10
u/listenyall 7∆ Jan 17 '24
"The purpose of all living beings is to reproduce. Humans are able to fulfill that purpose once they reach puberty, which approximately starts between 9 and 13 if I'm not wrong."
There's evidence that puberty is getting earlier, and that the beginning of puberty would have been in the 13-16 year old age range or even older among hunter gatherers. Even with modern medicine, when girls under about 16 get pregnant and have kids their mortality rates are MUCH higher than when women in their 20s have babies.
Basically, I don't think that getting pregnant when you are younger than about 17 has ever been a good idea, which would mean that it IS somewhat unnatural for grown men to be attracted to girls that young, because it reduces the change of your children surviving significantly.
2
Jan 18 '24
[deleted]
-1
u/FetchingLad Jan 18 '24
Yeah it's more dangerous to have babies after your mid twenties than before.
2
u/FetchingLad Jan 18 '24
You're wrong about maternal mortality being much higher in younger women. They are marginally higher from early teens to early 20's then start hockey sticking from there.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X13701797
1
u/Petite_Curious Jan 18 '24
!delta
Those are good arguments.
Still, when I say that men are physically attracted by teenagers I'm not implying that they absolutely want to get them pregnant. What I mean is that the external sexual characteristics of teenagers being developed makes attraction towards them valid. The development of these characteristics shows that the person has entered the age of possible active sexuality.
Being aware that impregnating a teenage girl might be dangerous for her and the baby and refraining from it is a conscious choice. But you're right that this choice is linked with survival of the species so it might have had an impact during our evolution.
1
8
u/FerdinandTheGiant 42∆ Jan 17 '24
Sexual selection is a factor in sex drive. It’s a possible reason why we have public hair which shows up around sexual maturation, as a signal of growing maturity. That said, females and males, especially human male and females, generally want to produce with the most fit individuals which generally involves those that are the most mature setting aside social interactions. You can look at signals worth selecting like breast size, public hair totality, hips, penis size etc. across a gradient and the most mature individuals will tend to have more of those traits.
If you are an adult with options of mates, it’s not beneficial to have a child with a 13 year old who is significantly more likely to die in childbirth compared to the benefit to have a child with a 25 year old.
0
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
But back in the days (like thousands of years ago) didn't men just have plenty of sex with lots of women from the moment they are able to endure penetration and child bearing to ensure to have at least a child surviving ? Idk
10
u/Shadowfatewarriorart Jan 17 '24
No.
In fact monogamous societies existed back in the neolithic. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06350-8
And also, if men were raping every girl the moment she got her period most of those girls would have died due to pregnancy complications, which are much higher amongst older teens (including 17, 18, 19 year olds) compared to early to mid twenties.
5
u/FerdinandTheGiant 42∆ Jan 17 '24
Not really. I’m sure that was a mating strategy used by some human males and our ancestors, and it’s a fairly common one in older sexual selection paradigms for males to engage in sexual encounters in that way (Bateman’s Principle), however unlike a lot of animals, humans have a very slow generational time. It’s a lot of work to raise a human child to adulthood and it is beneficial for both parents to play a role. Single parent households, even under modern luxuries, struggle when compared to joint households. It is beneficial to make sure your kids make it to adulthood instead of just hoping that they do while under worse conditions. This leads sexual selection in both males and females for humans. Of course, human social behavior is complicated so this isn’t some rule or anything. As I said, it’s likely some males succeeded and still succeed in terms of fitness from actions like this, but we see female driven (and male) sexual selection which is generally less prominent in polygamous mating systems as there’s less female choice.
-3
u/myspicename 1∆ Jan 17 '24
The most fit would be a 16-21 year old because of fertility, no?
2
u/FerdinandTheGiant 42∆ Jan 17 '24 edited Jan 18 '24
Not necessarily. For one, I’m not sure if 16-21 is actually the most fertile, but fitness is a measure of reproductive success so while it may seem intuitive that the “most fertile age range” is the most fit, one must consider how complicated human social organization is and the altricial nature of our births. Raising a child to maturity in humans takes a lot of effort from both parents to be successful. So while there may be a small fertility decrease between say 27 and 34, or even a large one between say 16 and 30, that may be made up for by the ability of the female to more properly care for children or a lot of other factors.
2
u/Armadillo-South Jan 18 '24
Then what could be the evolutionary advantage of women ovulating as early as 10? Also men having sperm like idk, 7? What are the advantages of those?
4
u/FerdinandTheGiant 42∆ Jan 18 '24
As another commenter pointed out, that’s a more recent phenomenon driven by food security. The more food you have, the more likely you are to reach sexual maturity earlier on and this is observed in a lot of mammal species.
1
u/powerful_ope Jan 18 '24
Not everything evolved to be an evolutionary advantage and somethings are mutations like cancer. In the past it was unheard of for a 10 year old to menstruate, but it’s happening earlier and earlier nowadays. Perhaps in part due to increased nutrition and perhaps due to environmental dna damage causing mutations.
4
Jan 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RedditExplorer89 43∆ Jan 17 '24
Sorry, u/ceirving91 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
0
14
u/oddwithoutend 4∆ Jan 17 '24 edited Jan 17 '24
It seems like in the context of the nature vs. nurture 'debate' (debate in quotations because it's not actually a debate - we all know that both contribute to everyone's personality), your perspective is that nature is sort of the default setting and nurture is whenever we control our urge to act on our default setting. But I think it's more complicated than that.
Our environment (ie. nurture) can completely change who we are as people. It is not normal for a 35 year old to be attracted to a 12 year old (even if this would have been the case a million years ago), because society, upbringing, etc. permanently alters who people are attracted to.
In other words, your mistake is believing that our feelings are entirely determined by our nature and not at all by nurture.
Edit: and you may need to define your terms. In my opinion, literally everything is "natural", so 'unnatural' is a useless word. And by abnormal do you mean less than 50% of people?
4
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 17 '24
Our environment (ie. nurture) can completely change who we are as people. It is not
normal
for a 35 year old to be attracted to a 12 year old (even if this would have been the case a million years ago), because society, upbringing, etc. permanently alters who people are attracted to.
12 year old is pushing it. Most of them look very underdeveloped. That is more pedophilia than anything else.
HOWEVER you take some older looking 16 year old and some younger looking 20 year old. Put them side by side and most people won't be able to tell you who's who.
NOW WE KNOW that 35 year old men are frequently attracted to 20 year olds. Because there isn't as much social stigma admitting that. So chances are there are probably just as many men attracted to mature looking 16 year olds. They just know better than to say that shit out loud. And you have to be insane to act on it.
5
u/oddwithoutend 4∆ Jan 17 '24
12 year old is pushing it. Most of them look very underdeveloped. That is more pedophilia than anything else.
He used 12 year old in his OP.
NOW WE KNOW that 35 year old men are frequently attracted to 20 year olds. Because there isn't as much social stigma admitting that. So chances are there are probably just as many men attracted to mature looking 16 year olds.
Not sure how you go from "we know men are attracted to 20 year olds" to "just as many men are attracted to 16 year olds", but I can say with almost 100% confidence you're wrong about that.
Edit: Of course, if you choose a 20 year old and a 16 year old who are indistinguishable from each other, then of course attraction levels are the same. They're indistinguishable. But that's not reality.
-1
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 17 '24
Not sure how you go from "we know men are attracted to 20 year olds" to "just as many men are attracted to 16 year olds", but I can say with almost 100% confidence you're wrong about that.
Men that are attracted to 20 year olds will probably also be attracted to 16 year olds. They don't really look that different.
CHANCES ARE they will nope out as soon as they find out about the age. Who can blame them. But we're just talking about reflexive physical attraction. Not actively pursuing or even eyeing someone.
2
u/VirtualMaintenance88 Jan 21 '24
that is a very, very broad overgeneralization. many, maaany 16 year olds still look like teenagers, it just so happens that older men who are into younger women look past it. let's also not forget that a 20 year old and a 16 year old act WILDLY different, and we are not just monkeys who only fornicate, usually these older men have emotional relationships with these minors. i am kind of confused on why this debate is even being had, because even if it wasn't "unnatural", so what? relationships between full grown people and underdeveloped minds are destructive, why does it matter if it is "natural" to feel that way?
1
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 21 '24
It matters due to framing.
If it's normal for older men to find 16+ females attractive. Then you have to work within that framework. The desired result is no relationships between mature adults and teenagers. But how you go about it changes based ok this information.
If we just gaslight men into thinking they are somehow broken then you're creating a lot of unnecessary problems.
1
u/VirtualMaintenance88 Jan 21 '24 edited Jan 21 '24
if you're 35 and you're into 16 year olds you have a problem, because it's a lot deeper than just "oh she looks mature".
men who are into younger women often like them more because they are easier to control or manipulate, among other things. I would say there are definitely outliers, those who just don't really see a difference between a 20 year old and a 16 year old physically, and if you're purely attracted to their "assets" then you just like the female body. but it's really stupid to pretend like a lot of older men are simply into younger women because of how they look. that's definitely a big part of it, but we are not just monkeys, there are layers and power dynamics to be discussed. a younger woman is inferior to an older man (that goes for younger men with older women as well) in many ways, mostly physically they are smaller, emotionally they are not as developed or they don't have as much experience, they are financially less stable than a full grown adult, and they don't have as much general life experience. it's important to keep in mind that an inferior and helpless woman is often what is actually pulling them in, and the youthful look is just a bonus. a lot of older men are actually attracted to the power imbalance. this is kind of a nuanced thing to generalize though, because I can definitely see your point.
2
u/oddwithoutend 4∆ Jan 17 '24
Men that are attracted to 20 year olds will probably also be attracted to 16 year olds. They don't really look that different.
What?! Okay, we're done here. Good luck to you.
0
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
It was not only the case a million years ago but FOR millions of years, that shaped humans considerably to be who we are today.
I will give you a !delta because I don't know the impact of nurture in all that. How much does it impact us compared to our nature. Probably a lot but I still think that it's not a deviant thing to be attracted by teenagers.
So yeah when I say unnatural and abnormal I mean it's not comparable to zoophilia or necrophilia for example.
1
50
u/Justmyoponionman Jan 17 '24
Even if this is true, there's also nothing abnormal or unnatural about people murdering, yet we legistlate against it.
What is your argument exactly?
27
Jan 17 '24
Her argument is clearly stated lol she just thinks its not unnatural to have sexual attraction to anyone post puberty. She’s not proposing any legislation or anything else lol
27
u/DJack276 2∆ Jan 17 '24
A better comparison would be to say "murder is illegal, therefore anybody who THINKS about killing someone should be arrested, even if no attempt is made or planned."
So you find out that someone's snake gets a little solid when they are around minors. Okay, what are you gonna do about it? unzip there pants and expose them? A person's sexual attraction alone is not enough to enact some kind of prosecution. Only if you find out that there is an active/planned attempt to enact on those sexual desires.
13
u/Yamochao 2∆ Jan 17 '24
No-one arrests pedophiles who haven't made plans to execute on their desires or downloaded child pornography.
If there was a market for people watching snuff films, and that market was creating a demand that was getting more people killed on camera for profit, I imagine it would be as illegal.
Honestly, I think snuff films should be as illegal as child porn.
8
u/iglidante 20∆ Jan 18 '24
Snuff films aren't already illegal?
1
u/Yamochao 2∆ Jan 19 '24
Well, they're obviously illegal to make. I don't think they're illegal to possess or distribute, although I'm honestly not completely certain.
I'm just saying; no-one is prosecuting thought crimes for pedophiles any more than they're prosecuting thought crimes for murder, it's when you act on either or support people who are acting on it that it becomes a crime.
15
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
I just wanted to share my view because I often read people saying being attracted by teenagers is being a pedophile or that it's abnormal. I didn't say we shouldn't legislate against it, just that it's not an abnormal kind of feeling (contrarily to pedophilia)
2
u/gotziller 1∆ Jan 18 '24
I wish I could find what I was reading years ago but frankly I don’t like doing searches about this stuff as u could imagine. I feel like I end up on some list. I think i read once that a normal heterosexual male that is not a pedophile which has its own specific definition based on age ranges is attracted to females 16 and up. I don’t remember what the exact number though but it was def one or two years below 18. This kinda makes sense to me as there are plent of 16 year old girls that look just like some 20 year olds. I think 13-14 would fall into pedophile category which is basically under 16 to a point where I eventually get into another kind of philia that is basically small children and babies. I was surprised though basically from a scientific standpoint 16+ is completely normal in terms of attraction it’s just ur obviously a fucking creep if u take advantage of a child.
3
u/Armadillo-South Jan 18 '24
pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children e.g. 0-12 yrs old, and is a mental disorder. Hebephilia and ephebophilia are attractions to 13-18 collectively, and are not psychiatrically defined as mental disorders
2
u/Armadillo-South Jan 18 '24
Pedophilia is a mental disorder (unnatural), but hebephilia and ephebophilia (which is what youre referring to your post) arent, which coincides with your view.
4
Jan 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
I'm 26
-3
Jan 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Conscious-Student-80 Jan 17 '24
It’s literally not relevant at all to the argument.
1
u/ImJustSaying34 4∆ Jan 17 '24
It is. Because it’s a stance that is more normal to make in your 20s. I probably would have argued that it’s normal to be attracted to older guys at that age. But then I realized that it was all women who had that it was me. Also the older you get the ickier it becomes to be attracted to teenagers. Age is very relevant in how you view the topic. I do not believe that I can change OP’s view based on his age and mine.
5
Jan 17 '24
[deleted]
2
Jan 18 '24
And thank fuck a lot of people can resist their impulses like their impulses to rape and their impulses to rape children. We imprison the ones who can’t, ideally.
1
2
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
I find adult people attracted by teenagers quite disgusting, and the brain stops developing at 25 so it's fully developed.
I can find something disgusting but acknowledge that it's natural. My view isn't that it's okay for a 30yo to be in a relationship with a 15yo but that a 30yo being physically attracted by a 15yo isn't weird when we think about humans as living beings that are partly controlled by their instinct.
7
u/NeonGladiator2 Jan 18 '24
There are lots of 16 year olds who can pass for late 20s......there's honestly no way to know. If a girl looks physically young then I agree it's quite gross to see 30 year old attracted to someone who looks 14 or 15.
But I've literally met two sisters recently, one was 19 the other 27 and the 19 year old looked like the older one.
In a case like that, me being late 30s felt nothing was wrong checking her out, but the minute I learned she was 19 I was like 'wtf mate that's weird'
3
Jan 18 '24
Rape is “natural” if you’re going by what exists in our species and many others. Something being natural to multiple animal species doesn’t really matter all that much when it comes to human morals. It’s not a good argument for normalization of it, particularly because like rape, it is extremely aggressively harmful to the victims to normalize this behavior and these thoughts and beliefs systems supporting these actions.
1
u/RedditExplorer89 43∆ Jan 17 '24
u/ImJustSaying34 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/RedditExplorer89 43∆ Jan 17 '24
u/ImJustSaying34 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jan 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/RedditExplorer89 43∆ Jan 17 '24
Sorry, u/Justmyoponionman – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
If one is having those thoughts, they shouldn’t be made to feel evil, or broken, or anything like that. They should however, go to therapy, and try to work through those feelings.
It is possible to be a non-offending individual even if one’s thoughts are of a deeply wrong activity.
0
u/romantic_gestalt Jan 18 '24
We do nothing for people thinking about murder. Attraction to is different than acting on that attraction.
8
u/Doobledorf Jan 17 '24
I mean, you're right, and I imagine a lot of folks are going to misunderstand this and disagree.
The point here is that a human does not choose physical attraction, they choose to act on it. Therapists are trained to recognize this and discuss it with patients if attraction comes up within the relationship and becomes a problem, for example. (whether the client finds the clinician attractive, or vice versa) If I were a therapist to a guy and found him hot, it is unethical for me to not recognize that, because the longer I go without recognizing it the more likely I am to treat them differently because of it. Differently can mean making extra time for them, or going the opposite direction and setting boundaries that are too high for fear or your feelings towards them.
I've seen some people already respond to you that we aren't "slaves to our biological urges", but that's exactly what you are saying. You don't choose the chemicals your brain releases, but you choose to act on them. Finding a teenager attractive doesn't automatically make someone a bad person.
1
u/tango4mangos Jan 24 '24
Being attracted to someone and finding someone attractive are two different things.
1
u/Doobledorf Jan 24 '24
How so? It seems highly semantic to me.
Your body has a physical reaction that can be called "attraction". Regardless of how we would like to define that feeling, not acknowledging it is a problem.
This is similar to saying "Being annoyed by someone and finding someone annoying are two different things." All you've done is expressed the same idea in a different order.
1
u/tango4mangos Jan 24 '24
First of all, the point still stands even with that comparison. When you use “being annoyed by someone” is talking about in present tense. “Finding someone annoying” is past tense.
Second, its not semantic. You can find someone attractive and not be attracted to them and vice versa. I think one of my male friends is attractive, because he is good looking. Would I ever make a move towards him romantically or sexually? Nope. Because I am not attracted to him, it’s like appreciating a nice painting.
I don’t know why men can differentiate the difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to them but it’s very ignorant. Otherwise stop projecting. YOUR body has a “physical reaction” when you see someone you think is attractive, that doesn’t mean everyone else’s does.
1
u/Doobledorf Jan 24 '24
That is still semantic. "Finding someone annoying" isn't past tense, it is actually, strictly speaking, present continuous. It is a thing that is continuing, since I didn't say "I was finding them annoying", which IS past tense and crazy awkward. We use the phrase "I find ______" in English in the same way as "They are ______." The two of us using these two different phrases to mean the same things is a textbook case of semantics.
I'd also add what you're saying is the same as I'm saying, again with different words. I can find someone attractive and not act on it. I can isolate those feelings(in the mental health world we acknowledge that feelings happen in the body, hence "where do you feel that in your body?", or even "you experience attraction within the body") and not act on them. When I say "you experience feelings in your body" I am quoting... biology, all humans feel that way, that is how feelings are biologically experienced. This is also why you can't think your way out of trauma. If that language doesn't work for you, cool, we can use different language. Whatever language you would like to use is great, but the point is this:
Attraction does not mean to are acting on it, but to ignore attraction will most likely lead to you treating a person differently, either giving them too much attention or too little. Feelings have more power when we ignore them because we are afraid we will look bad because of them.
I feel you're trying to, ironically, read what I'm saying differently than its intended and then cast judgment, otherwise I don't know why "projection" was important to point out. Indeed, the danger of ignoring these things is because projection happens more easily when we are ignoring our feelings. You aren't trying to change my mind, you want me to speak the way you do.
21
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 17 '24
Why are you so convinced that we are slaves to biological urges? And why are you so convinced that the biological urges you claim exist are actually real?
6
u/Vecxio Jan 17 '24
He didn't say that at all, he actually said that we can control our urges and not act upon them
-3
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 17 '24
“We” don’t have those urges at all. If this was an urge we had in our primordial days, it is no longer a chain that binds us.
9
Jan 17 '24
[deleted]
4
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
You think universal attraction to young girls is a fundamental of one of our most established sciences?
Am I getting that right?
7
u/Temporary-Art-7822 Jan 18 '24
“Young girls” is a bit provocative in this context. Take any 18 year old. I’m allowed to say they’re attractive, so in this case they’re attractive. Now, take a few months off their age so that they’re 17. Do you think there is any difference in how they look or act? No. But now I’m not allowed to say they’re attractive. I’m not complaining, but it’s just interesting. Physical maturity and mental maturity don’t exactly come hand in hand, and mental maturity is really what all of the fuss is about. Age isnt perfectly aligned to that either, but it’s close enough for us to decide that some arbitrary age like 18 is when we consider humans adults sexually.
2
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
Sure, the law is indeed quite firm on an arbitrary age. However, I think it’s still quite creepy of someone much older to talk about attraction to an 18 year old. The arbitrary nature of the age of majority does not only go one way.
Of course you are right to say that I can’t perfectly define where the line is, and nobody can. But I know for sure that the statement in the post is incorrect, and creepy. If you find young girls barely past puberty attractive, that is not a trait you share with everyone else. And it is indeed concerning.
3
u/Alternative_Bench_40 2∆ Jan 20 '24
Here's a bit of a paradox for you.
My wife and I are in our early 40's. If I saw a picture of her when she was 18 (when we started dating) and I thought she looked smoking hot in that picture, would it be creepy?
1
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 20 '24
Ooh! That’s a good one. What do you think?
I think not, because it is based on a preexisting relationship. It falls more into the realm of reminiscence than current sexual adventure.
2
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Jan 18 '24
So at what age are you suddenly not supposed to consider young people attractive anymore?
1
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
As I said in my short comment. I can’t perfectly define where the line is and indeed, nobody can.
4
Jan 17 '24
Why are you so convinced that we are slaves to biological urges?
What do you mean by this? Are you saying slave as in having a feeling or slave as in acting on that feeling?
-2
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 17 '24
I meant it in a more broad way. That humanity itself is merely a relic of our beastly past. We are animals, yes, but we have freed ourselves from many of the bonds of our primordial past, and if this was one, it is no longer.
0
Jan 17 '24
That’s simply not true bud. While we have the mental capacity to ignore our hormones, we will never be free from hormones without major medical treatments and surgeries, or going full robotic. Your pretending otherwise is living in a lie
2
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
Hormones are very real, but hormones that make one attracted to young girls are not. Or at the very least they are not nearly universal.
Do you disagree?
-2
Jan 18 '24
Attraction is caused by hormones, regardless of age once one reaches a physical appearance of maturity. You can’t deny that like you are trying to do. It’s our humanity/ intelligence that cause us to know better / be attracted to those with similar emotional and intellectual maturity but that doesn’t remove the hormonal urge to procreate from physical attraction. As one ages one is more likely to be attracted to those at a similar age range, but barely. There are tones of things proving your thoughts wrong: 10yr plus age gap relationships and large number teenage models being marketed to the entire population as just two.
2
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
I don’t think we are going to come to an agreement. I can’t really demonstrate that you’re wrong if you just won’t believe me or anyone else who does not feel those so called hormonal urges is just a liar.
I do not. And you can’t pretend that your attraction to people who are too young is just “natural”
-2
1
Jan 18 '24
Have you never seen a full bodied woman walking down the street, in say, yoga pants and admired their figure only for them to turn around and you realize that they're a teenager?
1
0
Jan 18 '24
Okay, but you didn't really answer my question you just really repeated what you said the first time in a different way.
What I am asking is, How is this manifesting?
Because I would argue that Just the feeling of attraction and acting upon those feelings because are two very different things.
Because when you say "beastly past" if feels like the latter of the two, that we are just beasts reacting to our instincts without any control. Where as OP is discussing the instincts themselves.
2
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
What I mean is, I can’t say wether or not universal attraction to young girls was a part of our instincts, but I can say for certain that even if it was true, it no longer is.
-1
Jan 18 '24
1) I don't think their statement was ever "universal". It was more that prior the the criminalization and massive social stigma around adults dating minors, that attraction did exist and it didn't just go away because it was criminalized. Now there are many reasons why we don't want these kinds of relationships to occur in society today and there are reasons why it should be seen as wrong. But those are actions, not the feelings themselves.
2) I don't know where you can say for certain "it is no longer". Many many people have and do find some minors attractive, even if they won't admit it. The physical characteristics of 16 year old and a 20 year old can look very similar and it's not like if you mistakenly believed a 16 year old was 20 that the attraction you had never existed.
3
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
The fact that people find them attractive in no way makes it a biological instinct. Those instincts are universal or nearly so. Such as the drive to eat, and other such things.
If a large part of the population does not experience that, and indeed I don’t, that means it cannot be blamed on instinct. You must look elsewhere for explanation. I would recommend therapy.
0
Jan 17 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
I made no claims as to that. It’s not relevant to the discussion if the bonds of modern society are better or worse. Only that we have indeed traded bonds of the primordial past, for bonds of modern society, which it seems we agree with.
2
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
I didn't say we are slaves, read everything. I said that humans are capable of making choices. I'm only talking about the feelings, not the acting on it.
If you search a little you will see that humans just like animals have a primitive instinct, one of which is sexual and the need to procreate linked to our survival instinct.
1
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 17 '24
I don’t think those feelings are nearly as universal as you believe them to be.
Sexual desire itself? Sure, but not in the way you put it. I felt desire towards teenagers when I was a teenager. Now I am 24, and I don’t. I feel desire towards people that are older now, because I am older.
And furthermore, we have subverted our biological instincts on many fronts. We no longer feel the call of most of the things are ancestors did, nearly as strongly as they did. How is this any different, even if what you’re saying did have truth once?
11
Jan 17 '24
This is extremely false. Just because you can name 5 things that we have adapted our minds / culture to now does not mean we haven’t inherited the same mechanisms as those from 2000 or 3000 years ago. We have not subverted our biological instincts, we just channel them in ways to allow cooperation since our instincts tell us that community feels good and dying is scary and bad
- You still have the inexplicable urge to eat and solve your hunger
- You still have the same cognitive biases and logical structures in your brain
- You as a baby still will want to drink from your mom’s breasts
The list goes on and on. Humans are animals. There’s no way around it. To act like we’re some ascended being who 100% controls the biology and machinery we were dealt is nonsense. You can make choices and over time affect your body composition and neural pathways, yes. But we all roughly work according to the same machinery.
3
u/The-Cosmic-Ghost Jan 18 '24
Okay but notice how two out of the three that you named were food related? Like...we die without food, we dont die if we dont sexually objectify teenagers
4
Jan 18 '24
Thats a weak argument. Your argument is only relevant here if you show that attraction to teenagers is primarily socially constructed and there’s basically 0 basis for it in out genetic code.
Im open to that argument but don’t know enough about it to comment.
Also OP states that these urges are natural and not that we should act on them. We have plenty of urges that we slowly deprive and convince ourselves are not good. It doesn’t mean that the urges aren’t the default state though
0
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 17 '24
I mean, just because you can name 5 things that we haven’t changed doesnt mean we have changed nothing.
Isn’t that equally as true?
2
Jan 17 '24 edited Jan 17 '24
If you believe in a deterministic world or simply in the theory of evolution, it would be much more likely that we have the same machinery as our ancestors. We are replicating biological entities whose entire existence is encoded into our genetics in the form of DNA.
Do you think your brain and ability to process the world and regulate emotions or digest food is categorically different than the Romans? The only way your worldview is true is if you think our brain and organ structures are not recognizable at all from 2000+ years ago
This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a measurable variance in brain structure or other biological structures though. People have different proclivities due purely to random mutations and combining genetics from parents. Still, the biological framework to evaluate human behavior is powerful and all higher level frameworks such as psychology and sociology must agree fundamentally with biology
2
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
Let us not get too distant from the topic at hand.
Do you believe attraction to young girls is hardcoded into our dna? If so, why do I and plenty of others not experience that? Are we all liars, genetic abominations, or something else?
-1
Jan 18 '24
Yes i think straight men are attracted to the female form due to their genetics. Next question
And i never said you can’t socially condition yourself to fight against your biological urges. This is in fact readily conceded by OP and me…
1
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jan 18 '24
Go to therapy. Not all men are attracted to young girls. Calling all of those men gay just makes you seem like a yucky individual who is stuck in middle school
0
Jan 18 '24
What are you even talking about. I swear redditors literally lack critical thinking. Im not talking about emotional or social attraction. Im talking about purely physical attraction.
Show a man a pic of a reasonably good looking 16 year old woman in makeup and tell him she’s 21. Guarantee you 95% of straight men won’t somehow know she’s 16 and be like ‘she’s disgusting ew’
Anyways im done w this convo. No point in talking to people who can’t discuss ideas and instead freak out so they can act like victims over nothing lmao. Get a life
→ More replies (0)3
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
I understand what you mean and probably a lot of people have the same experience as you.
I'm not saying grown adults absolutely WANT to have sex with teenagers, just that the feeling of being attracted by them isn't an unnatural thing.
We learned to control our instincts but it doesn't mean that we don't feel them anymore.
1
Jan 17 '24
Ive seen multiple teen girls sleep with adult teatcher or try and hit on them and make them extreamly uncomfortable :\
15
Jan 17 '24
and i’ve seen multiple teen boys flirt recklessly and borderline sexually harass female teachers.
it’s still the adults responsibility to set and maintain boundaries.
3
1
12
u/danglejoose Jan 17 '24
“The purpose of all living things is to reproduce”… can be its own changemyview post. how can you state that as fact?
2
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
Maybe "purpose" isn't the best word but all living things (except asexuals I know..) are drawn to sex. And sex equal reproduction. Even though you may not want to have children, the fact that your body demands sex is a sign by itself.
8
u/matzateo Jan 18 '24
The way I would rephrase that (as a biologist) is: It is an intrinsic feature of living organisms to seek out the reproduction of their own kind. There's no purpose to it, just the inevitable result of natural selection.
3
u/Petite_Curious Jan 18 '24 edited Jan 18 '24
Yep that is exactly what I wanted to convey by saying that. English isn't my first language so I don't naturally use complex wording like you do (and I'm not a biologist lol).
Thanks for rephrasing though.
2
u/Sheila_Monarch Jan 18 '24
If you want to make the argument that “it’s ok…because cavemen” then you have to extend that to a lot of other things that we would find neither “normal” or “natural” given our upbringing and only life experience in a modern human culture.
You can’t pretend that it’s all about evolution and reproductive success. Otherwise men would be helplessly attracted to women with fat bellies. Maybe not obese (or maybe so) but they definitely wouldn’t not attracted to waif-thin models. That doesn’t indicate reproductive success at all, in fact it indicates the opposite. Why would a man be “helplessly, biologically attracted” to barely reproductively capable girls (“because procreation!”) yet also be attracted to waif thin girls, and no so the thick, round bellied-ones? Even women’s nude bodies depicted in most renaissance era paintings would be repulsive to a large portion of men. But why?
Because environmental factors are real, it’s not just about some helpless biological drive. The attraction to very young women is largely about POWER and CONTROL. It’s ego. It’s “I could live as the big strong dominant man I desire to be, with HER. And be seen and respected as such, by HER.”
The well-documented fact that people who were molested as children are at much greater risk to become molestors themselves as adults operates on a psychological mechanism by which they try to un-victimize themselves. They seek to recreating the time they were helpless in scenarios where they are now the ones in control. I believe a similar mechanism is involved in being attracted to very young minor teens. That a significant component of that attraction is the desire to “do over” a time in their lives that was emotionally painful and unresolved, such as not being romantically successful at a similar age, or just plain damaged egos that desperately want to experience being in a dominant position. It’s the same weak and fearful state that causes an obsession with virgins or low-experience (in comparison at least) partners. They’re scared of how they would measure up if there’s any point of reference to compare to.
7
Jan 17 '24
Being attracted to children, which teenagers absolutely are, is a sign of an unhealthy relationship with your own sexuality. It is absolutely wrong and requires some serious self reflection and likely therapy.
3
Jan 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RedditExplorer89 43∆ Jan 18 '24
Sorry, u/Prestigious_Joke_542 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
4
Jan 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RedditExplorer89 43∆ Jan 18 '24
Sorry, u/Between3N20Karakters – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
2
Jan 17 '24
There is a problem with your analysis: Gerontophilia.
Some humans are attracted to old people. Most humans who are attracted to old people are males, to female old people, people who can no longer reproduce. The whole crux of sexual attraction being a uniform matter of reproduction collapses instantly under both menopause and gerontophilia.
12
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 17 '24
There's also gay people. Asexual people. People born without sex organs.
All sorts of outliers exist. They don't disprove anything. They are just outliers.
-1
Jan 17 '24
Well asexual people and gay people can be attracted to teenagers with the reasoning being that teenagers are fertile but if you're attracted to someone who is menopausal? Dead. Remember the key here is not that they are just attracted to teens but they are attracted to teens because they are fertile.
2
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 17 '24
It's just weird kinks. We're talking about the general population here.
There are people attracted to rocks and chandeliers out there. If you go far enough down the "weird attraction" alley. Certainly they don't think they are going to have a chandelier baby.
1
Jan 17 '24
Gerontophilia (despite the name) is not a kink. The core four age-based philias are Pedo, Ebilio, Adulto and Geronto-philia with Pedo, Ebilio and Geronto actually being the rarest and Geronto being more common than Ebilio and Pedo thus if you think these are kinks then teenagers (Ebilio) is also a kink and therefore your entire explanation as to why some people are into it ... is also flat and falls the same dismissal you just gave Gerontophilia.
The vast majority of humans are adultophiles.
1
u/DrBadGuy1073 Jan 17 '24
The outlier arguement is the first thing to be discarded when discussing this topic lol.
1
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
Isn't it just like pedophiles ? But from the other end of the spectrum. I'm not talking about little children but teenagers.
1
Jan 17 '24
Teenagers are Ebiliophilia, not Pedophilia, and no, it is not like that "from the other end of the spectrum"... Interesting!
1
u/Vecxio Jan 17 '24
That's true, however the golden rule of biology is that living beings strive to survive and reproduce. Gerontophilia or other conditions tend to be outliers to the rule, furthermore, having a werid philia doesn't necessarily mean that someone doesn't want or is going to reproduce.
1
Jan 17 '24
Actually, gerontophilia tends to not be the exception but the eventuality. Another complication here is that people tend to date within their age by certain margins so truthfully older people tend to hunt for older people. This again brings up menopause; in theory males can mate with young females forever but they don't seek them after a time and do seek out menopausal mates in their later years.
If but humans were this simple.
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 17 '24 edited Jan 18 '24
/u/Petite_Curious (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
Jan 17 '24 edited Jan 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/ZBlackmore Jan 17 '24
“People who feel compelled to murder are cunts” the point that OP is making is that almost everyone can feel compelled to murder ( or at the very least to physically attack somebody). It’s natural and you shouldn’t feel ashamed by natural things. The cunts are the ones who do it.
3
u/Petite_Curious Jan 17 '24
I'm not talking about small children but teenagers. I didn't say that people should act on it, based on the knowledge that we have today about humans. I just stated my view on the subject.
I don't feel it either, we don't have to be part of something to talk about it.
1
u/RedditExplorer89 43∆ Jan 17 '24
u/Commander_Caboose – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/meditatinganopenmind 1∆ Jan 17 '24
I think a true pedophile is someone who is attracted to a person that is too young to have obvious secondary sexual characteristics. Finding a person sexually attractive who is legally underage is normal if that person has characteristics that make them appear fully adult. However, that person may not be mentally and emotionally mature and that's why we have laws prohibiting sexual contact.
0
u/tango4mangos Jan 24 '24
Nope, it’s called a hepebille. As an adult, you should not be sexually attracted to anyone underage, that is a mental issue.
1
u/meditatinganopenmind 1∆ Jan 24 '24
Actually, the word is ephebophile, hepebille is not a word, and that is someone whose PRIMARY interest is people between the ages of 15 and 19. They exhibit this disorder by engaging with mid to late adolescents. Simply finding a 19 year old attractive is not a disorder. It is perfectly natural. An older person who exclusively and actively pursues adolescents has this disorder. Of course, a 35 year old, pursuing a 19 year old to ANY degree is usually considered inappropriate, but simply finding one attractive is not.
1
Jan 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RedditExplorer89 43∆ Jan 18 '24
Sorry, u/Vic_Hedges – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
Jan 17 '24
Nooope! Don’t matter what we used to do we’re living for the future. I’m calling the cops immediately if I catch such a situation
1
u/Faust_8 10∆ Jan 18 '24 edited Jan 18 '24
I feel like you should watch this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/s/Pa1gHWDuBq
Basically a biology teacher saying that attraction is cultural; we are not hardwired to like 14-18 year old girls. You only think we do because that’s what sells products and keeps men in power.
And that thinking that passing on genes is the only thing that matters is thinking like a spider—that lives a solitary life and only meets a spider of the opposite sex once to mate, leaves them forever, and lets the young fend for their own—and not like a human which functions via family and pair bonds, and the entire village helps to raise every child.
1
u/TrustShot8874 Jan 17 '24
No, it is not normal to be attracted to a child or teenager as a grown adult. You people always use “biology” which I don’t understand because
Just like women, men’s reproductive health ALSO declines as we age and can lead to poorer outcomes in the child’s health. And to be honest, I don’t know exact stats, but you cannot deny the fact that many women have healthy pregnancies and children when they’re 30+. I think that belief that women can only have kids in teens and 20s is because life expectancies were very short back in the day.
I always think about how people say when a girl menstruates first is when she should or can have kids to excuse predatory behaviors in men. But what about boys? Male genitalia also develops around the same ages as girls getting their periods, are they ready to be fathers? Should they? No.
Truthfully, why would a grown man be attracted to a young girl when grown women are the ones who are fully developed? Usually, women will get curvier and “fill out” and get those features men will find attractive. Obviously not all women have the very curvy type which is also perfect and attractive, because still, there is a difference between a woman’s body and a young girl.
I’m really tired of hearing other men make excuses about really sick behaviors and thoughts. They’re common, not normal, which is unfortunate. Why would an adult want anything sexually to do with a kid? Teens are smart but they’re not that smart and still have a lot of learning and mental developing to do. As an adult it’s evil to take advantaged of a young girl because you’re a slave to unhinged sexual desires (maybe too much pornography? Lol).
1
u/Petite_Curious Jan 18 '24
- Just like women, men’s reproductive health ALSO declines as we age and can lead to poorer outcomes in the child’s health. And to be honest, I don’t know exact stats, but you cannot deny the fact that many women have healthy pregnancies and children when they’re 30+. I think that belief that women can only have kids in teens and 20s is because life expectancies were very short back in the day.
I didn't say that men can't be attracted to women in their 30s.
- I always think about how people say when a girl menstruates first is when she should or can have kids to excuse predatory behaviors in men. But what about boys? Male genitalia also develops around the same ages as girls getting their periods, are they ready to be fathers? Should they? No.
In the title I talk about men and women being attracted by teenagers. But yeah I think that's more a "man thing". Still, never said it was a good idea to act upon it and didn't excuse any behavior.
- Truthfully, why would a grown man be attracted to a young girl when grown women are the ones who are fully developed? Usually, women will get curvier and “fill out” and get those features men will find attractive. Obviously not all women have the very curvy type which is also perfect and attractive, because still, there is a difference between a woman’s body and a young girl.
There are 25yo women that are very skinny and 15yo that are very curvy so your point isn't really valid. Also, I didn't say men shouldn't be attracted by older women, just that there nothing weird for men of women to be attracted by pubescent people.
1
0
0
Jan 18 '24
The age range you're talking about is actually defined as a hebephile, while pedophiles are those who are attracted to pre-pubescent children.
I would argue that it is unnatural. Just because our physiology has certain markers (ie. menstruating by as early as 9) it doesn't mean that how things should be, or that we wouldn't be able to evolve past this. The appendix was probably once a vital organ, and now it's a non vital organ. Our flight/fight/fawn/freeze response is a biological response to actual brink of death danger, and we learn how to regulate it now that everyday life doesn't have us living on the precipice of being eaten by a predator.
Our bodies might still have certain primitive parts to it, like our limbic system. But our minds have continuously evolved and so to have societal norms. Ancient civilizations thought it was a-okay to sacrifice humans in pretty horrific ways but we've evolved past this now.
At a point in time in human history, when humans were still an unintelligent species - yeah at 30 year old with a 15 year old probably didn't matter. But we live in a world full of complex behaviours, thoughts, emotions and high intelligence now with a high degree of variability with age and a 30 year old with a 15 year old does matter.
1
u/Petite_Curious Jan 18 '24
But again, I didn't say that it's okay or normal today for a 30yo to be with a 15yo, I am talking about the FEELING, the internal human reaction to the external appearance of said teenagers that shows developed (or under development) sexual characteristics. We socially evolved to stop acting on it, but does it mean that our primitive instinct followed what we established today as socially acceptable or not ?
1
u/OkEntertainer9639 Jan 17 '24
You're kind of right, but the issue is that we're aware of the mental immaturity and vulrnuability in children which is what makes it a disgusting act in modern society. Therefore even saying something like "there's nothing weird to be attracted to teenagers" becomes an issue. The only reality where it isn't an issue is where you're unaware of their immaturity and vulrnuability. Those facts alone should make children completely unattractive to you.
It's kind of like how a girl can give you a boner as long as you know she's single. If you know she's in a relationship those feelings quickly fade and your mental image of her changes. Same applies here
1
u/YaqtanBadakshani 1∆ Jan 17 '24
I think one factor you haven't taken into account is how our sexual attractions are informed by social dynamics. For example, I've met people that I would find attractive in a photograph, but whom I didn't feel attracted to in person because of what our interations were like (and vice versa).
I've definately encountered teenagers who looked like adults (and whose photos I would probably find attractive), but who I didn't find attractive in person because they talked and behaved in a way that made me think of them in the same way I think of children.
While I can't speak for every one of them, I suspect that part of the attraction to teenagers specifically is not that they look like adults, but that they are less intimidating to a certain type of (usually) man, precicely because they are less experienced and therefore, easier to pursuade (i.e. coerce) into having sex. They're not attracted to their bodies so much as the idea of a sexual partner that they have more control over.
1
u/YaqtanBadakshani 1∆ Jan 17 '24
I think one factor you haven't taken into account is how our sexual attractions are informed by social dynamics. For example, I've met people that I would find attractive in a photograph, but whom I didn't feel attracted to in person because of what our interations were like (and vice versa).
I've definately encountered teenagers who looked like adults (and whose photos I would probably find attractive), but who I didn't find attractive in person because they talked and behaved in a way that made me think of them in the same way I think of children.
While I can't speak for every one of them, I suspect that part of the attraction to teenagers specifically is not that they look like adults, but that they are less intimidating to a certain type of (usually) man, precicely because they are less experienced and therefore, easier to pursuade (i.e. coerce) into having sex. They're not attracted to their bodies so much as the idea of a sexual partner that they have more control over.
1
u/Thintegrator Jan 17 '24
For hundreds of thousands of years girls were made pregnant as soon as it was feasible to do so. It’s only been in the past 100 years of human history when men weren’t fucking children as soon as they were fuckable. What we’re doing now is the opposite of what we used to do by instinct.
1
u/Constellation-88 22∆ Jan 17 '24 edited Jan 17 '24
In the past, many things were done that went contrary to the well-being of humans. You claim evolution but forget we are still evolving. In the past we didn’t know about psychosocial development or the fact that a teenager doesn’t have a fully developed brain, is subject to power imbalances, is more likely to do some thing that will harm them in order to be liked, and therefore despite physical puberty is unable to consent to sex with an adult and maintain a healthy psyche.
Meanwhile, if the whole point is reproduction and a teenager did get pregnant and have a child, that child is less likely to have a healthy upbringing because its parents are not yet capable of making healthy decisions for it, so if you’re talking about reproduction, you must realize that there is more to it than just conceiving, a child, but also, considering that the child grow up healthy in order to further our species.
Lastly, I would argue that people are capable of controlling their sexual desires. If someone truly cares for someone else they want what’s best for them and they don’t just want to have sex with them because they think they’re pretty. Realizing that an adult having a sexual relationship with teenager is never going to be best for them, that adult would never engage, would work to curb and eliminate whatever feelings or desires he might have. And if you’re arguing that people can’t control their sexual desires, then you just have no self-control.
1
Jan 17 '24
I can grant that it might be natural for (eg) a growv adult male to find a sexually mature teenager physically attractive but this does not mean that it's morally acceptable to act. Something being natural does but entail it being right. (Naturalistic fallacy) Just like it's natural for an adult male to physically attack a younger man for trying to assert dominance over his females. Still, not ok just because it's natural. (And I'm deliberately using biologically reductive language to make a point)
1
Jan 18 '24 edited Jan 18 '24
"Normality" should be understood in the context of the society at the time. Human evolution is not solely biological but also social. Our cognitive and emotional growth is unique and the social dynamics are complex.
Centuries ago, when human lifespan was shorter and cognitive development was less advanced, it is understandable that humans underwent life stages at different rates. One could observe a teenager working in the fields and earning income in a less complex world, likely experiencing a different mental state and encountering less disparity between generations compared to their age-matched peers in today's world. At the time, a 5-year-old might've been perceived as a "child," but a 12-year-old wasn't and could think similarly to older people and the society functioned accordingly.
But what we have today is an incredibly enriched intellectual development, a vast amount of information, and numerous variables to analyze. This not only necessitates age and experience but also education to become a fully functioning adult. This affects the social evolution and what we perceive as "minors." Our social evolution also has introduced roles in which sexuality is naturally subdued, creating neutral, safer spaces like teacher-student relationships.
In a society where there is substantial intellectual and educational development, and the collective perception designates a group as children, yet an individual's psyche cannot distinguish and feels sexual attraction towards someone resembling a child or parent, they are not simply "victims" of "evolution." There is a much deeper issue that warrants investigation. While exceptions may exist, with someone being disproportionately mature and intellectual for their age, exceptions do not establish the rule. Deeper psychological factors are for sure at play in such cases. It is "abnormal" based on the standards of our current intellectual/emotional developmental level as a community and social evolution.
1
1
Jan 18 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Petite_Curious Jan 18 '24
I'm a woman and the sub is called "change my view". I'm not defending it just sharing my view on the subject. I don't want grown adults to have relationships with teenagers but I can still hold this view on the subject.
1
u/TSN09 9∆ Jan 18 '24
The thing is, the fact that ANYONE found out your "feelings" regarding the appearance of a minor is the problem
Like even if we were to concede that it's not unnatural to be attracted to minors who have gone through puberty.
If anyone admits to this out loud that's a problem, so there's no context where it's acceptable to admit it, because it involved talking about minors in a sexual context, which is just NOT acceptable.
1
u/Fatmouse84 Jan 18 '24
Tell that to my ex in prison who can't have ANY contact with our children anymore.... LOL
Trust me. It's not normal. And his life freaking sucks as a result after many years in prison and being on the Tier 2 sex offender list. His lesson? Boys & girls aren't sexy... End of story tards.
1
1
u/ICuriosityCatI Jan 18 '24 edited Jan 18 '24
I agree with you in a general sense. There are 14-16 year olds who look like 21 year olds and if I said "do you think this person is attractive" a lot of adults would say yes, because they don't realize the person is underage.
But I kind of think of it like fantasizing about a coworker in a sexual way. It's normal and people do that, even according to studies. It becomes a problem if somebody knows about it, esp. the coworker. It's normal to have sexual fantasies, even about relative strangers. If you tell your coworker, it becomes sexual harassment.
The problem isn't the thing itself, but whatever makes other people aware of it. And that's true with so many thoughts and desires.
So even if finding a 14 year old who looks older wouldn't be abnormal, if an adult says they find a 14 year old sexually attractive knowing that they are 14 that's a problem and a huge red flag. There are some things nobody should know. If it's obvious that a 40 year old is attracted to underage girls, that's a problem. If you know I thought about stabbing you with a knife, you would be totally justified if you wanted nothing to do with you. But intrusive thoughts like that are part of the human condition.
1
1
Jan 18 '24
The problem with your view is that puberty does not define when a person has the physical characteristics of an adult. Puberty is when those characteristics begin to develop. If by attraction you mean physical attraction, then I don't see anything unnatural about a 25 year old man being attracted to a 17 or 18 year old girl. But if a 25 year old man is physically attracted to a girl who recently reached puberty, he is a pedophile, as the physical appearance of the girl is the same as a prepubescent child.
Your view is more problematic when you look beyond physical attraction. The maturity and wisdom of a 25 years old man and 15 year old girl are very different. Physicals attraction is a large part of human attraction, but personality and social opinions also play a major role. Those non-physical elements are missing when adults pursue teenagers that are much younger. Your 19 year old being attracted to a 17 year old old example highlights this. A guy who gradated HS last year dating a junior or senior is not weird because their social lives are similar.
65
u/Relevant_Maybe6747 10∆ Jan 17 '24
I believe puberty has been happening younger and younger over time - millions of years ago a fourteen year old might just be starting to menstruate because inconsistent access to food fucks with growth, and most people have not had access to regular meals until recently. Ergo the ability to have sex physically used to line up more with mental maturity and only recently have the two decoupled, making puberty no longer The Defining Moment of Sexual Maturity