Little Sister Is A Big Bully

[Muscles Douceur]

PS : For your information :

L'épouvantail (en anglais : straw man, littéralement « homme de paille ») est un sophisme ou un paralogisme qui consiste à présenter la position de son adversaire de façon exagérée.
La technique de l'épouvantail consiste à déformer la position de l'adversaire en lui attribuant un argument facilement réfutable.

Il est possible de créer un argument épouvantail de différentes manières :

- Prendre une partie des arguments de son contradicteur, réfuter cette partie et prétendre que l'on a réfuté l'ensemble des arguments.
- Présenter les arguments de son opposant dans une forme faible, les réfuter et prétendre que les arguments originaux ont été réfutés. Pour atteindre ce but, on peut notamment prendre les arguments originaux et les séparer du contexte dans lequel ils ont été exposés.
- Présenter une fausse déclaration de son opposant, la réfuter et prétendre que la déclaration initiale est la position véritable de son opposant.
- Présenter quelqu'un qui défend maladroitement une position, réfuter ses arguments et prétendre que tous les arguments en faveur de cette position sont réfutés.
- Inventer un personnage de fiction avec des actions ou des croyances que l'on peut facilement critiquer et prétendre que cette personne est représentative du groupe que le locuteur est en train de critiquer.

On peut définir un argument épouvantail comme un argument de fausse déclaration. L'épouvantail est une technique utilisée très fréquemment dans les débats politiques ou d'une manière plus générale dans les médias.

The straw man is a fallacy or paralogism that consists in presenting the opponent's position in an exaggerated way.
The straw man technique consists of misrepresenting the opponent's position by attributing to him an easily refutable argument.

There are several ways to create a scarecrow argument:

- Take a portion of your opponent's arguments, refute that portion, and claim that you have refuted the entire argument.
- Present the opponent's arguments in a weak form, refute them and claim that the original arguments have been refuted. This can be accomplished by taking the original arguments and separating them from the context in which they were presented.
- Presenting a false statement by one's opponent, refuting it, and claiming that the original statement is the opponent's true position.
- Present someone who awkwardly defends a position, refute his or her arguments, and claim that all arguments in favor of the position are refuted.
- Inventing a fictional character with actions or beliefs that are easily criticized and claiming that this person is representative of the group the speaker is criticizing.

A scarecrow argument can be defined as an argument of misrepresentation. Scarecrowing is a technique used very frequently in political debates or more generally in the media.

That is exactly what you are doing with my arguments.

[Muscles Douceur]

LIVE NOW

Muscular Women Are Live Right Now

Join private chats instantly. Real models. Real-time interaction.

120+ models online now

Start Watching →

[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'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.

"discussing things with you is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing is going into that little mind of yours"
I feel exactly the same way about you. You're not even brick, you're experimental reinforced concrete that even Kylie couldn't get through!   

If everyone was like you, content with only the known, we would still be in the stone age. It is by exploring the unknown that man advances and that the unknown becomes known.
Moreover, even in science, which is one of the areas where the most facts are used, we are not satisfied with the known, and the known is always considered as unknown, because science is always in motion, the known can always be questioned by new scientific data. No scientist will say that something is 100% certain, there are always grey areas in science (as in life). In science one cannot demonstrate that a thing does not exist, one can only demonstrate that a thing exists, however as long as it has not been demonstrated it is considered non-existent, but no scientist will tell you with certainty that such and such a thing does not exist.

A fact is indeed by definition something known, except that what is known is not necessarily known by everybody, it is enough that it is known by only one person for it to be a fact. A fact is necessarily demonstrable but some facts are more easily demonstrable than others.

Let's go back to our unicorn, if this unicorn is real, we should be able to demonstrate that it exists, however to be able to demonstrate it, we will have to organize an expedition to the place where it was supposed to be observed the first time, and if it is a very rare animal, it will be very difficult to be able to observe it a second time to confirm the first observation. However, for the person who observed it the first time, its existence is a fact, even if it has not yet been proven, and he is no less objective when he claims to have observed this animal. So there is no subjectivity.

It's the same for the photo, to prove that it's me, you'll have to do an investigation because behind a forum where I'm only a pseudo for you, it will be difficult to prove that it's really me on the photo. The easiest way would be video conferencing, but you still need to have the equipment for that, for example I don't have a webcam, but I eventually have a smartphone, today almost everyone has a smartphone, but 10 years ago it was not the case. Without a webcam, smartphone or anything else, it's going to be hard to prove that a photo is well oneself to someone on the internet who doesn't know us. Not impossible but difficult.

This is exactly the case with the facts I use in our conversation, they are facts that are difficult to demonstrate but they are still facts that I have observed, I am completely objective when I talk about these facts. On the other hand, since I can't prove them to you, you don't have to accept them, but they are still facts.

On the other hand, you have not refuted anything since the beginning of our conversation, you have not proved anything. Everything you say does not prove that what I say is wrong, you only doubt what I say.

As for your feet, I'm sorry but a child's foot doesn't have quite the same visual aspect, it's not only the size that changes, there are some small differences visually, even if it's globally the same shape, you can recognize a child's foot, compared to an adult's foot. A child's foot has a softer shape than an adult's foot, and the proportions are not quite the same, compared to the ankles, ears and all the rest. But even without that, assuming you can't tell the difference between an adult's and a child's feet, there's nothing more common than a foot, it's something everyone has (unless they have both feet amputated or a birth defect). A normally constituted child has two feet, as well as for all human persons children or adults, it is part of the normal morphology of any child or human person children or adults. And it doesn't matter any additional value compared to an adult or to the foot fetish (except possibly to pedophiles who are interested in children's feet). The same cannot be said for muscles, as I have already explained over and over again (very different and uncommon physical aspect + added value of the fact that it is more impressive on a child than an adult).
Then in your example you were also talking about child pornography, while I'm just talking about fantasies, sexual of course, but without going into pornography, child pornography is totally unnamable and disgusting, and it's to be condemned at all costs.

And as usual you distort my words:

Not only this, but you're essentially admitting that something isn't necessarily considered paedophilia if there's no direct danger involved.

I never said such a thing. All I said was that even if you admit that this is paedophilia, you still have to prove that it could be a potential direct or indirect danger. And so far you've only tried to avoid the question so you don't have to answer it. At first you simply ignored it, but since I insisted on the question, you always find an excuse not to answer it (it's quite funny how you try to divert the question so as not to have to answer it).

Now I'm going to give you a little schematic scenario.
Imagine a guy who has never had any sexual feelings towards a single child (or underage girl). He is therefore not a pedophile. However, his thing is female muscles (like everyone else here on this forum), that's what turns him on, and what turns him on most of all is being impressed by female muscles and the power of them. The more impressed he is, the more it turns him on. So he is always looking for the most impressive possible in his sexual fantasies (so far I think many people here will recognize themselves). Until the day he realizes that age is also a factor in his fantasy of being more and more impressed by female muscles and their power. Indeed, the younger the subject of his fantasies is, the more it will impress him and the more it will excite him. At the beginning he will limit himself to 18 years old minimum to stay in the politically correct and within the framework of the law for the majority (for the majority of the countries of which France), but in his search of the always more impressive, he will be pushed to nibble more and more this limit because the younger the age is, the more it will impress him and excite him. 17 years old, 16 years old then 15 years old. He is a little ashamed of it but he tells himself that we are still in the sexual majority, so he tells himself that he will never go further in his sexual fantasies, except that he wants more and more, more and more impressive, so it will continue. 14 years, 13 years, etc. But still, he has never had any sexual feelings towards a child or an underage girl apart from his fantasy about increasingly impressive female muscles.

Does this scenario seem so unlikely to you?

Well, in reality most people will say that it's nothing more than admiration without any sexual desire, but since it's a projection of their sexual fantasy of female muscles on underage girls one can still doubt, if deep down, or at least subconsciously, if there isn't a little sexual desire they don't want to admit. Besides, I see a lot of artists of female muscle who usually make muscular and powerful adult women and who from time to time, exceptionally, will make a muscular and powerful underage girl, given their fantasy of female muscles, I doubt that this is harmless. After, I can always be wrong, but when we see their fantasies, the doubt is still allowed. This is not a judgment but only an observation and I do not assert anything ^^

"Moreover, even in science, which is one of the areas where the most facts are used, we are not satisfied with the known, and the known is always considered as unknown, because science is always in motion, the known can always be questioned by new scientific data. No scientist will say that something is 100% certain, there are always grey areas in science (as in life). In science one cannot demonstrate that a thing does not exist, one can only demonstrate that a thing exists, however as long as it has not been demonstrated it is considered non-existent, but no scientist will tell you with certainty that such and such a thing does not exist."

Of course science is always looking for new things. However, scientists will say something is 100% certain given enough data and evidence. For example, it is 100% certain that the Earth is round (an oblate spheroid to be precise). There is no percentage of doubt in the professional scientific mind that the Earth is a totally different shape than what they have observed, calculated, and mathematically and geographically. proven. Another example: scientists will tell you it is 100% certain that we need water in order to live. So what the hell are you talking about? You keep bringing up this discussion of "there are always grey areas in science". When you word it like that, then yes: grey areas exist in science. However, they do not exist in all areas of science. And this again goes back to your weak defense of "proof of burden", which suggests that: "Because we cannot prove that there isn't some alternative to water that would sustain life for us, then therefore it is not 100% certain that we need water to live."

Okay, let's lay down some definitions first:

Fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true."

Firstly, a fact is not merely something that is "known", end of. A fact is something that is known to be true or proven to be true. Now, let's define true.

True: "in accordance with fact or reality."

Let's define reality:

"the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them"

Notional: existing as or based on a suggestion, estimate, or theory; not existing in reality.

Okay, now that we have our terms, we can get into your statement.

" In science one cannot demonstrate that a thing does not exist, one can only demonstrate that a thing exists, however as long as it has not been demonstrated it is considered non-existent, but no scientist will tell you with certainty that such and such a thing does not exist."

This is just blatantly incorrect. You again rely on "burden of proof", which is literally an opposition to facts, as given by our definitions. Scientists will tell you that the boogieman isn't real. The notion of the boogeyman is real, however, its existence in reality is not, and therefore it is not a fact that it exists.

