[X] My Assistant

Oh no.

Human bodies.

Whatever will we do.

Your reaction towards children gets the old noggin' joggin'.

Your reaction towards children gets the old noggin' joggin'.

Okay. I'll bite.
Why is it inherently bad for children to see nudity? Or just feminine nipples/breasts, for that matter?

Dude they are naked in public. What is with you and not caring about kids being exposed to nude people or sex? No, I don't want this nude pervert swinging their breasts around in front of my fucking 10 year old child. Is that too much for me to ask? For some people to have some common decency?

When I was a kid, I saw my parents naked sometimes (getting out of a bath for instance), and I didn't give a shit because I hadn't been conditioned to think there was anything wrong with that. I did wonder why my mom looked different, but once it was explained that that's just one of the ways women are different I didn't really bother myself much with it.

My life didn't immediately change when my parents finally explained what sex was to me. I thought, "well, that's a little weird, I guess" and then went on with my life. Is it really such a bombshell for people, after which all innocence is lost?

I don't think learning about sex is what made me lose any whimsy or innocence. Learning about violent crimes, wars, etc. was.

Back on the subject of breasts specifically:
Why is it that a woman's breasts are "immodest," "indecent," and illegal to display in public in my state, but men's breasts are A-OK?

The west criticizes hijab (which purportedly is to preserve modesty), but then starts calling peoples' bodies indecent or sinful anyway. Ironic.

Also most children (pretty much all breastfed children) have seen a woman's tits already.

This post has been edited by dragontamer8740: Jun 16 2023, 00:44

Okay. I'll bite.
Why is it inherently bad for children to see nudity?

Random individuals wanting to be seen naked by children is generally a stranger danger flag.

Context is quite important as well. Ashley Biden says she is still traumatized from all the showering with Joe Biden and seeing him have sex with Jill Biden.

Women seeing women naked is not generally considered an issue, eg change rooms, however individuals waving their female penises around in their faces is big red flag.

Children being exposed to nudity in a sexual context is considered grooming. The far lefty activists even added to the UN's new consent framework that its illegal to make consensual sex criminal and children below the legal age should be able to consent.

sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.

[icj2.wpenginepowered.com] https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content...int-version.pdf

The context literally was how many non-binary, and trans activists are ending up on the US sex offender registry, eg 14 year with 25 year old as the example used in the panel discussions. They want young children that are "mature for their age" to be able to legally consent.

UN: Member states have an obligation to protect children from abuse. However if children consent then it is not abuse and you must consider their human right to be able to consent due to complex social issues.

UN complex social issues:
1. Abortion should be legal at any stage as a human right and the purpose of sex is not reproduction
2. Consensual same sex and new sexual orientations must be legalized
3. Consensual sex work should be legalized
4. Minors giving consent should be legalized


To be fair, they did not say legalized, they said it should not be criminalized, which is in effect similar.

They basically went full sensualaoi.


I am rather old fashion now. I don't mind what consenting and informed adults do in private with their privates but that is for adults. In return I expect adults to have responsibilities to be mature and act as adults.

Okay. I'll bite.
Why is it inherently bad for children to see nudity? Or just feminine nipples/breasts, for that matter?

Do you honestly think people on this website are making a christian morality argument that breasts are bad?

There is a time and place for everything. Exposing children to sexual content before they understand the full context of sex, society and relationships is the problem.

Proper sex education is good, but it also covers the negative, the responsibilities the implications for yourself and others. There are also different age appropriate levels of education.

In my country a few years back there was controversy because there was an activist education program that provided primary/elementary school children with guides on how to do oral and prep for anal. That was not age appropriate.

This post has been edited by EsotericSatire: Jun 16 2023, 01:44

They hosted a trans insurrection at the Whore House.

There is a time and place for everything. Exposing children to sexual content before they understand the full context of sex, society and relationships is the problem.

So breasts are inherently sexual?

I didn't give a fuck about breasts until after puberty. I still fail to see why it's a problem.

Random individuals wanting to be seen naked by children

Ah, so they were specifically targeting children? Or did you make that up?

I think you are still focused on the "we can't allow trans people to exist or for anyone to question current social mores because childwen" argument.

This post has been edited by dragontamer8740: Jun 16 2023, 12:01

So breasts are inherently sexual?

Depends on context. Flashing your dick is technically not inherently sexual but depends on the context.

Ah, so they were specifically targeting children? Or did you make that up?

Its was a pride event for the whole family. Literally they can't get Joe to show up if there are no kids at an event. Also there needs to be choc chip ice cream as a reward. They had loads of kids there.

