poketeased - inappropriate?

[janmb]

Food for though.... You take your child to the park or the beach, your notice someone taking pictures of your child while you are helping them change for what you can only assume is for some sinister purpose. Do you consider this to be blameless behaviour?

Most definitely yes!

If you choose to undress yourself or your child in public, of course you should expect and accept the possibility of being included in other people's photos.

And the example is also a bit constructed... if it happened, how would you know or ever have any reason to suspect or even wonder about the purposes of those pictures at all? And IF you had reason to believe the person taking the photos did so with purpose of going home and jerk off to them - so what?

Freak - sure. Hurting anyone - clearly not.

[janmb]

So, what you're really saying is that you have no issues with pedophiles thinking sexually about children, just that you feel that its wrong for adults to actually engage in sex with minors under most circumstances?

That sums up MY values perfectly anyways.

The only way pedophiles hurt anyone is by raping children or by creating child porn. Even those watching actual child porn does technically not hurt anyone at all - that abuse has already been done by those creating the porn.

And cartoons don't even deserve consideration what so ever - it should be a no-brainer that there are no hurting party there what so ever.

[Sexytimes 5]

Yo, I think I'll look into this thread once again. The lulz in here is amazing.

First we have breathplayslut who is trying to sell his moralic views as a matter of fact and won't accept they're a result of his upbringing and social climate and entirely subjective.

And Anna seems to have reasonable arguments albeit she mixes my arguments up with some statements a few others have made. I don't thin Pedos should be able to screw with childs at their leisure, but given the article I found I began to wonder if a Pedo relationship under parental supervision is harmful or not. I believe taking naked pictures from the beach is wrong for same reason as taking them from other people, I simply believe porngraphy that was produced without harming a child is fine, so I don't oppose underage hentai.

And Sexytimes 5, you threw a hateful rant at me just when I told you, thank you. Subjective morals simply means what you regard as morally right does not necessarily mean it is. Because morals are a subjective matter. If you disagree, we have a lot of discussions that are currently ongoing that are subject to subjective moral (Abortion, homosexuality to some degree, Gun Control, Religion etc.)

Banquo, you have an interesting view on that. Even though you seem to understand the subjective morals issue on BDSM, but dismiss it on Pedophilia because you're not into it. You should be aware that similar to pedophile rapists, there are sexual sadists who cannot control their urges and simply goes out to rape a woman like he fantasizes.

And Nezhul, you seem to have a similar opinion to me. But you can't take them down, you can only (maybe) rightfully blame them.



I throw something in the room: One of the teases taken down in the recent ban on hentai images was long before nominated as Tease of the month and only lost by two votes: http://www.milovana.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9600

-That tease easily had more than 10000 views and Wyatt even publicly posted it. So I actually do believe Nezhul is right about blaming the bans on a single person that called it pedophilia.

You "wonder" if a pedophile relationship with a child would harm the kid if done under parental supervision. Are you serious? If so, you are truly messed up in the head. Of course the parents must be pedophiles themselves you idiot!

You posted 2 remarks directed at me which was fine since that is your opinion. One was some kind of strange slur or something like moralfag? No matter though because I don't think very highly of you either at the moment.

You have no idea what kind of rant I would like to throw at you elf. I'm truly containing myself.

Subjective morals? What kind of person are you? Kids are off the radar and off limits. Don't you get it man?

Obviously, almost every single one of us aren't moral elitists since we get off on some of the content available in the site or we wouldn't be here. I certainly don't have a problem with adults watching cartoons or anything else they choose within the boundaries of sanity which simply doesn't include children.

The arguments in support of pedophiles carry no weight because it isn't something two or more sexually mature people engage in together. I know I'm right, everyone with a properly functioning brain knows I'm right when I say it is wrong to mess with little kids. There isn't any doubt.

Do you think I should not be subjective morally when it comes to pedophiles just because I like the naughty stuff that goes on here? Do you think it is hypocritical? Well, it most certainly is not. I know it's 100% right when I say pedophilia shouldn't have sanctuary in any place. It is just plain wrong because the little kids don't have a choice. People can't argue that the pedophiles just need some kiddie pics that won't harm anyone because that isn't what plays out in the real world.

Some of you seem like emotionless bots the way you rationalize for the poor pedophiles who are wrongly stereotyped in society. BOO HOO! How can you people not get emotional when it comes to kids being abused and debate whether or not it is wrong. Don’t you know any young people or have kids?

