Little Sister Is A Big Bully

[nebulasparks]

I finally finished reading the whole thing.

I hope this comment won't be too complicated for you to read because English is not my first language, I'm French and I use an automatic translator, I'm very bad in English. I didn't expect to write so much, my comment is at least as long as a chapter of this story lol, but I had a lot to say about this story that is as fascinating as it is depressing, but that I really enjoyed reading.

I enjoyed this story as much as I hated it, I found this story very depressing for at least the first 2 parts, it was very hard to read (especially when you read everything in a row), so much the feeling of injustice is huge and seems to be more and more without issue, moreover I'm really not a fan of stories with domination, humiliation and violence, I prefer stories with muscular girls who are strong and soft at the same time, non-violent, loving and protective, which is the opposite of Kylie, however it was very well written, the story is exciting (even putting aside the fantasy) and I always wanted to know more, I wanted to know how far it would go. And as I said in another comment, even though Kylie has a hateful character, there is something fantastic about her that makes you like her anyway. Besides, I think she has a good heart and could have been a better person if she had a better education or if someone could have helped her open her eyes. She is the result of what could happen if a spoiled rotten child is given immeasurable power. In fact, what she missed in her life is an uncle Ben (or an aunt May) who teaches her certain values in life such as "with great power, comes great responsibility". But it's true that in the beginning you would have thought that she could have chosen a better path, she didn't get angry at her brother when she knew that he had paid some thugs to attack her, she was remorseful and apologized when she sent her brother to the hospital because of his anger when he broke the statuette of Athena (when it was really not his fault) but his power, more and more huge and unmeasurable, ended up going to her head too much and got the better of her at a point of no return. On the other hand her behavior with her father is the most detestable, no child should behave like that with his parents, even with such a great power (Superman is part of this universe and yet he was raised by humans much weaker than him, and he always respected the authority of his parents, that said, Kylie's parents are far from being Martha and Jonathan Kent), but what disgusted me the most was at the end when she forced her father to watch her fuck a 100 adult women porn stars for an hour, without him being able to close his eyes with a device like "Clockwork Orange", it's the most ultimate torture a father can undergo from his own child (just thinking about it turns my heart upside down) not being able to blink for an hour is already a pretty awful torture in itself, but in this situation it is not the worst, being forced to watch his own daughter of barely 14 years old having sex with a hundred of adult female porn stars for an hour, I can't explain the trauma of the father after that (by the way, we didn't see him after that, we don't really know what happened to him). But the most detestable character in this story is without a doubt "mom", she is the obvious cause of the tyrant that her daughter has become, always defending her in the indefensible, encouraging her in the worst she can do, and she becomes worse and worse as the chapters go by, besides I'm sure that in the last chapters, if she had the opportunity, she would have fucked her own 13 year old daughter, if it hasn't already been done without it being mentioned in the story, it would not be surprising, she is so fascinated by her daughter, even letting her have sexual behaviors in front of her and her family or in public, always defending her in there if someone protests, she behaves with her daughter in the same way as other women or girls who are obsessed with her body (she might have a little more distance because it's her daughter but she would be able to do the same things as these other women). She has become especially hateful since she is muscular and strong, but she was already overprotecting her "perfect muscular princess" in a hateful way long before this, the only thing that has changed since then and that makes her even more hateful is that she has become a tyrant herself with her husband and her son to the point of totally abandoning her husband to the profile of Alisson who is basically her son's girlfriend (I wonder how come they didn't divorce with her husband), while letting her daughter run everything. Everything about this woman exasperates me to no end. I think she belongs in an asylum and should not be taking care of children. Speaking of muscular women becoming tyrannical towards men, that's one thing I don't like about this story, it's the kind of story where all the muscular women are real tyrants towards men, as if in this universe muscular and nice women can't exist, which is quite depressing when you are a man who likes loving muscular women, even worse, here all the muscular women seem to be lesbians, which is even more depressing when you are a straight man who likes muscular and powerful women. This universe is even more depressing than reality. I find reality depressing enough for men like us who like muscular women because the women we like are far too rare and not well accepted in our society, but here it's even worse because they are all tyrannical lesbians towards men and even if Kylie seems to influence all the women and girls in the world to become muscular and strong, it doesn't change anything for men like us, because they also all become lesbians obsessed with Kylie's ultra muscular 13/14 year old body, it even makes it more difficult and depressing for us because we would see women and girls becoming muscular and powerful from all over the world, but they will all be even more unattainable than the muscular women in reality. In short, if I lived in Kylie's world, I would shoot myself directly in the head. It would be like life giving me a monumental middle finger: "you always wanted a muscular, powerful, kind and protective woman, we'll put muscular women everywhere in the world but they'll all be lesbians and tyrannical towards men, they'll be even more unattainable than ever". In fact, while I was reading this story, I felt even more depressed than I was before about my situation, but I couldn't stop reading, I still wanted to know more.   
However, the arrival of Lauren Ling in the story was a real relief, finally a normal female character in this story who cares about Rick. Before her arrival, one could have really believed that in this universe, all women are hysterical and against men, as even the most secondary female characters behave like that (especially in front of Kylie's body who is only 13 years old). Lauren is not muscular or physically strong, but it feels good that she's there in the midst of this madness, and she has a lot of strength of character that allows her, among other, to resist Kylie's sexual attraction (although her love for Rick seems to be a big help in this too). She says that only mentally fragile women can succumb to Kylie's sexual attraction, but the story doesn't show us any other woman (or girl) except her who managed to resist him, so it seems that all the other women in this universe are psychologically fragile, even Lois Lane succumbed quite easily (which surprised me because Lois Lane is supposed to have a very strong character). I have a lot of trouble believing in Lauren's theories, there are a lot of inconsistencies in her theories (I also don't believe in her theory that women are more attracted to Kylie's body than men because women are naturally attracted to muscles, believing that in this universe men like us who admire muscular women don't exist, and that the most attractive men in this universe are professional bodybuilders, such as Mr.Universe). What I also like about Lauren is that she was teased and harassed during her whole childhood because of her physique, but she managed to overcome all that in a very intelligent way, she used that to strengthen her character, and she is today a very beautiful and intelligent woman, with a strong mental strength. In fact Lauren gives the impression of a girl from our reality who arrives in this crazy world. Afterwards, there is also her little special gift that makes her not quite normal either and that finally integrates her well in this crazy world.

Concerning the end, we have to talk about it too, I found it rather well done, it's almost like Christopher Nolan, it's almost like "Inception", I wonder if we didn't all undergo an inception while reading this story. Is it a dream, a time loop, a premonitory dream or something else? That is the question. However, contrary to what I read in a commentary, the Superman comics do not mean anything and seem to be more an element put in place to mislead us. In a universe where Superman exists, there is no reason why there can't be comics with his image, superheroes are very popular in their own universe, they have many fans and are ultra mediatized (especially since Superman is the most popular and most mediatized superhero of his own universe), many objects with their images are sold, many stories about their adventures are written including comics, in general most of the popular superheroes have their own comics in their own universe, the difference with reality is that these comics certainly don't have to talk about their civilian life since their secret identity is not supposed to be known (so it wouldn't be surprising in these comics, for example, that Superman could have interactions with Clark Kent when they are actually the same person). I'd go for a kind of time loop or a premonitory dream because it seems to come true. How could he have predicted in his dream that Kylie would get dumbbells from her grandmother for Christmas if it's just an ordinary dream? You are going to tell me that he could have known in advance about his sister's gifts and that this was the basis of his dream, but he seems surprised that this is happening so I doubt that he knew in advance. On the other hand, at one point I thought it might be a dream within a dream, since Kylie seems to be bulking up as she pumps her dumbbell, whereas in the story her muscular evolution up to age 13 seems to be more regular, though supernatural for such a young girl, it is only from age 13 on that her muscular evolution accelerated ever more improbably over the next year until she is 14 and takes down Superman before Rick wakes up. But the dream within the dream does not seem to be what the author intended. On the other hand, a simple dream that takes place during almost 4 years of a life, with precise moments of each day lived in this life, seems to me rather unlikely for it to be that. 

However, I wonder if there are some inconsistencies in the timeline of the story, I have the impression that the year of Kylie's 13th birthday lasted longer than it should have (I don't know if there were two seasons during this year, spring, summer or autumn). On the other hand I noticed a little inconsistency in Lola's age, because she is 11 years old when she appears for the first time in the story at M.Olympia while Kylie is already 13 years old, she is 12 years old some time later when we see her for the second time, we can say that she has celebrated her 12th birthday in the meantime, but she is already 13 years old when Kylie celebrates her 14th birthday, she should logically be 12 years old at that time and have her 13th birthday later (after the next M.Olympia).

One thing too, talking about Kylie's muscular evolution, there came a time, when she was getting so big, that I had a hard time imagining what she could look like, especially compared to her size, it was fine until the strongest man in the world contest, but after that I was completely lost, it was beyond my imagination lol. Already in M.Olympia, with an average height of a 13 years old girl and muscles bigger than any professional male bodybuilder, it's already really huge proportions, but you can still imagine it, at the strongest man in the world contest, she still got bigger but it's still ok, but after that it started to get really hard to imagine. That said, personally, I like it when a woman or a girl has supernatural muscles, bigger than any man could ever have, but there are limits, it has to remain aesthetic, but when the girl is as wide as she is high and she can't go through the doors, there is not much aesthetic left. At the end of the story, if I based myself only on the given measurements, I could only imagine a kind of shapeless mass of muscular flesh that doesn't resemble a human being at all, I still wonder how she could be described as feminine and sexy since she couldn't even resemble a human being with this kind of proportions, fortunately my imagination was unable to imagine her with these propotions and still allowed me to see her as a muscular, feminine and sexy girl (although she is only 14 years old at the end of the story).
I'm not a fan of big breasts on a muscular woman's body either, already on an ordinary woman when the breasts are bigger than it's naturally possible I'm not a fan, but on a muscular woman even less because I find that it really spoils the muscular aestheticism of the woman and it's not necessarily more feminine, I prefer big pectorals with small breasts that fit well with the pectorals, I find it much more aesthetic and just as feminine. Anyway a muscular woman even if she doesn't have breasts, she is still as feminine as another one, the torso is still different from a man's, and she still keeps more or less feminine curves (not to mention that muscles shouldn't be considered more masculine than feminine). And on underage girl between 12 and 14 years old, muscular like Kylie or Lola, it goes even less well, I think. As Maria Wattel says on her Inst@gram "you don't need to have breasts when you have pectorals", and I think she's absolutely right (a woman without sen or muscle is not very pretty but a woman without breasts with pectoral gors, I think it's beautiful). After, this is only a question of taste.

And to finish I wanted to answer to those who say that fantasizing about muscular underage girls is disgusting, yes it's true that it's disgusting but I think unfortunately that it's the case for a majority of admirers of female muscles, because it's necessarily a little bit linked, for many of us our fantasy is linked to the admiration that we have for women who surpass themselves physically, we like to be impressed by women who surpass us physically at the muscular level and strength, the more they surpass us and the more they surpass other men, the more we are impressed, and the more we like it, and a young girl underage with this kind of physical characteristics is even more impressive, so inevitably we are going to like it all the more, and since it is linked to our fantasies, it is difficult to ignore this. But the important thing is to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. In fiction it's cool, in reality it's not so cool, an underage child in reality is psychologically and physically fragile and needs to be protected.
 Moreover in this story, Kylie may have a phenomenal power, to do what she wants, to decide herself of her life and of the life of the others, to have a complete autonomy and a house to her at the age of only 13 years, without counting all the adult women that she manages to seduce with her body, she is still psychologically fragile, and it is because of her childish psychological fragility that she became this tyrant, she was too fragile to handle all this power, it went to her brain and she had no one to help her manage it all. A teenager in the middle of puberty needs to be surrounded to help her deal with the changes that are taking place in her body. Kylie's body in full puberty underwent phenomenal changes in a very short time, changes that allowed her to master any adult, she needed all the more a reliable entourage to help her manage all this, but she didn't have it, she couldn't count on her unworthy mother who encouraged her in her worst follies, nor her father who was too cowardly to really impose himself, and even less on her big brother who was too much in her shadow because of her parents and who was too much mistreated by her, he was too much destroyed by herself (and by the other people around her) to be able to help her.
Speaking of her brother, one thing that was missing in the story is a father-son relationship, the story doesn't mention any interaction between Rick and his father, not even a dialogue, we don't know anything about their relationship, even though they were both in the same boat. Moreover, Rick doesn't even seem to have any friends, while he is not described as an unpopular or asocial young man who always stays locked up at home or in his corner, he is totally destroyed by his sister and then later by his girlfriend Allison, and then again later by his mother, but he talks easily with the others, especially since his relationship with Allison (although increasingly artificial) is supposed to make him popular, so it's strange that the story doesn't mention any friends, and that's a lack.

On that note, this story has inspired me a lot, it inspires me so much that I've been thinking about writing a sequel-reboot from the end after Rick's awakening, where this time Rick helps his sister to become a good person while developing the same power, I think it could be interesting to deal with and I have a lot of ideas for it, it might be something I'll do later, if grbaclig is ok with us writing stories with his characters.
Having said that, I have a lot of ideas for stories around muscles and female strength but I never really got started.

Yeah, this is total arrogance in a nutshell.

For one, your distinction between what is shown in reality and what is shown in fiction doesn't excuse the fantasies some members of this forum have of underage girls.

"I think (opinion) it is the case for the majority of female muscle admirers, because it's (statement) 'necessarily a little bit linked'."

Hold the phone: this information is drawn from the shabby assumption that all female muscle fetishists like younger women dominating them. You make a distorted claim that "many of us" (I wonder where this statistic came from and what it even means) feel this way. Not only is this pedophilia justified through equivocation, but it's also an example of the extent people will go to defend their fantasies.

It is not normal to fantasize about any underage child regardless of the fetish, and to say that the majority of people feel the same way as you do is what I like to call "majority comfort." You want to feel it is normal, so you yourself normalise it based on pure speculation. (I.E. Making up BS that this forum is vaguely associating "female muscle" across all ages [including minors], when, sorry to tell you, it isn't the case.) A great deal of the forum has complained about stories with younger characters, even if no sexual content is involved. You can even find posts about it.

You linked the connection based on nothing at all. You have not given any substantial evidence to support your claim besides a baseless opinion. Hence, this is where the arrogance comes in.

". . . and a young girl underage with this kind of physical characteristics is even more impressive, so inevitably we are going to like it all the more, and since it is linked to our fantasies, it is difficult to ignore this."

Again, this is all you, and a couple other sick people as well. Your "majority comfort" is just a defence mechanism you use to justify paedophilia. Your argument about reality and fiction makes no logical sense at all; it's like me saying, "Oh, well that was just a text I sent that girl. I would never actually do that." In this case, you're suggesting that you wouldn't fantasise about this with a real underage girl, to which I heavily disagree given the evidence in your comment.   

" In fiction it's cool, in reality it's not so cool, an underage child in reality is psychologically and physically fragile and needs to be protected."

By this logic, animated child pornography is fine because it's completely fictional.

You need to work on your sexual health. This is not a normal thought process. You cannot defend it through a fetish with which you use to mask something far more sinister.

[Muscles Douceur]

Yeah, this is total arrogance in a nutshell.

For one, your distinction between what is shown in reality and what is shown in fiction doesn't excuse the fantasies some members of this forum have of underage girls.

"I think (opinion) it is the case for the majority of female muscle admirers, because it's (statement) 'necessarily a little bit linked'."

Hold the phone: this information is drawn from the shabby assumption that all female muscle fetishists like younger women dominating them. You make a distorted claim that "many of us" (I wonder where this statistic came from and what it even means) feel this way. Not only is this pedophilia justified through equivocation, but it's also an example of the extent people will go to defend their fantasies.

It is not normal to fantasize about any underage child regardless of the fetish, and to say that the majority of people feel the same way as you do is what I like to call "majority comfort." You want to feel it is normal, so you yourself normalise it based on pure speculation. (I.E. Making up BS that this forum is vaguely associating "female muscle" across all ages [including minors], when, sorry to tell you, it isn't the case.) A great deal of the forum has complained about stories with younger characters, even if no sexual content is involved. You can even find posts about it.

You linked the connection based on nothing at all. You have not given any substantial evidence to support your claim besides a baseless opinion. Hence, this is where the arrogance comes in.

". . . and a young girl underage with this kind of physical characteristics is even more impressive, so inevitably we are going to like it all the more, and since it is linked to our fantasies, it is difficult to ignore this."

Again, this is all you, and a couple other sick people as well. Your "majority comfort" is just a defence mechanism you use to justify paedophilia. Your argument about reality and fiction makes no logical sense at all; it's like me saying, "Oh, well that was just a text I sent that girl. I would never actually do that." In this case, you're suggesting that you wouldn't fantasise about this with a real underage girl, to which I heavily disagree given the evidence in your comment.   

" In fiction it's cool, in reality it's not so cool, an underage child in reality is psychologically and physically fragile and needs to be protected."

By this logic, animated child pornography is fine because it's completely fictional.

You need to work on your sexual health. This is not a normal thought process. You cannot defend it through a fetish with which you use to mask something far more sinister.

Of course, even in fiction there are limits that should not be exceeded, and here alone there are times when I think it goes a bit too far. After that, I'm not a regular member, I don't know the fantasies of everybody about this subject, so I can't say anything. And it's normal that on a public forum like Saradas this has to be moderated, you can't do everything and anything when talking about underage children (even ultra powerful and muscular like Kylie).

That said, it is an ultra sensitive subject and it is very difficult to talk about.

Yes, my speech is only based on suppositions, I never claimed the contrary and I did say "I think" by developing why I think this. However, I don't consider this fantasy as pedophilia (even if I understand that it is difficult to distinguish it) simply because it is not directly related to the age of the minor girl or anything else related to childhood, but only to the muscles and the muscular power, the young age is only a pretext that makes these qualities that we appreciate in female persons even more impressive. It is also an opposition between age and muscular power. In any case, it is the muscular power that is the main vector of this fantasy (as it is for a large part of the admirers of female muscles). A person attracted to muscular and powerful girls will not necessarily be attracted to ordinary underage girls. Whereas for pedophiles, the main vector of their fantasies is age and everything related to childhood. They are looking for childlike proportions, the fragility of the child (both physical and psychological) and other things related to childhood, which is the opposite of what one would look for in a muscular and powerful girl. I have already discussed this on a psychology forum and it was confirmed to me that if it is not related to childhood, but only to muscles and that ordinary underage girls without muscles do not cause us any attraction, it is not pedophilia. However, this does not mean that it is a good thing, and I have never claimed the contrary, we must always be very careful about the underage children.

And when I say it's "cool" in fiction, it's "cool" up to a certain limit, while in reality it's not cool at all to any limit.
I'm not at all in favor of anything that encourages sex on underage children (nor violence, but this doesn't only concern underage children). On the other hand, personally, I am able to admit a little sensuality on a muscular and strong underage girl (in fiction only), which I would not admit on an ordinary underage girl without muscles, because for me there is a noticeable difference between the two but I understand that this difference is difficult to identify. I'm not saying it's a good thing but I admit it (anyway sexualizing underage children, muscular or not, is never a good thing). But if I admit this sensuality it's because this is not directly linked to the young age (as I explained above) and it doesn't represent any danger, contrary to if this sensuality is destined to ordinary underage girls without muscles which is more directly linked to their young age and favors more behaviors of this kind towards real underage girls, which makes it more a real danger. That said, in general, this should only be aimed at a niche audience who are aware of all this, of these dangers, and who know the difference between fantasy and reality.

And "majority" doesn't mean "everybody", but I admit that I may have exaggerated a little bit by saying the majority, but I still think that there are many admirers of female muscles who have more or less this attraction for muscular and strong underage girls. And I also think that many of us don't want to admit it to ourselves or maybe we just don't know about it, because it goes against our values and principles, and it's normal to be ashamed of it when it affects underage children. It's not easy to except. So it is difficult to give an estimate, we can only guess.
Furthermore, not all admirers of female muscles admire muscular women for the same reasons, so we are not all likely to appreciate muscular and strong girls, it depends on what makes us admire female muscles.   

On the other hand, we can't really compare with the fantasy of women on muscular men (I don't like to talk about fetishism, for me it's not really fetishism), as you did.
What attracts this kind of women is the combination of virility and muscle power, for them muscles are synonymous with virility and virility can only be present on adult men. Especially that this kind of women, it is really the extreme virility that they are looking for and they like to be impressed by this manly power. And this is completely in accordance with the notions of society where the man must be stronger than the woman, protect her, etc. There is no opposition sought to reality or society. Some may find this opposition of a muscular and very strong underage boy interesting and sensual, but it is not usually what is most sought after by these kinds of women.
Whereas for us, it's more a combination of femininity and muscular power. While it is true that adult women have feminine assets that young girls in early puberty do not have, femininity is a much broader concept than virility and muscles change the proportions of a physique, an underage girl with a bodybuilder's musculature is visually much closer to the physique of a bodybuilder adult woman than a bodybuilder underage boy can be to a bodybuilder adult man. But what pleases most of us is this opposition between femininity and muscular power as it is defined in our society, it is this same opposition that impresses us, we like to be impressed by this opposition, it fascinates us and seduces us, and we like to be overwhelmed by this opposition. So it is only a small step to find interest in the opposition between age and muscular power which is even more impressive. But at the opposite extreme one may also be likely to find interest in the opposition between very old age and muscular power, which is almost as impressive, more admirable, and much more ethical and moral, but the wrinkled skin of a person of advanced age makes it less aesthetic and therefore less sensual for some of us (unless we imagine that this person of advanced age has managed to keep a beautiful skin and a pretty face of young appearance, which gives another opposition just as interesting and impressive and much more aesthetic and sensual for more of us).

Another thing, us others, the admirers of female muscles, live in a difficult world, the women we admire are very rare, not always well accepted in our society, and our tastes are not always well understood. Some of us hide it from those around us for fear of not being understood. Many of us (including me) cannot find happiness with an ordinary woman because they will always be missing something, but the women who can give us this happiness are so rare that the majority of us have to remain single or settle for an ordinary woman with whom it will not be total happiness. So we get stuck in our fantasies by pushing them more and more to multiple extremes, which often go far beyond the aesthetic and feminine aspect (I personally prefer to keep a certain aesthetic and feminine aspect), some of these extremes are repulsive to me, and unfortunately the muscular and powerful underage girls are part of these extremes, and there is not much we can do.

I'm not talking about it to defend it (we can't defend the indefensible) but to make it better understood and to stop judging this kind of fantasy, this kind of fantasy is already difficult enough to live with, so let's avoid judging. The important thing is not to be a danger to anyone and to protect underage children. But I understand that this is difficult to understand.

That said, I found your comment a little too aggressive and I think you're judging me a little too hastily. I don't think I'm being arrogant by expressing my opinions and feelings on this extremely delicate subject which I myself have thought about for a long time.

