Is Jim Burton a fraud?

[G@yWad69]

You are correct and I must add to what i said. If there is anyone that understands their attraction to infants its us. Yes i am judging them but i dont deem them to be monsters like outsiders. When i say absurd, im looking at it from a sexual approach. Some will actually try and engage in sexual behavior with infants. I apologize to those who are attracted to them because that is the hand they were dealt. They cant help it.

I know lawmakers won’t make a change but I feel that we need to help those who do think of making the irrational decision to touch an infant realize that their actions is wrong. While they’ll say my age range is wrong as well I just believe that there is a huge difference.

There is a difference, but I'm not sure that attraction to older pre-pubescent children is any less "absurd" than attraction to infants.

Exactly. “I am a morally wholesome and respectable pervert that wants to fuck 8 year olds, unlike those disgusting degenerate unwholsome perverts that want to fuck 2 year olds.” Lol what, great to know that moral faggotry exists in every community, I wonder if it is like that in other communities as well. “ I am a wholesome necrophile that only wants to fuck freshly dead bodies, not a disgusting perverted necrophile who wants to fuck severely decomposed corpses”??? The irony of his comment has me laughing my ass off

[arty]

You are correct and I must add to what i said. If there is anyone that understands their attraction to infants its us. Yes i am judging them but i dont deem them to be monsters like outsiders. When i say absurd, im looking at it from a sexual approach. Some will actually try and engage in sexual behavior with infants. I apologize to those who are attracted to them because that is the hand they were dealt. They cant help it.

I know lawmakers won’t make a change but I feel that we need to help those who do think of making the irrational decision to touch an infant realize that their actions is wrong. While they’ll say my age range is wrong as well I just believe that there is a huge difference.

There is a difference, but I'm not sure that attraction to older pre-pubescent children is any less "absurd" than attraction to infants.

Exactly. “I am a morally wholesome and respectable pervert that wants to fuck 8 year olds, unlike those disgusting degenerate unwholsome perverts that want to fuck 2 year olds.” Lol what, great to know that moral faggotry exists in every community, I wonder if it is like that in other communities as well. “ I am a wholesome necrophile that only wants to fuck freshly dead bodies, not a disgusting perverted necrophile who wants to fuck severely decomposed corpses”??? The irony of his comment has me laughing my ass off

. Your writing style never fails to bring a smile on my face. Almost spilled my cup of tea all over my keyboard reading this.

[msykm99]

Exactly. “I am a morally wholesome and respectable pervert that wants to fuck 8 year olds, unlike those disgusting degenerate unwholsome perverts that want to fuck 2 year olds.” Lol what, great to know that moral faggotry exists in every community, I wonder if it is like that in other communities as well. “ I am a wholesome necrophile that only wants to fuck freshly dead bodies, not a disgusting perverted necrophile who wants to fuck severely decomposed corpses”??? The irony of his comment has me laughing my ass off

It is very possible for there to be differences morally in this topic. There is a difference between grand larceny and larceny. Both crimes no? I don’t know your views but if you think sex with an infant is okay have you considered if the infant could actually stay alive after? Can the infant consent? Can you explain what is going to happen to an infant and receive a response?

[G@yWad69]

It is very possible for there to be differences morally in this topic. There is a difference between grand larceny and larceny. Both crimes no? I don’t know your views but if you think sex with an infant is okay have you considered if the infant could actually stay alive after? Can the infant consent? Can you explain what is going to happen to an infant and receive a response?

First of all, just being a nepiophile doesnt mean you are pro C for everything sexual with babies/toddlers or even pro C for babies and toddlers at all. Second of all, there is a difference between violently holding a newborn down and penetrating them to death and destroying their internal organs vs gently rubbing a toddlers penis when you notice them humping their stuffed animal. Both are technically “sex” but there is a big ass difference between gentle penis fondling/crotch rubbing, which is already done to some degree when wiping or bathing the child and is/was commonly done by mothers to please the child in many countries(not to mention, fetuses purposefully masturbate to orgasm in the womb and babies and toddlers also have been documented purposefully rubbing their own penises and humping stuffed animals to induce orgasm, so I dont know why it would magically be harmful if an adult helps), and brutally and violently penetrating them to death. Why do you assume that all nepiophiles are Pro C, or if we are Pro C, that we would support anything that would actually injure them? You are assuming the worst in us just because of our attraction just like antis do to you. This is like me assuming that you want to kidnap and beat teenage girls into having sex just because you are attracted to them/ and or pro C. Keep in mind that we are nepiophiles, not nepiosadists, and even sadists have a moral compass and would rather not hurt their partner and stick to fantasies, unless they have an actual mental disorder that makes them want to hurt people like ASPD. We love babies, we dont hate babies, so why are you assuming we wouls want to kill or severely injure them or injure them at all?? Do you want to kill or injure teenage girls?? Would letting an excited toddler hump your hand instead of his stuffed animal kill him?? What exactly is your logic here and how did you reach your conclusions??

[PorcelainLark]

Please can you learn how to quote correctly? I don't want to be a dick, but I keep having to edit your posts.

[G@yWad69]

Please can you learn how to quote correctly? I don't want to be a dick, but I keep having to edit your posts.

Sorry

[PorcelainLark]

Please can you learn how to quote correctly? I don't want to be a dick, but I keep having to edit your posts.

Sorry

It's OK, do you have an email? I could screenshot and show how it works. Very simply you often miss a second "[/quote]". Click edit on your post I edited, and you'll see the difference. Think of it like brackets:

quote 1 = brackets 1
quote 2 = brackets 2

((I Think this) I disagree)
You need the second [/quote] like the second bracket, otherwise it treats the whole reply as one quote.

So if you're quoting something with a quote in it, it needs a [/quote] at the end to separate the quote from your comment on the quote. Make sense?

[John_Doe]

mskym99,

@john_doe fooling around with an infant directly plays to Jim Burton’s argument to why we shouldn’t make sexual contact with children. Everything he’s saying to me, I’d make the same argument about infants.

I initially read this as you admitting that your argument was insincere and you were playing 'devil's advocate' to show how his logic could work against him (if he's anti-contact in regards to children of any age). Is that what you were doing?

I remember agreeing with you in that other thread, the one I started, something about 'trying again later if you're up to it' (my wording) if the sex was initially a little painful but something the child was interested in. I can't remember everything you said though and I don't want to go back and check, I can't believe it's as late as it is already.

Just because we encourage a child to try something does not mean it is harmful or selfish of us.

My instincts tell me that adults, in practice, should not proposition children for sex or initiate that kind of a relationship with them. Ironically, I think this applies less to infants for some of the reasons I mentioned in my last post. On principle there's nothing wrong with trying to get someone to have sex with you, or even just encouraging them to consider sex with someone, but it's not hard to imagine how that could go wrong and lead to exactly the kind of scenarios that antis are worried about. I think adults should care about not making children uncomfortable (obviously good parenting and 'leadership' can require pushing someone out of their comfort zone or regrettably causing them some stress but I can't see that justification practically applying to sex even if it works when it come to discipline, working on their confidence maybe, etc. I don't want to engage in sex exceptionalism, but I think we should consider the emotion of disgust, maybe even the awkwardness of some sexual encounters, or even something like genital stimulation when one's libido is low and their body has had enough, etc. If that's grasping at straws because the time needed to recover is temporary, some kind of 'disgust' is something to consider).

We aren’t telling them to drink bleach or put their hands in fire.

No, but unwanted sex (i.e. that someone, child or adult, might feel 'obligated' to engage in) can cause emotional distress. Even at-the-time desired sex can ultimately cause some long-term emotional distress. I never want to ignore possible risks or costs with child-adult sex (although in the absence of the current societal stigma I'm not convinced that children would suffer for age-related reasons), the hill that I'm dying on is that there's nothing inherently wrong with child-adult sex, children would benefit from sexual pleasure even if it should be weighed against risks and costs; they are harmed by nothing other than felt emotional distress and there are logically coherent scenarios in which a child would not suffer as a result of sexual intimacy with an adult.

I wanted to get to the absolute core of why people actually think this is wrong.

I think this (the absolute core) applies to what seems to be your position on infants though. There's the obvious difference of consent (I believe an 8-year-old consent, I accept that an infant can't) but I don't think consent is what it's about ultimately. Again, infants are not rational agents; they can't 'consent' to anything, and there are many scenarios in which we actively de-value children's autonomy for their own benefit and even for selfish reasons. I think that what it ultimately come down to is sex negativity or the idea that sex is inappropriate by default without a justification. I can imagine some forms of infant-adult sexual contact that wouldn't necessarily cause pain (G@yWad reasonably outlined the difference between full-on penetration and gentle rubbing or fondling that will inevitably occur just with the normal contact between caregivers and infants; bathing them, changing diapers, etc.) so if it doesn't cause them pain, what's the problem? Even if you reject hedonism, you can't cover this from a desire-fulfillment point of view because the contact isn't necessarily unwanted and infants aren't rational agents so it's not a question of violating their autonomy. Is it just the physical contact itself that's bad even if it's not injurious and doesn't lead to health problems?

Things like this is what pushes the legal age to 16-18 in states.

I don't think dick size is the cause for this. I could be wrong, I'm no expert on female anatomy, but I don't think penetrative sex would be an issue for the average 13-year-old girl (apparently women's first time normally hurts regardless of age).