You and a few others need to get educated. Some of you have the overall societal view stereotyped incorrectly yourselves. It isn't a bad thing to keep adults away from children in sexual ways. Period! I’m talking about pedophiles.

I don't know how those of you who keep spewing nonsense in some misguided defense of pedophiles feel comfortable in your own skin.

Why do you think the dirty sons of bitches go to prison when they have sex (rape) with a youth? It's not because society has some unfounded, strange or unwarranted fear of sex. It's because children, especially 12 and younger, are truly and deeply traumatized by adults having sex with them man. Of course 14 year olds are going to have sex. That doesn't mean adults should be in the mix. Some of you don't even seem to be able to recognize any boundaries when it comes to kids yourselves so how can you expect a kid to handle sexual relations with a pedophile in any form?

What about infants? Is it ok to fuck a baby? What's the difference? Do you draw the line there? Can you draw the line anywhere? What about people who think it is a good idea to fuck senile helpless old folks? Is that another unfounded, unjust stereotype? When is it ok for adults to start fucking kids man. When a little girl starts menstruating? What about boys? As soon as they can get a boner. What age do you think a pedophile (adult child molester) should be allowed to take a kids innocence? 8? 10? 12? 14?

The innocent pedophile just wants to look at them naked and won't hurt them because he loves them so much. Bullshit! That's only how those dirty bastards start out. People with ideals like yours are fucking up the world. Let them experience life in their own time within their peer groups underneath the guidance of their parents and don't tolerate (be very subjective) pedophiles. They just don't get to have what they want. Denied! Period!

Every subjective bone in my body automatically causes me to want to crush and hurt anyone who would engage in or support the abuse of children and I'm not a violent person. Don’t pretend that pedophiles are not a fucked up group of dirty dogs and that a vast, overwhelming majority of them watch kiddie porn at the very least, which is directly supporting the inhumane and vile abuse of children.

[Nezhul]

I refuse to do a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Ok. Read the thread. Then read it again. Then, when you still fail to understan what other people wrote on this issue, read it again with the help of somebody clever.
The point is, everything ON TOPIC has already been said. There were all kinds of proof that your position is wrong, starting from the discussion of subjectivity of morality, and ending in all kinds of stuff about judging the drawn image. You fail to understand it. You fail to argue with it, and seem to ignore all statements you can't argue with. You keep on repeating yourself.
I'm sorry, but I'm not into repeating something over and over. All has been said. Untill I hear something new, I'm not posting something new on topic. But I can post my own view on what the hell happened and what were the results, and you, breathplayslut, managed to do a whole lot of DAMAGE without makingg ANY contribution to this site, which is nonsence.
And by the way, in my post, a pretty long post actually, you saw only the two lines of me namescalling you (and offence IS meant), and you, yet again, just ignore every debate statement I make.

Sexytimes5
A hilarious outburst of learned truth. Sadly, they come straight to text, avoiding the brain. Sorry, but stop, get a cold mind, and then think for a day or two on the things he said, from every point of view.
I'll comment one thing of your post, but pretty much everything else is bullshit too.

You "wonder" if a pedophile relationship with a child would harm the kid if done under parental supervision. Are you serious? If so, you are truly messed up in the head. Of course the parents must be pedophiles themselves you idiot!

yea, why not? Think about it cold-mindedly. Let's take an example. You have a 16 year old daughter. And she falls in love with a 25 year old young man. Technically it is pedophilia from his side. But you see he's a good man and he loves your girl, and she's happy. She looks like an adult already, with good breasts and nice ass, she wears high heels and cosmetics... It's not like he's attracted to her because she looks like a child! So, why not?!
But you react in hot rage and start spitting lava everywhere, saying really stupid things.

[breathplayslut]

I refuse to do a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Ok. Read the thread. Then read it again. Then, when you still fail to understan what other people wrote on this issue, read it again with the help of somebody clever.
The point is, everything ON TOPIC has already been said. There were all kinds of proof that your position is wrong, starting from the discussion of subjectivity of morality, and ending in all kinds of stuff about judging the drawn image. You fail to understand it. You fail to argue with it, and seem to ignore all statements you can't argue with. You keep on repeating yourself.
I'm sorry, but I'm not into repeating something over and over. All has been said. Untill I hear something new, I'm not posting something new on topic. But I can post my own view on what the hell happened and what were the results, and you, breathplayslut, managed to do a whole lot of DAMAGE without makingg ANY contribution to this site, which is nonsence.
And by the way, in my post, a pretty long post actually, you saw only the two lines of me namescalling you (and offence IS meant), and you, yet again, just ignore every debate statement I make.

I didn't fail to understand, I just disagreed. I'm entitled, just as you are. Proof that I was wrong? Where? All I saw was subjective banter - I saw no cold, hard evidence that my position was any more right or wrong than yours was. I'm just sorry that you aren't smart enough to genuinely understand the type of nonsensical crap that you're spouting, and the inability to defend your position with rational debate, rather than turning to insult.

So, you can post your views, but I'm wrong for posting mine? Dafuq is wrong with you?

And I took no offense to anything you said. One can only be offended when one respects, or sees value in what the other says. I saw no value in your posts, or threads, and as such, I saw no cause to get offended. At least not any more than listening to a five year old gibbering in the aisle at Wal-Mart about the color of my shoes.

As for my "contribution" - there are many ways of contributing. Some do it by writing teases, some do it by initiating a debate on the forum. This is (in my opinion) the most productive forum thread that has been started in as many months. Certainly more productive than "Please tease me", or "a quick question". If you're referring to the "damage", I can only assume that you mean the removal of the teases that use pictures of known underage anime characters, well - that wasn't actually my doing. I asked a question. I didn't call for the removal of the tease(s). Criticize me all you want for asking questions, but that's my right. And I will *not* apologize for sparking a debate that brought all sorts of people out of the woodwork, and got people to discuss a controversial topic and show just how intelligent people can be.

[Nezhul]

That was the result of your actions = your fault. Those teases were there for months and were popular.

Now for the whole disagreement part. Silently disagreeing is NOT a debate. You have been given a lot of arguments against your judgement and opinion by me and other users, you answered at best 10% of those, and those answers were always on lines "You are wrong, my morals view is that..." and you describe your subjective perception of write and wrong. Sorry, but if you ignore arguments and don't reply to them - I say you can't think of a smart enough answer.

This thread is the most large and busy because normally people are having fun here, and let others have their fun. And you started a little holy war with casualties. And that I can't forgive. That's not contribution, that's vandalism and trollism."Need teasing" threads are harmless. Yours done a whole lot of harm already, and will likely do a lot more in the future. Removal of the teases that in no way or form will be associated with pedophilia by normal person is HARM, and YOU DONE IT. Seraphox removed them and asked for removal, but YOU ARE THE CAUSE. Go write something of your own before going about questioning and destroying other people's hard work.

[breathplayslut]

I didn't ask for your forgiveness, nor do I require it. I have every right to be here, just as you do. Don't like it, go find another sandbox. And the removal of those teases was no more my fault than the Sandy Hook massacre was the NRA's. I didn't make the rule. I didn't challenge it, or formally request the teases come down. The policy was in place long before I was a member here - the authors violated policy when they created the teases. If they were unclear about the policy, then perhaps they should have familiarized themselves with it prior to publishing them. If they didn't understand, perhaps they SHOULD HAVE ASKED A QUESTION!!!

Now for the whole disagreement part. Silently disagreeing is NOT a debate. You have been given a lot of arguments against your judgement and opinion by me and other users, you answered at best 10% of those, and those answers were always on lines "You are wrong, my morals view is that..." and you describe your subjective perception of write and wrong. Sorry, but if you ignore arguments and don't reply to them - I say you can't think of a smart enough answer.

Excuse me, but you were the one who started trolling the topic with insults when you couldn't come up with anything intelligent to say. You remind me of a petulant child who stomps their foot and throws a temper tantrum when you don't get your own way.

[LittleElfBoy]

@Sexytimes 5: Your one-dimensional thinking and arguing is getting boring. But from what you have written I can easily assume that you didn't really read most of the things I've written or you chose to ignore them. So I'm doing the ladder to you now.

I must admit (due to me being not pedophile) that I wrongly assumed that Pedophiles need frequent interaction with kids to satisfy their desires. Turns out they can control themselves better than even I assumed.

There are other pedophile groups however, that disagree with 100% denying and avoiding their tendencies, but those are hard to find, which is not really surprising.

And Nezuhl and breathplayslut:

Saying it's breathplayslut's fault the teases got taken down is like blaming Jesus for the crusades. She only asked that, because she felt it could be inappropiate. While there was disagreement with her opinion, I think it's fully okay to speak one's mind about it. And she only talked about the Pokemon Tease. The other teases went down without her maybe even having seen them. And she didn't at all seem to be starting her holy war, she even expressed her confusion on the first page, expecting the people to have similar views to her. What followed after went out of her control and more people joined the discussion and just made it messier. My inital attitude wasn't much better than most other people's and now I try to put a bottom line under this.

Nezuhl, I can understand how you feel about it. I'm on pretty good terms with youaswell (who got all of her teases got taken down) which is why I also initially had a "stupid moralfags" attitude and just wanted to troll them or call them names. If you want to blame someone, blame Seraph0x. He ruled that the teases should be taken down, despite the supermajority in this thread being against it. Even Wyatt initially stated he sees nothing wrong with the teases.

[Timshel]

A lot of times you was pointed out that pedophile does not necessarily go about raping a 6 year old child every now and then, ruining his life completely. Not only that, but fucking 17yo girl is pedohilia too, even if she's fully developed and ready to bear children (and I'll talk about it a bit later too). But you are blindly following the known truth "this is WRONG" and don't want to hear anything. Well, go on. I don't agree that making child porn is OK too, but I don't agree with you neither.

This is incorrect. Pedohilia is defined as someone past puberty obtaining sexual arousal conduct ect, with a prepubescent person. So going thru puberty is the defining line, or in truth the defining phase as you don't enter and finish puberty over night.

It has nothing to do with the age of consent and any laws per say. The definition is one of biology.

It is this fundamental difference that makes this particular.... topic one that I feel for the health of the site should be taken down, and labeled as not ok. I'm glad the moderators did as they did, and I feel it ADDS to Milovana and does not detract from it.

[LittleElfBoy]

@Timshel: Your definition is entirely correct, although it appears to me that you haven't seen the teases. Because they looked like they were 18 or older. (16-17 to some maybe, but nothing you'd call a small child). I'd be completely on your side if they're really 10-11 old kids who were also looking like that, but that wasn't the case.

The general discussion was actually a mixture of the legality of the teases and a more general discussion about Pedophilia (which is a bit away from the primary topic), which sometimes mixes up and makes this topic a bit confusing to read through.

[Nezhul]

Timshel

Legally, you are not pubertated (is that how it is written) untill 18 (in USA). Age may differ in different countries for as low as 12 years old, I believe. Still, from the point of view of LAW a 17yo person is a child, and any sexual act to this person from an 18 year old partner would be pedophilia in court. That is if we are talking purely about legal side.

If we talk about our perception, than yes, pubirty ends earlyer for ones, and then even later than 18yo for others. Well, if you take THAT perception, than there should be no problems with pictures of girls with hudge tits, no matter what age they are by wiki, because they are clearly visibly pubertated and it is not pedophilia.

Unfortunately, law doesn't take subjective things like body development stage into an account, and thus the age of pubirty is set to 18 years old.

I may have mixed some terms, but the point remains the same.

My friend grew a good beard at the age of 15, while I didn't even shaved once at that age. Physiologically he was fully pubertated and I was not. However by the law we are both children and will be treated exactly the same way if something happens.

[LittleElfBoy]

Nezhul, that wasn't about the law, Timshel is right about the definition of Pedophilia, read it up: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... pedophilia

[Nezhul]

we are talking about the tease being inapropriate. And it takes law as the main point, so...

[LittleElfBoy]

Yeah that's true, but you state that, as an adult, it's pedophilia to be attracted to a 17 years old girl, which isn't correct, but that's semantics.

To get back to the actual topic, if the teases are inappropiate or not, I think I already expressed I see nothing bad in them. Although I do not claim my perception nor my morality is better than someone else's so I accept if someone does find them offensive. My only critique though, is that I believe the legality only extends to the pictures, so I would suggest that only pictures in the tease can be subject to administrative action in that regard.

[Nezhul]

I didn't saqy it's pedophilia to be attracted to a 17yo, in fact, I said otherwise a few times back in th thread. I said that the COURT wil judge this as an offence and as an abuse of the underaged girl.