What aged girls do you like?

I don't know, this is an interesting topic and goddamn elf punk's gone and made me think and I hate doin' that. I understand both sides of the issue. I understand why people are against it and why people like it. In most cultures over time womanhood WAS puberty and many, many an older man married very young women. Some of the greatest and most celebrated minds did, from Ovid to Poe. The one thing that really does piss me is when people are prosecuted for looking rather than doing. It's almost like a thought police: because you look at pics of young girls you are equated with **** molesters. I don't know. It's a fucked up world and the USA is a fucked up country with bible-beating hypocrites. Oh well. That's my two cents anyway...

it is sad that this topic or thread is so long, because the way i see it maybe only in part is a bunch of guys trying to clear their concienses or ease their guilt of looking at the girls on teenfuns. I suppose it is quite nice that you're all backing each other up and saying it's ok. But what i mean is that it's sad that in todays society we feel we have to explain ourselves or justify what we are doing looking at beautiful teenage girls.

lazuro wrote:

lazuro...
pretty lofty judgemental shit there bro...
first, i will say that i agree that it is an incredible shame that we might feel any need to explain ourselves to ourselves, to each other, to the world...
where i disagree is in the condescending spin you put on it that really kinda leaves me wondering if you even really read any of the shit we've been writing...
it's not a big session of guys blowing smoke up each others' asses...
it's more a really fucking killer, interesting, sociological psychological discussion about these issues that are obviously issues dear and sesnitive to us...
so is it wrong that perhaps this brings a sense of cohesion and solidarity of the minds? fuck no... it's not like we're starting a fucking twelve-step program... just having some pretty damn stimulating correspondence...
i fart on you.

i was only saying that from reading this thread and many others on this site a lot of people seem to be battling with guilt of looking at these girls, and trying to look for justification. whatever else yo uread into is up to you,
maybe you think to deeply sometimes. and no that isnt an insult either

i do not think my opinion is a wad of crap at all, (as you have said in another thread) it was my observation that a lot of people were trying to ease their consiensce for looking at young teen girls.
i dont know why that offended you so much. it was my opinion, i would never say somebodies opinion was a 'wad of crap' unless they said something like black people are made of poo.

i think this thread is interesting and intalectually stimulating, in the same way as it is to read peoples well thought out opinions on any subject, but at the same time i really dont think so many people would be posting here if they werent basically trying to explain themselves to themselves. and they wouldnt have to do that if numb minded society never made them feel wrong.

my simplistic view is we all like a variety of girls including jailbait type girls, but (probly with a few exceptions from what i have seen) we dont want to fuck K I D S.

there i am trying to justify myself, just like all of you, now is that a wad of crap?

lazuro wrote:
lazuro... dude...
i am not going to say too much more about this, as i feel it's turning into a circular conversation...
all i can say is that i think it is a good, positive thing that we are talking about this stuff whether you see it as nothing but a bunch of intellectual masterbation or whatever...
the problem with our society is that it tries to keep this shit in the dark, and in the dark is where things fester, germinate, pervert and become dangerous (sorry if i am being redundant)...
this dailogue keeps it in the light...
and the initial "opinion" you posted was a "holier than thou" belittling of this... call it "expressing your opinion" if you like, i call it being a judgemental prick -- knocking it down then double-backing and calling it stimulating...
i don't fucking get it dude...
i have never had a problem with you on this forum before... i have always enjoyed your posts, but you seem to be in this finger-pointing trend lately that is really fucking annoying and i think you need to examine that as much as we are examining ourselves in this thread...
peace dude...
i do hope not to be at odds with you because as i said... i like ya... annoyed by some of your recent posts but like ya none-the-less...
eros the elf punk

lazuro wrote:

That line had me laughing at loud. Great line...

I think you've just come up with a new superhero.

"Coming this spring, to a theatre near you...'The Man of Poo':He'll clog your toilet, but he'll unclog your heart. Starring Denzel Washington as PooMan, Jamie Fox as DiarrheaBoy, and Chris Tucker as Skitters."

ha ha, glad you liked it t bone, i was just trying to point out how ridiculous it is to outrite say somebodies opinion is a 'wad of crap' like that.

what did the black man say when he got diorhea?