You have this idea that: "Well, I saw the boogeyman. So he is in fact real." THIS IS NOT OBJECTIVE. This is subjective and based on again personal experience. This becomes a subjective statement that is not an objective fact because there is no evidence to prove that the boogeyman is real, and your eye-witness account is hardly a fact enabler.

"A fact is indeed by definition something known, except that what is known is not necessarily known by everybody, it is enough that it is known by only one person for it to be a fact. A fact is necessarily demonstrable but some facts are more easily demonstrable than others."

*known to be true, don't mess up the definition now. Something that is known to be true is a fact. If you are to say something that is merely known, then anything at all is a fact and there's no room for non-facts. Now, let's define known:

"recognized, familiar, or within the scope of knowledge." [or] "publicly acknowledged to be."

So it has to be recognized as in accordance with fact, or that it is publicly acknowledged based on evidence that it is in accordance with fact. Unicorns have to evidence, therefore they are not facts. This is simple.

"A fact is necessarily demonstrable but some facts are more easily demonstrable than others."

You say it yourself: a fact is necessarily demonstrable. So again, you're banking on the "burden of proof" yet again because you're grasping at straws for a comeback.

The Burden of Proof is not an actual debate strategy, it is a logical fallacy that contradicts facts and evidence, what is known to be true and what is proven to be true. A very common example is God: there is no way to prove God is real, so people must put faith in Him. However, the existence of God is not a fact unless He is proven. That is the whole point of faith: belief without proof. And where there is no proof, there is no fact. The notion of God still exists, however, but as of today, He is not a fact. You might argue that: Well, in time, He might be proven. This is not an argument either. This is a hypothetical scenario that is created because it's easier to bank on the infinite number of possibilities in the universe than it is to go with what is proven and what is known to be true. So, Burden of Proof does not support your beliefs in any way, neither subjective or objective.

"Let's go back to our unicorn, if this unicorn is real, we should be able to demonstrate that it exists, however to be able to demonstrate it, we will have to organize an expedition to the place where it was supposed to be observed the first time, and if it is a very rare animal, it will be very difficult to be able to observe it a second time to confirm the first observation. However, for the person who observed it the first time, its existence is a fact, even if it has not yet been proven, and he is no less objective when he claims to have observed this animal. So there is no subjectivity."

Do not create a definite scenario. What I mean by this is, saying, "If this unicorn is real." This assumption is immediately inapplicable, because it's not demonstrable in reality as I've already proven. In this universe that you have created, then the unicorn is literally real, so of course the person that saw the unicorn knows that it is a fact. In the real world however, which is what you should be making examples out of, the unicorn still doesn't exist in fact because there is no evidence to support it. There are plenty of ways to confirm that a creature someone saw is the creature they have identified it as: professionals investigating the site, looking at prints, looking at bite marks (if the creature is vicious), gathering hair samples, dna samples. And then, when all is said and done, they can either confirm this creatures existence or not. And more often than not, it is a real creature that someone has misinterpreted as something else, which has happened a lot in this world. "I saw a chubucabra!" Turns out it was a bear given the evidence. So, no, it does not remain a fact that the unicorn exists, and in this universe you created, it is still provable, so you're just being moronic.

"It's the same for the photo, to prove that it's me, you'll have to do an investigation because behind a forum where I'm only a pseudo for you, it will be difficult to prove that it's really me on the photo. The easiest way would be video conferencing, but you still need to have the equipment for that, for example I don't have a webcam, but I eventually have a smartphone, today almost everyone has a smartphone, but 10 years ago it was not the case. Without a webcam, smartphone or anything else, it's going to be hard to prove that a photo is well oneself to someone on the internet who doesn't know us. Not impossible but difficult."

More Burden of Proof nonsense. It will be difficult for YOU to prove that it's really you. However, professionals will be able to prove that it's you, even ten years ago. And guess what, a lot of proof is visual and dna-based. If you're caught on camera murdering someone, then that is evidence against you. It is a "Burden of Proof" to say that: "Well, how do you know this isn't someone that looks exactly like me with the same DNA? Prove it." And this is the form of logic by which you have been standing for days now. We don't need to round up the entire world to confirm that it is you (and that would be one way of doing it, but it's extremely unlikely), so it still exists in fact that it is in you in the picture, supported by both visual evidence and dna-based evidence which can be proven with further investigation and has been demonstrated in the past decades.

You could have gone for something way before 10 years ago by the way, but it still would bank on the burden of proof to be applicable, which it isn't.

"This is exactly the case with the facts I use in our conversation, they are facts that are difficult to demonstrate but they are still facts that I have observed, I am completely objective when I talk about these facts. On the other hand, since I can't prove them to you, you don't have to accept them, but they are still facts."

This is, again, subjective and leans on the burden of proof. And I have already mentioned that there is no reason for me to believe anything you say about this personal experiences you have. You cannot prove to me that your presumptions of the muscle fetish are appropriate across the spectrum, which I have asked you to do multiple times, because you base it on a subjective experience around which you developed an opinion. I have given you to chance to define "many", and you couldn't do it. Guess what, science can prove that many people like sex. Why can't you prove to me that many (you used majority at first by the way) feel the same way as you, without veering off into particular discussions you've had with a small number of people throughout, what, 20 years? And then showcase how that represents that everything you said is an objective fact.

Remember, a fact is something that is known to be true or proven to be true. True means in accordance with fact or reality. Reality is "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." And guess what? You're "evidence" is notional because it is "existing as or based on a suggestion, estimate, or theory." Hence, why you're personal experience does not constitute a factual debate. It instead leads you to making blind statements through burden of proof. "PROVE ME WRONG, I SAY!" It's honestly humurous.

"On the other hand, you have not refuted anything since the beginning of our conversation, you have not proved anything. Everything you say does not prove that what I say is wrong, you only doubt what I say."

You cannot prove something doesn't exist, I have already explained that, so you're still crutching on the Burden of Proof. And also, I have refuted a lot of what you said. I have refuted the idea that one can be attracted to the muscles on a child but not the child his/herself. How? By implementing the definition of pedophilia and the social acknowledgement and denouncement surrounding pedophilia. Sexual feelings directed towards a child. And again, you have already admitted that this may be pedophilia by the actual definition. Something else I refuted was  the claim of majority sharing the same view as you, which you had to admit you were wrong about and then implemented a "safer" term called "many". And again, in order for this to exist, you must first prove that many people share the same view as you. It may not prove you right, but it would make you less dependent on the Burden of Proof. I have also refuted a lot of points you made about human psychology, and the points you made about objectivity and subjectivity, and the points where semantics matter. So, what's going on here? Not comprehending a sliver of English?

"As for your feet, I'm sorry but a child's foot doesn't have quite the same visual aspect, it's not only the size that changes, there are some small differences visually, even if it's globally the same shape, you can recognize a child's foot, compared to an adult's foot. A child's foot has a softer shape than an adult's foot, and the proportions are not quite the same, compared to the ankles, ears and all the rest. But even without that, assuming you can't tell the difference between an adult's and a child's feet, there's nothing more common than a foot, it's something everyone has (unless they have both feet amputated or a birth defect). A normally constituted child has two feet, as well as for all human persons children or adults, it is part of the normal morphology of any child or human person children or adults. And it doesn't matter any additional value compared to an adult or to the foot fetish (except possibly to pedophiles who are interested in children's feet). The same cannot be said for muscles, as I have already explained over and over again (very different and uncommon physical aspect + added value of the fact that it is more impressive on a child than an adult)."

I have quite literally explained to you that it doesn't necessarily matter how different the two are (and they are not that different. I have already told you the only difference is the size and density of the bones.) Adults can have baby/children's feet, as already explained. And I said nothing about not being able to tell the difference between them. I said that if an adult woman has feet similiar to a child's, then someone attracted to those feet is by definition and by evidence not a pedophile. If a child has feet similar to an adult's, then an adult attracted to those feet is a pedophile by definition and evidence because they are attracted to a feature possessed by a child. You have not disproved this because you cannot. It is written in stone.

" as well as for all human persons children or adults, it is part of the normal morphology of any child or human person children or adults. And it doesn't matter any additional value compared to an adult or to the foot fetish (except possibly to pedophiles who are interested in children's feet). The same cannot be said for muscles, as I have already explained over and over again (very different and uncommon physical aspect + added value of the fact that it is more impressive on a child than an adult).""

You try to split hairs between muscles and feet. However, the foot fetish is perhaps more common than the muscle fetish. And you said yourself the amount of people attracted to muscles on women was less numerous. Now, let's take what you said here:


"The same cannot be said for muscles, as I have already explained over and over again (very different and uncommon physical aspect + added value of the fact that it is more impressive on a child than an adult).""

Okay, so this is where you're splitting hairs to support yourself. The same can be said for muscles. It is still a feature possessed by a child, and an adult that is sexually attracted to the feature on the child is still by definition and evidence a pedophile.

Now, let's fix your context yet again:

" (very different and uncommon physical aspect + added value of the fact that it is more impressive on a child than an adult)."""

No, no, no; what you are arguing is that it is more "sexually impressive". As in, the younger the child, the more aroused the person becomes, because it creates a contrast between what is expected of children and the sexual fantasy for which they long. This is still pedophilia as I've already discussed NUMEROUS times. And I still have more logical fallacies to point out in this: Does this mean that muscles on a toddler, say  aged 2, is more sexually impressive than 12 year old like Kylie? You need to set a barrier here, otherwise your statement can go all they the way down, and I'm sure you would find it pedophilia if someone was rubbing one out to a 2 year old with muscles and saying they're only attracted to the muscles. And this age argument works with the definition of a child: "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

You're likely going to split hairs again here by making more blind statements, so it's probably pointless pointing this out to you. But at the end of the day, it's still a feature possessed by a child, and thus confirms the pedophilia. You can say it's not the same as much as you want, but facts don't care about your feelings; if you see two features possessed by a child as justifiable controls in defining pedophilia, then you'll have to change the definition of pedophilia and convince not only myself why I'm wrong but why all the professionals who have confirmed the same thing are wrong.

