True Story of the Day

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"Reminds me of that misnomer 'paedophile', which literally translates as 'someone who loves children'. They don't love children. Children are only objects to them. Objects to be used to satisfy their own repulsive sexual urges. Justify it all you like. No normal person is going to buy it."

I dunno about all that. hell wives, husbands, girlfriends and boyfriends are 'objects' then if what constitutes an object is some fixation or fetishization of it by an obsessor. u could say the thing desired by a lover of anything is an 'object' that is 'used'.

what u mean is the power balance is all outta whack when an adult and a minor - and i don't necessarily count post-pubescent hotties here - are paired sexually.... and i agree. the consent of a child is not the equivalent of a full understanding of sexuality and a competent decision to engage in it with a person twice your age. this would be an exploitative relationship that went beyond merely using the sexual partner as an object, whether it be a wife or girlfriend or whatever is loved.

other than this awkwardness and the incongruent relationship of power between a mentally immature young person and a fully grown adult, there's nothing deeply disturbing about it, really. i mean draw the line somewhere obviously and set the ages about like they already are. keep adult sex with adolescents younger than a certain age illegal, but don't ostracize ephebophilia like pedophilia and don't count it as a sexual abnormality like attraction to pre-pubescent children.

but exhibiting an erogenous response and arousal at the sight of a fully developed fifteen year old badonka donk is decidedly natural and none of your pop psychological cancel culture can stop it, veg.

and I'm no different than (or from?) Pablo Escobar or Lewis Carroll in my love of beautiful young women. life would be worthless to anything that lived if it wasn't able to recognize the beauty of a young woman. if u were a dude u'd understand but you're not so you're like wots the big deal we're just women, etc.

You are clearly lacking in basic reading comprehension. This has nothing to do with 'cancel culture', which you would be well aware of if you had read any of my comments on this site.
It's the creepy way you are justifying yourself and essentially blaming young women for attracting your extremely immature attention. You clearly learnt nothing from your convictions, even nastily blaming the allegedly 'ugly one' for dobbing you in. And no, all men are NOT like that btw.

[promethean75]

"It's the creepy way you are justifying yourself"

No that wasn't creepy... not creepy like goddess bunny level creepy.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

.

[iambiguous]

Speaking of creepy...

Next up on HBO:

The Vow: Keith Raniere, the women of DOS and their "collateral".

[promethean75]

"And no, all men are NOT like that btw."

enough of em are like that for us to establish a general rule. if having sexually related thoughts for even a moment when seeing an image or in person an attractive teenaged girl wuz a crime, they'd have to turn the moon into a prison colony becuz they'd run out of space on erf to hold all the pervs. 

fortunately it isn't a crime, but what is a crime, and rightly so I think, is acting on those thoughts... which only a small minority ever dare to do and usually end up in serious trouble for it.

but when it comes to guys processing sexual ornamentation information in their environments, no hottie of a post-pubescent age goes unnoticed by any male, certainly any hetero male.

now it may only be a matter of seconds before the superego conscience intervenes and forces the reflection 'damn that girl's ass is perfect' out of the stream of consciousness... but it wuz seconds nonetheless, and in those seconds we discover our prevert, veg.

All men do this, veg. All of em, ipso facto. de facto de Niro.

[promethean75]

"you don't belong at a philosophy site"

hey u might get your wish if the conservatards reverse the supreme court decision (2011 i think?) to repeal the social media ban of sex defenders.

lemme show u how this law is incredibly sketchy and difficult to navigate safely. a prosecutor could argue from a semantic grey area that, say, a shopping mall arcade is 'primarily for children' even though the owners intend it for paying customers of any age and adults go there as well, etc. with social media it's worse and the criteria is even more vague and ambiguous. any sex defender reading the statutes instructing him on what he is able to do legally would be hopelessly lost, and when he asks law enforcement for advice - can i go to this site, etc? - he is told they cannot give him legal advice. it's a neverending, frustrating experience and you're afraid wherever u go, online or on the skreet. I've been through all of this mess, traumatized so badly by it I've never even started a Facebook or Twitter account.

as of now, thanks to the demopervs, sex defenders can go on social media without reservation. but the pervs must hold the house and senate, veg, or i may be banished once again from cyber-society.

join the fight, veg: https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju ... -for-full/

I'm moving to the 51rst state Canada, btw. check this out i might be eligible: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/su ... titutional

[iambiguous]

Then the part where nature itself is intertwined in all of this. The part where "most females will start puberty when they're 8 to 13 years old, and most males will start between 9 and 14."

And what is puberty but nature turning the body on sexually?

Only hundreds and thousands of years ago when our life expectancy was considerably shorter, it made sense for those hormones to kick in then.

So, there's nature compelling what we call "just kids" today to be fruitful and to multiply. And then the "civilized" world doing everything that it possibly can to repress nature until the ripe old ago of, in many jurisdictions, 18?