I'm melting.

oh, just read your last post elf punk

1 i never said anything or slightly implied anything about intelectual masterbation. dont know where you got that
2 i never pointed any of my fingers at you
3 i never doubled back.
4 i never thought i was holier than thou, you decided that i did.

i dont give a flying fuck if i annoy you, ill give my opinions however i like.


you take yourself very seriously

lazuro wrote:

Guilt, no. I just think it would be nice if the teeny boppers on MTV could legitimately start porn careers without being looked down upon.

lazuro wrote:

innumerating!! excellent!!!
makes it so much easier for me to break down your wad of crap...
The subjects addressed in the following innumerated points will reflect the subjects of the corresponding points above...

1.) the "mental masterbation" remark was my own. i never said that these were your own words. your first point has no real weight as it is little more than an attempt to say that i said something that i never said at all. are you Republican?
I know it may not ALWAYS reflect in my stream-of-consciousness, little proofed posts, but you can trust that i have enough command of the english language and journalistic protocol that if i want to say you said something you will find any such referenced statement in quotation marks (e.g."i dont give a flying fuck if i annoy you, ill give my opinions however i like.")
THe intellectual masterbation phrase was applied as a means of expressing my impression of what you were implying about myself and the other posters in this thread. How did i get that impression? well, let's take a look, shall we? (and at the same time examine what an example of what my quoting you would look like)...

lazuro:
"it is sad that this topic or thread is so long... a bunch of guys trying to clear their concienses or ease their guilt ... I suppose it is quite nice that you're all backing each other up and saying it's ok."