Biden went on about the kids and ice cream for ages like usual.

I think you are still focused on the "we can't allow trans people to exist or for anyone to question current social mores because childwen" argument.

Now you are just being contrary for the sake of it. I've clearly stated that adults that are informed, ideally having gone through psychological treatment and assistance and that still want to go through with hormones and surgery can choose to do so.

Going off the data, its literally a genocide of gay boys, as its more of a popular social trend to castrate them and get social media attention. In US schools in blue districts the percentage of gay boys has fallen by 90%.
This is people that just would have grown up to be gay if left alone, a smaller percentage would have had a transsexual identity of some form. If there start puberty blockers before tanner stage 2, then most likely they won't have sexual function at all.

For girls they probably just would have been boring normal women grown up or on the autistic spectrum. As the reports and whistleblowers are coming out now, once someone was referred to the affirmation pipeline then they do not inform them of the extreme medical risks of crushing estrogen completely. Neurological and physiological let alone the high probably of being neutered. The data from UK and the Scandinavian countries shows that its was a genocide of autistic spectrum children.

Its a current social trend to want to intervene with drugs and invasive surgery from an early age. The practice was briefly stopped in 2000 when all the medical misconduct came out then. Then around 2008, misconduct again.

Did you know that Abbott was fined and lost lawsuits to the tune of nearly half a billion dollars due to encouraging doctors to prescribe puberty blockers to young women without telling the patients the dramatic complications. That is why they sold the rights to another big pharma company, who makes sure that when they use the exact same exploitative model that they get patients to sign a wavier and a statement that the treatment is 'life saving'. This is to waive their multi billion dollar liability for knowingly destroying the children's health for profit. The doctors involved get a kick back of 20-40k USD per year.

2001 $875 million fine
[www.thepharmaletter.com] https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/tap...tlement%20costs.
[www.nytimes.com] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/04/business...fraud-case.html

They spun off Lupron to AbbVIE due to the legal issues of marketing off label to kids in 2012.

Lupron now has a notice of side effects that includes neurological destruction and massively increased risk of suicide. (if you read the fine print).

When I was a kid, I saw my parents naked

Part of me REALLY wants to say "Just because our parents neglected us doesn't mean we have to neglect them too", but I have to say it like this so you know I am joking.

Now, a serious response, Those are your parents. It didn't bother you. How your parents want you raised and what they want you to see is fine most of the time. When someone who isn't the parent decides what is best for a child, such as hormones or being able to see big giant honkers bouncing around in their face, like

You hate kids, so I need to make an example that is relevant to you. NOW, I AM GOING TO TAKE A MORE HUMOROUS APPROACH, SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. Imagine if I came over and jerked off your dog without asking you. Your dog likes it. I am not hurting it. There is no psychological damage dealt to your dog, ONLY that it will probably lick it's junk more often. Would you be fine with it?

Now, replace dog with child.

I would expect to be able to go outside with my kids and not see a half naked lady. I understand you go outside only to see half naked ladies.
Edit:

Also most children (pretty much all breastfed children) have seen a woman's tits already.

What?
Also most babies (pretty much all babies who didn't have a C section) have seen a vagina before

This post has been edited by AhumanRS: Jun 16 2023, 15:57

Depends on context. Flashing your dick is technically not inherently sexual but depends on the context.

Yeah, PeeWee got arrested for jacking off in a porn theater

Imagine if I came over and jerked off your dog without asking you.

Lmfao

Depends on context. Flashing your dick is technically not inherently sexual but depends on the context.
Its was a pride event for the whole family. Literally they can't get Joe to show up if there are no kids at an event. Also there needs to be choc chip ice cream as a reward. They had loads of kids there.

Were they totally nude?
I was mostly replying to

No, I don't want this nude pervert swinging their breasts around in front of my fucking 10 year old child.

which specifies breasts.

I do think that ideally, things like nudity would be considered less scandalous. But I acknowledge that's not likely to happen. Just intellectually it feels like a stupid taboo. Kind of like restricting our own freedoms because someone below a certain arbitrary age might wander by and see feels retarded.

I'd argue purposefully flashing a child because they are a child is different than just 'being nude and a child wandering in.'

I have no desire to jerk off a child, just like i have no desire to jerk off a dog.

This post has been edited by dragontamer8740: Jun 16 2023, 18:41

I have no desire to jerk off a child, just like i have no desire to jerk off a dog.

