You're viewing part of a thread.
Yeah “development” what a creepy word and again, “development” has nothing to do with it.
lol. It literally has everything to do with it. That's the whole point: when children enter into and finish puberty, they become capable of reproduction, so from an evolutionary perspective, that is a normal time to start finding them attractive. Just labelling it as "creepy" is an attempt to undermine the point because it's hard to actually address it.
Like you all are clearly watching the same porn.
I tell you I'm not into it, and what do you do? Lie, and claim I'm into it. I'll state it again, it never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to deny reality to hold onto their irrational beliefs.
Many people think rape is a turn off.
Agreed. Which is why, as I've already stated, it's 100% wrong to have sex with them.
Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
The fact that you need to ask this question just goes to show how absolutely ignorant you are of the topic, and probably shouldn't even be discussing it at all.
That you associate “development” with sexual attraction is a YOU kink.
Holy shit, this insane. lol This debate never ceases to crack me up. You're literally arguing that being attracted to people who have gone through puberty is a "kink." Even if you think that the stage of development that it's "appropriate" to become attracted to them is full adult, Tanner stage V, you still are arguing that development is important. But you are claiming this is nothing but a kink.
That you’re justifying it with “well she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to me” with no self awareness is… yikes.
I have full self awareness of what I'm saying. It's the people who claim that development stages has nothing to do with it and is a "kink" are the ones who lack the self-awareness to understand how little they know of what they talk about... yikes.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not "normal" to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know they will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink. Which I have informed you repeatedly. That it's been normalized by the groups you roll in, is a you thing.
You are narcissistic about your kinks. A lot of men are, because they often keep them secret until they go onto forums for that kink where they can all engage in it together and share porn and ideas. Then they think "I'm vanilla and normal," and project their kinks onto reality as if that's objective. It's not. You're wrong.
It's creepy because of what it implies about your general philosophy to kids.
You are into it. You are saying it's "normal" as long as they are developed. You've admitted finding young teens attractive before. This is about you. Stop being a coward.
Answer me: Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
who have gone through puberty is a “kink.”
You're moving goalposts. First, you say it's because they are developed- which describes a body type. Then you say it's because they can reproduce - which describes their eggs/womb and ability to carry a baby - which a "developed" 12 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy. And 'above puberty' includes people who cannot reproduce and are sometimes not "developed," such as elderly women. So which is it? Which do you mean? Or are you just making shit up because you think your kinks are "normal" and you've never analyzed or critically thought about them?
All sexual attractions are kinks. That's my point - there is no "normal" sexual arousal state. Calling it "normal" justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking. It's the same reason rapists rape and don't realize it - they think their rape kink is "normal." Look at Andrew Tate and his fans.
Being attracted to minors is not "normal" as an adult. It's just "normal" for you.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not “normal” to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know theu will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink.
This whole paragraph is ridiculously bizarre. First, sure, a stallion is probably not thinking about actual reproducing. But the instinct to breed is because of the need of an organism to reproduce. Trying to disconnect the two is laughably ridiculous. So to say that the drive to reproduce has nothing to do sexual arousal is mind-numbingly dumb.
Which leads me to the next bizarre point. I didn't say they were sexual attracted to them because they want to reproduce with them. I'm saying that the ability to reproduce is what makes it natural to be attracted to someone, because that's the whole point. Or do you think the whole point of sexual arousal is just for funsies and serves no evolutionary purpose?
And, third, again, why do you feel the need to continually lie about me? What purpose does it serve? Honestly, it just makes you appear completely unsure in your position.
Stop being a coward.
Whether it is about me makes no difference; the logic of my position holds either way as I've already provided the psychology behind it that talks about how it is normal. I have no need to hide anything from you. You just need it to be about me because you need that to make it easy to ignore my position. Stop being a coward and address what I've said instead of desperately trying to make it about me.
You’re moving goalposts.
Literally the first thing I said was pubescent.
which a “developed” 13 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy.
Curvy is not the same thing as developed. How can you have such a strong opinions about this while being so woefully ignorant about the basic facts?
All sexual attractions are kinks.
By definition this is incorrect, as kink, by definition, means non-conventional sexual acts. This is the second word in this post for which you've gotten the definition completely wrong. Maybe hebephilia is a kink, I haven't given that much thought or research.
Calling it “normal” justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking.
You're confusing two things here. Kink does not mean bad, and normal does not mean acting on it is okay. We are not our thoughts, we are our actions. Unless you are willing to lie to me, you've certainly had thoughts that, if you had acted on them, it would have been woefully inappropriate, at best. This doesn't make you a bad person or not-normal. Everyone has thoughts that acting on them would be inappropriate or wrong.
And, yes, I'm absolutely trying to justify the thoughts. That's my whole point. The thoughts are normal and natural and not the sign of some paraphilic disorder. Just like if someone is into BDSM, this is not a disorder, in and of itself. Just like wanting to have sex with more than one partner is not a disorder. Just like anal play is not a disorder. They are fine, natural, things. Obviously the ones I've listed are okay to act out on with another consenting adult(s), and acting out on it with a minor is not.
We do not know if another organism can reproduce with us or not, until we go to reprodice with them over time. Many cishet couples are infertile despite being very attracted to each other and thinking the other person was fertile. You can't know by looking. If reproduction really mattered, gay people wouldn't exist. There would be no infertility. People would automatically have sex according to reproduction. They don't. There's your evidence. That we've evolved to reproduce is different than what actually compels sexual arousal.
You have a breeding kink which is why you're conflating these. Idk what else to say. Agree to disagree. You can't see your own narcissism. It's kinda embarrassing tbh.
I'm not lying. You yourself said you found teens attractive and that it's normal.
I have addressed what you said. In full. Go back and read again.
That this is about you is relevant because you are blind to your own biases. You're projecting your experience onto "normal." That's why it's relevant.
Define what you mean by "developed."
There is dissent on sexual health in psychology and terms. I am going with Susan Kaplan's understanding and the idea that there is no such thing as a sex addiction and that sexual attractions have both biological and social causes. The version you're talking about is more Christian-centered, forensic science centered, and less neuroscience and sex health forward.
Kink with this on mind means any specific stimuli that causes sexual arousal, because there is no assumed "normal" state of sexual arousal. To assume so without evidence and controls would be unscientific. And per sociological studies, the classic version of "normal" sex here in the US has changed over time, isn't normal for most people in the US, and isn't normal for most worldwide.
I have never stated any kink is a disorder, although some sexual behavior can indeed be caused by things like Alzheimers and other anomalies. Some kinks do harm people and I am condemning that harm. That includes speech that normalizes having sex with kids as a natural thing for everyone, when it is not. It is just a kink you have. It is not more natural or normal than any other kink including necrophilia. Arguably necrophilia does less damage and is a better kink to normalize than sex with minors who are basically slaves in this country and who would be horribly fucked up by this.
Just like wanting to have sex with more than one partner is not a disorder
Right, it's within described human behavior (and we have anatomical studies backimg this up) to want to have sex with zero people. Or just 1 person. Or to do serial monogamy. Or to engage in any variety of nonmonogamy. However, ethically it is wrong to own your sex partner as a slave, whether thats 1 partner or 20. Even within BDSM contexts, your partner should have safewords. The way the kink is practiced should be with awareness and consent. Nonmonogamy isn't ethical if it's not informed, if everyone didn't consent. And no relationship, monogamous or not, is ethical if there are nonconsensual, not informed power play dynamics.
Eg I have nothing against ageplay with 2 consenting adults. I have a lot against rhetoric that encourages and normalizes sex amd sexual attraction with minors, because they cannot consent.
If reproduction really mattered, gay people wouldn’t exist.
And there we have it folks, we're so removed from reality that reproduction - the basis of perpetuating a species and the primary aspect of one of the most well supported scientific theories of all time (the Theory of Evolution) - doesn't really matter. lol
You have a breeding kink which is why you’re conflating these. Idk what else to say. Agree to disagree. You can’t see your own narcissism. It’s kinda embarrassing tbh.
This is not something we can "agree to disagree" on. I don't have a breeding kink. But I'm beginning to see whats going on here. . .you think you know more than modern psychologists, you think you know more than scientists who have complied a massive amount of information confirming the theory of evolution, you think you know more about my "kinks" than I do. . . you are obsessed with painting me as a narcissist because you are one. Literally, you are so full of yourself that you think you know more than scientists across multiple fields, and me about my own attractions. And I think you can see it which is why you are trying to project it onto me.
Kink with this on mind means any specific stimuli that causes sexual arousal, because there is no assumed “normal” state of sexual arousal.
But your whole point contradicts itself. If there is no such thing as a kink, then there is nothing wrong with being attracted to pubescent teens, or even children for that matter. If nothing is normal, then no attraction can be considered abnormal or wrong. If reproduction doesn't matter, than being attracted to pre-pubescent children makes perfect sense and you can't condemn it. You can't have your cake and eat it too, although I'm sure you'll try. lol
Girl, nonreproducing members of species ARE evolutionarily selected for. That you think otherwise is laughable. Look at bees. Look at ants. EO Wilson (scientist) argues that these species are higher order evolution and are being actively selected for. The theory of evolution has accounted for this for decades.
I've quoted you and pointed out your errors. I've referenced academic literature. Idk what else to tell ya. I don't think I "know more" than experts, I have referenced and read academic literature on this highly controversial topic and I have told you what I think about it based on the experts (and given you their names so you can look it up) so you can get my pov. That's what a discussion is.
I never said there was "no such thing as kink." I said it's all a kink.
I never said that a person's kink is objectively moral or immoral. I have only said that it can harm people and should be stopped from harming people. Imo harm is immoral. The rhetoric you are espousing is harmful. Calling it natural is harmful. You are spewing abuser rhetoric.
Yes, we must assume that people, mostly men seemingly, have an attraction to kids as a course of existence. In some cases, there are biological causes like strokes, alzheimers, TBI, and I suspect oxytocin defiency in some. In other cases, it is likely cultural including men's entitlement to women's bodies, their enjoyment in projecting onto women like dolls, and their fear in being seen as women themselves all feed into why they prey on young girls and find young girls appealing. It's labeled predatory behavior because it is. It harms the kids affected. The harm is what is immoral. This is only confusing to a predator.
That you think otherwise is laughable.
I don't think otherwise, nor did I say so. You said reproduction doesn't matter, I pointed out the reality that this is absurd. Or do you think that bees and ants don't reproduce? lol. You probably do. Although, for a narcissist like yourself, it doesn't matter what I tell you, only what you want to believe.
I’ve quoted you and pointed out your errors.
Maybe. But the bulk of your posts have been telling me what my kinks are, despite me telling you that you are wrong, and you claiming that you know more than the consensus opinion of modern scientists in the field of both psychology and evolution.
I never said there was “no such thing as kink.” I said it’s all a kink.
The point doesn't change. Whether they are all kinks, or none of them are kinks, then they are all natural and normal. Only the action itself is harmful.
Yes, we must assume that people, mostly men seemingly, have an attraction to kids as a course of existence.
Oh, I see you're also a misandrist to go with your narcassism.
The harm is what is immoral. This is only confusing to a predator.
Well, good, you understand that I'm not a predator because we both agree that the harm is what's immoral, not the thought. Unless you are so absurd that you think thoughts hurt other people.
Meh this is boring now. You lack the knowledge to continue this and now you're engaging in bad faith and sophistry. For the 5000th time, no, I didn't say that. But it doesn't matter because you don't want to discuss, you want to emotionally abuse me because I hurt your feelings by shining a light on who you are.
Most bees do not reproduce. Does this mean bees disprove the theory of evolution like you claim?
I'll let what you've said and what I've said stand to be a testament here. Whether you are so into your breeding kink you literally can't fathom sexual arousal without it despite many many examples.... and whether you are engaged in harmful attraction towards minors... up to readers to decide.
I don't disagree with majority opinion of either field of psychology or evolution. I am consistent with experts within the fields and have a valid schema.
Define "normal" as it relates to science and math.
Define "developed" too, you failed to do that.
Emotional and verbal abuse, including spewing rhetoric that leads to physical abuse, are all harmful actions.
It's not misandry. Vast majority of people attracted to minors are overwhelmingly men. Going off literally all statistics across the board. Again, my guess is an oxytocin deficiency (caused by a lack of community and comrades with adult peers).
It wasn't a thought. You wrote it out. That's no longer a thought.
For the 5000th time, no, I didn’t say that.
You clearly implied it when you said that "If reproduction really mattered, gay people wouldn’t exist." And how in the world did you do this 5000x in one post? Does you're level of dishonesty know no bounds? lol
But if reproduction matters at all then my point stands. You seem to recognize that it does.
Does this mean bees disprove the theory of evolution like you claim?
I never made any such claim. I said reproduction was the foundation of Evolution. That's it. You just need it to be something else because you realize what a damning point this is for your ridiculous position.
Emotional and verbal abuse, including spewing rhetoric that leads to physical abuse, are all harmful actions.
You've been accusing me of being a narcissist almost from the start. To whine about "verbal abuse" after being verbally abusive yourself is, well, perfectly within the common behavior of an actual narcissist.
That’s no longer a thought.
Wait. . .are you saying that writing my thoughts out are the equivalent of actions on that thought? This gets better and better. Please don't leave now. I can't get enough of this.
Can you define "hyperbole?"
Look at how many times I've written "I never stated/said that." A boring amount.
Yes, if reproduction really mattered [to sexual arousal as I stated in the previous sentences], then gay people wouldn't exist because most gay people cannot reproduce with their partners. Yet find their partner sexually arousing. Fertile asexual people wouldn't exist. Like reproduction doesn't factor into sexual attraction and arousal because there's no way to know if someone is actually fertile with you and plenty of people are sexually aroused without reproducing. It's a kink. I could not be more clear.
Here's what I actually stated:
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not “normal” to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know they will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink. Which I have informed you repeatedly. That it’s been normalized by the groups you roll in, is a you thing.
We do not know if another organism can reproduce with us or not, until we go to reprodice with them over time. Many cishet couples are infertile despite being very attracted to each other and thinking the other person was fertile. You can’t know by looking. If reproduction really mattered, gay people wouldn’t exist. There would be no infertility. People would automatically have sex according to reproduction. They don’t. There’s your evidence. That we’ve evolved to reproduce is different than what actually compels sexual arousal.
So it's natural to have an evolution kink? Or an electron kink? Because sexual arousal depends on scientific phenomenon we cannot observe or are even aware of?
Yes, typing is an action. Is this news to you? Writing something down is not a thought. Thoughts happen in your head. They aren't thoughts any more when you say them, write them, sing them, etc. That's why you can be arrested for threats. That's why you are held to the terms of contracts. Lol.
It's also funny how manipulative you're trying to be here. It's really clear who is the abusive, narcissistic one. It's clear with every sentence you type. There's no hiding that. It doesn't really stick the same on me.
Can you define “hyperbole?”
Can you define "lying?"
Yes, if reproduction really mattered [to sexual arousal as I stated in the previous sentences], then gay people wouldn’t exist because most gay people cannot reproduce with their partners.
So, you know better than evolutionary scientists. You keep trying to have it both ways, but that's not how it works.
Yes, typing is an action.
No, I understand that. But expressing my thoughts is not the same as acting on them.
They aren’t thoughts any more when you say them, write them, sing them, etc.
No, they literally are still thoughts if you do any of those things*, just "expressed thoughts."
*exception if the thought is to express your thoughts, then it is the action on those thoughts.
It’s really clear who is the abusive, narcissistic one.
Agreed, its clear that it is the one who started attacking the other person first by calling them narcissistic, making up their positions, lying about what they said, and the one who thinks they know more than modern psychologists and evolutionary scientists.
It doesn’t really stick the same on me.
Agreed, it doesn't. It actually sticks on you. Not that you will accept it. It's always the other person's fault to a narcissist.