On this, I still have written more than I would have liked, while this has this is not even directly related to Kylie's story, but I had to clarify these points because the subject is so delicate, complicated and difficult to understand, it can be misinterpreted and get out of hand very quickly. Moreover I use an automatic translator which makes the comprehension on a subject as delicate as this one even more difficult.

[nebulasparks]

Yeah, this is total arrogance in a nutshell.

For one, your distinction between what is shown in reality and what is shown in fiction doesn't excuse the fantasies some members of this forum have of underage girls.

"I think (opinion) it is the case for the majority of female muscle admirers, because it's (statement) 'necessarily a little bit linked'."

Hold the phone: this information is drawn from the shabby assumption that all female muscle fetishists like younger women dominating them. You make a distorted claim that "many of us" (I wonder where this statistic came from and what it even means) feel this way. Not only is this pedophilia justified through equivocation, but it's also an example of the extent people will go to defend their fantasies.

It is not normal to fantasize about any underage child regardless of the fetish, and to say that the majority of people feel the same way as you do is what I like to call "majority comfort." You want to feel it is normal, so you yourself normalise it based on pure speculation. (I.E. Making up BS that this forum is vaguely associating "female muscle" across all ages [including minors], when, sorry to tell you, it isn't the case.) A great deal of the forum has complained about stories with younger characters, even if no sexual content is involved. You can even find posts about it.

You linked the connection based on nothing at all. You have not given any substantial evidence to support your claim besides a baseless opinion. Hence, this is where the arrogance comes in.

". . . and a young girl underage with this kind of physical characteristics is even more impressive, so inevitably we are going to like it all the more, and since it is linked to our fantasies, it is difficult to ignore this."

Again, this is all you, and a couple other sick people as well. Your "majority comfort" is just a defence mechanism you use to justify paedophilia. Your argument about reality and fiction makes no logical sense at all; it's like me saying, "Oh, well that was just a text I sent that girl. I would never actually do that." In this case, you're suggesting that you wouldn't fantasise about this with a real underage girl, to which I heavily disagree given the evidence in your comment.   

" In fiction it's cool, in reality it's not so cool, an underage child in reality is psychologically and physically fragile and needs to be protected."

By this logic, animated child pornography is fine because it's completely fictional.

You need to work on your sexual health. This is not a normal thought process. You cannot defend it through a fetish with which you use to mask something far more sinister.

Of course, even in fiction there are limits that should not be exceeded, and here alone there are times when I think it goes a bit too far. After that, I'm not a regular member, I don't know the fantasies of everybody about this subject, so I can't say anything. And it's normal that on a public forum like Saradas this has to be moderated, you can't do everything and anything when talking about underage children (even ultra powerful and muscular like Kylie).

That said, it is an ultra sensitive subject and it is very difficult to talk about.

Yes, my speech is only based on suppositions, I never claimed the contrary and I did say "I think" by developing why I think this. However, I don't consider this fantasy as pedophilia (even if I understand that it is difficult to distinguish it) simply because it is not directly related to the age of the minor girl or anything else related to childhood, but only to the muscles and the muscular power, the young age is only a pretext that makes these qualities that we appreciate in female persons even more impressive. It is also an opposition between age and muscular power. In any case, it is the muscular power that is the main vector of this fantasy (as it is for a large part of the admirers of female muscles). A person attracted to muscular and powerful girls will not necessarily be attracted to ordinary underage girls. Whereas for pedophiles, the main vector of their fantasies is age and everything related to childhood. They are looking for childlike proportions, the fragility of the child (both physical and psychological) and other things related to childhood, which is the opposite of what one would look for in a muscular and powerful girl. I have already discussed this on a psychology forum and it was confirmed to me that if it is not related to childhood, but only to muscles and that ordinary underage girls without muscles do not cause us any attraction, it is not pedophilia. However, this does not mean that it is a good thing, and I have never claimed the contrary, we must always be very careful about the underage children.

And when I say it's "cool" in fiction, it's "cool" up to a certain limit, while in reality it's not cool at all to any limit.
I'm not at all in favor of anything that encourages sex on underage children (nor violence, but this doesn't only concern underage children). On the other hand, personally, I am able to admit a little sensuality on a muscular and strong underage girl (in fiction only), which I would not admit on an ordinary underage girl without muscles, because for me there is a noticeable difference between the two but I understand that this difference is difficult to identify. I'm not saying it's a good thing but I admit it (anyway sexualizing underage children, muscular or not, is never a good thing). But if I admit this sensuality it's because this is not directly linked to the young age (as I explained above) and it doesn't represent any danger, contrary to if this sensuality is destined to ordinary underage girls without muscles which is more directly linked to their young age and favors more behaviors of this kind towards real underage girls, which makes it more a real danger. That said, in general, this should only be aimed at a niche audience who are aware of all this, of these dangers, and who know the difference between fantasy and reality.

And "majority" doesn't mean "everybody", but I admit that I may have exaggerated a little bit by saying the majority, but I still think that there are many admirers of female muscles who have more or less this attraction for muscular and strong underage girls. And I also think that many of us don't want to admit it to ourselves or maybe we just don't know about it, because it goes against our values and principles, and it's normal to be ashamed of it when it affects underage children. It's not easy to except. So it is difficult to give an estimate, we can only guess.
Furthermore, not all admirers of female muscles admire muscular women for the same reasons, so we are not all likely to appreciate muscular and strong girls, it depends on what makes us admire female muscles.   

On the other hand, we can't really compare with the fantasy of women on muscular men (I don't like to talk about fetishism, for me it's not really fetishism), as you did.
What attracts this kind of women is the combination of virility and muscle power, for them muscles are synonymous with virility and virility can only be present on adult men. Especially that this kind of women, it is really the extreme virility that they are looking for and they like to be impressed by this manly power. And this is completely in accordance with the notions of society where the man must be stronger than the woman, protect her, etc. There is no opposition sought to reality or society. Some may find this opposition of a muscular and very strong underage boy interesting and sensual, but it is not usually what is most sought after by these kinds of women.
Whereas for us, it's more a combination of femininity and muscular power. While it is true that adult women have feminine assets that young girls in early puberty do not have, femininity is a much broader concept than virility and muscles change the proportions of a physique, an underage girl with a bodybuilder's musculature is visually much closer to the physique of a bodybuilder adult woman than a bodybuilder underage boy can be to a bodybuilder adult man. But what pleases most of us is this opposition between femininity and muscular power as it is defined in our society, it is this same opposition that impresses us, we like to be impressed by this opposition, it fascinates us and seduces us, and we like to be overwhelmed by this opposition. So it is only a small step to find interest in the opposition between age and muscular power which is even more impressive. But at the opposite extreme one may also be likely to find interest in the opposition between very old age and muscular power, which is almost as impressive, more admirable, and much more ethical and moral, but the wrinkled skin of a person of advanced age makes it less aesthetic and therefore less sensual for some of us (unless we imagine that this person of advanced age has managed to keep a beautiful skin and a pretty face of young appearance, which gives another opposition just as interesting and impressive and much more aesthetic and sensual for more of us).

Another thing, us others, the admirers of female muscles, live in a difficult world, the women we admire are very rare, not always well accepted in our society, and our tastes are not always well understood. Some of us hide it from those around us for fear of not being understood. Many of us (including me) cannot find happiness with an ordinary woman because they will always be missing something, but the women who can give us this happiness are so rare that the majority of us have to remain single or settle for an ordinary woman with whom it will not be total happiness. So we get stuck in our fantasies by pushing them more and more to multiple extremes, which often go far beyond the aesthetic and feminine aspect (I personally prefer to keep a certain aesthetic and feminine aspect), some of these extremes are repulsive to me, and unfortunately the muscular and powerful underage girls are part of these extremes, and there is not much we can do.

I'm not talking about it to defend it (we can't defend the indefensible) but to make it better understood and to stop judging this kind of fantasy, this kind of fantasy is already difficult enough to live with, so let's avoid judging. The important thing is not to be a danger to anyone and to protect underage children. But I understand that this is difficult to understand.

That said, I found your comment a little too aggressive and I think you're judging me a little too hastily. I don't think I'm being arrogant by expressing my opinions and feelings on this extremely delicate subject which I myself have thought about for a long time.

On this, I still have written more than I would have liked, while this has this is not even directly related to Kylie's story, but I had to clarify these points because the subject is so delicate, complicated and difficult to understand, it can be misinterpreted and get out of hand very quickly. Moreover I use an automatic translator which makes the comprehension on a subject as delicate as this one even more difficult.

Okay, your main argument is very weak. I'm not sure who "confirmed" any of this to you, but allow me to point out the overbearing flaws.

"Not directly attracted to the age but instead the muscles."

You do realize that NO ONE is attracted to a number? They're attracted to particular characteristics. For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height). The topic is not a difficult one, for if we are to abide by your logic yet again, the following would be acceptable:

"I am attracted to the dick-size and not the fact that he is 12. I am attracted to the face and not the fact that she is 10. I am attracted to the bodyshape, not the fact that she is underage."

Do you see your flawed logic here? That's still pedophilia. You are attracted to certain characteristics on possessed by a minor. To further counter your argument, your logic would suggest that anyone over the age of 18 that inhabits similar features are actually attracted to children. The age here plays a large part in defining a pedophile.

What you're essentially doing is isolating the fetish and separating it into categories so you can better justify it, as opposed to taking the whole picture. A lot of what you say doesn't add up in the long run. Muscle fetish isn't that uncommon.

I never said the majority is everyone either. I'm saying that your fantasy is not shared by the majority and as a society we have proof of that. It is not fair for you to boldly assume that everyone secretly likes children, or that everyone secretly likes certain features regardless if they are on a child or not, because there is, for one, no evidence to support it, and, two, plenty against it.

I find the idea of placing fetishes on children and saying your only attracted to the fetish completely disgusting. It's really only in support of your own fetish, which seems to stem into the underage.

You say there is a limit, of course, and to that I agree yes. The limit is drawn at the age. If you're pleasuring yourself to a minor, regardless if it is a particular feature on that minor, then you are mentally sick. This is a psychological fact. Especially if you're like some members of this forum and only look for underage characters.

To me, this seems like a desperate attempt at trying not to commit yourself. You likely have felt terrible, and rightfully so, about rubbing one out to an underage character.

I highly doubt a professional told you that it is not pedophilia to be attracted to certain features even if they're on a child. I can hazard a guess that a random person online agreed with you, upon which your majority comfort was built.

It doesn't matter how long you have looked into the "psychology" of a topic; in the end, it is not difficult and you are arguing nonsense. Everything you say is based on your feelings via equivocation. There's no point in you even attempting a rebuttal if you're not going to solidify your position first.

Don't care if I came across as aggressive. It is sickening to witness the full extent people will go to defend this. And by meekly tweaking certain controls in the attraction, no less.

No need to mention that you use an automated translator. Seriously, it doesn't matter.

[Muscles Douceur]

Okay, your main argument is very weak. I'm not sure who "confirmed" any of this to you, but allow me to point out the overbearing flaws.

"Not directly attracted to the age but instead the muscles."

You do realize that NO ONE is attracted to a number? They're attracted to particular characteristics. For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height). The topic is not a difficult one, for if we are to abide by your logic yet again, the following would be acceptable:

"I am attracted to the dick-size and not the fact that he is 12. I am attracted to the face and not the fact that she is 10. I am attracted to the bodyshape, not the fact that she is underage."

Do you see your flawed logic here? That's still pedophilia. You are attracted to certain characteristics on possessed by a minor. To further counter your argument, your logic would suggest that anyone over the age of 18 that inhabits similar features are actually attracted to children. The age here plays a large part in defining a pedophile.

What you're essentially doing is isolating the fetish and separating it into categories so you can better justify it, as opposed to taking the whole picture. A lot of what you say doesn't add up in the long run. Muscle fetish isn't that uncommon.

I never said the majority is everyone either. I'm saying that your fantasy is not shared by the majority and as a society we have proof of that. It is not fair for you to boldly assume that everyone secretly likes children, or that everyone secretly likes certain features regardless if they are on a child or not, because there is, for one, no evidence to support it, and, two, plenty against it.

I find the idea of placing fetishes on children and saying your only attracted to the fetish completely disgusting. It's really only in support of your own fetish, which seems to stem into the underage.

You say there is a limit, of course, and to that I agree yes. The limit is drawn at the age. If you're pleasuring yourself to a minor, regardless if it is a particular feature on that minor, then you are mentally sick. This is a psychological fact. Especially if you're like some members of this forum and only look for underage characters.

To me, this seems like a desperate attempt at trying not to commit yourself. You likely have felt terrible, and rightfully so, about rubbing one out to an underage character.

I highly doubt a professional told you that it is not pedophilia to be attracted to certain features even if they're on a child. I can hazard a guess that a random person online agreed with you, upon which your majority comfort was built.

It doesn't matter how long you have looked into the "psychology" of a topic; in the end, it is not difficult and you are arguing nonsense. Everything you say is based on your feelings via equivocation. There's no point in you even attempting a rebuttal if you're not going to solidify your position first.

Don't care if I came across as aggressive. It is sickening to witness the full extent people will go to defend this. And by meekly tweaking certain controls in the attraction, no less.

No need to mention that you use an automated translator. Seriously, it doesn't matter.

An automatic translator being not perfect, it can distort our initial words, which does not facilitate the understanding, especially on such a delicate subject, and therefore this can be misinterpreted. Already in normal circumstances, misinterpretations happen quickly, so imagine with an automatic translator. So yes, I think it is important to mention this and to remind it, especially in this kind of debate.

Besides, you only answer to small parts of my arguments without looking at and analyzing my argument as a whole.

What you quote: "Not directly attracted to the age but instead the muscles."
What I wrote: "it is not directly related to the age of the minor girl or anything else related to childhood, but only to the muscles and the muscular power"

And here is what you answer: "You do realize that NO ONE is attracted to a number?"
1. As you can see my argument is not only about the age "or anything else related to childhood", so my argument is not based on the attraction to a number as you imply.
2. Age is not just a number, especially for children who change rapidly from one age to another. Age corresponds to a period of life, and depending on the age it also corresponds to physical, mental and biological characteristics.
3. When I talk about age, I am not talking about a specific age, but more about a rather large age range.

And you go on to say, "For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height)."

All characteristics related to childhood, thank you for confirming my arguments: "for pedophiles, the main vector of their fantasies is age and everything related to childhood. They are looking for childlike proportions, the fragility of the child (both physical and psychological) and other things related to childhood"

Then you compare with incomparable things using straw man arguments:

"I am attracted to the dick-size and not the fact that he is 12. I am attracted to the face and not the fact that she is 10. I am attracted to the bodyshape, not the fact that she is underage."

Here you're talking about specific physical characteristics, so you'll tell me that muscles play a role in the shape of a body as in your example, but :
1 . It corresponds to a global physical appearance of the body which does not correspond at all to an ordinary child's physique.
2. The attraction to muscles, and particularly female muscles, is much broader and more complicated than just physical appearance, although physical aesthetics also plays an important role. There is everything that muscles represent: strength, power, determination, courage, sacrifice, etc. There is everything I said about liking to be impressed by this, the opposition between muscles, femininity or age that are not part of the societal norms, the fact that a young age makes these characteristics more impressive and amplifies this opposition. There is also that it breaks all the fragile aspect that could have an ordinary girl, in appearance, what puts at evil already a part of our moral values on the subject, although it remains all the psychological childish fragility. There is also the whole aspect of superiority/inferiority, many of us like to feel that a woman is physically superior to us (and in other areas) and to feel inferior next to her, the same goes for underage girls for whom this superiority is even more spectacular.

All this shows that it's much more complicated than you think, and that the admiration of muscles is much broader than a simple physical characteristic.

In fact you seem to me to be the kind of guy who sees life only in black and white with no nuances in between. Life is much more nuanced than you think.

"To further counter your argument, your logic would suggest that anyone over the age of 18 that inhabits similar features are actually attracted to children."
 
You're being a straw man again by reducing my logic to a simple physical characteristic, when no it's not my logic at all, it comes back to exactly what I said in my previous paragraph, it's much broader than a simple physical characteristic. Not to mention that it is a physical characteristic that totally changes the physical appearance of the underage girl so that she looks nothing like any other girl her age, except for her face. I know of no other physical characteristic that so alters the physical appearance and proportions. Possibly obesity, but child obesity is unfortunately not an exceptional characteristic, and those who fantasize about obesity are not looking for the same thing as admirers of female muscles, and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles. Obesity adds no value to a minor compared to an adult who has that same physical characteristic.

I don't see anything really comparable to that, and if you can find something really comparable, chances are it's not pedophilia either.

In fact, what you have to understand is that it is the search for "more and more" in the fantasies of the admirers of female muscles that makes some of them fall into fantasies about underage girls, because all the characteristics that are admired in relation to the muscular strength of adult women are always more impressive on underage girls.

"What you're essentially doing is isolating the fetish and separating it into categories so you can better justify it, as opposed to taking the whole picture."

It took me a while to understand what you meant, I even thought it was a translation error with the automatic translator. But I think I understood, and I think I also understand your way of reasoning, it's clear that nuances are not really your thing, but it's sure that with this kind of reasoning it's going to be difficult to understand each other. So if I understand correctly, you are talking about the fact that I dissociated the fantasy of male muscles from that of female muscles. But in fact you have no idea what an whole picture is. An whole picture is not to reduce a whole to a single element, but rather to see all the nuances and subtleties of the same whole. 
We agree that technically male and female muscles are the same thing, muscles are muscles, whether they are worn by men or women. But in our current society, we don't have the same vision of muscles for men as for women. And since the time that I've been fighting to change this vision that I find very unfair and wrong, I can tell you that it's a subject I know well. In short, in our society, a muscular and strong man is the norm, it's even a sign of virility, whereas a muscular and strong woman is out of the norm, even criticized, because muscles are a sign of virility and a woman should not have any, there are a lot of prejudices and preconceived ideas on this level (it's starting to change a little but there is still a long way to go). There are some similarities (effort, health, courage, sacrifice, determination, strength, power, aestheticism, etc., although I find that some of these characteristics are even more admirable for a woman than for a man in our current society), but the fantasy for male muscles will be more mainly oriented towards manly power, the MAN, the beast, the testosterone, etc., whereas for female muscles this fantasy will be more in opposition with the current societal norms, we want to see these women surpassing these norms, surpassing men, being stronger and more muscular than them, being above them.
In short, as long as societal norms remain the same, there is necessarily a major distinction between these two fantasies. Except if we fantasize about both at the same time, there it's different again, there is no more distinction between the two, the societal norms don't apply anymore.

"A lot of what you say doesn't add up in the long run."

Well, let's say that in the long run, I do hope that societal norms will change, so yes, in that case what I'm saying won't be valid in the long run, and I'd be the first to be happy about it. However I'm afraid I'm too old to enjoy it (or maybe even dead already).

"Muscle fetish isn't that uncommon."

From this point of view yes necessarily since many women fantasize about men's muscles, on the other hand men (or women) who fantasize about women's muscles are much less numerous (but more than people in general believe).

"I never said the majority is everyone either. I'm saying that your fantasy is not shared by the majority and as a society we have proof of that. It is not fair for you to boldly assume that everyone secretly likes children, or that everyone secretly likes certain features regardless if they are on a child or not, because there is, for one, no evidence to support it, and, two, plenty against it."

Yes well I had said in my previous comment that I might have exaggerated a bit by saying "majority" but there are many. And it is very often related to the fantasy of the female muscles, generally people have at first the fantasy of the female muscles in relation to the adult women then that deported little by little towards younger girls because this make these same characteristics more impressive. And very often these people are not attracted to ordinary non-muscular minor girls but may very well be attracted to ordinary non-muscular adult women.

"then you are mentally sick. This is a psychological fact."

And so you studied psychology, you have a doctorate in psychology, a degree or something to say that? 
Well, it's true that saying it this way "If you're pleasuring yourself to a minor, regardless if it is a particular feature on that minor," is clearly a serious psychological pathology. But it comes mostly from your famous mania of wanting to reduce everything to a single overall element without seeing all the nuances and subtleties. You have to know how to analyze what leads to this fantasy before you can make a psychological diagnosis. I am not a psychologist, but I know that none of them will make this kind of diagnosis without having studied the case a minimum. And even if this diagnosis can be made on the vast majority of cases grouping together what you say because it is pedophilia for this majority, there may be some small specific cases that can come out of this diganostic because life is done nuances and subtleties.

At worst, if it's really a mental illness, it's an illness that can't be cured, if it's like pedophilia or possibly really pedophilia (which I doubt), it can't be cured, so you have to deal with it. The important thing is to be a danger to no one and even less to minors. The majority of pedophiles are above all people who suffer from their sexual deviance and who will never harm a child because they are aware of the dangers and the harm, they have the same moral values as you and me. They are not all Dutroux. Fantasizing about minors is not punishable by law, it is the act and the incitement to questionable practices on minors that is punishable. And when a fantasy is about young girls with such supernatural characteristics that they no longer resemble ordinary girls and that it is impossible for them to exist in reality, I don't see where the danger lies (all the more so if it also concerns characteristics destroying any childish fragility placing these young girls above ordinary adults).

That said, in a way, just the adoration of muscles can be sickly if it becomes something you can't live without. 

"this seems like a desperate attempt"

The only thing I despair about is never finding happiness in the beautiful, powerful arms of a adult muscular woman.

"I highly doubt a professional told you that it is not pedophilia to be attracted to certain features even if they're on a child. I can hazard a guess that a random person online agreed with you, upon which your majority comfort was built."

Yes I guess you are a specialist in psychology, you have studied and graduated in psychology, so you are well placed to know that a professional cannot confirm this. Isn't that right?
I didn't go to check if he was a professional, but on a psychology forum the guy had no reason to try to justify anything since it doesn't concern him directly, besides he confirmed what I thought without saying that it was a good thing, quite the contrary. It's possible that he's wrong but it's also possible that he has what you don't have: a true global vision with all the nuances and subtleties of life. 

"it is not difficult and you are arguing nonsense."

Well, that's for sure, when one is unable to have a whole picture with all its nuances and subtleties, nothing is difficult. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that this subject is much more vast and complex than you seem to think. And you your arguments are not absurd, you think, when you make for example your man of straw?

"It is sickening to witness the full extent people will go to defend this."

Except that as I already said in my previous comment, I don't defend it, I can't defend the indefensible, I never said that it's a good thing, on the contrary, it's disgusting to fantasize about underage girls no matter the reason even if it's not related to pedophilia or any mental illness that can be diagnosed in psychatry, my arguments are only intended to make people understand this phenomenon and that it's no use judging people who have this fantasy. Because again, the subject is much larger and more complicated than you think.

But I think that you are too much guided by your feeling of disgust which prevents you from taking a step back on the subject and to analyze objectively my argument in its totality. Provided that you are able to have a true vision of the whole with all its nuances and subtleties.