Now you read those words and tell me it doesn't sound like you're describing a fucking circle-jerk session. The intellectual masterbation term was used to to illustrate how you were coming across, not a regurgitation of anything you actually typed...
2.) you never pointed any fingers at me? hm... ok, well, i guess you did not come out and say, "hey elf_punk, all the good shit you are trying to accomlish with the communication on this thread seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to hide your shame..." but everything you said did imply that each person on this thread -- members who have gone above and beyond the implied purpose of this forum in an attempt to communicate with each other -- was in your precious opinion just somehow not as together and comfortable with their sexuality as you are... a bunch of spineless guilt-ridden saps. Now before you go and say, "i never said that!" I will first tell you you're right, you didn't SAY that. I am trying to get it into your THICK FUCKING SKULL that when you come up on a board and say things like, "this is sad..." you might as well be saying, "you guys are sad.."
Now here is where we get to the meat of my beef with you on this. You come up and talk about how we are only writing what we are writing because we are so pathetically lost in a quagmire of guilt (which you are manifestly untouched by); and you say things that i agree with, such as , "it's sad that in todays society we feel we have to explain ourselves or justify what we are doing looking at beautiful teenage girls" but you use it to stand above the rest of us -- rather than RELATE to us -- giving that same holier than thou impression with what strikes me as a pretty condescending and patronizing tone and choice of words.
All the while you remain completely unaware of the hypocricy of your remarks. WOuld you like me to point out your hypocricy? I'm sure you would since you are obviously so keen on the hypocricy of our culture (and i don't disagree with you there):
There are so many hypocricies in your posts, but at the heart this topic is the following:
You want to sound above the rest of the people here -- no matter how much more articulately they might express themselves than you -- rather than engage and relate, because YOU DO NOT WANT TO RELATE... you do not want to actually fully own up to your OWN insecurities about your sexual interest in younger girls by coming "down" to our level; well despite your -- yes -- wad of CRAP responses here lazuro, i still invite you to step UP a bit and start RELATING instead of BELITTLING, unless you are just determined to fool yourself into thinking that you are HIGHER.
What is sad is that part of you KNOWS there is NO NEED for this. You have expressed that it is sad that our culture cannot just bring this matter to the light and accept it and deal with it creatively and proactively. (oops, you never SAID that either, but this time I am writing something POSITIVE that you inferred, so you see, it does work both ways).
Regardless, you clearly are still conditioned to believe that eros and psyche are absolutely incapable of occupying the same space. In our culture, sex is this separate part of our nature from the rest of us, a part we indulge in from time to time, but mostly feel really ashamed of in general (to say nothing of the topic of this forum)... this is evident in your automatic assumption that there just HAS to be an ulterior motive to the diaologue, that it cannot possibly be that in a forum brimming with hot teen erotica there might be some guys who really do FUCKING THRIVE on this kind of discussion.
To you it can only be that this is just a pitiful attempt by a bunch of guilt-riddled lonely masterbators to buck themselves up and feel good about something society frowns upon... herego the "intellectual masterbation" phrase I applied (quoting myself there, not you, so don't worry); a self-serving remedy for hidden self-loathing...
Now let me go ahead and say you are right about one major point (just wrong in your negative SPIN on it)... YES, a lot of this IS UNDENIABLY about explaining ourselves TO ourselves, and to each other, but you say it as though this is a bad thing.
"KNOW THY SELF" was once considered the NOBLEST of philosophical pursuits. And here you call it "sad"...
THAT my friend is SAD...
In summary, yes, lazaro, as one of the main contributors to this dialogue -- the dialogue you have treated as nothing more than a guilt-salve -- you did point your finger at me and -- in essence, by INFERENCE not literal statement -- you pointed at me and charged me with being some kind of spineless victim of the sexual mores of our world and an object of pity.
Disgusting.
Especially knowing how very far this is from the truth; something I am sure most people who have read my stuff would probably agree with, and which the people who know me intimately in my non-cyber-reality certainly would.
3. You never double-backed? Well on one hand you dismiss this dialogue as being nothing more than "a lot of people ... trying to ease their consiensce for looking at young teen girls." then you come back and say, "i think this thread is interesting and intalectually stimulating". OK well.... maybe you weren't doubling back after all. I mean, if you were saying that you thought the dialogue was in fact of valuable intellectual merit and not just a pity party, then yeah, you would then be doubling back. But if you meant that it is "interesting" and "stimulating" in the same way that studying the breeding habits of bonobo chimps might be considered interesting, as if we were little more than a scientific specimen to you, well then that would not be doubling back at all and would be very much in keeping with the rest of the condescending tone of your responses thus far. My apologies, as I was probably mistaken on the doubling-back thing.
4.) first, please reference my response to #1. I never said that YOU SAID you were holier than thou. I mean, I know you aren't all that bright, but it would be pretty damn silly of you to come up and outright say, "I'm holier than thou!" wouldn't it? And it follows that I would be pretty damn silly to accuse you of saying that since you clearly did not. What I am communicating here is that you COME ACROSS AS THINKING YOU ARE HOLIER-THAN-THOU; YOU GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF THIS KIND OF ARROGANCE.
Now, I am an arrogant FUCK... I will be the first to admit it. But I am only arrogant in matters where I feel I have earned a little respect and fucking damn well expect to get it. YOU however, have done absolutely nothing on this forum or in this dialogue to demand respect, yet you seem to think your prescious, half-baked "opinions" and assessments of your peers' psychology automatically merit it.
NOW...
And lastly...
Yes, I do take myself too seriously sometimes (in reference to your closing, non-numerated point).
More accurately, I take these ideas and this subject VERY seriously.
The consequences of NOT discussing this topic for so long in our culture have resulted both in girls being molested and men being unfairly incarcerated. SO yeah, I feel it is a topic worthy of discussion and i am gonna discuss it with passion and vivacity. I am also gonna rip a new asshole for anyone that prances in with self-inflated, over-simplified reductions of my intentions in doing so.
And contrary to your belief, I have no such guilt, only magma-hot disdain for the cultural paradigms that have led us to this precarious brink in our socio-sexual well-being.
For myself, I am an anomoly in our society; literally unscathed by most of the issues that face most people, do to a fortunately unique upbringing. I take great pride in who I am and the things I have survived to get to where I am as a person and the many experiences i have had that have helped to form the thoughts I take great care in sharing on here.
So yes, when an intellectual pussy like you comes along with sweeping generalizations and over-simplified assessments of my htoughts and intentions, yeah, I am gonna be that kid at the beach whose sandcastle you just stepped on, and yeah, I am gonna beat the shit out of you (figuratively speaking) if you don't at least have the courtesy to say sorry (instead of "i dont give a flying fuck if i annoy you").
If that is what you mean in telling me that I take myself too seriously, then yes you are correct.
Ironically, (or should we say, hypocritically) you boldly accuse me of taking myself too seriously (shortly after saying you never pointed fingers at me) and just don't seem to see how you do the same.
If you try to claim that all that you have written here is not written out of defensiveness and self-righteousness then you're even more of a self-deluded hypocrite than I've recently begun to suspect.
NOW...
If you STILL want to take me on here, by all means, bring it the fuck on.
But I will have to wait until later to address whatever you think you have to say because I'm going out now.
Its fucking Saturday night.