[promethean75]

See the communists are already stealing elections. They got Lake in Arizona and who knows which state they'll take next. In fact I'm 99.973 percent sure that if a republican loses, that election was tampered with by communists... probably the same ones that paid the Taliban to crash the jets into the towers and who put flouride in the drinking water and therefore the mashed potatos (because u make mashed potatos with water or milk. In the case that you use milk, that milk was obtained from a cow that drank the water).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"And no, all men are NOT like that btw."

enough of em are like that for us to establish a general rule. if having sexually related thoughts for even a moment when seeing an image or in person an attractive teenaged girl wuz a crime, they'd have to turn the moon into a prison colony becuz they'd run out of space on erf to hold all the pervs. 

fortunately it isn't a crime, but what is a crime, and rightly so I think, is acting on those thoughts... which only a small minority ever dare to do and usually end up in serious trouble for it.

but when it comes to guys processing sexual ornamentation information in their environments, no hottie of a post-pubescent age goes unnoticed by any male, certainly any hetero male.

now it may only be a matter of seconds before the superego conscience intervenes and forces the reflection 'damn that girl's ass is perfect' out of the stream of consciousness... but it wuz seconds nonetheless, and in those seconds we discover our prevert, veg.

All men do this, veg. All of em, ipso facto. de facto de Niro.

Doesn't mean young females what to see your cock. I hope you end up in prison and another oversexed weirdo takes a shine to what he considers your 'perfect ass'. 'Funny' how freaks like you only pull out their dicks for very young women. What, Mature women in their twenties and thirties lost their appeal for you? Gee. I wonder why that would be? Could it be that the have the maturity and confidence to deal with sleazy creeps? Do you really think that women can't recognise 'the leer' when they see it? It's something mothers of daughters recognise very well, and it's always from yukky middle-aged males who look as if they haven't showered for months yet still believe they are attractive (or do they think at all?) What could possibly possess them to think they have a right to leer openly and publicly at a 12 year old in front of her mother, causing both the mother and daughter to want to punch them in their ugly, ruddy faces and then throw up?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Then the part where nature itself is intertwined in all of this. The part where "most females will start puberty when they're 8 to 13 years old, and most males will start between 9 and 14."

And what is puberty but nature turning the body on sexually?

Only hundreds and thousands of years ago when our life expectancy was considerably shorter, it made sense for those hormones to kick in then.

So, there's nature compelling what we call "just kids" today to be fruitful and to multiply. And then the "civilized" world doing everything that it possibly can to repress nature until the ripe old ago of, in many jurisdictions, 18?

Doesn't mean they want to see some oversexed weirdo's cock you delusional dipshit. And just because someone has gone through puberty and their body looks 'mature' to creepy males like you, doesn't mean that their mind is mature or that they are ready for sex. Ten is a common age for girls to start puberty. So what you are saying is that they should start having babies at ten and continue until it kills them (which is what 'nature' dictates).

[promethean75]

bro what r u talking about. the first two ladies i ever flashed were middle twenties or more, easy.

Rule numero uno: indecent exposure becomes a FELONY if a minor is among the 'victims'... so beware, be careful, and choose wisely, exhibitionists. This is advice from a retired pro. I'm like a regular peter north only with a smaller johnson. So many people have seen my unit I could be a porn star man. I used to streak when I was in my late teens too. Me and some friends streaked a football game at the highschool once which I wuz busted for. This brings us to the reflection of the day:

If a million people see your willy, you're a celebrity porn star... but if one or two people see your willy, you're a sexually deviant criminal prevert.

oh AND i actually first met a certain awesome chick and girlfriend who pulled her shirt up at me as we drove past. if we hadn't turned around and drove up to bullshit with em, id'a never met tonya (my age). So there is an instance of sexual approach escalation behavior by a female in a lewd and lascivious manner.

[iambiguous]

Then the part where nature itself is intertwined in all of this. The part where "most females will start puberty when they're 8 to 13 years old, and most males will start between 9 and 14."

And what is puberty but nature turning the body on sexually?

Only hundreds and thousands of years ago when our life expectancy was considerably shorter, it made sense for those hormones to kick in then.

So, there's nature compelling what we call "just kids" today to be fruitful and to multiply. And then the "civilized" world doing everything that it possibly can to repress nature until the ripe old ago of, in many jurisdictions, 18?

Doesn't mean they want to see some oversexed weirdo's cock you delusional dipshit. And just because someone has gone through puberty and their body looks 'mature' to creepy males like you, doesn't mean that their mind is mature or that they are ready for sex. Ten is a common age for girls to start puberty. So what you are saying is that they should start having babies at ten and continue until it kills them (which is what 'nature' dictates).

As I noted of Sculptor on another thread...

There she goes again: pontificating.

The actual topic of discussion can be anything -- religion, politics, human sexuality.

