pedophilia and a logical society

[peoplesuck]

I think this falls under philosophy
ey some controversial stuff so if you cant handle stuff, dont

Spoiler

basically this thread will begin with the idea that sexuality is not a choice.
I can understand a prejudice against people having relationships with kids, although it still doesn't make sense because the kids can consent and the whole "taking advantage" argument kinda makes no sense when you consider that these choices are hormonal(idk just not conscious(i have no proofs dn kill me) so how is it really different from any other relationship? If sexuality is not a choice society shouldn't hold prejudice against these people, right? this goes with a lot of other discriminated group(makes more sense with pedophilia as they are generally having relations with kids). i think i had more to add, so if i remember it ill ad it later.

questions for this i have are: how could the legal system handle this logically?
can our society work being "highly logical"?

also im not a pedophile and i havent slept in 30hours so its obv post tyme

if this thread already existed kill this one. i can never find stuff with intp search engine sorry

 

[Jennywocky]

TL;DR
power differential in the relationship between adults and child, especially if you're talking parent/child incest. Adults have power, child don't; the idea of "consent" doesn't work where the power is not equal in the relationship, children can't easily extract themselves either like adults can (independent, self-supporting etc.)

- excludes scenarios between two legal adults and those that straddle the border (i.e., an 18 year old and a 17 year old, which technically can be prohibited simply because a line was drawn somewhere but is still essentially a relationship between equals, power wise).

 

[peoplesuck]

somehow that slipped my mind. good point

 

[Seteleechete]

@Jenny wouldn't such scenarios fall under coercion and thus not actually count as consent. Let's consider a scenario were the underage actually has the knowledge and power to be on somewhat equal ground in which case separation based on age makes little sense. Basically it should only be a problem/punishable if there is implicit/excplicit coercion and not be based on something arbitary like age.

 

[Jennywocky]

@Jenny wouldn't such scenarios fall under coercion and thus not actually count as consent. Let's consider a scenario were the underage actually has the knowledge and power to be on somewhat equal ground in which case separation based on age makes little sense. Basically it should only be a problem/punishable if there is implicit/excplicit coercion and not be based on something arbitary like age.

Is there a point in constructing such an intricate example like this that is completely abstracted from a real life setting? It sounds like you're presenting an exception case (based on the general principle I mention) and then trying to argue that as what should be the norm.

When adult/child is talked about in a general sense, these categories are not just merely based on age but also upon roles and capabilities. Typically adulthood is when someone reaches a particular level of maturation and life experience, along with whatever privileges society assigns to that category -- especially categories involving full-time work, personal independence, legal independence, and so on.

Age is correlated to this but is not an exact marker as you have noted. What other marker would take its place, and how complicated would it be to protect the majority where this does correlate more or less to an adequate degree?

Certainly there might be exceptions out there where a child might be more overtly precocious, financially independent, etc., and it becomes far more malleable as you approach the 16-18 age marker (as I noted above -- falling afoul of the law when you're 18 having sex with a 17 year old is getting zinged for a weakness in the law itself, I think), but where the law is concerned, we're not talking about ideals but about practical ways to implement ideals. So you find the marker that seems to be the most effective overall to protect children from exploitation, and that's what a good society tries to do when it lays down rules -- tries to break things down so that certain behaviors can be prohibited to protect the welfare of the most people.

We might disagree where the marker is, and it might not hold true in all cases, but nothing holds true in all cases, does it? What you are suggesting sounds, in terms of implementation, like we'd have to have a court case any time an adult gets an 11 year old child to not vocally deny them sexual contact, because each case would have to be argued on merits. Aside from probably emboldening adults who would exploit a child (increasing the number of incidents), we'd then also greatly increase court load having to argue whether the 11 year old is one of these exceptions and somehow is able to hold their own emotionally, psychologically, financially, and independently with the adult who had sex with them.

 

[TBerg]

Any form of order is ultimately an arbitrary product of the human mind, but it serves to create clear distinctions that keep our social interaction coherent. I don't think we want to live in a society in which there is not a large swathe of childhood carved out for the purpose of nurturing and protecting sometimes highly malleable psyches. It ultimately comes down to whether we want to create a foundation for a reproductive civilization or a foundation for personal predilection. The rules we make tell us what is of ultimate importance in society.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Define a child and define an independent individual as: able to react assertively, protect its interests, make educated choices, etc.

Then you will find that there are stages in life, ie. childhood, where individuals are unable to satisfy the conditions of independence.

For those cases all relationships of sexual nature are denoted as pedophilia and are sensibly outlawed.

I don't get what's considered nonsensical about seeing children as incapable of decision making and guiding their own lives.

if this thread already existed kill this one. i can never find stuff with intp search engine sorry

If you like, the google custom search - site:intpforum.com is much more accurate, as long as the search doesn't look in the inner sanctum, which is a subforum invisible to google site-crawler bots.

 

[TBerg]

If you want to see inside the vanguard of pedophilia acceptance, this conversation is instructive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX2sDle7ODc

 

[onesteptwostep]

This reminds me, there was big commotion in China where a certain celebrity was "in love" with a juvenile, and is apparently waiting until she's the legal adult age to marry her. The star is 24 years old while the girl is 12 (in 2012).

They're fine with it apparently. There's no pedophilia involved, though there's some "pedoness" there >_>

 

[Sinny91]

I think this falls under philosophy

Some controversial stuff so if you cant handle stuff, dont

basically this thread will begin with the idea that sexuality is not a choice.
I can understand a prejudice against people having relationships with kids, although it still doesn't make sense because the kids can consent and the whole "taking advantage" argument kinda makes no sense when you consider that these choices are hormonal

I'd cut short this line of thinking with a sawed-off shotgun.
No need to explore the depths of depravity.

Alas, we do not live in my version of logical society aha.