T-Bone wrote:

you rock T...
Thanx man.
Glad i can make you uncomfortably thoughtful.

Super Pornicator wrote:

HERE!! HERE!!
You reminded me of an essay I wrote a couple years ago.
Here is the text of it if you're interested:

PORNOGRAPHY

There is no stigma about exposing yourself to the world… if what you expose to the world is a part of you which is truly the most vulnerable, personal, and private part of you. You can expose your mind to the world, or your heart, your guts, your pains, your dreams, your weaknesses, your strengths, and call it art. You can even expose nothing personal. As long as what you create engages an audience in some way, using some amount of creativity, fulfilling some purpose either profound or whimsical, you have officially created art. It might be “bad” art, or “unrefined” art, but it is art. The most refined, timeless, and classic works of art are the ones that speak to the humanity of us all, the viewing of which moves us to say, “I am not alone,” or simply opens our eyes to an aspect of humanity we had heretofore been ignorant of (the value judgement of whether or not it is something to delight in is irrelevant, e.g., neo-nazi subcultures in modern urban life as seen in “American History X,” is not something most of us would delight in).

Oddly enough, however, the exposing of our private, personal, and often beautiful bodies, the exposing of our very sexuality, is not considered an art at all. Quite the contrary, it is even considered the antithesis of art, with no real objective analysis as to why. Nonetheless, those who engage in the creation of pornography face ridicule, ostracism, and the likelihood of being shunned from work in other “mainstream” areas of the medium in which they work, such as acting, directing, photography, or modeling. The only form of physical exposure that is not viewed in this manner is that which is not made in a "sexual context with the intent to arouse.”

But whether one is of the puritanical, morally totalitarian idea that sexual arousal is "evil" or not, what we call "pornography", I contend, is in fact art.

But to really understand why I say this, let's first look at what art is…

Art is the manipulation of a medium - whether that medium be acrylic paints, spray paints, marble, sand, scrap aluminum, the written word, sound, or … the human body - for the purpose of creating something that was not there before… something that elicits in the observer one or more of a range of feelings, thoughts, and/or sensations. The quality of the art is measured by the skills of the person/s involved in its conception. And in just about every art form there are many more unskilled artists than there are masters. This doesn’t illegitimatize the entire art form in question... Ed Wood was a filmmaker, an artist. He just wasn’t a very good one. Film is still art.

Looking at this objectively, we would have to say that, thus far, what we call pornography is indeed an art. It reflects a common aspect of our humanity, our sexuality. In many cases it opens our eyes to different aspects of humanity we had heretofore not been aware of (the value judgement of whether this is something to delight in or not is irrelevant; e.g., sex among the morbidly obese is not something most of us would delight in, but it exists and can be found on display in certain porn publications). Again, it thus far fits the most central criteria of our common understanding of what art is. So what is at the heart of the demonization of "pornography"?

The problem most people have with pornography is the very fact that it does reflect our sexuality as a part of our humanity. It is perhaps the most engrained and deeply rooted aspect of our humanity. And most of the people in our post-puritanical society desire to forget this (until they have a chance to get some “action” themselves). Most of the people who feel a need to abolish pornography are of the completely dumbfounding belief that the provoking of sexual responses is somehow evil in and of itself, regardless of the context. There is a reason for this. It is the same reason as what lay at the heart of most of our society’s dysfunctions and schitzophrenias. We have, for most of our "civilized" history been abjectly fearful and disdainful of the "animal". We have created religions, cults, dogmas, etc., which rebel constantly against the animal world. By animal world I refer not merely to creatures great and small. No, here animal is more of an archetype, a word representing all that is not of human creation, from the internal drives we experience that we do not consciously create to the forces of the natural world.

Religions, and even science (despite the very unscientific basis of such an attempt), have been used to “rise above” and “conquer” the animal, to "transcend" it. Even today, we commonly see it as somehow separate from things spiritual, intellectual, even emotional, even among the most liberal and progressive thinkers. But animal and spirit are one. By trying to sever ourselves from our animal aspects, we’re like a tree branch trying to sever itself from the trunk. Should we succeed we will suffer the same fate as such a branch would.

A healthier take on it is this: The animal is the meat of that trunk. The spirit is the sap flowing within it. And the leaves are art, our every act as co-creators in the universe. So really, what good could ever come of trying to sever ourselves from the animal?

The irrational fear of the animal is most commonly and most easily seen in the more "right-wing conservatives" of our society, but it is seen in some cross-sections of the more "left wing liberals" of our society, as well, oddly enough, serving as evidence of just how deeply these cultural myth-conceptions are rooted. While to the “right winger” pornography is wrong simply on grounds of anything sexual being “immoral” unless it is monogamous sex between a married man and married woman (missionary style preferably), to the liberal it is “wrong” because it “objectifies” women or other much more noble though equally ill-conceived ideals regarding social ethics. Being that I have little more to say in regard to the conservative take, I will now address the view of the liberal anti-porn petitioner.

The liberal-minded take on the anti-porn issue states essentially that porn is demeaning to women. Why is it demeaning? It is demeaning because it holds them in a view where they are seen merely as sexual objects. And here we come, first, to an example of how our fear of the sexual is engrained in us all... as well as being an example of a double standard. First, it should be made clear that women are not the only ones seen sexually in porn. There is plenty of gay porn out there, as well as porn wherein the women use men as mere toys. But that is beside the point. The blinders with which certain feminists view this topic is understandable, since for most of western history women were allowed no other liberties than those that allowed them to serve their household male figures. However, those times have changed and are continuing to change. And while their desire to defend their liberty and solidarity is one I whole-heartedly defend myself, I have to say that it is irrelevant in the context of pornography. Here the liberal is so fearful of being seen as nothing more than a sexual object that he/she yearns to abolish the viewing of people (women rather) as sexual objects in any context. This is spotlights a bit of hypocricy on their part, for when it comes to defending gay rights, they will defend the rights of gay men to establish bath-houses, well-managed areas of nothing but purely sexual encounters (porn without the lights and cameras), and they are right in doing so. But they will defend this over porn merely because in that instance there is a clearly defined minority to defend. Fundamentally speaking though, there is no ethical difference between bath houses (a.k.a. “meat houses”) and pornography.

What the liberal is overlooking is the simple context of "pornography.” In porn we have a context wherein the audience is engaging in a momentary experience of the animal sexuality of the “subject” (subject being the man/men/woman/women depicted in the work) that he/she is observing. And the artists of what he/she is observing – actors, actresses. models, writers, cinematographers, photographers, etc. – are engaging in a momentary experience of evoking and embodying sexuality. It is an intentional exchange between a consenting audience and consenting artists. Porn also employs an artistic device known as “suspension of disbelief,” in order to take its audience out of the context of common reality, and into a fantasy realm where many things become possible, then back again when the end credits roll.

