BF interested in Young girls?????

[abd]

Actually there was. He met her when she was 16, he looks for / at pictures of underage girls, and he has put privacy settings on his PC so she is unable to see his browsing history.

 

That is simply inaccurate. As I said in my original comment, I looked at all of her posts, and what I came up with were two instances: one in which she looked at his history and found something like "miley cyrus naked / scene girls naked" and another instance at some unspecified time in the past when she says she found a pornographic video of "young girls" on his computer. We don't know if this was a sort of "teen over 18" type of porn or if was actually child pornography, but presumably if the OP saw the video, she would know if it was child pornography and would not be using phrases like "young girls" and posting the sort of questions she posted here.

 

Simply meeting her when she was 16 does not indicate he is a pedophile, either. Finally, maybe he put a password on his computer because he doesn't want her snooping around! She admits she knows she shouldn't do that, but does it anyway. By saying "he put a password on his computer, therefore he must do this all the time", you're committing the "I've got nothing to hide" fallacy of privacy. Maybe he doesn't want her finding his google searches for "how do I stop my girlfriend from snooping on my computer".

 

No & thanks for enlightening me. Did you know tht women didn't get the vote over here til 1902, and we used to drown witches too!

My point is - how is any of this relevant today?

It is relevant because it demonstrates that standards of socially, morally, and legally acceptable behavior change over time. I attempted to explain to you even if someone violates our standards in one or more of those areas, that does not necessarily mean they have a pathological (disease) problem.

 

Yes we do, men AND women do...which is why the OP seemed concerned that to her b/f might desire underage girls who aren't physically, emotionally or psychologically developed.

Re-reading the OP's first post, I hear her asking "does my boyfriend like young girls"; she then specifically mentions pedophilia; and she feels like his behavior is "creepy" and possibly abnormal. My first response was to simply point out that his behavior does not qualify as pedophilia. Go look up pedophilia in the DSM. I also pointed out that she had not described a repeated pattern to us, and basically it sounds like she is upset she found these searches and a video one time, but that unless she finds that this is frequent behavior for him, she is probably making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Finally, my original post in this discussion was deleted and I received a warning for the link it contained. I'm sorry if that link offended anyone; that was not my intention. I actually specifically reviewed the community guidelines on external links before posting it, and I specifically noted that it was probably not appropriate to view in a work environment. While I disagree with the moderator's characterization of my choice to include the link, I will of course respect their authority. I do however want to include the text portion of my original post, since that was specifically directed to the OP and it would be a shame if she did not get a chance to read it. It follows:

 

I skimmed all the posts in this lengthy discussion, but I'm going to reply to the OP, since a lot of the comments have been tangential.

 

CreepedOut, when I read your comments, this is what I get: one day you looked at your boyfriend's history and found that he had been searching for nude photos of young female celebrities like Miley Cyrus. And, at one unspecified point in the past you found a pornographic video of "young girls" (which I assume were also the same sort of sexualized teenage starlets, rather than actual children).

 

What you have described does not strike me as a pattern. If you had said that you have consistently found him searching for pornographic pictures of children, or that you have found a lot of porn on his computer and it all involves young children, I would be concerned. But you have definitely not described that.

 

Pedophiles are attracted to children. Normal males are not attracted to children, but may very well be attracted to what we would call "young girls." If your boyfriend is looking for nude photos of Miley Cyrus or Emma Watson, he is almost certainly NOT a pedophile.

 

What you have described does not sound pathological. It does not sound like you need to be concerned that he has something psychologically wrong with him. And that sounds like what you are most worried about.

[Jersey Shortie]

Personally, I am curious why some people use examples dating back to the 18oos on defending when an expectable time to be attracted to young girls is. So what if they married off girls when they were 13 or 15? That is no way proves that the reason girls were married off that age was because they were sexually mature. Infact, no girl at 13 and 15 is completely sexually mature, even if some develop faster then others. Not physically and not emotionally. So basically, if you think it’s okay to be attracted to someone in that age group, then you are basically attracted to girls that are not fully developed women. And if you are not attracted to fully developed women, what does that say you are attracted to. A young girl might be in the process of starting to mature, but she is clearly not an adult.

 

I would also like to add that there are a whole host of factors being ignored when using the example “in the 18oos they did it!” Such as life expectancy, way of life and a very patriarchal society that didn’t want to give women any power. What better way to keep control then letting women learn from an early age they don’t have a choice? They just did what the men said in that time. Mothers and fathers tried to get ride of their daughters as soon as they could so that they didn’t want to have another mouth to feed. Daughters weren’t going to take care of the farm, they weren’t going to bring in money, and they were an expense. And expensive one at that. The fact that in the 18oos girls were married off younger, doesn’t mean that they were sexually ready. It does not mean that that time in history they got things right or that the fact that they were married off was healthy. Techniqually, many girls start developing breasts and having their periods at age 9 now-a-days. Does that mean the second that they start developing and having their periods that that puts a green light on their forehead? Morals aside, I think anyone that tries to ration a 9 year old being sexually ready just because she has her period, or defending a man’s attraction to her just because she has her period, is beyond ridiculous. While a 16 year old is clearly further along in her development then a 9 year old, she is not yet a full grown women. And it behooves women to pick men that do not have the prolictivities to want to bed developing children. That’s another part of nature. Women are better off picking the kind of man that mature with his age, and matures along side his partner. Not one that is going to have to spend his life possibly fighting off desires for his daughter’s friends.

 

Lets consider another factor. Young boys. A 12 year old boy can just as easily produce fertile sperm as a 25 year old man can. Does that mean he is fully sexually developed? Of course not. Techniqually, a man’s sperm declines with age, just as a woman’s ability to reproduce does. So should women impregnate themselves with a boy who has 12 year old sperm? If we are going to make the proclamation that it’s healty for grown men to be attracted to girls that are in the process of developing, then we should also make the argument that it’s okay for a woman to be attracted to a 12 year old boy based on the same idea. And yet, healthy women aren’t attracted to 12 year old boys even if they could impregnate them.

 

There is a huge difference between noticing a girl growing and changing and going through puberty and being attracted to her during that period and being attracted to a fully developed young woman. There is a much more beneficial natural selection process is women choosing healthy adult men that’s own desires will evolve and develop as we all do through life. Rather then one that would be forever attracted to girls in the process of maturing and developing.

 

I also want to add that it behooves all of us for men to be more protective of women and girls then it does explotive. And unfortunetly, it seems that there is more explotation then not. And that is why our soceity stinks on some levels.

[abd]

Personally, I am curious why some people, usually men, use examples dating back to the 18oos on defending when an expectable time to be attracted to young girls is. So what if they married off girls when they were 13 or 15? That is no way proves that the reason girls were married off that age was because they were sexually mature... So basically, if you think it’s okay to be attracted to someone in that age group, then you are basically attracted to girls that are not fully developed women.

I would like to reiterate that nowhere have I said that any of this is morally, socially, or legally acceptable behavior. Those standards vary (which was the whole point of my bringing up the age of consent in 19th century England). There are, however, physiological, biological, and evolutionary reasons why it is not necessarily an issue of pathology for CreepedOut's boyfriend to have run some Google searches. (And remember, folks, that is fundamentally what we are talking about here. Sounds like some of us think he was featured on "To Catch a Predator"!)

 

I would also like to add that there are a whole host of factors being ignored when using the example “in the 18oos they did it!” Such as life expectancy, way of life and a very patriarchal society that didn’t want to give women any power... Techniqually, many girls start developing breasts and having their periods at age 9 now-a-days. Does that mean the second that they start developing and having their periods that that puts a green light on their forehead? Morals aside, I think anyone that tries to ration a 9 year old being sexually ready just because she has her period, or defending a man’s attraction to her just because she has her period, is beyond ridiculous.

Again, never did I argue that because the age of consent was 13 in 1875 in England, that this makes everything acceptable. Yes, there were plenty of factors that played into why that was the case then and is not now (one of which I pointed out - nowadays we care about psychological development of people to a much greater extent). No one denies that. No one is saying that that time was "better" than now or whatever. The point is that moral, social, and legal standards vary.

 

As you point out, age of menarche has been decreasing in modern times. No, that does not put a "green light" on their head. No one is trying to defend attraction to a nine-year old. On the other hand, conduct a thought experiment: if you found a nine-year old girl that looked identical to an attractive 25 year old woman, should you be surprised if men are attracted to her? What if they don't know her age? What if they do? Again, the point is not the moral or social acceptability of the attraction, but based on what we know about human biology, what should we expect?

 

If we are going to make the proclamation that it’s healty for grown men to be attracted to girls that are in the process of developing, then we should also make the argument that it’s okay for a woman to be attracted to a 12 year old boy based on the same idea.

Actually, no, we would might surmise that women are going to be attracted to males that are capable of protecting and supporting them during and for years after childbirth. In which case strong, healthy, attractive males between maybe 17 and 33 are going to be the best evolutionary choices. The biological basis for sexual attraction differs between the sexes.

 

On the whole, there seem to be a lot of assumptions about the boyfriend in this thread that aren't backed up by what the OP has actually said. You talk about a man who "is going to have to spend his life possibly fighting off desires for his daughter’s friends," but we didn't hear the OP say that her boyfriend is constantly looking at younger girls. We didn't hear the OP say that her boyfriend is telling her he wishes she was younger. We didn't hear the OP say that this is affecting their sex life.

 

The only "red flag" comment you might be able to point to is something he said six years ago about him feeling that women his own age looked old (and he said this while he was dating someone much younger than him). That, and the OP has concluded on the basis of his Google searches that he is attracted to young girls. Like I said elsewhere, you really shouldn't draw conclusions based on one day's worth of Google searches. People look up all kinds of crazy stuff.

 

I would be more concerned about the fact that he was diagnosed bipolar, as that has the potential to cause a lot more destruction in a relationship than a Google search for Miley Cyrus.

[clv0116]

Personally, I am curious why some people use examples dating back to the 18oos on defending when an expectable time to be attracted to young girls is.

 

I'm attracted to chocolate chip cookies as they're pulled from the oven, but I know it's best to wait until they cool a little before I act on my attraction. Sue me.

[Paragon]

No & thanks for enlightening me. Did you know tht women didn't get the vote over here til 1902, and we used to drown witches too!

My point is - how is any of this relevant today?

 

Your point ISN'T relevant--his is, as it pertains to sexual maturity issues. Learn logik.

 

nowadays we place more emphasis on the importance of the psychological development of people

 

Yes we do, men AND women do...which is why the OP seemed concerned that to her b/f might desire underage girls who aren't physically, emotionally or psychologically developed.

 

She didn't have a problem with it when she was 16, but now she does. It doesn't take a counselor to figure out why this is REALLY going on....Use your heads...

[Paragon]

Personally, I am curious why some people use examples dating back to the 18oos on defending when an expectable time to be attracted to young girls is. So what if they married off girls when they were 13 or 15? That is no way proves that the reason girls were married off that age was because they were sexually mature. Infact, no girl at 13 and 15 is completely sexually mature, even if some develop faster then others. Not physically and not emotionally.

 

Really? What's the last class you took on women's sexual maturity that brings you to this enlightening conclusion? And your saying that it's unhealthy for someone to be attracted to another person who's not an adult? Well, what about 16-17 year olds? They're attracted to each other but wait--THEY'RE UNDERAGE!! Uhm, so why is that not unhealthy? According to your logik, it's not okay for someone to be attracted to someone who's underage. It's obvious you'll say "Well they're both underage so they're attracted to people the same age which is normal and healthy." Ok Miss logik, well then AT WHAT AGE DIFFERENCE does it become unhealthy? If you say 5 years, what about 4 years 8 months--will something spectacular hapen in those four remaining months that will all of a sudden make it HEALTHY? If you can't already decipher what i'm trying to say here, i'll make it simple--that LINE that you're trying to draw, is COMPLETELY arbitrary and based off nothing but the social conditioning you've been spoonfed since the day you started going to school.

 

 

So basically, if you think it’s okay to be attracted to someone in that age group, then you are basically attracted to girls that are not fully developed women. And if you are not attracted to fully developed women, what does that say you are attracted to.

 

So, just because someone is attracted to 16-18 year olds, that means he can't also be attracted to 28-30 year olds? Really? Wow.......I mean it's funny too because for some reason you just say he's NOT attracted to fully developed women, which--was never the case. The OP didn't come here and say, help my bf isn't attracted to me anymore because i'm too old.

 

I would also like to add that there are a whole host of factors being ignored when using the example “in the 18oos they did it!” Such as life expectancy, way of life and a very patriarchal society that didn’t want to give women any power. What better way to keep control then letting women learn from an early age they don’t have a choice? They just did what the men said in that time. Mothers and fathers tried to get ride of their daughters as soon as they could so that they didn’t want to have another mouth to feed. Daughters weren’t going to take care of the farm, they weren’t going to bring in money, and they were an expense. And expensive one at that.

 

Wrong, on all three counts. Daughters DID help take care of the farm, some COULD go and get jobs in the mills, and they were NOT an expensive expense. In fact in a lot of cases they were assets! Do yourself a favor and brush up on your history instead of using your own interpretations of what the 1800s were like.

 

The fact that in the 18oos girls were married off younger, doesn’t mean that they were sexually ready.

 

So according to you, when ARE girls 'sexually ready?' Can some be fully sexually mature by 16? Careful of the question, because if you disagree, you disagree with fact, biology, and science....

 

While a 16 year old is clearly further along in her development then a 9 year old, she is not yet a full grown women. And it behooves women to pick men that do not have the prolictivities to want to bed developing children.

 

It doesn't behoove men to choose fully grown women as mates. Learn your biology...

 

Lets consider another factor. Young boys. A 12 year old boy can just as easily produce fertile sperm as a 25 year old man can. Does that mean he is fully sexually developed? Of course not. Techniqually, a man’s sperm declines with age, just as a woman’s ability to reproduce does. So should women impregnate themselves with a boy who has 12 year old sperm? If we are going to make the proclamation that it’s healty for grown men to be attracted to girls that are in the process of developing, then we should also make the argument that it’s okay for a woman to be attracted to a 12 year old boy based on the same idea. And yet, healthy women aren’t attracted to 12 year old boys even if they could impregnate them.

 

Do you want to know WHY? There is NO reproductive advantage for a woman to be attracted to a 12 year old boy--let me say that again--NO REPRODUCTIVE ADVANTAGE TO THIS!!!!!!!!!! Men choose based on replication value, females choose on survival value. A 12 yr old boy cannot offer any survival value, therefore women who were attracted to 12 year old boys and actually maybe DID get impregnanted by them, their offspring wouldn't survive long enough to actually have that as an evolutionary advantage to be passed on. In other words, its an evolutionary DISadvantage which is why women aren't attracted to boys that young. Stop using illogical and non-analagous examples to try and defend yourself when you're wrong.

 

I also want to add that it behooves all of us for men to be more protective of women and girls then it does explotive. And unfortunetly, it seems that there is more explotation then not. And that is why our soceity stinks on some levels.

 

Do you not understand how evolution works? If it 'behooved' all of us for men to be more protective than exploitive, then this 'exploitation' you speak of wouldn't exist. Evolution has no biases or morals. But guess what, men who 'exploit' women pass on their genes, and that's why it's more common than not. So you're wrong about that too.

[Jersey Shortie]

Paragon, it's unhealthy for someone of age to be attracted to someone underage. It is perfectly healthy for underage kids to be attracted to other underage kids. You can rant and rave about what "biology" is but you don't even have a firm grasp of it in it's completion.

 

Girls were seen more of a fiancial burden. You completely want to ignore eductional, societal and biological imperitives of that time that don't support your theory. And in all honesty, are really no basis or foundation for older men perving on underage girls of this generation.

 

 

Do you want to know WHY? There is NO reproductive advantage for a woman to be attracted to a 12 year old boy--let me say that again--NO REPRODUCTIVE ADVANTAGE TO THIS!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Actually there is. On a purely biological level his sperm is just as usefull as a man of 25. But to play even further devil's advocate. Women today don't need male protection for a biological advantage that they might once have needed. That being the case, maybe that's why we see more women risking their society lives to bed underage boys. To me, I still think it's disgusting man or woman. But if you are going to defend the attraction to young females based on the starting stages of puberty, then we can also say the same applies to young boys. And since you think the first hint of puberty and menstration is enough alone to warrent sexual attraction to young girls, then it must be oka yfor grown men to be attracted to 9 year old girls that have started their periods.

 

Either way, it doesn't really matter. The OP doesn't like it, shouldn't like it and shouldn't be forced to remain in a situation with such a man. She has every right to be questionable of the type of person he is and has every right to find a man that will be more of an equal and healthy mate in her personal perception. Infact, ask all the ladies here what they prefer. A man interested in underage girls, or a man intersted in women of age. Give the option, I think it's clear what women deem more healthy. This isn't just a matter of women aging and not wanting to become less attractive. Women have an inate desire to protect the young as well and not see them exploited for selfish gains. Really thank god for this because if we really lived in the type of world you prescribe, no woman should trust any man and all women would need to protect all young developing girls from men.

 

If it 'behooved' all of us for men to be more protective than exploitive, then this 'exploitation' you speak of wouldn't exist. Evolution has no biases or morals. But guess what, men who 'exploit' women pass on their genes, and that's why it's more common than not. So you're wrong about that too.

 

Not everything exists because it's natural or how the world should be. People are given the choice, nothing is one way or the other. It is about balance. For you to say that the world benefits from female exploitation is completely irrational and falsified. And really, quite damanging if that's the lesson you want to teach yuor own children, male or female. Exploitation isn't passed on in genes anyway. Exploitation is a weakness. And while you might disagree, I think it benefits society for men to be strong, not weak. You are free to disagree of course.

[clv0116]

Paragon, it's unhealthy for someone of age to be attracted to someone underage. It is perfectly healthy for underage kids to be attracted to other underage kids. You can rant and rave about what "biology" is but you don't even have a firm grasp of it in it's completion.

 

The tricky part is defining 'underage' really.

 

 

 

Girls were seen more of a fiancial burden.

 

Depends on the time and the culture.

 

 

 

Actually there is. On a purely biological level his sperm is just as usefull as a man of 25.

 

Fitness for survival of a gene pool goes a lot further than the intrinsic fitness of a guys swimmers. You sort of ignored a lot of the post here.

 

 

 

But to play even further devil's advocate. Women today don't need male protection for a biological advantage that they might once have needed.

 

Do you know what devils advocate means? It means you're arguing a position you really don't believe in. Is that the case? I sort of doubt it.

 

In any case, it's a weak argument. Current conditions are not going to alter the genes that were shaped over countless previous generations. Current conditions will potentially only change FUTURE gene pools.

 

 

 

Either way, it doesn't really matter. The OP doesn't like it, shouldn't like it and shouldn't be forced to remain in a situation with such a man.

 

Doesn't, apparently, but shouldn't is YOUR idea.

 

 

 

Infact, ask all the ladies here what they prefer. A man interested in underage girls, or a man intersted in women of age.

 

Again, 'underage' is loaded. If you have a desirable guy then women of age 'X" will prefer that he be interested in age 'X' rather than age 'Y'. It's just, dare I say it, human nature.

 

 

 

Give the option, I think it's clear what older women deem more healthy.

 

Fixed it for you.

[Paragon]

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

Paragon, it's unhealthy for someone of age to be attracted to someone underage. It is perfectly healthy for underage kids to be attracted to other underage kids. You can rant and rave about what "biology" is but you don't even have a firm grasp of it in it's completion.

 

 

Ok, I PROVED you wrong by giving facts, and all you've done is say--Paragon, your wrong, i'm right, this is healthy, that's not. Why are you continuing to do this, why not give some sort of explanation as to WHY you think you're right?

 

 

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

Girls were seen more of a fiancial burden. You completely want to ignore eductional, societal and biological imperitives of that time that don't support your theory.

 

No, they weren't. Like I said, in a LOT of cases they were seen as assets, helping on the farm, taking care of younger siblings, working, uniting families. Where is your evidence? It's not a theory, it's FACT.

 

 

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

Actually there is. On a purely biological level his sperm is just as usefull as a man of 25. But to play even further devil's advocate. Women today don't need male protection for a biological advantage that they might once have needed. That being the case, maybe that's why we see more women risking their society lives to bed underage boys.

 

Those women who you speak of that are 'risking their lives' are the minority of the minority. You rarely if ever see this happening, and that's because women never had a DRIVE to be attracted to 12 year old boys, so evolution has no place for it. When it DOES happen, it's a mutation, wihch is why it's so rare. And yes, women now DON'T need that survival protection, but that's what they still operate based off of. We are biologically ancient, we're still driven by the same things we were thousands of years ago. So no, actually there IS no advantage. And if you understood the BASIC tenets of SEXUAL selection and EVOLUTION, then you'd see how your argument is nonsense.

 

 

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

And since you think the first hint of puberty and menstration is enough alone to warrent sexual attraction to young girls, then it must be oka yfor grown men to be attracted to 9 year old girls that have started their periods.

 

Wrong again--stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that menstruation was enough to warrant sexual attraction to someone. There are MULTIPLE things guys look for when deciding on whether or not someone can be a sexual mate. So there goes that retalitory argument as well because you can't even keep straight what I originally said.

 

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

Either way, it doesn't really matter. The OP doesn't like it, shouldn't like it and shouldn't be forced to remain in a situation with such a man. She has every right to be questionable of the type of person he is and has every right to find a man that will be more of an equal and healthy mate in her personal perception. Infact, ask all the ladies here what they prefer. A man interested in underage girls, or a man intersted in women of age. Give the option, I think it's clear what women deem more healthy.

 

Uhm, because that sample's representative of whom? Women who freuquent internet forums. That sample is generalizable to whom? Uhm--NO ONE...Nice try. Not to mention the false dichotomy you tried to slip in there by saying EITHER OR when FACT of the matter is that it doesn't work that way!! Just because a man is attracted to 16-18 year olds doesn't mean he's not also attracted to 28-30 year olds. It's called have a variety of attractions, just like you like a variety of ice cream flavors. It's NOT an either or kind of thing, so stop trying to shove it down everyone's throat that it is!

 

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

This isn't just a matter of women aging and not wanting to become less attractive.

 

Your right, it goes DEEPER than that.

 

 

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

Women have an inate desire to protect the young as well and not see them exploited for selfish gains. Really thank god for this because if we really lived in the type of world you prescribe, no woman should trust any man and all women would need to protect all young developing girls from men.

 

Isn't that what women try to already do?

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

Not everything exists because it's natural or how the world should be. People are given the choice, nothing is one way or the other. It is about balance.

 

Evolution doesn't operate according to balance--it operates according to survival of the fittest.

 

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

For you to say that the world benefits from female exploitation is completely irrational and falsified.

 

No, it's RATIONAL and true. Certain behaviors, even though you might label them IMMORAL, are evolutionary advantageous and therefore get passed on. My previous post was flagged because I was trying to 'rationalize' a behavior of this type, but i'll leave that out and just keep in the principle.

 

 

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

Exploitation isn't passed on in genes anyway. Exploitation is a weakness. And while you might disagree, I think it benefits society for men to be strong, not weak. You are free to disagree of course.

 

What logik there. First of all, exploitation isn't passed on in genes--attractions are. But you keep putting a value judgment and labeling a certain action as expliotation, which is fine. BUT, it's obviously not a weakness because weaknesses don't survive with natrual selection, they eventually get weeded out over time. As for being free to disagree, i'll choose the option to be RIGHT--because what I say, I back up with logik, evidence, science--not some psudeo value judging emotionally impulsive reaction.

 

Originally Posted by Jersey Shortie

But to play even further devil's advocate.

 

This isn't about playing devil's advocate, it's about not making yourself look foolish simply to avoid saying someone else is right. It's about educating people on how things work on those levels they never knew existed. It's only nice to play devil's advocate if it can be done in an intelligent manner.....

[Jersey Shortie]

Please don't ever get married.

[silverfish]

Or have daughters...

[Paragon]

Please don't ever get married.

 

It's funny how you want to implicitly defame my character and say how I shouldn't get married, and fail to address ANY of the things I said in my post. And what's funny is, the content in my above post, has everything to do with FACT and not personal opinion or viewpoint. You CAN'T say anything to what I said because you're stuck, because your--uhm, WRONG, so you try to pull out some 'clever' one liner, which is a red herring and a smokescreen meant to cover up the fact that you have nothing left to say because again--you're wrong.

 

As for not getting married--i'm sure someone would beg to differ.

[Paragon]

Or have daughters...

 

Thanks for the intellectual stimulation

[clv0116]

.... what's funny is, the content in my above post, has everything to do with FACT and not personal opinion or viewpoint. You CAN'T say anything to what I said because you're stuck, because your--uhm, WRONG, ....

 

It's easier to 'win' an argument if the other side is wrong.

[EnigmasMuse]

Maybe the ones who don't care for porn stick together, the ones who like porn stick together and the ones who like really young looking girl porn stick together. Therefore no one really understands the others point of view, who knows for sure.

[silverfish]

Maybe the ones who don't care for porn stick together, the ones who like porn stick together and the ones who like really young looking girl porn stick together. Therefore no one really understands the others point of view, who knows for sure.

 

That's the thing, at the end of the day it's the Op's choice whether she sticks with a guy who likes 'really young girl looking porn'.

 

Paragon, let me ask you a question, you can intellectualise this argument all you want, but how would you feel if you & your wife broke up & you had a daughter, say, 13 yrs old, and your ex wife's new b/f was googling 'naked schoolgirls' or something like that...?

[Paragon]

Paragon, let me ask you a question, you can intellectualise this argument all you want, but how would you feel if you & your wife broke up & you had a daughter, say, 13 yrs old, and your ex wife's new b/f was googling 'naked schoolgirls' or something like that...?

 

First of all it's not intellectualizing anything--it's viewing the world through an objective lens not letting personal emotion impulsive judgments get in the way. If i'm going to have an opinion or judgment, I want to be able to back it up and understand why I have it before I just stick some kind of value judgment label on it.

 

As for your question, what do you mean how would I feel? It's none of my business what he googles in his spare time, I don't judge someone by what kind of porn they watch (or look for). I'd feel nothing.

 

If on the other hand he was asking my daughter to pose for him in a schoolgirl outfit so he could take pictures, you'd have a different story on your hands, for different reasons.

 

I'm not sure why this matters...

[silverfish]

First of all it's not intellectualizing anything--it's viewing the world through an objective lens not letting personal emotion impulsive judgments get in the way. If i'm going to have an opinion or judgment, I want to be able to back it up and understand why I have it before I just stick some kind of value judgment label on it.

 

As for your question, what do you mean how would I feel? It's none of my business what he googles in his spare time, I don't judge someone by what kind of porn they watch (or look for). I'd feel nothing.

 

If on the other hand he was asking my daughter to pose for him in a schoolgirl outfit so he could take pictures, you'd have a different story on your hands, for different reasons.

 

I'm not sure why this matters...

 

It matters because this is all about how the OP feels. It's also about some of us tying to explain how we'd feel in her situation. If she doesn't feel comfortable about it, no intellectualising is going to change her mind about it.

 

And the part in bold? I don't think you'd find many men who would be ok with that and 'feel nothing'. Although I understand where you are coming from with the 'don't jump to conclusions' argument, in a relationship don't have to justify your feelings with logic, so if I don't like men with ginger hair I don't have to go out with them

 

When things like this problem come up, you listen to your gut, you ask friends, you come and post on here..but ultimately you decide how you feel about the situation. A relationship is not a court of law, where evidence and defence arguments get taken into account. It's about whether she is happy with him given his behaviour.

 

Personally speaking, I wouldn't be happy in a relationship with someone who hides so much, or looks for that kind of stuff on the internet. I know my ex would be pretty F ed off if I had a b/f who looked at underage porn, and might try and get custody of my children because of it.

[Paragon]

It matters because this is all about how the OP feels. It's also about some of us tying to explain how we'd feel in her situation. If she doesn't feel comfortable about it, no intellectualising is going to change her mind about it.

 

Well first of all, the OP isn't divorced, doesn't have children, and her romantic partner's new partner doesn't google young naked girls. So the two situations are actually in no way similiar......

 

Secondly, do you realize the weight behind your claim (the second bold part)? The principle behind what you're saying essentially 'debunks' ANY kind of cognitive-centered counseling/therapy. Reframing, understanding, and looking logically instead of emotionally about topics is a basic tenet in CBT. You just shot that to hell on an opinion--are you SURE you want to stick with that? You're throwing around the word intellectuallizing like it's some sort of withcraft, almost like you're OPPOSED to understanding the world on a deeper level. That's what more often than not helps people move on, over, or through situations like this. Any kind of step in a positive direction always begins with understanding.

 

I don't think you'd find many men who would be ok with that and 'feel nothing'. Although I understand where you are coming from with the 'don't jump to conclusions' argument, in a relationship don't have to justify your feelings with logic, so if I don't like men with ginger hair I don't have to go out with them

 

You're correct--you don't have to justify you're feelings with logik. And I think you'd agree to the fact before you get into a relationship, you should know yourself inside and out, and knowing yourself INCLUDES knowing your feelings about certain topics/subject/values, etc, and most importantly WHERE these feelings come from and WHY you feel that way. I assume you wouldn't want to have limiting feelings and beliefs and simply accept them because they are your feelings--I assume you'd want to explore them and know why you have them so you can discuss them with your partner. After all, disagreements will arise and i'm sure you'd want to be able to COMMUNICATE about your feelings instead of just close-mindedly saying, "Well it's just how I feel."

 

And you see, that's the problem with most people--the large majority of their opinions, judgments, beliefs, convictions, and feelings come from social conditioning and when push comes to shove, they can't defend them. THAT'S why in the beginning of this thread, you see numerous people bob and weave their song and dance on their reasons as to WHY they think this is creepy--because they can't logically articulate why they feel that way, and say it's just a feeling. Do you know WHY they can't articulate why they feel that way? Because they don't know where their feelings and values come from, but I can tell you where they come from--social conditioning.

 

You're RIGHT when you say you don't HAVE to justify your feelings in a relationship, but that only results in a relationship where you don't communicate on deep intimate levels. Communicating on those deep levels involves discussions about feelings, and how deep can you get when all you can say is--hey, I have 'em, but I don't know why.

 

When things like this problem come up, you listen to your gut, you ask friends, you come and post on here..but ultimately you decide how you feel about the situation. A relationship is not a court of law, where evidence and defence arguments get taken into account. It's about whether she is happy with him given his behaviour.

 

And if she's not, can we help get her to a place where she can work THROUGH it instead of just simply DISCARDING a 6 year relationship because of feeling 'creeped out'.......

[Jersey Shortie]

It's funny how you want to implicitly defame my character and say how I shouldn't get married, and fail to address ANY of the things I said in my post.

 

I just asked you not to get married. And agree with Silver about not having kids.

 

Really Paragon, there is no point in addressing your points. You don't want a discussion. You want to lecture. I simply don't agree with you and think you twist things to suit your own purpose.

 

And what's funny is, the content in my above post, has everything to do with FACT and not personal opinion or viewpoint.

 

Your "facts" are twisted to support your personal opinion.

 

 

As for not getting married--i'm sure someone would beg to differ.

 

Hey I am sure you will get married.

 

But any women in her right mind has 100% logical right to be concerned about any grown man that has an unhealthy attraction to underage girls. No woman should have to settle for such a man. It's that simple. Better 6 years of here life wasted on such a man then 7. There is nothing to work through. Men that are attracted to underage girls rarely change. And she has every right to be concered about what that means for the future with him.

[ohboy101]

MY TAKE . . . UNDER 18 = ILLEGAL

 

HOWEVER, natural attraction is 14 yr plus. any guy is lying if they disagree. just walk down the mall and look at the guys staring.

 

although it is natural, your bf may want to stoip looking online. that is a slippery slop . . .

[Jersey Shortie]

This thread is a good warning to be extra careful around the kind of men you meet and what their prolicitivies are. And that there are good men out there that aren't attracted to children and those are the kind of men to be with.

[Paragon]

I just asked you not to get married. And agree with Silver about not having kids.

 

Really Paragon, there is no point in addressing your points. You don't want a discussion. You want to lecture. I simply don't agree with you and think you twist things to suit your own purpose.

 

Yea, your darn right you THINK that, but when it comes down to it, you can't pin point ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where i've 'twisted' facts to suit my own purpose. Show me where my facts are wrong. I mean, after all, you obviously have the time and took the effort to write this meaningless post, so go back and address the numerous posts filled with logics and facts that I responded to your posts with and show me where I do this.

 

As for not having kids and a family--LOL, I guess my success and happiness is at night when I see them in my sleep? Or wait, could that be my real life? Well, either or, it's a forum and my claims wouldn't mean anything to you because, Hey, i'd just be twisting the facts, right?

 

Watch this......

 

But any women in her right mind has 100% logical right to be concerned about any grown man that has an unhealthy attraction to underage girls.

 

At what age does the attraction become UNhealthy? If you say 16, what about 16 and a half? 16 and 3/4? Where? Tell me...and then tell me WHY it's unhealthy...

 

No woman should have to settle for such a man. It's that simple.

 

She didn't settle--she CHOSE.

 

Better 6 years of here life wasted on such a man then 7.

 

You're saying she WASTED 6 years of her life on a man she loves and CHOSE to stay with that long? What a judgment based off of a few words some poster had to say on a forum, don't you think? I feel it's wise to reserve judgment on someone else's relationship, especially feeding their head with ideas of how they've WASTED six years of their life with someone they love. Now you tell me, how in the HELL were you being constructive there?

 

There is nothing to work through.

 

You are again for the second time PRESUMING you know what her heart's desires are. You never asked if she loved him enough to want to work through it.

 

Men that are attracted to underage girls rarely change.

 

What's your experience working with men who are attracted to underage girls? Do you understand their attractions? What is the rate of change for men like this? You can't answer any of these questions because it's all your lay opinion.......

 

And she has every right to be concered about what that means for the future with him.

 

Agreed. Communication can solve that.

 

Your paragraphs are LOADED with stuff like this, and it's DANGEROUS for you to just sit here and say stuff like this, because I assume you do because I think you think people listen to you, right? If they do, why would you want to say things like this when there very harmful, as I pointed out above?

[Paragon]

This thread is a good warning to be extra careful around the kind of men you meet and what their prolicitivies are. And that there are good men out there that aren't attracted to children and those are the kind of men to be with.

 

And praytell, how would you go about screening those men? You REALLY think ANY man is going to tell you he's attracted to girls you consider 'too young?' How do you suggest avoiding choosing these men?

[Jersey Shortie]

You're saying she WASTED 6 years of her life on a man she loves and CHOSE to stay with that long? What a judgment based off of a few words some poster had to say on a forum, don't you think? I feel it's wise to reserve judgment on someone else's relationship, especially feeding their head with ideas of how they've WASTED six years of their life with someone they love. Now you tell me, how in the HELL were you being constructive there?

 

I think the OP naturally is questioning what kind of person this man is. As she has a right to. If she comes to the conclusion that she is not happy in her situation with him, it's better to have only wasted 6 years instead of 7. Unlike you, I think the OP is an able minded adult that even though getse advice from the people here, can ultimately make her own choice and doesnt' need to be thought of so small minded that any comment is "feeding her head" with anything.

 

Paragon, as for how you would know..you can clearly tell alot about a man by watching him, noticing what looks at, noticing what he comments on, noticing what he stands up for.