I don't believe I ever actually admitted to indulging in child pornography, actually I would be quite surprised if I did. Certainly I have no interest in prepubescent children, so I am not a pedophile in any meaningful way, only perhaps in the eyes of the brainwashed masses. Of course I do fully realize that I am far from alone in being attracted to teenagers who are under the age of consent. There is a great deal of supporting evidence leading me to this conclusion. For one there is an evolutionary advantage to ephebephilia, as females reproductive value starts declining around the age of twenty years old, and peak fertility is reached shortly after puberty begins. This means that genes coding for attraction to mid to late stage pubescent people will be quite common as they are more likely to be passed on. At least they were more likely to be passed on until about one hundred years ago, when such relationships began to be seen as socially unacceptable in some parts of the world, after concentrated campaigning by religious and feminist groups. Additionally, from a developmental point of view, full sexual characteristics and maturity are reached at about the age of 14 years old, as is clearly illustrated by the tanner scale. This means that from the point of view of attraction to sexual characteristics, there is actually no real distinguishable difference between someone who is about 14.5 and someone who is 20. Of course, the 14.5 year old will have more youthful characteristics, making them more sexually appealing, as non-prepubescent youth is a biological indicator of fertility. If a male is attracted to 20 year olds, it is almost a certainty that he is going to be attracted to 14.5 year olds. Although modern psychiatric terminology may attempt to say otherwise, classifying ephebephilia and teliophilia as separate things, the proof is to be found in the biological development stages and the ages that they are reached at. The only real argument for ephebephilia as something separate from teliophilia is in exclusive ephebephilia. All neurotypical males are non-exclusive ephebephiles. Of course some may not be consciously aware of it, and most have good reason to repress such desires, much as how many homosexuals fail to consciously accept the fact that they are homosexual, due to the social constructs in which they find themselves. Additionally, of course many will not admit their attractions publicly, even if they have come to accept them themselves. However, I do believe that most of us know that it is true that typical males are attracted to mid to late stage pubescent people. In my day to day life I have witnessed a very large number of friends and acquaintances (from many different countries) imply or admit such, and I find it hard to believe that this has been a statistical anomaly. My own experiences, combined with the evolutionary data, the biological development data and the historical data, lead me to confidently conclude that most males are non exclusive ephebephiles. It is especially hard to deny this to yourself if you view an image of a sexually attractive 14+ year old. For example, the following link shows a movie cover with a picture of a 14 year old on it http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3265443328/tt2072045?ref_=tt_ov_i . By the way, I have never actually seen that documentary, and from what I can gather is not very technically accurate with its terminology, despite apparently arguing for my position (I suppose 'are all men non-exclusive Ephebephiles' doesn't have the same attention grabbing power behind it). My attempts at 'justifying' myself are actually extraordinarily coherent, it is the arguments against me that are quite obviously illogical and emotionally charged. And I already realize that a lot of people are quite aware of this fact, although they probably will not publicly agree with me lest they become part of your modern era witch hunt. I personally don't give much of a fuck at all to speak the truth to insane people, my security skills are such that I know you will not find me and I personally just cannot bring myself to give a fuck what irrational people think. I know this is a severe character shortcoming on my part, and will cause me a great deal of difficulty in functioning in our irrational world full of stupid people, but that is a burden I am quite willing to take upon myself. Well I have read multiple typologies of child pornography offenders and for the most part you have missed the mark. Of course there are some sociopathic offenders, but the majority of CP offenders are simply pornography addicts who have become desensitized to normal pornography. Many of them would not hurt anybody or actually act out their fantasies. I would compare it to the female rape fantasy if anything. A very large percentage of females are sexually aroused by fantasizing about being raped, but nobody really thinks that a large percentage of females desire to actually be raped. This separation of fantasy and reality is something that most people are capable of doing, and in the majority of cases those who indulge in child pornography are able to separate their fantasies from their actions in reality. Of course there is the fact that actual children are abused to create child pornography, whereas nobody is raped when a female fantasizes about being raped. Of course there is a difference between