Granted, there will always be those dull-minded individuals who won’t make that return trip; who will then go out into the world and attempt to force their imaginary experience on someone else’s actual experience. But we see this in response to everything from Bugs Bunny cartoons to Superman movies, to Dungeons & Dragons, to modern video games and horror flicks. So I doubt we want to abolish porn because of the impressionable minds of a mentally inept few, lest we find ourselves supporting First Amendment-threatening efforts already being spear-headed by our more conservative councils.

So the question remains, does porn demean women? Certainly there are some hardcore pieces where women are depicted as mere playthings, just as there are many mainstream films that do the same. The fact is, though, the individual women involved are generally making these films because they genuinely want to. I know, I know, we still have a hard time with the concept that women can or should be as sexually assertive as men, but it is true, and especially with women in porn. Where women have been observed to regret their involvement in the industry is less a matter of the actual industry than of the social stigma placed on them because of it. They might say, “porn ruined my life,” but it wasn’t in fact porn that did it so much as the fact that after doing porn, they could not get work in any other area of the industry, or perhaps they were shunned by friends/family for doing so, judged and denounced by people they love and admire for something that should be no more disdainful than a night of bar-hopping or other accepted acts of decadence. And yes, there have been those who went into porn 100% willingly, but eventually found themselves trapped. But what traps them? Is it really porn, in and of itself? Or is it our illogical social stigmas attached to porn that thereafter bar them from doing much of anything else? Would they feel regretfully trapped in porn if pornography were seen for the legitimate art form that it is, and if those involved in its production were not shunned but could easily migrate from porn to comedy or drama if their talents accommodate?

And finally, there are the artistic elitists who feel that porn should not be considered an art form because it “doesn’t take much” to “just be naked” or to “just spread your legs” or to moan. First, we find here another double-standard. In mainstream art there are many “masterpieces” that sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions in auction houses around the world. These can range from works by Picasso to a canvas painted blue with a red dot just off center. Art form doesn’t always demand a tremendous amount of skill, but is occasionally more a matter of composition. A photograph of an every day boy on an every day street could be seen as art even though there are millions of boys just like him ready for the eye to view all around the nation. So what are the logical grounds for why an average guy and an average girl engaged in ever day, passionate, raw, animal sex can not be considered art? Additionally, it is ludicrous to say that “it doesn’t take much” to be sexual in front of the camera. Anyone who says so has either never seen bad porno or has only ever seen bad porno. Likewise, anyone who makes this statement has obviously never tried it. I’ve seen plenty and done it, and I guarantee that if any of these judgemental elitists were ever to try it, they would certainly see how difficult it is to look into a camera in a way that would convince someone on the other side of that camera's eye of his or her sexual pulse. Can anyone really think that it would be “easy” to sit naked on a set with a camera, boom-mics, lights, cables, and a half-dozen man crew all watching you, and convince the eyes on the other side of that camera that you are actually home alone, waiting for your lover? I have seen many porn films where there are people with beautiful lusty bodies, but who would make you laugh before making you want to experience their sexuality due to their lacking in the skills needed to pull this off successfully. After all, porn, as a genre, may be an art, but that doesn’t mean every example is good art.

So, objectively speaking, putting our irrational fear of the animal aside, it seems clear to me that "pornography" is indeed, an art form, regardless of anyone else's lack of objectivity on the matter, and regardless of anyone else's taste for sexual arousal. After all, one of the interesting things about art is that it is does not always depict feelings we commonly enjoy. How often have we seen a film or read a book that stirs anger or even hatred? Or sorrow? Or fear? We don't seek to feel these things commonly. And many people avoid any works of art that elicit such responses. Many guys don't go to tear-jerkers because they are "above" tears. Many people do fear fear itself and consequently do not go to horror movies. So I would have to say that if you feel "above" sexual arousal or have a fear of it, simply stay clear of any work or works whose purpose is to evoke such a response.

But do not say it is not art.

Text overload.


Show more boobs.

jejejeje wrote:

lol... well... like i said jejejeje... i get my kicks above AND below the waist... but that's just me and i put it out there only for the three or four people on this forum who are interested...
s'ok if ur not...
here are some boobs for you: