NationStates Jolt Archive

O.K. I've been thinking about this for a bit but didn't want to post it in case people thught I was a paedophile (that's "pedophile" to Americans) but curiosity got the better of me, I wanna know what people think....

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT here talking about people who actually do sexual things with children.

I would have said men are attracted to women, not vagina's. I don't know many people who go around saying "hey, look at the vagina on her!"

If you are attracted to young children, it is not because they have the same sexual organs as everyone else. It's because you're a bit sick.

yeh, i have to say, sexual organs are probably the least attractive part of our anatomy, along with knees and feet.

Didn't people used to get married off and start popping out kids in their pre to mid teens?

the vagina is the inside part. it never has hair.

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.
I don't particularly find other women's vaginas sexually appealing... I doubt that gay men find them sexually appealing either.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)
I don't think I've actually encountered a man who prefers a shaved pussy. I met one guy who would encourage waxing... but that's about it.

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?
Because one vagina belongs to a woman who is able to consent and the other belongs to a child who is not.

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?
1. What god?
2. Not all men are attracted to vaginas. Not all pedophiles are attracted to vaginas either, a lot of them like little boys.

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.
eew... they get wrinkly?

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.
Pedophiles have sex with children. Pre-pubescent children. There is a different term people who try to have sex with children who have undergone puberty.

and no, the sight of a naked child should not arouse anyone.

remember a pedophile is attracted to prepubescent children NOT TEENS.

yes, it is sick to want sex with a 5 year old.

this threads going to get way past page 50 :(

the vagina is the inside part. it never has hair.

Ya know what I meant. I was using a common term with common meaning.

and no, the sight of a naked child should not arouse anyone.

remember a pedophile is attracted to prepubescent children NOT TEENS.

yes, it is sick to want sex with a 5 year old.

I think it's a bit too much to condemn somebody and call him sick for what he or she is attracted to or what arouses a person. It's not as if that was within their control, after all.
The decisive question in my eyes is if they act on it or not. So in that sense I agree with the OP.

I don't particularly find other women's vaginas sexually appealing... I doubt that gay men find them sexually appealing either.


I don't think I've actually encountered a man who prefers a shaved pussy. I met one guy who would encourage waxing... but that's about it.


Because one vagina belongs to a woman who is able to consent and the other belongs to a child who is not.


1. What god?
2. Not all men are attracted to vaginas. Not all pedophiles are attracted to vaginas either, a lot of them like little boys.


eew... they get wrinkly?


Pedophiles have sex with children. Pre-pubescent children. There is a different term people who try to have sex with children who have undergone puberty.

Technically, they don't The term "pedophile" actually means someone attracted sexually to children. Some pedophiles molest kids, they then become child molestors, but some pedophiles don't. Also what you just said doesn't explain not finding a vagina (or a whole person for that matter) sexually attractive at 15 and suddenly finding them sexually attractive at 16 (or whatever the age of consent is in your country/state)

this is an incredibly stupid post about a very serious subject...id like to post my views on paedophilia but am loathe to do so on such an idiotic thread

Technically, they don't The term "pedophile" actually means someone attracted sexually to children. Some pedophiles molest kids, they then become child molestors, but some pedophiles don't. Also what you just said doesn't explain not finding a vagina (or a whole person for that matter) sexually attractive at 15 and suddenly finding them sexually attractive at 16 (or whatever the age of consent is in your country/state)
A person who is attracted to a 15 year old post-pubescent girl is not a pedophile. They are an ephebophile if they are exclusively attracted to adolescents who have hit puberty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

Pedophilia refers to those who are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children.

*sigh* I don't know why I'm going to bother, this post will never be read anyway...

unlike things like homosexuality you don't see monkeys doing it in the zoo thus pedophilia is not a natural thing but a psychological one

but I say if your attracted to young girls vagina I suggest you see a psychiatrist...now!

O.K. I've been thinking about this for a bit but didn't want to post it in case people thught I was a paedophile (that's "pedophile" to Americans) but curiosity got the better of me, I wanna know what people think....

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT here talking about people who actually do sexual things with children.

First off, paedophiles are rarely attracted to sex organs so much as the sense of power they have over a vulnerable child. Some may claim to find that body type attractive in and of itself (and thus would be attracted to a thirty year old woman who for some reason had the body of a child), and perhaps that's even true of some of them. irregardless, many people don't care much what these people are thinking or feeling, it's what these people might be doing that worries us. Lewis Carrol was supposedly a paedophile, (mostly based on the fact that he tended to spend a great deal of time with girls under 16, and then dropped contact with them when they turned 16) but he was never reported to have molested a child, and I consider it noble of him to have resisted the temptation, knowing that it would be harmful to these children for him to fulfill his fantasies.

Honestly, it's a tragic position, to have a sexual urge that cannot be legitimately satisfied.

Ya know what I meant. I was using a common term with common meaning.

well no i dont know. do you mean the part that shows when a woman or girl is standing up? while that remains essentially the same, there is quite a difference between a prepubescent girl's external genitalia and a woman's.

*sigh* I don't know why I'm going to bother, this post will never be read anyway...

unlike things like homosexuality you don't see monkeys doing it in the zoo thus pedophilia is not a natural thing but a psychological one

but I say if your attracted to young girls vagina I suggest you see a psychiatrist...now!

You have answered very goodly (it's a real word cus I said so!) whether paedophilia is natural. Or at least you would have, if it wasn't for the fact animals don't do a lot of other supposedly natural things that we do.

anyway I never said I was attracted to a young girl's vagina

You have answered very goodly (it's a real word cus I said so!) whether paedophilia is natural. Or at least you would have, if it wasn't for the fact animals don't do a lot of other supposedly natural things that we do.

like what?

anyway I never said I was attracted to a young girl's vagina

nor did I

I think it's a bit too much to condemn somebody and call him sick for what he or she is attracted to or what arouses a person. It's not as if that was within their control, after all.
The decisive question in my eyes is if they act on it or not. So in that sense I agree with the OP.

it is sick for an adult to be sexually attracted to a 5 year old. there is no getting around that. its certainly a good thing to not act on it. perhaps even admirable as you say, but its still a mental problem.

You have answered very goodly (it's a real word cus I said so!) whether paedophilia is natural. Or at least you would have, if it wasn't for the fact animals don't do a lot of other supposedly natural things that we do.

anyway I never said I was attracted to a young girl's vagina


no but you are an idiot...common sense tells us that men are not attracted to women because of their pussies...so why should they be attracted to bloody kids for the same reason...I can smell your sexual naivity from here...as for posting this trash...you should have thought better of it...

unlike things like homosexuality you don't see monkeys doing it in the zoo thus pedophilia is not a natural thing but a psychological one

...to be fair there are some pedophilia type behaviours in a number of monkeys...

it is sick for an adult to be sexually attracted to a 5 year old. there is no getting around that. its certainly a good thing to not act on it. perhaps even admirable as you say, but its still a mental problem.

I'm not sure I agree with that. But I WILL agree that sexual obsession is a sickness. The inability to control one's sexual urges is a sickness whether that results in molesting children or some dirty old man masturbating in Central Park, or animal necrophilia.

The thing that makes obsessive pedophilia such a heinous crime is the damage it does to children. As twisted as it is, I can at least forgive fucking a cat corpse. :p

This thread makes puppies cry.

Paedophilia is less of a sexual thing, and more of a psychological thing. Paedophilia generally means sex with prepubescent children - when kids are through puberty, but not yet 16, that's statutory rape. That's different. I think it's more of an idea of having control and power over someone inferior. And it's quite sick, to be honest. Paedophiles are not normal, they have severe issues with power over inferior people.

I'm not sure I agree with that. But I WILL agree that sexual obsession is a sickness. The inability to control one's sexual urges is a sickness whether that results in molesting children or some dirty old man masturbating in Central Park, or animal necrophilia.

The thing that makes obsessive pedophilia such a heinous crime is the damage it does to children. As twisted as it is, I can at least forgive fucking a cat corpse. :p

you dont have to agree.

now by SICK i mean sick but not criminal. i dont think that a pedophile needs to be locked up if s/he doesnt offend.

Paedophiles are not normal, they have severe issues with power over inferior people.

What about pedophiles that like to be on bottom? :D

*snip*
In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.

Swing and a miss.

You're separating the organ from the body (and by extension, the mind) it inhabits. You simply cannot do that with something as deeply intertwined with the human psyche as a sexual organ. I have heard many attempted justifications for pedophilia (and abuse that arises from it, when it does), and while you can't necessarily help what you're attracted to, you can, unless you're unbalanced, control your actions.

Separating the peachfish from Pollyana may rationalize an attraction, but it will never excuse actions which harm the mind or body of an unwilling, uneducated or manipulated child. Pedophilia has very little to do with the organ and everything to do with neurosis when controlled and psychosis when acted upon. That psychosis may be anything from a longing for something lost (as in Humbert Humbert's pedophilia, though more appropriately, ephebophilia, in Lolita), to continuing a cycle of abuse which became ingrained as "normal" and got hooked up to the pleasure center's habit-forming capability.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.

Now here, you're closer to a real thorny problem. What makes a person aged 17 years, 364 days (assuming non-leap-year), 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds any different from their 18-year-old (and therefore legal in my particular jurisdiction) counterpart?

The answer is a societal agreement. We agree, as a society, to exist as an entity under the rule of law. Laws draw lines because that's what laws do. While the lines may seem arbitrary, there's really no other way for them to be, speaking practically. Why? Well, would you want to be the judge who has to sort through each individual case and determine whether or not the minor in question was illegally manipulated or gave legal consent? Would you want to be either person's lawyer? It may be the legical and easy way out, but drawing a line and saying "THAT'S THE LAW" is one hell of a lot more practical than attempting any kind of flexibility on an issue as fraught with interpretations and subjectivity as sexual relations.

Hopefully that all made some kind of sense, whether or not you agree.

This thread makes puppies cry.

Paedophilia is less of a sexual thing, and more of a psychological thing. Paedophilia generally means sex with prepubescent children - when kids are through puberty, but not yet 16, that's statutory rape. That's different. I think it's more of an idea of having control and power over someone inferior. And it's quite sick, to be honest. Paedophiles are not normal, they have severe issues with power over inferior people.
You're equating pedophilia and child molestation - two very different things. Child molestation is likely about power, yes (just like other forms of rape), but pedophilia describes the sexual attraction, not the molestation.

Sexual attraction is, by definition, about sex, not power. Rape is about power, not sex.

What about pedophiles that like to be on bottom? :D
Issues with power under inferior people?

You're equating pedophilia and child molestation - two very different things. Child molestation is likely about power, yes (just like other forms of rape), but pedophilia describes the sexual attraction, not the molestation.

Sexual attraction is, by definition, about sex, not power. Rape is about power, not sex.

As I said, some pedophiles are just attracted to that sort of body type, and would be just as attracted to a 30 year old with that body type. Others are hooked into the power fantasy of it. Children are in a uniquely vulnerable position, they are powerless, and many pedophiles get off on that. These are, for the most part, the dangerous ones.

O.K. I've been thinking about this for a bit but didn't want to post it in case people thught I was a paedophile (that's "pedophile" to Americans) but curiosity got the better of me, I wanna know what people think....

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT here talking about people who actually do sexual things with children.



I'm highly doubting you're getting laid at the moment.

The vagina is not what allures a man to a woman. It is the shape of her body, the look in her eyes and the air of sexiness about her. Not all women are attractive to all men, particularly not those who resemble young boys. Children (both boys and girls) are not very different physically. Girls don't develop breasts until puberty, and only then do they become a "woman" with hips and a waist. Fundamentally a young boy or girl aren't very different.