"I never said such a thing. All I said was that even if you admit that this is paedophilia, you still have to prove that it could be a potential direct or indirect danger. And so far you've only tried to avoid the question so you don't have to answer it. At first you simply ignored it, but since I insisted on the question, you always find an excuse not to answer it (it's quite funny how you try to divert the question so as not to have to answer it)."

If someone is rubbing one out to a child, then they exhibit the behaviour of a pedophile, so you're entire question would have to assume I'm wrong, which you have not proven. Because they are jerking off to a characteristic possessed by a child, they are by definition a pedophile, and are therefore a risk to society. The same can be said with child pornography. When they are caught, they are prosecuted. So there is the proof in the pudding and it all ties back to everything that I said. If you were reading and comprehending what I said and disproved me, you wouldn't have asked this. And a lot of your questions are based on the burden of proof which I've already explained.

"Imagine a guy who has never had any sexual feelings towards a single child (or underage girl). He is therefore not a pedophile. However, his thing is female muscles (like everyone else here on this forum), that's what turns him on, and what turns him on most of all is being impressed by female muscles and the power of them. The more impressed he is, the more it turns him on. So he is always looking for the most impressive possible in his sexual fantasies (so far I think many people here will recognize themselves). Until the day he realizes that age is also a factor in his fantasy of being more and more impressed by female muscles and their power. Indeed, the younger the subject of his fantasies is, the more it will impress him and the more it will excite him. At the beginning he will limit himself to 18 years old minimum to stay in the politically correct and within the framework of the law for the majority (for the majority of the countries of which France), but in his search of the always more impressive, he will be pushed to nibble more and more this limit because the younger the age is, the more it will impress him and excite him. 17 years old, 16 years old then 15 years old. He is a little ashamed of it but he tells himself that we are still in the sexual majority, so he tells himself that he will never go further in his sexual fantasies, except that he wants more and more, more and more impressive, so it will continue. 14 years, 13 years, etc. But still, he has never had any sexual feelings towards a child or an underage girl apart from his fantasy about increasingly impressive female muscles."

This scenario does not matter at all. Because in the eyes of the law they are by definition a pedophile. You created this scenario without first disproving what I had to say, and this goes to show how important it is to disprove inconsistencies in one side before coming up with something as extreme as this. This also sounds pretty biographical, perhaps something you have experienced. And if he's attracted to muscles on a child, then he immediately is attracted to a child. I have already explained this and you have yet to disprove it.

"Does this scenario seem so unlikely to you?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "unlikely." In the grand scheme of things, something like this isn't likely at all, because pedophiles are uncommon. So yeah. I can also hazard a guess that this scenario relates more to you than to anyone else you've talked with. But that's just me having fun in this discussion.

"
Well, in reality most people will say that it's nothing more than admiration without any sexual desire, but since it's a projection of their sexual fantasy of female muscles on underage girls one can still doubt, if deep down, or at least subconsciously, if there isn't a little sexual desire they don't want to admit. Besides, I see a lot of artists of female muscle who usually make muscular and powerful adult women and who from time to time, exceptionally, will make a muscular and powerful underage girl, given their fantasy of female muscles, I doubt that this is harmless. After, I can always be wrong, but when we see their fantasies, the doubt is still allowed. This is not a judgment but only an observation and I do not assert anything ^^"

"Well, in reality most people will say that it's nothing more than admiration without any sexual desire, but since it's a projection of their sexual fantasy of female muscles on underage girls one can still doubt, if deep down, or at least subconsciously, if there isn't a little sexual desire they don't want to admit"

"Most people" will confirm that this isn't pedophilia, huh? Going back to the majority again? You are making a bold assumption here. For one, you are arguing that it isn't pedophilia based on the statements you've made beforehand which I have already dismantled and from which you could develop no further response. There is no "reality" where most people see this as not pedophilia, because in order for that to be true, the definition would have to change, what is known about pedophiles would have to change, and society would have to come to an agreement on an area like this. And again, I've mentioned since the start, it's not that complex. It only becomes complex when you ignore a lot of facts and evidence and rely on terrible thought processes that have been disproven time and time again.

"After, I can always be wrong, but when we see their fantasies, the doubt is still allowed. This is not a judgment but only an observation and I do not assert anything"

Then don't call your opinions facts. This confirms your defeat on the topic of objectivity versus subjectivity.

I find it hilarious that you again reiterate that most people will say the same thing about this scenario, especially since it's a blind statement with no evidence at all. If you had disproved my earlier arguments instead of trying to split hairs in the microscopic world, then you would have something to stand by here, but you didn't. You kept recycling the same information over and over again until I narrowed you down to only, what, the burden of proof? Kind of funny if you ask me, because this has happened countless times in the debating world; the battlecry of someone that has lost a debate is the one who resorts to extreme hypothetical scenarios and the infamous burden of proof, which is precisely what you have done here, even though it's not a debate. Again, no factual accuracy from your side, no logical consistency; just pure person beliefs based on subjectivity. And when you write small sentences like, "this is only an observation and I do not assert anything", then it proves that you wanted a subjective discussion and not an objective one, so why not just open with that? Why use labels like "in fact", "most of us", "the majority", without evidence and call it a debate? Like of course you're getting nowhere; you're so stuck in this delusion of subjectivity that you're no doubt ashamed of admitting it. You're not being objective and you have PROVED that through this discussion, making it a fact.

P.S. You never gave a hard example of where a grown adult can be sexually attracted to a child and not be considered a pedophile. Your scenario also doesn't abide by the task.

[nebulasparks]

PS : For your information :

L'épouvantail (en anglais : straw man, littéralement « homme de paille ») est un sophisme ou un paralogisme qui consiste à présenter la position de son adversaire de façon exagérée.
La technique de l'épouvantail consiste à déformer la position de l'adversaire en lui attribuant un argument facilement réfutable.

Il est possible de créer un argument épouvantail de différentes manières :

- Prendre une partie des arguments de son contradicteur, réfuter cette partie et prétendre que l'on a réfuté l'ensemble des arguments.
- Présenter les arguments de son opposant dans une forme faible, les réfuter et prétendre que les arguments originaux ont été réfutés. Pour atteindre ce but, on peut notamment prendre les arguments originaux et les séparer du contexte dans lequel ils ont été exposés.
- Présenter une fausse déclaration de son opposant, la réfuter et prétendre que la déclaration initiale est la position véritable de son opposant.
- Présenter quelqu'un qui défend maladroitement une position, réfuter ses arguments et prétendre que tous les arguments en faveur de cette position sont réfutés.
- Inventer un personnage de fiction avec des actions ou des croyances que l'on peut facilement critiquer et prétendre que cette personne est représentative du groupe que le locuteur est en train de critiquer.

On peut définir un argument épouvantail comme un argument de fausse déclaration. L'épouvantail est une technique utilisée très fréquemment dans les débats politiques ou d'une manière plus générale dans les médias.

The straw man is a fallacy or paralogism that consists in presenting the opponent's position in an exaggerated way.
The straw man technique consists of misrepresenting the opponent's position by attributing to him an easily refutable argument.

There are several ways to create a scarecrow argument:

- Take a portion of your opponent's arguments, refute that portion, and claim that you have refuted the entire argument.
- Present the opponent's arguments in a weak form, refute them and claim that the original arguments have been refuted. This can be accomplished by taking the original arguments and separating them from the context in which they were presented.
- Presenting a false statement by one's opponent, refuting it, and claiming that the original statement is the opponent's true position.
- Present someone who awkwardly defends a position, refute his or her arguments, and claim that all arguments in favor of the position are refuted.
- Inventing a fictional character with actions or beliefs that are easily criticized and claiming that this person is representative of the group the speaker is criticizing.

A scarecrow argument can be defined as an argument of misrepresentation. Scarecrowing is a technique used very frequently in political debates or more generally in the media.

That is exactly what you are doing with my arguments.

I'm not taking any portion of your arguments. I'm taking the logic you are using and applying it in a very similar scenario which must also be true in order for your original assessment to make sense. That is not a strawman. A strawman would be you saying, "All humans breathe air." And me saying, "So you're saying air is a toxic gas that slowly kills humans?"

[Muscles Douceur]

When I say "most people" I mean most people who are in that fantasy, who are in that kind of scenario that I described above, those will say that it's just an admiration but not a sexual desire, because they don't accept it. I admit that there was a little ambiguity, but reading the whole paragraph, where I talk below about artists of female muscle, it seems to me that it is easy to put "most people" in the context of what I meant. So read what I wrote again and put "most people" in the right context.

Well, honestly, I'm bowing down, you're too good for me, we can see that you're used to debates, you have a mastery of debates that I don't have, you manage to turn the smallest piece of sentence to your advantage, the smallest flaw and so on to your advantage. It's a pity that such skills are not used to try to have an open debate. It's a pity that your only goal is to refute everything I say without attempting an open approach. In reality you don't refute anything since you never demonstrated that what I say can't be true (yes because to refute an argument, according to the dictionary definition, is to demonstrate its falsity), but you do it in such a way, you twist it in such a way that it's well done, one feels that there is mastery behind it.

Even in relation to the photo, I said that it would be necessary to make an investigation to demonstrate the accuracy of the photo, you tell me that a professional could demonstrate it, that means a little bit the same thing (a professional will indeed make an investigation, but if it takes a professional it is not easy to demonstrate like that), but you must admit that you manage well to divert this kind of thing. In the same way that you are good at not taking into consideration everything I say. 

As for the unicorn story, it's true that I made a hypothetical scenario, you're quite right, since this animal is not supposed to exist in reality, I could only make a scenario of a fictitious universe from your example, it's well done to throw that back in my face to dismantle the argument of the fact.

On the other hand, using the fact that foot fetishism is more common than muscle fetishism as an argument seems a bit amateurish to me. I don't know what this obvious fact that everyone knows is doing to do in our conversation and what it's supposed to demonstrate. You could have done better, I think, considering your talent. But that said, you're the professional debater, you must know what you're doing.

But the way you insist that this fantasy is about a characteristic possessed by a child without taking into account the particularity of this characteristic or what it represents for the fantasy or how the child can be a means to enhance what this characteristic represents for the fantasy, is very strong.


Now there is a lot of straw man in there, but it is done with skill. It is even denied with talent! It's true that it's also very strong the way you say that you take my logic in a (roughly) similar scenario to confirm that you don't do the straw man when this is typically straw man. 

