Is Jim Burton a fraud?

[PorcelainLark]

I think the thing is, you can preach to the choir if you want to, but if you want to change how society views you, you have to try to be able to answer difficult questions.

[msykm99]

Okay, so can you answer the question I just asked whether or not that was discussed previously…or are you gonna ignore that as well

[Jim Burton]

I don't think I can give you a satisfactory answer that goes beyond what I have already posted on here, or written about on Newgon, for many years.

To the extent that sexual contacts between adults and minors are forced, or obtained by pressure or deception on the part of the adult, full permission is given for them to go on and see themselves as a victim, because you are in effect, victimizing them. You can say this is narrative, and much of it is, but literally forcing minors into sex is playing perfectly into that narrative.

I don't believe the act, without injury, to be intrinsically harmful, and can imagine some society where a sexual initiation was forced, where this was seen as "normal", although this is an affront to bodily autonomy IMO.

[msykm99]

That is great so now the next step is to come together as a group to agree on a proper age. Not saying any names, but I’ve seen some people on here say they were attracted to ages as young as 0. That is absolutely absurd. But the outsiders will look at us all the same. We should come to an agreement for an age because I disagree that we would be forcing a child even if he/she gives consent at a certain age. Puberty starts at 8-13 for females, and they are fully capable to have sex.

[Jim Burton]

They are attracted to babies and toddlers. That's just a fact; how is it "absurd"?

The fact is, that some men have "absurd" attractions, if you see it this way, and they must be given some kind of ethical outlet in a society that will never permit them to act on those attractions. That could be pornography of different types, or dolls, or it could be having a discussion group where they can talk to like minded individuals.

Having "all the pedos get together" and "decide on an age" isn't going to make those individuals suddenly go away. Nor is the idea of "all the pedos deciding on an age" going to play well with the public, or lawmakers who are looking for confirmation that all you guys ever think about is getting inside the pants of some little girl on the cusp of puberty. It's not like they are going to say "oh, look, the pedos just got their shit together". More like, "this is how the pedos are scheming to have sexual access to your children; sign our petition for death by stoning, this is beyond an outrage!"

[msykm99]

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.

[Learning to undeny]

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.

[John_Doe]

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.

I think some sexual contact with infants could be ok (e.g. cunnilingus, kissing, rubbing a girl's clitoris or masturbating a boy, some kind of non-penetrative sensual contact etc.). They seem to be low on disgust (often playing with their own feces) and aren't likely to remember anything long-term (which is relevant both in terms of sociogenic harm from internalizing the idea that past sexual contact with an adult was wrong and natural disgust that they'll probably develop as they age, because it won't necessarily be the case that they'll find the caregiver who fondled them as an infant attractive. Most people aren't attracted to their mothers, I assume, but we generally accept breastfeeding as ideal; whether or not it's sexual from the mother's point of view is kind of irrelevant to the physical act itself which 'has' to occur). I won't claim that infants can consent, they can't, but they have no rational agency in general so they can't meaningfully consent to anything; even things they might desire (not to having their diapers changed, being fed, being bathed, being playfully lifted up and so on). Then again, it might generally be a bad idea for reasons I haven't considered.

I think 7 has been considered the age of reason in the past, for whatever that's worth. I'm not so interested in unproductively strict age-based rules as the expectation of harm. In terms of drawing a line I think we could approach this in a few different ways. 7, the age of reason (if there's any truth to the idea that basic meaningful rational agency is developed by 7). 8, the age in which girls can start puberty without it being precocious (I think this would be 9 for boys. I've always assumed that 6 was the standard age for andrenarche but apparently it tends to begin around 2 years before puberty, we're born with low levels of testosterone and estrogen though). 10, the age at which average girls do start puberty (or maybe 11 since it's by 11 that the average girl has started thelarche). 12/13, since average girls have their first period at 12 ('adult cognition' apparently starts to develop at around 12 too) and in the absence of medical abnormalities all 13-year-old girls have started thelarche at least. 15, because average 15-year-old girls have finished puberty (unless menarche is medically delayed, all have at least had their first period even if their periods aren't yet stable), or 17 because all of the 'medically normal' girls in that age group are post-pubescent. I assume you add a year for boys and it's the same thing, but I could be misinformed about a lot of this.

[msykm99]

@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 just think 8 being the start makes more sense. Ultimately we’re just going in circles trying to justify things we can never do. But, at 8 I do believe they can consent and they can say no. Just because we encourage a child to try something does not mean it is harmful or selfish of us. We aren’t telling them to drink bleach or put their hands in fire. I wanted to get to the absolute core of why people actually think this is wrong. Thats why I said other than pain, what other things can cause having sex with children have. If a dude has a 10 in dick with an insane girth, should he penetrate a child? Heavens no. Things like this is what pushes the legal age to 16-18 in states. To avoid things that we can’t control like our dick sizes they made the legal age to where they can physically be ready to have sex with a dick of that magnitude. So I speak to those with rational minds and a sound heart to know right from wrong. As i disagree with any sexual contact with an infant, some will disagree with me saying that if you know your dick size isn’t going to cause excruciating pain then maybe you can engage with an 8 yr old. Ive read alot of post here and i dont think people are getting this deep (no pun intended). I do think that most people are rationally sound but we must actually go deeper to understand both pedo’s and anti’s. Jim, I think if you want to make a case you have to go into much more detail like I have because I am still not convinced that pro contact is wrong.

[G@yWad69]

That is great so now the next step is to come together as a group to agree on a proper age. Not saying any names, but I’ve seen some people on here say they were attracted to ages as young as 0. That is absolutely absurd. But the outsiders will look at us all the same. We should come to an agreement for an age because I disagree that we would be forcing a child even if he/she gives consent at a certain age. Puberty starts at 8-13 for females, and they are fully capable to have sex.

Its absurd?? As if being attracted to children of any age isnt already absurd?