BF interested in Young girls?????

[JackJack]

I'm not real sure why people are even continuing to bang their heads against the wall on this issue. I mean, it seems pretty obvious where each person stands on the topic. No wonder the OP hasn't returned with an update lately, she's probably afraid to!

[Jersey Shortie]

Paragon, no offense but you are really the most emotional one here. Shadow has done nothing but have a pretty open logical discussion with you. By the way, why do you keep spelling logic with a "k"?

 

...but where exactly is the harm in someone looking at Miley Cyrus, WHO HAS MULTIPLE HANDLERS THAT ARE PAID TO MAKE HER LOOK SEXY AND OLDER, and thinking "hey, I wonder what she looks like naked?" I just can't even imagine crusading over something so ridiculous!!

 

Errr, but dude you are crusaing over it because you are doing your damndest to defend it. It's one thing to think Miley Cyrus is a cute girl, it's another thing to be having sexual thoughts about an underaged person. I think the Jonas brother's are adorable. It would be another for a grown women like myself to be having images of not completely grown and mature adults.

 

I also wish we knew what the OP has decided but I don't blame her for not coming back. I really do hope she decided to break up with her man and find one that would be of a healthier mentality.

[clv0116]

.... another thing to be having sexual thoughts about an underaged person.

 

In most of the world she's not underage, hell she's probably not underage in places like South Carolina. Who decides what's underage?

[AAlike]

In most of the world she's not underage, hell she's probably not underage in places like South Carolina. Who decides what's underage?

 

OK, now this is the third time that this very simple, and very reasonable question has been posed.

 

Let's see how it is avoided this time, and how it's construed as clv "defending" underage attraction - as if a subconscious thing can be "defended"

[AAlike]

Errr, but dude you are crusaing over it because you are doing your damndest to defend it. It's one thing to think Miley Cyrus is a cute girl, it's another thing to be having sexual thoughts about an underaged person. I think the Jonas brother's are adorable. It would be another for a grown women like myself to be having images of not completely grown and mature adults.

 

hey, ignoring my question. shock.

 

I also wish we knew what the OP has decided but I don't blame her for not coming back. I really do hope she decided to break up with her man and find one that would be of a healthier mentality.

 

The funny thing is I agree with you that she should probably move on.

 

Even though I think that the leap in logic that equates someone that looks for nude pictures of an ESTABLISHED CELEBRITY with a pedophile is completely ridiculous, I do agree that if the OP is not comfortable for whatever reason and her boyfriend is not cognizant of her feelings enough to openly discuss with her, that is uncool - and that would be the case whether he was looking up teenagers, 90-year olds, or animals.

[shadowplay]

@ Shadowplay and Jersey: Shadow, the 'hole' in our theory you pointed out isn't a hole. See, you THINK it's a whole because you don't understand the theory. Just like Jersey who says this theory touts that men MUST then be attracted to 9 year olds who are menstruating. See, she doesn't get it--menstruation isn't enough for attraction. I'm not sure Jersey, why in god's name your mind is having such a hard time understanding this? You really must not think. And shadow, before you point out 'holes' in a theory, learn to understand it first.

 

And Shadow, you mentioned your issue was with men who had a FETISH with underage girls. Please, do yourself a favor and look up fetish in terms of PSYCHOLOGY. Ask a licensed sexual psychologist about fetishes and see how he destorys your interpretation of the word, because it means NOTHING like you think it does. Then you'll see how your statement about fetishes was nonsensical.

 

And finally, ya know I didn't want to go here--but to hell with it, I will. SOme of the female posters have rambled ON and ON and ON about how UNHEALTHY and CREEPY and ILLEGAL his behavior was. But the facts remain: he did NOTHING illegal, you can't nor won't answer my question of WHAT age difference denotes UNHEALTHY, and you can't explain WHY (other than using an impulsive emotional judgment as REASON, which is a logical contradiction in and of itself) his behavior is creepy. And I come along and CALL YOU OUT on these questions and NONE OF YOU--NO ONE--has answered my questions.

 

And do you know what the WORST PART is? It's mostly the WOMEN POSTERS who ignore these things, and their FAILURE to stay on topic and give EVIDENCE and RATIONAL and INTELLIGENT EXPLANATIONS for their belefs is why we're still having this discussion in the first place. It hearkens back to the OP, when I told her--asking these questions will NOT address your problem, here's what will, and I told her. She at least had the HONESTY to say she wasn't ready and didn't WANT to address the deeper issues causing her problems in the first place. But you, posters like Jersey and Shadowplay, have IGNORED the deeper issues and questions i've put to you and won't even address them.

 

See.. what happens when you actually try to address these questions is it corrals the disucssion back to the FOUNDATION of where it all starts from, and i'm questioning your foundational beliefs and asking you to back them up--but you WON'T, and it's because you CAN'T! I HATE, absolutely HATE when men use stereotypes to talk about and describe women, but let me tell you--there are a few women posters in this thread who are doing a GREAT job at playing into those stereotypes simply by choosing to RUN AWAY from the MOST important questions in this thread. Why would you want to act such ways that say you are incapable of having logical arguments, staying on topic, and debating intelligently?

 

And let me end on this note: I PERSONALLY DO BELIEVE that women are just as intelligent and capable as men are to have such discussions and explain and use their reason and logik to have debates such as these. And THAT is why i'm asking you to ANSWER the DOZENS of questions i've posed to you earlier in the thread. This way, maybe the discussion will actually start to go somewhere.....

 

I find it bizarre that you accuse others of being emotional, when you're getting your panties in a bigger twist than anybody else in this thread. Projection is probably a psychological term you're familiar with.

 

Some examples of your lack of reason:

 

1) You posted a few abstracts. I responded that they raised some questions which could only be answered in the full paper. You claimed that you had access to the full paper yet you refused to post any of it, even small excerpts here or through pm. Then you insisted that we just "take your word for it" along with your credentials. How intelligent is that? If you're so concerned about copyright infringement, why don't you just answer some of those questions for us. How old were the participants in the first study for starters? How were they selected?

 

2) Despite only seeing the abstracts I raised some very valid, potential problems with the studies being applied to your argument. (The age of the participants in the first study, and the fact that no median age of women they find most attractive was given for participants in the other two.) You didn't even address these points I made. So I find it rather hypocritical that you accuse others of ignoring your questions when you're doing exactly the same.

 

3) In the above post, you claim that the logical hole I pointed out is incorrect, but you didn't explain why. Same with my use of the word "fetish." You say it's wrong, but don't explain why. Is this what you consider good argument? I'm waiting for intelligent responses on this, but I'm expecting that I probably won't get any.

 

4) In general, your posts are just emotional filler and opinion (again, hypocritical given what you've complained about.) Look at the post above as an example. The vast majority of it is stereotyping, opinions and hyperbolic language. You capitalize every other word like a thirteen-year-old who's just discovered the internet. You claim "credentials" to boost your arguments, but your unintelligent, overly emotional (and oddly formatted) posts betray your lack of.

Edited October 9, 2009 by shadowplay

[Ross PK]

You mean the firm, under-developed body of a 16 year old girl who still has baby fat and basically looks like a kid?

 

Sorry but an adult guy being interested in a girl who is 17 or under is simply sick.

 

Most women maintain their figures through their twenties. There's no reason for a guy to go fishing in the kiddy pool if he's into firm bodies.

 

I totally agree, shadowplay, there's just no excuse. ALL of the guys on Predator Raw/To Catch A Predator try to do it, but it never works.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Ross PK

[doushenka]

In most of the world she's not underage, hell she's probably not underage in places like South Carolina. Who decides what's underage?

 

Having waded through nearly eighteen pages of this --

 

Biology covers why one would be physically attracted to a teenager. Taking that as true, however, fails to acknowledge that for some reason, humans also evolved into choosy little sods. Generally speaking, European and American societies have chosen to enact and enforce age-of-consent laws; said laws place said age somewhere around eighteen.

 

If those laws really made so little sense, and were so unhealthy for our society, wouldn't we have repealed them by now? Wouldn't we have begun a push towards the shortening of childhood, from its current full eighteen years (or better, in some cases!) to fourteen or fifteen? Yet it's unacceptable to kick a child so young out onto the street. Labor laws restrict their working hours and choices of occupation. Until a child turns between sixteen and eighteen, her transportation is limited to what an adult can provide, be that adult a bus driver, a parent, or simply someone over the age of majority.

 

How, then, do we justify sexual activity with someone who is, according to laws upheld by a majority of citizens, still too feckless to provide for the very offspring she might produce? How, if society insists she is a child and has raised her according to a given schedule (K-12 education springs to mind) can we consider her fit to make more children? She cannot ensure they will live to adulthood under such restrictions.

 

If you want biology and society to match more closely, consider altering the timeline. Right now, sex and social responsibility pretty much correspond, legally speaking. Make a person more responsible, at a younger age -- raise her to adulthood faster, in all respects, not just sexually/romantically -- and she might contribute something of value to the species at the "ideal" age, when she has come to her physical maturity.

 

Otherwise, suck it up and move to South Carolina!

[New_Life08]

Hmmm, yeah I think there is something dysfunctional about a 30 year old man seeking out underage teenage girls (or women seeking young boys). I feel it is an unhealthy fascination that needs to be dealt with.

 

The obvious issue is how far does it go? Would he take on a 15 year old (or younger) at his age? That would be criminal behavior. The fascination with it is how it starts.

 

What if you had an 10 or 11 year old daughter? Would you really trust his thoughts around her? This may not seem a big issue to people who don't have kids, but that is a HUGE concern for those of us who do.

 

I don't blame you for being creeped out, I would be too, and I would keep my eyes open with him. There may be no law against fascination, but the next step could be cybering with young girls, or having a physical encounter, and there ARE laws against this.

 

I think it is the same principle FOR EXAMPLE if you saw he was searching "How to smoke crack", do you think he wouldn't try it if he had the chance? I think if he is interested enough to search (young girls) out as much as he has...there is reason for concern.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Whoa now--you're going to play Mister Moral and arbitrarily insert ETHICS into attraction? Where do these ethics come from, by whose authority, is age the only ethics area we should be concerned with? Or are there other areas too that are UNETHICAL to be attracted to?

Next, please, tell me, what's the age difference where this becomes "unethical"? And how do you propose you become UNATTRACTED to something? This answer should be good since it's going to be the same principle by which you get someone who loves vanilla ice cream to NOT like french vanilla ice cream, yet still like vanilla bean

 

Ok, so I'm late to the thread, but your seriously off base here.

 

We have a strong control over what we find attractive and what we don't. A good example of this is how we typically allow our culture or society to dictate a good chunk of what we find attractive in a mate. 1000 years ago a stick skinny girl would not be pretty at all. Yet today we actively search for this starved look.

 

We are genetically designed to live in very small communities, where potential mates are not super common. That means our "attractions" need to be very adaptable to fit the situation.

[Awesome Username]

Some men might find teenagers to be appealing, but in the US it is illegal to look at pictures of children under 18 years of age. If a boyfriend is indeed caught with pictures of underaged girls it is a liability to her if she were to lose that man not only because she might be creeped out, but because it would be illegal and he could face jail time. The fact that you hooked up with this guy when you were 16 yourself is telling - if it weren't you and it was Chris Matthews meeting him instead, he could be in prison right now. He's not just looking at pictures of sixteen years olds - he went for one at one time when he was of age and she was not. This dictates that he might do it again, if given the chance.

 

Whether or not logic dictates that men have the possibility of being attracted to a very young women biologically, it is illegal in the States. You said earlier that if you had a young daughter whose stepfather was looking at underaged porn, that's his business. However, if he was taking pictures of her naked, it would be another story.

 

Well, this guy is not only looking at underaged porn, he actually went and found himself a sixteen year old girl on the internet and met her in real life. This is true, since it's part of her story.

 

There are other factors in this situation and I'm not judging this guy to be a pervert or a weirdo without having heard his side of the story, but these are the facts and there are certainly some red flags when it is put down on paper.

[New_Life08]

United States Federal Bureau of Investigations regarding sexually explicit behavior involving minor children:

 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:%2B18USC2252