Little Sister Is A Big Bully

[Muscles Douceur]

I think if you like underage girl its pedophile.

I think what is most important to know is whether under the conditions of our particular case, it is clinically a mental illness and whether this constitutes a danger to society (especially to children). ^^

[nebulasparks]

and men that engage in sexual activity with underage children are still pedophiles. Men that possess child pornography, graphical or real, are charged.

Yes, well, I didn't talk about sexual activity or pornography. Only fantasy and sexualization (sexualization does not mean "sexual activities" or "pornography" but representations of young girls in provocative outfits and poses").

In fact, the topic of our conversation was never about sexual activity or pornography.

""However there is an example that comes to my mind: JAPAN!
The Japanese are not the best example in terms of moral values and virtues for this kind of things but there fantasizing on young girls between 13 and 18 years old is almost a normality. You're not going to tell me that all the men of the same nation are all pedophiles?  You just have to look at the manga and other Japanese anime, with young girls under 18 years old who are highly sexualized, and the reactions of adult men to young girls under 18 years old who are sexualized in these works.
Young girls in ultra short school outfits, it's a big fantasy of Japanese men, there is even a whole commercial aspect on it   
It is their culture that is like that.""

Everything in bold is incorrect.

Our culture isn't like this. People are not pedophiles because women wear high skirts in manga and anime designed for teenagers and outside cultures. Art pieces that include sexual content with underage characters however: people [sexually]attracted to those are pedophiles. And most men over here aren't interested in that sort of thing, as I already said, and detest people that are [sexually] attracted to it. Any work that caters to someone's kink is treated the same. A child that's 6 feet tall and dominates people because of it is kink-content, and men [sexually] attracted to it are deemed pedophiles because they fit the criteria of a pedophile.

In this case, you are attracted to muscles on a minor, and therefore you are a pedophile because you are attracted to a feature possessed by a child. It doesn't matter if you say you're attracted to only the muscles, you are still a pedophile because you exhibit sexual attraction towards a minor which may become more severe, as is with the case with a lot of caught pedophiles. Even if it doesn't become more severe, even if you stay at home and nobody finds out, you're still a pedophile. There is no changing that. The nuances exist only in your mind and ignore the big picture.

With Japan, it was funny to see you mess up simple fragments of our culture. You said underage women is a big [sexual] fantasy for [all] men in Japan (I say all because later on you say, "You're not going to tell me that all the men of the same nation are all pedophiles?"

It isn't a big sexual fantasy and we detest it. We commonly call out the minority of men that are sexually attracted to these women, and that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether it is pedophilia to be [sexually] attracted to muscles on young girls, and I have already proven by definition that it is pedophilia. You have to explain why the definition is wrong or else be quiet. You said already that it may be considered pedophilia by the definition, so I have no idea why you're still continuing.

"Yes, well, I didn't talk about sexual activity or pornography."

I'm aware. That's why I said, "And yes you didn't mention that, but it's important to note regardless since it's typically misconstrued from other countries."

"but representations of young girls in provocative outfits and poses""

The majority of us men are not attracted to this. I've never seen what you're talking about as a matter of fact. Especially in commercials, since we have strict laws about children in commercials. The occasional skimpy skirt might be shown to advertise school clothing (which btw, most schools don't let girls have skirts above the knees unless they are over 16, which was a borrowed practice from the Chinese to preserve purity among women and has nothing to do with pedophilia), but grown men certainly aren't sexually attracted to it unless they are among the minority and are pedophiles.

And I'm going to go off anyway, since I'm intrigued now.

I do suppose you have a point about you not necessarily being a danger to society. However, the same can be said for people that possess child pornography and kink-related content involving children. We simply don't know what they will do given enough time (we aren't mind-readers), but we can prevent them from stemming to real children. Yes, muscles on a child are rare, but that's like saying animated child pornography where the child has tentacles should get a free pass because they don't exist in real life. And muscles are much closer to existing than tentacles, but the point remains: we don't know how a pedophile will act, so we take precautions to protect our children and parents. So while not a direct danger, there is still a risk posed (which I mentioned) that constitutes arrest and prosecution. Such is the case in Japan, as well.

And, this is important nothing as well: Even if you pose no threat at all and it's somehow proven that you can't, you still are a pedophile, because you have sexual feelings directed towards a child. That's what I was saying the entire time.

"If I understood correctly, you want examples, I never wanted to divert your question intentionally, unlike you, only you asked me once and I missed it. And also I select a little what seems to me the relevant, because already our comments are very long, otherwise I write a novel.
However it's more a trick question than anything else, because you know very well that it's very difficult to give concrete examples for this kind of thing. And I also respect the anonymity of those with whom I dialogue."

I actually asked you twice. And yes, it is IMPOSSIBLE to give a grey area in pedophilia, because you can't be sexually attracted to child (someone under the age of majority in your respective country [or] under the age of puberty) as an adult without being a pedophile. I just caught you out here. You didn't expect me to ask for an example. It's not a trick question. It's me catching you out in the fallacy.

"On the other hand, you, it's just an impression too, but it seems to me that you have feelings that you refute, maybe unconsciously, and that's why you're so closed-minded on the subject and that you're so arrogant, it's certainly not insignificant that we're having this conversation here, in this topic. It seems strange to me that you can read a whole story of 78 chapters about a 13 year old girl with huge muscles and superhuman strength and huge breasts (well, breasts are not the characteristic of Kylie that I like the most), who makes all the women in the world cum, without getting any satisfaction from it. And the fact that you've been reading this story since the beginning doesn't change anything. As I told you, your explanation on this subject did not really convince me. You say you don't like Kylie and the other underage girls in this story, but Kylie is the main subject of this story, the other characters (apart from Rick, Kylie's brother who the reader identifies with) are very secondary. Eventually Allison (who is only 17 years old at the beginning of the story) and who has nice attou for fantasy but who is still very secondary to Kylie and a thousand light years away from Kylie's power (especially since Allison is totally crazy about Kylie since the beginning of the story), there is also Lauren who has nice little sexual attou without being muscular or strong but who arrives very late in the story, and once again the story is Kylie. Reading this story only for the major secondary characters seems very light to me, especially 78 chapters."

Yeah, I'm not refuting anything. I don't care if you're not convinced. It doesn't matter to me at all what you think because you actually are a pedophile.

"And yes I like strong muscular girls too, I never hid it here, I just didn't want to talk too much about myself until now. But I know what I really like and I know that it is a drift from my basic fantasy about female muscles. I know that without this female muscle fantasy, I wouldn't be interested in any underage girls. I know my feelings, and I think I'm a little better at talking about my own feelings than you are about mine. Call it pedophilia if you want, I don't think I'm sick or a danger to anyone. Besides, in real life I'm looking for a muscular woman, not an underage girl."

Yikes. That's sad, I have to say. I do hope you find some success in your life that doesn't rely on a sexual fantasy involving muscular women and/or muscular children. If you want my opinion: I think you're sick. I think you could be a danger to society given enough time (I could be wrong. Not a mind-reader. I base my thoughts off of what happens with a lot of pedophiles). And I couldn't find it, but at some point you mentioned that most pedophiles don't touch a child their whole lives. Care to expand on how you know this?

"In spite of all this trolling, I think there was some seriousness in your arguments, and to begin with, one of your biggest problems in this conversation (apart from the trolling) is that you fail to understand that with this kind of topic of conversation, there is very little to rely on facts, and that it is mainly approached with subjectivity, because it is related to feelings, and therefore not concrete. But it is quite possible to be objective in subjectivity, even if it seems very contradictory, because as I said before, objectivity is not only linked to known, proven and true facts, objectivity is also considering and analyzing all credible possibilities even without facts to justify them. So yes I never denied that my arguments were very theoretical, but they are theory based on many facts and coherent reasoning, in short they are objective theories. But with this kind of subject we can never be sure of anything, nor can we say that we are right, we can only discuss possibilities, and we can only doubt everything. That's why your limited mind needs true and known facts to understand things. So your limited mind is not made for this kind of subject. But you are free to open your mind a little more, consider all the theories that seem credible and coherent to you without necessarily relying only on known, proven and true facts, even if it cannot give you true certainty.
In short, this is the kind of subject where no one can be right or wrong, there is no point in trying to win, but we can all benefit from listening to each other. ^^"

No, no, no. When you try argue against known definitions, it becomes an objective discussion. You at multiple points deemed your points facts when they were just notional theories from personal experience, which I've proven is not a fact. Your reasoning is also very incoherent, and I have pointed out the many contradictions and fallacies in your arguments, but you always go back to the infamous burden of proof and splitting of hairs because it's easier than taking on an actual defense. Again, this confirms your loss on the topic of objectivity vs subjectivity; you just don't want to admit it because you're ashamed of wasting so much time only to be disproven by definitions.

It's funny that you call my mind limited, yet I can tell I'm far more intelligent than you are, and I say that as modestly as I can. You lack fundamental reasoning skills and objective analysis, something you're taught from a very young age; the world isn't all feelings and rainbows: if you're a pedophile by definition, you're a pedophile. Create as many delusions as you want, but you can't argue with facts unless you have a strong case to disprove the world. Which you don't. You're a pathetic grown man in his 40s with a sad undercurrent catering to muscular children and muscular women. If you cannot be truly happy without these features, you need help. I have dated a muscular woman, and it's no different than dating anyone else. They only have a hobby. Once you realise that, perhaps you'll stop pathetically grovelling over them and instead look to do something with your half-assed life.

Again, this is all in good fun. I stopped taking you seriously after you called personal observations objective facts. It's difficult to fix an idiot.

 

[Agamemnon128]

Can this thread be locked if grbaclig has no further updates? The last several pages have just been a completely tangential world war three.

For the record, it's kind of amusing that ya'll have written the equivalent of a small novel going back and forth here, with neither party apparently interested in establishing any kind of factual reality. Despite what nebulasparks, our great master debater, claims to be """facts,""" not once has he bothered to provide even the barest foundation of research into what is at its heart a psychological and psychiatric issue. I will provide some sources for you to review if you would like. You may want to begin with the DSM (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders), which is considered the de-facto standard for the classification of mental disorders and is the product of hundreds of psychiatric experts working together for many decades [1]. Specifically, it states that the diagnostic criteria for Pedophilic Disorder is the following:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

[American Psychiatric Association, p.697]

Please note the relevant details in criterion A and B regarding the intensity and specificity required to make such a diagnosis. To the point: transient interest or especially transient interest as a facet of another fetish by absolutely no means constitutes "Pedophilic disorder," despite your claims. To emphasize: "Ever having thoughts of sex with a prepubescent child or even ever having sexual contact with a prepubescent child would not be sufficient to meet the standard diagnostic criteria for pedophilia because persistence and intensity are two key features of these definitions" [Seto 2018].

Furthermore, the APA states that "Pedophilia per se appears to be a lifelong condition" [APA, p.699]. This leads well to another point I feel compelled to make, which is that even if some readers of this content do meet the aforementioned criteria (and I have no doubt that some do, for what it's worth) labeling them as "sick" or any other strictly non-clinical pejorative is unhelpful and arguably actively harmful. There is no statistical evidence that pedophilia or "pedophilic disorders" can be cured [Seto 2009]. According to Dr. Peter Fagan "current treatment goals focus on stopping the behavior and achieving long-term behavioral control in the community" [Fagan et al.]. Labeling people as perverts or sick or deranged etc serves only to coarsen your discourse, and decrease the odds that any actual sufferers of a mental disorder will seek the professional help they need.

Finally, and most interestingly, the existence and availability of "loli" has never been positively statistically correlated to an increase in sex crime towards children. Indeed, it is exactly the opposite: "...the high availability of hard-core pornography in Denmark was most probably the very direct cause of a considerable decrease in at least one type of serious sex offense, namely, child molestation" [Kutchinsky]. See also: "a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims" [Diamond]. If you have any evidence to corroborate your earlier claims to the contrary then produce it.

On a personal note to nebulasparks, I'm sure you're aware but nonetheless I would like to point out that you come across as a supremely ignorant and arrogant ass. You say this doesn't detract from your points ("facts don't care..."), nonetheless the simple, practical reality is that it does. By deliberately punching down against a non-native speaker of English and self-aggrandizing around a (frankly pitiable) list of accomplishments you make it far less likely that anyone will hear what you say, if only because they find you so intolerable. Your latest diatribe is frankly disturbing. Truly intelligent people don't call themselves intelligent, nor do they stoop to such comparisons. As they say in the legal profession, "if you have the law, you pound the law. If you have the facts, you pound the facts. If you have neither, you pound the table." You've done nothing but write small novellas worth of pseudo-intellectual, knee-jerk responses based entirely on what I can only assume are your own personal biases. "In the real world," as you like to say so much we use evidence. Perhaps you should have studied something besides English Lit and History, or at least added a Psych 101 course to your curriculum.

To grbaclig, thanks again for the read. As an adult who can differentiate between casual fantasy/taboo and obsessive mental disorder I really couldn't care less who gets off to what in the privacy of their own home, insofar as the legality of the content goes.



References

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013).
        Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
        Washington, DC: Author.

2. Michael C. Seto (2009)
        Pedophilia
        Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2009 5:1, 391-407

3. Fagan PJ, Wise TN, Schmidt, Jr CW, Berlin FS.
        Pedophilia.
        JAMA. 2002;288(19):2458–2465. doi:10.1001/jama.288.19.2458

4. Kutchinsky, B. (1973).
        The Effect of Easy Availability of Pornography on the Incidence of Sex Crimes: The Danish Experience.
        Journal of Social Issues, 29: 163-181. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00094.x

5. Michael C. Seto (2018)
        Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention, Second Edition
        American Psychiatric Association. isbn:978-1-4338-2926-0

6. Milton Diamond, Ph.D. (1999)
        The Effects of Pornography: an international perspective
        International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

[nebulasparks]

Can this thread be locked if grbaclig has no further updates? The last several pages have just been a completely tangential world war three.

For the record, it's kind of amusing that ya'll have written the equivalent of a small novel going back and forth here, with neither party apparently interested in establishing any kind of factual reality. Despite what nebulasparks, our great master debater, claims to be """facts,""" not once has he bothered to provide even the barest foundation of research into what is at its heart a psychological and psychiatric issue. I will provide some sources for you to review if you would like. You may want to begin with the DSM (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders), which is considered the de-facto standard for the classification of mental disorders and is the product of hundreds of psychiatric experts working together for many decades [1]. Specifically, it states that the diagnostic criteria for Pedophilic Disorder is the following:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

[American Psychiatric Association, p.697]

Please note the relevant details in criterion A and B regarding the intensity and specificity required to make such a diagnosis. To the point: transient interest or especially transient interest as a facet of another fetish by absolutely no means constitutes "Pedophilic disorder," despite your claims. To emphasize: "Ever having thoughts of sex with a prepubescent child or even ever having sexual contact with a prepubescent child would not be sufficient to meet the standard diagnostic criteria for pedophilia because persistence and intensity are two key features of these definitions" [Seto 2018].

Furthermore, the APA states that "Pedophilia per se appears to be a lifelong condition" [APA, p.699]. This leads well to another point I feel compelled to make, which is that even if some readers of this content do meet the aforementioned criteria (and I have no doubt that some do, for what it's worth) labeling them as "sick" or any other strictly non-clinical pejorative is unhelpful and arguably actively harmful. There is no statistical evidence that pedophilia or "pedophilic disorders" can be cured [Seto 2009]. According to Dr. Peter Fagan "current treatment goals focus on stopping the behavior and achieving long-term behavioral control in the community" [Fagan et al.]. Labeling people as perverts or sick or deranged etc serves only to coarsen your discourse, and decrease the odds that any actual sufferers of a mental disorder will seek the professional help they need.

Finally, and most interestingly, the existence and availability of "loli" has never been positively statistically correlated to an increase in sex crime towards children. Indeed, it is exactly the opposite: "...the high availability of hard-core pornography in Denmark was most probably the very direct cause of a considerable decrease in at least one type of serious sex offense, namely, child molestation" [Kutchinsky]. See also: "a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims" [Diamond]. If you have any evidence to corroborate your earlier claims to the contrary then produce it.

On a personal note to nebulasparks, I'm sure you're aware but nonetheless I would like to point out that you come across as a supremely ignorant and arrogant ass. You say this doesn't detract from your points ("facts don't care..."), nonetheless the simple, practical reality is that it does. By deliberately punching down against a non-native speaker of English and self-aggrandizing around a (frankly pitiable) list of accomplishments you make it far less likely that anyone will hear what you say, if only because they find you so intolerable. Your latest diatribe is frankly disturbing. Truly intelligent people don't call themselves intelligent, nor do they stoop to such comparisons. As they say in the legal profession, "if you have the law, you pound the law. If you have the facts, you pound the facts. If you have neither, you pound the table." You've done nothing but write small novellas worth of pseudo-intellectual, knee-jerk responses based entirely on what I can only assume are your own personal biases. "In the real world," as you like to say so much we use evidence. Perhaps you should have studied something besides English Lit and History, or at least added a Psych 101 course to your curriculum.

To grbaclig, thanks again for the read. As an adult who can differentiate between casual fantasy/taboo and obsessive mental disorder I really couldn't care less who gets off to what in the privacy of their own home, insofar as the legality of the content goes.



References

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013).
        Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
        Washington, DC: Author.

2. Michael C. Seto (2009)
        Pedophilia
        Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2009 5:1, 391-407

3. Fagan PJ, Wise TN, Schmidt, Jr CW, Berlin FS.
        Pedophilia.
        JAMA. 2002;288(19):2458–2465. doi:10.1001/jama.288.19.2458

4. Kutchinsky, B. (1973).
        The Effect of Easy Availability of Pornography on the Incidence of Sex Crimes: The Danish Experience.
        Journal of Social Issues, 29: 163-181. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00094.x

5. Michael C. Seto (2018)
        Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention, Second Edition
        American Psychiatric Association. isbn:978-1-4338-2926-0

6. Milton Diamond, Ph.D. (1999)
        The Effects of Pornography: an international perspective
        International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

This is the sort of stuff I was looking for. Thanks in advance.

I agree with all of the sources you have listed.

"Ever having thoughts of sex with a prepubescent child or even ever having sexual contact with a prepubescent child would not be sufficient to meet the standard diagnostic criteria for pedophilia because persistence and intensity are two key features of these definitions"

I agree with this 100%. I have mentioned multiple times that what we were discussing were people overtly sexualising children and people that were necessarily attracted to these children regarding the muscle fetish. So persistence is most certainly one factor that must be taken into account. Merely having an intrusive thought is not enough to dictate a mental illness, but what we're discussing here are people that upload kink content specifically involving children (under 13 a lot of the time). These same people find the prospect of children with muscles more sexually appealing than grown women (this was not my argument by my opponent's). (I.E. The younger the age, the more sexually impressive the content).

So, this quote is indeed correct and backs up what I was saying since the very start. The persistence and intensity of being sexually attracted to underage women grants a pedophilic status. The definition of pedophilia does not change here and what my opponent argues is that, "the younger the age, the more turned on the person becomes", which grants 1. intensity, and 2. persistence. But what we define as "intense" can change the meaning of the claim. I will look into this more to see what classifies intensity, so thank you for the referral(s).

"Finally, and most interestingly, the existence and availability of "loli" has never been positively statistically correlated to an increase in sex crime towards children. Indeed, it is exactly the opposite: "...the high availability of hard-core pornography in Denmark was most probably the very direct cause of a considerable decrease in at least one type of serious sex offense, namely, child molestation" [Kutchinsky]. See also: "a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims" [Diamond]. If you have any evidence to corroborate your earlier claims to the contrary then produce it."

I never claimed that the existence of "loli" correlated to an increase in sex crime towards children. In fact, I argued for, half, of what you produced: "a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims"

My opponent argued that Japan sexualises children and constituted a "grey area" in pedophilia through these terms.

The minority of men in Japan are sexually attracted to underage women in skimpy skirts. I don't believe I've mentioned otherwise. I didn't mention anything about porn increasing sexual behavior towards children. I did, however, explain that we don't know how people in possession of child pornography will act.

So I agree here again.

"On a personal note to nebulasparks, I'm sure you're aware but nonetheless I would like to point out that you come across as a supremely ignorant and arrogant ass. You say this doesn't detract from your points ("facts don't care..."), nonetheless the simple, practical reality is that it does. By deliberately punching down against a non-native speaker of English and self-aggrandizing around a (frankly pitiable) list of accomplishments you make it far less likely that anyone will hear what you say, if only because they find you so intolerable. Your latest diatribe is frankly disturbing. Truly intelligent people don't call themselves intelligent, nor do they stoop to such comparisons. As they say in the legal profession, "if you have the law, you pound the law. If you have the facts, you pound the facts. If you have neither, you pound the table." You've done nothing but write small novellas worth of pseudo-intellectual, knee-jerk responses based entirely on what I can only assume are your own personal biases. "In the real world," as you like to say so much we use evidence. Perhaps you should have studied something besides English Lit and History, or at least added a Psych 101 course to your curriculum."

Oh, I'm aware. But a lot of it was in good fun because I was getting tired of the discussion. It was very roundabout.

What doesn't detract from my points? The sources you mentioned? I don't think they detract from my points at all. The only area I'm questioning is "intensity", which I will look into and if has a standard that deviates from what I said, I will come back and say I was wrong.

I wasn't punching down against a non-native speaker. I pointed out that some areas were difficult to discern because the grammar changed what the author had originally meant to say, which led to me misinterpreting what they meant.

Yeah, the diatribe was me not taking him seriously anymore. It's a bunch of ad hominins to counter the psychological analysis the author had initiated on me. No point was being made there.

So I thank you for the sources and substance. I apologise you had to stumble across this discussion that, I admit, was a pain to read when neither party was willing to throw sources at one another. But I don't think your sources disagree with the premise of the discussion and which I have been defending. Again, I'll have to look into the smaller parts to discern elements.

Thanks again.

[Muscles Douceur]

A huge thank you to you, Agamemnon128, for concluding this debate so masterfully, I had no idea how to get out of it, but I couldn't leave it with such an erroneous, accusing and inferred judgment from such a limited mind. It's true that when you have the right references it's immediately better. It's true that I didn't argue in the most intelligent way, I only used my logical deduction from my meager knowledge on the subject of pedophilia from various articles I've read and TV reports I've seen, and from what I've learned from our community of female muscle admirers, as well as from my own feelings, a few small, non-expert facts.
Anyway, I'm reassured, I'm not that stupid, and even less sick.

As for Nebulasparks, you're really amazing as a guy, even when the evidence is shoved under your nose, you still find a way to try to divert it to your advantage as if it confirms your statements, whereas it confirms exactly the opposite of what you've been claiming since the beginning and will rather tend to go in my direction as if it's not necessarily paedophilia, a mental illness, or a danger for society. Your arrogance is just incredible. I wonder if you really realize that. You make me feel like I'm walking on another dimension.

And no personally I never talked about downloading perverted content applying to children, just fantasies. I even said that I thought Kylie's story went too far sometimes.

And finally, I wanted to tell you about your previous comment, because it's something that touches me personally: female muscles are for me much more than a simple fantasy and it's not only sexual for me (even if there's a sexual part, it's not only that), it's much deeper than that, as I said I've had it since I was a child, it's a need that I developed since I was a child before I was even old enough to think about sex. In love we all have needs that are not necessarily only sexual. And no I know I would never find success in love that wasn't based on my need for female muscles. Speaking of which, Tigersan had written something that I think is really relevant on this subject, on DA: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.*****tigersan/journal/To-all-who-love-women-with-muscles-511999419
And please avoid your allusion about muscular children, I do not and would NEVER seek love with underage girls! As I said I am only looking for love with a muscular woman.

[Muscles Douceur]

And finally, I wanted to tell you about your previous comment, because it's something that touches me personally: female muscles are for me much more than a simple fantasy and it's not only sexual for me (even if there's a sexual part, it's not only that), it's much deeper than that, as I said I've had it since I was a child, it's a need that I developed since I was a child before I was even old enough to think about sex. In love we all have needs that are not necessarily only sexual. And no I know I would never find success in love that wasn't based on my need for female muscles. Speaking of which, Tigersan had written something that I think is really relevant on this subject, on DA: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.*****tigersan/journal/To-all-who-love-women-with-muscles-511999419

The link doesn't seem to work, so I put Tigersan's text here :

I won't call it fetish, because its simply shallow and doesn't mean a thing other than overly simplify this highly complex
attraction...

I realize that everyone is different, and this particular fascination might have evolved out of more or less deep subconscious
areas of your mind. But I will assume in most of you its pretty deep. In my case it has to do with so called
"mother issue" and older girl, my cousin (that i had a crush on) bullying me when i was a kid.

What I wanted to say... is: Don't be afraid of who you are... Always tell the truth about your likes (when somebody
asks of course, don't go walking around with a sign that you like muscular women LOL) People around you wlll then see
you as a stronger person, because you are not afraid of rejection amongst your friends or a family. They may joke
around a bit, but then they'll realize it won't change anything and they'll stop. Both with family and friends it's the same
in my experience... So don't be afraid of who you are, be proud of it. Most men don't accept muscular women because
they are insecure about themselves, they cant accept the fact that a woman can be stronger than them both
physically and mentally. Because most men wouldn't last working out and dieting... they are too lazy. They simply aren't
true men...

Another thing i'd like to share, is try to go deeper into your appreciation of powerful, muscular women. Don't treat it
as a simple turn-on or a fetish. It's A LOT more! Muscles are just an externalization of this deeply seeded attraction.
Most of the time (And I'm not saying those are the only options, only those that I find the most common and important)
it will be connected to wanting to be taken care of by a strong, protective, muscular woman (mother issue) or being with a
woman that you can treat as your mighty heroine (hero worship), or being looked down upon or even bullied or beaten up
by a girl. Those seem like simple things, but they are not... They are seeded deeply in your subconscious mind, and can affect
every single thing you do in your adult life. Therefore being aware of those things can help you notice when it happens,
and understand how it affects your life (if it does at all) in any way.

To me it was a great journey, that started as a simple turn-on/fetish when i was about 12 and ended as a lifestyle in my 30's.
I will never date a woman that isn't muscular. Granted, that might sound shallow, but this is one of the reasons I'm writing
this entry. It's not. Don't let anyone judge you based on your likes and attractions. This is something that is a part of you,
and if someone can't accept that part of you, maybe they don't accept you...

Thanks to the fact that I was ALWAYS (well not always but since i came to USA) open about what I like I have met few
interesting people, and my current lovely goddess of a girlfriend. She knew what she was getting in to with me and she
loved it! Being honest with women will allow you not to waste time on relationships that aren't making you 100% happy,
because they will end promptly, and it will also save some heart-ache to the girl if you wont let her deeply fall in love with
you. So you have a chance to meet the woman of your dreams, that you can be truly happy with in ALL POSSIBLE WAYS...
NEVER settle for half-truths, and half-happiness, always strive for TRUE 100% happiness, because that is THE ONLY way
for you to have it... NEVER GIVE UP...

Another reason I'm writing this is, I have found a post of a wife trying to find help on some relationship forums
about her husband that has a muscle fetish. She felt bad about it and was trying to get some advice on how she
can "help him". So I wrote a reply to her: There's a saying "Never try to change others around you - That's impossible.
Only thing you can change is you" so if she REALLY loves him she can try and join his fantasy by signing up for the gym
and living the fantasy with him. Then he wouldn't have a need to sit in front of computer as much as he did, looking for
pictures and video clips of muscular women (she complained about it). Another option she has is leaving the relationship
because based on my experience with women i was with, i was NEVER truly happy until my current girlfriend. If her man
loves her and she claimed he did, he would never tell her that hes unhappy, because he would be afraid of loosing her.
So If she loves him and is unable to join in his fantasy, she should leave him... And people's comments on that thread
were completely clueless, people completely don't understand this attraction and that it's not a simple fetish...
They were treating him as a sick person like an addict, or a pervert, or sex addict... This infuriated me, and pushed me
to write this entry in my Journal.

VERY IMPORTANT ADDITION THOUGH... PLEASE! I feel I should add this on the beginning of this post. I never meant
this journal entry to be the cause of long time relationships falling apart. If you are already in a relationship with a woman.
BEFORE you tell her about your love for muscle, VERY carefully weigh everything, because this may destroy the harmony
and trust, she had in you. Weigh if its worth loosing long term love... I directed this journal entry to single guys who are
still looking for their dream women. LOVE is what is THE MOST important thing not muscle... If you already have LOVE
don't start searching for muscle now, it seems it's kinda too late for that. When I said don't waste time with
relationship you are not 100% happy with I meant fresh relationships, with women you meet as you look for your
dream-woman, relationships that don't have deep love formed yet and that wouldn't hurt the other side...
I'm sorry I didn't notice and specify that before, I would like to inspire people, but not be the inspiration to make their
relationships fall apart... I'm truly sorry for that!!!

Cheers!

My few thoughts i had recently
Best regards Les

I really like what he wrote, I find it really relevant and shows how difficult it is when you have this fantasy deep inside you, to make your life with an ordinary non-muscular woman.

[nebulasparks]

A huge thank you to you, Agamemnon128, for concluding this debate so masterfully, I had no idea how to get out of it, but I couldn't leave it with such an erroneous, accusing and inferred judgment from such a limited mind. It's true that when you have the right references it's immediately better. It's true that I didn't argue in the most intelligent way, I only used my logical deduction from my meager knowledge on the subject of pedophilia from various articles I've read and TV reports I've seen, and from what I've learned from our community of female muscle admirers, as well as from my own feelings, a few small, non-expert facts.
Anyway, I'm reassured, I'm not that stupid, and even less sick.

As for Nebulasparks, you're really amazing as a guy, even when the evidence is shoved under your nose, you still find a way to try to divert it to your advantage as if it confirms your statements, whereas it confirms exactly the opposite of what you've been claiming since the beginning and will rather tend to go in my direction as if it's not necessarily paedophilia, a mental illness, or a danger for society. Your arrogance is just incredible. I wonder if you really realize that. You make me feel like I'm walking on another dimension.

And no personally I never talked about downloading perverted content applying to children, just fantasies. I even said that I thought Kylie's story went too far sometimes.

And finally, I wanted to tell you about your previous comment, because it's something that touches me personally: female muscles are for me much more than a simple fantasy and it's not only sexual for me (even if there's a sexual part, it's not only that), it's much deeper than that, as I said I've had it since I was a child, it's a need that I developed since I was a child before I was even old enough to think about sex. In love we all have needs that are not necessarily only sexual. And no I know I would never find success in love that wasn't based on my need for female muscles. Speaking of which, Tigersan had written something that I think is really relevant on this subject, on DA: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.*****tigersan/journal/To-all-who-love-women-with-muscles-511999419
And please avoid your allusion about muscular children, I do not and would NEVER seek love with underage girls! As I said I am only looking for love with a muscular woman.

I've looked into it more thoroughly and would like to forward an apology in regards to the discussion.

It is true that there was more to the pot than a lot of what's out there. Pedophilia has more complexity than I had originally thought prior to this discussion.

It seems that persistence and intensity (which is anything that interrupts daily life) are two key factors in determining pedophilia. Another thanks for the sources given.

This discussion really went haywire because of nuances, and while nuances have a role to play, they were not necessary here. The broad picture would have sufficed and I'm grateful it finally arrived.

However, I need to mention that this was what I was looking for in response since the start. Most of what made you unreliable was the way in which you conducted your argument (the blind statements, the incorrect assessments, and the blatantly wrong opinions about my country). All of this gave me the impression that you were just defending something for the sake of defending it, and you found yourself in an area where you couldn't stop because you dislike the label I incorrectly placed on you (pedophile). And I apologize for that as well.

Needless to say, I also apologize for the insults towards your character particularly near the end. I'm not sure how your life has been and I'm certain you're not that bad.

Most of the argument (maybe 70%) was just us going back and forth about small details such as objectivity when it didn't matter anyway. While I still don't agree with you in those areas, I can understand how the discussion went the way it did, and most of it was because I didn't look deep enough into more secondary sources (such as what was delivered here today).

If you had opened with those, the discussion could have closed long ago. I agree now that it is not necessarily pedophilia unless it of course meets the criteria. "Intensity"confused me for the most part which is why I had to look into it.

So I apologize again.

As a side note (not directed toward Muscle Douceur): What part made you believe that I said "Loli" led to increased sexual activity against children? I don't believe that at all and know it's not true. I hate that Loli has become almost attached to Japanese culture from an outsider's POV, especially when most of us detest it. Still, would you care to add to why you thought I was inferring this?

Thanks.

[Agamemnon128]

nebula, I do thank you for your measured response. It's all anyone can ask of anyone to evaluate information presented and adjust their mindset accordingly. I admit my own tone at a few times was condescension as a response to condescension, and unproductive. I'm glad you were able to glean some things from the provided literature. Genuinely I just wanted to ensure anyone else reading this didn't believe themselves to be sick or deranged just because a bit of (admittedly very) taboo erotica gave them a reaction. Unless you meet the criteria from the DSM 5 listed above you are not [necessarily] mentally sick. My own tastes are usually very much different from this, however for me strength/muscle has always been a somewhat "taboo" desire - even after realizing it's nothing to be ashamed of - and the exceedingly taboo nature of this piece just happened to synergize with that.