You know the very first institution in Britain who's aim was to 'cure' pedophilia was set up in Moseley Birmingham, UK.

We also had a 'solid' political movement over here which called for pedophilia to be made legal. Our 70's and 80's Labour Governments were in secret cahoots with the likes of PIE, Pedophile Information Exchange - which can be likened to the American NAMBLA organisation.. they most likely crossed paths.

What are your thoughts on all this Peoplesuck?
Are you opposed to such notions, or do you wish that more.younger.people.sucked?

 

[peoplesuck]

I really find the act of pedophilia really off-putting. the main point was not the discriminate against someone for what they cant help, as that makes no fucking sense. i think its very odd that someone would even want a little kid as a partner as i dont see any middleground for the two people. i would really like to see an asexual society, as i think people would treat each other much nicer. its all kind of gross to me. that quoted part was basically my deterministic worldview coming out, i dont think people choose relationships based on much more than physical attraction(might just be the fucktards i know) so its all meh in the end nihilism ftw right

 

[The Gopher]

I'd cut short this line of thinking with a sawed-off shotgun.
No need to explore the depths of depravity.

I think one of the rules of using a gun is not pulling the trigger unless you know what you're shooting at.

 

[Sinny91]

Shoot first, think later.. This is the era of 'Murica afterall.

 

[Intolerable]

This will probably offend some people but truth is truth.

Sexuality is completely, 100% choice.

Like anything in our psyche there is a baseline gratification schema and a series of options to reaching that gratification. Some options rank higher than others simply because they've allowed us to reach gratification easier.

It's the same reason you may prefer your woman's ass to her vagina. Both will get you off but one gets you off faster.

Pedophilia is like every other sexual perversion in that it is strange, new, unnatural to the ordered world. There is a sense of excitement in doing what you shouldn't be doing for some people. I always took this to be the reason why some homosexuals parade and put their sexual perversion in the faces of others. As if to say I need excitement and this excites me.

Then again it may also be possible ( and the studies back this up ) that pedophiles were molested as children and so their sexual choice was solidified prior to an ordered choice. Clearly if your first sexual experience was adult on child it's going to be really difficult for you to adjust later to adult on adult.


Insofar as society is concerned this topic is much like the one regarding Christianity. I am not religious but I believe it has a place in the world to keep society moving forward. The same is true for adopted, unnatural customs. I'm not against society setting an age limit on sexual consent. So long as they don't use that arbitrary ruling to ruin the life of someone doing what is completely natural. Like having sex with a 16 year old whose body has reached maturity.

 

[peoplesuck]

This will probably offend some people but truth is truth.

Sexuality is completely, 100% choice.

Then again it may also be possible ( and the studies back this up ) that pedophiles were molested as children and so their sexual choice was solidified prior to an ordered choice. Clearly if your first sexual experience was adult on child it's going to be really difficult for you to adjust later to adult on adult.

how exactly is it choice if its not their choice to have the preference? why are you wording it to be more complex than it needs to be?
when i said its a choice i meant the preference not the action.
what studies prove this is truth?

 

[Intolerable]

how exactly is it choice if its not their choice to have the preference? why are you wording it to be more complex than it needs to be?
when i said its a choice i meant the preference not the action.
what studies prove this is truth?

There is more to the wording than the unintended consequence of making it complicated.

At the root of every desire is gratification. The means of obtaining what you truly want ( the experience ) doesn't have to agree with your moral compass. You'll still want it because insofar as your mind is concerned that is the best way to achieve gratification.

Pedophiles and normal people are basically after the same thing ( an orgasm ). The difference is that a pedophile through life journey or mere bad luck settled on an unpopular and very frowned upon option for achieving gratification.

Insofar as the studies go: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482

 

[Reluctantly]

^ Whatever happened to romance? You act like intimacy just means fucking. I'm sorry, but that's not true for me and I certainly hope I'm not the only one.

 

[Polaris]

Ask a 3 year old to fuck them and they will say yes. Just make sure you have candy. Or a knife.

 

[Hadoblado]

These topics always end up disappointing.

@peoplesuck
Think of it more as protecting children than the right to have a relationship with anyone you want. Can you imagine having a child who has been mindfucked into a relationship with someone older than you?

@Seteleechete
Yeah there are times when the prohibition is a hindrance to true love or whatever. True love conquers all right? It's inconvenient, but not as much as the coercion it would facilitate.

@Intolerable
You seem like someone who's read a lot of stuff and drawn their own conclusions, but in a vacuum.

1) People aren't just after orgasms, many don't experience them but still pursue sex.
2) Homosexuality is not a perversion. It's a sexuality.
3) Homosexuals might display their sexuality because rates of potential partners are lower. If there's less opportunity, then more effort must be put into seeking a partner. Marketing bro. It's also possible they're just testing your acceptance of them, since there's a real chance you think less of them due to their 'choices'.
4) Not all desires are derived from gratification. I desire not to be punched in the face, but I receive no gratification from not being punched in the face. You're missing at least half the equation.
5) How does this:

It's the same reason you may prefer your woman's ass to her vagina. Both will get you off but one gets you off faster.

...support what you said about choosing. All you've established with this line of thought is that preferences exist.
6)

So long as they don't use that arbitrary ruling to ruin the life of someone doing what is completely natural. Like having sex with a 16 year old whose body has reached maturity.

You realise that its their mind that needs to be able to consent right? Not the hair on their chest?

Change sexuality. Like... Just do it right now. If you don't want to change it, why not? What preference informs your choice whether to change sexuality or not? I mean, there's some pretty strange but potentially convenient sexualities out there. You could be attracted to the innards of your own underpants and walk through life perpetually fondled. If you don't find that thought appealing, choose to make it appealing. Just choose to be both happy and satisfied, it's that simple.

