Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
To PVS: I respect what you have been saying on here. You have made this a great thread, we have however reached an apparent point where we have explained all we can about our points. You pretty much agreed with my original point anyway.-AC
i agree that ARC is a hypocrite and a pedophile?
😂 no i didn't!!! 😂
seriously, i do appreciate you returning this debate to civility, and ill do the same.
i strongly disagree with the labeling of someone who would find a mature girl attractive who happens to fall below the 18 bracket as a pedophile, which was your original topic for debate...i think😕
look, im sure you didnt mean it as an attack. but you must consider the horrible stigma attached to the word, since it is rooted in REAL pedophilia. you know, the old man that gets turned on watching little kids play in the sandbox? but yeah...maybe the dictionary is in dire need of updating on this matter, and our arguing is a direct result of that need for a clear definition.
personally, i dont think you can mix rational and irrational.
you speak of rational: girl is under 18, she is technically a child in the eyes of the law...therefore, if thoughts were scrutinised by law, many would find themselves on the megan's law list just for thinking hillary duff is hot.
i argue from the point of view of the irrational...the human mind...animal instinct, and the way in which we react to stimulation. a man/woman puts forth a vibe through the way they look, carry themself, the theromones they put out, all things which turn the opposite/same sex on. a mature girl is capable of turning on those lights for a sane rational man. its then up to that man whether or not to act upon that feeling, making it real and not just some passing fancy. if the girl/boy is below 18, they may still put forth those vibes by expressing maturity. it is that exhibited maturity that is a turn on.
far different than a textbook pedophile, who is turned on by the exhibited lack of maturity.
"i strongly disagree with the labeling of someone who would find a mature girl attractive who happens to fall below the 18 bracket as a pedophile, which was your original topic for debate...i think"
I was saying how like, someone saying "She's really sexy" or "I'd do her", about an underaged girl is saying something no different than a paedophile would say. The thought is there and by definition that ALONE is considered paedophilia mindstate. The thing I was GETTING at was that ARC is likely the type of guy who would say "Man that paedophile is sick." When all that's separating them is the act, which isn't even neccessary to be called a paedophile. THAT was my point. I'm not saying "Oi, oi you. You're some raging shrub rocketeer." Just saying you gotta be careful what you say.
"look, im sure you didnt mean it as an attack. but you must consider the horrible stigma attached to the word, since it is rooted in REAL pedophilia. you know, the old man that gets turned on watching little kids play in the sandbox? but yeah...maybe the dictionary is in dire need of updating on this matter, and our arguing is a direct result of that need for a clear definition."
Well definition or not really, paedophilia is what it is. A state of mind, an attraction to underaged youngsters. Neither here nor there because we both understand that.
I am the first person to say in a debate "You shouldn't be calling him/her an outright paedophile if they haven't actually molested a kid" because that's a tag people gotta live with even if it's proved false. The accusation always remains. My above point got blown way out of proportion and misunderstood.
"a mature girl is capable of turning on those lights for a sane rational man. its then up to that man whether or not to act upon that feeling, making it real and not just some passing fancy. if the girl/boy is below 18, they may still put forth those vibes by expressing maturity. it is that exhibited maturity that is a turn on."
As I agreed before, if you have the thoughts, find out the age and then either turn them off or continue to have them. The latter is still a case of paedophilia just based off the fact that she/he is underage.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As I agreed before, if you have the thoughts, find out the age and then either turn them off or continue to have them. The latter is still a case of paedophilia just based off the fact that she/he is underage.-AC
you cant turn off a chemical reaction in the brain. you can only choose to deny what your mind craves by convincing your conscious self that its immoral.
that doesn't switch off the impulse though. the subconscious primal mind has already chosen a feeling or action.
"you cant turn off a chemical reation in the brain. you can only choose to deny what your mind craves by convincing your concious self that its immoral.
that doesnt switch off the impulse though. the subconsious primal mind has already chosen an action."
Well attraction being a brain chemical reaction must mean it's impossible to ignore. I've stated many times before, with a girlfriend I don't have to IGNORE other females. I just don't notice them. As hard to believe as it may be, it happens. Subconscious is able to shut parts off it would seem.
-AC
your conscious self is content, thus able to ignore and even switch off the subconscious need to fornicate with all you find pretty.
i've been in love before, its no rare occurrence what you describe.
like a squirrel who's collected all the nuts it needs, you relax in the nest
and hunt no more. but thats irrelevant here.
sexual reactions start in the subconscious and are then recognised by the conscious self. by the time you think "she's hot" you're primal self has already decided that.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
For crying out loud.Why? It's an intelligent thread. There's so much wannabe-intellectualism on this forum, which is a contradiction in itself due to the wealth of anti-intellectualism on here.
-AC
Because the same ground is being covered and nobody is getting nowhere.
It feels like everyone is repeating themselves.
"Whoah AC, calm down.
Jesus...."
The Hell? You made the assumption through text that I am agitated, how?
"sexual recations start in the subconcious and are then recognised by the concious self. by the time you think "she's hot" you're primal self has already decided that."
Oh of course. It's the REALISATION and admittion that you have those thoughts that counts though. Coz obviously if you don't actually know and recognise that they are there...well...nothing would be relevant.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh of course. It's the REALISATION and admittion that you have those thoughts that counts though. Coz obviously if you don't actually know and recognise that they are there...well...nothing would be relevant.
well where i was going was that you cant erase your primal self. if some guy pisses you off, you can WANT to beat the shit out of him, but say "its wrong, im above that"...but the primal need to attack is still there, even after you decided its wrong and that you wont do it. you cant just switch it off and say "eeeh forget it, he's a good chap" its a conflict between the primal and concious self.
same for this. i see a girl and say "oh man she's smokin". my buddy leans over and says "she's 17 dude". instantly i say "the hell with that", but the primal self is still saying "oh man she's smokin". you cant switch that off.
in your case of being in love, you dont have an initial reaction to a girl you meet, so how can it relate?