Anyway, I can only applaud such a talent, I am totally helpless in front of this talent and I really admire it. It's a pity that this talent is not used better than this, it's a waste. But I think I'm not done admiring your talent in your next answers.

Well, there is still one thing that bothers me about it. It's that, in the end, even if we admit that this can be a form of pedophilia, we still don't know if this particular form of pedophilia can be really harmful for society, in particular for children. Or even if it is really linked to a clinical pathology.

But then again, I'm just a moron.

[nebulasparks]

When I say "most people" I mean most people who are in that fantasy, who are in that kind of scenario that I described above, those will say that it's just an admiration but not a sexual desire, because they don't accept it. I admit that there was a little ambiguity, but reading the whole paragraph, where I talk below about artists of female muscle, it seems to me that it is easy to put "most people" in the context of what I meant. So read what I wrote again and put "most people" in the right context.

Well, honestly, I'm bowing down, you're too good for me, we can see that you're used to debates, you have a mastery of debates that I don't have, you manage to turn the smallest piece of sentence to your advantage, the smallest flaw and so on to your advantage. It's a pity that such skills are not used to try to have an open debate. It's a pity that your only goal is to refute everything I say without attempting an open approach. In reality you don't refute anything since you never demonstrated that what I say can't be true (yes because to refute an argument, according to the dictionary definition, is to demonstrate its falsity), but you do it in such a way, you twist it in such a way that it's well done, one feels that there is mastery behind it.

Even in relation to the photo, I said that it would be necessary to make an investigation to demonstrate the accuracy of the photo, you tell me that a professional could demonstrate it, that means a little bit the same thing (a professional will indeed make an investigation, but if it takes a professional it is not easy to demonstrate like that), but you must admit that you manage well to divert this kind of thing. In the same way that you are good at not taking into consideration everything I say. 

As for the unicorn story, it's true that I made a hypothetical scenario, you're quite right, since this animal is not supposed to exist in reality, I could only make a scenario of a fictitious universe from your example, it's well done to throw that back in my face to dismantle the argument of the fact.

On the other hand, using the fact that foot fetishism is more common than muscle fetishism as an argument seems a bit amateurish to me. I don't know what this obvious fact that everyone knows is doing to do in our conversation and what it's supposed to demonstrate. You could have done better, I think, considering your talent. But that said, you're the professional debater, you must know what you're doing.

But the way you insist that this fantasy is about a characteristic possessed by a child without taking into account the particularity of this characteristic or what it represents for the fantasy or how the child can be a means to enhance what this characteristic represents for the fantasy, is very strong.


Now there is a lot of straw man in there, but it is done with skill. It is even denied with talent! It's true that it's also very strong the way you say that you take my logic in a (roughly) similar scenario to confirm that you don't do the straw man when this is typically straw man. 

Anyway, I can only applaud such a talent, I am totally helpless in front of this talent and I really admire it. It's a pity that this talent is not used better than this, it's a waste. But I think I'm not done admiring your talent in your next answers.

Well, there is still one thing that bothers me about it. It's that, in the end, even if we admit that this can be a form of pedophilia, we still don't know if this particular form of pedophilia can be really harmful for society, in particular for children. Or even if it is really linked to a clinical pathology.

But then again, I'm just a moron.

You know what, I'll leave it there.

I can't convince you, so I won't continue, so we'll just have to let the people reading decide for themselves.

And I most certainly must not know what a strawman is, jeez. Not like it's one of the most misused terms in the entire world, aw jeez. I guess my education was all for nothing, aw jeez. Guess you're right.

"But the way you insist that this fantasy is about a characteristic possessed by a child without taking into account the particularity of this characteristic or what it represents for the fantasy or how the child can be a means to enhance what this characteristic represents for the fantasy, is very strong."

Aw JEEEEEZ, yup, I never took into the account the particularity, aw JEEEEEZ. Didn't mention that it was irrelevant like ten times aw jeez. Got me there.

"As for the unicorn story, it's true that I made a hypothetical scenario, you're quite right, since this animal is not supposed to exist in reality, I could only make a scenario of a fictitious universe from your example, it's well done to throw that back in my face to dismantle the argument of the fact."

Aw jeez, because that's totally what I did. Aw jeez louise! Got me again!

"Now there is a lot of straw man in there, but it is done with skill. It is even denied with talent! It's true that it's also very strong the way you say that you take my logic in a (roughly) similar scenario to confirm that you don't do the straw man when this is typically straw man. "

Guess you're right, ol buddy ol pal. I get paid to use strawmans I do!

"Anyway, I can only applaud such a talent, I am totally helpless in front of this talent and I really admire it. It's a pity that this talent is not used better than this, it's a waste. But I think I'm not done admiring your talent in your next answers."

Aw jeez, don't flatter me aw stop you little rascal you!

"Well, there is still one thing that bothers me about it. It's that, in the end, even if we admit that this can be a form of pedophilia, we still don't know if this particular form of pedophilia can be really harmful for society, in particular for children. Or even if it is really linked to a clinical pathology."

Gosh, didn't explain this in detail I didn't. Gosh. I've been bested again, oh you so-clever man!

[Muscles Douceur]

Even in sarcasm you are talented! You are too good, I tell you!

And indeed, thank you for confirming that you never explained in detail how this can be harmful in our society, because every time you just skirt around the question without ever answering it, but always with talent.

You are also too good at mentioning 10 times that something is not relevant, as if mentioning it means that you take it into account when in fact if you don't consider it relevant it means that you don't take it into account. But you do it so well that you even manage to make your assessment of what is relevant or not as a fact that we should all follow!

On that, I'm glad you're leave it there, because as much as I admire your talent, I was getting pretty damn tired of this conversation. And I also think that we understood your point of view that you explained with talent, although not very open, according to my appreciation that nobody is obliged to follow, because I don't have your talent and I'm just an idiot. So yes let the readers make their own opinion, but their point of view is welcome too ^^

That said, in the meantime, maybe we could go back to Kylie's story, I would have liked to have a feedback from the author on my long review ^^

[nebulasparks]

Even in sarcasm you are talented! You are too good, I tell you!

And indeed, thank you for confirming that you never explained in detail how this can be harmful in our society, because every time you just skirt around the question without ever answering it, but always with talent.

You are also too good at mentioning 10 times that something is not relevant, as if mentioning it means that you take it into account when in fact if you don't consider it relevant it means that you don't take it into account. But you do it so well that you even manage to make your assessment of what is relevant or not as a fact that we should all follow!

On that, I'm glad you're leave it there, because as much as I admire your talent, I was getting pretty damn tired of this conversation. And I also think that we understood your point of view that you explained with talent, although not very open, according to my appreciation that nobody is obliged to follow, because I don't have your talent and I'm just an idiot. So yes let the readers make their own opinion, but their point of view is welcome too ^^

That said, in the meantime, maybe we could go back to Kylie's story, I would have liked to have a feedback from the author on my long review ^^

"And indeed, thank you for confirming that you never explained in detail how this can be harmful in our society, because every time you just skirt around the question without ever answering it, but always with talent."

I did answer the question. I said that since they are masturbating to a child, they are by definition a pedophile. And because of this, they pose a risk to society, to children and parents of those children. I have mentioned this, and have used child pornography as an example. One behavior leads to another. Not sure how that's skirting around the question.

"You are also too good at mentioning 10 times that something is not relevant, as if mentioning it means that you take it into account when in fact if you don't consider it relevant it means that you don't take it into account. But you do it so well that you even manage to make your assessment of what is relevant or not as a fact that we should all follow!"

It's not relevant because your case is not strong enough to detach the subjects from pedophilia. You argued that they were merely attracted to the muscles, and because the girl is a child that makes the fantasy more [sexually] impressive, as in, more erotic and pleasurable. The reason you gave is because children are expected to be weak. I have argued that, by definition, the attraction of a feature possessed by a child is still a sexual attraction directed towards a child (definition of pedophilia), and thus makes it pedophilia. This makes your case irrelevant by definition. That's what I was saying.

If you want to talk about skirting around things, how about the task I employed you with to give me an example of where an adult can be sexually attracted to a child and not be a pedophile? This grey area is still interesting to me, and you've skipped it twice now.

And, since it's the end of this, I should probably tell you a bit about myself. I've published a book on Debate Analysis (I won't reveal the name) and take part in debates spanning from religion to politics to history. I have a degree in English Literature and History, so when I say some instances in your text are quite ambiguous, you can bet your ass they are.

In hindsight, you never stood a chance here. I had a lot of fun dismantling your points, even the ones that weren't relevant to the discussion (the non-sequiturs). One thing that I find indeed quite humorous is your level of false intelligence. You know a lot less than you make yourself out to know, and that much is evident given this discussion. You have made plenty of false claims and inaccurate assessments to the point where even if I didn't have the education I possess I would still be able to dismantle your points.

I know how overwhelming this was for you. This was not an easy task for you to attempt because you knew you got yourself into a deep discussion against an opponent of high difficulty (I'm just making things humourous). You never were willing to admit my victory. You dislike me as a person so you didn't want to me the satisfaction of being correct. This is very common. As humans, we always want the people we like to be right.

Your argument was destroyed before it even took off. In the debating world, once your logic is proven to be married by issues, then you have essentially lost. Once your facts become opinions, you are kicked off stage. People who watch these debates are in search of hard honesty, what is known and what is proven. They want other minds to argue for them. Here, it seems that's what you need. And I'm sure you can learn something from this whenever you do try debate someone in the future.

And then there is this: In your mind, if you're wrong, you're a pedophile. That's the hidden fear isn't it? That's what's eating you up inside. You're frightened by the notion that you're attracted to children. So you created this delusion as a coping mechanism.

I know this because of the amount of inconsistencies in your arguments, how easily they were dismantled, and how oblivious you were to the objective world. Even your concept of facts versus opinions is marred. My, my, isn't that a shame?

I'm not responding from here on out. Attempt as much as you like in response. The playground is yours.

[caino]

Bitches, please!!! 

[Muscles Douceur]

Well, I'm glad you've decided not to answer anymore (although you've already decided to leave it at that in your last comment), we'll finally be able to end this conversation with no way out. We can see the end of the tunnel!

But you're also too good to make me look like an unintellectual who thinks he's an intellectual, but as you already said, I'm just an idiot. 

Anyway, since this is probably my last comment in this conversation (between the two of us), I might as well get it right.

So you claim that you thought this was all for fun, in fact you are just a troll, that doesn't surprise me, I could see that your goal was not holy, that you were just there to make fun of me without having a real dialogue, to show the forum that you are the strongest, the best. You want VICTORY, and you think you got it, for you there is necessarily a winner and a loser. It is precisely this that makes you arrogant and contemptuous. It's a Kylie-like arrogance, you put yourself above the other person and you want to show that you are the best by denigrating the other person. I find it very childish. I don't know how old you are, but I'm 40 years old and I'm past that kind of childishness, I'm not looking for VICTORY, I don't care if I win or lose, all I'm looking for is an open dialogue (although I've known for a long time that this was impossible with you).

You make me laugh though with your VICTORY, but on the other hand with your very binary mind, it doesn't surprise me that you need a winner and a loser, and that you take this as a competition to the one who is right while crushing the opponent to have the VICTORY.

I know trolls like you on the Internet, you are not the first one I have met, and for me you are the scourge of the forums and other social networks.

But honestly Saradas is the last place on the Internet where I thought I would find trolls like you, we are among admirers of female muscles, our tastes on the fringe of society should make us more open-minded, and we should support each other rather than make war, because life has really not spoiled us with our taste for the rarest women in the world and the most decried.
The only trolls I could possibly think to find here are those who are only here to denigrate our tastes and make fun of muscular women (but those ones must not last long on the forum).

I could stop here, because it shows your harmful state of mind for the dialogue, and our differences of conceptions of the conversation incompatible to each other, but since this is probably my last comment, I will take the opportunity to develop everything.

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

So yes, it's true, I had forgotten that you had finally given an (evasive) answer to the question about the danger of our case. But this answer is so evasive, that it is as if you had not answered anything. I'm sorry, but to say that they are pedophiles so they are necessarily a danger is a very light argument, it takes much more to convince me.

First of all, to reduce this to simple masturbation on children, I find it really light, but you like to simplify everything to the maximum. Unfortunately, life is not like that, as I told you before, life is made of many nuances and subtleties, and not everything can be simplified to simple known, proven and true facts. Facts are very good to prove a thing, but there must always be an area of unknown fuzziness around where we can only theorize while waiting to find new facts to fill this area. Especially in a subject like ours which is very little known and based once again on human feelings for which it is difficult to find facts and for which one can only approach it mainly with theories. 

And secondly, not all pedophiles are a danger to society, children and parents of children. They are not all big perverts who dabble in child pornography, let alone Dutroux-like psychopaths. Many of them have the same ethical standards towards children as the majority of people. And many of them have never touched a child in any way, and never want to do anything wrong or go against a child's desire, or even encourage this, and leave the children away from their own sexual desires until they die of old age. In short, they only fantasize in their corners and do not want more than that.
Besides, the law only condemns pedocriminality, that is to say those who have acted on it (a simple advance to a child is an act) or who encourage child pornography. Fantasy is not prohibited by law.
And if you go that way we are all potential rapists, and we are all a potential danger to society. One behavior leads to another, that applies to everyone.
Besides, guys like us who fantasize about female muscles, don't necessarily jump on the first muscular woman that comes along, despite the fact that the women of their fantasies are extremely rare and that many of us can spend our whole lives without ever meeting one, because they are so rare (unless we go to fairs, conventions, competitions or other events, or eventually do sessions), let alone have a love relationship with one of them.
Besides, a pedophile is not necessarily only attracted to children and may very well be satisfied with adult women in their real love and sexual relationships outside of fantasies. Most people know how to distinguish between fantasy and reality, so there is no reason why a pedophile should be any less capable.

Also, in our case, it seems to me very difficult to harm a child that cannot exist in real life. I think you have a better chance of meeting a unicorn than a Kylie, the unicorn is at least morphologically credible biologically (as long as it's not a magical unicorn that shits rainbows).
Well, you will tell me that some gymnasts can be muscular enough to trigger the fantasy, but those are even rarer than the muscular women we admire (well, a gymnast girl is not especially rare, but a gymnast girl who is muscular enough for this fantasy is much rarer), and in reality these girls are not strong enough to completely satisfy this fantasy and reality can quickly take over the fantasy to put an end to it. From 15 years old on, you can maybe find girls who are strong and muscular enough, but then it's not really pedophilia anymore, it's more like statutory rape (a 15 year old girl already has a morphology very close to that of an adult woman), it's something else again, even if it's still imoral and condemnable by the law, but once again, it's not because you fantasize about this kind of girls that you're necessarily going to act, any more than you're going to start raping adult women. Besides, the way they like these girls can hardly be found in reality, and abusing a young girl goes totally against this fantasy. Just like in the majority of fantasies about female muscles, the women and girls of these fantasies are dominant, even in non-violence, they are the ones who have the dominant or leading role in the relationships, if they are not violent with their mates, they will take care of them and protect them, not to mention the superiority of these women or girls over men. So in the worst case they are looking to be abused themselves and in the best case they are looking for some form of non violent dominance over themselves. In fact it's a very fictitious sexual fantasy that can't be found in reality, it's like fantasizing about giants women of more than 4m high. In short, in our case, there is even less chance of danger than in the majority of known cases of pedophilia.
Not to mention that what we like in our fantasies we don't necessarily like in real life, I would be surprised if those who fantasize about ultra violent muscular women who break us in two (which is not my thing at all) would like it to happen to them in reality, reality is much more painful than fantasy. So those who appreciate in their fantasies the youngs muscular and strong girls, may not appreciate them anymore when reality catches up with them because in reality these girls cannot be the same as in their fantasies. And this is what makes, among other things, generally the difference between our case and the majority of the known cases of pedophilia, what they appreciate in children can be much more easily transcribed into reality.
All this also shows that the subject of pedophilia is much more complicated than you think, and our case even more so because it is a very particular case that has never been studied by professionals, because it is not well known outside the sphere of female muscles.

Afterwards, of course, once again, what I say depends on the profiles, some profiles can be satisfied with much less, when others can be interested in children outside the fantasy of female muscles. I am talking about those who are interested in underage girls only through the prism of female muscles.

After that, as I said before, the important thing is to know your limits. I remember in a previous comment you said that the limit is age. In an ideal world, that would be the case, ideally the limit is 18 years old (or the age of majority of the country where we live), but we are in an ideal world, fantasies have no limits (17 years old or 18 years old for the fantasy it is the same thing), it is up to us to manage this limit with our morality and our conscience. So in our world which has nothing ideal, the limit is especially not to do anything compromising to a child, no inappropriate gesture, or even advances, and not to encourage child pornography.

I have much more respect for a pedophile who knows the limits that should not be exceeded than for you with your restricted and intolerant mind. 

And I can also tell you that pedophilia is not a subject I take lightly, my own daughter, at the age of 8 has already been the victim of inappropriate acts by an adult male. Nothing that would traumatize her in her life, it never went very far, but enough to be alerted. A man that she saw regularly, since he came regularly to her mother's house, after our separation, made advances and inappropriate gestures to her on several occasions. When she told me all this I went to the police to file a complaint, but the mother who was protecting the man in question influenced her daughter not to tell the police anything, so the cops did nothing, but the advantage is that my daughter has never seen this man since, he was too afraid to come back. However, it marked my daughter enough that she still talks to me about it from time to time, after 3 years of the facts, and she regrets today to have hidden the truth to the police. In short, this is clearly not a subject I take lightly.

As for the feet, I'm sorry, but you can turn this around in every possible way, the feet in children being a characteristic just as common as in adults, not modifying the global aspect of the child and not giving any added value to the basic fetish, there is no reason that foot fetishists direct their fetish towards children unless they are actually sexually attracted to children, apart from their foot fetish. This is not the case for muscles. If there is one place in our conversation where the known, proven and true facts are indisputable, it is here. Muscles completely change the overall physical appearance, they are much less common in children than in adults, it is much more impressive in children than in adults, especially a girl (a child, depending on age, has clearly not the same physical capacities as an adult, it is thus much more impressive on a child, all the more a young girl) and that gives thus an added value to the fantasy of the muscles which the impressionable one is one of the engines of it (just like the superiority which can be also an added value on the child compared to the adult, the impressionable one and the superiority is rather related in this fantasy, the admiration also besides). So there are many more reasons why a person who fantasizes about female muscles could direct his fantasy towards underage girls, without being a basic pedophile. Even if this can be considered pedophilia because it is ultimately directed at children, it is still clinically based on a non-pedophilic, non-pathological fantasy that has been directed by extenuating circumstances at children. Of course, again, this does not apply to every profile in our case. All I'm saying is that there are circumstantial and extenuating reasons for linking the female muscle fantasy to underage girls, which is not the case for the foot fetish. So your example has nothing to do with our case and is totally irrelevant. Anyway, our case is so particular that I don't know if it is possible to find concrete examples that can be objectively compared to our case.

So yes, you have a point when you talk about muscles on very small children like 2 years old. It's necessarily more impressive, but there is a point where sexually it can't work anymore, there is necessarily a moment where the childish aspect takes over and puts an end to the fantasy. This limit depends on each person, but there is one for everyone. It's the same as the other way around whose advanced age is also more impressive than middle age. If, in spite of her enormous musculature and Herculean strength, the elderly person looks too much like an old lady with wrinkles, it can put an end to the fantasy of many people. It's the same if the young girl looks too much like a little girl, it will put an end to the fantasy.

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

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

It's because we have our moral value and our conscience as well as our culture that forbids it. We are aware of this kind of thing and our education has taught us to be careful and not to exceed the limits. But in reality, a 13 year old girl already well trained, dressed sexy can turn the head of many men in the street without them being pedophiles but their conscience and moral sense call them to order. In addition, men, compared to women, are more in search of softness and finesse because the face of women (and the overall appearance of the body when it is not muscular) is softer and finer and this is a mark of beauty for women, and this corresponds very well to teenage girls, while women are looking for more virility, hard, square features. A girl between 13 years old is much closer to an adult woman physically than a 13 year old boy is to an adult man. So without our conscience and morality calling us to order, it is easy to fall into the trap without necessarily being a pedophile.   
But muscles allow some fans of female muscle to overcome this conscience, because they will feel more attracted by the impressive, admirable and superior aspect that I have talked about many times. And also because it makes them feel a bit more secure morally, because these girls can't exist in real life and even if they did they would be strong enough to defend themselves or play by their own rules.

Then there are also many people who don't want to admit it out of shame and lie to themselves, they will say that it is just admiration without sexual desires, this is very difficult to identify.

I've already talked about artists in a previous comment, this is only suppositions so it doesn't prove anything, but when an artist who fantasizes about female muscles and who is used to making works on that, suddenly starts to make underage girls with the same characteristics as the women he usually makes, it doesn't seem to me to be harmless. And this can be seen in a large part of artists of female muscles. After that, maybe it's only me who has ideas, I don't judge, I don't criticize, it's just a supposition. But I still find it hard to believe that we can transfer the object of our fantasies on the body of an underage girl just for fun.

Anyway, for a long time I didn't want to admit it and I said I didn't understand artists who make young girls with the same muscles as the women of their fantasies, until I realized that I like it too.

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

But for me it's more periodic, and the ¾ of the time I'm looking at muscular adult women than young girls.

So there is the impressionable, admirable and physical superiority aspect as we have already talked about, but there is also the fact that I want to please a little in these fantasies the child or the teenager in me, who has always dreamed of meeting a muscular and strong girl without ever succeeding and who is a little frustrated. Besides, in my fantasies of young girls I imagine myself as a teenager or a child.
Because I have had the fantasy of female muscles since kindergarten, as far as I can remember. At that time it was not a sexual fantasy, I was not yet old enough to think about it, it became a sexual fantasy later in my adolescence. But already in kindergarten I liked to imagine muscular and very strong girls, and as a teenager I wanted a muscular, strong and protective girlfriend. Now as an adult I am still looking for a muscular, strong and protective woman. I was married to an ordinary woman with whom I had children, but I was never fully satisfied, I was missing what I needed: a strong muscular woman. So I remained stuck in this fantasy, there is only that to satisfy me. Today we are separated and I am still looking for this muscular, strong and protective woman, but at 40 years old, I have lost a little hope. Besides, I think I'm having a bit of a mid-life crisis too, which doesn't help.

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

With that I think I've said it all, and glad to be done with this story.

PS: My argument has never been destroyed, nor yours, it's just you who thinks this (because anyway, your goal is VICTORY), but hey it should also be able to know what those who read us think about it.

[fp909]

remember when this was a story thread with feedback?

pepperidge farm remembers.

[Muscles Douceur]

remember when this was a story thread with feedback?

pepperidge farm remembers.

Yes, I would have preferred to talk about the story. That was the purpose of my first comment, I had made just 3 lines on this subject and it got out of hand ^^

[nebulasparks]

Well, I'm glad you've decided not to answer anymore (although you've already decided to leave it at that in your last comment), we'll finally be able to end this conversation with no way out. We can see the end of the tunnel!

But you're also too good to make me look like an unintellectual who thinks he's an intellectual, but as you already said, I'm just an idiot. 

Anyway, since this is probably my last comment in this conversation (between the two of us), I might as well get it right.

So you claim that you thought this was all for fun, in fact you are just a troll, that doesn't surprise me, I could see that your goal was not holy, that you were just there to make fun of me without having a real dialogue, to show the forum that you are the strongest, the best. You want VICTORY, and you think you got it, for you there is necessarily a winner and a loser. It is precisely this that makes you arrogant and contemptuous. It's a Kylie-like arrogance, you put yourself above the other person and you want to show that you are the best by denigrating the other person. I find it very childish. I don't know how old you are, but I'm 40 years old and I'm past that kind of childishness, I'm not looking for VICTORY, I don't care if I win or lose, all I'm looking for is an open dialogue (although I've known for a long time that this was impossible with you).

You make me laugh though with your VICTORY, but on the other hand with your very binary mind, it doesn't surprise me that you need a winner and a loser, and that you take this as a competition to the one who is right while crushing the opponent to have the VICTORY.

I know trolls like you on the Internet, you are not the first one I have met, and for me you are the scourge of the forums and other social networks.

But honestly Saradas is the last place on the Internet where I thought I would find trolls like you, we are among admirers of female muscles, our tastes on the fringe of society should make us more open-minded, and we should support each other rather than make war, because life has really not spoiled us with our taste for the rarest women in the world and the most decried.
The only trolls I could possibly think to find here are those who are only here to denigrate our tastes and make fun of muscular women (but those ones must not last long on the forum).

I could stop here, because it shows your harmful state of mind for the dialogue, and our differences of conceptions of the conversation incompatible to each other, but since this is probably my last comment, I will take the opportunity to develop everything.

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

So yes, it's true, I had forgotten that you had finally given an (evasive) answer to the question about the danger of our case. But this answer is so evasive, that it is as if you had not answered anything. I'm sorry, but to say that they are pedophiles so they are necessarily a danger is a very light argument, it takes much more to convince me.

First of all, to reduce this to simple masturbation on children, I find it really light, but you like to simplify everything to the maximum. Unfortunately, life is not like that, as I told you before, life is made of many nuances and subtleties, and not everything can be simplified to simple known, proven and true facts. Facts are very good to prove a thing, but there must always be an area of unknown fuzziness around where we can only theorize while waiting to find new facts to fill this area. Especially in a subject like ours which is very little known and based once again on human feelings for which it is difficult to find facts and for which one can only approach it mainly with theories. 

And secondly, not all pedophiles are a danger to society, children and parents of children. They are not all big perverts who dabble in child pornography, let alone Dutroux-like psychopaths. Many of them have the same ethical standards towards children as the majority of people. And many of them have never touched a child in any way, and never want to do anything wrong or go against a child's desire, or even encourage this, and leave the children away from their own sexual desires until they die of old age. In short, they only fantasize in their corners and do not want more than that.
Besides, the law only condemns pedocriminality, that is to say those who have acted on it (a simple advance to a child is an act) or who encourage child pornography. Fantasy is not prohibited by law.
And if you go that way we are all potential rapists, and we are all a potential danger to society. One behavior leads to another, that applies to everyone.
Besides, guys like us who fantasize about female muscles, don't necessarily jump on the first muscular woman that comes along, despite the fact that the women of their fantasies are extremely rare and that many of us can spend our whole lives without ever meeting one, because they are so rare (unless we go to fairs, conventions, competitions or other events, or eventually do sessions), let alone have a love relationship with one of them.
Besides, a pedophile is not necessarily only attracted to children and may very well be satisfied with adult women in their real love and sexual relationships outside of fantasies. Most people know how to distinguish between fantasy and reality, so there is no reason why a pedophile should be any less capable.

Also, in our case, it seems to me very difficult to harm a child that cannot exist in real life. I think you have a better chance of meeting a unicorn than a Kylie, the unicorn is at least morphologically credible biologically (as long as it's not a magical unicorn that shits rainbows).
Well, you will tell me that some gymnasts can be muscular enough to trigger the fantasy, but those are even rarer than the muscular women we admire (well, a gymnast girl is not especially rare, but a gymnast girl who is muscular enough for this fantasy is much rarer), and in reality these girls are not strong enough to completely satisfy this fantasy and reality can quickly take over the fantasy to put an end to it. From 15 years old on, you can maybe find girls who are strong and muscular enough, but then it's not really pedophilia anymore, it's more like statutory rape (a 15 year old girl already has a morphology very close to that of an adult woman), it's something else again, even if it's still imoral and condemnable by the law, but once again, it's not because you fantasize about this kind of girls that you're necessarily going to act, any more than you're going to start raping adult women. Besides, the way they like these girls can hardly be found in reality, and abusing a young girl goes totally against this fantasy. Just like in the majority of fantasies about female muscles, the women and girls of these fantasies are dominant, even in non-violence, they are the ones who have the dominant or leading role in the relationships, if they are not violent with their mates, they will take care of them and protect them, not to mention the superiority of these women or girls over men. So in the worst case they are looking to be abused themselves and in the best case they are looking for some form of non violent dominance over themselves. In fact it's a very fictitious sexual fantasy that can't be found in reality, it's like fantasizing about giants women of more than 4m high. In short, in our case, there is even less chance of danger than in the majority of known cases of pedophilia.
Not to mention that what we like in our fantasies we don't necessarily like in real life, I would be surprised if those who fantasize about ultra violent muscular women who break us in two (which is not my thing at all) would like it to happen to them in reality, reality is much more painful than fantasy. So those who appreciate in their fantasies the youngs muscular and strong girls, may not appreciate them anymore when reality catches up with them because in reality these girls cannot be the same as in their fantasies. And this is what makes, among other things, generally the difference between our case and the majority of the known cases of pedophilia, what they appreciate in children can be much more easily transcribed into reality.
All this also shows that the subject of pedophilia is much more complicated than you think, and our case even more so because it is a very particular case that has never been studied by professionals, because it is not well known outside the sphere of female muscles.

Afterwards, of course, once again, what I say depends on the profiles, some profiles can be satisfied with much less, when others can be interested in children outside the fantasy of female muscles. I am talking about those who are interested in underage girls only through the prism of female muscles.

After that, as I said before, the important thing is to know your limits. I remember in a previous comment you said that the limit is age. In an ideal world, that would be the case, ideally the limit is 18 years old (or the age of majority of the country where we live), but we are in an ideal world, fantasies have no limits (17 years old or 18 years old for the fantasy it is the same thing), it is up to us to manage this limit with our morality and our conscience. So in our world which has nothing ideal, the limit is especially not to do anything compromising to a child, no inappropriate gesture, or even advances, and not to encourage child pornography.

I have much more respect for a pedophile who knows the limits that should not be exceeded than for you with your restricted and intolerant mind. 