 

[peoplesuck]

i know what you mean, but again the point was to accept peoples different preferences not necessarily to let people fuck kids. im not defending the act, just the urge? idk

i have always thought that if you think sexuality is a choice you are bisexual

 

[The Gopher]

Everyone's bisexual in denial.

 

[Black Rose]

Pedophilia is basically sex slavery. Any child that reaches puberty is still a ward of the parents. And if they are an orphan then a ward of the state. The frontal lobes of the brain do not fully mature until age 25. From an evolutionary perspective parents must invest in what is best for their offspring. You cannot allow them to get involved with degenerate partners. This is tribalism. Which means the babies must be taken care of by the family. An incompetent mother will raise an incompetent child. So what happens when they find a mate is that the mate must understand everything the parents gave them as a cultural heritage. In a society where the men must take care of the females, the females loose their cultural inheritance from the tribe if they reproduce early. Any adult male that understands female development would know that giving away his daughter would mean that he knows she is competent to raise children. And teenagers are stupid as f*ck at raising children. So any adult male that understands this will realize that pedophiles do not want to raise mature children. Maturity of the father dictates female development and male development. So giving away your offspring at such an early age is indistinguishable from sex slavery even if no money was involved. Raising children to maturity has been increasing over time. Neanderthals reached puberty at age 7. The investment needed to keep evolutionary advantage is why extended childhood increases the likelihood that your children will dominate tribes of immature individuals. Egalitarianism in the evolutionary sense rejects pedophilia as it is a disadvantage to the tribe.

 

[Intolerable]

1) People aren't just after orgasms, many don't experience them but still pursue sex.

Oh right. That is the garnish on the meal! Some people want their orgasms dressed up in romance and some just want the orgasm.

The orgasm is still the reason we pursue sex.

2) Homosexuality is not a perversion. It's a sexuality.

In your politically correct opinion.

3) Homosexuals might display their sexuality because rates of potential partners are lower. If there's less opportunity, then more effort must be put into seeking a partner. Marketing bro. It's also possible they're just testing your acceptance of them, since there's a real chance you think less of them due to their 'choices'.

Or it is an act of excitement for them to do what they know isn't right.

4) Not all desires are derived from gratification. I desire not to be punched in the face, but I receive no gratification from not being punched in the face. You're missing at least half the equation.

You're wrong. There is gratification in something not happening. Do you value your face? Do you like it? Well, then it should please you to know that it isn't going to get smashed.

5) How does this:

...support what you said about choosing. All you've established with this line of thought is that preferences exist.

Well, you need to read better I'm sorry. Gratification is reached through various choices and those choices have rank.

This clearly explains why a man may choose a woman's #2 over her natural sex. He gets off faster there so he'll pester her about it incessantly. It doesn't mean every man will because our individual experiences with it vary. Maybe you walked away disgusted by it for a number of physical or religious reasons. Again, the experiences you've had in your life do have an impact on how those choices are ranked.

6)


You realise that its their mind that needs to be able to consent right? Not the hair on their chest?

This is a fairly modern and incorrect yet politically correct statement. If someone is old enough for sex their mind is as prepared as it will ever be. That is to say, none of us are ever prepared for the intimate encounters we have out in the world. You don't know how your mind is going to react whether you are 16 or 50.

Change sexuality. Like... Just do it right now. If you don't want to change it, why not? What preference informs your choice whether to change sexuality or not? I mean, there's some pretty strange but potentially convenient sexualities out there. You could be attracted to the innards of your own underpants and walk through life perpetually fondled. If you don't find that thought appealing, choose to make it appealing. Just choose to be both happy and satisfied, it's that simple.

In order to eliminate the top option in a gratification schema you replace it through experience. Force a bad experience or find something else you like better.

You can't just imagine it or will it. It doesn't work that way. When your mind is experiencing the urge it will go through your options. If the experiences you've had recently with the first option have been sour your mind may be willing to try option 2 and 3 which may now appear to be better options.

We know this happens naturally. We call them bisexuals. That small fraction of us who never change? Probably haven't had enough good or bad experiences to warrant a change.

By the way, if your top option is a sexual perversion to society I don't personally feel you need to change it. I am a Libertarian. People should be able to do whatever they want to themselves. That doesn't mean a spade isn't a spade.

 

[Sinny91]

i have always thought that if you think sexuality is a choice you are bisexual

Mm. I don't understand it. It confuses me as why there would be any deviation from male-female.

I find men attractive. I know what I find attractive about them. I can find some women attractive, but I also know what I don't find attractive about them, which separates that attraction from the attraction I have to males.

My attraction to men is instinctual, primordial - any 'attraction' to women is not.
I assume/d that the 'instinct' that guides me has it's basis in nature, a driving force of biology.

I have no idea what would 'drive' a same sex partnership.

If you are gay, could you look upon your own body and find it ..attractive?
Do you guys have more fun alone with your selves? aha.

Don't know where I'm going with this..

Anyway, I'm not sexually attracted to women, but If i was a 'gay' man I think I could still sleep with women, even if they weren't my preference .. I don't get the gay guys who are so offended by vag...

Vag offends me - as a woman- but it's not that offensive.. and in comparison to a butt hole?!

Anyway, those are my confused thoughts - each to their own.

Unless kids are involved. then I kill you myself.

 

[Jennywocky]

Everyone's bisexual in denial.

...just what I'd expect a closet pansexual to say!!!

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

I have no idea what would 'drive' a same sex partnership.

mutual attraction between two individuals, just as in a "normal" partnership

when you consider the vast number of parts which comprise an individual the question of which type of junk lurks in their pants seems somewhat trivial

 

[Sinny91]

mutual attraction between two individuals, just as in a "normal" partnership

when you consider the vast number of parts which comprise an individual the question of which type of junk lurks in their pants seems somewhat trivial

But isn't the junk in the trunk that makes it sexual?
Otherwise a (human version) vulcan mindmeld would just do wouldn't it?

I'm already aware that I cannot articulate what I mean, and this sounds all wrong. Let me think on it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Oh right. That is the garnish on the meal! Some people want their orgasms dressed up in romance and some just want the orgasm.

The orgasm is still the reason we pursue sex.

Source? Feels like you're over-generalising from the reason *you* pursue sex. Hookers have sex for money. Losers have sex to maintain self-esteem. psychopaths have sex to exert influence. Married people have sex to maintain harmony. Some people *gasp* have sex in order to have children.

Orgasms are a bi-product of the need to reproduce. It has no business being top of the hierarchy of needs, and it has less than no business being the only need towards which sex can be a means. Many animals don't even experience orgasms (they don't have the equipment for it), but they still pursue sex. Explain.

In your politically correct opinion.

Correct, politically or otherwise. Your model is all fucked up. You understand that sexuality isn't static and therefore has a broad range of permutations, yet you still insist on arbitrarily labeling some of them perversions? I mean if you go by some definitions, anything that's unaccepted is a perversion, and therefore its tautologically perversion by virtue of your non-acceptance. But if that's the extent of your reasoning (none was offered), your justification is literally that you are prejudiced...

Heterosexual = different sexual
Bisexual = two sexual
asexual = non sexual
homosexual = perverted?

Go figure

Or it is an act of excitement for them to do what they know isn't right.

How do they know it's not right? Is it just something they're born with, knowing that the way they are isn't right? Is it not being right an empirical fact, or is it a preconceived notion that pervades your thinking and the thinking of those like you? Is every overt act of culturally identified homosexuality just an act of defiant thrill seeking? If people stopped acting surprised, would they just stop because it's no longer exciting? Naughty homos!

You're wrong. There is gratification in something not happening. Do you value your face? Do you like it? Well, then it should please you to know that it isn't going to get smashed.

Do you get away with this bullshit all the time? There are any number of things that I don't want to get smashed that aren't getting smashed. If that were the case everyone would be ecstatic (in the first world anyway). I have over 100 pieces of paper in my in-tray. I don't want them to be torn and none of them are getting torn. Great success! Gratification =/= Absence of misery. That's silly.

Well, you need to read better I'm sorry. Gratification is reached through various choices and those choices have rank.

This clearly explains why a man may choose a woman's #2 over her natural sex. He gets off faster there so he'll pester her about it incessantly. It doesn't mean every man will because our individual experiences with it vary. Maybe you walked away disgusted by it for a number of physical or religious reasons. Again, the experiences you've had in your life do have an impact on how those choices are ranked.

The choices have rank? That sounds like a preference. Are you trying to say that people have preferences? I prefer bananas to raw weet-bix, but I sure do have a lot of weet-bix. It'd be really convenient if I enjoyed eating raw weet-bix, but unfortunately I don't. I don't have a preference for weet-bix. I know some people like eating wheat cement for breakfast, but in this we differ. Do you think I can choose to change this?

Did I read gooder this time, or have you still failed to build from the obvious existence of preference into your conclusion that sexuality is a choice?

This is a fairly modern and incorrect yet politically correct statement. If someone is old enough for sex their mind is as prepared as it will ever be.

Source? You seem to take great issue with things that can be labeled PC. We're in a pedophilia thread, nobody's trying to be PC.

In order to eliminate the top option in a gratification schema you replace it through experience. Force a bad experience or find something else you like better.

You can't just imagine it or will it. It doesn't work that way. When your mind is experiencing the urge it will go through your options. If the experiences you've had recently with the first option have been sour your mind may be willing to try option 2 and 3 which may now appear to be better options.

We know this happens naturally. We call them bisexuals. That small fraction of us who never change? Probably haven't had enough good or bad experiences to warrant a change.

By the way, if your top option is a sexual perversion to society I don't personally feel you need to change it. I am a Libertarian. People should be able to do whatever they want to themselves. That doesn't mean a spade isn't a spade.

So you don't actually choose your sexuality? Your sexuality is malleable and falls within a reaction range determined by potential and experience? Crazy.

You're calling a spade a dirt-spear. Why do you need to hold onto the notion it's a perversion? What is it perverting? It's a sexuality. It's in the name dummy. If you're really a libertarian, and believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want with themselves, then why do you also think it perverse that they do what they want with themselves? Hypothetically speaking, if I happened to espouse libertarian views, I would see right as doing stuff that you want to do so long as you don't infringe on the liberty of others, and wrong as anything you do that is actively infringing on the liberty of others. Can you tell me why this hypothetical hado would be wrong? (hint: hypothetical hado exists in for-real land and he doesn't think you're a very good libertarian at all).

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This is a fairly modern and incorrect yet politically correct statement. If someone is old enough for sex their mind is as prepared as it will ever be. That is to say, none of us are ever prepared for the intimate encounters we have out in the world. You don't know how your mind is going to react whether you are 16 or 50.

What a load of nonsense. So you ignore that emotional and mental maturity is widely accepted, observable and has influence over every domain of life.
Then you stumble further to say that none of us has any actual control over their reactions and we are no more ready than children.

What constitutes old enough to have sex to you? Reproductive maturity or being grown up enough to physically endure rape?

This is a blatantly false thing to say. Essentially it's enough to compare the behaviour of adults and children to disprove this.

Did you come up with this stuff on your own or do you have any sources to mentors who claim the same thing?

It is a fairly modern accusation and confirmation bias to dismiss opposing views and opinions as politically correct.

 

[Absurdity]

So imagine being a kid again but then also add in a bunch of people approaching you on a regular basis and trying to fuck you.

 

[Tannhauser]

The example with the guy wanting to do his wife in the pooper seems to be the quintessential component of Intolerable's model. I think we need to study that particular case more closely to understand the model.

 

[Sinny91]

lulz - I iz a butt Virgin - dem men gayy.

Yea I've mentioned this before, there are two types of guys - those who do and those who dont.

 

[The Gopher]

...just what I'd expect a closet pansexual to say!!!

Don't even start Jenny....

So imaging being a kid again but then also add in a bunch of people approaching you on a regular basis and trying to fuck you.

MORE PEOPLE?!? That would be awful.

 

[Intolerable]

Source? Feels like you're over-generalising from the reason *you* pursue sex. Hookers have sex for money. Losers have sex to maintain self-esteem. psychopaths have sex to exert influence. Married people have sex to maintain harmony. Some people *gasp* have sex in order to have children.

Hookers can sell ass and enjoy what they do. Typically hookers come from broken homes and are usually victims of sexual abuse. So they're conditioned to the act long before they start taking money for doing it.

This is yet another example that shows how gratification and options work. If you're conditioned at an early age to accept the most demeaning forms of sex you'll probably think of selling ass as being a pretty good deal.

Which reminds me of the women I knew living in a ghetto. Have you ever heard the phrase "she's ruined?" Well such a thing exists. A person man or woman led astray early in life will typically wind up having very low expectations for themselves. As a result their gratification schema and associated options are bottom of the barrel. It can be reversed but it takes something extraordinary. They have to ruin their own pleasures.

All the other groups you listed are the same way. Life conditions and expectations shape options. I also LOL @ "Married people have sex to maintain harmony." I won't assume you've ever been married or know anyone who is married because they surely are not having much sex if they aren't in the mood to. I don't know a single married couple like this.

Orgasms are a bi-product of the need to reproduce. It has no business being top of the hierarchy of needs, and it has less than no business being the only need towards which sex can be a means. Many animals don't even experience orgasms (they don't have the equipment for it), but they still pursue sex. Explain.

We don't understand the animal well enough to know. How odd you assert that we do. This is what I hate about our kind.

What about hunger? Do humans and animals not reveal options when hungry? Of course they do. Why would hunger be any different? It's a basic urge. Does it have no business in our hierarchy of needs?

Wise up here.

Correct, politically or otherwise. Your model is all fucked up. You understand that sexuality isn't static and therefore has a broad range of permutations, yet you still insist on arbitrarily labeling some of them perversions? I mean if you go by some definitions, anything that's unaccepted is a perversion, and therefore its tautologically perversion by virtue of your non-acceptance. But if that's the extent of your reasoning (none was offered), your justification is literally that you are prejudiced...


Heterosexual = different sexual
Bisexual = two sexual
asexual = non sexual
homosexual = perverted?

Go figure

I don't know why you jumped to this conclusion. Are you angry? A homosexual perhaps? I'm not 100% sure but I didn't say bisexuals were any less perverted than homosexuals.

Any sex act that deviates from the natural act of reproduction is unnatural and therefore a perversion. That includes the husband who wants her 2#.

How do they know it's not right? Is it just something they're born with, knowing that the way they are isn't right? Is it not being right an empirical fact, or is it a preconceived notion that pervades your thinking and the thinking of those like you? Is every overt act of culturally identified homosexuality just an act of defiant thrill seeking? If people stopped acting surprised, would they just stop because it's no longer exciting? Naughty homos!

We're talking specifically about grandstanding in public with indecent behavior. It's the same reason Lindsey Lohan pisses on a sidewalk in broad daylight. People, especially children get off on doing these things knowing full well they are wrong.

It isn't about the sex act which is far more complicated psychologically.

Do you get away with this bullshit all the time? There are any number of things that I don't want to get smashed that aren't getting smashed. If that were the case everyone would be ecstatic (in the first world anyway). I have over 100 pieces of paper in my in-tray. I don't want them to be torn and none of them are getting torn. Great success! Gratification =/= Absence of misery. That's silly.

Gratification CAN be the absence of misery. It isn't silly. No sillier than black holes or quarks. PS: The Earth isn't flat.

The choices have rank? That sounds like a preference. Are you trying to say that people have preferences? I prefer bananas to raw weet-bix, but I sure do have a lot of weet-bix. It'd be really convenient if I enjoyed eating raw weet-bix, but unfortunately I don't. I don't have a preference for weet-bix. I know some people like eating wheat cement for breakfast, but in this we differ. Do you think I can choose to change this?

Suppose two people had to choose what they wanted for dinner. One suggests a batch of chili. The other, having had for whatever reason last week a burnt dish will probably say no, I don't want chili. The other mystified is in the mood because for whatever reason, he didn't get the burnt dish.

This is how easily options can differ based on a seemingly equal life experience. It is a very complicated process and you can't simply dismiss it by saying "last week was awful so this week I'm going to have chili again." It may very well turn your stomach thinking about what happened the last time.

Did I read gooder this time, or have you still failed to build from the obvious existence of preference into your conclusion that sexuality is a choice?

In all of this you should realize by now that options are conditioned from the environment you exist in. Some can be physical influences and others psychological.

Mind this also explains how some boys grow up in very religious homes. So strict that even puberty is chained. If their natural urge is enough to push them beyond social conditioning why don't they act? Their options have been effectively neutered to masturbate in privacy and to not get caught in the act. Hardly the natural way of things.

Source? You seem to take great issue with things that can be labeled PC. We're in a pedophilia thread, nobody's trying to be PC.

Why do you keep asking me for sources? Are you 19? Give it some time. Date some gals in their later years. If you still think older sexual partners handle the complications of a sex life easier than younger partners we can have this discussion again. Suffice to say, my experience has been quite the opposite. Old and young all behave the same way. Character can make a difference though.

So you don't actually choose your sexuality? Your sexuality is malleable and falls within a reaction range determined by potential and experience? Crazy.

No we do choose it. Whose fault is it if a man told to not drink cola drinks it anyway? Does it really matter if he prefers cola? Well, I'm not against him having his right to drink cola but I'm surely not going to deny the harm it does to him. Nor am I going to say what he's doing to himself is just fine. He has to sort himself out. We can't do that but telling him he can't control his urge is unfair to him and society.

You're calling a spade a dirt-spear. Why do you need to hold onto the notion it's a perversion? What is it perverting? It's a sexuality. It's in the name dummy. If you're really a libertarian, and believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want with themselves, then why do you also think it perverse that they do what they want with themselves? Hypothetically speaking, if I happened to espouse libertarian views, I would see right as doing stuff that you want to do so long as you don't infringe on the liberty of others, and wrong as anything you do that is actively infringing on the liberty of others. Can you tell me why this hypothetical hado would be wrong? (hint: hypothetical hado exists in for-real land and he doesn't think you're a very good libertarian at all).

No, what you espouse is called Social Justice Warrior fandom. Or you're one of their protected species. Either way Libertarians allow for things they don't personally agree with. That's the beauty of being a Libertarian. You acknowledge that a thing can exist you disagree with while not infringing on the rights of others to partake in it. That is precisely what Libertarian ideology is.

 

[Intolerable]

What a load of nonsense. So you ignore that emotional and mental maturity is widely accepted, observable and has influence over every domain of life.

Define emotional and mental maturity for me please. Explain how a man who is a 50 year old virgin can be completely inept to the point a naked woman frightens him whereas a 16 year old boy is fearless in approaching a naked woman.

Having 20, 40, 60 years post-puberty does not make you any more conditioned for a sexual experience than someone having sex the second time. You assert that some magical number of years in the field provide us with clarity when it just isn't the case. Even a reasoned, well experienced grown man can fall for a woman like a giddy teenager if she pushes his buttons right in bed.

None of us are prepared for it.

Then you stumble further to say that none of us has any actual control over their reactions and we are no more ready than children.

We don't! What about you makes you better prepared for a sexual experience than say, an 18 year old girl?

What trait you've acquired in your years of living beyond 18 allows for you to be better prepared?

What constitutes old enough to have sex to you? Reproductive maturity or being grown up enough to physically endure rape?

Reproductive maturity. I'm not sure where rape came from. I'm going to safely assume you pulled that from your nether regions.

This is a blatantly false thing to say. Essentially it's enough to compare the behaviour of adults and children to disprove this.

Is it now? Ok then. Lets explain how a 20 year old woman and a 40 year old woman can behave the exact same way around the same man.

Or rather, lets explain how it is utterly impossible. Mind, we both know it is.

Did you come up with this stuff on your own or do you have any sources to mentors who claim the same thing?

My life experience tells me this is so. Particularly how women behave seeing I am a man. Though I acknowledge men behave the same way just differently.

It is a fairly modern accusation and confirmation bias to dismiss opposing views and opinions as politically correct.

I don't dismiss opposing views as politically correct. What I dismiss as politically correct is the notion that if you don't accept homosexuality as normal then you are part of the problem. Sorry Charlie. I wasn't raised to keep quiet.

 

[Tannhauser]

@Intolerable
Didn't your thesis start with the statement that sexuality is 100% choice? Most of what you write seems to contradict that. You say for example that choices are conditioned by one's upbringing and experiences.

In light of that, you seem to both understand and not realize the following. You treat humans as every other animal and say that there is one optimal choice of "options" that will lead them to gratification. However, humans are different in the respect that we are made for living in complex social structures. The optimal behavior might differ depending on what kind of social and physical environment you are born into. The development of one's behavior and personality is a part of the process of an individual's adaptation to its environment. Your modes of behavior are to a large extent governed by hormone levels, neurotransmitters in the brain.

Hence, you cannot just list your "options" at any point in time and just pick modes of behavior as you like. That will hold only in very simple and isolated cases like the ones you have given (people picking the dish for their dinner or whatever). You seem to take those and generalize them at will to human behavior as a whole, which is quite ridiculous.

 

[Hadoblado]

I've got a niece set to reach reproductive maturity by eleven due to a hormone disorder. DTF? I'll give you a call in a couple years (she's nine atm). I have strong rapport with her, so if you wanted, I could do you a favour and condition in her your preference of fetish. Designer made child lovers

I know I'm going to get into all sorts of trouble for linking from here again but seriously? You're okay with this? Okay maybe not the bit where it's rape (rape is bad!), but you wouldn't need to rape them if you trained them to say yes. Amirite?

 

[Black Rose]

I am disturbed now.

The implications for virtual reality and A.I. is appalling.

And the same for robots.

 

[Haim]

A teenager lacks the life experience of an adult.An adult can easily manipulate a teenager,even a smart one.Being ready for relationship has got nothing to do with it.
Can you manipulate easily a woman as easily you can manipulate 16 years teenager?
For a teenager it doesn't even need to be a complex one,a little incitive or target common emotional things at that age(teenager rebellion)

 

[Intolerable]

@Intolerable
Didn't your thesis start with the statement that sexuality is 100% choice? Most of what you write seems to contradict that. You say for example that choices are conditioned by one's upbringing and experiences.

A set of choices can be conditioned by your surroundings yet still be your choice ultimately.

What most people don't realize or even put any thought into is how our choices make us the people we are tomorrow. Every choice we make sets us on a determined path going forward. All we have to do is make a choice we wouldn't ordinarily make and our lives go in a different direction. We know this yet we prattle on about how we hate the way things are while continuing to do the things we've always done.

That reality leads me to believe that most people are convinced their lot in life was predetermined for them when it actually isn't. Yes, environment influences but that is an influence that can be ignored for the most part. Unless you live in a dictatorship.

In light of that, you seem to both understand and not realize the following. You treat humans as every other animal and say that there is one optimal choice of "options" that will lead them to gratification. However, humans are different in the respect that we are made for living in complex social structures. The optimal behavior might differ depending on what kind of social and physical environment you are born into. The development of one's behavior and personality is a part of the process of an individual's adaptation to its environment. Your modes of behavior are to a large extent governed by hormone levels, neurotransmitters in the brain.

The problem is thinking humans are so different from other animals that our realities are different. They aren't. Drop a human back into the wild with no help and see just how far they get on their own. Yes, human civ has become something grand in the natural world but humans individually are mere animals. What makes human civ great is our ability to recognize options, patterns that animals aren't smart enough to see. Our enormous brains allow for us to peek outside the animal box but being animals is in our blood. We're still wired the same way.

Hence, you cannot just list your "options" at any point in time and just pick modes of behavior as you like. That will hold only in very simple and isolated cases like the ones you have given (people picking the dish for their dinner or whatever). You seem to take those and generalize them at will to human behavior as a whole, which is quite ridiculous.

Sure you can. It isn't picking a mode of behavior either. If you really like Laurie and are in the mood but she isn't around then maybe you give Shelly a call instead. This happens all the time. The behavior is the same. The gratification is still requested. The choice changed. Does it change the outlook tomorrow? Certainly does.

The problem is with your line of thinking here.

A sexual choice and a food choice are not all that different. Convincing yourself to eat something you've been trained to dislike, with zero experience with the food is going to be pretty hard for you to do. For example you may find the idea of eating a cockroach disgusting. Just like you might think of the idea of having sex with another man disgusting. It's easier to settle on a candy bar than it is a cockroach when you're hungry. It's also easier to settle on Shelly rather than Tom when Laurie isn't around.

 

[Intolerable]

A teenager lacks the life experience of an adult.An adult can easily manipulate a teenager,even a smart one.Being ready for relationship has got nothing to do with it.
Can you manipulate easily a woman as easily you can manipulate 16 years teenager?
For a teenager it doesn't even need to be a complex one,a little incitive or target common emotional things at that age(teenager rebellion)

We're talking about two different things here. Manipulation preceding a sexual act isn't the same thing as emotional reaction following sex.

 

[Intolerable]

I've got a niece set to reach reproductive maturity by eleven due to a hormone disorder. DTF? I'll give you a call in a couple years (she's nine atm). I have strong rapport with her, so if you wanted, I could do you a favour and condition in her your preference of fetish. Designer made child lovers

Non-starter argument. For the simple fact that you're leaving out what I may potentially want. In this case intellectual stimulation.

I know I'm going to get into all sorts of trouble for linking from here again but seriously? You're okay with this? Okay maybe not the bit where it's rape (rape is bad!), but you wouldn't need to rape them if you trained them to say yes. Amirite?

It wasn't odd in antiquity for a man of his twenties to take a child bride. So long as he waited until she was of proper age to carry a child. There was a courtship and the physical act was settled on their wedding night. Just as marriage is supposed to be today apart from the fact the bride has been laid numerous times prior to her marriage.

Of course those were different circumstances. Women were often part of an arrangement for families to unite and her virginity was seen as the knot. The wife was the property of the husband. Today we're supposed to see each other as equals. Society today mandates a different perspective but it is neither better nor worse for humans. It's just different.

 

[Haim]

We're talking about two different things here. Manipulation preceding a sexual act isn't the same thing as emotional reaction following sex.

Hance "got nothing to do with it",the emotional reaction does not matter.

There are gay people that want to strait,got married,lived a normal married life and yet still was attracted to men.This is not a thing you have a choice in,if I now point a gun at you and tell you be gay,you would not be able to,it is more deep than normal wants.

 

[kora]

So imagine being a kid again but then also add in a bunch of people approaching you on a regular basis and trying to fuck you.

just like loads of girls when they hit 13 then

 

[Jennywocky]

just like loads of girls when they hit 13.

Yup...and now it would be legal, potentially. "She never said no, not clearly." And "he" as well.

 

[Yellow]

just like loads of girls when they hit 13.

13? In my neighborhood, it was more like 10... I was just grateful that half of them didn't speak enough English. I still get creepy flashbacks when I see that v-finger-wagging tongue gesture. Though in retrospect, they weren't going to do anything without my encouragement. I think it was more along the lines of enforcing gender roles, kinda.



Huge edit:

This is a fairly modern and incorrect yet politically correct statement. If someone is old enough for sex their mind is as prepared as it will ever be. That is to say, none of us are ever prepared for the intimate encounters we have out in the world. You don't know how your mind is going to react whether you are 16 or 50.

It's more than just a political concept. Statistically, having sex before the age of 16 for both men and women is correlated with sexually risky behavior, mental illness, domestic abuse (on both sides), and addiction throughout adulthood.

Moreso, there's more to sexual development than just having some outward signs of sexual maturity. People start to have the attractive parts when they begin puberty, but until puberty is complete, they are not even physically sexually mature, therefore not ready for sex. Puberty tends to end around 16 for women and 19 for men.

Basically, once the mind becomes mature enough to begin to handle adult responsibilities like parenthood, they are able to start handling sexual relationships.

There are exceptions, of course, age of sexual maturity is a bell curve not a border line.

To the point, a healthy, fertile-aged human isn't going to a sexually attracted to someone who appears to be outside their fertile years without some serious mitigating factors in play. We have a collective disdain for anyone who would deviate from this, and well we should, if we have any instinct at all for the health of our population.

 

[kora]

Started at 12 for me. It screws you up kinda, at least in the moment, can't tell if it screws you up later on

 

[Tannhauser]

A set of choices can be conditioned by your surroundings yet still be your choice ultimately.

What most people don't realize or even put any thought into is how our choices make us the people we are tomorrow. Every choice we make sets us on a determined path going forward. All we have to do is make a choice we wouldn't ordinarily make and our lives go in a different direction. We know this yet we prattle on about how we hate the way things are while continuing to do the things we've always done.