[nebulasparks]

Okay, your main argument is very weak. I'm not sure who "confirmed" any of this to you, but allow me to point out the overbearing flaws.

"Not directly attracted to the age but instead the muscles."

You do realize that NO ONE is attracted to a number? They're attracted to particular characteristics. For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height). The topic is not a difficult one, for if we are to abide by your logic yet again, the following would be acceptable:

"I am attracted to the dick-size and not the fact that he is 12. I am attracted to the face and not the fact that she is 10. I am attracted to the bodyshape, not the fact that she is underage."

Do you see your flawed logic here? That's still pedophilia. You are attracted to certain characteristics on possessed by a minor. To further counter your argument, your logic would suggest that anyone over the age of 18 that inhabits similar features are actually attracted to children. The age here plays a large part in defining a pedophile.

What you're essentially doing is isolating the fetish and separating it into categories so you can better justify it, as opposed to taking the whole picture. A lot of what you say doesn't add up in the long run. Muscle fetish isn't that uncommon.

I never said the majority is everyone either. I'm saying that your fantasy is not shared by the majority and as a society we have proof of that. It is not fair for you to boldly assume that everyone secretly likes children, or that everyone secretly likes certain features regardless if they are on a child or not, because there is, for one, no evidence to support it, and, two, plenty against it.

I find the idea of placing fetishes on children and saying your only attracted to the fetish completely disgusting. It's really only in support of your own fetish, which seems to stem into the underage.

You say there is a limit, of course, and to that I agree yes. The limit is drawn at the age. If you're pleasuring yourself to a minor, regardless if it is a particular feature on that minor, then you are mentally sick. This is a psychological fact. Especially if you're like some members of this forum and only look for underage characters.

To me, this seems like a desperate attempt at trying not to commit yourself. You likely have felt terrible, and rightfully so, about rubbing one out to an underage character.

I highly doubt a professional told you that it is not pedophilia to be attracted to certain features even if they're on a child. I can hazard a guess that a random person online agreed with you, upon which your majority comfort was built.

It doesn't matter how long you have looked into the "psychology" of a topic; in the end, it is not difficult and you are arguing nonsense. Everything you say is based on your feelings via equivocation. There's no point in you even attempting a rebuttal if you're not going to solidify your position first.

Don't care if I came across as aggressive. It is sickening to witness the full extent people will go to defend this. And by meekly tweaking certain controls in the attraction, no less.

No need to mention that you use an automated translator. Seriously, it doesn't matter.

An automatic translator being not perfect, it can distort our initial words, which does not facilitate the understanding, especially on such a delicate subject, and therefore this can be misinterpreted. Already in normal circumstances, misinterpretations happen quickly, so imagine with an automatic translator. So yes, I think it is important to mention this and to remind it, especially in this kind of debate.

Besides, you only answer to small parts of my arguments without looking at and analyzing my argument as a whole.

What you quote: "Not directly attracted to the age but instead the muscles."
What I wrote: "it is not directly related to the age of the minor girl or anything else related to childhood, but only to the muscles and the muscular power"

And here is what you answer: "You do realize that NO ONE is attracted to a number?"
1. As you can see my argument is not only about the age "or anything else related to childhood", so my argument is not based on the attraction to a number as you imply.
2. Age is not just a number, especially for children who change rapidly from one age to another. Age corresponds to a period of life, and depending on the age it also corresponds to physical, mental and biological characteristics.
3. When I talk about age, I am not talking about a specific age, but more about a rather large age range.

And you go on to say, "For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height)."

All characteristics related to childhood, thank you for confirming my arguments: "for pedophiles, the main vector of their fantasies is age and everything related to childhood. They are looking for childlike proportions, the fragility of the child (both physical and psychological) and other things related to childhood"

Then you compare with incomparable things using straw man arguments:

"I am attracted to the dick-size and not the fact that he is 12. I am attracted to the face and not the fact that she is 10. I am attracted to the bodyshape, not the fact that she is underage."

Here you're talking about specific physical characteristics, so you'll tell me that muscles play a role in the shape of a body as in your example, but :
1 . It corresponds to a global physical appearance of the body which does not correspond at all to an ordinary child's physique.
2. The attraction to muscles, and particularly female muscles, is much broader and more complicated than just physical appearance, although physical aesthetics also plays an important role. There is everything that muscles represent: strength, power, determination, courage, sacrifice, etc. There is everything I said about liking to be impressed by this, the opposition between muscles, femininity or age that are not part of the societal norms, the fact that a young age makes these characteristics more impressive and amplifies this opposition. There is also that it breaks all the fragile aspect that could have an ordinary girl, in appearance, what puts at evil already a part of our moral values on the subject, although it remains all the psychological childish fragility. There is also the whole aspect of superiority/inferiority, many of us like to feel that a woman is physically superior to us (and in other areas) and to feel inferior next to her, the same goes for underage girls for whom this superiority is even more spectacular.

All this shows that it's much more complicated than you think, and that the admiration of muscles is much broader than a simple physical characteristic.

In fact you seem to me to be the kind of guy who sees life only in black and white with no nuances in between. Life is much more nuanced than you think.

"To further counter your argument, your logic would suggest that anyone over the age of 18 that inhabits similar features are actually attracted to children."
 
You're being a straw man again by reducing my logic to a simple physical characteristic, when no it's not my logic at all, it comes back to exactly what I said in my previous paragraph, it's much broader than a simple physical characteristic. Not to mention that it is a physical characteristic that totally changes the physical appearance of the underage girl so that she looks nothing like any other girl her age, except for her face. I know of no other physical characteristic that so alters the physical appearance and proportions. Possibly obesity, but child obesity is unfortunately not an exceptional characteristic, and those who fantasize about obesity are not looking for the same thing as admirers of female muscles, and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles. Obesity adds no value to a minor compared to an adult who has that same physical characteristic.

I don't see anything really comparable to that, and if you can find something really comparable, chances are it's not pedophilia either.

In fact, what you have to understand is that it is the search for "more and more" in the fantasies of the admirers of female muscles that makes some of them fall into fantasies about underage girls, because all the characteristics that are admired in relation to the muscular strength of adult women are always more impressive on underage girls.

"What you're essentially doing is isolating the fetish and separating it into categories so you can better justify it, as opposed to taking the whole picture."

It took me a while to understand what you meant, I even thought it was a translation error with the automatic translator. But I think I understood, and I think I also understand your way of reasoning, it's clear that nuances are not really your thing, but it's sure that with this kind of reasoning it's going to be difficult to understand each other. So if I understand correctly, you are talking about the fact that I dissociated the fantasy of male muscles from that of female muscles. But in fact you have no idea what an whole picture is. An whole picture is not to reduce a whole to a single element, but rather to see all the nuances and subtleties of the same whole. 
We agree that technically male and female muscles are the same thing, muscles are muscles, whether they are worn by men or women. But in our current society, we don't have the same vision of muscles for men as for women. And since the time that I've been fighting to change this vision that I find very unfair and wrong, I can tell you that it's a subject I know well. In short, in our society, a muscular and strong man is the norm, it's even a sign of virility, whereas a muscular and strong woman is out of the norm, even criticized, because muscles are a sign of virility and a woman should not have any, there are a lot of prejudices and preconceived ideas on this level (it's starting to change a little but there is still a long way to go). There are some similarities (effort, health, courage, sacrifice, determination, strength, power, aestheticism, etc., although I find that some of these characteristics are even more admirable for a woman than for a man in our current society), but the fantasy for male muscles will be more mainly oriented towards manly power, the MAN, the beast, the testosterone, etc., whereas for female muscles this fantasy will be more in opposition with the current societal norms, we want to see these women surpassing these norms, surpassing men, being stronger and more muscular than them, being above them.
In short, as long as societal norms remain the same, there is necessarily a major distinction between these two fantasies. Except if we fantasize about both at the same time, there it's different again, there is no more distinction between the two, the societal norms don't apply anymore.

"A lot of what you say doesn't add up in the long run."

Well, let's say that in the long run, I do hope that societal norms will change, so yes, in that case what I'm saying won't be valid in the long run, and I'd be the first to be happy about it. However I'm afraid I'm too old to enjoy it (or maybe even dead already).

"Muscle fetish isn't that uncommon."

From this point of view yes necessarily since many women fantasize about men's muscles, on the other hand men (or women) who fantasize about women's muscles are much less numerous (but more than people in general believe).

"I never said the majority is everyone either. I'm saying that your fantasy is not shared by the majority and as a society we have proof of that. It is not fair for you to boldly assume that everyone secretly likes children, or that everyone secretly likes certain features regardless if they are on a child or not, because there is, for one, no evidence to support it, and, two, plenty against it."

Yes well I had said in my previous comment that I might have exaggerated a bit by saying "majority" but there are many. And it is very often related to the fantasy of the female muscles, generally people have at first the fantasy of the female muscles in relation to the adult women then that deported little by little towards younger girls because this make these same characteristics more impressive. And very often these people are not attracted to ordinary non-muscular minor girls but may very well be attracted to ordinary non-muscular adult women.

"then you are mentally sick. This is a psychological fact."

And so you studied psychology, you have a doctorate in psychology, a degree or something to say that? 
Well, it's true that saying it this way "If you're pleasuring yourself to a minor, regardless if it is a particular feature on that minor," is clearly a serious psychological pathology. But it comes mostly from your famous mania of wanting to reduce everything to a single overall element without seeing all the nuances and subtleties. You have to know how to analyze what leads to this fantasy before you can make a psychological diagnosis. I am not a psychologist, but I know that none of them will make this kind of diagnosis without having studied the case a minimum. And even if this diagnosis can be made on the vast majority of cases grouping together what you say because it is pedophilia for this majority, there may be some small specific cases that can come out of this diganostic because life is done nuances and subtleties.

At worst, if it's really a mental illness, it's an illness that can't be cured, if it's like pedophilia or possibly really pedophilia (which I doubt), it can't be cured, so you have to deal with it. The important thing is to be a danger to no one and even less to minors. The majority of pedophiles are above all people who suffer from their sexual deviance and who will never harm a child because they are aware of the dangers and the harm, they have the same moral values as you and me. They are not all Dutroux. Fantasizing about minors is not punishable by law, it is the act and the incitement to questionable practices on minors that is punishable. And when a fantasy is about young girls with such supernatural characteristics that they no longer resemble ordinary girls and that it is impossible for them to exist in reality, I don't see where the danger lies (all the more so if it also concerns characteristics destroying any childish fragility placing these young girls above ordinary adults).

That said, in a way, just the adoration of muscles can be sickly if it becomes something you can't live without. 

"this seems like a desperate attempt"

The only thing I despair about is never finding happiness in the beautiful, powerful arms of a adult muscular woman.

"I highly doubt a professional told you that it is not pedophilia to be attracted to certain features even if they're on a child. I can hazard a guess that a random person online agreed with you, upon which your majority comfort was built."

Yes I guess you are a specialist in psychology, you have studied and graduated in psychology, so you are well placed to know that a professional cannot confirm this. Isn't that right?
I didn't go to check if he was a professional, but on a psychology forum the guy had no reason to try to justify anything since it doesn't concern him directly, besides he confirmed what I thought without saying that it was a good thing, quite the contrary. It's possible that he's wrong but it's also possible that he has what you don't have: a true global vision with all the nuances and subtleties of life. 

"it is not difficult and you are arguing nonsense."

Well, that's for sure, when one is unable to have a whole picture with all its nuances and subtleties, nothing is difficult. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that this subject is much more vast and complex than you seem to think. And you your arguments are not absurd, you think, when you make for example your man of straw?

"It is sickening to witness the full extent people will go to defend this."

Except that as I already said in my previous comment, I don't defend it, I can't defend the indefensible, I never said that it's a good thing, on the contrary, it's disgusting to fantasize about underage girls no matter the reason even if it's not related to pedophilia or any mental illness that can be diagnosed in psychatry, my arguments are only intended to make people understand this phenomenon and that it's no use judging people who have this fantasy. Because again, the subject is much larger and more complicated than you think.

But I think that you are too much guided by your feeling of disgust which prevents you from taking a step back on the subject and to analyze objectively my argument in its totality. Provided that you are able to have a true vision of the whole with all its nuances and subtleties.

Oh, this should be good.

"An automatic translator being not perfect, it can distort our initial words..."

The message is clear enough. That's why it doesn't matter. If it messes up your words, then it's not my problem if I misinterpret your message(s).

"Besides, you only answer to my small parts of my arguments without looking at and analysing my argument as a whole."

It is entirely difficult to take on an argument that is, at large, faulty in itself. You mention nuances, but they do very little to correct initial presumptions you have about the female muscle attraction. For one, you presume there are "many people" that are attracted to the muscles on children as opposed to the child his/herself, yet you have neither defined nor represented "many people" in any way, shape or form. You merely stated a claim on which there was no basis. To define "many people", you would have to conduct a survey to support your hypothesis that would better explain your position, otherwise it becomes a blind statement with little ground.

My idea of using a "strawman" (this isn't a strawman) was to narrow your logic down to something that must be applicable given your initial statements. It is not a "misrepresentation" merely because it doesn't take into account the nuances you've included, but instead it takes your presumptions and arguments and puts them into a field of logic which must be true in order for your overall claim to be successful. And it isn't. This is not a strawman. A strawman would be a misrepresentation of your initial idea(s) intentionally set up to distort your answer. So, I guess you could say your "nuance" wasn't correct here.

"And here is what you answer: 'You do realize that NO ONE is attracted to a number?'
1. As you can see my argument is not only about the age "or anything else related to childhood", so my argument is not based on the attraction to a number as you imply.
2. Age is not just a number, especially for children who change rapidly from one age to another. Age corresponds to a period of life, and depending on the age it also corresponds to physical, mental and biological characteristics.
3. When I talk about age, I am not talking about a specific age, but more about a rather large age range."

The key term here is "not only about". That wasn't the claim I was suggesting or making. I pointed out an area in which your logic was distorted. You claimed that pedophiles are attracted to the age or anything else related to childhood. Here, what you define as "anything related to childhood" is not clear. You can argue that most of what we see in adulthood is also related to childhood, so therefore that statement becomes an immediate cross-out, as it is not defined nor represented by any argumentative means. You can't supply your own conditions in a statement without first clarifying what they represent and how they fit into an argument. This is another example of a blind statement.

"All characteristics related to childhood, thank you for confirming my arguments: 'for pedophiles, the main vector of their fantasies is age and everything related to childhood. They are looking for childlike proportions, the fragility of the child (both physical and psychological) and other things related to childhood."

"For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height"

What I stated and what you stated are not the same. This is a strawman, because it is a misrepresentation of the words I have conveyed.

I never mentioned "anything related to childhood." You did. And you didn't define it. Saying "childlike proportions" goes back to my earlier statement that that would mean anyone attracted to a grown adult with the bodyshape of a child is actually attracted to children, which is not the case. This is why the age plays a large number in defining a pedophile. It also means that the child can possess ANY bodyshape, and regardless of whether the pedophile is mostly attracted to the muscles (a rare example), it still makes him/her attracted to a child. This part is, funnily enough, dealing with your precious nuances, even though it wasn't necessary in disproving this claim.

"I am attracted to the dick-size and not the fact that he is 12. I am attracted to the face and not the fact that she is 10. I am attracted to the bodyshape, not the fact that she is underage."

Here you're talking about specific physical characteristics, so you'll tell me that muscles play a role in the shape of a body as in your example, but :
1 . It corresponds to a global physical appearance of the body which does not correspond at all to an ordinary child's physique.
2. The attraction to muscles, and particularly female muscles, is much broader and more complicated than just physical appearance, although physical aesthetics also plays an important role. There is everything that muscles represent: strength, power, determination, courage, sacrifice, etc. There is everything I said about liking to be impressed by this, the opposition between muscles, femininity or age that are not part of the societal norms, the fact that a young age makes these characteristics more impressive and amplifies this opposition. There is also that it breaks all the fragile aspect that could have an ordinary girl, in appearance, what puts at evil already a part of our moral values on the subject, although it remains all the psychological childish fragility. There is also the whole aspect of superiority/inferiority, many of us like to feel that a woman is physically superior to us (and in other areas) and to feel inferior next to her, the same goes for underage girls for whom this superiority is even more spectacular.

"1 . It corresponds to a global physical appearance of the body which does not correspond at all to an ordinary child's physique."

I assume by this you mean "muscles". Because in my statement I never mentioned any specific characteristics. I did mention very common examples.

"so you'll tell me that muscles play a role in the shape of a body as in your example, but :"

This line doesn't make sense to me.


"2. The attraction to muscles, and particularly female muscles, is much broader and more complicated than just physical appearance, although physical aesthetics also plays an important role. There is everything that muscles represent: strength, power, determination, courage, sacrifice, etc. There is everything I said about liking to be impressed by this, the opposition between muscles, femininity or age that are not part of the societal norms, the fact that a young age makes these characteristics more impressive and amplifies this opposition. There is also that it breaks all the fragile aspect that could have an ordinary girl, in appearance, what puts at evil already a part of our moral values on the subject, although it remains all the psychological childish fragility. There is also the whole aspect of superiority/inferiority, many of us like to feel that a woman is physically superior to us (and in other areas) and to feel inferior next to her, the same goes for underage girls for whom this superiority is even more spectacular."

Again, on what are you basing this massive claim?

This entire segment also does nothing to support your initial proposition. It only defines female muscle fetish in broad terms. I never said female muscle fetish was merely the attraction to muscles; I said the attraction to muscles on a child is still pedophilia.

"the fact that a young age makes these characteristics more impressive and amplifies this opposition." Another blind statement. You even say this is a fact. However, the last time I checked, muscles on a child wasn't attractive.

"There is also that it breaks all the fragile aspect that could have an ordinary girl, in appearance, what puts at evil already a part of our moral values on the subject, although it remains all the psychological childish fragility. There is also the whole aspect of superiority/inferiority, many of us like to feel that a woman is physically superior to us (and in other areas) and to feel inferior next to her, the same goes for underage girls for whom this superiority is even more spectacular."

This is an attempt at blending common muscle fetish ideals with your initial claim of attraction to muscles on a child. It still does not support anything; all you did here was suggest that people are attracted to "the superiority of underage girls", not only muscle, which again goes back to my initial claim that it is still pedophilia. You are attracted to a characteristic and/or personal asset possessed by a child, therefore it is pedophilia. This is the statement that you're not quite grasping.

"All this shows that it's much more complicated than you think, and that the admiration of muscles is much broader than a simple physical characteristic.."

Except it doesn't show any complications at all. All you have done is define useless non-sequiturs in your argument. This idea that you believe they change the way you represent your claim is at large faulty and evident. If you want something to debate with, I recommend not going for an argument from authority either, which suggests that because someone does not have the proper credentials, then therefore they do not have a right to speak on a concept, especially when I've already shown that it is not as complex as you make it out to be. It doesn't take a professional to diagnose pedophilia.

"In fact you seem to me to be the kind of guy who sees life only in black and white with no nuances in between. Life is much more nuanced than you think."

Except I've read your entire message clearly and debated your points off of your initial arguments. I debate people for a living. I know how nuances play into arguments; in this case, you have only made blind statements that hold little ground even when you attempt to push non-sequiturs into them.

"You're being a straw man again by reducing my logic to a simple physical characteristic, when no it's not my logic at all, it comes back to exactly what I said in my previous paragraph, it's much broader than a simple physical characteristic. Not to mention that it is a physical characteristic that totally changes the physical appearance of the underage girl so that she looks nothing like any other girl her age, except for her face. I know of no other physical characteristic that so alters the physical appearance and proportions. Possibly obesity, but child obesity is unfortunately not an exceptional characteristic, and those who fantasize about obesity are not looking for the same thing as admirers of female muscles, and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles. Obesity adds no value to a minor compared to an adult who has that same physical characteristic."

Again, this is where you're lost on the concept of a strawman. A strawman is an "intentional misrepresentation" of your claim. In this case, I have given you a statement that must be true in order for your argument to make sense. This was done as an example to show that your overall claim was faulty and didn't consider large proportions of what it was trying to represent.

"I don't see anything really comparable to that, and if you can find something really comparable, chances are it's not pedophilia either."

So because it's not comparable, then the logic changes? This statement would have to assume so many factors. For one, all of what you said in your initial argument would have to be true, which it isn't. "Obesity adds no value to a minor compared to an adult who has that same physical characteristic." This is a backwards statement that's actually incorrect; some pedophiles are interested in overweight children. You can find articles about such cases across the web. Either way, it's a backwards statement because that would assume that "muscle" would only add value to a child because the adult was attracted to it. Again, this is pedophilia. That is the point you are missing.

"In fact, what you have to understand is that it is the search for "more and more" in the fantasies of the admirers of female muscles that makes some of them fall into fantasies about underage girls, because all the characteristics that are admired in relation to the muscular strength of adult women are always more impressive on underage girls."

Would you look at that? Yet another blind statement!

Please provide me the evidence for this claim. This evidence should include: a survey of the muscle fetish community, answers supporting the propositions of "all the characteristics that are admired in relation to the muscular strength of adult women are always more impressive on underage girls" and "the search for 'more and more' in the fantasies of the admirers of female muscles that makes some of them fall into fantasies about underage girls", and a reason as to why this represents your thoughts.

"It took me a while to understand what you meant, I even thought it was a translation error with the automatic translator. But I think I understood, and I think I also understand your way of reasoning, it's clear that nuances are not really your thing, but it's sure that with this kind of reasoning it's going to be difficult to understand each other. So if I understand correctly, you are talking about the fact that I dissociated the fantasy of male muscles from that of female muscles. But in fact you have no idea what an whole picture is. An whole picture is not to reduce a whole to a single element, but rather to see all the nuances and subtleties of the same whole.
We agree that technically male and female muscles are the same thing, muscles are muscles, whether they are worn by men or women. But in our current society, we don't have the same vision of muscles for men as for women. And since the time that I've been fighting to change this vision that I find very unfair and wrong, I can tell you that it's a subject I know well. In short, in our society, a muscular and strong man is the norm, it's even a sign of virility, whereas a muscular and strong woman is out of the norm, even criticized, because muscles are a sign of virility and a woman should not have any, there are a lot of prejudices and preconceived ideas on this level (it's starting to change a little but there is still a long way to go). There are some similarities (effort, health, courage, sacrifice, determination, strength, power, aestheticism, etc., although I find that some of these characteristics are even more admirable for a woman than for a man in our current society), but the fantasy for male muscles will be more mainly oriented towards manly power, the MAN, the beast, the testosterone, etc., whereas for female muscles this fantasy will be more in opposition with the current societal norms, we want to see these women surpassing these norms, surpassing men, being stronger and more muscular than them, being above them.
In short, as long as societal norms remain the same, there is necessarily a major distinction between these two fantasies. Except if we fantasize about both at the same time, there it's different again, there is no more distinction between the two, the societal norms don't apply anymore."

I'm glad you see my way of reasoning. We're getting somewhere. Slowly but surely you will realise I am right.

(You have more blind statements in that paragraph by the way. I'm not going through all of them)

"Yes well I had said in my previous comment that I might have exaggerated a bit by saying "majority" but there are many. And it is very often related to the fantasy of the female muscles, generally people have at first the fantasy of the female muscles in relation to the adult women then that deported little by little towards younger girls because this make these same characteristics more impressive. And very often these people are not attracted to ordinary non-muscular minor girls but may very well be attracted to ordinary non-muscular adult women."

Define "many". You already stated that the amount of people interested in female muscle fetish is less numerous, so it should be very interesting indeed to find out the exact number you're talking about, or a rough count. More blind statements by the way.

"And so you studied psychology, you have a doctorate in psychology, a degree or something to say that?
Well, it's true that saying it this way "If you're pleasuring yourself to a minor, regardless if it is a particular feature on that minor," is clearly a serious psychological pathology. But it comes mostly from your famous mania of wanting to reduce everything to a single overall element without seeing all the nuances and subtleties. You have to know how to analyze what leads to this fantasy before you can make a psychological diagnosis. I am not a psychologist, but I know that none of them will make this kind of diagnosis without having studied the case a minimum. And even if this diagnosis can be made on the vast majority of cases grouping together what you say because it is pedophilia for this majority, there may be some small specific cases that can come out of this diganostic because life is done nuances and subtleties."

This is an argument from authority. It is not acceptable in this case because pedophilia is easy to identify. Pedophilia is a mental illness (pedophilic disorder). Therefore my claim is correct, regardless if I have a PhD or not. I strongly recommend you steer away from this sort of arguing; it doesn't even own the necessary components to be considered a debate tactic.

"At worst, if it's really a mental illness, it's an illness that can't be cured, if it's like pedophilia or possibly really pedophilia (which I doubt), it can't be cured, so you have to deal with it. "

What? As a society, we have to deal with pedophilia? Of course it exists. What the hell is this argument? At this point, I think you're grasping at straws, perhaps inflating the word count to seem more sophisticated. Whatever works for you.

"Yes I guess you are a specialist in psychology, you have studied and graduated in psychology, so you are well placed to know that a professional cannot confirm this. Isn't that right?
I didn't go to check if he was a professional, but on a psychology forum the guy had no reason to try to justify anything since it doesn't concern him directly, besides he confirmed what I thought without saying that it was a good thing, quite the contrary. It's possible that he's wrong but it's also possible that he has what you don't have: a true global vision with all the nuances and subtleties of life."

Again, another argument from authority.

This entire paragraph just confirms that your claim featuring this person is not reliable and is not actually an argument. You merely featured it as a means of majority comfort, just as I had expected.

"Well, that's for sure, when one is unable to have a whole picture with all its nuances and subtleties, nothing is difficult. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that this subject is much more vast and complex than you seem to think. And you your arguments are not absurd, you think, when you make for example your man of straw?"

This actually made me chuckle. I have included the whole picture; however, you attempted to isolate your argument in subtle categories with the hope of differentiating from pedophilia, but you failed miserably in this attempt. You added blind statements upon which no prior investigation taken place or been represented; you drew shabby conclusions and actually misrepresented what I said; you banked on arguments from authority; and, overall, your claim isn't strong.

"Except that as I already said in my previous comment, I don't defend it, I can't defend the indefensible, I never said that it's a good thing, on the contrary, it's disgusting to fantasize about underage girls no matter the reason even if it's not related to pedophilia or any mental illness that can be diagnosed in psychatry, my arguments are only intended to make people understand this phenomenon and that it's no use judging people who have this fantasy. Because again, the subject is much larger and more complicated than you think."

Again, it isn't complicated. You just don't know how to analyse ideas concisely. This is an internal issue that you have with yourself, and it has nothing to so with me.

"But I think that you are too much guided by your feeling of disgust which prevents you from taking a step back on the subject and to analyze objectively my argument in its totality. Provided that you are able to have a true vision of the whole with all its nuances and subtleties."

It's honestly cute to see know that I am correct and that you can't see past your deluded "debate tactics", and I use that phrase loosely.

[Muscles Douceur]

"I'm glad you see my way of reasoning. We're getting somewhere. Slowly but surely you will realize I am right."

This sentence says it all, you are convinced you are right, so no matter what is said you will only try to prove you are right by dismantling the other's argument and not to objectively analyze the other's arguments in order to have a holy debate. Just the way you start each of your comments announces the color "Yeah", "Okay", "Oh, this should be good", you are not here to have a healthy debate but to bash everything I say. Moreover, you say that you earn your living by debating, which gives you a definite advantage over me, not to mention the language (you speak in your mother tongue, which is a language I don't master and which forces me to use an imperfect automatic translator). It is obvious that you have a skill that I do not have in this kind of exercise.
Your goal is not to listen to the other person in order to understand his point of view and then give your own, but only to dismantle the other person's argument in order to prove that you are right, which is for me the most detestable way of debating, but maybe this is how you earn your living. But me I don't debate to earn a living, I debate only to share a personal point of view without denigrating the other's.
And no I don't realize that you are necessarily right, except that unlike you I don't pretend to be right, so I never pretended that you are necessarily wrong, I only share my imperfect point of view but not necessarily wrong.

Yes, my arguments are imperfect and easily dismantled for someone like you who has a certain skill in debates, because they are not based on concrete facts but on my experience and my personal experience from talking to other female muscle fans and surfing on sites related to female muscles, social networks, forums and others on the internet for more than 20 years, I can't prove what I say but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong It's not because a statement is not provable that it is necessarily wrong, but it can come from a coherent thought.
After that, you only have to look at the themes in the various fictions and other arts related to female muscles, or discuss with other female muscle admirers to understand the general drivers. No, but frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, for example, the superiority of women over men is one of the most popular themes among female muscle fans.

It doesn't matter what "many" means exactly, what matters is that in my experience I have found a number of them which I cannot estimate.

You ask me for facts, but you don't give any yourself in any of your arguments, you just dismantle mine without providing anything. You claim that it is necessarily pedophilia without giving any proof. Afterwards, maybe it's only a problem of definition of the term that diverges, and according to the definition it could be considered as pedophilia, and it's true that given your mania to simplify everything to the maximum without making distinctions between the divergences, the nuances and the subtleties, I understand that according to your definition it's pedophilia. And in a way you are right, it is true that in the broad sense of the term it is a particular form of pedophilia. But from a medical point of view is it really pedophilia? Prove to me that this is really pathological. Is it really a pathology or just an isolated, if uncomfortable, fantasy? And also prove to me that this is dangerous. Because the importance is there, to know if it presents well a real danger for others (especially for young children). This possible danger I talk about every time but you never tried to answer me about it. You know how to dismantle well selected pieces of arguments, but to talk about what is really important, there is no one left.

I'm not going to go on and on about the arguments you're having fun dismantling, there's a lot to say but I've wasted enough time in this debate without any outcome.

Just a few details like "or anything else related to childhood", if you think about it, it's easy to determine that I'm talking about things that directly affect children and not about adults with characteristics that reflect children, but your goal is only to find the smallest flaw in my argument to dismantle it with a flawless bad faith (I'm starting to rhyme now lol)

"All characteristics related to childhood, thank you for confirming my arguments: 'for pedophiles, the main vector of their fantasies is age and everything related to childhood. They are looking for childlike proportions, the fragility of the child (both physical and psychological) and other things related to childhood."

"For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height"

What I stated and what you stated are not the same. This is a strawman, because it is a misrepresentation of the words I have conveyed.

This is big making fun like I've never seen. I'm distorting your words with a sentence I said in a comment before yours. How's it going? Do you imagine that I'm friends with Doc Brown and that I borrowed his DeLorean to go see the future in order to distort your words in the past?
I didn't distort anything, you just said exactly the same thing I said before, you used different words but the meaning is exactly the same, so I thanked you for confirming what I said before.

"So because it's not comparable, then the logic changes?" Well yes of course, that changes everything, your thinking is totally stupid, you can't compare the incomparable.

This statement would have to assume so many factors. For one, all of what you said in your initial argument would have to be true, which it isn't. "Obesity adds no value to a minor compared to an adult who has that same physical characteristic." This is a backwards statement that's actually incorrect; some pedophiles are interested in overweight children. You can find articles about such cases across the web. Either way, it's a backwards statement because that would assume that "muscle" would only add value to a child because the adult was attracted to it. Again, this is pedophilia. That is the point you are missing.

What was it I said just before the sentence you quote here? "and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles." Ah yes, that's what I thought, thanks for confirming once again what I said before.
Otherwise, muscles give value to children over adults because children are supposed to be weak and fragile compared to adults and it is much harder for them to develop muscle and strength. 

In fact, what you have to understand is that it is the search for "more and more" in the fantasies of the admirers of female muscles that makes some of them fall into fantasies about underage girls, because all the characteristics that are admired in relation to the muscular strength of adult women are always more impressive on underage girls."

Would you look at that? Yet another blind statement!

Please provide me the evidence for this claim. This evidence should include: a survey of the muscle fetish community, answers supporting the propositions of "all the characteristics that are admired in relation to the muscular strength of adult women are always more impressive on underage girls" and "the search for 'more and more' in the fantasies of the admirers of female muscles that makes some of them fall into fantasies about underage girls", and a reason as to why this represents your thoughts.

Are you a real admirer of female muscles or are you a troll? When you do this kind of thinking, it really makes one wonder.
It's one of those things where you just have to look at the themes in the FMG stories or art. Or just talk to other female muscle fans. So admittedly I don't have any surveys to offer, but I don't think many fans will contradict these facts about "more and more" (more and more muscles, bigger and bigger, more and more power, more and more impressive, etc.). From there it is only a step to go to the side of the underage girls for whom these characteristics are even more impressive.
Is it so difficult to imagine that this is possible? Not necessarily true, but possible? What would be so incredible that some people could fall into the fantasy of young female muscles through female muscles by following the path of always more? I'm not asking you to take my word for it, but to consider this probability before making your judgment.

After all, I never claimed that all cases of fantasies about young female muscles have this same path, it can have other paths too, and some cases can be really phatological pedophilia if the basis of their fantasy really comes from childish characteristics and not only from female muscles, but in this kind of case, it can also have an attraction on ordinary underage non-muscular girls. In short, what I'm saying is that it's not necessarily pathological pedophilia. 

[At worst, if it's really a mental illness, it's an illness that can't be cured, if it's like pedophilia or possibly really pedophilia (which I doubt), it can't be cured, so you have to deal with it. "

What? As a society, we have to deal with pedophilia? Of course it exists. What the hell is this argument? At this point, I think you're grasping at straws, perhaps inflating the word count to seem more sophisticated. Whatever works for you.
Did I say that pedophilia doesn't exist? And I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but that we should deal with it, which are two different things. And I'm talking about a specific case, which has been the subject of our debate since the beginning, which is the fantasy about young female muscles. Namely, if in the worst case, if it is really a disease or even pedophilia as you claim, is it really dangerous? If it's not dangerous, how serious is it?


And I'm sorry but I find you really presumptuous to claim that you can make a diagnosis like that or that a professional could never confirm this kind of thing without being a psychologist yourself or having studied this. And to want to defend it with your story of arguments of authority, is even more presumptuous.
Your opinion is not better than mine or that of the guy who answered me on this subject (and if I had talked about this guy, well I admit I wanted to round off the angles by being evasive to give it a little more weight, but it's mainly to say that a person outside of this can confirm it, a person who is moreover accustomed to the subjects of psychologies, being a regular member of a psychology forum, it's worth what it's worth, it's not a very viable argument, but it gives a little extra to my point of view).

Anyway, I'm not necessarily trying to give hyper viable arguments that can't be contradicted, I'm only trying to give my point of view and my small personal analysis, probably imperfect, on the subject in order to better understand what can lead to this kind of fantasy and not to judge hastily.

However, there is something that bothers me since the beginning: If you are so repulsed by it, what are you doing on this topic?
Considering the story and its length, one can ask oneself the question, or it's a troll, or it's a feeling that you repress (which could explain this arrogant and pretentious aggressiveness in your comments), or else you have to explain me because I don't understand. 

[nebulasparks]

"This sentence says it all, you are convinced you are right, so no matter what is said you will only try to prove you are right by dismantling the other's argument and not to objectively analyze the other's arguments in order to have a holy debate. Just the way you start each of your comments announces the color "Yeah", "Okay", "Oh, this should be good", you are not here to have a healthy debate but to bash everything I say. Moreover, you say that you earn your living by debating, which gives you a definite advantage over me, not to mention the language (you speak in your mother tongue, which is a language I don't master and which forces me to use an imperfect automatic translator). It is obvious that you have a skill that I do not have in this kind of exercise.
Your goal is not to listen to the other person in order to understand his point of view and then give your own, but only to dismantle the other person's argument in order to prove that you are right, which is for me the most detestable way of debating, but maybe this is how you earn your living. But me I don't debate to earn a living, I debate only to share a personal point of view without denigrating the other's.
And no I don't realize that you are necessarily right, except that unlike you I don't pretend to be right, so I never pretended that you are necessarily wrong, I only share my imperfect point of view but not necessarily wrong."

Actually, this debate is more about proving YOU wrong, and in the process showing you that it is indeed pedophilia. I have objectively analyzed your argument; that's the reason I'm responding to you. This is not a debate; this is one person systematically disproving another person's points because they don't make any sense. One side (me) is objective, the other side (you) is visceral and subjective. Objectivity isn't influenced by personal opinions but instead deals with facts. Subjectivity deals with personal experiences and opinionated logic (which you have been doing since the very start). So, technically, you are not debating anything because you're too focused on what you personally believe without providing evidence for your answers.

I add in comments like "Oh, this should be good" because I am well-accustomed to people that think they are correct.  (You in this case).

Yes, I have an advantage over you. There is no doubt, anyone reading this discussion can tell that you've been dismantled on every point you've made. That is part of the art of debating.

"Your goal is not to listen to the other person in order to understand his point of view and then give your own, but only to dismantle the other person's argument in order to prove that you are right, which is for me the most detestable way of debating, but maybe this is how you earn your living."

I have given you my point of view: an attraction to muscles on a child is a form of pedophilia (that is and always will be my opening argument). Then, I disproved your view, because your side is overly subjective and doesn't deal with facts at all. You say I haven't given any facts. Have you even read my comments? I told you that pedophilia is the attraction to children (Fact) One constitutes a child is their age. The attraction to the bodyshape of a child is still pedophilia because they are underage (Fact). A quick google search will support these claims, or alternatively, contacting the psychologists that write the articles about pedophilia that also support my answers. It just takes a bit of effort from your side.

I have also given data that supports my point of view: the posts about people wanting stories with sexualized children taken down, evidence of actual stories being taken down, and a definition for pedophilia which cannot be altered. Pedophilia is very easy to identify: an adult that is attracted to a child. It is not a complex disorder that requires a professional to diagnose. And, do you really believe most pedophiles would even share this with a licensed professional? No. It is up to the community to identify them and have them prosecuted. So, yes, anyone can identify an adult that is attracted to a child. Saying they can't is just an attempt at trying to argue from an authoritative perspective, where you try shut down anything that doesn't focus on professionalism. Funnily enough, you do the same thing here, where you focus on a subjective experience and use that as a basis to represent both the community, and deem your points "facts". You have given subjective, blind statements multiple times and called them facts. Of course I'm not going to let you get away with that.


"But me I don't debate to earn a living, I debate only to share a personal point of view without denigrating the other's."

Again, then you're providing a subjective argument, and not a very good one. Here is where you contradict yourself on the topic of objectivity.

Yes, my arguments are imperfect and easily dismantled for someone like you who has a certain skill in debates, because they are not based on concrete facts but on my experience and my personal experience from talking to other female muscle fans and surfing on sites related to female muscles, social networks, forums and others on the internet for more than 20 years, I can't prove what I say but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong It's not because a statement is not provable that it is necessarily wrong, but it can come from a coherent thought.
After that, you only have to look at the themes in the various fictions and other arts related to female muscles, or discuss with other female muscle admirers to understand the general drivers. No, but frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, for example, the superiority of women over men is one of the most popular themes among female muscle fans.


"Imperfect" is a very loose term. Your arguments are wrong objectively. You can't get upset at me for debating via a factual, objective basis. You have given "subjective" evidence, which could easily be made up. This is why it isn't a debate. This is you attempting to argue against objectivity.

" No, but frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, for example, the superiority of women over men is one of the most popular themes among female muscle fans."
I think this is where your lack of understanding comes in. I have already stated that I am aware of the complex fetish of muscle. I have not debated otherwise. I have debated from the very start that the attraction to muscles on a child is pedophilia. You went ahead and said, "Well, no, it's much more complex than that." You gave your reasons. I dismantled your reasons, and now you want to cry and tell me I'm basically being unfair because I'm not looking at things from your perspective. I have no idea who you are, there is no reason for me to assume all of your subjective reasons are valid, because in the grand scheme of things, they're not. They are entirely subjective and blind. Again, this is why this isn't a debate. You seem to have this idea that I'm supposed to let your inconsistencies slide and then develop an answer catering to those inconsistencies. This just shows how arrogant you really are; the world doesn't revolve around your perspective, and the hypocrisy of you to say that I'm not being objective is laughable. You are looking for a subjective discussion, not an objective one. Learn the difference.

"It doesn't matter what "many" means exactly, what matters is that in my experience I have found a number of them which I cannot estimate."

In an objective debate, yes it does. If I were to say that many people in this world are pedophiles, I would need evidence to support that. Merely going around and looking at forums is not evidence. That's ridiculous, and it's exactly what you've done. "In my experience" (Another subjective argument).

"You ask me for facts, but you don't give any yourself in any of your arguments, you just dismantle mine without providing anything. You claim that it is necessarily pedophilia without giving any proof. Afterwards, maybe it's only a problem of definition of the term that diverges, and according to the definition it could be considered as pedophilia, and it's true that given your mania to simplify everything to the maximum without making distinctions between the divergences, the nuances and the subtleties, I understand that according to your definition it's pedophilia. And in a way you are right, it is true that in the broad sense of the term it is a particular form of pedophilia. But from a medical point of view is it really pedophilia? Prove to me that this is really pathological. Is it really a pathology or just an isolated, if uncomfortable, fantasy? And also prove to me that this is dangerous. Because the importance is there, to know if it presents well a real danger for others (especially for young children). This possible danger I talk about every time but you never tried to answer me about it. You know how to dismantle well selected pieces of arguments, but to talk about what is really important, there is no one left."

I asked you to support your claims with evidence as opposed to making blind statements based on nothing but pure subjectivity (as it turns out). I did give you facts multiple times. But most of my comment was there to dismantle your side. This is because this sort of discussion is a juxtaposed, black-and-white argument. One side makes a large claim, the other disproves it. It's not an open-to-interpretation discussion because there is a right side and a wrong side. The sort of debate you're thinking of deals with multiple view points and visceral propositions (subjectivity). In this case, you are incorrect.

"I'm not going to go on and on about the arguments you're having fun dismantling, there's a lot to say but I've wasted enough time in this debate without any outcome."

This isn't a debate. Debates need logical consistency and factual accuracy. There are cases where you can report on emotions, of course, but here you are trying to pass your view off as fact. You have even added instances of "In fact", "the fact that". You have opened up an objective argument and used subjectivity to support it.

"Just a few details like "or anything else related to childhood", if you think about it, it's easy to determine that I'm talking about things that directly affect children and not about adults with characteristics that reflect children, but your goal is only to find the smallest flaw in my argument to dismantle it with a flawless bad faith (I'm starting to rhyme now lol)"

On the contrary, it's not that easy. What directly affects children?

"This is big making fun like I've never seen. I'm distorting your words with a sentence I said in a comment before yours. How's it going? Do you imagine that I'm friends with Doc Brown and that I borrowed his DeLorean to go see the future in order to distort your words in the past?"
I didn't distort anything, you just said exactly the same thing I said before, you used different words but the meaning is exactly the same, so I thanked you for confirming what I said before."

I'm not even sure what the Doc Brown movie reference is supposed to mean (the grammar is a bit wonky).

"All characteristics related to childhood, thank you for confirming my arguments: 'for pedophiles, the main vector of their fantasies is age and everything related to childhood. They are looking for childlike proportions, the fragility of the child (both physical and psychological) and other things related to childhood." (You)

"For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height" (Me)


These are not the same statements. I specifically point out that pedophiles are attracted to qualities they associated with, and only with, children, both PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY. This includes premature faces and childish behavior. However, it is the age that defines the pedophile.

In your case, you argue that pedophiles are attracted to characteristics related to childhood. This is different. This logic suggests that a grown adult that shares some qualities with that of a child would be enough to define a  pedophile. In my case, I say specific PREMATURE qualities. When a woman becomes an adult, they are no longer a child, and therefore are not premature.

"and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles."

Here I misinterpreted what you said. However, this still supports my claim. This goes against what you said:

"There is also the whole aspect of superiority/inferiority, many of us like to feel that a woman is physically superior to us (and in other areas) and to feel inferior next to her, the same goes for underage girls for whom this superiority is even more spectacular.""

This is a contradiction to what you say here. This suggests that people find the concept of muscles on a child even more spectacular, when you then go on to say that it would add no real value unless they really were pedophiles.

"And I'm sorry but I find you really presumptuous to claim that you can make a diagnosis like that or that a professional could never confirm this kind of thing without being a psychologist yourself or having studied this. And to want to defend it with your story of arguments of authority, is even more presumptuous."

I've discussed this already. You just can't accept that you were wrong to make this argument from authority.

"Your opinion is not better than mine or that of the guy who answered me on this subject (and if I had talked about this guy, well I admit I wanted to round off the angles by being evasive to give it a little more weight, but it's mainly to say that a person outside of this can confirm it, a person who is moreover accustomed to the subjects of psychologies, being a regular member of a psychology forum, it's worth what it's worth, it's not a very viable argument, but it gives a little extra to my point of view)."

My opinion is more factual and more informed than yours. We literally bank on people that know more facts than us: doctors, teachers, physicists, scientists, engineers. So, yes, my opinion is better than a subjective one that has no evidence besides "because I said so." If you were to enter a proper debate like this, you would be kicked off stage immediately, so don't even have the gall to call it a debate.

"Anyway, I'm not necessarily trying to give hyper viable arguments that can't be contradicted, I'm only trying to give my point of view and my small personal analysis, probably imperfect, on the subject in order to better understand what can lead to this kind of fantasy and not to judge hastily."

Then you're not trying to change someone's perspective nor are you trying to support your own. And this again confirms your subjective approach. And yes, it is VERY imperfect.