You have to be trolling if that is your takeaway from what I said

Edit: fuck it, I will explain


I assume your stance is that it's an exaggeration to think that a child seeing someone nude is extremely bad. You mentioned how you seen your parents naked and it didn't harm you. So, I presented a scenario that was morally wrong, and then told you to replace the dog with the child. Your initial thought should be "Wow, that's really bad to do that with animals. Even if the animal isn't harmed in any way, it's still morally wrong" and you were supposed to bridge that to "Maybe even if the kids aren't harmed from a naked person, it's still wrong" because it's WRONG
If a 24 year old fucks an 11 year old, and that 11 year old wasn't hurt and loves the 24 year old and fuck, say they get married when they turn 18 and live happily ever after, it's still fucking WRONG. Do you understand that it is WRONG? Nothing has to harm the kid for it to be WRONG.

Being half nude at a family event is WRONG. Putting yourself in a situation where a child can potentially see your nude body is WRONG. Being half nude in public is WRONG. Even if it's not explicitly a 'family event', it's still WRONG because kids could still be there and they don't need to see that shit AND it is WRONG to let them have the chance to.

It is well established in FSZ lore that I am like 14. Either post a picture of your cock to double down on your stance, or just say "It is bad to expose yourself to children"

This post has been edited by AhumanRS: Jun 16 2023, 19:34

You have to be trolling if that is your takeaway from what I said

I would expect to be able to go outside with my kids and not see a half naked lady. I understand you go outside only to see half naked ladies.

That has nothing to do with jerking people off.

Also if you have trouble with seeing naked women, then that's your own problem.

That has nothing to do with jerking people off.

Also if you have trouble with seeing naked women, then that's your own problem.

You are such a troll dude. Okay, you got me. I've been trolled. You can have sex with my kids

Now you are just being contrary for the sake of it.

Damn, you caught me.

I've clearly stated that adults that are informed, ideally having gone through psychological treatment and assistance and that still want to go through with hormones and surgery can choose to do so.

Going off the data, its literally a genocide of gay boys, as its more of a popular social trend to castrate them and get social media attention. In US schools in blue districts the percentage of gay boys has fallen by 90%.
This is people that just would have grown up to be gay if left alone, a smaller percentage would have had a transsexual identity of some form. If there start puberty blockers before tanner stage 2, then most likely they won't have sexual function at all.

For girls they probably just would have been boring normal women grown up or on the autistic spectrum. As the reports and whistleblowers are coming out now, once someone was referred to the affirmation pipeline then they do not inform them of the extreme medical risks of crushing estrogen completely. Neurological and physiological let alone the high probably of being neutered. The data from UK and the Scandinavian countries shows that its was a genocide of autistic spectrum children.

Its a current social trend to want to intervene with drugs and invasive surgery from an early age. The practice was briefly stopped in 2000 when all the medical misconduct came out then. Then around 2008, misconduct again.

You've made it clear that trans kids can't exist and be allowed to transition early enough to pass in your worldview because a few of them might be pressured, and therefore no one should get it.

I'll refer you to Necromusume.

Well, the reason for that is, because passability dramatically increases as people start hormone replacement earlier. It's cold comfort to be told "You're probably just gay" if you know you're not. Trans people pretty much universally choose to start earlier, or wish they could have started earlier, so they won't be clocked for life and therefore, socially excluded and treated like shit for life. *If* there is a health risk from it, that's a recent claim, and it's a risk that many people would be willing to take. Waiting until you're 18, or 21, or 30, or 40, is not free in terms of its effects on passability.

My genuine viewpoint is that if it makes someone happy (or might make someone happy), and they themselves want to do it, and it doesn't hurt others, they should be allowed to do it.

You are such a troll dude. Okay, you got me. I've been trolled. You can have sex with my kids

Sorry, not got quite as much time to read and write for these threads these days.
Trolling is just easier to do hastily.

This post has been edited by dragontamer8740: Jun 16 2023, 23:50

Damn, you caught me.You've made it clear that trans kids can't exist and be allowed to transition early enough to pass in your worldview because a few of them might be pressured, and therefore no one should get it.

As I mentioned before, my position was that drastic intervention should be the last resort not the first. We are literally skipping the genuine therapy step. Affirmative care givers are paid up to 90k bonus for pipelining kids.

Affirmation in itself makes people happy. Social acceptance makes people happy. This dramatically the case for teens. As you grow older most people become less swayed by external affirmation. We are social creatures, affirmation and social acceptance in general are highly influential on people.

Deconstructing people's world view and self identity, then giving them affirmation and social acceptance can make people do just about anything. Doing anything solely for short term affirmation and social acceptance can be risky.

I'll refer you to Necromusume.

Passibility for whom and why?

Within the trans label there were always those with autogynephilia, that were attracted to themselves women and then those that had gender dysphoria, a very niche diagnosis. Within the gay community there were those that were cross dressers which had its own culture.

Who do they want to pass with; themselves? Friends and Family? Strangers? Sexual Partners? Followers? Subscribers?

It is not healthy to base yourself esteem on the praise of strangers. For subscribers /followers the problem is that only 1-5% of influences actually become successful. For sexual partners well there are range of issues there. If it is for friends and family, why aren't they accepting you as you are?

For yourself, which is the ultimate crux, you really need to be aware of why? Is it long term gender dysphoria? Self identity is unstable as teen. Is it because of anxiety / depression / autism?

The previous diagnosis time was min 12 months of therapy, to establish gender dysphoria. Now it can be as short as 10 minutes. You can not possibly be aiming to positively supporting someone as a therapist with a single 10 minute session.

My position is not that trans children can not exist. My position was based on experience that its not as common as purported to be now and rather than 1-2 years of therapy and accurately diagnosing the issue we are jumping to drastic interventions that have serious side effects.

My genuine viewpoint is that if it makes someone happy (or might make someone happy), and they themselves want to do it, and it doesn't hurt others, they should be allowed to do it.

The majority of the research on transitioning and techniques and safety studies were developed for adult males. Males can tolerate hormones for longer because estrogen has protective effects but there are issues for each gender.

Females: Crushing estrogen has serve and rapid neuro degenerative effects. The lastest data from (2008-2012) that putting young girls on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones starts causing neurological damage within six months, with serve issues occurring after 12-24 months. After 12-24 months, start getting bone issues rapidly on-setting. After 2-4 years start getting heart issues as well as degenerative effects to joints and blood vessels. The effects of testosterone that reduce anxiety only last for about 12-24 months at most then your endocrine system adapts. Infertility is like the least of the issues but is one of the big ones too. It also massively increases depression and suicide risk for females in the short term (2-4 year horizon).
Abbott spun off Lupon because of the billions of dollars of liability they were facing each time it went to court and the effects on females came out.

Males: Starting before tanner stage 2,which is popular for short term pass-ability will mean that their neo-vagina surgery fail rate goes to up to 90-98%. That lowers passibility. Starting too early will also mean that they have developmental issues, infertility and lack sexuality development. The experiments on 0-9 year olds also show a high probability of diagnosing gender dysphoria incorrectly, with the majority detransitioning with massively reduced health and mental welfare as adults. The risk of depression and suicide is massively increased for those that experience gender dysphoria with their female assigned gender. This should not be possible according to those that believe sex/gender is entirely a social construct.


What is best for a child might not be what they want at that exact short term moment. Actually caring for someone and their life in the long term may mean confronting them with hard truths and reality. People that put affirmation before long term welfare and do not ensure people are making informed consent whilst also receiving nearly 100k USD in kick backs.... maybe don't have the best interest for the kids.

What exactly happened to a least 12-24 months of therapy and being informed of all the drastic side effects before going ahead with treatments and surgeries that will have life long complications for the majority of people? The major issue with all of the treatments for gender dysphoria in the past, is that getting the treatment did not make all the other negative mental issues such as anxiety/depression go away. The individuals would still need treatment.

Doing follow ups with the people shows they still have the depression and anxiety. The solution is to either not follow up, or to accept that the treatments will not make people happy. This devastated me in the past.

The literal purpose of the interventions is not to make people happy. Its to return people to net zero at best.

This post has been edited by EsotericSatire: Jun 17 2023, 02:34

He made me his dragon

The tldr:

Transitioning intervention is not promised to make you happy, its to return you net zero, if the alternative is imminent suicide risk against the potentially extreme side effects. It does not treat anxiety or depression, it was to treat long term gender dysphoria, which was experienced by a subset of male adults in the original research.

Affirmation and social acceptance does boost your happiness in the short term. The more you rely on external affirmation, the more neurotic you will become, as the effect of external affirmation is unstable for self esteem. More so, social media affirmation is weak and lacks resilience even when it is real but usually its faked by the algorithm.

I'm not reading all of that.

Can someone make the above ocean of text a little more concise?

I'm not reading all of that.

Can someone make the above ocean of text a little more concise?

Transition was meant to treat long term dysphoria for suicidal people, not make people happy
Social media acceptance is a source of fleeting happiness that is unsustainable