these two things. But so long as the person who consumes child pornography does not lead to any actual damage being done to a child, I quite honestly don't see the harm in it. There is no magical property of photographs that cause those depicted to re-experience the depicted events every time the photograph is viewed. There is no quantum entanglement connection between a previously molested child and the image of the molestation. When somebody views an image of CP, no damage is done to anybody. The damage is caused by the person who abused the child, and the responsibility for the damage falls squarely on their shoulders. When people bring child pornography consumers up to the level of child molesters, they are really bringing child molesters down to the level of child pornography consumers. They are saying that someone who has molested a child is just as morally neutral as somebody who has viewed an image of a child being molested. This is insensitivity to the child victims of child pornography, you minimize their molestations such that they are equated to somebody having viewed a series of colored pixels. Of course in cases where people pay for child pornography to be produced, it is a different story. Quite certainly you have been influenced by the propaganda of your times, only a little over a hundred years ago it was quite common and socially acceptable to marry and procreate with 12 year olds. In the 1880s in the USA a great many states had an age of consent of only 10 years old, and one state had an age of consent as low as 7. The propaganda originally came from feminist groups and religious groups, although in modern times it is carried on largely by the government and special interest groups. You see, the war on child pornography is worth hundreds of billions of dollars. A lot of peoples jobs depend on child pornography possession remaining illegal, both in the government and private sector. Additionally, in much of the modern world the age of consent is set at about 14 years old. In some countries, such as Spain, the age of consent is 13. Now, you may think that Spain is full of child molesters and their apologists, but I think that you have been brainwashed by your culture into accepting an arbitrary age as the minimum acceptable for sexual relations. From a purely biological perspective I would argue that age 14 is the minimum acceptable age for sexual relations, as that is about the age where full sexual maturity is reached. However, historically people have argued that the onset of puberty is the minimum acceptable age. First of all even the police agencies differentiate between the different levels of CP offenses. Doing otherwise would quite clearly show that they are fucking retarded, although unfortunately they manage to show this in several other ways already. Equating somebody who molests children with somebody who views images of children being molested, is to minimize the damage that child molestation causes to the victim. It is insensitive to the child victim and it is insensitive to the person who is ruined for having merely viewed some colored pixels in the privacy of their own home. Additionally, you are mostly incorrect in thinking of CP as an industry. Additionally, in several countries it is not a criminal offense to download CP. In fact I believe even in New York it is not a criminal offense to browse child pornography sites, so long as the images are not saved to the hard drive (and no it doesn't count cached images, that is what the court case was about in the first place). In the Czech Republic it is legal to download and save as much child porn as you want, so long as you don't distribute it to others. What you see demonstrated is perhaps arrogance. I mean, it is hard not to be arrogant when you are one of the few people who understands that photographs are not magic. I really do think quite highly of my ability to see through propaganda and cultural conditioning, but as I mentioned before it is both a gift and a curse. Nice, is your degree in criminology or what? Some social science probably. Regardless I don't think it is ok to abuse children, I just don't think that anonymously looking at CP without paying for it causes a magic quantum entanglement based remolestation to take place. Sorry for being so damn logical and sane! How do you know I don't live in New York or the Czech Republic , and only view CP in my browser without saving it, or never upload it? Anyway I am not worried as I am a security expert, last I checked the NSA doesn't give a fuck about CP. Of course this all assumes that I view child pornography in the first place, something that I am quite certain I never claimed to have done. You see the thing is that I am able to differentiate between the fine details of a system. Perhaps it is because I am autistic, you see neurotypical people see the forest but they miss the trees and Autistic people see the trees but miss the forest. I think the problem is that you are looking at the forest of child pornography and you are seeing that it is full of hurt and abused children, and so you want to burn the entire thing to the ground. I am looking at the trees of child pornography, and I see that although we absolutely should cut some of them down, some of them are not causing harm at all, and cutting them down is simply an act of cruelty fueled by emotionally charged, illogical feelings.