I know we've talked about this in the past, but what do yo guys feel is too young and what is too old to watch shoeplay?
I know the 'standard" answer is probably 18 years old, but I think 16 is fine. These are girls we see all the time, that can now drive to work and if they shoeplay, I think we are all okay with that. the older age it just depends. I have 60 year old women that are in great shape, nice legs...I have no rpoblem with that.
The reason I bring it up again is I have seen a few videos pop up (like the one below), that are showing 3rd graders...REALLY. I'm not singling out this person but I think that is way, way wrong. I think even the thread with our favorite Church people...the hispanic looking girl that evrryone (including me) liked, was dangerously close to 13-14 years in some of those older videos. Now, to her credit, shoeplays like a 30 year old woman.
Just though I'd see what everyone thinks.
***link deleted***
Too Young to Too Old to Watch Shoeplay?
Moderator: Moderators
-
llama
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 5:16 am
- Location: United States
- Contact:
-
MDEEM
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:23 pm
- Location: Somewhere in the USA
- Contact:
-
notalwaysright10000
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 2:12 am
I'll be the voice of dissent here (amusing note, autocorrect changed that to "decent" before I corrected it manually) and introduce a little moral philosophy.
(I'll try to make this concise and informative, but I warn you this will be biased because I take a very strong position).
I'm a consequentialist utilitarian, which is a fancy way of saying I believe the *only* criterion that determines whether something is wrong is whether it causes someone harm.
If it harms no one, it isn't wrong; no exceptions, none; period.
Whatever someone does in the privacy of his own home or mind, *no matter how weird or disgusting it may seem* simply is not even slightly wrong unless and until it harms someone else.
To wit, someone jerking off in his bedroom to fantasies of a great Dane being fucked by a chihuahua is not wrong, but constructing a letter bomb in his bedroom is.
On this view, harm is a *necessary* condition to prove something wrong, but still is not a *sufficient* condition.
That is, an action that harms someone is *still not* wrong *if and only if* it is countervailed by a *greater good*.
An example might be a police sniper killing a mentally ill person lunging at someone with a machete; or laws that forbid you to set your own house on fire, in which the harm of restricting your freedom to do as you please with your own house is outweighed by the good of preventing (risk of) you burning down your neighbor's house.
Now I'll note that although consequentialism is the most widely held view among moral philosophers, it *isn't the only one*; but I'll leave it there for now unless anyone expresses an interest in further discussion.
(I'll try to make this concise and informative, but I warn you this will be biased because I take a very strong position).
I'm a consequentialist utilitarian, which is a fancy way of saying I believe the *only* criterion that determines whether something is wrong is whether it causes someone harm.
If it harms no one, it isn't wrong; no exceptions, none; period.
Whatever someone does in the privacy of his own home or mind, *no matter how weird or disgusting it may seem* simply is not even slightly wrong unless and until it harms someone else.
To wit, someone jerking off in his bedroom to fantasies of a great Dane being fucked by a chihuahua is not wrong, but constructing a letter bomb in his bedroom is.
On this view, harm is a *necessary* condition to prove something wrong, but still is not a *sufficient* condition.
That is, an action that harms someone is *still not* wrong *if and only if* it is countervailed by a *greater good*.
An example might be a police sniper killing a mentally ill person lunging at someone with a machete; or laws that forbid you to set your own house on fire, in which the harm of restricting your freedom to do as you please with your own house is outweighed by the good of preventing (risk of) you burning down your neighbor's house.
Now I'll note that although consequentialism is the most widely held view among moral philosophers, it *isn't the only one*; but I'll leave it there for now unless anyone expresses an interest in further discussion.
Uh, OK, what should I write here...
Sweet and to the point:
My strong preference is for seated, both-feet shoeplay. Dangling, and shoeplay with open-toed shoes or mules, I'm afraid don't do as much for me.
Sweet and to the point:
My strong preference is for seated, both-feet shoeplay. Dangling, and shoeplay with open-toed shoes or mules, I'm afraid don't do as much for me.
-
hiker
- Mod
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:13 pm
- Location: 9th hole
- Contact:
You can rationalize it any way you want, but gaining sexual gratification from a minor is "wrong", no matter how it's done.notalwaysright10000 wrote:
I'm a consequentialist utilitarian, which is a fancy way of saying I believe the *only* criterion that determines whether something is wrong is whether it causes someone harm.
There is no way to effectively define "harm". Just because a father does not know that some pervert is wacking off to pictures of his pre-teen daughter does not mean he's not being "harmed".
I'm not going to debate this with you, but I will say that this forum does not and will never condone or "rationalize" any behavior the exploits underage children. End of story.
-
notalwaysright10000
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 2:12 am
'...does not mean he's not being "harmed"
Perhaps not; in which case consequentialism can be used to argue *against* "some pervert whacking off...".
If that conditional statement is resolved in favor of the premise that the father *is* being harmed as you suggest -which is not prima facie implausble- then "rationalizing" the exploitation of children is exactly what I am *not* doing.
I was very careful to suggest only a *method* of reasoning, *not a conclusion*.
I'm sorry if you dismiss moral philosophy as mere "rationalization", but unless you have spent many years questioning the obvious, your opinions are not your own, but a mere inheritance like your eye color.
And note that to question is *not* the same as to *doubt*; quite the contrary.
Your most justified beliefs are the ones that have withstood the most rigorous and ruthless questioning.
Socrates knew better than any of his fellow Greeks that murder was wrong because he asked himself exactly *why* it was wrong, and understood that the "exactly" matters.
Perhaps not; in which case consequentialism can be used to argue *against* "some pervert whacking off...".
If that conditional statement is resolved in favor of the premise that the father *is* being harmed as you suggest -which is not prima facie implausble- then "rationalizing" the exploitation of children is exactly what I am *not* doing.
I was very careful to suggest only a *method* of reasoning, *not a conclusion*.
I'm sorry if you dismiss moral philosophy as mere "rationalization", but unless you have spent many years questioning the obvious, your opinions are not your own, but a mere inheritance like your eye color.
And note that to question is *not* the same as to *doubt*; quite the contrary.
Your most justified beliefs are the ones that have withstood the most rigorous and ruthless questioning.
Socrates knew better than any of his fellow Greeks that murder was wrong because he asked himself exactly *why* it was wrong, and understood that the "exactly" matters.
Uh, OK, what should I write here...
Sweet and to the point:
My strong preference is for seated, both-feet shoeplay. Dangling, and shoeplay with open-toed shoes or mules, I'm afraid don't do as much for me.
Sweet and to the point:
My strong preference is for seated, both-feet shoeplay. Dangling, and shoeplay with open-toed shoes or mules, I'm afraid don't do as much for me.
-
nyllover
- Admin
- Posts: 9555
- Joined: Sat May 24, 2003 6:00 pm
- Location: Italy (Tuscany)
- Has thanked: 16 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
- Contact:
notalwaysright10000, to be honest, this forum is meant to be a place to have some fun, following the rules me and the moderators put up. I'm not a lawyer and i have no interest in starting a discussion more similar to the one betweent lawyers than to the one between guys that are just putting up a problem for this forum.
Here, in this forum, we won't EVER let any child be involved in videos or pictures posted here. Because we come here to see what excites us, and me and the moderators won't allow anyone to get excited by children. Is it correct? is it wrong? I don't care, it's one of the rules we have in this community, rules built to try to avoid problems to our forum.
That's all, end of story. If anyone wants to continue the discussion between lawyers, do it. But this forum already has rules regarding children photos or videos. They can't be posted (and we allowed the one on the first message here just because it's a sample).
Here, in this forum, we won't EVER let any child be involved in videos or pictures posted here. Because we come here to see what excites us, and me and the moderators won't allow anyone to get excited by children. Is it correct? is it wrong? I don't care, it's one of the rules we have in this community, rules built to try to avoid problems to our forum.
That's all, end of story. If anyone wants to continue the discussion between lawyers, do it. But this forum already has rules regarding children photos or videos. They can't be posted (and we allowed the one on the first message here just because it's a sample).
-
notalwaysright10000
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 2:12 am
Perfectly understood,, this is a fetish site, not a philosophy site and if you don't want your board cluttered with a discussion that is not directly germane to the site's rason d'etre that is more reasonable -not to mention your call and not mine.
But there's one last thing I just can't leave unremarked, and that is your analogy between lawyers and philosophers.
Philosophers begin with honest reasoning and follow it to see if it leads to any conclusions; Lawyers begin with the conclusions they're paid to and try to lead others to it with dishonest reasoning.
The difference between sophistry and logic is like that between cologne and sweat.
The former is optional and the latter may be unavoidable, but it stinks.
But there's one last thing I just can't leave unremarked, and that is your analogy between lawyers and philosophers.
Philosophers begin with honest reasoning and follow it to see if it leads to any conclusions; Lawyers begin with the conclusions they're paid to and try to lead others to it with dishonest reasoning.
The difference between sophistry and logic is like that between cologne and sweat.
The former is optional and the latter may be unavoidable, but it stinks.
Uh, OK, what should I write here...
Sweet and to the point:
My strong preference is for seated, both-feet shoeplay. Dangling, and shoeplay with open-toed shoes or mules, I'm afraid don't do as much for me.
Sweet and to the point:
My strong preference is for seated, both-feet shoeplay. Dangling, and shoeplay with open-toed shoes or mules, I'm afraid don't do as much for me.
-
hiker
- Mod
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:13 pm
- Location: 9th hole
- Contact:
-
notalwaysright10000
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 2:12 am
"End of story" is an argument that will get you laughed out of any freshman logic classroom; fiat currency gains no purchase there.
You don't even know my position, and if you think you do, I'm sorry, you think so on insufficient grounds.
Do not ever, for one second, confuse a challenge to examine the reasons and reasoning for a conclusion, with a covert attempt to *undermine* that conclusion.
The two are not even *remotely* similar.
They are in fact opposites. If the reasoning is found to be sound, the conclusion is *strengthened*, and greatly so.
*I'll* say it again:
Your *most justified* beliefs are the ones that have *withstood* the most ruthless and rigorous questioning.
If this sounds ironic, it shouldn't.
Propagandists tell people what to think; logicians show people *how* to think.
This makes all the difference in the world.
Of course, one must admit logic isn't always welcome; which is exactly why Galileo was placed under house arrest for the last sixteen year of his life, and why the hemlock was forced into Socrates' hand.
You don't even know my position, and if you think you do, I'm sorry, you think so on insufficient grounds.
Do not ever, for one second, confuse a challenge to examine the reasons and reasoning for a conclusion, with a covert attempt to *undermine* that conclusion.
The two are not even *remotely* similar.
They are in fact opposites. If the reasoning is found to be sound, the conclusion is *strengthened*, and greatly so.
*I'll* say it again:
Your *most justified* beliefs are the ones that have *withstood* the most ruthless and rigorous questioning.
If this sounds ironic, it shouldn't.
Propagandists tell people what to think; logicians show people *how* to think.
This makes all the difference in the world.
Of course, one must admit logic isn't always welcome; which is exactly why Galileo was placed under house arrest for the last sixteen year of his life, and why the hemlock was forced into Socrates' hand.
Uh, OK, what should I write here...
Sweet and to the point:
My strong preference is for seated, both-feet shoeplay. Dangling, and shoeplay with open-toed shoes or mules, I'm afraid don't do as much for me.
Sweet and to the point:
My strong preference is for seated, both-feet shoeplay. Dangling, and shoeplay with open-toed shoes or mules, I'm afraid don't do as much for me.
-
hiker
- Mod
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:13 pm
- Location: 9th hole
- Contact:
