Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
Oh, my apologies. It appears you didn’t actually give a number, only replying to someone who did. All you said was that it was “perfectly natural” to fantasize about fucking anyone who was old enough to know what masturbation is.
What would you say is the lower bound for normality then?
fantasize about fucking anyone who was old enough to know what masturbation is.
Again, blatantly lying about what I said. It never ceases to amaze me how much people will just deny reality in order to cling to irrational beliefs.
What would you say is the lower bound for normality then?
? I’ve already explicitly stated it. Right in the first post. You had to have read it to get here. Can you explain to me exactly what you don’t understand say I can phrase it better for you? I don’t see how just repeating myself will get it through to you this time.
Being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal.
I am all for protecting minors and 100% support laws that criminalizes adults having sexual contact with them, but I think we do a disservice to people’s mental health to paint normal, healthy physical attractions as being deviant.
How am I supposed to interpret that, if not to mean that you think it’s not only okay but perfectly normal to want to fuck anyone who’s started puberty so long as you don’t actually do it?
I’ve already explicitly stated it.
Last I checked, “pubescent” wasn’t a number, and when I called you out on the number the person you were replying to (and largely agreeing with) said, you accused me of putting words in your mouth. So what is it?
How am I supposed to interpret that, if not to mean that you think it’s not only okay but perfectly normal to want to fuck anyone who’s started puberty so long as you don’t actually do it?
Primary physical attraction to tanner stage ii and iii adolescents is perfectly normal and healthy. In the same way being gay is normal and healthy: its rarer, but it doesn’t represent a sexual disorder. Almost certainly at some point in your adult life you’ve found one physically attractive, although this does not make you a hebephile, as that requires a primary attraction.
It’s interesting because whenever I have this debate it reminds me of how the homophobes who are the loudest when condemning homosexuality, are often the most turned on by gay porn. I question why you have such a visceral reaction to the facts.
Last I checked, “pubescent” wasn’t a number,
Omg, you’re so close! You can get there, I have faith.
Primary physical attraction to tanner stage ii and iii adolescents is perfectly normal and healthy.
And the difference between this and what I said is… what? Their age? Stage one adolescents aren’t cool to fantasize about, but stage two are? Physical attraction meaning something different than fantasizing about sex? “Honest, I didn’t wanna fuck her, officer, I just said she was hot!”
I also can’t help but notice that that link you posted specifically talks about children between 11 and 14. The very number you said was ridiculous earlier.
It’s interesting because whenever I have this debate it reminds me of how the homophobes who are the loudest when condemning homosexuality, are often the most turned on by gay porn. I question why you have such a visceral reaction to the facts.
Why am I not surprised that the guy who has contradicted himself twice in a row is now defending himself with an ad hominem attack instead of stating his position?
What does surprise me, though, is that someone whose position is that pedophilia isn’t necessarily bad is attacking me by calling me a pedophile.
I certainly said nothing about any age being ridiculous. How many lies about my position are we on now?
Let’s review the first comment I made in this thread and the ones immediately before and after it.
You:
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when you’re of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
Noone said 11 year olds. I said pubescent. Notice how, to make your point, you have to lie about what was said. It makes it appear that even you realize it’s bs. Hell, especially considering you’ve swapped one lie out for another. How many different lies will you tell about what was said before you admit you might be wrong?
Me:
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
Sure sounds like you said 11 to me!
You:
I didn’t make that post, I was correcting it. May I suggest not playing gotcha and trying to actually think about it logically and objectively?
By Jove, you’re right! You DIDN’T say it was ridiculous! You just said it was something you never brought into the argument! And by linking to something that quoted that same number, thus bringing it into the argument indirectly, you technically haven’t contradicted yourself!
I get it now! I understand this line:
Omg, you’re so close! You can get there, I have faith.
You wanted me to come to the conclusion by myself that you thought someone’s actual age was completely irrelevant! They just have to have passed a certain stage of adolescence before it’s normal to think about them sexually! Saying it outright would’ve given the answer away, and more to the point, saying “age is just a number” in a thread full of normal people would’ve made you look bad and they would’ve stopped feeding you upvotes! And it would’ve stripped you of that sweet, sweet plausible deniability! Maybe if I’d figured that out when we weren’t the only two people in this thread, you would have accused me of lying about your position again! Truly you are a grandmaster of debate, and I bow to your superior skills.
Gross? Sure. Inappropriate? Absolutely.
But it’s perfectly natural to think so, according to you! Surely it should also be acceptable to say it out loud?
How many lies about my position are we on now?
That depends on when you’re going to stop getting mad at me for guessing wrong and start telling me what it is.
If this didn’t hit so close to home, or you didn’t feel the need to reject it so vehemently, you would be able to debate me in a respectful manner and actually address my points, but instead you feel the need to constantly lie about and misrepresent my position.
And you’re doubling down on the ad hominem. I really am surprised this time. Usually they’re more self aware than this. But for the record, you lost the right to rational discussion about three angry refusals to tell me which part of my argument (or my interpretation of yours) you found objectionable ago.
But I’m a forgiving sort of person. I can excuse a little bad faith as long as you promise to do better, and I haven’t been the politest either. Let’s try and get this back on track.
Physical attraction meaning something different than fantasizing about sex?
Based on the fact that this was the only part of my interpretation of your argument you didn’t bother to quote and laugh at me for, can I assume it’s the part you agree with?
Sure sounds like you said 11 to me!
I didn’t make that post, I was correcting it.
May I suggest not playing gotcha and trying to actually think about it logically and objectively?
Oh, my apologies. It appears you didn’t actually give a number, only replying to someone who did. All you said was that it was “perfectly natural” to fantasize about fucking anyone who was old enough to know what masturbation is.
What would you say is the lower bound for normality then?
Fuck man. You are literally making up shit to put in this person’s mouth. Just drop it and touch some grass.
Tell me what this means if not that
Like “teen” is the most popular searched term in pornhub? 3rd most for women and “twink” for the gay community?
What are you doing when you’re watching porn of someone if not fantasizing about fucking them? Hmm?
Gosh that’s a weird response.
Again, blatantly lying about what I said. It never ceases to amaze me how much people will just deny reality in order to cling to irrational beliefs.
? I’ve already explicitly stated it. Right in the first post. You had to have read it to get here. Can you explain to me exactly what you don’t understand say I can phrase it better for you? I don’t see how just repeating myself will get it through to you this time.
Let’s take a look at what you said.
How am I supposed to interpret that, if not to mean that you think it’s not only okay but perfectly normal to want to fuck anyone who’s started puberty so long as you don’t actually do it?
Last I checked, “pubescent” wasn’t a number, and when I called you out on the number the person you were replying to (and largely agreeing with) said, you accused me of putting words in your mouth. So what is it?
www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/hebephilia
Primary physical attraction to tanner stage ii and iii adolescents is perfectly normal and healthy. In the same way being gay is normal and healthy: its rarer, but it doesn’t represent a sexual disorder. Almost certainly at some point in your adult life you’ve found one physically attractive, although this does not make you a hebephile, as that requires a primary attraction.
It’s interesting because whenever I have this debate it reminds me of how the homophobes who are the loudest when condemning homosexuality, are often the most turned on by gay porn. I question why you have such a visceral reaction to the facts.
Omg, you’re so close! You can get there, I have faith.
And the difference between this and what I said is… what? Their age? Stage one adolescents aren’t cool to fantasize about, but stage two are? Physical attraction meaning something different than fantasizing about sex? “Honest, I didn’t wanna fuck her, officer, I just said she was hot!”
I also can’t help but notice that that link you posted specifically talks about children between 11 and 14. The very number you said was ridiculous earlier.
Why am I not surprised that the guy who has contradicted himself twice in a row is now defending himself with an ad hominem attack instead of stating his position?
What does surprise me, though, is that someone whose position is that pedophilia isn’t necessarily bad is attacking me by calling me a pedophile.
Lol he did the same to me too
Removed by mod
Let’s review the first comment I made in this thread and the ones immediately before and after it.
By Jove, you’re right! You DIDN’T say it was ridiculous! You just said it was something you never brought into the argument! And by linking to something that quoted that same number, thus bringing it into the argument indirectly, you technically haven’t contradicted yourself!
I get it now! I understand this line:
You wanted me to come to the conclusion by myself that you thought someone’s actual age was completely irrelevant! They just have to have passed a certain stage of adolescence before it’s normal to think about them sexually! Saying it outright would’ve given the answer away, and more to the point, saying “age is just a number” in a thread full of normal people would’ve made you look bad and they would’ve stopped feeding you upvotes! And it would’ve stripped you of that sweet, sweet plausible deniability! Maybe if I’d figured that out when we weren’t the only two people in this thread, you would have accused me of lying about your position again! Truly you are a grandmaster of debate, and I bow to your superior skills.
But it’s perfectly natural to think so, according to you! Surely it should also be acceptable to say it out loud?
That depends on when you’re going to stop getting mad at me for guessing wrong and start telling me what it is.
And you’re doubling down on the ad hominem. I really am surprised this time. Usually they’re more self aware than this. But for the record, you lost the right to rational discussion about three angry refusals to tell me which part of my argument (or my interpretation of yours) you found objectionable ago.
But I’m a forgiving sort of person. I can excuse a little bad faith as long as you promise to do better, and I haven’t been the politest either. Let’s try and get this back on track.
Based on the fact that this was the only part of my interpretation of your argument you didn’t bother to quote and laugh at me for, can I assume it’s the part you agree with?