"However, there is something that bothers me since the beginning: If you are so repulsed by it, what are you doing on this topic?
Considering the story and its length, one can ask oneself the question, or it's a troll, or it's a feeling that you repress (which could explain this arrogant and pretentious aggressiveness in your comments), or else you have to explain me because I don't understand. "

I stumbled across this story years before you did. And that was when "superman" was introduced (you can even find my original comments). So I went back and read the whole story. I didn't like the underage Kylie at all, nor any of the other underage characters.

It's funny to see you attempt a psychological analysis of me after all of this. "Pedophilia" is not a feeling I repress merely because you find me arrogant and pretentious (that doesn't even make sense. How does calling out this sort of pedophilia constitute arrogance and pretentiousness?). That would mean anyone that aggressively goes against pedophilia is actually a repressed pedophile.

So there you have it. All you're looking for is some other people to agree with you. I won't because I think your way of thinking is very illogical and overly subjective, not to mention that it is objectively wrong.

You're probably going to attempt another response, but at this stage all I see you as is someone that can't throw up his/her hands and say, "You're right." You have suggested that I am right to a degree, which I go against still. I say I am 100% right in my statements, and that you are wrong in all objective aspects.

You even end with an attempt at a psychological analysis of my character because you know you can't supply actual evidence for your answers. You instead want to jump around what makes a debate a debate.

Next time, don't call your opinions facts. Don't use an argument from authority. Don't bring up subjective experiences and use them to represent the whole spectrum. When you do this, you become arrogant. I have said this from the very start because you were consistent in making blind statements and passing them off as facts.

[Reverie]

Wow. Comments are in a storm here. I myself like the writing and flow of the story itself. Well written and I didn't mind the ending at all.

[Muscles Douceur]

"This sentence says it all, you are convinced you are right, so no matter what is said you will only try to prove you are right by dismantling the other's argument and not to objectively analyze the other's arguments in order to have a holy debate. Just the way you start each of your comments announces the color "Yeah", "Okay", "Oh, this should be good", you are not here to have a healthy debate but to bash everything I say. Moreover, you say that you earn your living by debating, which gives you a definite advantage over me, not to mention the language (you speak in your mother tongue, which is a language I don't master and which forces me to use an imperfect automatic translator). It is obvious that you have a skill that I do not have in this kind of exercise.
Your goal is not to listen to the other person in order to understand his point of view and then give your own, but only to dismantle the other person's argument in order to prove that you are right, which is for me the most detestable way of debating, but maybe this is how you earn your living. But me I don't debate to earn a living, I debate only to share a personal point of view without denigrating the other's.
And no I don't realize that you are necessarily right, except that unlike you I don't pretend to be right, so I never pretended that you are necessarily wrong, I only share my imperfect point of view but not necessarily wrong."

Actually, this debate is more about proving YOU wrong, and in the process showing you that it is indeed pedophilia. I have objectively analyzed your argument; that's the reason I'm responding to you. This is not a debate; this is one person systematically disproving another person's points because they don't make any sense. One side (me) is objective, the other side (you) is visceral and subjective. Objectivity isn't influenced by personal opinions but instead deals with facts. Subjectivity deals with personal experiences and opinionated logic (which you have been doing since the very start). So, technically, you are not debating anything because you're too focused on what you personally believe without providing evidence for your answers.

I add in comments like "Oh, this should be good" because I am well-accustomed to people that think they are correct.  (You in this case).

Yes, I have an advantage over you. There is no doubt, anyone reading this discussion can tell that you've been dismantled on every point you've made. That is part of the art of debating.

"Your goal is not to listen to the other person in order to understand his point of view and then give your own, but only to dismantle the other person's argument in order to prove that you are right, which is for me the most detestable way of debating, but maybe this is how you earn your living."

I have given you my point of view: an attraction to muscles on a child is a form of pedophilia (that is and always will be my opening argument). Then, I disproved your view, because your side is overly subjective and doesn't deal with facts at all. You say I haven't given any facts. Have you even read my comments? I told you that pedophilia is the attraction to children (Fact) One constitutes a child is their age. The attraction to the bodyshape of a child is still pedophilia because they are underage (Fact). A quick google search will support these claims, or alternatively, contacting the psychologists that write the articles about pedophilia that also support my answers. It just takes a bit of effort from your side.

I have also given data that supports my point of view: the posts about people wanting stories with sexualized children taken down, evidence of actual stories being taken down, and a definition for pedophilia which cannot be altered. Pedophilia is very easy to identify: an adult that is attracted to a child. It is not a complex disorder that requires a professional to diagnose. And, do you really believe most pedophiles would even share this with a licensed professional? No. It is up to the community to identify them and have them prosecuted. So, yes, anyone can identify an adult that is attracted to a child. Saying they can't is just an attempt at trying to argue from an authoritative perspective, where you try shut down anything that doesn't focus on professionalism. Funnily enough, you do the same thing here, where you focus on a subjective experience and use that as a basis to represent both the community, and deem your points "facts". You have given subjective, blind statements multiple times and called them facts. Of course I'm not going to let you get away with that.


"But me I don't debate to earn a living, I debate only to share a personal point of view without denigrating the other's."

Again, then you're providing a subjective argument, and not a very good one. Here is where you contradict yourself on the topic of objectivity.

Yes, my arguments are imperfect and easily dismantled for someone like you who has a certain skill in debates, because they are not based on concrete facts but on my experience and my personal experience from talking to other female muscle fans and surfing on sites related to female muscles, social networks, forums and others on the internet for more than 20 years, I can't prove what I say but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong It's not because a statement is not provable that it is necessarily wrong, but it can come from a coherent thought.
After that, you only have to look at the themes in the various fictions and other arts related to female muscles, or discuss with other female muscle admirers to understand the general drivers. No, but frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, for example, the superiority of women over men is one of the most popular themes among female muscle fans.


"Imperfect" is a very loose term. Your arguments are wrong objectively. You can't get upset at me for debating via a factual, objective basis. You have given "subjective" evidence, which could easily be made up. This is why it isn't a debate. This is you attempting to argue against objectivity.

" No, but frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, for example, the superiority of women over men is one of the most popular themes among female muscle fans."
I think this is where your lack of understanding comes in. I have already stated that I am aware of the complex fetish of muscle. I have not debated otherwise. I have debated from the very start that the attraction to muscles on a child is pedophilia. You went ahead and said, "Well, no, it's much more complex than that." You gave your reasons. I dismantled your reasons, and now you want to cry and tell me I'm basically being unfair because I'm not looking at things from your perspective. I have no idea who you are, there is no reason for me to assume all of your subjective reasons are valid, because in the grand scheme of things, they're not. They are entirely subjective and blind. Again, this is why this isn't a debate. You seem to have this idea that I'm supposed to let your inconsistencies slide and then develop an answer catering to those inconsistencies. This just shows how arrogant you really are; the world doesn't revolve around your perspective, and the hypocrisy of you to say that I'm not being objective is laughable. You are looking for a subjective discussion, not an objective one. Learn the difference.

"It doesn't matter what "many" means exactly, what matters is that in my experience I have found a number of them which I cannot estimate."

In an objective debate, yes it does. If I were to say that many people in this world are pedophiles, I would need evidence to support that. Merely going around and looking at forums is not evidence. That's ridiculous, and it's exactly what you've done. "In my experience" (Another subjective argument).

"You ask me for facts, but you don't give any yourself in any of your arguments, you just dismantle mine without providing anything. You claim that it is necessarily pedophilia without giving any proof. Afterwards, maybe it's only a problem of definition of the term that diverges, and according to the definition it could be considered as pedophilia, and it's true that given your mania to simplify everything to the maximum without making distinctions between the divergences, the nuances and the subtleties, I understand that according to your definition it's pedophilia. And in a way you are right, it is true that in the broad sense of the term it is a particular form of pedophilia. But from a medical point of view is it really pedophilia? Prove to me that this is really pathological. Is it really a pathology or just an isolated, if uncomfortable, fantasy? And also prove to me that this is dangerous. Because the importance is there, to know if it presents well a real danger for others (especially for young children). This possible danger I talk about every time but you never tried to answer me about it. You know how to dismantle well selected pieces of arguments, but to talk about what is really important, there is no one left."

I asked you to support your claims with evidence as opposed to making blind statements based on nothing but pure subjectivity (as it turns out). I did give you facts multiple times. But most of my comment was there to dismantle your side. This is because this sort of discussion is a juxtaposed, black-and-white argument. One side makes a large claim, the other disproves it. It's not an open-to-interpretation discussion because there is a right side and a wrong side. The sort of debate you're thinking of deals with multiple view points and visceral propositions (subjectivity). In this case, you are incorrect.

"I'm not going to go on and on about the arguments you're having fun dismantling, there's a lot to say but I've wasted enough time in this debate without any outcome."

This isn't a debate. Debates need logical consistency and factual accuracy. There are cases where you can report on emotions, of course, but here you are trying to pass your view off as fact. You have even added instances of "In fact", "the fact that". You have opened up an objective argument and used subjectivity to support it.

"Just a few details like "or anything else related to childhood", if you think about it, it's easy to determine that I'm talking about things that directly affect children and not about adults with characteristics that reflect children, but your goal is only to find the smallest flaw in my argument to dismantle it with a flawless bad faith (I'm starting to rhyme now lol)"

On the contrary, it's not that easy. What directly affects children?

"This is big making fun like I've never seen. I'm distorting your words with a sentence I said in a comment before yours. How's it going? Do you imagine that I'm friends with Doc Brown and that I borrowed his DeLorean to go see the future in order to distort your words in the past?"
I didn't distort anything, you just said exactly the same thing I said before, you used different words but the meaning is exactly the same, so I thanked you for confirming what I said before."

I'm not even sure what the Doc Brown movie reference is supposed to mean (the grammar is a bit wonky).

"All characteristics related to childhood, thank you for confirming my arguments: 'for pedophiles, the main vector of their fantasies is age and everything related to childhood. They are looking for childlike proportions, the fragility of the child (both physical and psychological) and other things related to childhood." (You)

"For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height" (Me)


These are not the same statements. I specifically point out that pedophiles are attracted to qualities they associated with, and only with, children, both PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY. This includes premature faces and childish behavior. However, it is the age that defines the pedophile.

In your case, you argue that pedophiles are attracted to characteristics related to childhood. This is different. This logic suggests that a grown adult that shares some qualities with that of a child would be enough to define a  pedophile. In my case, I say specific PREMATURE qualities. When a woman becomes an adult, they are no longer a child, and therefore are not premature.

"and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles."

Here I misinterpreted what you said. However, this still supports my claim. This goes against what you said:

"There is also the whole aspect of superiority/inferiority, many of us like to feel that a woman is physically superior to us (and in other areas) and to feel inferior next to her, the same goes for underage girls for whom this superiority is even more spectacular.""

This is a contradiction to what you say here. This suggests that people find the concept of muscles on a child even more spectacular, when you then go on to say that it would add no real value unless they really were pedophiles.

"And I'm sorry but I find you really presumptuous to claim that you can make a diagnosis like that or that a professional could never confirm this kind of thing without being a psychologist yourself or having studied this. And to want to defend it with your story of arguments of authority, is even more presumptuous."

I've discussed this already. You just can't accept that you were wrong to make this argument from authority.

"Your opinion is not better than mine or that of the guy who answered me on this subject (and if I had talked about this guy, well I admit I wanted to round off the angles by being evasive to give it a little more weight, but it's mainly to say that a person outside of this can confirm it, a person who is moreover accustomed to the subjects of psychologies, being a regular member of a psychology forum, it's worth what it's worth, it's not a very viable argument, but it gives a little extra to my point of view)."

My opinion is more factual and more informed than yours. We literally bank on people that know more facts than us: doctors, teachers, physicists, scientists, engineers. So, yes, my opinion is better than a subjective one that has no evidence besides "because I said so." If you were to enter a proper debate like this, you would be kicked off stage immediately, so don't even have the gall to call it a debate.

"Anyway, I'm not necessarily trying to give hyper viable arguments that can't be contradicted, I'm only trying to give my point of view and my small personal analysis, probably imperfect, on the subject in order to better understand what can lead to this kind of fantasy and not to judge hastily."

Then you're not trying to change someone's perspective nor are you trying to support your own. And this again confirms your subjective approach. And yes, it is VERY imperfect.

"However, there is something that bothers me since the beginning: If you are so repulsed by it, what are you doing on this topic?
Considering the story and its length, one can ask oneself the question, or it's a troll, or it's a feeling that you repress (which could explain this arrogant and pretentious aggressiveness in your comments), or else you have to explain me because I don't understand. "

I stumbled across this story years before you did. And that was when "superman" was introduced (you can even find my original comments). So I went back and read the whole story. I didn't like the underage Kylie at all, nor any of the other underage characters.

It's funny to see you attempt a psychological analysis of me after all of this. "Pedophilia" is not a feeling I repress merely because you find me arrogant and pretentious (that doesn't even make sense. How does calling out this sort of pedophilia constitute arrogance and pretentiousness?). That would mean anyone that aggressively goes against pedophilia is actually a repressed pedophile.

So there you have it. All you're looking for is some other people to agree with you. I won't because I think your way of thinking is very illogical and overly subjective, not to mention that it is objectively wrong.

You're probably going to attempt another response, but at this stage all I see you as is someone that can't throw up his/her hands and say, "You're right." You have suggested that I am right to a degree, which I go against still. I say I am 100% right in my statements, and that you are wrong in all objective aspects.

You even end with an attempt at a psychological analysis of my character because you know you can't supply actual evidence for your answers. You instead want to jump around what makes a debate a debate.

Next time, don't call your opinions facts. Don't use an argument from authority. Don't bring up subjective experiences and use them to represent the whole spectrum. When you do this, you become arrogant. I have said this from the very start because you were consistent in making blind statements and passing them off as facts.

We definitely don't have the same vision of arrogance (well, that's not the only thing we don't have the same vision of), for me the one who has been arrogant since the beginning is you. You are the one who is convinced that you are right, you are the one who wants me to raise my hands in the air to say that you are right. If that isn't arrogance, I don't know what is. No one who is honest can say they are 100% right, only fools believe it. The fools who are self-sufficient and do not try to improve their point of view.

You also have the arrogance to claim that everyone who reads our conversation will necessarily agree with you, without even having seen a single opinion. Besides, it might be interesting to have other people give their point of view on the subject. However when I say that you have an advantage over me, it's just because of your experience in debates, because you say that you earn your living with them (and also because of the language).

You have the arrogance to say that your opinion is more factual and informed than mine, when it is based on a single fact that is far too broad in relation to our particular case to be able to identify it as an indisputable fact. My opinion is certainly has a part of subjectivity, but it is not only subjective, an experience is not only subjective, it is based on personal observations which make it objective facts. The veracity of these facts is difficult to prove but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. It doesn't make them indisputable facts, but it doesn't make them any less objective.

All the more so with a subject like this one which is based on feelings as it is fantasy, it is of the psychic order, there is nothing really concrete to present, it is psychology, it is very difficult to find indisputable concrete facts for this kind of subject. Hence the complexity of the subject. By the way, when you say that it is not a difficult subject, it is purely subjective, it is not based on any facts.

Moreover, my opinion has been well thought out for some time, taking into account the findings of my personal experience, which does not seem to be the case of yours, which looks more like a basic reaction that is not thought out and that only scratches the surface of things based on a single surface fact, so my opinion seems to me to be much more informed than yours.

In short, let's talk about this single fact on which your opinion is based: By definition pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. This only proves that at first sight our case looks like a form of pedophilia, only in appearance. But haven't you ever been told that appearances are often deceiving? By definition pedophilia are also various clinical pathological cases of psychological orders related to mental disorders, basically pedophilia is a psychological disease. Nothing proves that our case is necessarily a psychological disease, such as you yourself diagnosed it without having the necessary skills and starting from the only postulate that our case resembles a form of pedophilia (hence my question to know if you studied psychology, to know if you have the skills to make this kind of diagnosis, your only answer being that there is no need to be a psychologist turning this into an "argument from authority", I deduce that it is not). And above all, there is no evidence that our case is directly linked to a sexual attraction to children.

What I argue is that our case is not necessarily related to a pedophile-type pathology or a fantasy that directly concerns children (note that I say "not necessarily" and not "necessarily not").
Fact #1 : Our case take source in the female muscle fantasy, a fantasy related to the physical superiority of female persons over male persons thus upsetting the normal (or natural if it becomes surreal) order of things as defined in our society. The fact of being impressed by this physical superiority is also a driving force of this fantasy, the more this impresses the stronger the fantasy becomes.
Fact #2 : A fantasy, being tied to personal feelings related to unconsciousness, knows virtually no limits (unless the overkill becomes disgusting, which appeals to another feeling ending the fantasy). The fantasy is not aware of the limits linked to the age of the subject, whether the subject is 18 or 17, the fantasy does not know the difference, only personal conscience, personal morality and personal will allow to put limits (more or less difficult depending on the strength of the fantasy). (If we add the laws on majority that vary from one country to another, there is enough to disturb the fantasy).
Fact #3 : This one answers one of your questions in your previous comment : Yes, the muscles on children are more impressive than on adults, due to the undeniable fact that children are basically much weaker and more fragile than adults and that they cannot develop as many muscles as adults, this is a biological fact. It is therefore obvious that a child with the musculature and strength of an adult athlete is amazing, a child will automatically be more impressive than an adult with the same muscular characteristics. Age can therefore be a driver of this fantasy. A strong and muscular 18 year old girl is more impressive than a 22 year old woman who can be more impressive than a more mature woman with the same characteristics and a 17 year old girl is even more impressive (and from a certain age onwards, the process is reversed, on a 60 year old woman it will be more impressive than on a 40 year old woman) An impressive or surprising fact being a fact which upsets the standards, and the more this one upsets the standards, the more this one will be impressive or surprising. If this is the driving force behind a fantasy, the age of the subject necessarily plays a certain role, as long as we do not set limits ourselves (or as long as these limits do not conflict with another personal feeling).
Fact #4 : Muscles totally change the physical appearance and proportions of the subject. This can be a misleading element for the fantasy that does not know how to distinguish age (fact #2).
Fact #5 : In the majority of stories I have read featuring muscular and powerful underage girls, the approach to muscles and strength is exactly the same as for stories featuring muscular and powerful adult women, only the situation changes in relation to the age of the subject (necessarily the professional, family, and other friendly relationships, will not be the same for a 13 years old girl as for an adult woman) and the age is only used to emphasize her skills and characteristics, like "wow she is such an age and she is able to do such and such" or "wow she is such an age and she already has professional bodybuilder muscles". By the way Kylie is exactly that, at 12 years old she wins a junior bodybuilding contest for more 16 years old, and at 13 years old she wins Mr. Olympia, the strongest man in the world and fights against professionals.

These facts may be debatable for the most part, since I cannot prove them 100%, because they are mostly elements linked to human feelings, therefore of a psychic nature, which I have observed myself, there is nothing concrete to present, it is very difficult to prove, but they are no less objective facts and this constitutes a coherent and objective reasoning.

In short, to conclude this point: Isn't our case based more on the fantasy linked to human persons of female sex who upset the societal or natural norms because of their muscular power, rather than on a fantasy directly linked to the childish condition of the subject?

However, our case being very varied, what I am saying does not apply to all the profiles, some may indeed be more related to a clinical pathology that could be identified as pedophilic, but this does not necessarily correspond to all the profiles in our case. It would be necessary to be able to study each profile one by one, to determine exactly what results from clinical cases linked to pedophilia or not.

My speech says that it is not necessarily this, which includes that I admit that I could be wrong and that it does not necessarily apply to all the cases of our subject.

So I'm not saying that there are not stories here that result from pedophilia cases, although not having read them, I can't confirm your statements, however these stories don't necessarily apply to all of our case, but only to certain profiles. So it is not a solid proof. Some people want certain stories to be deleted, this is only the result of the appreciation of these people. Some stories have been deleted, this is only the judgement of the moderators (it's like censorship on Youtube). Nothing here constitutes hard factual evidence, and even if it does, again, it only proves that some profiles are indeed the result of pedophilia, which I have never denied, but it does not necessarily correspond to all the profiles in our case.   
Besides, I can't verify your statements since you don't give me any source. I don't know enough about the forum to confirm this.

You also have the arrogance to deflect important questions and not answer them when you don't have any arguments, claiming that "this kind of discussion is a juxtaposed, black and white argument" (for someone who sees life in black and white, this is quite comical). Of course there are gray areas (gray areas that you seem to take into account only when it suits you), that's like everything else, but to consider something unhealthy or bad, it has to lean more towards the darker grays than the lighter ones. What's the point of being offended if there's no harm or danger? 
So what proves that our case can be a danger?
Because that's what it's all about, the danger that it can represent. If pedophilia is so decried (rightly) it's because of the danger it represents for our children, either physically or psychologically, a child victim of a pedophile can have very serious physical and psychological after-effects, for life, and even without that it's the child's innocence that can be in danger, and we believe that all pedophiles are a potential danger, that's where our moral values are formed. So the purpose of the thing is not so much to know if our case is a form of pedophilia or not, but if our case can constitute a real danger. Eventually, if this is to be considered a form of pedophilia, can this form of pedophilia not be so exceptional that it does not constitute any real danger? And if it does not constitute any danger, what is the harm? Prove to me that this is really wrong to the point of being offended and totally denigrating the thing.
This is the basis before judging anyone.

Besides, if pedophilia did not represent any danger, if it was possible to reconcile sex with children while preserving their innocence without it being disturbing to them, it would be accepted as much as homosexuality (under certain conditions for the preservation of the children of course) as it almost was at the beginning of the 80's if some psychologists had not fortunately put forward the dangers of pedophilia (then there was the Dutroux affair in the 90's which further emphasized the point). Today we would see the "P" of pedophile in the middle of LGBTQ+ letters

And when I see that today, in the USA, they want to put condom dispensers in elementary schools (which shocked me when I heard that), I think we're not far from it.

In short, all this to say that in our case, what is most important to consider is the potential danger that this could possibly present. Does fantasizing about childlike muscle representations present a real potential danger?

This is a contradiction to what you say here. This suggests that people find the concept of muscles on a child even more spectacular, when you then go on to say that it would add no real value unless they really were pedophiles.

Do you read what I write or are you just pretending to take parts of sentences out of context?
Here is what I wrote: "Possibly obesity, but child obesity is unfortunately not an exceptional characteristic, and those who fantasize about obesity are not looking for the same thing as admirers of female muscles, and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles."
I was talking about child obesity adding no real value, not muscles. In short, muscles add real value to children compared to adults, obesity does not.
So you have the arrogance to not read my sentences in their entirety, to pull out bits and pieces out of context, to mix it up, and to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Isn't that called being a straw man? That's what I thought.

And as long as there is an exchange of opinions and arguments on the same theme, it is a debate (unless "debate" does not have the same meaning in English as in French). As for the fact that my opinion is incoherent, it is only your appreciation, there is nothing factual.

And being objective doesn't necessarily mean bringing facts, it also means knowing how to analyze and consider all the elements brought in a discussion, whether they are factual or not, objective or subjective. What you seem to be unable to do, you only ask for concrete facts on a subject which is essentially based on human feelings and for which it is consequently very difficult to bring concrete facts, these facts exist but they are hardly demonstrable (unless maybe you really do a complete and deep investigation, but well we are not here for that either, and even then it is not even sure that you can really bring 100% demonstrable facts), and you use the flaws to your advantage to prove that you are right. There is nothing objective about debating in this way.

In short, if one is objective and of good faith, my arguments should at least put doubt on the subject and make people think before making a judgment.

As for me, I don't see how defending an opinion I believe in and not being convinced by your counter-arguments makes me arrogant. But your arrogance is such that for you the simple fact of not sharing your point of view, makes us arrogant in your eyes.

In fact your arrogance reminds me of Kylie's, you think you're on top and you can't imagine losing.

And I'm not too convinced either by your explanation of what you are doing in this topic. Kylie is the main subject from the first chapter of a story that is 78 chapters long on 36 pages from 2019 to 2021. And you didn't have to wait for Superman before she became overpowered, could challenge any of the strongest or most muscular adult males, and adult females started getting excited about her muscular body. Not to mention that Allison has had her eye on Kylies since the first chapter. Anyway, even if you've been following the story from the beginning (I'd say it's even worse), one wonders what the hell you're still doing here if you don't like fantasy stories about muscular and overpowered underage girls.

And I'm not trying to analyze your character, I'm just wondering what the hell you're doing here, it's a question I've been asking myself since the beginning of our conversation and I'm just asking you now.

And I never said that pedophilia is a feeling that you repress because I find you arrogant or that opposing pedophilia is arrogance, on the contrary, I have never been in favor of pedophilia, this is as repugnant to me as anyone else. I just try to be a little more open on the subject than you are. I try to step back from my feelings on the subject, unlike you. And I don't consider that our case is necessarily pedophilia, and if we can be considered as a form of pedophiles, I think that it remains a case apart (depending on the profiles of our case). In short, if you are arrogant for me, it is not because you repress pedophilia nor because you oppose my point of view, but because of everything I mentioned above, and more concretely it is because of the way you oppose it, and not because you oppose it.

So in fact, me what I see is just an obnoxious, pretentious, arrogant and unpleasant person who only wants to see the surface of things and who only tries to prove that he is right with a lot of bad faith by dismantling as much as possible the arguments of the other person without analyzing objectively the elements that are brought to him whether they are factual or not. Your goal is not to try to understand my point of view but to dismantle it to prove that you are right. And nothing you say really advances the debate (or conversation, whatever you call it).


On that note I'd like to get this debate (or conversation, whatever you call it) over with as quickly as possible because I'd much rather talk about Kylie's story than this, this was originally a 3 or 4 line apart on my opinion of the story, which you jumped on, and it's become a long, drawn out debate (or conversation) with comments as long as a chapter of the story.

[nebulasparks]

"This sentence says it all, you are convinced you are right, so no matter what is said you will only try to prove you are right by dismantling the other's argument and not to objectively analyze the other's arguments in order to have a holy debate. Just the way you start each of your comments announces the color "Yeah", "Okay", "Oh, this should be good", you are not here to have a healthy debate but to bash everything I say. Moreover, you say that you earn your living by debating, which gives you a definite advantage over me, not to mention the language (you speak in your mother tongue, which is a language I don't master and which forces me to use an imperfect automatic translator). It is obvious that you have a skill that I do not have in this kind of exercise.
Your goal is not to listen to the other person in order to understand his point of view and then give your own, but only to dismantle the other person's argument in order to prove that you are right, which is for me the most detestable way of debating, but maybe this is how you earn your living. But me I don't debate to earn a living, I debate only to share a personal point of view without denigrating the other's.
And no I don't realize that you are necessarily right, except that unlike you I don't pretend to be right, so I never pretended that you are necessarily wrong, I only share my imperfect point of view but not necessarily wrong."

Actually, this debate is more about proving YOU wrong, and in the process showing you that it is indeed pedophilia. I have objectively analyzed your argument; that's the reason I'm responding to you. This is not a debate; this is one person systematically disproving another person's points because they don't make any sense. One side (me) is objective, the other side (you) is visceral and subjective. Objectivity isn't influenced by personal opinions but instead deals with facts. Subjectivity deals with personal experiences and opinionated logic (which you have been doing since the very start). So, technically, you are not debating anything because you're too focused on what you personally believe without providing evidence for your answers.

I add in comments like "Oh, this should be good" because I am well-accustomed to people that think they are correct.  (You in this case).

Yes, I have an advantage over you. There is no doubt, anyone reading this discussion can tell that you've been dismantled on every point you've made. That is part of the art of debating.

"Your goal is not to listen to the other person in order to understand his point of view and then give your own, but only to dismantle the other person's argument in order to prove that you are right, which is for me the most detestable way of debating, but maybe this is how you earn your living."

I have given you my point of view: an attraction to muscles on a child is a form of pedophilia (that is and always will be my opening argument). Then, I disproved your view, because your side is overly subjective and doesn't deal with facts at all. You say I haven't given any facts. Have you even read my comments? I told you that pedophilia is the attraction to children (Fact) One constitutes a child is their age. The attraction to the bodyshape of a child is still pedophilia because they are underage (Fact). A quick google search will support these claims, or alternatively, contacting the psychologists that write the articles about pedophilia that also support my answers. It just takes a bit of effort from your side.

I have also given data that supports my point of view: the posts about people wanting stories with sexualized children taken down, evidence of actual stories being taken down, and a definition for pedophilia which cannot be altered. Pedophilia is very easy to identify: an adult that is attracted to a child. It is not a complex disorder that requires a professional to diagnose. And, do you really believe most pedophiles would even share this with a licensed professional? No. It is up to the community to identify them and have them prosecuted. So, yes, anyone can identify an adult that is attracted to a child. Saying they can't is just an attempt at trying to argue from an authoritative perspective, where you try shut down anything that doesn't focus on professionalism. Funnily enough, you do the same thing here, where you focus on a subjective experience and use that as a basis to represent both the community, and deem your points "facts". You have given subjective, blind statements multiple times and called them facts. Of course I'm not going to let you get away with that.


"But me I don't debate to earn a living, I debate only to share a personal point of view without denigrating the other's."

Again, then you're providing a subjective argument, and not a very good one. Here is where you contradict yourself on the topic of objectivity.

Yes, my arguments are imperfect and easily dismantled for someone like you who has a certain skill in debates, because they are not based on concrete facts but on my experience and my personal experience from talking to other female muscle fans and surfing on sites related to female muscles, social networks, forums and others on the internet for more than 20 years, I can't prove what I say but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong It's not because a statement is not provable that it is necessarily wrong, but it can come from a coherent thought.
After that, you only have to look at the themes in the various fictions and other arts related to female muscles, or discuss with other female muscle admirers to understand the general drivers. No, but frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, for example, the superiority of women over men is one of the most popular themes among female muscle fans.


"Imperfect" is a very loose term. Your arguments are wrong objectively. You can't get upset at me for debating via a factual, objective basis. You have given "subjective" evidence, which could easily be made up. This is why it isn't a debate. This is you attempting to argue against objectivity.

" No, but frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, for example, the superiority of women over men is one of the most popular themes among female muscle fans."
I think this is where your lack of understanding comes in. I have already stated that I am aware of the complex fetish of muscle. I have not debated otherwise. I have debated from the very start that the attraction to muscles on a child is pedophilia. You went ahead and said, "Well, no, it's much more complex than that." You gave your reasons. I dismantled your reasons, and now you want to cry and tell me I'm basically being unfair because I'm not looking at things from your perspective. I have no idea who you are, there is no reason for me to assume all of your subjective reasons are valid, because in the grand scheme of things, they're not. They are entirely subjective and blind. Again, this is why this isn't a debate. You seem to have this idea that I'm supposed to let your inconsistencies slide and then develop an answer catering to those inconsistencies. This just shows how arrogant you really are; the world doesn't revolve around your perspective, and the hypocrisy of you to say that I'm not being objective is laughable. You are looking for a subjective discussion, not an objective one. Learn the difference.

"It doesn't matter what "many" means exactly, what matters is that in my experience I have found a number of them which I cannot estimate."

In an objective debate, yes it does. If I were to say that many people in this world are pedophiles, I would need evidence to support that. Merely going around and looking at forums is not evidence. That's ridiculous, and it's exactly what you've done. "In my experience" (Another subjective argument).

"You ask me for facts, but you don't give any yourself in any of your arguments, you just dismantle mine without providing anything. You claim that it is necessarily pedophilia without giving any proof. Afterwards, maybe it's only a problem of definition of the term that diverges, and according to the definition it could be considered as pedophilia, and it's true that given your mania to simplify everything to the maximum without making distinctions between the divergences, the nuances and the subtleties, I understand that according to your definition it's pedophilia. And in a way you are right, it is true that in the broad sense of the term it is a particular form of pedophilia. But from a medical point of view is it really pedophilia? Prove to me that this is really pathological. Is it really a pathology or just an isolated, if uncomfortable, fantasy? And also prove to me that this is dangerous. Because the importance is there, to know if it presents well a real danger for others (especially for young children). This possible danger I talk about every time but you never tried to answer me about it. You know how to dismantle well selected pieces of arguments, but to talk about what is really important, there is no one left."

I asked you to support your claims with evidence as opposed to making blind statements based on nothing but pure subjectivity (as it turns out). I did give you facts multiple times. But most of my comment was there to dismantle your side. This is because this sort of discussion is a juxtaposed, black-and-white argument. One side makes a large claim, the other disproves it. It's not an open-to-interpretation discussion because there is a right side and a wrong side. The sort of debate you're thinking of deals with multiple view points and visceral propositions (subjectivity). In this case, you are incorrect.

"I'm not going to go on and on about the arguments you're having fun dismantling, there's a lot to say but I've wasted enough time in this debate without any outcome."

This isn't a debate. Debates need logical consistency and factual accuracy. There are cases where you can report on emotions, of course, but here you are trying to pass your view off as fact. You have even added instances of "In fact", "the fact that". You have opened up an objective argument and used subjectivity to support it.

"Just a few details like "or anything else related to childhood", if you think about it, it's easy to determine that I'm talking about things that directly affect children and not about adults with characteristics that reflect children, but your goal is only to find the smallest flaw in my argument to dismantle it with a flawless bad faith (I'm starting to rhyme now lol)"

On the contrary, it's not that easy. What directly affects children?

"This is big making fun like I've never seen. I'm distorting your words with a sentence I said in a comment before yours. How's it going? Do you imagine that I'm friends with Doc Brown and that I borrowed his DeLorean to go see the future in order to distort your words in the past?"
I didn't distort anything, you just said exactly the same thing I said before, you used different words but the meaning is exactly the same, so I thanked you for confirming what I said before."

I'm not even sure what the Doc Brown movie reference is supposed to mean (the grammar is a bit wonky).

"All characteristics related to childhood, thank you for confirming my arguments: 'for pedophiles, the main vector of their fantasies is age and everything related to childhood. They are looking for childlike proportions, the fragility of the child (both physical and psychological) and other things related to childhood." (You)

"For pedophiles, it's the soft, premature qualities they associate with children, both physically and mentally (I.E. Childishness, premature face, premature height" (Me)


These are not the same statements. I specifically point out that pedophiles are attracted to qualities they associated with, and only with, children, both PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY. This includes premature faces and childish behavior. However, it is the age that defines the pedophile.

In your case, you argue that pedophiles are attracted to characteristics related to childhood. This is different. This logic suggests that a grown adult that shares some qualities with that of a child would be enough to define a  pedophile. In my case, I say specific PREMATURE qualities. When a woman becomes an adult, they are no longer a child, and therefore are not premature.

"and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles."

Here I misinterpreted what you said. However, this still supports my claim. This goes against what you said:

"There is also the whole aspect of superiority/inferiority, many of us like to feel that a woman is physically superior to us (and in other areas) and to feel inferior next to her, the same goes for underage girls for whom this superiority is even more spectacular.""

This is a contradiction to what you say here. This suggests that people find the concept of muscles on a child even more spectacular, when you then go on to say that it would add no real value unless they really were pedophiles.

"And I'm sorry but I find you really presumptuous to claim that you can make a diagnosis like that or that a professional could never confirm this kind of thing without being a psychologist yourself or having studied this. And to want to defend it with your story of arguments of authority, is even more presumptuous."

I've discussed this already. You just can't accept that you were wrong to make this argument from authority.

"Your opinion is not better than mine or that of the guy who answered me on this subject (and if I had talked about this guy, well I admit I wanted to round off the angles by being evasive to give it a little more weight, but it's mainly to say that a person outside of this can confirm it, a person who is moreover accustomed to the subjects of psychologies, being a regular member of a psychology forum, it's worth what it's worth, it's not a very viable argument, but it gives a little extra to my point of view)."

My opinion is more factual and more informed than yours. We literally bank on people that know more facts than us: doctors, teachers, physicists, scientists, engineers. So, yes, my opinion is better than a subjective one that has no evidence besides "because I said so." If you were to enter a proper debate like this, you would be kicked off stage immediately, so don't even have the gall to call it a debate.

"Anyway, I'm not necessarily trying to give hyper viable arguments that can't be contradicted, I'm only trying to give my point of view and my small personal analysis, probably imperfect, on the subject in order to better understand what can lead to this kind of fantasy and not to judge hastily."

Then you're not trying to change someone's perspective nor are you trying to support your own. And this again confirms your subjective approach. And yes, it is VERY imperfect.

"However, there is something that bothers me since the beginning: If you are so repulsed by it, what are you doing on this topic?
Considering the story and its length, one can ask oneself the question, or it's a troll, or it's a feeling that you repress (which could explain this arrogant and pretentious aggressiveness in your comments), or else you have to explain me because I don't understand. "

I stumbled across this story years before you did. And that was when "superman" was introduced (you can even find my original comments). So I went back and read the whole story. I didn't like the underage Kylie at all, nor any of the other underage characters.

It's funny to see you attempt a psychological analysis of me after all of this. "Pedophilia" is not a feeling I repress merely because you find me arrogant and pretentious (that doesn't even make sense. How does calling out this sort of pedophilia constitute arrogance and pretentiousness?). That would mean anyone that aggressively goes against pedophilia is actually a repressed pedophile.

So there you have it. All you're looking for is some other people to agree with you. I won't because I think your way of thinking is very illogical and overly subjective, not to mention that it is objectively wrong.

You're probably going to attempt another response, but at this stage all I see you as is someone that can't throw up his/her hands and say, "You're right." You have suggested that I am right to a degree, which I go against still. I say I am 100% right in my statements, and that you are wrong in all objective aspects.

You even end with an attempt at a psychological analysis of my character because you know you can't supply actual evidence for your answers. You instead want to jump around what makes a debate a debate.

Next time, don't call your opinions facts. Don't use an argument from authority. Don't bring up subjective experiences and use them to represent the whole spectrum. When you do this, you become arrogant. I have said this from the very start because you were consistent in making blind statements and passing them off as facts.

We definitely don't have the same vision of arrogance (well, that's not the only thing we don't have the same vision of), for me the one who has been arrogant since the beginning is you. You are the one who is convinced that you are right, you are the one who wants me to raise my hands in the air to say that you are right. If that isn't arrogance, I don't know what is. No one who is honest can say they are 100% right, only fools believe it. The fools who are self-sufficient and do not try to improve their point of view.

You also have the arrogance to claim that everyone who reads our conversation will necessarily agree with you, without even having seen a single opinion. Besides, it might be interesting to have other people give their point of view on the subject. However when I say that you have an advantage over me, it's just because of your experience in debates, because you say that you earn your living with them (and also because of the language).

You have the arrogance to say that your opinion is more factual and informed than mine, when it is based on a single fact that is far too broad in relation to our particular case to be able to identify it as an indisputable fact. My opinion is certainly has a part of subjectivity, but it is not only subjective, an experience is not only subjective, it is based on personal observations which make it objective facts. The veracity of these facts is difficult to prove but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. It doesn't make them indisputable facts, but it doesn't make them any less objective.

All the more so with a subject like this one which is based on feelings as it is fantasy, it is of the psychic order, there is nothing really concrete to present, it is psychology, it is very difficult to find indisputable concrete facts for this kind of subject. Hence the complexity of the subject. By the way, when you say that it is not a difficult subject, it is purely subjective, it is not based on any facts.

Moreover, my opinion has been well thought out for some time, taking into account the findings of my personal experience, which does not seem to be the case of yours, which looks more like a basic reaction that is not thought out and that only scratches the surface of things based on a single surface fact, so my opinion seems to me to be much more informed than yours.

In short, let's talk about this single fact on which your opinion is based: By definition pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. This only proves that at first sight our case looks like a form of pedophilia, only in appearance. But haven't you ever been told that appearances are often deceiving? By definition pedophilia are also various clinical pathological cases of psychological orders related to mental disorders, basically pedophilia is a psychological disease. Nothing proves that our case is necessarily a psychological disease, such as you yourself diagnosed it without having the necessary skills and starting from the only postulate that our case resembles a form of pedophilia (hence my question to know if you studied psychology, to know if you have the skills to make this kind of diagnosis, your only answer being that there is no need to be a psychologist turning this into an "argument from authority", I deduce that it is not). And above all, there is no evidence that our case is directly linked to a sexual attraction to children.

What I argue is that our case is not necessarily related to a pedophile-type pathology or a fantasy that directly concerns children (note that I say "not necessarily" and not "necessarily not").
Fact #1 : Our case take source in the female muscle fantasy, a fantasy related to the physical superiority of female persons over male persons thus upsetting the normal (or natural if it becomes surreal) order of things as defined in our society. The fact of being impressed by this physical superiority is also a driving force of this fantasy, the more this impresses the stronger the fantasy becomes.
Fact #2 : A fantasy, being tied to personal feelings related to unconsciousness, knows virtually no limits (unless the overkill becomes disgusting, which appeals to another feeling ending the fantasy). The fantasy is not aware of the limits linked to the age of the subject, whether the subject is 18 or 17, the fantasy does not know the difference, only personal conscience, personal morality and personal will allow to put limits (more or less difficult depending on the strength of the fantasy). (If we add the laws on majority that vary from one country to another, there is enough to disturb the fantasy).
Fact #3 : This one answers one of your questions in your previous comment : Yes, the muscles on children are more impressive than on adults, due to the undeniable fact that children are basically much weaker and more fragile than adults and that they cannot develop as many muscles as adults, this is a biological fact. It is therefore obvious that a child with the musculature and strength of an adult athlete is amazing, a child will automatically be more impressive than an adult with the same muscular characteristics. Age can therefore be a driver of this fantasy. A strong and muscular 18 year old girl is more impressive than a 22 year old woman who can be more impressive than a more mature woman with the same characteristics and a 17 year old girl is even more impressive (and from a certain age onwards, the process is reversed, on a 60 year old woman it will be more impressive than on a 40 year old woman) An impressive or surprising fact being a fact which upsets the standards, and the more this one upsets the standards, the more this one will be impressive or surprising. If this is the driving force behind a fantasy, the age of the subject necessarily plays a certain role, as long as we do not set limits ourselves (or as long as these limits do not conflict with another personal feeling).
Fact #4 : Muscles totally change the physical appearance and proportions of the subject. This can be a misleading element for the fantasy that does not know how to distinguish age (fact #2).
Fact #5 : In the majority of stories I have read featuring muscular and powerful underage girls, the approach to muscles and strength is exactly the same as for stories featuring muscular and powerful adult women, only the situation changes in relation to the age of the subject (necessarily the professional, family, and other friendly relationships, will not be the same for a 13 years old girl as for an adult woman) and the age is only used to emphasize her skills and characteristics, like "wow she is such an age and she is able to do such and such" or "wow she is such an age and she already has professional bodybuilder muscles". By the way Kylie is exactly that, at 12 years old she wins a junior bodybuilding contest for more 16 years old, and at 13 years old she wins Mr. Olympia, the strongest man in the world and fights against professionals.

These facts may be debatable for the most part, since I cannot prove them 100%, because they are mostly elements linked to human feelings, therefore of a psychic nature, which I have observed myself, there is nothing concrete to present, it is very difficult to prove, but they are no less objective facts and this constitutes a coherent and objective reasoning.

In short, to conclude this point: Isn't our case based more on the fantasy linked to human persons of female sex who upset the societal or natural norms because of their muscular power, rather than on a fantasy directly linked to the childish condition of the subject?

However, our case being very varied, what I am saying does not apply to all the profiles, some may indeed be more related to a clinical pathology that could be identified as pedophilic, but this does not necessarily correspond to all the profiles in our case. It would be necessary to be able to study each profile one by one, to determine exactly what results from clinical cases linked to pedophilia or not.

My speech says that it is not necessarily this, which includes that I admit that I could be wrong and that it does not necessarily apply to all the cases of our subject.

So I'm not saying that there are not stories here that result from pedophilia cases, although not having read them, I can't confirm your statements, however these stories don't necessarily apply to all of our case, but only to certain profiles. So it is not a solid proof. Some people want certain stories to be deleted, this is only the result of the appreciation of these people. Some stories have been deleted, this is only the judgement of the moderators (it's like censorship on Youtube). Nothing here constitutes hard factual evidence, and even if it does, again, it only proves that some profiles are indeed the result of pedophilia, which I have never denied, but it does not necessarily correspond to all the profiles in our case.   
Besides, I can't verify your statements since you don't give me any source. I don't know enough about the forum to confirm this.

You also have the arrogance to deflect important questions and not answer them when you don't have any arguments, claiming that "this kind of discussion is a juxtaposed, black and white argument" (for someone who sees life in black and white, this is quite comical). Of course there are gray areas (gray areas that you seem to take into account only when it suits you), that's like everything else, but to consider something unhealthy or bad, it has to lean more towards the darker grays than the lighter ones. What's the point of being offended if there's no harm or danger? 
So what proves that our case can be a danger?
Because that's what it's all about, the danger that it can represent. If pedophilia is so decried (rightly) it's because of the danger it represents for our children, either physically or psychologically, a child victim of a pedophile can have very serious physical and psychological after-effects, for life, and even without that it's the child's innocence that can be in danger, and we believe that all pedophiles are a potential danger, that's where our moral values are formed. So the purpose of the thing is not so much to know if our case is a form of pedophilia or not, but if our case can constitute a real danger. Eventually, if this is to be considered a form of pedophilia, can this form of pedophilia not be so exceptional that it does not constitute any real danger? And if it does not constitute any danger, what is the harm? Prove to me that this is really wrong to the point of being offended and totally denigrating the thing.
This is the basis before judging anyone.

Besides, if pedophilia did not represent any danger, if it was possible to reconcile sex with children while preserving their innocence without it being disturbing to them, it would be accepted as much as homosexuality (under certain conditions for the preservation of the children of course) as it almost was at the beginning of the 80's if some psychologists had not fortunately put forward the dangers of pedophilia (then there was the Dutroux affair in the 90's which further emphasized the point). Today we would see the "P" of pedophile in the middle of LGBTQ+ letters

And when I see that today, in the USA, they want to put condom dispensers in elementary schools (which shocked me when I heard that), I think we're not far from it.

In short, all this to say that in our case, what is most important to consider is the potential danger that this could possibly present. Does fantasizing about childlike muscle representations present a real potential danger?

This is a contradiction to what you say here. This suggests that people find the concept of muscles on a child even more spectacular, when you then go on to say that it would add no real value unless they really were pedophiles.

Do you read what I write or are you just pretending to take parts of sentences out of context?
Here is what I wrote: "Possibly obesity, but child obesity is unfortunately not an exceptional characteristic, and those who fantasize about obesity are not looking for the same thing as admirers of female muscles, and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles."
I was talking about child obesity adding no real value, not muscles. In short, muscles add real value to children compared to adults, obesity does not.
So you have the arrogance to not read my sentences in their entirety, to pull out bits and pieces out of context, to mix it up, and to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Isn't that called being a straw man? That's what I thought.

And as long as there is an exchange of opinions and arguments on the same theme, it is a debate (unless "debate" does not have the same meaning in English as in French). As for the fact that my opinion is incoherent, it is only your appreciation, there is nothing factual.

And being objective doesn't necessarily mean bringing facts, it also means knowing how to analyze and consider all the elements brought in a discussion, whether they are factual or not, objective or subjective. What you seem to be unable to do, you only ask for concrete facts on a subject which is essentially based on human feelings and for which it is consequently very difficult to bring concrete facts, these facts exist but they are hardly demonstrable (unless maybe you really do a complete and deep investigation, but well we are not here for that either, and even then it is not even sure that you can really bring 100% demonstrable facts), and you use the flaws to your advantage to prove that you are right. There is nothing objective about debating in this way.

In short, if one is objective and of good faith, my arguments should at least put doubt on the subject and make people think before making a judgment.

As for me, I don't see how defending an opinion I believe in and not being convinced by your counter-arguments makes me arrogant. But your arrogance is such that for you the simple fact of not sharing your point of view, makes us arrogant in your eyes.

In fact your arrogance reminds me of Kylie's, you think you're on top and you can't imagine losing.

And I'm not too convinced either by your explanation of what you are doing in this topic. Kylie is the main subject from the first chapter of a story that is 78 chapters long on 36 pages from 2019 to 2021. And you didn't have to wait for Superman before she became overpowered, could challenge any of the strongest or most muscular adult males, and adult females started getting excited about her muscular body. Not to mention that Allison has had her eye on Kylies since the first chapter. Anyway, even if you've been following the story from the beginning (I'd say it's even worse), one wonders what the hell you're still doing here if you don't like fantasy stories about muscular and overpowered underage girls.

And I'm not trying to analyze your character, I'm just wondering what the hell you're doing here, it's a question I've been asking myself since the beginning of our conversation and I'm just asking you now.

And I never said that pedophilia is a feeling that you repress because I find you arrogant or that opposing pedophilia is arrogance, on the contrary, I have never been in favor of pedophilia, this is as repugnant to me as anyone else. I just try to be a little more open on the subject than you are. I try to step back from my feelings on the subject, unlike you. And I don't consider that our case is necessarily pedophilia, and if we can be considered as a form of pedophiles, I think that it remains a case apart (depending on the profiles of our case). In short, if you are arrogant for me, it is not because you repress pedophilia nor because you oppose my point of view, but because of everything I mentioned above, and more concretely it is because of the way you oppose it, and not because you oppose it.

So in fact, me what I see is just an obnoxious, pretentious, arrogant and unpleasant person who only wants to see the surface of things and who only tries to prove that he is right with a lot of bad faith by dismantling as much as possible the arguments of the other person without analyzing objectively the elements that are brought to him whether they are factual or not. Your goal is not to try to understand my point of view but to dismantle it to prove that you are right. And nothing you say really advances the debate (or conversation, whatever you call it).


On that note I'd like to get this debate (or conversation, whatever you call it) over with as quickly as possible because I'd much rather talk about Kylie's story than this, this was originally a 3 or 4 line apart on my opinion of the story, which you jumped on, and it's become a long, drawn out debate (or conversation) with comments as long as a chapter of the story.

I suppose I have to do the same thing again. Firstly, I'm glad you found the time to come up with a response.

"We definitely don't have the same vision of arrogance (well, that's not the only thing we don't have the same vision of), for me the one who has been arrogant since the beginning is you. You are the one who is convinced that you are right, you are the one who wants me to raise my hands in the air to say that you are right. If that isn't arrogance, I don't know what is. No one who is honest can say they are 100% right, only fools believe it. The fools who are self-sufficient and do not try to improve their point of view."

Right, so you're going to sit there and pretend that using blind statements regularly and calling your personal observations and opinions facts isn't arrogance? Especially, when you later go on to say that there are no concrete facts surrounding this sort of psychology? I do not want you to "raise your hands in the air" and say I'm right. I want you to understand that your personal experience do not become facts merely because they are things you have perceived in your lifetime. If this were the case, people saying "I saw a unicorn" would confirm the existence of unicorns, which isn't the case. Here, you do something similar. You bring up what you have gathered across your decades of perusing the muscle forums across the web and used that to estimate an overview of the human psychology surrounding the muscle fetish. I also don't believe everyone will agree with me. I said that anyone that looks at this conversation can tell that you have no idea how to construct a debate and that I can (for obvious reasons already explained).

You say I don't try to improve my point of view, when I have already declared to you the fundamentals of my argument which you have yet to disprove. These fundamentals include the definition of paedophilia (which you partially agreed this may be a form of paedophilia by the actual definition), the attraction to a child's bodyshape, regardless of what type it may be, is paedophilia, and as long as the recipient of attraction is under the age of what is considered an adult in his/her respective country, then the person attracted is a paedophile. You have not disproved these claims, and in order for your debate to carry a ground or view, you must first argue why my side is incorrect, as opposed to merely stating your personal observations.

It doesn't matter how much you waffle on about psychology. You are not developing a ground which can support your argument because it is entirely based on subjectivity.

"You also have the arrogance to claim that everyone who reads our conversation will necessarily agree with you, without even having seen a single opinion. Besides, it might be interesting to have other people give their point of view on the subject. However when I say that you have an advantage over me, it's just because of your experience in debates, because you say that you earn your living with them (and also because of the language)."

Mentioned this.

"You have the arrogance to say that your opinion is more factual and informed than mine, when it is based on a single fact that is far too broad in relation to our particular case to be able to identify it as an indisputable fact. My opinion is certainly has a part of subjectivity, but it is not only subjective, an experience is not only subjective, it is based on personal observations which make it objective facts. The veracity of these facts is difficult to prove but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. It doesn't make them indisputable facts, but it doesn't make them any less objective."

Again, "far too broad in relation to our particular case to be able to identify as an indisputable fact." This is you working under the assumption that you have been correct so far, which I have already argued against. You have yet to prove this statement to be true without delving into your own perspective of what YOU think the human mind is like. You have not taken an objective stance, which you have ARROGANTLY deemed objective based on "personal experience" (which is not necessarily objective at all, and is quite the contrary), and instead moved past what I've been saying about what is proven and what is known about pedophilia. I have already explained pedophilia to you multiple times over. Now, I need you to put your thoughts together and rationally explain why my particular view isn't relevant in this case, because so far all you have done is bank on what you've seen on forums. Sorry, pal, that is not a defense. I can do the same thing by saying, "All professional psychologists told me this was considered paedophilia."

"All the more so with a subject like this one which is based on feelings as it is fantasy, it is of the psychic order, there is nothing really concrete to present, it is psychology, it is very difficult to find indisputable concrete facts for this kind of subject. Hence the complexity of the subject. By the way, when you say that it is not a difficult subject, it is purely subjective, it is not based on any facts."

It is indeed based on feelings. That's the thing about psychology right? So where do you come in to tell everyone that such and such is how people think when experiencing an attraction to female muscle? Again, your only defense is your very slim search of muscle fetishists. I say "slim" because the psychology surrounding this sort of discussion would no doubt differ from person to person (which you SHOULD be able to agree on), and insomuch people don't often share the extremity of fantasies (particularly with children), it seems very unlikely that you have garnered a fair number of reports to support your view on this form of psychology. And even if you did, that would not make any of what you said "facts" as you have so arrogantly deemed them on multiple occasions.

"Moreover, my opinion has been well thought out for some time, taking into account the findings of my personal experience, which does not seem to be the case of yours, which looks more like a basic reaction that is not thought out and that only scratches the surface of things based on a single surface fact, so my opinion seems to me to be much more informed than yours."

On the contrary, you saying my opinion merely "scratches the surface" is because I don't steer into subjective means. I focus on what is known and what can be known about pedophilia and muscle fetish. In this case, I can draw the two together based on the facts given by licensed professionals and the extremity that this muscle forum has gone. (Underage sexualisation particularly, but with kink-led stories as well).

"In short, let's talk about this single fact on which your opinion is based: By definition pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. This only proves that at first sight our case looks like a form of pedophilia, only in appearance. But haven't you ever been told that appearances are often deceiving? By definition pedophilia are also various clinical pathological cases of psychological orders related to mental disorders, basically pedophilia is a psychological disease. Nothing proves that our case is necessarily a psychological disease, such as you yourself diagnosed it without having the necessary skills and starting from the only postulate that our case resembles a form of pedophilia (hence my question to know if you studied psychology, to know if you have the skills to make this kind of diagnosis, your only answer being that there is no need to be a psychologist turning this into an "argument from authority", I deduce that it is not). And above all, there is no evidence that our case is directly linked to a sexual attraction to children."

I'll take this in bits.

" But haven't you ever been told that appearances are often deceiving?"

This offers nothing. Appearances can deceive someone in the same way a bad cover can: we don't know what's on the inside. However, we do know that a book cover is a book cover, and we do know a child is a child given the biological evidence (the age, which is given in these stories as well). So, this isn't actually proving anything; you have misrepresented its use.

"By definition pedophilia are also various clinical pathological cases of psychological orders related to mental disorders, basically pedophilia is a psychological disease. Nothing proves that our case is necessarily a psychological disease, such as you yourself diagnosed it without having the necessary skills and starting from the only postulate that our case resembles a form of pedophilia (hence my question to know if you studied psychology, to know if you have the skills to make this kind of diagnosis, your only answer being that there is no need to be a psychologist turning this into an "argument from authority", I deduce that it is not). And above all, there is no evidence that our case is directly linked to a sexual attraction to children.""

"Sexual feelings directed towards children". That is quite literally proof. Hundreds of dictionaries and expanded articles will support this. Pedophilia is, again, not a complex disease. If someone is attracted to a child, and it becomes evident, then a licensed professional is not necessary to confirm it. Most pedophiles are caught not by licensed professionals but by the human civilisation (they may at chance include professionals). Police do not take them to see a professional to have them diagnosed (not as far as I'm aware). Again, it's because it's not complex. It may have a complex REASON, however, but the reason here doesn't change the definition(s) nor the accounts made by doctors and psychologists throughout history. After all, it's how we have the information.

You keep trying to isolate the body from the child as if the child is not the attractor, yet you have mentioned already that this fantasy stems from the concept (you used "fact") that muscles are all the more impressive on children. Muscles are impressive on children, muscles are impressive on women, (I haven't said otherwise) but for someone to gain sexual pleasure is where I strongly disagree with you. And where I know you have distorted logic. This distortion is important in identifying because if it isn't pointed out, I would have to develop an equally faulty answer catering to the distortion, which is what you're expecting I do because you're using subjective "evidence".

"What I argue is that our case is not necessarily related to a pedophile-type pathology or a fantasy that directly concerns children (note that I say "not necessarily" and not "necessarily not").
Fact #1 : Our case take source in the female muscle fantasy, a fantasy related to the physical superiority of female persons over male persons thus upsetting the normal (or natural if it becomes surreal) order of things as defined in our society. The fact of being impressed by this physical superiority is also a driving force of this fantasy, the more this impresses the stronger the fantasy becomes.
Fact #2 : A fantasy, being tied to personal feelings related to unconsciousness, knows virtually no limits (unless the overkill becomes disgusting, which appeals to another feeling ending the fantasy). The fantasy is not aware of the limits linked to the age of the subject, whether the subject is 18 or 17, the fantasy does not know the difference, only personal conscience, personal morality and personal will allow to put limits (more or less difficult depending on the strength of the fantasy). (If we add the laws on majority that vary from one country to another, there is enough to disturb the fantasy).
Fact #3 : This one answers one of your questions in your previous comment : Yes, the muscles on children are more impressive than on adults, due to the undeniable fact that children are basically much weaker and more fragile than adults and that they cannot develop as many muscles as adults, this is a biological fact. It is therefore obvious that a child with the musculature and strength of an adult athlete is amazing, a child will automatically be more impressive than an adult with the same muscular characteristics. Age can therefore be a driver of this fantasy. A strong and muscular 18 year old girl is more impressive than a 22 year old woman who can be more impressive than a more mature woman with the same characteristics and a 17 year old girl is even more impressive (and from a certain age onwards, the process is reversed, on a 60 year old woman it will be more impressive than on a 40 year old woman) An impressive or surprising fact being a fact which upsets the standards, and the more this one upsets the standards, the more this one will be impressive or surprising. If this is the driving force behind a fantasy, the age of the subject necessarily plays a certain role, as long as we do not set limits ourselves (or as long as these limits do not conflict with another personal feeling).
Fact #4 : Muscles totally change the physical appearance and proportions of the subject. This can be a misleading element for the fantasy that does not know how to distinguish age (fact #2).
Fact #5 : In the majority of stories I have read featuring muscular and powerful underage girls, the approach to muscles and strength is exactly the same as for stories featuring muscular and powerful adult women, only the situation changes in relation to the age of the subject (necessarily the professional, family, and other friendly relationships, will not be the same for a 13 years old girl as for an adult woman) and the age is only used to emphasize her skills and characteristics, like "wow she is such an age and she is able to do such and such" or "wow she is such an age and she already has professional bodybuilder muscles". By the way Kylie is exactly that, at 12 years old she wins a junior bodybuilding contest for more 16 years old, and at 13 years old she wins Mr. Olympia, the strongest man in the world and fights against professionals."

These "facts" STILL do not develop your argument nor protest the idea that it's pedophilia. You have included another non-sequitur. It is pointless to develop an answer catering to something that isn't even on topic. And you keep using SUBJECTIVITY when you call these "facts". Again, this is based on your misconception surrounding objectivity, which I have already explained to you in detail on multiple occasions.

You are trying to mask the sexual gratification some members (and at this point, I think you're involved in this behavior) get by merely separating the body and the age, the fantasy and the child. You compare this loosely to that of nothing different than a grown adult woman with muscles, yet this goes against your idea that the muscles are more impressive on "children" and not "adult women" which you have later reiterated.

"These facts may be debatable for the most part, since I cannot prove them 100%, because they are mostly elements linked to human feelings, therefore of a psychic nature, which I have observed myself, there is nothing concrete to present, it is very difficult to prove, but they are no less objective facts and this constitutes a coherent and objective reasoning."

Again, you can't prove much at all in what you're saying. The stuff that can be "proven" isn't even helping your MAIN argument. You keep trying to get into the nitty gritty of the microscopic details that are by themselves different routes of conversation. They are not facts supporting you.

"In short, to conclude this point: Isn't our case based more on the fantasy linked to human persons of female sex who upset the societal or natural norms because of their muscular power, rather than on a fantasy directly linked to the childish condition of the subject?"

This has been your attempt of discussion and I have shot it down multiple times. In a normal case, where the subject is an adult, then yes. When the subject is a child, then low.

Let me give an example:

If a man watches child pornography but is attracted to the kink and the "kink alone" (let's say feet), then they are still attracted to the child. And, yes, this is prosecutable and still identified as pedophilia. And, yes, this is a common example. So, here, my argument is further strengthened based on laws that inhabit the world. Another fact.

You might try again: "OUR CASE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE I TALKED TO BLA BLA BLA", but it doesn't matter. That's your view. It does not matter. It's a silly opinion that holds no ground in the long run. It is bad because I think you are still attracted to a child based on the evidence effected by the laws, psychologists, and experts in the field.


"However, our case being very varied, what I am saying does not apply to all the profiles, some may indeed be more related to a clinical pathology that could be identified as pedophilic, but this does not necessarily correspond to all the profiles in our case. It would be necessary to be able to study each profile one by one, to determine exactly what results from clinical cases linked to pedophilia or not."

However, it necessarily does mean you are attracted to a child. Already explained this. It's becoming a burden having to re-explain.

"My speech says that it is not necessarily this, which includes that I admit that I could be wrong and that it does not necessarily apply to all the cases of our subject."

It does apply. Already explained. You need to defend it now.

"So I'm not saying that there are not stories here that result from pedophilia cases, although not having read them, I can't confirm your statements, however these stories don't necessarily apply to all of our case, but only to certain profiles. So it is not a solid proof. Some people want certain stories to be deleted, this is only the result of the appreciation of these people. Some stories have been deleted, this is only the judgement of the moderators (it's like censorship on Youtube). Nothing here constitutes hard factual evidence, and even if it does, again, it only proves that some profiles are indeed the result of pedophilia, which I have never denied, but it does not necessarily correspond to all the profiles in our case.   
Besides, I can't verify your statements since you don't give me any source. I don't know enough about the forum to confirm this."

Here it is. Do you see what's happening here? You have stated your subjective evidence as "fact" because you experienced it. However, when I share that I have witnessed forums detest underage characters, removal of stories, and various complaints, it's no longer hard factual evidence? And what do you mean by "even if it does"? How do you jump from one ideal to the other at the flick of a light switch?

Yes a lot of profiles are the result of pedophilia. All that involve sexualised children and underage characters set to cater to someone's kink.

Saradas doesn't allow links for whatever reason. And, plus, you haven't provided any sources either.

"You also have the arrogance to deflect important questions and not answer them when you don't have any arguments, claiming that "this kind of discussion is a juxtaposed, black and white argument" (for someone who sees life in black and white, this is quite comical). Of course there are gray areas (gray areas that you seem to take into account only when it suits you), that's like everything else, but to consider something unhealthy or bad, it has to lean more towards the darker grays than the lighter ones. What's the point of being offended if there's no harm or danger?
So what proves that our case can be a danger?
Because that's what it's all about, the danger that it can represent. If pedophilia is so decried (rightly) it's because of the danger it represents for our children, either physically or psychologically, a child victim of a pedophile can have very serious physical and psychological after-effects, for life, and even without that it's the child's innocence that can be in danger, and we believe that all pedophiles are a potential danger, that's where our moral values are formed. So the purpose of the thing is not so much to know if our case is a form of pedophilia or not, but if our case can constitute a real danger. Eventually, if this is to be considered a form of pedophilia, can this form of pedophilia not be so exceptional that it does not constitute any real danger? And if it does not constitute any danger, what is the harm? Prove to me that this is really wrong to the point of being offended and totally denigrating the thing.
This is the basis before judging anyone."


"You also have the arrogance to deflect important questions and not answer them when you don't have any arguments, claiming that "this kind of discussion is a juxtaposed, black and white argument" (for someone who sees life in black and white, this is quite comical). Of course there are gray areas (gray areas that you seem to take into account only when it suits you), that's like everything else, but to consider something unhealthy or bad, it has to lean more towards the darker grays than the lighter ones. What's the point of being offended if there's no harm or danger? "

My argument is and always has been that there were no gray areas surrounding pedophilia, even in the case of muscle fetish. There is no exception made. I have given my reasons. You keep trying to develop on points I have already refuted time and time again. You haven't actually argued against my point of view, but instead keep trying to build upon what is already irrelevant given our past discussions.

And then you go on a huge tangent about pedophilia and providing danger. Pedophilia is still pedophilia even when no direct danger is caused at the time. If someone watches child pornography, that's pedophilia. Also, nice try at the questioning strategy. I can tell you thought you got something across there. You probably still do.

"Besides, if pedophilia did not represent any danger, if it was possible to reconcile sex with children while preserving their innocence without it being disturbing to them, it would be accepted as much as homosexuality (under certain conditions for the preservation of the children of course) as it almost was at the beginning of the 80's if some psychologists had not fortunately put forward the dangers of pedophilia (then there was the Dutroux affair in the 90's which further emphasized the point). Today we would see the "P" of pedophile in the middle of LGBTQ+ letters"

I'm sorry, but here I'm going to have to place you in the "idiot" category. This is a pure hypothetical scenario that neither supports your main view nor delivers and message. It is yet another non-sequitur you have squeezed into the text. There is no point in trying to debate a scenario which doesn't exist in the same context of what you are debating, especially since it bears no relevant qualities and cannot be used as an example.

"Do you read what I write or are you just pretending to take parts of sentences out of context?
Here is what I wrote: "Possibly obesity, but child obesity is unfortunately not an exceptional characteristic, and those who fantasize about obesity are not looking for the same thing as admirers of female muscles, and transcribing this onto minor children is not going to add any extra value to their fantasy unless they are really pedophiles."
I was talking about child obesity adding no real value, not muscles. In short, muscles add real value to children compared to adults, obesity does not."

This is where the unsound grammar creates an ambiguous statement. There is no clear indication of what "this" refers to. Hence, why I got confused. The last subject made was "admirers of female muscles", so I had grammatically presumed you were referring to this admiration still.

Again, not a strawman.

"And as long as there is an exchange of opinions and arguments on the same theme, it is a debate (unless "debate" does not have the same meaning in English as in French). As for the fact that my opinion is incoherent, it is only your appreciation, there is nothing factual."

Not necessarily. If you have an uninformed opinion marred by subjective opinions, then you do not have a side in a debate, and thus do not have a position to stand by. You do, however, constitute a main element of an "argument". Again, debates need factual accuracy and logical consistency, which you lack heavily, especially in logic. And I have pointed out your many inconsistencies.

"And being objective doesn't necessarily mean bringing facts, it also means knowing how to analyze and consider all the elements brought in a discussion, whether they are factual or not, objective or subjective. What you seem to be unable to do, you only ask for concrete facts on a subject which is essentially based on human feelings and for which it is consequently very difficult to bring concrete facts, these facts exist but they are hardly demonstrable (unless maybe you really do a complete and deep investigation, but well we are not here for that either, and even then it is not even sure that you can really bring 100% demonstrable facts), and you use the flaws to your advantage to prove that you are right. There is nothing objective about debating in this way."

Objective, definition: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [or] not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

So, you're just wrong. There is no disputing it. You can make up as many meanings as you want, but you're just doing it to solidify your position because you know you're a subjective, inconsistent mess. And that makes sense, you're human: you aren't sure how to express your logic. But it definitely is arrogant for you to make up a meaning for a well-known word and use it as a defense.

"And I'm not too convinced either by your explanation of what you are doing in this topic. Kylie is the main subject from the first chapter of a story that is 78 chapters long on 36 pages from 2019 to 2021. And you didn't have to wait for Superman before she became overpowered, could challenge any of the strongest or most muscular adult males, and adult females started getting excited about her muscular body. Not to mention that Allison has had her eye on Kylies since the first chapter. Anyway, even if you've been following the story from the beginning (I'd say it's even worse), one wonders what the hell you're still doing here if you don't like fantasy stories about muscular and overpowered underage girls."

Again, I really don't care if you're convinced. I saw superman and read the story. That's it. Nothing to do with children.

"And I'm not trying to analyze your character, I'm just wondering what the hell you're doing here, it's a question I've been asking myself since the beginning of our conversation and I'm just asking you now."

Well, no, you did conduct a psychological analysis. I've answered your question already.

"And I never said that pedophilia is a feeling that you repress because I find you arrogant or that opposing pedophilia is arrogance, on the contrary, I have never been in favor of pedophilia, this is as repugnant to me as anyone else. I just try to be a little more open on the subject than you are. I try to step back from my feelings on the subject, unlike you. And I don't consider that our case is necessarily pedophilia, and if we can be considered as a form of pedophiles, I think that it remains a case apart (depending on the profiles of our case). In short, if you are arrogant for me, it is not because you repress pedophilia nor because you oppose my point of view, but because of everything I mentioned above, and more concretely it is because of the way you oppose it, and not because you oppose it."

I agree here, but you need to be more careful with your words. Yes, the translator may alter some things, but it certainly doesn't help in situations like these.

"So in fact, me what I see is just an obnoxious, pretentious, arrogant and unpleasant person who only wants to see the surface of things and who only tries to prove that he is right with a lot of bad faith by dismantling as much as possible the arguments of the other person without analyzing objectively the elements that are brought to him whether they are factual or not. Your goal is not to try to understand my point of view but to dismantle it to prove that you are right. And nothing you say really advances the debate (or conversation, whatever you call it)."

Facts don't care about your feelings. You can see me as whatever you like. The reason the debate hasn't "advanced" (this just shows you don't know how debates work) is because you have been stuck on the same train of thought for the past few days. I have dismantled everything you said and shown that your view is not valid yet you still want to consider it so. You again use personal experience to back yourself up when it doesn't matter.

Psychology is a broad topic, a very broad one; however, we know a lot about certain aspects. Pedophilia is one of those aspects. It does not and should not need an in-depth analysis to identify a pedophile. If you wanted more depth in the discussion, then maybe you should have broken out of your barrier and provided substance of objectivity to work with. Otherwise, you're grounded and pushing your own wheels via opinions and observations online.

"On that note I'd like to get this debate (or conversation, whatever you call it) over with as quickly as possible because I'd much rather talk about Kylie's story than this, this was originally a 3 or 4 line apart on my opinion of the story, which you jumped on, and it's become a long, drawn out debate (or conversation) with comments as long as a chapter of the story."

Again, not a debate. Call it what you want, but you haven't a clue how debates work.

[Muscles Douceur]

You're a pain,  I'm tired of this conversation that seems to have no end, and that wastes my time, you mix everything up, you distort everything, you make absurd comparisons, it's crazy. I know that the language and the fact that I use an automatic translator don't help, but still, it's abusive. 

You can't even put the sentences and quotes into the context of the conversation.
When you answer me about childhood obesity by quoting a piece of a sentence and I answer you by quoting what I had written just before the piece you are quoting, of course it is still related to childhood obesity and not to female muscles. It has nothing to do with grammar, just look at the context.
It shows that everything I've said since the beginning is interpreted at your whim.

From then on, there is no point in discussing, we are just going in circles, nothing is going on, there is no listening.

You make easy things like comparing my argument with something as absurd as the existence of unicorns. Making such crude comparisons is called being a straw man. And to take your example again, in the absolute, if this unicorn is real but the person who observed it has no way to prove his observation, it remains a fact but it is not provable, as incredible as it may seem (besides it is not even the most absurd legendary animal you can take, because physiognomically speaking, it remains a credible animal). Then, if you want a more concrete example: I show you a picture of me but I have no way to prove that it's me, the fact that it's me is still a fact, except that I can't prove it.
And to come back to our subject, facts related to psychology are very difficult to prove, but that's not why they are not facts and cannot be objective.
Afterwards, you also talk to me about when I tell you that I can't confirm your facts about the stories of pedophiles on the forum but I never said that they were not potentially real facts, only that I can't confirm that these stories are indeed pedophilia or if it's only your assessment, and on the other hand even if it is the case, it doesn't prove that it concerns all the profiles of our case. And it is also to tell you that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of: using facts that I cannot confirm, which you call "subjectivity".

You are still comparing the incomparable. Children's feet look quite different from adults' feet and this does not add any value to the foot fetish. While  the muscles entirely change the physical appearance of the body and add value to the muscle fantasy in that a muscular child is much more impressive than an adult with the same musculature. These are indisputable facts related to physiognomy and biology as well as to the definition of the word "impressive".

And I never said that this was not impressive on adult women (on the contrary), I only said that it was more impressive on younger girls, and that therefore a young age gives an added value to this fantasy which is very often partly linked to the impressionable. Please don't distort my words.

And "Sexual feelings directed towards children" is indeed the definition of pedophilia but the question I've been asking since the beginning is: does this necessarily define our case? To be more exact, does this necessarily define all the profiles in our case? Couldn't it simply be for some profiles (more or less numerous) "sexual feelings directed towards the impressionable female muscles of which the young age could be simply an amplifier"? Because the fact that you give this definition to all the profiles in our case, results only from your appreciation, which makes it a subjectivity, which you reproach me since the beginning.
And yes, I continue to dissociate the child's body with this fantasy, because indeed the child's body is not necessarily the attractor for all the profiles in our case. It may be that it is only the young age (and not the body) that is a means (and not the attractor) of sublimating the fantasy of female muscles, since this fantasy is very often linked in part to the impressionable and a young age makes this more impressionable.  So of course it is quite subjective, I grant you, but a much wider subjectivity than yours taking into account many elements and facts. And although it can't give 100% certainty, there are enough elements to consider and think about it, or at least to sow doubt. Your subjectivity is based on one element: the definition of pedophile that you consider appropriate to all the profiles in our case. 


And when you say that there are no grey areas in pedophilia, it shows how narrow your mind is, grey areas are everywhere, life is like that.

As for my so-called hypothetical scenario, it is based on historical facts. In the early 80's, there were many political debates to consider pedophilia as a sexuality as well as homosexuality, but some psychologists saved the situation by pointing out the dangers of pedophilia.
On the other hand, if the danger is non-existent, what is the point of decrying it?
But once again you are only trying to divert the subject so that you don't have to answer it because you have no argument on it.

[Female Bodybuilding]

[Muscles Douceur]

 

But I hope it's over soon because I'm a little tired of it. Can't wait for the end credits! (after that, it could be like the Marvel movies, there could be a post-credits scene )

[nebulasparks]

You're a pain,  I'm tired of this conversation that seems to have no end, and that wastes my time, you mix everything up, you distort everything, you make absurd comparisons, it's crazy. I know that the language and the fact that I use an automatic translator don't help, but still, it's abusive. 

You can't even put the sentences and quotes into the context of the conversation.
When you answer me about childhood obesity by quoting a piece of a sentence and I answer you by quoting what I had written just before the piece you are quoting, of course it is still related to childhood obesity and not to female muscles. It has nothing to do with grammar, just look at the context.
It shows that everything I've said since the beginning is interpreted at your whim.

From then on, there is no point in discussing, we are just going in circles, nothing is going on, there is no listening.

You make easy things like comparing my argument with something as absurd as the existence of unicorns. Making such crude comparisons is called being a straw man. And to take your example again, in the absolute, if this unicorn is real but the person who observed it has no way to prove his observation, it remains a fact but it is not provable, as incredible as it may seem (besides it is not even the most absurd legendary animal you can take, because physiognomically speaking, it remains a credible animal). Then, if you want a more concrete example: I show you a picture of me but I have no way to prove that it's me, the fact that it's me is still a fact, except that I can't prove it.
And to come back to our subject, facts related to psychology are very difficult to prove, but that's not why they are not facts and cannot be objective.
Afterwards, you also talk to me about when I tell you that I can't confirm your facts about the stories of pedophiles on the forum but I never said that they were not potentially real facts, only that I can't confirm that these stories are indeed pedophilia or if it's only your assessment, and on the other hand even if it is the case, it doesn't prove that it concerns all the profiles of our case. And it is also to tell you that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of: using facts that I cannot confirm, which you call "subjectivity".

You are still comparing the incomparable. Children's feet look quite different from adults' feet and this does not add any value to the foot fetish. While  the muscles entirely change the physical appearance of the body and add value to the muscle fantasy in that a muscular child is much more impressive than an adult with the same musculature. These are indisputable facts related to physiognomy and biology as well as to the definition of the word "impressive".

And I never said that this was not impressive on adult women (on the contrary), I only said that it was more impressive on younger girls, and that therefore a young age gives an added value to this fantasy which is very often partly linked to the impressionable. Please don't distort my words.

And "Sexual feelings directed towards children" is indeed the definition of pedophilia but the question I've been asking since the beginning is: does this necessarily define our case? To be more exact, does this necessarily define all the profiles in our case? Couldn't it simply be for some profiles (more or less numerous) "sexual feelings directed towards the impressionable female muscles of which the young age could be simply an amplifier"? Because the fact that you give this definition to all the profiles in our case, results only from your appreciation, which makes it a subjectivity, which you reproach me since the beginning.
And yes, I continue to dissociate the child's body with this fantasy, because indeed the child's body is not necessarily the attractor for all the profiles in our case. It may be that it is only the young age (and not the body) that is a means (and not the attractor) of sublimating the fantasy of female muscles, since this fantasy is very often linked in part to the impressionable and a young age makes this more impressionable.  So of course it is quite subjective, I grant you, but a much wider subjectivity than yours taking into account many elements and facts. And although it can't give 100% certainty, there are enough elements to consider and think about it, or at least to sow doubt. Your subjectivity is based on one element: the definition of pedophile that you consider appropriate to all the profiles in our case. 


And when you say that there are no grey areas in pedophilia, it shows how narrow your mind is, grey areas are everywhere, life is like that.

As for my so-called hypothetical scenario, it is based on historical facts. In the early 80's, there were many political debates to consider pedophilia as a sexuality as well as homosexuality, but some psychologists saved the situation by pointing out the dangers of pedophilia.
On the other hand, if the danger is non-existent, what is the point of decrying it?
But once again you are only trying to divert the subject so that you don't have to answer it because you have no argument on it.

"You're a pain,  I'm tired of this conversation that seems to have no end, and that wastes my time, you mix everything up, you distort everything, you make absurd comparisons, it's crazy. I know that the language and the fact that I use an automatic translator don't help, but still, it's abusive."

You're wasting your own time if anything. You keep banking on the same ideals. There's not much to say here because you have a highly distorted view of psychology as a whole. I don't think any amount of evidence, even if it was thrown right in your face, would be enough to reel you out of your pit of malformed thought.

"You can't even put the sentences and quotes into the context of the conversation.
When you answer me about childhood obesity by quoting a piece of a sentence and I answer you by quoting what I had written just before the piece you are quoting, of course it is still related to childhood obesity and not to female muscles. It has nothing to do with grammar, just look at the context.
It shows that everything I've said since the beginning is interpreted at your whim."

No, actually, it is an ambiguous statement. Your grammar is terrible at times so it is difficult to know which are the subjects and what your to whom your determiners are referring. In this case, it was you messing up on grammar. And given your logical inconsistencies, I saw it as another inconsistency.

"You make easy things like comparing my argument with something as absurd as the existence of unicorns. Making such crude comparisons is called being a straw man. And to take your example again, in the absolute, if this unicorn is real but the person who observed it has no way to prove his observation, it remains a fact but it is not provable, as incredible as it may seem (besides it is not even the most absurd legendary animal you can take, because physiognomically speaking, it remains a credible animal). Then, if you want a more concrete example: I show you a picture of me but I have no way to prove that it's me, the fact that it's me is still a fact, except that I can't prove it.
And to come back to our subject, facts related to psychology are very difficult to prove, but that's not why they are not facts and cannot be objective.
Afterwards, you also talk to me about when I tell you that I can't confirm your facts about the stories of pedophiles on the forum but I never said that they were not potentially real facts, only that I can't confirm that these stories are indeed pedophilia or if it's only your assessment, and on the other hand even if it is the case, it doesn't prove that it concerns all the profiles of our case. And it is also to tell you that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of: using facts that I cannot confirm, which you call "subjectivity"."

It's not a stawman. A strawman is an intentional misrepresentation of your argument. Here, I use an example of the same scenario which must be applicable in order for your logic to make sense. A strawman is not "Hey, you used an example of my logic in another example! How dare you!"

And I'm happy you see it as easy. It's not difficult disproving your logic at all, and what better way to do it than with a grade-A example from the textbooks.

" And to take your example again, in the absolute, if this unicorn is real but the person who observed it has no way to prove his observation, it remains a fact but it is not provable"

Definition of fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true."

Known to be true or proved to be true. One person saying that unicorns exist does not make the existence of unicorns a fact. You're essentially leaning on the "burden of proof", which is a fallacy that suggests: "because we cannot prove something doesn't exist, then we can't rule out that it doesn't exist." Unicorns don't exist, that is a fact in the same way that it is a fact that there aren't invisible cookies walking among us.

Your logic here is completely idiotic, and at this point I know I'm talking to a dense, uneducated man.

" as incredible as it may seem (besides it is not even the most absurd legendary animal you can take, because physiognomically speaking, it remains a credible animal). Then, if you want a more concrete example: I show you a picture of me but I have no way to prove that it's me, the fact that it's me is still a fact, except that I can't prove it."

It's not "incredible" because you made this up completely. It does not become a fact that fire-breathing dragons exist merely because I say I saw one last Tuesday. That is completely ridiculous, and if you're using that sort of logic, nothing will ever go into your head.  For a fact to become a fact it must have something to prove it. The only exception is with "known" ideas. For example: It is a fact that World War 2 happened, given historical documentation and overwhelming evidence as well as connections today, such as soldiers. For proven facts: I can prove to you that X is heavier than Y using this scale.

So, no, you're just a moron. When you can't prove something at all, then it is not a fact. You CAN prove something is a photo of you given documentation or overwhelming evidence. For example, your birth photo: your parents can confirm, the doctor can, the nurses can, the documents in the hospital can. These are the available body of facts and/or information that indicate a belief of proposition is true or valid. So, you're example is still pretty bad. If you had your ID taken, for example, you can get information on that as well. If you take a random photo, you can see what device it was taken on, where (visual), fingerprints on the device it was taken with, the time it was taken. Your idea is that, because I can't prove that that isn't someone who looks identical to you and possesses all the same features and DNA, then it makes it unprovable that it is you. That is what is known as the "burden of truth", a common fallacy that has existed for centuries and isn't applicable at all. I can tell that you genuinely believed that this sort of example hasn't been discussed already, which is hilarious and shows how uneducated you are.

"And to come back to our subject, facts related to psychology are very difficult to prove, but that's not why they are not facts and cannot be objective."

Psychology is the "scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context." Like any other field, it has provable facts. However, because the human mind is complex, the facts may not exist for everyone, of course. For example: people act like this when this happens. Of course this isn't an objective fact. Everyone reacts differently to different things. However, there are PROVABLE facts about the human mind, one of which is pedophilia.

You say there are grey areas. But I'd love for you to give a hard example of where an adult can have sexual feelings directed towards a child and not be considered a pedophile. Show me the grey area in pedophilia, and then explain why it's necessary in supporting your view. Otherwise, don't speak about it.

"Afterwards, you also talk to me about when I tell you that I can't confirm your facts about the stories of pedophiles on the forum but I never said that they were not potentially real facts, only that I can't confirm that these stories are indeed pedophilia or if it's only your assessment, and on the other hand even if it is the case, it doesn't prove that it concerns all the profiles of our case. And it is also to tell you that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of: using facts that I cannot confirm, which you call "subjectivity"."

Hold on a minute: I mentioned these forums to support my view of "many of us are not attracted to muscles on a child", and I used the forums on this site and on others as an example for THAT particular argument. My evidence there was not to disprove your entire debate about grey areas in pedophilia in regards to muscle fetish, it was only to prove that many users actually weren't sharing the same view as you. Likewise, I also mention that given humanity's view of pedophilia as a whole, then they don't agree with you either, because I have argued since the very start that what you were referring to is indeed pedophilia based on the definition(s) around the globe (which are facts). Because your descriptions of psychology still fit into the category of pedophilia, which I have already explained why, then people attracted to the muscles on a child are still pedophiles, granted they are adults.

"You are still comparing the incomparable. Children's feet look quite different from adults' feet and this does not add any value to the foot fetish. While  the muscles entirely change the physical appearance of the body and add value to the muscle fantasy in that a muscular child is much more impressive than an adult with the same musculature. These are indisputable facts related to physiognomy and biology as well as to the definition of the word "impressive"."

Actually, no I'm not. The difference between adult's feet and children's feet is that adult's feet are larger and have denser bones. If an adult has feet similar to a child, and the adult is attracted to the feet, then they are not a pedophile because that feature is possessed by an adult (and this example is quite common. Some people quite literally have "baby feet" or "children's feet", which are just incredibly small feet). When the feature, let's say a child has a more adult look to their feet, then the person attracted to the feature is a pedophile because they have a sexual feeling directed towards a characteristic possessed by a child.

You, of course, are too focused on "splitting hairs" because you're trying to justify well-known examples and facts. I can give much more mind you. This is just a common one, which I can tell stumped you given this horrendous response.

"And I never said that this was not impressive on adult women (on the contrary), I only said that it was more impressive on younger girls, and that therefore a young age gives an added value to this fantasy which is very often partly linked to the impressionable. Please don't distort my words."

Again, this is assuming something is correct when I have already dismantled it. You have not defended it as of yet. You say a young age gives an added value to this "fantasy".

First of all, context is very important here:

We're not talking simply "fantasy", we're talking "sexual fantasy". When you word it as "fantasy", you are ignoring the fundamentals of your own argument, which is the sexual attraction to the muscles. So, here, I'm not distorting your words, I'm giving the context so you don't get away scot free with simply saying, "muscles are more impressive on children than they are on adults". That would not support your argument at all. It would instead make a simple observation of the rarity of muscles on children as opposed to the sexual attraction to the muscles on a child, which is what we are discussing. You can't pull a fast one on me, and I say that humorously.

"And "Sexual feelings directed towards children" is indeed the definition of pedophilia but the question I've been asking since the beginning is: does this necessarily define our case? To be more exact, does this necessarily define all the profiles in our case? Couldn't it simply be for some profiles (more or less numerous) "sexual feelings directed towards the impressionable female muscles of which the young age could be simply an amplifier"? Because the fact that you give this definition to all the profiles in our case, results only from your appreciation, which makes it a subjectivity, which you reproach me since the beginning.
And yes, I continue to dissociate the child's body with this fantasy, because indeed the child's body is not necessarily the attractor for all the profiles in our case. It may be that it is only the young age (and not the body) that is a means (and not the attractor) of sublimating the fantasy of female muscles, since this fantasy is very often linked in part to the impressionable and a young age makes this more impressionable.  So of course it is quite subjective, I grant you, but a much wider subjectivity than yours taking into account many elements and facts. And although it can't give 100% certainty, there are enough elements to consider and think about it, or at least to sow doubt. Your subjectivity is based on one element: the definition of pedophile that you consider appropriate to all the profiles in our case. "


"sexual feelings directed towards the impressionable female muscles of which the young age could be simply an amplifier""

This has been your argument, which I have disproved already, and which you have not defended objectively. Again, objectivity is important here, because you have neither proven that there is a grey area at play here (because it still falls into the definition of pedophilia, which you have mentioned already that it may be considered pedophilia by the actual definition). In this psychological discussion, we are basing it around "pedophilia", which has its objective stance and by which I have stood since the beginning. You haven't disproved my claim; instead, you threw a hissy fit because I wasn't going "deeper" into the microscopics (and I did by the way) that in no way support your massive claim. When I went into the small details you mentioned, I destroyed them completely using appropriate examples and evidence (and so far, the evidence is based on objectivity surrounding pedophilia and society's confirmation of pedophilia). On the other hand, you struck back with personal experience, blind statements to represent a whole, and non-sequiturs. You also ignore some responses that you get thrown under the bus on, which shows that you aren't able to come back from them. This is a process of narrowing your thought down until your completely at a loss. And I'm happy to do that.

"And when you say that there are no grey areas in pedophilia, it shows how narrow your mind is, grey areas are everywhere, life is like that."

Again, show me an example where an adult sexually attracted to a child in this day and age may not be considered pedophilia. I'm all ears. And then show me how it supports your view in general.

"As for my so-called hypothetical scenario, it is based on historical facts. In the early 80's, there were many political debates to consider pedophilia as a sexuality as well as homosexuality, but some psychologists saved the situation by pointing out the dangers of pedophilia.
On the other hand, if the danger is non-existent, what is the point of decrying it?
But once again you are only trying to divert the subject so that you don't have to answer it because you have no argument on it."

Hold on a minute: you can't throw more non-sequiturs into the discussion. I have already mentioned that this example doesn't support your main argument at all. Merely because a discussion was had about it, doesn't justify in any way this form of pedophilia. So there is no point bringing up this useless example.

Not only this, but you're essentially admitting that something isn't necessarily considered paedophilia if there's no direct danger involved. I have already given my example with child pornography, which links directly to what you're saying, and how that is still considered paedophilia despite there being no direct danger to a child at that given time. A lot of what makes paedophilia a confirmed case is that there is the potential risks pedophiles pose to society, not only to children, but to parents. To sit and say there is no point in denouncing something when there is a high risk posed under the law is absolutely idiotic. It also plays under the little game you're having about psychology and how not everyone is the same. It simply doesn't matter. If someone is caught with child pornography, they are prosecuted because of the danger they pose to society.

I'm sorry, but discussing things with you is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing is going into that little mind of yours because you keep grasping at concepts that lean too much on your little opinions as opposed to approaching the broader picture. The broader picture, in this case, is that pedophilia is the sexual feelings directed towards children. When you try to isolate certain elements, such as the body from the child, you are creating a situation where sexual desire is focused on a particular element. However, I have already argued that it is still considered pedophilia because the features are possessed by a child, which is a sexual feeling directed towards a child, thus confirming the case.

[nebulasparks]

I'm honestly glad someone's reading this. If you would like to add anything, please feel free to do so.