That reality leads me to believe that most people are convinced their lot in life was predetermined for them when it actually isn't. Yes, environment influences but that is an influence that can be ignored for the most part. Unless you live in a dictatorship.



The problem is thinking humans are so different from other animals that our realities are different. They aren't. Drop a human back into the wild with no help and see just how far they get on their own. Yes, human civ has become something grand in the natural world but humans individually are mere animals. What makes human civ great is our ability to recognize options, patterns that animals aren't smart enough to see. Our enormous brains allow for us to peek outside the animal box but being animals is in our blood. We're still wired the same way.



Sure you can. It isn't picking a mode of behavior either. If you really like Laurie and are in the mood but she isn't around then maybe you give Shelly a call instead. This happens all the time. The behavior is the same. The gratification is still requested. The choice changed. Does it change the outlook tomorrow? Certainly does.

The problem is with your line of thinking here.

A sexual choice and a food choice are not all that different. Convincing yourself to eat something you've been trained to dislike, with zero experience with the food is going to be pretty hard for you to do. For example you may find the idea of eating a cockroach disgusting. Just like you might think of the idea of having sex with another man disgusting. It's easier to settle on a candy bar than it is a cockroach when you're hungry. It's also easier to settle on Shelly rather than Tom when Laurie isn't around.

Unfortunately I can only say that you seem somewhat ignorant on the topics of human psychology, physiology and neurology. I am certainly no expert myself, but you seem to neglect even rudimentary facts like the fact that a lot of an individual's behavior is governed by the concentration of various chemicals in his brain. Do you actually believe you can deliberately control the production of these chemicals? If your argument is simply that there is no difference between a mode of behavior and the choice between two dishes for dinner, I'd suggest reading a book on human behavior. I recommend "Descarte's Error" by Antonio Damasio – actually a very good fit for topic at hand.

 

[Intolerable]

Hance "got nothing to do with it",the emotional reaction does not matter.

Of course it matters! The usual line of thinking with 'lost innocence' is that she had sex, children and such far too early in her life which conditioned her for adulthood too soon.

This is the usual line of feed given today. Instead of having a broader mind and asking what was truly lost? Ignorance? A naive understanding of the world only afforded by being wholly dependent on others?

I can understand a parent wanting their children to wait until they're independent to have their own children. I'd probably feel the same way. It feels unfair to be given another child to raise by your own child. That said, a child has to learn to be an adult and I think we've effectively pushed that back four years later than our ancestors would have. The difference between 16 years of age and 20. There really isn't any good reason for it. We just did it because reasons.

Then you compare this to how grown women react to sex. Mind, not all women. Just anecdotally I've been around the kind who act 100% differently after you've had sex. They're either clingy or ice cold. It really depends on the character and age has nothing to do with it.

There are gay people that want to strait,got married,lived a normal married life and yet still was attracted to men.This is not a thing you have a choice in,if I now point a gun at you and tell you be gay,you would not be able to,it is more deep than normal wants.

I love junk food. Even though I haven't had cola in about 3 years and chocolate in about 6 months. The options don't just vanish. What happens is you ignore them and settle on something you like just a bit less. Eventually your perspective works itself out. I've forgotten the taste and texture of the fizzy stuff so it doesn't bother me nearly as much as it used to.

If I held a gun to your head and told you to eat cow dung without throwing it up maybe you would be able to manage it but the odds are against it.

 

[Intolerable]

It's more than just a political concept. Statistically, having sex before the age of 16 for both men and women is correlated with sexually risky behavior, mental illness, domestic abuse (on both sides), and addiction throughout adulthood.

Correlation is not causation. The primary reason why sexual activity at 16 is also linked to drug abuse and mental illness is that those stats are pulled from impoverished, morally bankrupt ghettos where children raise themselves in lieu of having a parent who cares enough to do it.

It is possible and I know this because I have sisters that a girl has sex early in her life and goes on to not be a prostitute, a junkie or a head case. Clearly society holds some fault for demonizing young girls who have sex as sluts and/or ruined.

If I were in that position I'd find more at fault with the society than the dick that started it all. Of course this excludes rape which is involuntary.

Moreso, there's more to sexual development than just having some outward signs of sexual maturity. People start to have the attractive parts when they begin puberty, but until puberty is complete, they are not even physically sexually mature, therefore not ready for sex. Puberty tends to end around 16 for women and 19 for men.

While true that we aren't fully sexually developed at 16 our senses have been triggered and girls are capable of carrying children. Girls have children all the time at 16 and they even go on to have normal lives and healthy children. Sure, there are some extreme cases where a child was raped and miscarried due to her inability to carry. That's an extreme case though not the normal.

Basically, once the mind becomes mature enough to begin to handle adult responsibilities like parenthood, they are able to start handling sexual relationships.

I really don't know what you're talking about here. Have you ever met a woman in her 20, 30s, 40s who by all measure could be called a horrible mother? I have. Age really doesn't prepare you for children. Maybe financially but certainly not emotionally.

I know a woman personally who had her first at 15. The girl grew up to be healthy, smart and beautiful and her mother did just fine as well. She actually went on to have more children and a husband who supports her. I'm just saying that statistics might give the idea that having children early is a death sentence on your life but it isn't necessarily true.

There are exceptions, of course, age of sexual maturity is a bell curve not a border line.

Physically yes. Emotionally I think you either have it or you don't. It's all about character.

To the point, a healthy, fertile-aged human isn't going to a sexually attracted to someone who appears to be outside their fertile years without some serious mitigating factors in play. We have a collective disdain for anyone who would deviate from this, and well we should, if we have any instinct at all for the health of our population.

What is fertile years to you? Is it wrong for a 40 year old man like me to be sexually aroused by a 16 year old well endowed girl?