As to your question of my word choice, I (maybe incorrectly) used the word "loli" as a general euphemism for fictional/artistic depictions of that nature.

[Muscles Douceur]

I've looked into it more thoroughly and would like to forward an apology in regards to the discussion.

It is true that there was more to the pot than a lot of what's out there. Pedophilia has more complexity than I had originally thought prior to this discussion.

It seems that persistence and intensity (which is anything that interrupts daily life) are two key factors in determining pedophilia. Another thanks for the sources given.

This discussion really went haywire because of nuances, and while nuances have a role to play, they were not necessary here. The broad picture would have sufficed and I'm grateful it finally arrived.

However, I need to mention that this was what I was looking for in response since the start. Most of what made you unreliable was the way in which you conducted your argument (the blind statements, the incorrect assessments, and the blatantly wrong opinions about my country). All of this gave me the impression that you were just defending something for the sake of defending it, and you found yourself in an area where you couldn't stop because you dislike the label I incorrectly placed on you (pedophile). And I apologize for that as well.

Needless to say, I also apologize for the insults towards your character particularly near the end. I'm not sure how your life has been and I'm certain you're not that bad.

Most of the argument (maybe 70%) was just us going back and forth about small details such as objectivity when it didn't matter anyway. While I still don't agree with you in those areas, I can understand how the discussion went the way it did, and most of it was because I didn't look deep enough into more secondary sources (such as what was delivered here today).

If you had opened with those, the discussion could have closed long ago. I agree now that it is not necessarily pedophilia unless it of course meets the criteria. "Intensity"confused me for the most part which is why I had to look into it.

So I apologize again.

As a side note (not directed toward Muscle Douceur): What part made you believe that I said "Loli" led to increased sexual activity against children? I don't believe that at all and know it's not true. I hate that Loli has become almost attached to Japanese culture from an outsider's POV, especially when most of us detest it. Still, would you care to add to why you thought I was inferring this?

Thanks.

I'm glad it's ending like this, after my last comment I was afraid you'd still find a way to get around this, but I finally see that you're more reasonable than it seemed so far and that you know how to question yourself when you need to, that's a very good point for you. And thank you for taking the trouble to objectively study the sources of Agamemnon128.

As I said it's true that I didn't debate in the most intelligent way, I didn't have the right sources and I didn't know where to look, it's not easy to find, I had read a little bit the wiki to see if I could find some information to disclose, but I didn't find anything interesting or very concrete, except that one is considered a pedophile after a period of at least 6 months, recurrent and intense fantasies of sexual arousal, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with one or more prepubescent children, I wasn't sure if this was enough for our debate.
In short, I was only explaining my logical deduction, but which is not based on anything either. The facts I was demonstrating had no real expert sources, and were only there to explain my reasoning, not to prove that what I was saying was necessarily true. You needed concrete and indisputable evidence that I could not provide. You needed to be 100% convinced without leaving any room for doubt. I wanted you to understand my reasoning, more than to convince you that it was right, I wanted you to think about this reasoning, and what I reproach you with is that you never tried to understand it, you didn't even try to give me the benefit of the doubt, you were convinced that you were right and that was all that mattered to you, as long as you weren't provided with indisputable proof, which I was unable to do.
In short, I wanted you to understand that it is not because we cannot prove something that it is necessarily false and that we cannot have a logical and reliable reasoning. Because as I said before, if not convincing, it should at least make you think.

I must admit that I suffered a bit from this conversation because it is a subject that affects me personally (moreover I am a bit depressed because it is very difficult in our society to find the woman who can fill my sentimental need for feminine muscles, and now that I am 40 years old, I have the impression that it is a wasted effort, I am also in a bit of a mid-life crisis). And like Agamemnon128, I wanted people who read us to not feel sick for having a little fantasy about strong muscular girls. But I didn't have the right tools or arguments, thanks to Agamemnon128, for being able to provide all that. I am now relieved. 

On that note I accept your apology but I hope that next time you will be a little more complacent in this kind of debate even if we can't provide you with the indisputable evidence :-)
As for me next time I will try more to find real sources, even if it must take a long time. ^^

[fp909]

not to side with any one of you, but as a writer in this space for several years now there is a reason a lot of stories like these have evaporated, both in terms of older things disappearing from the web and newer things being written rarely if not at all. same for any commissioned artist--there is usually a list of yes/no things that they will or won't agree to do, no matter the price.

those of us that monetize our writing don't do it as a rule. we pay taxes on our work. i have more than once been briefly suspended for content on patreon (but like most internet suspensions there wasn't a clear arrow pointing to one post or another, or multiple) and had to clear everything in order to get back up and running.

it's a risk to post stuff like this these days so I don't write them, myself.