Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

northdallas1968 · 2006-03-20 21:38:35

She looks soooo young. She is so cute but I feel like such the old pervert watching her and that after smile was just precious??? Oh I feel like an old letch! Laugh!

DocDarkside · 2006-03-21 06:42:44

Yep. You're the only one. <g>

Nowaysis · 2006-03-21 09:11:39

I'm only 23 (soon), and I can agree, or at least understand, that there was a certain hint of Lolita appeal about her. That said, I don't feel like an old perv at all, since it's all voluntary here.

hillysim · 2006-03-21 13:28:12

all the girls are young and beutiful and I certainly appreciate them, but where are the 40+ milfs, totally wild,wanon and uninhibited.

elfman11 · 2006-03-21 13:39:24

northdallas1968 wrote:

She looks soooo young. She is so cute but I feel like such the old pervert watching her and that after smile was just precious??? Oh I feel like an old letch! Laugh!

I know how you feel northdallas. Many of us here are of fairly mature years and slightly higher on the food chain than you'll find on may of the mainstream "adult" sites and the occassional twinge of "I'm a disgusting old letch and should be locked up for the goood of society" is therefore only to be expected. All of the girls are 18+ though and a little fantasy is good for us so long as we keep it in perspective. I also find with many of the younger looking agonees that their cuteness and an obvious joy in their own sexuality can transcend any "baseness" (for want of a better word) and become a thing of purity and beauty. This after all is one of the main objectives of this site. #0388 is a perfect example of this.

Elfman.

Nowaysis · 2006-03-21 14:25:05

hillysim wrote:

all the girls are young and beutiful and I certainly appreciate them, but where are the 40+ milfs, totally wild,wanon and uninhibited.

[prejudice]They haven't learned how to use the Internet yet. [/prejudice]

erdna · 2006-03-22 06:06:44

Nobody should feel guilty at all about watching agony of girls who are all over 18 anyway. At that age they have already a sexual life for many years and they are not so naive at all. Also for sure they get their satisfaction from their agony and the mental pleasure since they know the world can see their video. We too are part their satisfaction. I wonder who needs most the other, them or us?

elfman11 · 2006-03-22 12:09:12

erdna wrote:

I wonder who needs most the other, them or us?

That would be us erdna. That most definatley would be us.

Elfman.

Garybobs · 2006-03-23 07:54:02

NorthDallas:

I'm slightly older than you and I can surely understand how you feel. It was for the same reason that I avoided downloading this submission altogether. Just felt too uncomfortable to me and she does look really young.

I always wonder how really sure the site administrators can be about the age of the models. I mean, people can get fake ID's fairly easily these days. She looks closer to 16 to me but then I'm no expert on assessing age. That said, I just avoid downloading the ones that make me wonder.

Last edited by Garybobs (2006-03-23 07:55:03)

elfman11 · 2006-03-23 13:08:09

Garybobs wrote:

I always wonder how really sure the site administrators can be about the age of the models. I mean, people can get fake ID's fairly easily these days. She looks closer to 16 to me but then I'm no expert on assessing age. That said, I just avoid downloading the ones that make me wonder.

This is an interesting one and raises all sorts of moral and legal implications. First I am sure that the site administrators do everything humanly and legally required to ensure that all the subjects are 18+. They have too much to lose if they didnt. Secondly as the subjects apply to be included on this site and, as far as I know, are not paid for their submissions if they are accepted, could the site be legally or morally accountable if an under 18 did manage to slip through the net? Thirdly, as I said earlier in this string:

"I also find with many of the younger looking agonees that their cuteness and an obvious joy in their own sexuality can transcend any "baseness" (for want of a better word) and become a thing of purity and beauty".

In no way do I condone paedophilia, and have we not all at some time seen an attractive adolescent girl and thought Shes pretty without feeling any desire to have sex with her? I guess it all depends on how each of us sees these things. Can we appreciate and celebrate beauty for its own sake without descending to baseness? Honi Soir Qui Mal y pense. (Somewhat loosely translated as evil be to he who evil thinks).

Elfman.

Last edited by elfman11 (2006-03-23 14:00:57)

richard · 2006-03-23 13:43:58

Garybobs wrote:

NorthDallas:
I'm slightly older than you and I can surely understand how you feel. It was for the same reason that I avoided downloading this submission altogether. Just felt too uncomfortable to me and she does look really young.
I always wonder how really sure the site administrators can be about the age of the models. I mean, people can get fake ID's fairly easily these days. She looks closer to 16 to me but then I'm no expert on assessing age. That said, I just avoid downloading the ones that make me wonder.

We are really sure. We don't accept ID's which can be faked. If the girl looks young we are especially careful. FYI this one is 21.

Garybobs · 2006-03-23 17:00:43

I expect that this young looking 21 yr old will age very gracefully.

Jo · 2006-03-24 00:29:05

elfman11 wrote:

...as far as I know, are not paid for their submissions if they are accepted...

Oh for sure are they paid! Read the "submit"-topic.

elfman11 · 2006-03-24 00:57:53

Jo wrote:

Oh for sure are they paid! Read the "submit"-topic.

Sorry. I didn't know that.

Elfman.

erdna · 2006-03-24 04:57:09

elfman11, don't be so sure about us being more in need with respect to the agonees. Listen to their confession. According to what they say, they have fun, they feel sexy, they feel free to express themselves sexually but as I said before, they are reacting (I would say most of them) to too much sexual repression from parents, from the church, from the society... and above all, they want their moment of glory. At the TV, in movies, at the Olympic games, at the local sport arenas... being famous is the trend, being seen and being loved by the public is what you see everywhere as the ultimate goal. The Internet gives the chance the agonees to show themselves and become famous for 10 minutes or so. I would say at least it's a win/win (50%/50%) situation between agonees and us. But what the administrators have to keep in mind, we the customers are king, we can exist without them, they cannot (as businessmen) without us. That's why the administrators have to take care of us. We are not at their service, they are since we pay.

elfman11 · 2006-03-24 11:52:53

Erdna.

I confess to being flippant in my reply to your earlier comment about the agonees needing us as much as we need them. I understand your point and agree with you. Indeed if I didnt feel that there was a 50/50 contract between them and us it would become pornography to me and I would feel a little uncomfortable watching them. I wont attempt to justify my feelings on that. Its just the way Im wired.

Elfman

Last edited by elfman11 (2006-03-24 14:53:01)

ruby · 2006-03-25 08:25:51

disclaimer- ruby rant!

first of all there is a big difference between an emotional and psychological reaction to stimulus, and violating physical action.

The agonee in question has by default invited your emotional and psychological reaction (which one presumes is along the lines of, stimulus- tumescence- peak- detumescence). Whether she is aware of this or otherwise.

Part of her attraction surely is that she looks younger than 18, is aware of her sexuality, and invites you to partake whilst enjoying her submission as motivation. This is the attraction of the Lolita figure.

Naturally she is over 18 and ID has been provided, but this is an arbitrary age which differs from country to country anyway. It has no baring whatsoever on an individuals sexual development. Laws regarding intercourse, displays of nudity have been created through necessity. Society has evolved to a point where adults are unable to self regulate and care appropriately for children/ young people. Every individual has a chronological age and a developmental age, usually they are misaligned. For instance, this young woman is 21 but looks 16, but developmentally be 25. A good example of this is the Lolita figure- although under the chronological age of sexual maturity she is very aware of her sexuality and is most adept at sexual manipulation and allure.

There should be no guilt in appreciating beauty and particularly a young womens sexual expression. She would most likely be insulted that you have questioned your intentions and or decided not to download her video. There is newness, a freshness which accompanies newly discovered sexuality. This is part of the attraction! I dont feel guilty when I see a group of young men flexing their masculinity and new found sexual drives, it is arousing and attractive. I recognise it, but also dont allow myself to violate it. Either through action or thought.

I think any rules that prevent us from appreciating sexual beauty and naivety in its purist form, such us under 18 dont even look actually create and feed a pathological desire paedophilia. I believe its within the thought pattern that the violation occurs not by breaking the rules.

I just got the internet on at home! Fuck yeah

Garybobs · 2006-03-29 07:13:31

Ruby

For the first time I can honestly say that I am ashamed of you. Truely ashamed!! And I don't even know you.

Please tell me, where do you draw your sexual boundaries. Do you have any? It's one thing to appreciate the sexual attractiveness of another. It's quite another thing to advocate viewing children in a sexual manner...and yes, that is exactly what your argument suggests.

I'm sorry to anyone who takes offense at me going at the famed Ruby in this post but I think she has gone off the deep end with this one. Anyone who postures the arguement that she has is sick as far as I am concerned. I have kids. Small children and I would hate to think that some member of NAMBA or someone who subscribes to RUBYISM would dare look at my kids in that way. I would hope that any decent person here would feel the same.

This kind of shit is what I meant in other posts about some people having no limit to their sexuality. Anything goes, no matter how vile or how morally bankrupt as long as it's in the name of free sexual expression.

Ruby, I sure hope we don't see your face on a news report some day for molesting some "sexy" young 14 year old who happens to like flexing his muscles.

You should be ashamed of yourself. But somehow, I doubt that you can comprehend the meaning of the word.

Last edited by Garybobs (2006-03-29 07:16:25)

richard · 2006-03-29 12:17:18

Garybobs wrote:

Ruby
For the first time I can honestly say that I am ashamed of you. Truely ashamed!! And I don't even know you.
Please tell me, where do you draw your sexual boundaries. Do you have any? It's one thing to appreciate the sexual attractiveness of another. It's quite another thing to advocate viewing children in a sexual manner...and yes, that is exactly what your argument suggests.
I'm sorry to anyone who takes offense at me going at the famed Ruby in this post but I think she has gone off the deep end with this one. Anyone who postures the arguement that she has is sick as far as I am concerned. I have kids. Small children and I would hate to think that some member of NAMBA or someone who subscribes to RUBYISM would dare look at my kids in that way. I would hope that any decent person here would feel the same.
This kind of shit is what I meant in other posts about some people having no limit to their sexuality. Anything goes, no matter how vile or how morally bankrupt as long as it's in the name of free sexual expression.
Ruby, I sure hope we don't see your face on a news report some day for molesting some "sexy" young 14 year old who happens to like flexing his muscles.
You should be ashamed of yourself. But somehow, I doubt that you can comprehend the meaning of the word.

You have misread, misquoted, and missed the point, all in one post.

kirkpa · 2006-03-29 12:23:17

Bravo Lauren would set the Bees on e'm I know what that would do I'm a beekeeper

elfman11 · 2006-03-29 12:41:50

Sorry Garybobs but you have totaly misunderstood Ruby's post. I found it thoughtful, intelligent and insightful and I fully support and agree with everything she said. Please go back and read it again carefully before commenting further.

(Ruby: For what it's worth I thought your post was the best thing I have read on this forum since subscribing to this site).

Elfman

carledgar · 2006-03-29 15:59:52

Ruby's post seemed perfectly normal - even mainly clinical - to me. I can't really imagine why anyone would take issue with it.

We are hre to appreciate, to fantasize, to masturbate our brains out, to be stimulated if we are writers of erotic poetry/fiction, and we tacitly believe that everyone who appears on the site is of legal age and has consented to viewing of their sweet agonies - have accepted the delicious voyeuristic nature of the medium.

When I say 'mainly clinical' I have to qualify lol - when RUBY said - I just got on the Internet - fuck yeah! - she reallyhumanised herself - that was an endearing comment:)

Carl/Ontario - Canada

ruby wrote:

disclaimer- ruby rant!
first of all there is a big difference between an emotional and psychological reaction to stimulus, and violating physical action.
The agonee in question has by default invited your emotional and psychological reaction (which one presumes is along the lines of, stimulus- tumescence- peak- detumescence). Whether she is aware of this or otherwise.
Part of her attraction surely is that she looks younger than 18, is aware of her sexuality, and invites you to partake whilst enjoying her submission as motivation. This is the attraction of the Lolita figure.
Naturally she is over 18 and ID has been provided, but this is an arbitrary age which differs from country to country anyway. It has no baring whatsoever on an individual’s sexual development. Laws regarding intercourse, displays of nudity have been created through necessity. Society has evolved to a point where adults are unable to self regulate and care appropriately for children/ young people. Every individual has a chronological age and a developmental age, usually they are misaligned. For instance, this young woman is 21 but looks 16, but developmentally be 25. A good example of this is the Lolita figure- although under the chronological age of sexual maturity she is very aware of her sexuality and is most adept at sexual manipulation and allure.
There should be no guilt in appreciating beauty and particularly a young women’s sexual expression. She would most likely be insulted that you have questioned your intentions and or decided not to download her video. There is newness, a freshness which accompanies newly discovered sexuality. This is part of the attraction! I don’t feel guilty when I see a group of young men flexing their masculinity and new found sexual drives, it is arousing and attractive. I recognise it, but also don’t allow myself to violate it. Either through action or thought.
I think any rules that prevent us from appreciating sexual beauty and naivety in its purist form, such us ‘under 18 don’t even look’ actually create and feed a pathological desire ‘paedophilia’. I believe its within the thought pattern that the violation occurs not by breaking the ‘rules’.
I just got the internet on at home! Fuck yeah

Garybobs · 2006-03-29 21:27:40

ruby wrote:

disclaimer- ruby rant!

The agonee in question has by default invited your emotional and psychological reaction (which one presumes is along the lines of, stimulus- tumescence- peak- detumescence). Whether she is aware of this or otherwise.
Part of her attraction surely is that she looks younger than 18

There should be no guilt in appreciating beauty and particularly a young womens sexual expression. She would most likely be insulted that you have questioned your intentions and or decided not to download her video. There is newness, a freshness which accompanies newly discovered sexuality. This is part of the attraction! I dont feel guilty when I see a group of young men flexing their masculinity and new found sexual drives, it is arousing and attractive. I recognise it, but also dont allow myself to violate it. Either through action or thought.
I think any rules that prevent us from appreciating sexual beauty and naivety in its purist form, such us under 18 dont even look actually create and feed a pathological desire paedophilia. I believe its within the thought pattern that the violation occurs not by breaking the rules.
I just got the internet on at home! Fuck yeah

Misquoted? Misread?? Misunderstood???

It appears that we did not focus on the same parts of her "Ruby Rant"? Again I apologize to all who take offense but the above parts of her statements read to me like an advocation for something wholely impure yet argued to make pure the horrific contemplation of underaged individuals as sexual objects.

Young boys flexing their masculinity? There should be no guilt in appreciating beauty and particularly a young woman's sexual expression?? BULLSHIT!!! If the person is underage then how could any moral person even conceptualize this?!!!

As I have NEVER entertained the idea of viewing young girls or boys with any sort of sexual admiration, I cannot find the motivation to withdraw my comments. As far as I am concerned, anyone who would espouse such ideas is no less than a vile individual worthy of total castigation from decent society.

I feel confident that I've understood the meaning behind Ruby's comments. Clearly! And I think far less of her for it!!

Nowaysis · 2006-03-29 22:39:44

GBs wrote:

If the person is underage then how could any moral person even conceptualize this?!!!

Because, as Ruby clearly says, that age of consent is very arbitrary, it has, if you think about it for a while, very little to do with a persons actual physical (and sometimes mental) maturity, and varies greatly between different countries (i'm not sure where you're from, but guessing by your name, I could easily be thrown in jail in your country for having sex with someone I could do all sorts of naughty stuff with where I'm from, without anyone having any "moral" right to argue.

In fact you quite blatantly misquote in your latest post, since you don't point out that you've left something out in the quotenamely the very important the opening lines :

Ruby wrote:

first of all there is a big difference between an emotional and psychological reaction to stimulus, and violating physical action.

As long as you don't take this simple statement into account, I can understand why you're upset, I cannot, however, understand why you do ignore it.

Last edited by Nowaysis (2006-03-29 22:43:34)

Garybobs · 2006-03-29 23:21:40

I did read that opening statement [et al.] Nowaysis.

But for me, that sentence was completely overshadowed by the succeeding commentary.

Last edited by Garybobs (2006-03-29 23:23:14)

#1 2006-03-20 21:38:35

Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#2 2006-03-21 06:42:44

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#3 2006-03-21 09:11:39

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#4 2006-03-21 13:28:12

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#5 2006-03-21 13:39:24

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#6 2006-03-21 14:25:05

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#7 2006-03-22 06:06:44

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#8 2006-03-22 12:09:12

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#9 2006-03-23 07:54:02

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#10 2006-03-23 13:08:09

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#11 2006-03-23 13:43:58

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#12 2006-03-23 17:00:43

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#13 2006-03-24 00:29:05

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#14 2006-03-24 00:57:53

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#15 2006-03-24 04:57:09

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#16 2006-03-24 11:52:53

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#17 2006-03-25 08:25:51

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#18 2006-03-29 07:13:31

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#19 2006-03-29 12:17:18

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#20 2006-03-29 12:23:17

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#21 2006-03-29 12:41:50

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#22 2006-03-29 15:59:52

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#23 2006-03-29 21:27:40

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#24 2006-03-29 22:39:44

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#25 2006-03-29 23:21:40

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

Board footer