1.) "Anti-ageism", "Love knows no boundaries of age", blah blah blah....then cartoons, esp.
>>2105 , that imply that no woman past child-bearing age are ugly and vile (physically as well as personality-wise) monsters that no one in their right mind could ever find attractive.
A little ironic, no?
2.) Okay, let's take a hypothetical case where a child (or adolescent) really does enjoy and benefit from and is not in any way harmed by a sexual relationship with an adult. Perhaps the child even truly loves the adult.
If the adult is truly an exclusive or near-exclusive pedophile, hebephile or even ephebophile, it means his (or her) attraction to and interest in the child will inevitably be short-lived and start to decline precipitously within no more than a few years.
What happens then? How can we expect the child to react to such rejection, abdanonement and loss?
3.) Notice that all of the girls in the photos appear to have entered puberty or at least be at the cusp of doing so. More than a few have noticeable breasts. And a number of the posters explicitly cite pubertal development as a biological argument against prevailing age-of-consent restrictions and taboos.
Are those behind the posters limiting their arguments for liberalization in laws and societal attitudes to girls who are no younger than the ones pictured? Sure doesn't seem like it, considering that no mention of any such qualifiers is anywhere to be found in the posters. In fact, many of them make a point of defending and supporting sexual attraction/relationships* between people of "ALL ages".
*Yes, mere [i]attraction[/i] is quite different from [i]behavior[/i] and [i]actions[/i] but this itself is something that, like vastly different age-ranges and stages of development, is very much conflated here.
For these reasons, the posters appear deliberately deceptive. The individuals they represent may not support an absolute extreme such as baby-rape (as suggested in
>>2165 ) but one would have to be quite naive and gullible not to realize that more than a few defend the vaginal and even anal penetration, as well as ejaculation into the mouths and onto the faces, by adults, of children considerably younger than those pictured in the posters.
4.) Why no boys with women?
>>2173>>2284Especially noticeably absent from those.
>>2169Yeah, its not like women ever go to jail or anything for indulging in boy-cock.
[/sarcasm]But okay, it is true that society tends to view women who fancy underage boys less harshly than men who fancy underage girls (or boys). That much is undeniable. But there are absolutely logical reasons for such a double-standard. (Anatomically, physiologically, psychologically and socially, there are real, major differences between the respective cases-- differences that overwhelmingly favor sexual contact between women and boys over such contact between men and girls or men and boys. That is not to say that even the former does not bring its own set of problems. Only that such problems are, as a rule, fewer and lesser in severity than those brought by the latter.
------------
There is a lot more that I could point-out, challenge and refute here but I think the underlying, common thread here can be summed-up as follows. At least much of the positions and attitudes represented in this thread and the thinking behind them are really no less simplistic, reflexive, otherwise problematic and even hypocritical than the ones they are condemning. Kind of like flip sides of the same coin. [b]These matters tend to not be as clear-cut and black-and-white as [i]either[/i] side would have you believe they are.[/b]