It's not what she argues...it's the contempt she shows for those who refuse to argue exactly as she does.

Indeed, what, in my opinion, is always most intriguing about these at times "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators is not what they argue but the way they bully those who dare not to share their own insufferable dogmas. Like she did with Maia on another thread.

So, perhaps, someday she might finally confront whatever or whoever turned her into this Satyrean caricature. Something has clearly pissed her off in life. Something that brings her into places like this in order to vent. And to accumulate scapegoats.

It seems [to me] that she needs to make scapegoats of those she construes to be part of whatever she is outraged about. But what is it? And how did it come about?

Wouldn't that be far more fascinating to explore?

[promethean75]

I have reason to believe that LaShanda stole a Heineken from my Instacart order. I got one, but the other one was missing... only the empty beer paper bag in the plastic grocery bag remaining. Or, it rolled out'the bag and under the car seat.

I will inquire about this matter. Thank you.

[promethean75]

veg i really don't think biggs is a perv. we all know his play book. all he's doing here is reminding us of the very controversial facts surrounding the evolution of our sexual behavior and practices, how they change over time, and how this evolutionary history might be justified by squaring it with a teleological component like god, etc.

it's the shock value he's going for by presenting the non plus ultra of an exception if one is available for contrasting to an antithesis. ergo, sexual reproduction between adult males and young females was for some years a normal practice... this of course due to unique circumstances concerning group survival... conditions no longer present in modern civilization. but it's the point that this happened at all... that a god might design a world and a species which would practice such a sexual behavior later to be condemned, etc. this would be the theodicist's question; why god would create/allow such a moral controversy to make things worser than they already are.

the evolutionary anthropological position is the most reliable tho. it was an evolved sexual practice that, becuz of newly changing social conditions, became inappropriate, unecessary and offensive to the vast majority of group members.

i have my theories for how that happened... how pedophilia post-classical greece came to be seen as a socially inappropriate thing involving the victimization of a child. check it out. when the monogamous family unit became the normative mode of group reproduction, the females of the family were thought of as property to be protected from competing families. couple this with the need for families to have children at their disposal to help with labor and work, and a pregnant pre-teen would be the last thing a struggling family would need. thus interaction between adult males and pre-teen females was discouraged and prevented for this reason.

prior to this relatively modern family structure the more open and unorganized polygamous practice of roaming groups didn't discriminate much about age. the moment homegirl hit that age boom homeboy wuz tryna hit it. this probably went on for seventy thousand years.

now these facts are disturbing kinda becauz they make it even harder to really incriminate any non-violent sexual attraction toward young adolescent females. such a behavior, tho perhaps aberrant today, would be reminiscent and anachronistic of an instinct that lasted for a long ass time.

but goddamn man c'mon u gotta draw a line somewhere and just trust that the people through the democratic process will honor and maintain that line. i say people younger than 15 should only be able to legally make sexual contact with another person 15 years old or not more than three years younger than. keep kids in their proper developmental age groups for when they wanna have sexy time.

15 or older is legally allowed to make sexual contact with anyone 15 or older but not older than 65 becuz who wants to have sex with a 65 year old anyway?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Then the part where nature itself is intertwined in all of this. The part where "most females will start puberty when they're 8 to 13 years old, and most males will start between 9 and 14."

And what is puberty but nature turning the body on sexually?

Only hundreds and thousands of years ago when our life expectancy was considerably shorter, it made sense for those hormones to kick in then.

So, there's nature compelling what we call "just kids" today to be fruitful and to multiply. And then the "civilized" world doing everything that it possibly can to repress nature until the ripe old ago of, in many jurisdictions, 18?

Doesn't mean they want to see some oversexed weirdo's cock you delusional dipshit. And just because someone has gone through puberty and their body looks 'mature' to creepy males like you, doesn't mean that their mind is mature or that they are ready for sex. Ten is a common age for girls to start puberty. So what you are saying is that they should start having babies at ten and continue until it kills them (which is what 'nature' dictates).

As I noted of Sculptor on another thread...

There she goes again: pontificating.

The actual topic of discussion can be anything -- religion, politics, human sexuality.

It's not what she argues...it's the contempt she shows for those who refuse to argue exactly as she does.

Indeed, what, in my opinion, is always most intriguing about these at times "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators is not what they argue but the way they bully those who dare not to share their own insufferable dogmas. Like she did with Maia on another thread.

So, perhaps, someday she might finally confront whatever or whoever turned her into this Satyrean caricature. Something has clearly pissed her off in life. Something that brings her into places like this in order to vent. And to accumulate scapegoats.

It seems [to me] that she needs to make scapegoats of those she construes to be part of whatever she is outraged about. But what is it? And how did it come about?

Wouldn't that be far more fascinating to explore?

So where's your 'argument'. Quoting the hypocritical sculptor doesn't constitute one