Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

But why the attraction? Why not little boys?

I frankly don't know. The longer hair is something; I use the word "cue" myself. Put on a pair of earrings and a pony-tail -- POW -- it's a girl or woman, shave the head, now it's a boy.

Have you tried this?

http://www.morphases.com/editor/

Why is one face attractive and another not? How do you decide to make the eyes bigger or smaller, the nose wider or thinner? It isn't easy to say is it?

But there is more to it than just "cues." True, a male and a female have slightly different feet, necks, shoulders.... However, girls are distinctly female. As you say, there is something else different "under the hood;" it is essence or something like this. A girl is a small woman, many women have small to no breasts, or body hair. A girl has female legs, belly, butt, nose.... Trannies excite some men and disgust others, yet (some) are indistinguishable from women -- though they are still somehow not.

I said "in a nutshell", not by quote, and that has nothing to do with you being called a pedophile, although by definition you are and so shouldn't have a problem with being called one.

I say this by how you compare the girl to the woman in the OP.


Men and women differ in appearance through facial appearance and bodily; with boys and girls there are no such distinctions. This is why your attraction to either is not truly sexual, but rather another attraction.

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

I said "in a nutshell", not by quote, and that has nothing to do with you being called a pedophile, although by definition you are and so shouldn't have a problem with being called one.

With philosophy someone always objects.

Pedophilia sounds like the name of a disease. This is because it is the name of a disease:

"pedophilia

1905, from Gk. pais (gen. paidos) "child" (see pedo-) + philos "loving." First attested in Havelock Ellis. Derivative noun pedophile is first recorded 1951."

Ellis was a physician and pioneering sexologist, he coined "pedophilia" in the context of producing a taxonomic medical textbook. Ellis was himself a eugenicist.

Pedophile is not an Ancient Greek word. It is a new word, a manufactured word. A word from the time period of Bernays, the Creel Commission and the British Office of Information. Manufactured with the exact purpose of making sexuality a "social hygiene issue" (a euphemism for eugenics); AIDS, HIV, and STD are all also manufactured words, produced in the 80s and 90s to the same end. (This theme is expanded on here: https://dissidentsphilosophy.forumotion.com/social-sciences-f10/got-herpes-t65.htm )

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

I say this by how you compare the girl to the woman in the OP.


Men and women differ in appearance through facial appearance and bodily; with boys and girls there are no such distinctions. This is why your attraction to either is not truly sexual, but rather another attraction.

I recall from a late night drama something like The Twilight Zone (forgot the show's name) the line ~Others will know you better in the first five minutes from meeting you, than you will ever know yourself in your whole life.

I do not deny your analysis.

maryshelley wrote:

Satyr wrote:

maryshelley wrote:

I didn't say it was immoral. I see it as akin to crushing oneself. Each deliberate act of crushing....is an act of self harm.

Huh?
So, when you eat you are eating yourself?

Deep.
I guess tiptoeing around and starving yourself to death would be the height of self love.

Quote :

Nor do I. We are all animals we are all related. Kill one (without eating it); kill a part of oneself.

What if I use it for a coat to survive the winter?

How ridiculous. You are implying an immorality to killing with no practical purpose because arguing that there is a thing such as a killing with no purpose would expose you as what you are.

Quote :

What is here has already earned the 'right' to be here.

Really? How?

Mommy and daddy fucking and mommy forgetting to take the pill makes one deserving?

Define a "right", because we are teetering on the edge of an absurdity precipice.

Well fuck you HARD and see where it gets you.......

Here.

Where the FUCK are you again? Oh here also. A stalemate then?

Or an existence?

No answer, huh?

For a minute there I thought you had a mind...but you only had the 'right" to a mind...or the 'right" to be thought of as if you had a mind.

How did you get this right?
You were born.
Congratulations!!!

