb board I got to seems to have the "does anyone know about your fetish?" thread…

[Fett]

DCM – NAMBLA?  I've heard of them, but forgot.  Heh…it probably was them…

Fett – I can't completely agree with everything you said (and I'm not mad or angry…just replying to some things you said).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=paedophilia  it doesn't mention anything about just arousal

Actually it says "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object". It doesn't state that paedophilia is the sexual acts of those perversions. Again, a damn fine hair.

I'm sorry but whenever this topic comes up I think about my younger siblings, and thinking that someone out there would want to beat off or have intercourse with them at such a young age makes me want to gag.

While that's your right to exercise, I'd like to state why I'm standing on my little soap box here.

This entire forum is dedicated to a sexual fetish towards muscular physiques on women. A lot of people think this is "sick". The reasons it's sick is because "it's like fucking a man" (implying homosexuality is also "sick") which is pretty much the same argument why paedophilia is sick, "it's fucking a kid".

I can't say, "No, femuscle isn't sick, because I like it" while deride and judge others for having a sexual perversion/fetish that I find sick because I don't like it.

Just because one person finds the objects of someone's sexual desire sick, doesn't give the right to judge them on that desire.

However, any acts they pursue, if immoral or vile (such as rape or molestation) can, should, and must be judged by the proper laws of our society.

So, I suppose the reason I'm rolling up my sleeves and kind of playing devil's advocate here is simply because we, as a community, are often leveled with the same judgmental attitudes that paedophiles have. And if we can't treat those further from the mainstream with the dignity and respect they deserve (rapists wouldn't deserve dignity or respect), how can we expect others to treat us any differently?

That's why I'm arguing a pedantic point – not to justify rape, but to separate sexual desire from sexual crime.

Fneh. I've gone on long enough. Thanks for the courteous responses.

[Fett]

Cheers, guys! 🙂

[Fett]

Just in case someone thinks I'm an advocate of paedophilia or beastiality, let me clarify.

I'm splitting a very fine hair in order to not be a hypocrite.

Paedophilia is sexual arousal for prepubsecent children. Now, one could argue this is sick because it's not natural or immoral. Unfortunately, this argument is used against homosexuality and interracial relationships; saying black people can't have sex with oriental people, for example. The definition of "natural" seems to be somewhat in the eye of the beholder, and often hypocritical. Surely, the most natural sexual relationship is between two loving adults, one male, one female, with no form of aphrodisiac or contraception, with the intent to reproduce. Therefore sexual intercourse with condoms would be "unnatural". As would having sex for any purpose other than producing offspring. To be honest, if someone said, "homosexuality is unnatural" and said person only ever had sex for reproductive purposes, I would disagree with them, but I would not argue, as their point is valid and not hypocritical. However, if someone says "homosexuality is unnatural" but they've had sex for a reason other than reproduction, they would be a hypocrite, and their point would be invalid.

So, paedophilia, the sexual arousal of children, I have to say, I don't think is 'evil'.

However, performing any sexual act with a child, is evil because it's not consentual – it is rape. Rape is a physical sexual violation, and a truly despicable act. But since sexual acts with children is ALWAYS rape, it in turn, makes paedophilia a form of inherent rape.

It's that very slight hair I'm splitting. A paedophile who never acts on their impulses, who spends their life alone and unloved because they know sexual acts with children is wrong, and therefore lives an unloved life, to me, is a tragic figure.

So, I hope I've made myself patently clear. I'm being very pedantic, splitting a very fine hair – that being sexually aroused by children is not wrong, but any sexual act with a child is wrong – just so I can not be a hypocrite. I can say paedophilia is okay, but rape is not and still be ethically sound since no paedophile can act on their sexuality without committing rape.

So, I hope this makes sense and I don't get a reply of, "You think it's okay to fuck kids?! You're sick! I hope your penis falls off, you sick muther fucker!" and what not.

Eh, it probably would've been easier not to say anything.

[Fett]

I'm really sorry to bother you good people on this matter, but I'm really REALLY concerned about this…

On the news this morning, I saw a blurb saying that a group (didn't catch who) wanted to change the legal age limit for concensual sex from 16 down to 12…AND they wanted to legalize child porn and animal sex…

What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are this –

Lowering the consentual age for sex from 16 to 12 may be a bit much – 14 is probably much more appropriate. But 12 isn't too bad.

The reason is this – most people think that if you say, "12 year olds can legally participate in consentual sex acts" that they will suddenly be fucking everyone as soon as they hit 12 years old, or will be raped more often. Both of these are false. Firstly, those who want to fuck 12 year olds most likely aren't deterred by the statutory rape legislation. Secondly, it's actually been researched that lower ages of sexual consent result in fewer teen pregnancies and that the average age of when a child loses their virginity actually increases – in other words if you lower the sexual age of consent, kids will have sex later on in their lives. In countries like Spain where the age of consent is 14, viriginty is lost at around 16 or 17 on average (if I recall correctly) whereas in the UK, where the age of consent is 16, virginity is lost around 14 or 15.

The reason is this – when a child hits puberty (around 12 years old) their body tells them "You want sex and can have romantic feelings towards other people" while society says that this is immoral and illegal. This results in two things occurring – first the child unhealthily represses their sexuality driving it underground – should the child participate in sexual acts they are less likely to seek precautions or advice for fear of being put in trouble, which results in stds and pregnancies and other problems. The other thing that occurs is that having sex before the age of consent becomes a taboo and because it's underground, it becomes cool. Because of this, kids are put into peer pressure to have sex at an earlier age than the age of consent.

Now, this isn't true in every case, but the sheer number of teen pregnancies goes to show that the age of consent doesn't seem to work in preventing kids from having sex – it just prevents them from having safe sex.

So, for those reasons; promoting a healthier and safer sexual attitude in children, I'd say lowering the age of consent to 12 is probably too much, and 14 would be effective and appropriate.

As for my thoughts on child porn and animal sex… I am totally, 100% in support of legalising these two acts. And necrophilia.

So long as all parties involved are capable and do indeed, consent to those sexual acts. If the parties involved cannot consent, this is molestation and rape.

This is how I feel – any sexual act is okay provided that all parties involved are consenting to said sexual act and are aware of that act. (One cannot legislate what one can become sexually aroused by, only the way in which they participate in such acts.)

HOWEVER, since children (i.e. humans who have not under gone puberty) are unaware of sex and do not possess the faculties to understand sex, they cannot consent to sexual acts. Animals are not capable of consenting to sexual acts with humans, and neither are corpses.

So, unless you could break the laws of nature, paedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality are just plain wrong. In my book, they're not wrong because of who's having sex with what, but because it's quite simply, rape.

I hope that makes sense.

[Fett]

lol

It's odd, because their accent could end all wars. I love it.

[Author]

Posts