And I can also tell you that pedophilia is not a subject I take lightly, my own daughter, at the age of 8 has already been the victim of inappropriate acts by an adult male. Nothing that would traumatize her in her life, it never went very far, but enough to be alerted. A man that she saw regularly, since he came regularly to her mother's house, after our separation, made advances and inappropriate gestures to her on several occasions. When she told me all this I went to the police to file a complaint, but the mother who was protecting the man in question influenced her daughter not to tell the police anything, so the cops did nothing, but the advantage is that my daughter has never seen this man since, he was too afraid to come back. However, it marked my daughter enough that she still talks to me about it from time to time, after 3 years of the facts, and she regrets today to have hidden the truth to the police. In short, this is clearly not a subject I take lightly.

As for the feet, I'm sorry, but you can turn this around in every possible way, the feet in children being a characteristic just as common as in adults, not modifying the global aspect of the child and not giving any added value to the basic fetish, there is no reason that foot fetishists direct their fetish towards children unless they are actually sexually attracted to children, apart from their foot fetish. This is not the case for muscles. If there is one place in our conversation where the known, proven and true facts are indisputable, it is here. Muscles completely change the overall physical appearance, they are much less common in children than in adults, it is much more impressive in children than in adults, especially a girl (a child, depending on age, has clearly not the same physical capacities as an adult, it is thus much more impressive on a child, all the more a young girl) and that gives thus an added value to the fantasy of the muscles which the impressionable one is one of the engines of it (just like the superiority which can be also an added value on the child compared to the adult, the impressionable one and the superiority is rather related in this fantasy, the admiration also besides). So there are many more reasons why a person who fantasizes about female muscles could direct his fantasy towards underage girls, without being a basic pedophile. Even if this can be considered pedophilia because it is ultimately directed at children, it is still clinically based on a non-pedophilic, non-pathological fantasy that has been directed by extenuating circumstances at children. Of course, again, this does not apply to every profile in our case. All I'm saying is that there are circumstantial and extenuating reasons for linking the female muscle fantasy to underage girls, which is not the case for the foot fetish. So your example has nothing to do with our case and is totally irrelevant. Anyway, our case is so particular that I don't know if it is possible to find concrete examples that can be objectively compared to our case.

So yes, you have a point when you talk about muscles on very small children like 2 years old. It's necessarily more impressive, but there is a point where sexually it can't work anymore, there is necessarily a moment where the childish aspect takes over and puts an end to the fantasy. This limit depends on each person, but there is one for everyone. It's the same as the other way around whose advanced age is also more impressive than middle age. If, in spite of her enormous musculature and Herculean strength, the elderly person looks too much like an old lady with wrinkles, it can put an end to the fantasy of many people. It's the same if the young girl looks too much like a little girl, it will put an end to the fantasy.

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

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

It's because we have our moral value and our conscience as well as our culture that forbids it. We are aware of this kind of thing and our education has taught us to be careful and not to exceed the limits. But in reality, a 13 year old girl already well trained, dressed sexy can turn the head of many men in the street without them being pedophiles but their conscience and moral sense call them to order. In addition, men, compared to women, are more in search of softness and finesse because the face of women (and the overall appearance of the body when it is not muscular) is softer and finer and this is a mark of beauty for women, and this corresponds very well to teenage girls, while women are looking for more virility, hard, square features. A girl between 13 years old is much closer to an adult woman physically than a 13 year old boy is to an adult man. So without our conscience and morality calling us to order, it is easy to fall into the trap without necessarily being a pedophile.   
But muscles allow some fans of female muscle to overcome this conscience, because they will feel more attracted by the impressive, admirable and superior aspect that I have talked about many times. And also because it makes them feel a bit more secure morally, because these girls can't exist in real life and even if they did they would be strong enough to defend themselves or play by their own rules.

Then there are also many people who don't want to admit it out of shame and lie to themselves, they will say that it is just admiration without sexual desires, this is very difficult to identify.

I've already talked about artists in a previous comment, this is only suppositions so it doesn't prove anything, but when an artist who fantasizes about female muscles and who is used to making works on that, suddenly starts to make underage girls with the same characteristics as the women he usually makes, it doesn't seem to me to be harmless. And this can be seen in a large part of artists of female muscles. After that, maybe it's only me who has ideas, I don't judge, I don't criticize, it's just a supposition. But I still find it hard to believe that we can transfer the object of our fantasies on the body of an underage girl just for fun.

Anyway, for a long time I didn't want to admit it and I said I didn't understand artists who make young girls with the same muscles as the women of their fantasies, until I realized that I like it too.

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

But for me it's more periodic, and the ¾ of the time I'm looking at muscular adult women than young girls.

So there is the impressionable, admirable and physical superiority aspect as we have already talked about, but there is also the fact that I want to please a little in these fantasies the child or the teenager in me, who has always dreamed of meeting a muscular and strong girl without ever succeeding and who is a little frustrated. Besides, in my fantasies of young girls I imagine myself as a teenager or a child.
Because I have had the fantasy of female muscles since kindergarten, as far as I can remember. At that time it was not a sexual fantasy, I was not yet old enough to think about it, it became a sexual fantasy later in my adolescence. But already in kindergarten I liked to imagine muscular and very strong girls, and as a teenager I wanted a muscular, strong and protective girlfriend. Now as an adult I am still looking for a muscular, strong and protective woman. I was married to an ordinary woman with whom I had children, but I was never fully satisfied, I was missing what I needed: a strong muscular woman. So I remained stuck in this fantasy, there is only that to satisfy me. Today we are separated and I am still looking for this muscular, strong and protective woman, but at 40 years old, I have lost a little hope. Besides, I think I'm having a bit of a mid-life crisis too, which doesn't help.

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

With that I think I've said it all, and glad to be done with this story.

PS: My argument has never been destroyed, nor yours, it's just you who thinks this (because anyway, your goal is VICTORY), but hey it should also be able to know what those who read us think about it.

Yeah, I know I promised not to respond. and for the most part I won't, but the part about Japan:

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

I grew up and lived in Japan all my life, so this is news to me. We don't all (nor most of us) fantasize about 13- to 17-year-olds and under. People are literally sickened by the notion and we have our own laws catering to this sort of behavior. The age of consent is indeed 13 for the most part, but that doesn't mean a grown man can have sex with them or distribute porn of them. And yes you didn't mention that, but it's important to note regardless since it's typically misconstrued from other countries.

The manga and Japanese anime? Do you know how many grown men in Japan are obsessed with those forms of entertainment? Not much. Teenagers and outside cultures are more interested statistically. And there are laws that prevent sexualization of underage children and the distribution of child pornography in Japan as well (under 18-year-olds). High skirts and things like that aren't considered sexualization of children.

"Young girls in ultra short school outfits, it's a big fantasy of Japanese men, there is even a whole commercial aspect on it   
It is their culture that is like that."

Uhhhhh, no it's not. Commercials such as? I haven't seen any. A lot of the commercials have women over 18, and the ones with children certainly don't have any sexual aspects. And even if they were shown, most people would find it detestable. Again, pedophilia and the sexualisation of children is seen as the same here as anywhere else. So I'm not sure you've researched my country enough.

"It is their culture that is like that."

For the little girls dressed in skimpy skirts and singing for middle-aged men? Yeah, that's pretty pedophilic. And people commonly call this out. It's not normal for grown men over here to be sexually attracted to that sort of behaviour.

But either way, this isn't a grey area. Men attracted to this sort of sexual content are still pedophiles. The legal age of majority over here is 18, and men that engage in sexual activity with underage children are still pedophiles. Men that possess child pornography, graphical or real, are charged. So no, we're indeed not all pedophiles, and we don't have a culture built around this.

That's all.

[Azazazaz]

Well, I'm glad you've decided not to answer anymore (although you've already decided to leave it at that in your last comment), we'll finally be able to end this conversation with no way out. We can see the end of the tunnel!

But you're also too good to make me look like an unintellectual who thinks he's an intellectual, but as you already said, I'm just an idiot. 

Anyway, since this is probably my last comment in this conversation (between the two of us), I might as well get it right.

So you claim that you thought this was all for fun, in fact you are just a troll, that doesn't surprise me, I could see that your goal was not holy, that you were just there to make fun of me without having a real dialogue, to show the forum that you are the strongest, the best. You want VICTORY, and you think you got it, for you there is necessarily a winner and a loser. It is precisely this that makes you arrogant and contemptuous. It's a Kylie-like arrogance, you put yourself above the other person and you want to show that you are the best by denigrating the other person. I find it very childish. I don't know how old you are, but I'm 40 years old and I'm past that kind of childishness, I'm not looking for VICTORY, I don't care if I win or lose, all I'm looking for is an open dialogue (although I've known for a long time that this was impossible with you).

You make me laugh though with your VICTORY, but on the other hand with your very binary mind, it doesn't surprise me that you need a winner and a loser, and that you take this as a competition to the one who is right while crushing the opponent to have the VICTORY.

I know trolls like you on the Internet, you are not the first one I have met, and for me you are the scourge of the forums and other social networks.

But honestly Saradas is the last place on the Internet where I thought I would find trolls like you, we are among admirers of female muscles, our tastes on the fringe of society should make us more open-minded, and we should support each other rather than make war, because life has really not spoiled us with our taste for the rarest women in the world and the most decried.
The only trolls I could possibly think to find here are those who are only here to denigrate our tastes and make fun of muscular women (but those ones must not last long on the forum).

I could stop here, because it shows your harmful state of mind for the dialogue, and our differences of conceptions of the conversation incompatible to each other, but since this is probably my last comment, I will take the opportunity to develop everything.

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

So yes, it's true, I had forgotten that you had finally given an (evasive) answer to the question about the danger of our case. But this answer is so evasive, that it is as if you had not answered anything. I'm sorry, but to say that they are pedophiles so they are necessarily a danger is a very light argument, it takes much more to convince me.

First of all, to reduce this to simple masturbation on children, I find it really light, but you like to simplify everything to the maximum. Unfortunately, life is not like that, as I told you before, life is made of many nuances and subtleties, and not everything can be simplified to simple known, proven and true facts. Facts are very good to prove a thing, but there must always be an area of unknown fuzziness around where we can only theorize while waiting to find new facts to fill this area. Especially in a subject like ours which is very little known and based once again on human feelings for which it is difficult to find facts and for which one can only approach it mainly with theories. 