Satyr wrote:

maryshelley wrote:

Satyr wrote:

maryshelley wrote:

I didn't say it was immoral. I see it as akin to crushing oneself. Each deliberate act of crushing....is an act of self harm.

Huh?
So, when you eat you are eating yourself?

Deep.
I guess tiptoeing around and starving yourself to death would be the height of self love.

Quote :

Nor do I. We are all animals we are all related. Kill one (without eating it); kill a part of oneself.

What if I use it for a coat to survive the winter?

How ridiculous. You are implying an immorality to killing with no practical purpose because arguing that there is a thing such as a killing with no purpose would expose you as what you are.

Quote :

What is here has already earned the 'right' to be here.

Really? How?

Mommy and daddy fucking and mommy forgetting to take the pill makes one deserving?

Define a "right", because we are teetering on the edge of an absurdity precipice.

Well fuck you HARD and see where it gets you.......

Here.

Where the FUCK are you again? Oh here also. A stalemate then?

Or an existence?

No answer, huh?

For a minute there I thought you had a mind...but you only had the 'right" to a mind...or the 'right" to be thought of as if you had a mind.

How did you get this right?
You were born.
Congratulations!!!

No. No answer in that state of mind.

However.....
Mummy and Daddy fucking, as their parents did before them and their parents did before them....ad nauseum have earned their offspring the 'right' to be. How long such offspring remains is a matter of individual determination vs external intervention on the part of the organism concerned. Simplicity itself, surely?
Are you suggesting there's more to it than that?

maryshelley wrote:

No. No answer in that state of mind.

However.....
Mummy and Daddy fucking, as their parents did before them and their parents did before them....ad nauseum have earned their offspring the 'right' to be.

This is nor true.

You being born only ensures that you exists...that you continue existing is not guaranteed or promised by anyone but yuor mommy and daddy that brought you about and so have responsibility for you.

Quote :

How long such offspring remains is a matter of individual determination vs external intervention on the part of the organism concerned. Simplicity itself, surely?
Are you suggesting there's more to it than that?

I'm saying that a "right" is something procured from an external source.

The State gives you "rights", and expects soemthing in return, just as yuor parents ensure your existence while you helpless because they expect something in return.

Outside of this you have no rights, unless you earn them daily.
A lamb has no right to not be eaten by a wolf, because a wolf must earn its survival daily, just as the lamb does.

A wolf has the right to eat the lamb. The lamb has a right to escape or bleat loudly enough to bring its head butting parents in to attack the wolf. If the lamb lives; it lives. If the wolf doesn't eat the lamb it goes hungry because it did not pick on the easiest to kill lamb.

Thus we continue with our right to live by any means necessary. Until we die. All the rest is adornment.

maryshelley wrote:

A wolf has the right to eat the lamb. The lamb has a right to escape or bleat loudly enough to bring its head butting parents in to attack the wolf. If the lamb lives; it lives. If the wolf doesn't eat the lamb it goes hungry because it did not pick on the easiest to kill lamb.

Thus we continue with our right to live by any means necessary. Until we die. All the rest is adornment.

Therefore there is no right but only chance and the one incurred though ability and talent.

Nobody is born with rights.
"Rights" are human inventions based on the supposed sanctity of life.

Sometimes it takes a little time to track down one's unoriginality.
__________________

Here are a few topical lines from another French fake,

"It might have existed, a photograph might have been taken.... But it wasn't. It never was detached or removed from all the rest. And it's to this, this failure to have been created, that the image owes its virtue: the virtue of being the creator of an absolute."

-Marguerite 'Duras', 1984
The Lover

And a much neglected reversal of the usual line from the same short story,

"To look is to feel curious, to be interested, to lower yourself. No one you look at is worth it. Looking is always demeaning."

Let's revisit this thread shall we, Alexi?

I want to know a little more about "girl-love" and its relevance in the world today.

If possible, I would very much enjoy to hear a more detailed account about your passion of this subject.

It fascinates me to say the least.

Any male who denies that he is sexually-attracted to young girls is just a liar. There is no doubt about it. And besides, this is something that is deeply ingrained within you for whatever reasons that you keep to yourself. I am passionate about similar things too, which is why I came to philosophy in the first place, from the time that I was a boy. Say that you love little girls. Say that I love men & women in general. These things can overlap do you not see? And yes, it is natural to want to have sex with what you love. That is normal, psychological, human behavior. However, when you do have sex "inappropriately", as labeled by society, then you will have to pay repercussions for such "crimes". I have already discussed that though in detail, with no formidable responses...

What I want to know is what exactly draws you to little girls and why you want to have sex with them. Using my acquired knowledge, I would surmise and presume that this sexual pressure comes from a history of abuse from peers (in some form, even if convoluted), and the desire turned-extreme that would draw you to a female's more natural beauty: her youth. Let us face it here, in this dark place devoid of respectable women, you and I may speak freely. And what men know is this: without youth, a woman stands to be very ugly indeed. An old woman simply is not sexually attractive, unless your choices as a male is completely dried up. Women know this too, but they are ashamed to admit it. If they are old, then they fear almost more than anything else to be called a "hag" or worse. But, the potential is there. And the only thing that saves a woman's beauty from old age is her God-given natural grace.

So, what is attractive about the youth of a female except her 1) virginity, and 2) innocence??? And these two things are essentially the same thing. You see; I have come up with a theory. -- and it is one I am nearly-certain that I am correct about. When a girl loses her virginity, then the male who takes it away from her owns her in every sense of the meaning. What he has done is put a scent upon her with his cum. This scent lasts forever. And the "bad boys" are almost always the guys who "steal" a young girl's virginity. This did not really happen traditionally in the past of Western Morality, because men used to be tied to their family name, heritage, and arranged marriages accordingly. Today we must play a more tedious, deceptive, and cut-throat game to successfully seed a female. Thus, what becomes most attractive is a young girl's virginity and innocence.

If you recall my arguments at ILP, before I got banned from there, then you will remember that nobody could sufficiently devise an argument to combat my accusations against Society. The reason for this is because nobody could reasonably speak for Society. This is because women represent Society and they have no word of their own to defend themselves with! Women need Men to protect them, in every sense of the meaning! They cannot even defend themselves rhetorically against child molestors, rapists, and yes, even pedophiles. They need feminized men to aide them. And as was shown, not even then was a man physically-able to step up and defeat my arguments as they stood. Did you not see it??? I threw everything at ILP and nobody in that "philosophy" forum could defend the values that they prized most-of-all. Even the women and their numbers could not repel one, simple, reason.

So now, you win an award, so-to-speak. You and I are, or perhaps just I am, going to understand the source for these discrepancies. And what is it?


I will start you off.

It is a young girl's virginity. It is a young girl's innocence. It is a young girl's youth & vibrance.

And as a father, Man is predetermined to keep his little girl's virginity intact for as long as possible. She is tied to him in a metaphysical way, beyond words. If he allows her to be fucked by some piss ant, then he is a failure to both her and himself, because what honor does he have, as a man, if he does not protect his little girl from being fucked by some bum off the street? I guarantee you; no Man on this planet desires for his daughter to become a whore. Yet, that is what men allow for. It is a loss of Honor and every sense of the notion. Because...

Who do you want to fuck your daughter, except yourself?

What kind of man would you allow to marry her and take her virginity, except yourself?

And assuming that you are not weak to your incestuous compulsions, who will you send your daughter off with except a man who will protect her?

Talk and Action,
the political and the armed wing of the party


Sex sells. Pornography is great advertising for sex -- so good it is taking over the market! "Child-pornography" is one of the best advertising tools the cause has.

Cp is used by the metropole as a distraction from what is cruel and bad in adult pornography: young women strangled and sexually abused -- consentually -- for a few dollars. The same dialectic is behind the systemic requirement that sex be informed and consentual, it is a diversion, a distraction, to hide the lie that informed consent is anything but free, as though half the women in the less-developed world choose freely to labour for a dollar a day in sweat shops, or as though the informed consumer has any choice except to buy Nabisco brand. Informed consent is a capitalist tool.

Cp is the single best propaganda tool girl-lovers have: Some little girls are hot. The proof is in the pudding. 99% of the time pornography is unequal, exploitative and abuse, but pedophiles make a mistake in choosing their allies too narrowly: in the revolution, anyone who is our enemy's enemy is our friend; and there could never be a better mascot for any movement than the little girl herself, and everything comely about her.

His love was obstructed and his will was inverted into a hate of society. Society also called his love hate, called his love violence. For the pedophile, when he is driven to the point of rebellion, when he reacts by reflex, he reacts with violence. Society has made the pedophile the perfect weapon: his love is his hate, his hate is his love: when the pedophile comes to revolutionary self-consciousness, he understands that the most real, most powerful tactic and weapon he has is being himself.

The pedophile remembers that the only real weapon he has, the most powerful one he has, the one that made him who he is is his physical sexuality. When the pedophile acts individually, under personal initiative; and physically -- true to his nature -- the system is forced to use the only tactic it ever really had, and the one which most betrays its real nature: physical hate -- which can never win over love.

The system called pedophilia bad, and undid itself, creating a role-model and model of behavior for every rebel. Cp draws in any rebel-without-a-cause -- because pedophilia is bad. Cp is the only medium, besides pedophilia itself, which is genitive: self-replicating, something that can really be called a meme. No one seeks out written argumentative pedophile advocacy; it is an imposition -- cp is sought out. The rebellious counter-culture that has adopted pedophilia as part of its "bad" image is doing a great deal to legitimize pedophilia -- and spread it -- and to other out-groups and undifferentiated disenfranchised rebels.

The short term disadvantages of the acute bad press we get has long term advantages: media exposure precedes normalization. We don't need to campaign just to make a name for ourselves and to let people know who we are. A stereotyped caricature (pedo-smile, manipulative, socially inept) and the jokes that go with it have the effect of exposing their prejudice nature.

The advocate wants to change the system from within. Either the systemic neurosis can accommodate him, or it can not. The homosexual did not have to completely deconstruct the system to find his legitimacy in it. There was not per say a conflict of interest; society had so thoroughly disowned its ass that no one was going to contest the claim. For us, things are very different: "our children," the children are our future. Society is not going to give up its children so easily, witness the world-historical battle between parent and state.

The advocate is non-violent, he denies his physical existence; is he anything then but nothing? a wind of words? a cloud of high-ideals and obfuscation?

The advocate has a role in the pedophile's struggle for liberation: he must write the revolutionary tracts and poetry, he must analyze the system of oppression, he must develop our line and propaganda and deconstruct enemy propaganda. This is nothing less than building the entire ideological basis and justification for our struggle and victory.

The advocate must hold opinions consistent with his non-violence, with his physical quasi-non-existence: he must be against anything worldly: pornography, sex -- in effect: not doing anything at all. We can not blame the advocate for holding the positions he does with respect to sexuality-in-the-world or art: as advocate he must hold these positions.

Let the advocate remember however, when he plays tactics, that "a picture is worth a thousand words," and that as strong as an argument might be, existence is the highest form of truth.

Because the advocate accepts to plays the neutered role, he will sometimes escape persecution; but this is not guaranteed: the system still considers him dangerous so the metropole may have laws against his advocacy. Only the most passionate will risk their lives for their Juliet; hopefully they can say to themselves from behind prison bars: 'It would be worth it even if it meant eternity in hell.'

A little more than tweeks are required to first have a society where pedophilia would be legitimized -- legitimizing pedophilia in this society is out of the question. Pedophilia won't be legitimized before something very near to wholesale destruction takes place. Pedohysteria is a neurosis; nothing less than psycotic break can crack it, the system depends on the physical world and the city planners, the cities themselves even need to come down.

In 1994, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, then president of Haiti made an angry and impassioned speech for the oppressed to rise up and attack the system. He called for them to use whatever was in their hand: a "trowel," the "constitution" or a "pen."

Every revolution has a weapon particular to its nature -- and characterization. A peasant will carry a pitchfork and sickle to the agricultural revolution. A writer will fight with his pen. A man who finds a gun in his hands will follow the war path with an Kalashnikov. In Lysistrata, women use sex as their weapon. And the pedophile? what weapon is in his hand?

This is not even a matter of 'which is mightier, the pen(is) or the sword?' or a deep question like 'this is my rifle, this is my gun' which one's for fighting and which is for fun?

Whatever is in your hand Aristide said.

What does the pedophile have in his hand?

At this point we could digress, dissolve the question, perhaps his hands are tied? or say that pedophilia isn't an essential characteristic: if he is a professional writer (advocate) his pen is in his hand; if he is a photographer (pornographer) his camera is in his hand; if he is in IT (webmaster) his laptop is in his hand...

The pedophile has his penis in his hand -- and possibly a child.

So, what is the pedophile's weapon particular to his nature? what is in his hand that he can use as a weapon? Pedo-terrorism?

More than words, what contradicts everything the anti can say?

It is the real, successful, erotic, age-discrepant, relationship.

The anti will tear those words to shreads: calling them contradictions, untrue, lies -- but the reality is --glaringly existential.

While the anti refuses to admit real evidence into the argument (and the advocate does not submit it) he can go on with his medieval scholasticism indefinately.

Advocacy gives a place in the system, albeit an awkward one. There is no "live and let live" with the system, so if one is to survive, one must have a place in the system, no matter how cowardly and in bad-faith this may seem.

The armed revolutionary who gets his hands dirty at "violence" ("abuse"and "rape") -- not with blood, but other bodily fluids -- is following the most natural line of attack for him, and the most cathartic and authentic conversion of his physical and violent oppression into his physical and "violent" emancipation.

The advocate is logically precluded from doing anything, or advocating anything, "violent." His will to live forces him to mitigate, submit, and become a shadow existence -- sub-human, a ghost, who can exist only in sarcasm, veiled threats, hypothetical and metaphorical speech.

The advocate is not saying anything if he isn't being obscene; it is just a question of how many layers of abstraction the obscenity is hidden behind. The difference between the political and armed wings of our party is a gray scale, without pure white or black at either end.

Unreasonable wrote:

What I want to know is what exactly draws you to little girls and why you want to have sex with them. Using my acquired knowledge, I would surmise and presume that this sexual pressure comes from a history of abuse from peers (in some form, even if convoluted)....

It must be very convoluted. Perhaps inverted? How many hookers can you fuck and then it's always the same; how many times can you act out your porn fantasies and then the feelings of excitement and triumph don't happen anymore, and you start to feel sorry about it? Maybe it's different for everyone; for me it was about 200.



Wittgenstein had a brother, Paul. He was a pianoist, and after losing his right arm in the Great Patriotic War, he became, so it is said, one of the finest one-armed-pianoists in Europe. In Wittgenstein (1993) (I think it was), Paul plays one of his pieces. Afterwards, a lady comes up to him and asks him what it "means." Paul doesn't say anything, he plays it again.



Sometimes looking for a meaning (or reason) is useless.

Ivan wrote:

But, there is a little bit of a difference between a 17 year-old and a 7 year-old. I almost think that the irrelevance of a girl's virginity might be her attractiveness: a female who you can't and don't have to fuck. What a relief.

I'm not so sure.

