They who surrender will be toast

[Cunny Defender]

Surrendering and waving the white flag to people that want you dead won't work; by being anti-c, you're essentially "proving them right" in their hostility towards MAPs and admitting "wrong" and guilt instead of promoting compassion. This is being used as an example, and you'll see anti-c MAPs being harassed the most online because they are easy targets. They see us as "beasts," as "predators." A "lion" proclaiming to be "vegan" isn't going to gain any more sympathy; instead, we should stay strong and true to ourselves

[BLueRibbon]

Agreed.

[zarkle]

I would never surrender to the antis. I live to challenge them and prove that their deepest morals values about hating us pedos is nothing more then an instinct, and is not based on reason but rather aggressive us against them thinking. Once again I believe anti pedophilia is at least partially connected to parental instincts that all animals have to defend their young, the same neurocircuits parents have that once helped their ancestors protect their children from dangerous jaguars in the forest in prehistoric Earth are repurposed to defend against urban modern day threats, pedophiles happen to trigger those same brain pathways. This is why I say the hate is instinctual not logical - we are evolution's false positive alarm. But at the same time knowing this I'm not making a risky case that I want to harm toddlers, kindergarten girls and later elementary school age kids. I'm for kiss and cuddle and gentle touch contact but no penis contact or genitial stimulation with them ever until 13.5 Yes, I'm ok with 13.5+ consenting to full sex with guys who want that (I don't want that) but I don't think small children should be doing those things because without hormones they can't understand attraction. This isn't conceding to antis its showing nuance, deeper understanding, and celebrating the lovely joys of little girls and largely rejecting the feminist concept of power dymanics. Showing we can love prepubescent children without penis contact is a higher form of love. Though to give personal information I ejaculate to chinese toddlers from swimwear webpages all the time, but while relieving myself I think about the joy of how cute they are, I don't think about sex or penial contact with them ever. I just focus on the adorableness, the wholesome good they are to help obtain sensual relief. I think I tricked my brain into making sexuality 2.0. Perhaps sexuallity has multiple purposes in nature, for both reproductin and animal bonding.

I know 3-11 year old girls will grow up one day and have boyfriends and I'm perfectly fine with that, I just want to play the role of nuturing and loving them in their early phase of life. Like a mentor and lover to girls and absorb every ounce of their cuteness and have their beautify bodies erotocized through softcore pornographic media. I want a society where norms on sexuality are different without stupid concepts like infidelity, cheating, marriage or commitment unless strictly voluntary agreements not socially imposed. Lastly, this website has the pastel MAP colors with black instead of white. From what I understand white means purity (no contact) and black means full contact, gray stripes mean its complicated debate (like me). But this website is map flag with black instead of white. Which makes me kinda upset. My thinking is very far from heteronormality but it does not seem beneficial for a prepubescent to engage in penial contact/genitial stimulation. Ultimately, when it comes to contact I agree if we refuse to go below 13.5.

[John_Doe]

I would never surrender to the antis. I live to challenge them and prove that their deepest morals values about hating us pedos is nothing more then an instinct, and is not based on reason but rather aggressive us against them thinking. Once again I believe anti pedophilia is at least partially connected to parental instincts that all animals have to defend their young, the same neurocircuits parents have that once helped their ancestors protect their children from dangerous jaguars in the forest in prehistoric Earth are repurposed to defend against urban modern day threats, pedophiles happen to trigger those same brain pathways. This is why I say the hate is instinctual not logical - we are evolution's false positive alarm. But at the same time knowing this I'm not making a risky case that I want to harm toddlers, kindergarten girls and later elementary school age kids. I'm for kiss and cuddle and gentle touch contact but no penis contact or genitial stimulation with them ever until 13.5 Yes, I'm ok with 13.5+ consenting to full sex with guys who want that (I don't want that) but I don't think small children should be doing those things because without hormones they can't understand attraction. This isn't conceding to antis its showing nuance, deeper understanding, and celebrating the lovely joys of little girls and largely rejecting the feminist concept of power dymanics. Showing we can love prepubescent children without penis contact is a higher form of love. Though to give personal information I ejaculate to chinese toddlers from swimwear webpages all the time, but while relieving myself I think about the joy of how cute they are, I don't think about sex or penial contact with them ever. I just focus on the adorableness, the wholesome good they are to help obtain sensual relief. I think I tricked my brain into making sexuality 2.0. Perhaps sexuallity has multiple purposes in nature, for both reproductin and animal bonding.

I know 3-11 year old girls will grow up one day and have boyfriends and I'm perfectly fine with that, I just want to play the role of nuturing and loving them in their early phase of life. Like a mentor and lover to girls and absorb every ounce of their cuteness and have their beautify bodies erotocized through softcore pornographic media. I want a society where norms on sexuality are different without stupid concepts like infidelity, cheating, marriage or commitment unless strictly voluntary agreements not socially imposed. Lastly, this website has the pastel MAP colors with black instead of white. From what I understand white means purity (no contact) and black means full contact, gray stripes mean its complicated debate (like me). But this website is map flag with black instead of white. Which makes me kinda upset. My thinking is very far from heteronormality but it does not seem beneficial for a prepubescent to engage in penial contact/genitial stimulation. Ultimately, when it comes to contact I agree if we refuse to go below 13.5.

Why 13.5? I understand 13 (or 14 for boys), since most 13-year-old girls menstruate (90% of those who are 13.75). I understand 15 (or 16 for boys) since menarche is considered delayed if it hasn't occurred by 15 or because most 15-year-old girls are fully sexually mature (assuming that puberty is completed within two years after menarche) and I understand 17 (or 18 for boys) since all 17-year-old girls are fully sexually mature in the absence of some kind of medical problem or abnormality.

Penile/vaginal contact doesn't have to mean full-blown vaginal intercourse. I'm not sure why you would necessarily oppose a man performing cunnilingus on a prepubescent girl in some hypothetical scenarios that aren't completely removed from reality. To play devil's advocate (as in, I don't want to stand by the idea that full-on vaginal intercourse with a prepubescent girl could be a good idea in practice. I'm just considering possibilities), adults never become physiologically ready for anal sex (biologically, anuses are not 'for' sex) but they can use artificial lubrication. A man can also stimulate a woman's clitoris without actual intercourse too.

I also think that it's a mistake to assume that children don't experience sexual attraction prior to puberty. It makes complete sense on paper but there's evidence of third trimester fetuses masturbating in the womb and it's on occasion observed in infants outside of the womb as well. Personally, I can remember having crushes and thinking about sex in the second grade at least even though I didn't masturbate to ejaculation until 12 (so I'm assuming I started puberty or the male equivalent of thelarche around 10).

Lastly, I agree that sexuality (like mouths) can have multiple purposes (even just from an evolutionary standpoint) but I believe it is reproductive at its core in that you cannot separate the two (obviously you can have sex without reproducing but sexual stimulation naturally engages the reproductive system; penile stimulation pushes sperm and semen into the urethra, orgasm causes men to ejaculate semen which only exists to nourish and protect sperm, apparently vaginal lubrication helps guide sperm along in addition to making intercourse easier, in species that reproduce through obligate parthenogenesis; they still descend from sexually reproducing species, females who copulate are more likely to lay eggs, etc.). 'Sex' couldn't have evolved without reproduction but (pretending that nature could realistically produce highly complicated organisms through asexual reproduction) there could be other ways to bond. You can bond without sex but you can't reproduce without it. 'Sex' isn't just physical touch that is pleasurable (because of the emotional intimacy it comes with or in terms of raw sensory perception), it's a very specific biological function and even if we're talking about non-reproductive sexual/erotic/'romantic' contact, the drive behind that is related to the drive to engage in vaginal intercourse.

I don't want to work out how I feel about your theory on the anti-pedophile instincts most people have. The most charitable interpretation of at least some of the anti-pedophilia mindset would be protective instincts toward the young but the interesting question, I think, is why is some form of erotic play considered inherently harmful to children to begin with? I said more than I planned to but I personally think that it's largely about maintaining an image of children that people with strong parental instincts toward them find gratifying; perhaps even need to sustain those parental feelings (but it's not about protecting them, necessarily, it's that a certain personality type tends to invoke those parental feelings and that personality is seen as asexual, it's hard for people to see children as cute/innocent and sexual simultaneously. I think I recognize some of this in myself when it comes to cats/some non-human animals. I care about children but I don't really have fatherly feelings toward them. I think the selective concern with consent and power dynamics is largely an afterthought to rationalize stigmatizing pedophilia in accordance with that need to maintain the image of children as 'innocent' in their presumed asexuality. But I'm sure there might be different motivations and the moral failing regardless lies in devaluing the happiness of children and pedophiles alike in service of some other value).

I also live to challenge conventional morality when I can. I truly despise it.

[zarkle]

I would never surrender to the antis. I live to challenge them and prove that their deepest morals values about hating us pedos is nothing more then an instinct, and is not based on reason but rather aggressive us against them thinking. Once again I believe anti pedophilia is at least partially connected to parental instincts that all animals have to defend their young, the same neurocircuits parents have that once helped their ancestors protect their children from dangerous jaguars in the forest in prehistoric Earth are repurposed to defend against urban modern day threats, pedophiles happen to trigger those same brain pathways. This is why I say the hate is instinctual not logical - we are evolution's false positive alarm. But at the same time knowing this I'm not making a risky case that I want to harm toddlers, kindergarten girls and later elementary school age kids. I'm for kiss and cuddle and gentle touch contact but no penis contact or genitial stimulation with them ever until 13.5 Yes, I'm ok with 13.5+ consenting to full sex with guys who want that (I don't want that) but I don't think small children should be doing those things because without hormones they can't understand attraction. This isn't conceding to antis its showing nuance, deeper understanding, and celebrating the lovely joys of little girls and largely rejecting the feminist concept of power dymanics. Showing we can love prepubescent children without penis contact is a higher form of love. Though to give personal information I ejaculate to chinese toddlers from swimwear webpages all the time, but while relieving myself I think about the joy of how cute they are, I don't think about sex or penial contact with them ever. I just focus on the adorableness, the wholesome good they are to help obtain sensual relief. I think I tricked my brain into making sexuality 2.0. Perhaps sexuallity has multiple purposes in nature, for both reproductin and animal bonding.

I know 3-11 year old girls will grow up one day and have boyfriends and I'm perfectly fine with that, I just want to play the role of nuturing and loving them in their early phase of life. Like a mentor and lover to girls and absorb every ounce of their cuteness and have their beautify bodies erotocized through softcore pornographic media. I want a society where norms on sexuality are different without stupid concepts like infidelity, cheating, marriage or commitment unless strictly voluntary agreements not socially imposed. Lastly, this website has the pastel MAP colors with black instead of white. From what I understand white means purity (no contact) and black means full contact, gray stripes mean its complicated debate (like me). But this website is map flag with black instead of white. Which makes me kinda upset. My thinking is very far from heteronormality but it does not seem beneficial for a prepubescent to engage in penial contact/genitial stimulation. Ultimately, when it comes to contact I agree if we refuse to go below 13.5.

Why 13.5? I understand 13 (or 14 for boys), since most 13-year-old girls menstruate (90% of those who are 13.75). I understand 15 (or 16 for boys) since menarche is considered delayed if it hasn't occurred by 15 or because most 15-year-old girls are fully sexually mature (assuming that puberty is completed within two years after menarche) and I understand 17 (or 18 for boys) since all 17-year-old girls are fully sexually mature in the absence of some kind of medical problem or abnormality.

Penile/vaginal contact doesn't have to mean full-blown vaginal intercourse. I'm not sure why you would necessarily oppose a man performing cunnilingus on a prepubescent girl in some hypothetical scenarios that aren't completely removed from reality. To play devil's advocate (as in, I don't want to stand by the idea that full-on vaginal intercourse with a prepubescent girl could be a good idea in practice. I'm just considering possibilities), adults never become physiologically ready for anal sex (biologically, anuses are not 'for' sex) but they can use artificial lubrication. A man can also stimulate a woman's clitoris without actual intercourse too.

I also think that it's a mistake to assume that children don't experience sexual attraction prior to puberty. It makes complete sense on paper but there's evidence of third trimester fetuses masturbating in the womb and it's on occasion observed in infants outside of the womb as well. Personally, I can remember having crushes and thinking about sex in the second grade at least even though I didn't masturbate to ejaculation until 12 (so I'm assuming I started puberty or the male equivalent of thelarche around 10).

Lastly, I agree that sexuality (like mouths) can have multiple purposes (even just from an evolutionary standpoint) but I believe it is reproductive at its core in that you cannot separate the two (obviously you can have sex without reproducing but sexual stimulation naturally engages the reproductive system; penile stimulation pushes sperm and semen into the urethra, orgasm causes men to ejaculate semen which only exists to nourish and protect sperm, apparently vaginal lubrication helps guide sperm along in addition to making intercourse easier, in species that reproduce through obligate parthenogenesis; they still descend from sexually reproducing species, females who copulate are more likely to lay eggs, etc.). 'Sex' couldn't have evolved without reproduction but (pretending that nature could realistically produce highly complicated organisms through asexual reproduction) there could be other ways to bond. You can bond without sex but you can't reproduce without it. 'Sex' isn't just physical touch that is pleasurable (because of the emotional intimacy it comes with or in terms of raw sensory perception), it's a very specific biological function and even if we're talking about non-reproductive sexual/erotic/'romantic' contact, the drive behind that is related to the drive to engage in vaginal intercourse.

I don't want to work out how I feel about your theory on the anti-pedophile instincts most people have. The most charitable interpretation of at least some of the anti-pedophilia mindset would be protective instincts toward the young but the interesting question, I think, is why is some form of erotic play considered inherently harmful to children to begin with? I said more than I planned to but I personally think that it's largely about maintaining an image of children that people with strong parental instincts toward them find gratifying; perhaps even need to sustain those parental feelings (but it's not about protecting them, necessarily, it's that a certain personality type tends to invoke those parental feelings and that personality is seen as asexual, it's hard for people to see children as cute/innocent and sexual simultaneously. I think I recognize some of this in myself when it comes to cats/some non-human animals. I care about children but I don't really have fatherly feelings toward them. I think the selective concern with consent and power dynamics is largely an afterthought to rationalize stigmatizing pedophilia in accordance with that need to maintain the image of children as 'innocent' in their presumed asexuality. But I'm sure there might be different motivations and the moral failing regardless lies in devaluing the happiness of children and pedophiles alike in service of some other value).

I also live to challenge conventional morality when I can. I truly despise it.

You have a point about the public image of children and teens being different from reality, I agree there. Both children and teens want to be loved and teens and even 10+ want to be sexy intentionally. We need a massive change in norms to allow that.

I know prepubescent children have sexual arousal but it doesn't become concrete until puberty. Keep in mind "concrete sexuality vs abstract prepubescent fantasy sexuality" are two different things. Prepubescents have sensitive nerve endings but lack the hormones that program concrete arousal. For example when I was 5-6 I touched my self sexually while watching spongebob or thinking about tails from Sonic the hedgehog, and fantasized about going back inside moms tummy, it was like a proto sexual arousal, but when I turned 11 I noticed I was attracted to chicks, women (boobs and ass) and of course little girls too. That's when i started jerking off normally and never went back to abstract fantasies. The point is sexuality isn't concrete until puberty and I don't want to take advantage of a child's biological process that is not complete, and I add 2.5 years (11.0 to 13.5) just to be a gentleman. The truth is I don't want to have sex with my main age of attraction - toddlers or kindergarten girls ever despite being obssesed with them. I don't even look at them naked (swim catalog websites only) i'm tired of normies thinking its predatory to love and appreciate small girls.

we need to normalize cuteness, find a way for western culture to embrace the cuteness of little girls.

[John_Doe]

You have a point about the public image of children and teens being different from reality, I agree there. Both children and teens want to be loved and teens and even 10+ want to be sexy intentionally. We need a massive change in norms to allow that.

I know prepubescent children have sexual arousal but it doesn't become concrete until puberty. Keep in mind "concrete sexuality vs abstract prepubescent fantasy sexuality" are two different things. Prepubescents have sensitive nerve endings but lack the hormones that program concrete arousal. For example when I was 5-6 I touched my self sexually while watching spongebob or thinking about tails from Sonic the hedgehog, and fantasized about going back inside moms tummy, it was like a proto sexual arousal, but when I turned 11 I noticed I was attracted to chicks, women (boobs and ass) and of course little girls too. That's when i started jerking off normally and never went back to abstract fantasies. The point is sexuality isn't concrete until puberty and I don't want to take advantage of a child's biological process that is not complete, and I add 2.5 years (11.0 to 13.5) just to be a gentleman. The truth is I don't want to have sex with my main age of attraction - toddlers or kindergarten girls ever despite being obssesed with them. I don't even look at them naked (swim catalog websites only) i'm tired of normies thinking its predatory to love and appreciate small girls.

we need to normalize cuteness, find a way for western culture to embrace the cuteness of little girls.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by concrete vs. abstract sexuality. It seems to make some sense, on paper, considering how low testosterone and estrogen/progesterone levels are before puberty, but it doesn't match with my anecdotal experience (I don't want to go into detail). Many people will tell you that they had crushes at 6/7 and although many people contend that one can be asexual and 'romantic' simultaneously, I think what most people have in mind when they talk about 'crushes' involves some sexual attraction.

I don't really understand the point about taking advantage of a child's biological process when it's incomplete. It seems kind of vague to me. I think I can understand the argument if it's that prepubescent children don't have bodies that are ready for reproduction so sexual contact will likely cause them distress for that reason (i.e. that sexual instincts come with an ability to sexually reproduce and in the absence of that sex will be disgusting or upsetting). The problem is that small children seem to have low disgust and older children (6/7 and up) seem to have some sexual interest and won't necessarily be scarred or traumatized for life with some kind of erotic contact (not necessarily full-on vaginal intercourse. It could be kissing, cunnilingus, tight hugging, etc.).

Adding 2.5 years really confuses me. Children start puberty at different ages, some 10-year-olds menstruate, some 14-year-old girls don't (some 15 to 44-year-olds don't but that wouldn't be for 'age-related' reasons, only around 2% of 15-year-old girls haven't started menarche. Some girls aged 9 and younger do menstruate but that's considered precocious). If you want to play it safe, it seems to me that 15 should be the magic number, even though most people seem to find the idea of a 40-year-old man with a 15-year-old girl to be completely shocking and unacceptable which I honestly cannot fathom (not that any given 15-year-old girl will necessarily want a 40-year-old man but she might not want a conventionally unattractive 15-year-old boy either, no one sees a moral issue with her dating such a boy). Or, again, you could make it 17 even though I think the difference between having started ovulation/sperm production and being fully sexually mature (for girls, I'm assuming that basically means consistent menstrual cycles and fewer anovulatory ones) is a difference in degree whereas you can draw a black and white line between someone who ovulates/has menstrual cycles and someone who does not.

Do you avoid looking at naked toddlers/kindergarten-aged girls as a matter of principle?

The baseline for me is that we stop stigmatizing pedophilia and significant age-gap attraction (everyone deserves happiness and sexual pleasure falls under that. To the extent that a relationship is a source of happiness for people it should be celebrated by everyone) and if we discourage child-adult or significant age-gap sexual intimacy in practice the justification should be an anti-suffering agenda, not the idea that such relationships are bad on principle.

I'm a broken record on this (I love pointing it out) but even if you think that older adult-teen relationships are bad (that's fine, it's a separate conversation), we need to stop pretending that men in their 20s, 30s, etc. being attracted to teenage girls isn't to be expected. It is caused by normal human biology. Men's bodies are adapted to impregnate human females and 15-24-year old girls/women typically ovulate, so average men are going to feel attracted to some of them in accordance with basic human biology. Making fun of someone like Drake for just being attracted to teenage girls as if he's some rare exception and that's super corny is phony. Attraction isn't a choice.

[zarkle]

You have a point about the public image of children and teens being different from reality, I agree there. Both children and teens want to be loved and teens and even 10+ want to be sexy intentionally. We need a massive change in norms to allow that.

I know prepubescent children have sexual arousal but it doesn't become concrete until puberty. Keep in mind "concrete sexuality vs abstract prepubescent fantasy sexuality" are two different things. Prepubescents have sensitive nerve endings but lack the hormones that program concrete arousal. For example when I was 5-6 I touched my self sexually while watching spongebob or thinking about tails from Sonic the hedgehog, and fantasized about going back inside moms tummy, it was like a proto sexual arousal, but when I turned 11 I noticed I was attracted to chicks, women (boobs and ass) and of course little girls too. That's when i started jerking off normally and never went back to abstract fantasies. The point is sexuality isn't concrete until puberty and I don't want to take advantage of a child's biological process that is not complete, and I add 2.5 years (11.0 to 13.5) just to be a gentleman. The truth is I don't want to have sex with my main age of attraction - toddlers or kindergarten girls ever despite being obssesed with them. I don't even look at them naked (swim catalog websites only) i'm tired of normies thinking its predatory to love and appreciate small girls.

we need to normalize cuteness, find a way for western culture to embrace the cuteness of little girls.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by concrete vs. abstract sexuality. It seems to make some sense, on paper, considering how low testosterone and estrogen/progesterone levels are before puberty, but it doesn't match with my anecdotal experience (I don't want to go into detail). Many people will tell you that they had crushes at 6/7 and although many people contend that one can be asexual and 'romantic' simultaneously, I think what most people have in mind when they talk about 'crushes' involves some sexual attraction.

I don't really understand the point about taking advantage of a child's biological process when it's incomplete. It seems kind of vague to me. I think I can understand the argument if it's that prepubescent children don't have bodies that are ready for reproduction so sexual contact will likely cause them distress for that reason (i.e. that sexual instincts come with an ability to sexually reproduce and in the absence of that sex will be disgusting or upsetting). The problem is that small children seem to have low disgust and older children (6/7 and up) seem to have some sexual interest and won't necessarily be scarred or traumatized for life with some kind of erotic contact (not necessarily full-on vaginal intercourse. It could be kissing, cunnilingus, tight hugging, etc.).

Adding 2.5 years really confuses me. Children start puberty at different ages, some 10-year-olds menstruate, some 14-year-old girls don't (some 15 to 44-year-olds don't but that wouldn't be for 'age-related' reasons, only around 2% of 15-year-old girls haven't started menarche. Some girls aged 9 and younger do menstruate but that's considered precocious). If you want to play it safe, it seems to me that 15 should be the magic number, even though most people seem to find the idea of a 40-year-old man with a 15-year-old girl to be completely shocking and unacceptable which I honestly cannot fathom (not that any given 15-year-old girl will necessarily want a 40-year-old man but she might not want a conventionally unattractive 15-year-old boy either, no one sees a moral issue with her dating such a boy). Or, again, you could make it 17 even though I think the difference between having started ovulation/sperm production and being fully sexually mature (for girls, I'm assuming that basically means consistent menstrual cycles and fewer anovulatory ones) is a difference in degree whereas you can draw a black and white line between someone who ovulates/has menstrual cycles and someone who does not.

Do you avoid looking at naked toddlers/kindergarten-aged girls as a matter of principle?

The baseline for me is that we stop stigmatizing pedophilia and significant age-gap attraction (everyone deserves happiness and sexual pleasure falls under that. To the extent that a relationship is a source of happiness for people it should be celebrated by everyone) and if we discourage child-adult or significant age-gap sexual intimacy in practice the justification should be an anti-suffering agenda, not the idea that such relationships are bad on principle.

I'm a broken record on this (I love pointing it out) but even if you think that older adult-teen relationships are bad (that's fine, it's a separate conversation), we need to stop pretending that men in their 20s, 30s, etc. being attracted to teenage girls isn't to be expected. It is caused by normal human biology. Men's bodies are adapted to impregnate human females and 15-24-year old girls/women typically ovulate, so average men are going to feel attracted to some of them in accordance with basic human biology. Making fun of someone like Drake for just being attracted to teenage girls as if he's some rare exception and that's super corny is phony. Attraction isn't a choice.

>but even if you think that older adult-teen relationships are bad
I am not against teen and adult relationships at all, I am 100% for that regardless of age gap as long as their is no coercion, fraud or black mailing. I want a world where adult teen sex is fully normalized. All normal men are attracted to 15+

>Do you avoid looking at naked toddlers/kindergarten-aged girls as a matter of principle?

Outside of really cute butts Toddlers (age 3-4) look kinda weird naked. I'm not really attracted to vaginas, i never think of kid vaginas outside of camel toe inprints on swimsuits. Though I am sexually aroused by the idea of vaginal sex with adult women and upper teens, but I can easily put aside my desire for upper teens. I am not a jailbait guy. 16 and 20 are both attractive but I'd always choose 20 for penetrative sex. My libido for 3-5 year old girls is characterized by a feeling of extreme cuteness and was likely shaped by the media that was avalible since I never look at hardcore CP. Asian swimwear shopping websites disporportionate show little asian girls and sometimes white girls in bikinis and one piece swimsuits. This molded my brain's reward pathways around that. I'm willing to bet that if the majority of children from the swimwear catalogs were hispanic or black I'd be more interested in those girls, my preference for asian and white children is due to higher amounts of them on swimshop catalogs. Hispanic and black girs very adorable but scarce on swimshop websites. It's probably 70% asian, 28% white and 2% other identities. I also notice I am aroused by things like floral print, dotted and striped bikinis on girls.

>ovulates/has menstrual cycles and someone who does not
yeah I don't think any non menstruating teen should be having sex. Outside of rare sexual dysfunction disorders confirmed later on.

>I'm not sure what exactly you mean by concrete vs. abstract sexuality.
I wasn't sexually aroused by big butts and boobs until very close to 11 years old, before that it was the abstract concept of vaginas as holes (7-10yo me), and before that it was touching my dick/humping a pillow thinking about spongebob and tails from sonic the hedge hog and going back inside my moms tummy or worse the embarassing fantasies I had about meeting bible characters that triggered arousel (4-6yo me) The concrete attraction to feminine forms didn't appear till about 11 and that corresponds with semen production and higher testerone. Little Girls are probably similar. I don't want to interact with their genitials or contact them with my genitials because of that.

Think of it, intectual antis make two arguments against sex with minors
1. Power Dynamics
2. Hormones

I'm mostly disagreeing with the first while conceding to the second. Because I see evidence of one being harmful.