If the vagina was all that men were meant to be attracted to in a woman, we would all have them as faces, with little legs attached so we could move. Your proposal is completely ridiculous.

If there is anything to defend paedophila it is that culturally it has previously been accepted, and that "different people like different things", but when it boils down to it, it is very hard for me to believe that any "normal" man could be attracted to a female child, because in reality she is NOT a woman. The attraction toward a 13 year old pubescent girl is debatable, because there is an ability to be attracted to her growing curves and such, but I still believe it is morally wrong for an older man to be sexually attracted to someone of that age.

Now here, you're closer to a real thorny problem. What makes a person aged 17 years, 364 days (assuming non-leap-year), 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds any different from their 18-year-old (and therefore legal in my particular jurisdiction) counterpart?

The answer is a societal agreement. We agree, as a society, to exist as an entity under the rule of law. Laws draw lines because that's what laws do. While the lines may seem arbitrary, there's really no other way for them to be, speaking practically. Why? Well, would you want to be the judge who has to sort through each individual case and determine whether or not the minor in question was illegally manipulated or gave legal consent? Would you want to be either person's lawyer? It may be the legical and easy way out, but drawing a line and saying "THAT'S THE LAW" is one hell of a lot more practical than attempting any kind of flexibility on an issue as fraught with interpretations and subjectivity as sexual relations.

Hopefully that all made some kind of sense, whether or not you agree.

I agree tha there must be a societal agreement, but unfortunatly there are so many variables. Is it wrong for a "mature" 14 year old boy to engage in sexual relations with his "mature" 14 year old girlfriend? To me, NO. But for a 24 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old is wrong. It's very hard to define the rules.

O.K. I've been thinking about this for a bit but didn't want to post it in case people thught I was a paedophile (that's "pedophile" to Americans) but curiosity got the better of me, I wanna know what people think....

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT here talking about people who actually do sexual things with children.

Ummm....ok...

paedophilia is not about sex. its not about attraction.
its about power. people like that get off on control and power.

I agree tha there must be a societal agreement, but unfortunatly there are so many variables. Is it wrong for a "mature" 14 year old boy to engage in sexual relations with his "mature" 14 year old girlfriend? To me, NO. But for a 24 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old is wrong. It's very hard to define the rules.

I agree with you. It is normal for any adult to be attracted to anyone nubile, even if that person is 14 or younger- our bodies will desire anyone mostly or fully developed. That desire should not manifest itself though, because the intellectual level plays heavily into it.

Adults have a natural pretense of authority over the young, culturally, (though not as much as they used too) and when someone in their mid to later adult years is sexually active with a very young adult, there is always the risk that authority is being used to the elder's advantage.

...to be fair there are some pedophilia type behaviours in a number of monkeys...

Yep, I think in a documentary about some sort of chimps they said the only thing that wouldn't happen was between mother chimps and their sons, everything else seemed to be ok for them. Not that this matters when talking about humans.

This might be one of the creepiest threads ever.

O.K.

I find nothing remotely attractive about immature humans. And no, I'm not suddenly attracted to them a day after they gain the age of majority. They simply are of little to no interest to me as they have yet to grow sufficiently to be of any intellectual interest to me. Please note that libido plays no part in my stated opinion. For me, attraction happens somewhere between my ears. The genitals just follow orders from brain HQ.

Basically, if we can't have meaningful conversation and a meeting of the minds, my pants remain on at all times.

I find nothing remotely attractive about immature humans. And no, I'm not suddenly attracted to them a day after they gain the age of majority. They simply are of little to no interest to me as they have yet to grow sufficiently to be of any intellectual interest to me. Please note that libido plays no part in my stated opinion. For me, attraction happens somewhere between my ears. The genitals just follow orders from brain HQ.

Basically, if we can't have meaningful conversation and a meeting of the minds, my pants remain on at all times.

a very lucky woman has a man like you. ;)

This thread is disturbing... why is it so popular? And how hard is it to understand that taking advantage of small children is WRONG?

*OP Snip*

Ok mate, say it with me, "There is more to a woman then her vagina."

Now say it again... "There is more to a woman then her vagina."

Physical arousal is not an On/Off switch that requires visible genitalia. If that simple fact escapes you, why even make this thread in the first place? If you are incapable of distinguishing between a vagina attached to a 20 year old and one attached to a 5 year old, then God help you, sir.

Furthermore, is it so easy for you to reduce humanity to such a base and simple level that all we consider is what makes us hard? If you ask me, we deserve a little more credit... Maybe not you. Some of us at least. I really have to echo Dobbs here. If a woman has nothing more to offer then "developed" body and a hole to fuck, I'll pass and be on my way. A certain amount of maturity, intellectual and emotional, is a must for a meaningful relationship - sexual or otherwise.

This thread is disturbing... why is it so popular? And how hard is it to understand that taking advantage of small children is WRONG?

It's so popular because it's fun to destroy the arguments of pedo defenders, almost as fun as those of Bush supporters, Nazis, and Creationists.

Well, I don't think it's natural to be sexually attracted to children.

I personally am gay, and I've never had any sexual attraction to children. Actually, I'm not even attracted to guys my age. My boyfriend is 36, and I'm 18. Some people call him a pedophile, but eh. Anyways, yeah. And back to the original poster who said he was attracted to vagina...I think that's strange. To be attracted to the organ rather than the person it's attached to. I'm not like all about the penis or anything. It's nice. But I love the man it's attached to....not the penis itself.

O.K. I've been thinking about this for a bit but didn't want to post it in case people thught I was a paedophile (that's "pedophile" to Americans) but curiosity got the better of me, I wanna know what people think....

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT here talking about people who actually do sexual things with children.

For smeg sake, in nature males are only meant to mate with females when they are capable of reproduction, thats why it's wrong to be attracted to it if it belongs to someone too young to reproduce, only when it is of someone 12 or up is it ok.

Secondly, being sexually attracted causes males to make moves, which usually end in a nasty scandal. If the female is older than the age of consent and isn't too old then it's ok because the male can at least get permission to get it on with her, but if she's too young, she can't consent so it's hard to tell whether it was rape or what plus it will have mental damage on the female. So basically this social rule is enforced for legal simplicity, to make it easier to discern rape from non-rape, and to prevent males from making moves and mentally damaging younger females, we don't want the next generation of women mentally scarred do we?

Thirdly, your a Christian last I checked, and an even more knowledgeable one than I, you should know that God forbids it.

For smeg sake, in nature males are only meant to mate with females when they are capable of reproduction, thats why it's wrong to be attracted to it if it belongs to someone too young to reproduce, only when it is of someone 12 or up is it ok.


Great, the "not natural, not reproductive" argument. I'm guessing you'd apply that to same sex relationships as well?

I'm afraid for the mind that thought this trash up.

Seriously, if anyone needs to seek help, it's you, OP.

When you're stretching the culture of victimization so far that your rationalizing being a fucking pedophile, especially in such a demeaning and misogynist way, it's too far. There's always exceptions and some can and do resist their urges, but the majority end up destroying children's lives. They don't get treated and cured, recidivism rates prove that.

The most important sexual organ of the human body is the brain.

Read somewhere and I fully agree.

When you're stretching the culture of victimization so far that your rationalizing being a fucking pedophile, especially in such a demeaning and misogynist way, it's too far. There's always exceptions and some can and do resist their urges, but the majority end up destroying children's lives. They don't get treated and cured, recidivism rates prove that.

Switch the two bold words and you're right.
And Multiland isn't a pedophile. Especially considering we've had so many of these topics and he's never posted on any of them.
Speaking of that, did the pedo thread ban get lifted or something? Or did the OP just break the rule.

It's so popular because it's fun to destroy the arguments of pedo defenders, almost as fun as those of Bush supporters, Nazis, and Creationists.

Huh?
I've seen practically every one of these threads, and the defenders tend to have a way better argument then the attackers. Hell, the defenders have an argument, the attackers tend to just be mad.
There are exceptions, but the only time the offense won was the last thread.

Great, the "not natural, not reproductive" argument. I'm guessing you'd apply that to same sex relationships as well?

That is the purpose of sex, if it doesn't serve the purpose and does harm on top of that it's wrong, too many times has it ended in the worse when you liberals allowed or even condoned sexual abuse. Ruined lives, hurts children physically, doomed people dying from STDs, mental scars. Doing things that aren't meant to be have always caused more misery for humanity.

I don't believe this, does NSG condone pedofilism now? It's wrong because it makes the children twisted and damaged. They are not mentally ready for it.

Does NSG condone ruining and damaging the youth just to make some sociopathic freaks happy?

O.K. I've been thinking about this for a bit but didn't want to post it in case people thught I was a paedophile (that's "pedophile" to Americans) but curiosity got the better of me, I wanna know what people think....

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT here talking about people who actually do sexual things with children.

Being attracted to a disembodied organ isn't exactly normal, you know. Most of us are attracted to people, and 5-year-old people are pretty drastically different from 25-year-old people.

Well the OP is the most ridiculous thing in the world.


To answer the topic question seriously, I think that a paedophile's sexual needs stem from the desire to dominate in a sexual relationship, which is hardly uncommon or inherently immoral. Nonetheless, a paedophile must learn to control their urges.

I don't believe this, does NSG condone pedofilism now? It's wrong because it makes the children twisted and damaged. They are not mentally ready for it.

Does NSG condone ruining and damaging the youth just to make some sociopathic freaks happy?
The indivdiual poster on NSG does not represent NSG, nor state what NSG condones or otherwise. Only Max (with whatever nation he is) gets to state that.

After all, he allows us to debate and will allow us to debate racism, Nazism, classism, and other isms without endorcing or condoning them.

Having said that though, IIRC, there is a ban on these threads because all they did was turn into either flame fests or get very, very dangerously close to openly pushing for an illegal act.

South Lizasauria, I don't think anyone here condones pedophilia.

However, I don't think most here would express Homosexuality & Pedophilia as the same thing.

Homosexuality is a sexual act between two consenting adults of the same sex.

Pedophilia is rape of a child by a disgusting lunatic.

They are different

Wow, this is the world's most wrong thread...

*walks back out*

Wow, this is the world's most wrong thread...

*walks back out*

Amen, this is worse than my anime weight gain thread. :eek:

That is the purpose of sex, if it doesn't serve the purpose and does harm on top of that it's wrong,
Sex only has one purpose? And I'm guessing from here your going to allude to gay sex causing harm...
too many times has it ended in the worse when you liberals allowed or even condoned sexual abuse. Ruined lives, hurts children physically,
Let me state for the record that I am not, in any way, defending pedophilia. I am simply objecting to the argument you made.
doomed people dying from STDs, mental scars. Doing things that aren't meant to be have always caused more misery for humanity.
Ah, I knew this was coming. Two consenting adults rubbing their bodies against each other is inherently wrong because no babies pop out afterwards, and there's a slightly higher chance of STD (which is nearly eliminated by using a condom or getting tested beforehand.)
I don't believe this, does NSG condone pedofilism now? It's wrong because it makes the children twisted and damaged. They are not mentally ready for it.

Does NSG condone ruining and damaging the youth just to make some sociopathic freaks happy?
I don't condone, nor defend, child molestation. I was also partially objecting to your argument because it seemed to be stating that the only reason it was wrong was because children could not reproduce. There are many more reasons than that.

But once again, my statements will be taken horribly out of context. It had been nearly a year. Over Nacho Grande? I'll never get over Nacho Grande.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)


Ever heard about puberty, hormones, ect...
Also, choosing to shave the pubic hair is a choice. I, for one, have never known a woman who chooses to shave her pubic hair totally, unless it is for medical purposes. Of course, Internet porno is mostly "shaved pussy", but I wouldn't trust that as a source of medical or psychiatrical facts.


So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?


Being attracted to a part of a person and not to the whole may be a sort of sexual deviancy. I name it "synekdochism" for want of a better term. Being attracted by a sexual organ is anyway the symptom of a underdeveloped, non-mature sexuality.


If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?


Assuming there is a god, he gave vaginas to females to be their own. If he wanted the females to display their vaginas all the time to be sexually attractive, females would walk on all fours like most animals. Instead, the symbol of feminine ability to procreate is the developement of the breast - note that humans have -proportionally- the greatest mammae of all mammalians. And prepuberal human females don't have a developed breast, postpuberal do.

No, an adult attracted to a child's vagina doesn't make sense, because a child isn't supposed to be able to procreate, and that's what sexuality is linked to - and the main biological reason for humans to have sexual organs.

Yes, in my opinion, being sexually attracted to a child is a sexual deviancy. I guess, from what I read, that this is the widespread opinion of most psychiatrists and psychologists.

[QUOTE=Beekermanc;12621283]no but you are an idiot...common sense tells us that men are not attracted to women because of their pussies.QUOTE]

Alright....let me pose this to you. Why do you have sex with a woman? For the pleasure correct? Or are you going to toss that 'no, because I love her' BS in there? You have sex for a number of reasons, and the most prominent are for reproduction and pleasure. To an extent we are all hedonists, because we have sex, masturbate, rub ourselves and look at porn and all this other stuff because it feels good. We are all human, one of our goals is to live, thrive and reproduce. In the living and thriving part, we want to have pleasure. In my terms (Im straight) this is how it works

Woman=Vagina=Sex=Pleasure.

Now please, let me continue before I get some remarks about how I am sexist. I will admit, I am, I see there are clear distinctions between sexes. Women (usually) have vaginas, vaginas to me are equivalent to sex and pleasure, sex is pleasurable (sp?) and so thus Women equal pleasure. Now sont get me wrong, I love having nice intelligent chats with girls and hanging out with my girl friends, because its fun. They are pretty, they are awesome. I like pretty and awesome things. If I'm lucky, I'll get to date and possibly have sex with them, because its pleasurable. Im not quite sure I got my point across though, as upon reading that, it looks really...roundabout. So heres my point, you DO date girls for pussy, thats your goal. I can understand if you only like intelligent girls, someone you can talk to and get a decent response, but your ultimate goal subconsciously is procreation. Thats not to say sex for fun is bad....but your goal is to make babies. It's in our primal brains to do it.

Now...as for the pedophelia thing.
I think its wrong, there are differences between a 5 year old girl, a 14 year old girl, and an 18 year old girl. I couldnt really grasp why twp 5 year olds would have sex, I can kind of grasp why two 14 year olds would, and I can fully grasp why an 18 year old couple of people would want to have sex. Also I cannot understand why a 30 year old would have sex with someone that young (5). I would think its because we as people want to dominate. In some cases, that would get the guy/girl off for sure. I still think its wrong though. A child just isnt ready for that kind of a mental thing, sex is as much a mental experience as it is physical.

Kind of makes sense...I guess.

Speaking of that, did the pedo thread ban get lifted or something? Or did the OP just break the rule.
There was a pedo thread ban? We used to have these threads all the time.

I rather liked Five Castes.

paedophilia is not about sex. its not about attraction.
its about power. people like that get off on control and power.
This thread is disturbing... why is it so popular? And how hard is it to understand that taking advantage of small children is WRONG?
Again, equating pedophilia and child molestation. Two very different things.

I don't particularly find other women's vaginas sexually appealing... I doubt that gay men find them sexually appealing either.


I don't think I've actually encountered a man who prefers a shaved pussy. I met one guy who would encourage waxing... but that's about it.


Because one vagina belongs to a woman who is able to consent and the other belongs to a child who is not.


1. What god?
2. Not all men are attracted to vaginas. Not all pedophiles are attracted to vaginas either, a lot of them like little boys.


eew... they get wrinkly?


Pedophiles have sex with children. Pre-pubescent children. There is a different term people who try to have sex with children who have undergone puberty.

You win the - "Lol, owned" award

I'm afraid for the mind that thought this trash up.

Seriously, if anyone needs to seek help, it's you, OP.

When you're stretching the culture of victimization so far that your rationalizing being a fucking pedophile, especially in such a demeaning and misogynist way, it's too far. There's always exceptions and some can and do resist their urges, but the majority end up destroying children's lives. They don't get treated and cured, recidivism rates prove that.

I wasn't rationalising anything - I was providing a theory and seeing what the responses were to it. Doesn't mean I believe it for one second, just means it's a theory.

If you think that all of the theories that I suggest are things that I believe to be 100% true, then you must have one very confused mind since I've suggested that suffering happens: because God wants to intervene but isn't able to intervene/because Angels are supposed to intervene/because humans are supposed to intervene/because God doean't want to intervene sometimes/because God's too busy steering the planet to avoid asteroids/etcetera, etcetera, contradictory etcetera

There was a pedo thread ban? We used to have these threads all the time.

I rather liked Five Castes.

Same here, and assuming what he said was true I've got a lot of respect for him.


As far as I'm concerned sexual attraction is inherent, we don't choose it in any case. It's unfortunate for paedophiles that for practical reasons (namely the inability of a child to fully understand and hence consent to sex) they can never legally fulfill their desires, same for those who prefer bestiality, but it's something they have to deal with, and provided they accept that then they deserve more pity than hate, and respect also IMHO.

it's completely gross but they didn't choose to be like that so i can't be super judgemental.

I wasn't rationalising anything - I was providing a theory and seeing what the responses were to it. Doesn't mean I believe it for one second, just means it's a theory.




How old are you? I mean, if you thought that "theory" had any legitimacy at all, you must be a virgin.

Again, equating pedophilia and child molestation. Two very different things.

Of course. Pedophilia is the desire to commit child molestation, whereas child molestation is the act of doing it.

There was a pedo thread ban? We used to have these threads all the time.

I rather liked Five Castes.

Dark Shadowy Nexus... we can all blame him.



To the OP, all I can say is that attraction involves much more than that. If that is all it was than the pedos wouldn't focus on children, any woman would be acceptable. But instead they want something specific. I can not ever try to give an excuse to what these sickos do and neither should anyone else.

Fail.

O.K. I've been thinking about this for a bit but didn't want to post it in case people thught I was a paedophile (that's "pedophile" to Americans) but curiosity got the better of me, I wanna know what people think....

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time.
Actually it does.

Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)
Well no, it does change in visual appearance, additionally there are other asthetic changes (texture, smell, taste).

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?
Even if we grant a reduction to the physical, what about smell, taste, touch? What about the pheromones that adults experiancing physical proximaty to a person they are attracted to release - the same adult pheromones that play a crucial role in sexual attraction and are absent in children?

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense -
Why would God do that? Why would an all-powerful deity make children unable to cope with sex and traumatised by being sexually preyed on, but sexually attractive to those with authority and power over them? Does God hate the children or something?

and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?
An adult is in the wrong if their sexuality is injurious to a child (or children). This includes discomforting a child with one's sexuality (so it's ok if you think little miss so and so from next door is blooming nicely, it's unacceptable if she can work out as much from your conduct).

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.
Who created what and why aside, you underestimate the visual and other asthetic changes, while completely disregarding important contributions from other bits and bobs that happen to be attached to the organ at issue.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago?
I'd say those men are wrong. It's not ok for an adult to be thinking of a boy or girl (even a post-pubescent one) as a fair game object of sexual interest/intent either the day before, of, or after their legal sexual 'coming of age'. Before that date, it's criminal, after that date, it's not necessarily appropriate and acceptable.

To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.
That's silly. My cat is not one little bit attracted to the neighbour's new kitten. He felt the same way about another kitten not that long ago. I take it when the little girl kitten next doors gets a somewhat less little, he'll be as interested in her as he currently is in the last girl-kitten who grew up. My tom-cat hisses at and chases away immature girl kittens. He frollicks after and fights for mature female cats. I'm not convinced that the parts of a cat's vagina a male cat sees, undergoes more drastic visible changes from immaturity to maturity than does the human vagina.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT here talking about people who actually do sexual things with children.
Aha, but to be honest I'd caution as strongly against fantasies about young people. They deserve their sexual privacy. It's one thing to feel attraction, but for an adult to even ponder as though the sexually immature were fair game for so much as a sexual fantasy, crosses over into extreme disrespect at best.

Ok, let's scrap all the legal and moral bullshit and boil the thing down to ethics, privacy and consent, real world stuff you know. And I'm using myself as the example.

1.) What I think is my bussines, and mine alone. No line of thought is illegal, in any way.
2.) What I fap to, is again my bussiness, and mine alone, providing that I'm not looking at illegal pr0nz.
3.) I only have the right to perform sexual actions to which my sexual partner has consented (Sexual in the broad sense - going out with someone, kissing, petting, WHATEVER, I'm not talking just about *intercourse*).

Now. A 5 year old child isn't able to consent. A 10 year old child isn't anymore able to consent. A 12 year-old isn't probably able to consent, but certainly is craving t3h cock or t3h pussy. At around 14 years old, a lot of people are able to consent about sex. At 16, if you aren't able to consent to sex, you're probably way behind where you should be in emotional development.

I lost my virginity when I was 16, and that is hardly a hallmark of manliness. I lost it with a girl my age, and we both consented.

Now. I'll soon be 21. My current girlfriend is my age. But. If I had a potential sexual partner, ranging 14-16 years old, and I minimised the age advantage factor (Which, remember, everyone has in NOT-SEXUAL MATTERS TOO, hey!), and this potential sexual partner consented and ceased being "potential" to be an "actual" sexual partner, why should that be wrong in any way?

Remember that whatever the law says, the real world runs in a slightly different way. There are BUCKETLOADS of 16 year-old girls going out with 20~22 year-old girls, at least around here, in Spain. Young ladies crave t3h cock of older guys. And, probably, older guys crave t3h pussy of younger girls. The reason? Hell, I don't know. And like I care. The closer you get to the "age of consent" line, the more kid's sexual preferences and development shows itself - 5 year olds are probably all very homogeneously un-attracted to seckz. Now, if you start talking about 8 years old, some of them already look at good-loking members of whatever sex they're attracted to, but most of them just think "Ewww, cooties". When they get 11, some already fantasize about sex - where others are still "Just WTF is all this fuss about girls/boys my friend gets all frenzied about?" When they're 13, there are some who are positively asking for it. Or even actively seeking it.

Oh, and a last, and probably spurious argument:

If a 15 year old girl and a 25 year old guy meet, the girl could be hurt because she's too young.

How come when I fucked when I was 16, and my then-girlfriend 16 too, didn't we get TWICE that hurt, as we were BOTH younger? Shouldn't the clumsiness and lack of expertise of both partners compound?

Can't an older partner bring in some experience and knowledge, resources which have been reliable used time and again through History in problem-solving, to actually make it MORE SECURE than someone more naive?

O.K. I've been thinking about this for a bit but didn't want to post it in case people thught I was a paedophile (that's "pedophile" to Americans) but curiosity got the better of me, I wanna know what people think....

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT here talking about people who actually do sexual things with children.
Yes ,its wrong to be attracted to children. Its also wrong to dress children up like sexually aware adults as the store chain Littlewoods did when they sold thongs for ten year olds! Perhaps it was not a bad thing when children looked like children!

Yes ,its wrong to be attracted to children. Its also wrong to dress children up like sexually aware adults as the store chain Littlewoods did when they sold thongs for ten year olds! Perhaps it was not a bad thing when children looked like children!

I fully agree with that. Everytime I see a little girl wearing, let's say, sneakers and a hoodie, INSTEAD OF BEING CLOTHED LIKE A MINIATURE WHORE, I rejoice.

snip

i think you're underestimating the immaturity of 16 year old females. They might fantasize about older 'men' but there is a difference between fantasizing about something and consenting to it. Some women have rape fantasies for instance, that doesn't mean that they actually want to be raped.
There will also be tremendous power differences in a relationship between a 16 year old girl and a 25 year old guy. I can also hardly understand what a 25 year old 'man' would gain out of this relationship except for this feeling of power. while 10 years don't mean a lot when you're older it does however make a large difference when you're that young.
you must also consider that when a 16 year old is attracted to a 25 year old this mostly is for other reasons than because they crave t3h cock of older guys.There are other factors, like the social status one gains by going out with an older guy. Or because they can't really make the difference between a teenage crush and a serious relationship. Or because older guys have cooler cars. And because, let's face it, most 16 year old boys are quite childish and unattractive to 16 year old girls.

now, i'm not saying that there has to be something wrong wih a relationship like this, but if it was my daughter i think i would be very worried. I also think there is something slightly wrong with a guy in his 20's who systematically searches very young partners.

i think you're underestimating the immaturity of 16 year old females. They might fantasize about older 'men' but there is a difference between fantasizing about something and consenting to it. Some women have rape fantasies for instance, that doesn't mean that they actually want to be raped.
There will also be tremendous power differences in a relationship between a 16 year old girl and a 25 year old guy. I can also hardly understand what a 25 year old 'man' would gain out of this relationship except for this feeling of power. while 10 years don't mean a lot when you're older it does however make a large difference when you're that young.
you must also consider that when a 16 year old is attracted to a 25 year old this mostly is for other reasons than because There are other factors, like the social status one gains by going out with an older guy. Or because they can't really make the difference between a teenage crush and a serious relationship. Or because older guys have cooler cars. And because, let's face it, most 16 year old boys are quite childish and unattractive to 16 year old girls.

now, i'm not saying that there has to be something wrong wih a relationship like this, but if it was my daughter i think i would be very worried. I also think there is something slightly wrong with a guy in his 20's who systematically searches very young partners.


Hey, I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it HAPPENS. Regularly. My first girlfriend left me for a 22 year old guy when we were both 17... a guy who wreaked havoc on her love life, not because he was older, but because he was a goddamned asshole.

Would I hit a 16 year old if I didn't have a girlfriend and had the chance? Yeah, why not. Would I go out with the same girl? HAH.

In my terms (Im straight) this is how it works

Woman=Vagina=Sex=Pleasure.



For me it works: woman=>pleasure=>sex=>vagina ETC.:D

To the OP:
The vagina of a dead woman looks precisely the same as that of the same woman when she was alive.

Hence, it follows from your 'reasoning' that all heterosexual men would be equally keen to have sex with a woman regardless of whether she was alive or dead.

Of course. Pedophilia is the desire to commit child molestation, whereas child molestation is the act of doing it.
Even if I agreed with you, that would be a relevant difference.

But I don't agree. Pedophiles would very much like to have sexual interaction with a child that wasn't molestation. They would love it if the child could understand what was happening, and could ligitmately consent (many pedophiles argue that some children can and are being oppressed by agge of consent laws). But since the children can't, they're permanently denied the object of their desire.

I would argue that molestation necessarily excludes love.

Well, yeah. Sexual attraction in part, is not a thing you can choose.

I can't go and say "Hey, today I'd like to stick into a cow's nose, yep, that sounds hot". It just doesn't work that way.

So, someone could be just as shocked as everyone would be when they know they want to screw little kids.

Even if I agreed with you, that would be a relevant difference.

But I don't agree. Pedophiles would very much like to have sexual interaction with a child that wasn't molestation. They would love it if the child could understand what was happening, and could ligitmately consent

Well you can't always get what you want. And hopefully the pedos never will.

O.K. I've been thinking about this for a bit but didn't want to post it in case people thught I was a paedophile (that's "pedophile" to Americans) but curiosity got the better of me, I wanna know what people think....

The vagina is a sexual organ, Not only does it feel good sexually (for both the woman and the man when both consenting) but it is looks sexually appealing.

Now the vagina doesn't really change over time. Sure it gets bigger and grows hairs, but apart from that it looks pretty much the same (especially considering the fact that a lot of women shave their vaginas and a lot of men prefer shaved vaginas)

So if a man is sexualy attracted to a body part that is meant to be sexually attractive to him, then doesn't that mean there is not any logical difference between him being attracted to the vagina of a woman and him being attracted to the vagina of a child?

If God created the vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others, then doesn't an adult being attracted to a child's vagina actually make sense - and isn't it only when the adult decides to act on those feelings with a child that the adult is doing something wrong (due to the fact that a child does not have the mental capacity to freely consent)?

In short: God created a vagina with the intention of it being sexually attractive to others. The unhairy vagina does not look much different over time, except for when it gets wrinkly a lot later. Thus, it makes sense that a man, regardless of whether he actually wanted to have sex with kids, would find the vagina sexually attractive.

Plus, think about this: Many men would say that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to a child (someone under the age of consent in their country). Then suddenly, when they reach the age of consent, it's suddenly alright to be attracted to them sexually, despite the fact they look exactly the same as they did a day ago? To me, that's illogical and it makes more sense to be attracted to a God-given vagina whatever the age of the person it is part of, or not be attracted to a vagina at all.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT here talking about people who actually do sexual things with children.

Hmmm... lots of things wrong with this post.

A) Vagina - look it up. You're using it wrong.

B) Pedophiles are not equally attracted to all vaginas. They prefer children because they are children.

C) Child molesters are often of the stripe any vagina is a good vagina and are actually rapists, not pedophiles.

D) The problem with pedophilia is that we are not actually solely attracted to sexual organs. We are attracted to a whole. Child attraction causes a plethora of problems with the relationships that one can have with children. We are not naturally inclined to being attracted to children for this reason.

It's been mentioned that people used to have sex and children much younger, but at that time they were having sex with developed people. By its nature, pedophilia is an attraction to children who have not developed sexually (in relation to reproduction). If we were discussing ephebophilia this would be a more appropriate statement, where adults are attracting to young people who have already physically developed for reproduction. Again, this argument simply doesn't relate to pedophilia.

Even if I agreed with you, that would be a relevant difference.

But I don't agree. Pedophiles would very much like to have sexual interaction with a child that wasn't molestation. They would love it if the child could understand what was happening, and could ligitmately consent (many pedophiles argue that some children can and are being oppressed by agge of consent laws). But since the children can't, they're permanently denied the object of their desire.

I would argue that molestation necessarily excludes love.

I would argue that the desire is more than simply the physical body type but the idea of innocence and purity that children represent. As such, I think it's precisely the understanding the would be required for consent that they are avoiding. That said, it's clear that we must delineate between a crime (child molesting), which is mostly committed by people with rape fantasies, not child sex fantasies, and pedophilia. In that sense we agree.

Child molesters should never leave prison. Pedophiles are mentally ill. However, there tons of mental illnesses that people live with and never actually hurt anyone. Provided they can do so, I see no reason they shouldn't be permitted to.

remember a pedophile is attracted to prepubescent children NOT TEENS.

yes, it is sick to want sex with a 5 year old.A person who is attracted to a 15 year old post-pubescent girl is not a pedophile. its all about Location-Location-Location.. (depends in what Country you are making out)

If you are in Iran/Bolivia/Guatemala/etc and make out with a 16 years old girl.. If his dad finds out.. he is going to come looking for you screaming "pedophile".. and cut your balls off. :D

This thread is disturbing.

its all about Location-Location-Location.. (depends in what Country you are making out)

If you are in Iran/Bolivia/Guatemala/etc and make out with a 16 years old girl.. If his dad finds out.. he is going to come looking for you screaming "pedophile".. and cut your balls off. :D

no
he's going to scream that you are defiling his daughter and cut your balls off.

pedophilia is a clinical term not a legal one.

and, the defiling of daughters aside, in many countries a 16 year old is considered minimally ready for marriage (or at least courtship)

pedophilia is a clinical term not a legal one.again.. Location-Location-Location
In some Countries pedophilia is a crime.
every country I am aware of.

no (he is NOT going to call me a Pedophile)Obviously you have never been in any of those countries. (When i say "been".. I mean long enough to learn the local customs and culture)

again.. Location-Location-Location
In some Countries pedophilia is a crime.
every country I am aware of.

Obviously you have never been in any of those countries. (When i say "been".. I mean long enough to learn the local customs and culture)

You think the local customs and culture will care whether or not the girl is 15 or 17? Often times his reaction would be no different regardless of the age of the girl.

Meanwhile, in some countries the term grape means testicle, but it doesn't mean I'm talking about testicles when I say I like grape juice. We're talking about the term as used in western countries. A non-matching usage in non-Western countries is not particularly useful here. We're a almost exclusively western forum. Deal with it.

Often times his reaction would be no different regardless of the age of the girl.99.9% of fathers would react differently if the daughter is 22.
.

We're a almost exclusively western forum. Deal with it.#1 I know this is mostly an Anglo Forum. (English speaking)
#2 I am aware of the average (Country) membership of NSG
#3 I am from a English speaking Country. AKA USA
#4 I know (first hand) a wide range of different non-English Cultures.
#5 Even between "western" countries.. the Location is a factor.

...in some countries the term grape means testicle, but it doesn't mean I'm talking about testicles when I say I like grape juice. We're talking about the term as used in western countries.I am NOT talking about the fruit used to make your wine.. I am talking about your family Jewels.. Deal with it ;)

99.9% of fathers would react differently if the daughter is 22.
.

#1 I know this is mostly an Anglo Forum. (English speaking)
#2 I am aware of the average (Country) membership of NSG
#3 I am from a English speaking Country. AKA USA
#4 I know (first hand) a wide range of different non-English Cultures.
#5 Even between "western" countries.. the Location is a factor.

I am NOT talking about the fruit used to make your wine.. I am talking about your family Jewels.. Deal with it ;)

Um, 99% of fathers in all of the countries you mentioned would call it pedophilia? If not, then your claim does not address what you said.

And even between western countries the term has a definition and it is specifically definied for the purposes of clarity.

Didn't people used to get married off and start popping out kids in their pre to mid teens?

Yeah, but they were usually both pre to mid teens, not one being thirty and the other six.

Yeah, but they were usually both pre to mid teens, not one being thirty and the other six.
This was more common among nobility.

This was more common among nobility.

So were beheadings, marrying almost exclusing among a very tiny group of related people, ignoring abject poverty and owning people. Yeah, I'm aspiring to acting like royalty of the past.

again.. Location-Location-Location
In some Countries pedophilia is a crime.
every country I am aware of.



of course it is. well....in some countries i think a man can marry a prepubescent girl with the proviso that he not have sex with her until she reaches menarche. no one supervises to make sure he keeps that condition. and the laws may have changed so that there really are no countries that will allow it. but at one time there were countries where a man could legally marry an 8 year old girl.



Obviously you have never been in any of those countries. (When i say "been".. I mean long enough to learn the local customs and culture)

and you have? and you have violated some poor girl and heard what the father accused you of?

when you are defiling some ones daughter he is more likely to kill you now and call you names later.

if, however, you are engaging not in sex but in courtship that will end in lawful honorable matrimony, he might not kill you as long as you make the engagement official right then and there.

To the OP:
The vagina of a dead woman looks precisely the same as that of the same woman when she was alive.


Depends how long they were dead, and how they died.