I am a bit confused by your response though. I was mainly interested to hear about your sexual encounters with underage girls, at least generally-speaking. I mean ... did they turn you on significantly more than adult women? Did you feel guilty about it? Did you orgasm inside of them? Were they virgins? What attracted you the most to little girls from when you were young? How did it happen and why? Why do you believe society turns against the pedophile?

Back to my point about virginity, I disagree. I think that a female's virginity is extremely significant when it comes to little girls v adult women. The little girl almost always is a virgin. The adult woman almost always is not. That is the fundamental difference. And when it comes to sexual domination, the more domination, the better the sex feels. Therefore, I imagine that dominating a little girl would be much more pleasurable than an adult woman. That is also why adult women are jealous of little girls and bare-no-expense when it comes to LOOKING YOUNGER. The adult women want to look and pretend as if they were little girls, because the little girls are much more sexually-attractive, biologically-speaking.

I surmise that this has everything to do with virginity, based on some theories I'm preparing.

After all, once a little girl has been penetrated, then she can never again escape the label: slut or whore. (unless she is married first)


And this leads to marriage, which is something that has been on my mind lately...

Thanks for your replies though, I appreciate anymore.

Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world was intended to be sarcastic when I first put it together; though now that some time has passed I see that there is something to it. Power, misogyny, or Darwinist explanations make good sense, so they are probably not total delusion, but I'd think, like may things that really catch on (like Facebook, rubber boots, chairs...) that a many-cause explanation might be richer, Freud called this overdetermination, it has a similar meaning for analytic philosophy.

I don't really know what to say again; perhaps I am filled with misconceived notions here.

I presumed that you have had sexual relations with "illegal" minors before. However, I understand that you probably can not say one-way-or-another on the issue, since it is potentially incriminating if you actually have. The impression that your posts have given me in the past and to now, present to me a case that you would love more than anything to have sex with little girls ... I don't know how old, 7-ish? While I acknowledge this impulse inside of myself as well, to have sex with all females possible, it is one that I constrained and repressed within myself during my college years. In fact, the process was very traumatic with me. I had extreme cases of anxiety, depression, and mental breakdowns, because I did not realize or have words to what was wrong with me. I would fantasize killing the person sitting next to me in my classrooms and my imagination was so overpowering that it felt as if I was actually committing the act that I envisioned. It was troubling to say the least. You may also apply this case to my male sexuality and what I would feel doing toward others in that regard. I am a man; I want to have sex with everybody. -- "sexual domination". This is the latent sex drive that everybody represses. It is a fundamental cause for the emasculation of men regarding human sexuality.

Your interest in little girl love also strikes me as crucial, for some particular reason. If you recall the ILP argument, then you would have noticed that nobody within Society is ever willing to openly-talk about repressed desires. Even though they are there, they will (feebly) resist all attempts to expunge a perpetrator who digs below the skin and exposes others for what they are (i.e. mostly hypocrites). While it is easy to say one thing and do another thing, this presents a problem for people who aim for logical consistency within speech patterns. And this is one thing I observe above all others. Who says something in contradiction with themself? Can I see it? -- yes, I can.

What people repress is obviously sexual. Men are sexual beasts who literally want to fuck very badly. I mean; it is natural. Men want to impregnate all women by nature. If this were not true, then there would be no human sexuality to begin with. This is odd when it comes to little girl love, and homosexuality, because little girls and gays cannot sexually-procreate. So what is the sexual deviation? I presume that this urge comes as a direct result from mainly 1) sexual repression, 2) traumatic childhood experiences, and 3) genetic predisposition. Some people are "born gay". Some people are born "little girl (and boy) lovers". Regardless of this, human sexuality is something that has belied human "civilization" since forever. Furthermore, it is the basis for all Moral Laws and cultural systems. To see pedophilia attacked so stringently by Western Feminists provided a great argumentative format, and an opportunity to expose the ignorance of all those who devote themselves to the ILP website. It was fun for me to say the least.

