I will leave this post short.
For the last year and a half, I've been under the impression that some users weren't being entirely serious when they mentioned "lolis", "JBs", ''waifus''. Over the last month or so I'm beginning to question that assumption.
Maybe some of you are physically attracted to shorter, slightly-built femoids. You may ascend with one, and if not, well, you can always find a 5'1, 95-pound escort in her early 20s to dress up as a schoolgirl. Either way, there is nothing wrong with such a preference. Others might believe that sexual inexperience is a desirable element in a partner, and that is why you prefer teenage femoids. I don't necessarily understand this, but fair enough. But some of you go a bit too far. You believe that teenage girls are "pure", "innocent", and "uncorrupted" -- not physically or sexually, but intellectually and emotionally -- and in your view, this makes them desirable. This, to me, is a massive red flag.
For one, teenagers are not ''pure''. They are not ''innocent''. They are just as capable of brutality and violence as their older counterparts. Most of the non-LARPers on the forum can attest to exclusionary social cultures at school, based partly on heightism, lookism, even racism. What makes me question your judgment is that you conflate social inexperience and immaturity with "purity". I can't possibly fathom having a romantic conversation with, and developing romantic feelings for, someone six years younger than I am (by way of reference, I'm an undergraduate). The one-sided dynamic of such a relationship would be boring and tedious at best (because 13-year-olds have little substance to offer), and predatory and exploitative at worst (because 13-year-olds do not understand nor have access to an adult's full legal rights and freedoms).
I am convinced that some of you who express a sexual predilection for rather young femoids (I'm not here to argue whether "pedophilia" or "ephebophilia" is semantically accurate, but I digress) are developmentally stunted by your jealousy of, and maybe bullying from, teen Chad. I can understand that. For many of us, our adolescence was the moment we discovered our place in the bottom rung of the genetic hierarchy; you want to feel like Chad, become Chad -- and it is easier for you to assume the dominant role in a relationship with someone who, for all intents and purposes, is a child. But I am simply not convinced this a proper justification for harmful behaviour that amounts to a morally questionable ego trip.
For the last year and a half, I've been under the impression that some users weren't being entirely serious when they mentioned "lolis", "JBs", ''waifus''. Over the last month or so I'm beginning to question that assumption.
Maybe some of you are physically attracted to shorter, slightly-built femoids. You may ascend with one, and if not, well, you can always find a 5'1, 95-pound escort in her early 20s to dress up as a schoolgirl. Either way, there is nothing wrong with such a preference. Others might believe that sexual inexperience is a desirable element in a partner, and that is why you prefer teenage femoids. I don't necessarily understand this, but fair enough. But some of you go a bit too far. You believe that teenage girls are "pure", "innocent", and "uncorrupted" -- not physically or sexually, but intellectually and emotionally -- and in your view, this makes them desirable. This, to me, is a massive red flag.
For one, teenagers are not ''pure''. They are not ''innocent''. They are just as capable of brutality and violence as their older counterparts. Most of the non-LARPers on the forum can attest to exclusionary social cultures at school, based partly on heightism, lookism, even racism. What makes me question your judgment is that you conflate social inexperience and immaturity with "purity". I can't possibly fathom having a romantic conversation with, and developing romantic feelings for, someone six years younger than I am (by way of reference, I'm an undergraduate). The one-sided dynamic of such a relationship would be boring and tedious at best (because 13-year-olds have little substance to offer), and predatory and exploitative at worst (because 13-year-olds do not understand nor have access to an adult's full legal rights and freedoms).
I am convinced that some of you who express a sexual predilection for rather young femoids (I'm not here to argue whether "pedophilia" or "ephebophilia" is semantically accurate, but I digress) are developmentally stunted by your jealousy of, and maybe bullying from, teen Chad. I can understand that. For many of us, our adolescence was the moment we discovered our place in the bottom rung of the genetic hierarchy; you want to feel like Chad, become Chad -- and it is easier for you to assume the dominant role in a relationship with someone who, for all intents and purposes, is a child. But I am simply not convinced this a proper justification for harmful behaviour that amounts to a morally questionable ego trip.
Last edited:
