Re: Reply for Dissident

There aren't thousands of teleiophiles seeking authentic torture porn of other adults who were kidnapped and forced to participate in such films, and no multi-billion dollar market for such material exists anywhere in the world (despite lies to the contrary by police during the early 1980s, thus creating the urban legend of the "snuff film" epidemic), so why does it make sense to believe that there is a sizable market, or simple desire for, such material in such huge numbers involving children?

I think this is an important point. I don't think it really is directly related to what lee lette argues regarding KP, but it is extremely important regarding public perception of pedophilia (and hebephilia). There is just no reason to argue, or assume, that MAAs are any more inclined to authentic torture and murder than teleiophiles are. The absence of evidence for the snuff epidemic pretty much corroborates that its practice is rare among teleiophiles. There is no reason to suppose it's any less rare among MAAs.

(I probably remarked this because of the clown case we discussed below, a guy who did have torture and murder fantasies, but the point is bigger because it can be made in general regarding pedo, hebe and teleio sexualities alike)

http://www.gfkmri.com/PDF/MRIPR_010410_KidsAndCellPhones.pdf - I think it is at least 50% in the older categories by now.

But these "kids" are still largely in the age group of 9-11, and rarely younger than that. Age 9 may be pre-pubescent, but it's often on the cusp of pubescence.

I would remark it's nothing like the penetration that cellphones have among teens. But...

47% use a phone to take pictures, and 24% use them for picture messaging. Clearly that constitutes an absolute maximum cap for how many are sexting. And remember, these are 47% and 24% of those who have a cellphone. In any case, even among teens, having the technological means (and knowledge) for sexting is not the same as doing it, so it's always a leap to speculate how many among them, are doing it.

We are also unaware of how many features these phones have. It's not uncommon for parents to intentionally buy phones with few features for their children, not just for sexual reasons, also because they are cheaper handsets and less features also means less data transmission to pay for. This is less common as children age. This should have the effect to artificially lower the rates of sexting the lower ages we go to. But in any case, we don't know, as long as surveys like this one do not research what features the phones have.

Yet the fault is on the boys for not refraining from these relationships with the girls, right? Does this mean that the girls' relationships with boys should be declared "retroactively non-consensual" if the girl is later shamed for having the experience and saying she enjoyed it, and the boy penalized for it accordingly?

Um?

Feminists have seriously argued for this, Dissident, and you know it.