Does ANYONE on this board (apart from Angel) disagree essentially with the belief that most men have an inante preference for youth and beauty?

This feud by a poster accusing me of having cognitive dissonance (in fact the entire repertoire of debating skills appear to consist of accusing anyone who disagrees of having a mental illness).

To be honest, I think I'm the one person on this board who DOESN'T have cognitive dissonance, and I'm sure it would appear to most outside observers as well.

PS: Hopefully this post gets moderated, as it just requires a simply yes or no answer from others on this board.

HEAVILY EDITED (as are many posts these days) since Blackit seems to want to chuck personal insults at other posters - and many others are heavily edited when they chuck personal insults at him. Ditto ITK. And anti-ITK. This is not the forum for such things.

"Most of the ...people here have fixed shallow minds, resort only to accusations and shaming language, as well as possessing transparent and highly dubious selfish motives"

Believe it or not the above quote comes from Blackit and was used in another thread. My advise to Blackit is - Look in the mirror

One can admire and appreciate youth without wanting to have sex with them.

Yes they do and here's why.

img689.imageshack.us/img689/1018/130805008956.png

Blue Boy wrote:
"Most of the ...people here have fixed shallow minds, resort only to accusations and shaming language, as well as possessing transparent and highly dubious selfish motives"

Believe it or not the above quote comes from Blackit and was used in another thread. My advise to Blackit is - Look in the mirror



Yes, but the thing is, I don't just rely on statements like that (which was a response to being repeatedly accused of having cognitive distortions.

One can admire and appreciate youth without wanting to have sex with them.

Not under nulabor's laws you can't. You can go to prison for merely viewing a fully clothed picture once of a woman who may look 17.

I think you're also confused about the notion "wanting to have sex with them".

If you find a member of the sex you find attractive...attractive...then your brain is telling you you want to have sex with them. You don't differ from me in any way at all. When I see a busty 15 year old girl walking down the street in see-through leggings and g-string I don't want to have sex with her in your sense. I'll likely go to prison for a couple of years.

The only difference between me and you is that I think the age of consent should be 14, as it is in Germany, Italy, and Spain (actually 13 in Spain) and many other countries around the world. I make that case on arguments and research. If you think that makes me a paedophile - it appears to be based solely on the fact that I think the age of consent should be lower - i.e. a pretty meaningless tautological statement.

BTW, last time I checked, Spain, Italy, and Germany were pretty civilised countries. To the best of my knowledge, it would be unfair to describe Spaniards, Italians, and Germans as paedophiles for having a lower age of consent than our age of 16, which was randomly set by puritanical feminists in the late 19th century to combat teenage prostitution (seemed the victorians definately had an inante preference for youth and beauty).

HEAVILY EDITED (as are many posts these days) since Blackit seems to want to chuck personal insults at other posters - and many others are heavily edited when they chuck personal insults at him. Ditto ITK. And anti-ITK. This is not the forum for such things.

You allow ITK to be shamefully bullied - (I don't agree with a lot of what ITK says, btw, and I'm not 'right wing', but it's clear people in this forum only want their own opinions parroted back at them).

EDITED - no we don't. Enough of these personal attacks please.

..."a lower age of consent than our age of 16, which was randomly set by puritanical feminists in the late 19th century..."

Clearly your knowledge of how laws were conceived, framed and enacted in 1885 is very deep. So you will have no trouble in identifying the "puritanical feminists" you refer to. If that's either too long winded or
too much trouble, just two names would do. Or even one.

Incidentally I "accused you" {actually I only suggested that you may be suffering from them, but such a tiny thing as nuance appears to be beyond your comprehension} of having cognitive distortions only once, which is hardly "repeatedly". And the evidence I based that suggestion on has only been added to by your subsequent postings both here and on your other thread.

Does my opinion not count?

Indeed it does Angel - everyone's opinion counts - on topics and in discussions. It's only when conversations deteriorate into personal insults - whether direct or "they said this - how dare they?" (when they didn't) - that we feel the need to edit or remove!

I admire beauty in all forms and I love young people (but don't want to sleep with them !)..I'm very puritan.

I can be very shallow in love though..I adore In The Know but next week I may hate him/her.

Of course the 'pedo behind every bush' brigade have made the admiration of young beauty a sin.

ps : I really like old people as well.

angel wrote:
Does my opinion not count?

A well spotted post about the young fooballer,that certainly counted

We have a built in preference for young healthy breeding stock material.However we also have culural influences that will affect our behaviour.Nature/Nurture.

veritas wrote:
..I adore In The Know

I knew you did, veritas !

Locked Out wrote:
..."a lower age of consent than our age of 16, which was randomly set by puritanical feminists in the late 19th century..."

Clearly your knowledge of how laws were conceived, framed and enacted in 1885 is very deep. So you will have no trouble in identifying the "puritanical feminists" you refer to. If that's either too long winded or
too much trouble, just two names would do. Or even one.

Incidentally I "accused you" {actually I only suggested that you may be suffering from them, but such a tiny thing as nuance appears to be beyond your comprehension} of having cognitive distortions only once, which is hardly "repeatedly". And the evidence I based that suggestion on has only been added to by your subsequent postings both here and on your other thread.

Josephine Butler www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wbutler.htm

Barbar Bodichon www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wbodichon.htm