And secondly, not all pedophiles are a danger to society, children and parents of children. They are not all big perverts who dabble in child pornography, let alone Dutroux-like psychopaths. Many of them have the same ethical standards towards children as the majority of people. And many of them have never touched a child in any way, and never want to do anything wrong or go against a child's desire, or even encourage this, and leave the children away from their own sexual desires until they die of old age. In short, they only fantasize in their corners and do not want more than that.
Besides, the law only condemns pedocriminality, that is to say those who have acted on it (a simple advance to a child is an act) or who encourage child pornography. Fantasy is not prohibited by law.
And if you go that way we are all potential rapists, and we are all a potential danger to society. One behavior leads to another, that applies to everyone.
Besides, guys like us who fantasize about female muscles, don't necessarily jump on the first muscular woman that comes along, despite the fact that the women of their fantasies are extremely rare and that many of us can spend our whole lives without ever meeting one, because they are so rare (unless we go to fairs, conventions, competitions or other events, or eventually do sessions), let alone have a love relationship with one of them.
Besides, a pedophile is not necessarily only attracted to children and may very well be satisfied with adult women in their real love and sexual relationships outside of fantasies. Most people know how to distinguish between fantasy and reality, so there is no reason why a pedophile should be any less capable.

Also, in our case, it seems to me very difficult to harm a child that cannot exist in real life. I think you have a better chance of meeting a unicorn than a Kylie, the unicorn is at least morphologically credible biologically (as long as it's not a magical unicorn that shits rainbows).
Well, you will tell me that some gymnasts can be muscular enough to trigger the fantasy, but those are even rarer than the muscular women we admire (well, a gymnast girl is not especially rare, but a gymnast girl who is muscular enough for this fantasy is much rarer), and in reality these girls are not strong enough to completely satisfy this fantasy and reality can quickly take over the fantasy to put an end to it. From 15 years old on, you can maybe find girls who are strong and muscular enough, but then it's not really pedophilia anymore, it's more like statutory rape (a 15 year old girl already has a morphology very close to that of an adult woman), it's something else again, even if it's still imoral and condemnable by the law, but once again, it's not because you fantasize about this kind of girls that you're necessarily going to act, any more than you're going to start raping adult women. Besides, the way they like these girls can hardly be found in reality, and abusing a young girl goes totally against this fantasy. Just like in the majority of fantasies about female muscles, the women and girls of these fantasies are dominant, even in non-violence, they are the ones who have the dominant or leading role in the relationships, if they are not violent with their mates, they will take care of them and protect them, not to mention the superiority of these women or girls over men. So in the worst case they are looking to be abused themselves and in the best case they are looking for some form of non violent dominance over themselves. In fact it's a very fictitious sexual fantasy that can't be found in reality, it's like fantasizing about giants women of more than 4m high. In short, in our case, there is even less chance of danger than in the majority of known cases of pedophilia.
Not to mention that what we like in our fantasies we don't necessarily like in real life, I would be surprised if those who fantasize about ultra violent muscular women who break us in two (which is not my thing at all) would like it to happen to them in reality, reality is much more painful than fantasy. So those who appreciate in their fantasies the youngs muscular and strong girls, may not appreciate them anymore when reality catches up with them because in reality these girls cannot be the same as in their fantasies. And this is what makes, among other things, generally the difference between our case and the majority of the known cases of pedophilia, what they appreciate in children can be much more easily transcribed into reality.
All this also shows that the subject of pedophilia is much more complicated than you think, and our case even more so because it is a very particular case that has never been studied by professionals, because it is not well known outside the sphere of female muscles.

Afterwards, of course, once again, what I say depends on the profiles, some profiles can be satisfied with much less, when others can be interested in children outside the fantasy of female muscles. I am talking about those who are interested in underage girls only through the prism of female muscles.

After that, as I said before, the important thing is to know your limits. I remember in a previous comment you said that the limit is age. In an ideal world, that would be the case, ideally the limit is 18 years old (or the age of majority of the country where we live), but we are in an ideal world, fantasies have no limits (17 years old or 18 years old for the fantasy it is the same thing), it is up to us to manage this limit with our morality and our conscience. So in our world which has nothing ideal, the limit is especially not to do anything compromising to a child, no inappropriate gesture, or even advances, and not to encourage child pornography.

I have much more respect for a pedophile who knows the limits that should not be exceeded than for you with your restricted and intolerant mind. 

And I can also tell you that pedophilia is not a subject I take lightly, my own daughter, at the age of 8 has already been the victim of inappropriate acts by an adult male. Nothing that would traumatize her in her life, it never went very far, but enough to be alerted. A man that she saw regularly, since he came regularly to her mother's house, after our separation, made advances and inappropriate gestures to her on several occasions. When she told me all this I went to the police to file a complaint, but the mother who was protecting the man in question influenced her daughter not to tell the police anything, so the cops did nothing, but the advantage is that my daughter has never seen this man since, he was too afraid to come back. However, it marked my daughter enough that she still talks to me about it from time to time, after 3 years of the facts, and she regrets today to have hidden the truth to the police. In short, this is clearly not a subject I take lightly.

As for the feet, I'm sorry, but you can turn this around in every possible way, the feet in children being a characteristic just as common as in adults, not modifying the global aspect of the child and not giving any added value to the basic fetish, there is no reason that foot fetishists direct their fetish towards children unless they are actually sexually attracted to children, apart from their foot fetish. This is not the case for muscles. If there is one place in our conversation where the known, proven and true facts are indisputable, it is here. Muscles completely change the overall physical appearance, they are much less common in children than in adults, it is much more impressive in children than in adults, especially a girl (a child, depending on age, has clearly not the same physical capacities as an adult, it is thus much more impressive on a child, all the more a young girl) and that gives thus an added value to the fantasy of the muscles which the impressionable one is one of the engines of it (just like the superiority which can be also an added value on the child compared to the adult, the impressionable one and the superiority is rather related in this fantasy, the admiration also besides). So there are many more reasons why a person who fantasizes about female muscles could direct his fantasy towards underage girls, without being a basic pedophile. Even if this can be considered pedophilia because it is ultimately directed at children, it is still clinically based on a non-pedophilic, non-pathological fantasy that has been directed by extenuating circumstances at children. Of course, again, this does not apply to every profile in our case. All I'm saying is that there are circumstantial and extenuating reasons for linking the female muscle fantasy to underage girls, which is not the case for the foot fetish. So your example has nothing to do with our case and is totally irrelevant. Anyway, our case is so particular that I don't know if it is possible to find concrete examples that can be objectively compared to our case.

So yes, you have a point when you talk about muscles on very small children like 2 years old. It's necessarily more impressive, but there is a point where sexually it can't work anymore, there is necessarily a moment where the childish aspect takes over and puts an end to the fantasy. This limit depends on each person, but there is one for everyone. It's the same as the other way around whose advanced age is also more impressive than middle age. If, in spite of her enormous musculature and Herculean strength, the elderly person looks too much like an old lady with wrinkles, it can put an end to the fantasy of many people. It's the same if the young girl looks too much like a little girl, it will put an end to the fantasy.

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

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

It's because we have our moral value and our conscience as well as our culture that forbids it. We are aware of this kind of thing and our education has taught us to be careful and not to exceed the limits. But in reality, a 13 year old girl already well trained, dressed sexy can turn the head of many men in the street without them being pedophiles but their conscience and moral sense call them to order. In addition, men, compared to women, are more in search of softness and finesse because the face of women (and the overall appearance of the body when it is not muscular) is softer and finer and this is a mark of beauty for women, and this corresponds very well to teenage girls, while women are looking for more virility, hard, square features. A girl between 13 years old is much closer to an adult woman physically than a 13 year old boy is to an adult man. So without our conscience and morality calling us to order, it is easy to fall into the trap without necessarily being a pedophile.   
But muscles allow some fans of female muscle to overcome this conscience, because they will feel more attracted by the impressive, admirable and superior aspect that I have talked about many times. And also because it makes them feel a bit more secure morally, because these girls can't exist in real life and even if they did they would be strong enough to defend themselves or play by their own rules.

Then there are also many people who don't want to admit it out of shame and lie to themselves, they will say that it is just admiration without sexual desires, this is very difficult to identify.

I've already talked about artists in a previous comment, this is only suppositions so it doesn't prove anything, but when an artist who fantasizes about female muscles and who is used to making works on that, suddenly starts to make underage girls with the same characteristics as the women he usually makes, it doesn't seem to me to be harmless. And this can be seen in a large part of artists of female muscles. After that, maybe it's only me who has ideas, I don't judge, I don't criticize, it's just a supposition. But I still find it hard to believe that we can transfer the object of our fantasies on the body of an underage girl just for fun.

Anyway, for a long time I didn't want to admit it and I said I didn't understand artists who make young girls with the same muscles as the women of their fantasies, until I realized that I like it too.

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

But for me it's more periodic, and the ¾ of the time I'm looking at muscular adult women than young girls.

So there is the impressionable, admirable and physical superiority aspect as we have already talked about, but there is also the fact that I want to please a little in these fantasies the child or the teenager in me, who has always dreamed of meeting a muscular and strong girl without ever succeeding and who is a little frustrated. Besides, in my fantasies of young girls I imagine myself as a teenager or a child.
Because I have had the fantasy of female muscles since kindergarten, as far as I can remember. At that time it was not a sexual fantasy, I was not yet old enough to think about it, it became a sexual fantasy later in my adolescence. But already in kindergarten I liked to imagine muscular and very strong girls, and as a teenager I wanted a muscular, strong and protective girlfriend. Now as an adult I am still looking for a muscular, strong and protective woman. I was married to an ordinary woman with whom I had children, but I was never fully satisfied, I was missing what I needed: a strong muscular woman. So I remained stuck in this fantasy, there is only that to satisfy me. Today we are separated and I am still looking for this muscular, strong and protective woman, but at 40 years old, I have lost a little hope. Besides, I think I'm having a bit of a mid-life crisis too, which doesn't help.

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

With that I think I've said it all, and glad to be done with this story.

PS: My argument has never been destroyed, nor yours, it's just you who thinks this (because anyway, your goal is VICTORY), but hey it should also be able to know what those who read us think about it.

I think if you like underage girl its pedophile.

[Muscles Douceur]

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

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

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

[Muscles Douceur]

I think if you like underage girl its pedophile.

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