poketeased - inappropriate?

[breathplayslut]

What you need to understand though, is that a thought process is all pedophilia is... the mental state that some people have, where they are sexually aroused by young people. Nothing illegal there.

Behaviour is a different ballpark, at least when involving others. And that's where the law draws the line as well.

No need to be offended by people disagreeing with you

Okay - granted. Pedophilia is a mental disorder (gotten from Wikipedia), sexual child abuse is another. So I accept that perhaps my explanation wasn't clear enough. And I won't delve into the moral objectionability that gets called into question. But I tend to agree - the actions are what everybody has a problem with - how a person with *any* disorder acts upon it is the problem. And that's kind of where I was going in an earlier post - that as a person with a disorder, there should be some accountability as to trying to manage the disorder. That's all I meant.

I have no problems with people disagreeing with me - its how I learn, and garner new perspectives. This topic would have been very boring indeed if nobody had any different perspectives on things. What I got offended by was first - it was just automatically assumed I was a guy, as if a female can't have a brain. And two, rather than debate about specific points, I was then being labeled a troll. I don't think that was right, and I'm not just going to roll over, and let someone trample me for my thoughts.

[janmb]

The problem is that sexual preferences are no disorder. I don't believe it's neither something that can be created nor removed.

Heterosexuals is just as much a problem the minute we act on it in the form of rape too...

Regarding people assuming you are male comes from a very different reason: 49 of every 50 users on this site are.... and contrary to most other places, calling yourself a slut isn't a giveaway neither lol

[Nezhul]

The line between preference and disorder is void. Basically, A LOT of human personal preferences and unique traits may be called disorder. Liking tatoo's and piercing is disorder, all extream sports is disorder, or at least MAY BE CALLED THAT. And when we delve into a sexual preferences, then everything other than doggie style and missionary IS DISORDER. Oral and anal sex - not natural, and needless to say that BDSM in any way or form is a mental disorder. Oh, how many things you can call mental disorders!

Pedophilia is certainly a strange thing. So as attraction to your own gender. But pedophilia is one of the most dangerous sexual forms, because it targers the least protected group of people, i.e. children.

So where does Preference becomes disorder? I believe the line is where a mere preference and attraction turns into obsession. And this may be applied to ANY HUMAN TRAIT OR PREFERENCE.
Most men love women. When someone starts raping them in dark alleys it's disorder.
A lot of people like religion. When someone turns into fanatic it's a mental disorder.
Some like S&M. When someone starts ruining his (or partners) body and life for that - it's disorder.
Some nay feel attraction to children... It's a preference, a mere attraction up untill the point this person starts acting in that line. Then it's disorder, because his cravings overpowered his better judgement.

[les]

As Peadaphillia has a sour taste for personal reasons.

If the models are under 18 by known/published details.
At time of the pictures taken made.
remember cartoon characters rarely age

The tease is pulled no if buts or supposes.

there are plenty older models so use them

[janmb]

No one is disputing or discussing that Les. We (or I at least) tries to discuss the mental state of someone sexually aroused by minors, as well as the conundrum of cartoons obviously having no age, no rights and needing no protection.

It's important that people come to terms with the fact that pedophilia as a sexual alignment is nothing that can or should be fixed or scoffed at. We did that with gays as well until fairly recently, and these days fortunately most people agree that it is not something that is voluntary, wrong, can or should be fixed at all. The very same goes for pedophiles. There is nothing inherently wrong with someone getting sexually aroused by watching kids.



To really challenge people for a moment here, lets run a small example....

If a "pervert" goes to a public beach, takes pictures of nude kids, returns home and jerks off to those pictures (but never sharing said pictures with another soul)... Apart from being disgusting to most people, is there any real problem in there anywhere? Keep in mind that said person becomes no more and no less pedophile by doing those actions. It is a sexual alignment we can safely assume they have both before, during and after that act, and I would claim that the likelihood of the same person ever abusing a kid physically is equally unaltered. I'm sure this example would be illegal in most jurisdictions, but that's not the question. The question is what is wrong about it.

For me, the bottom line in that example is that the person exercises his/her sexual alignment. As long as that happens in a strictly solitary fashion there can obviously never be any harm there.

(And I don't necessarily have as "extreme" opinions in this topic myself neither, but it's fun to really make a point of it when trying to make people think for themselves and outside the box now and then - which is a very healthy thing. People take commonly accepted values and ethics for given without ever subjecting it to proper thought way too often.)

[les]

My objection is age
In no way can it be considered funny
Not the sex

[janmb]

My objection is age
In no way can it be considered funny
Not the sex

Afraid you don't seem to get what I'm discussing here at all.

Underage sex, rape, abuse, incest etc etc are something completely apart from pedophilia as a sexual alignment.

Those who live out their alignment in the form of having physical sexual interaction with minors is something completely different and frankly very uninteresting to even discuss.

[Nezhul]

We did that with gays as well until fairly recently, and these days fortunately most people agree that it is not something that is voluntary, wrong, can or should be fixed at all.

I couldn't not reply to that. Yea, gays are accepted. But at that there seems to be a lot more gays every year since they got tolerated, and I can't help thinking that mass-announcement and awareness of people (namely: young people) of the fact that people can be homosexual - stimulates homosexuality or pushes someone there.
That can be argued. All I know is that our sexuality is not instincts, as it is with animals, and we don't simply go for the other gender to breed. Human sexuality is deeply psychological thing, and our views on that matter develop, as I know, at age around between 3 and 10 years old by observing the outside world and the relationships of people around. It is known that human children that were brought up by animals, if returned to civilization don't basically know what to do with other gender. They get aroused, but they don't know how to vent it even in the presents of prostitutes (That was a documented observation).
So I can't help but wonder, if the wide-spread awarenes of homosexuality makes more children become homosexual as they grow up. Because there definitely wasn't as mych gays 100 years ago, as far as I know.

Personally I'm OK about gays, as long as they don't start going on parades waving flags around. But the thought that this acceptance may make more gays of our children - is troubling. Poison goes where poison's welcome. if the homosexuality will be wide-accepted and brought up as a rightful and normal way of things, will we end up with 50% gay society in 1000 years? Scary thought.

[janmb]

Yea, gays are accepted. But at that there seems to be a lot more gays every year since they got tolerated, and I can't help thinking that mass-announcement and awareness of people (namely: young people) of the fact that people can be homosexual - stimulates homosexuality or pushes someone there.

It may appear that way, but I think the background for that is entirely different than it may seem.

I don't think there is a single more individual with true gay alignment created by the increased acceptance in the community. There is definitely a lot more individuals who are open about it - and possibly also more individuals acting out their gay alignment who would earlier kept a lid on it or suppressed their alignment entirely.

So the real change here is that more people live openly visible gay lives. And since that is legal in most places, all the better!

The point though, is, just like for pedophiles, they are not created by acceptance. They are simply born that way. The clear difference is obvious though: Gays are welcome to act out their alignment and does no harm in doing so, while the exact opposite is the case for pedophiles. That however, doesn't mean that pedophile alignment is something than can be kept down, in check, or eradicated at all - as much as many would liked to.

[Nezhul]

Ah. I knew that argument will come by, and I know of it. But the truth is we can't but speculate. Gays were there from ancient times. But does their numbers increse, or is it just more of them being open about it? Too little data to answer, for now, because it's been only liek 50 years since they became being accepted, and they still are not accepted in some countries and are frowned upon by many people. But the general tendence is to tolerate them more and more with every year. So we don't actually get a clean statistical info for decades still, because one of the leading factors, i.e. the degree of tolerance is still changing too rapidly to make any judgement about the origins of increasing numbers of registered homosexuals.

As for increasing pedophilia numbers, there's also some uneasy points about it.
1) There are a lot of "false" or rather streched cases of pedophilia. What I mean is a man looking awkwardly at a child or touching a child, and sometimes declared or questioned as pedophile, even thow he didn't mean anything. In japan there were ridiculous caces of people being imprisoned for pedophilia for (drums) saving a small boy that walked on a busy road and could get hit by a car. This saving included touching the said boy and talking to him to get him out of a danger zone = pedophile detected.
Our society is so spooked by mass media that it is seeing boogeymen where there's none. In the last year I'v heard at least about 4 cases in my country where a teacher was fired for being possibly a pedophile.
2) A lot of girls these days look very good at early age. Some have full developed body as early as 13 years old, and by 16 most are smoking hot. So there are caces of pedophilia where the problem is not in someone being attracted to KIDS, but to a good-looking ready-to-breed young female who happens to be just a little under the mature age. And those girls start acting sexy and lead sexual life early too, so no wonder someone may be attracted to them. It's still legally pedophilia, but it is psychologically not.

Also, an on-topic video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw

[janmb]

Very good points indeed.

The most important part to me, and that goes for everything and not just this particular topic, is to combat the damn trend these days that everything needs to be so damn respectable, politically correct and whatnot.

Take Lance Armstrong and doping.... As soon as he eventually got sentenced for it and was officially "guilty", a great number (virtually all) of athletes, commentators, papers etc presented their spite and judgement in huge letters, not holding back at all. The big irony is when a former pro cyclist cuts up his livestrong armband and posts the pic on twitter - when he is actually formerly found guilty of doping himself...

That kind of double standards and taking things for granted is something that bugs me deeply in modern society.

With the exception of Internet and computers, I deeply regret not being born in the fifties or early sixties. Life was so much more uncomplicated and FUN back then, and things didn't have to be so damn sensible.

These days you are scoffed at for even biking without a helmet...

[LittleElfBoy]

My objection is age
In no way can it be considered funny
Not the sex

You can't brand fictional characters with a numerical age and assume all is dandy.

This girl is clearly underage, right? (Safe for work, don't worry)
http://cdn2.gelbooru.com//images/1542/c ... pg?1753357

Wrong. According to her profile, she is over 60 years old. By the way milovana's terms and conditions are phrased, making a sexual tease with her would be completely okay as she is over 18 years old.

[curiousSK]

link should be http://cdn2.gelbooru.com//images/1542/c ... 3c1b10.jpg i think

[LittleElfBoy]

Gelbooru blocks hotlinking, so you have to refresh the page regardless. Sorry for not thinking about this^^

[youaswell]

The admins are cracking down on this kind of thing, I received a PM telling me I couldn't publish my most recent tease.

I am so sorry for bringing this one debate into question, I didn't mean to cause a community divide by providing Ecchi teases.

I don't really have a preference on the subject, you can remove any teases of mine that are found offensive due to character content. I just don't want to break any rules.