What is the problem, "wrong", or error in fucking a 16-year-old girl if you are a 31-year-old man??? I posed the question. Nobody could answer, except the sweaty and fervent sexual emotions of the ILP Feminists (mostly women). And I can tell you that what I saw was not Reasonable arguments from the women, but pure spite & jealousy. Women don't care if guys fuck little girls; they really don't. What they care about is themselves, as in, why aren't guys fucking me??? And they do not understand this why, because it exposes exactly what no woman wants to hear: 1) virginity is her prime asset, and 2) beauty is and always will be youth. Are some women refined in age by their beauty? -- yes, notably-true. However, this is a case-in-point. What is the point here? What is the subject? What is being talked about? It is little girl love.


Suffice to say; it makes me proud to see a person so dedicated and devoted to a philosophical subject, despite its preconceived notions. Are you a 'criminal' for wanting to fuck a 7-year-old girl, or how about a 2-year-old girl? What is the difference? I don't really care, superficially-speaking. I am only after the deeper senses of the meanings here, which I hope you know and see. Let us talk then. This "Free Speech" is not a permanent offering. In fact, you and I are very fortunate to even have this opportunity to do so on the internet, when the vestiges of Society have pilfered and consumed all prior freedoms of Mankind. The Man is a powerful beast; he must be tied down, fed human blood and sacrifice regularly, and he must never be loosed or he will wreak havoc across the earth. Man wants to fuck and impregnate everything. That is his prime motivation; it is the "Prime Mover".


Marriage is a social institution designed to cage Mankind, precisely because he needs to be caged. If he is allowed to roam free, then tyranny remains a constant threat to every human social system. Marriage exists to tie him directly to a responsibility towards women. It is a paramount philosophia for a Man to love his Wife, to hold her, protect her, and defend her from harm. This is a militaristic notion as well. In the not-to-distant past, cross-cultural rape was a common occurrence. Ten men would arm themselves with weapons and go around and rape other tribe's women. What stopped them except force & violence? -- Nothing. Marriage was an Institution created out of necessity. And its necessity is still required today & tomorrow.

Honestly, I look down upon men who marry more than once, divorce, or fail their family. It disgusts me more than most things I have ever encountered in my life, because it resembles a more wretched human weakness. What I would define as a strength of mankind is to remain balanced between his Individuality and the Sociality that raised him. In other words, your father & mother raised you, so you owe them your life at the least. And this holds true for everybody, even bastards and sons-of-bitches. Females are another matter.

Females exist to be used-as-objects by Man. -- but this does not necessarily imply that they are not subjects. Because a man may either respect a woman, or not. That is up to him on a personal basis. But how can you respect something you cannot? And I apply this question to little girl love, masturbation, incest, rape, rape fantasies, sexual deviants, sexual deviation, human sexuality in general, marriage, etc. In other words, if you respect a girl, then how can you cum on her face??? That does not make sense to me, and although I am tempted to frown upon such an act, I cannot lie to myself that I would not enjoy to do the same to a woman. -- but why? Why would I want to do such a thing? Will it make me happier to feel as though I own this cunt? Will it make me realize that "I am a man ... fuck yeah!!! I do not think that it will. Maybe I am just simplistic; I don't know. I also don't really care. My desires are very simple when it comes to a woman: sex, that is all I want or care about from her.

I will not lie. Other men & women already have that covered.

Quote :

This is odd when it comes to little girl love, and homosexuality, because little girls and gays cannot sexually-procreate. So what is the sexual deviation? I presume that this urge comes as a direct result from mainly 1) sexual repression, 2) traumatic childhood experiences, and 3) genetic predisposition. Some people are "born gay". Some people are born "little girl (and boy) lovers". Regardless of this, human sexuality is something that has belied human "civilization" since forever.

Not born, not made: choose. That would be the existential take on it.

1)
2)
3)
...

I'd run this list onto about eighty-seven. And I'd put your #2 at the bottom of the list.

Quote :

Suffice to say; it makes me proud to see a person so dedicated and devoted to a philosophical subject, despite its preconceived notions. Are you a 'criminal' for wanting to fuck a 7-year-old girl, or how about a 2-year-old girl?

I had been thinking 'there is no thought crime,' no one cares what you think, least of all the law or the state. But then why is there 1st degree vs 2nd vs 3rd murder. Maybe I'm way wrong and only what you think matters (at all, and to anyone) but that is in theory, there needs to be physical evidence? In that case, yes, you are a criminal for wanting to fuck a 7 year-old, doing it only proves the crime.

Quote :

What is the difference?

There is some difference. What is the differenc between an animal and a human? The rules of bestiality are the same as the rules of nepiophilia -- I'd say.

Quote :

Let us talk then. This "Free Speech" is not a permanent offering. In fact, you and I are very fortunate to even have this opportunity to do so on the internet, when the vestiges of Society have pilfered and consumed all prior freedoms of Mankind.

I realize that.

Time-out... ...be back this evening Insha'Allah.

If you can't tell the truth, how can you be a philosopher?

I personally don't see a distinction between love, lust, and obssesion myself.

Love is lust when it comes to the opposite sex in relationships.

Love is obssesion when it comes to friends and family in that it is apart of the conscious's self interests of pursuing identity.

Love is just a petty romantic word used to make things appear more than they actually are.

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

While having sex with little girls who are unable to reproduce is obviously pretty useless, incestual sex isn't necessarily a bad thing from a biological perspective.

In fact, you could establish a pretty good eugenics policy by, every now and then, making closely related people mate and then killing off or sterilizing the unfit ones.

You should create a thread on incest. I have alot of opinions on that subject myself too.

As for pedophilia ( sex with girls under the age of 13) I don't really understand nor do I support it.

( As a social nihilist I'm not saying it is "wrong" as that wouldn't make any sense in being a nihilist in the first place but as a personal preference of mine I do find it disgusting.)

( The only social display that I find disgusting actually as I condone everything else including rape from a evolutionary perspective. Does that make me a hypocrite? Probally so but everybody else is a hypocrite too for that matter in some way or another.)

However up until a hundred years ago the practice of marrying off girls earliest of the age 14 was quite common where sexual intercourse with them was considered socially normal. ( Men with young girls aged at 14.)

( Even today there are girls around that age that I look at thinking to myself that they look older and that they look sexually attractive. I would lie if I said it didn't happen.)

( Such social practices still happens in Africa and parts of South America. Of course western social activists of political correctness are trying to stop all of that in name of righteous civility.)

( As for the contrast of young men at the age of 14 with older women that never has socially and historically taken place.)

So in a sense of preference I see nothing flawed with older men being with girls 13 and onwards in age.

It is older men who go under the age of 13 with girls that I don't understand and find disgusting.

The Fool wrote:

I do find it disgusting.

Do you think presentation in the media has had anything to do with this feeling?

Ivan wrote:

The Fool wrote:

I do find it disgusting.

Do you think presentation in the media has had anything to do with this feeling?

It's quite possible. The media has this effect on many things.

However I just don't understand pedophilia in that there is no point in doing somthing sexual with someone who hasn't reached their beginnings of sexual maturity.

It just seems non-sensical to me and that is why preferentially I find it disgusting.

I can understand or rationalize murder,genocide, slavery, rape, stealing, and even cannibalism but when it comes to pedophilia I usually draw a blank. What is the evolutionary advantage to pedophilia?

The Fool wrote:

I can understand or rationalize murder,genocide, slavery, rape, stealing, and even cannibalism but when it comes to pedophilia I usually draw a blank. What is the evolutionary advantage to pedophilia?

What is the evolutionary advantage to homosexuality or the sex-for-pleasure principle...

...except bonding mechanisms relaying social dominance of one over the other?