What will be accepted in 20+ years that isn't now?

[Calfredd]

Mutual coexistence between many groups:

Religious people and Atheists
Heterosexuals and the LGBT
White people and all ethnic groups (because racism is still alive though greatly dying off)
and just plain old Men and Women getting along

[Underverse]

That's your claim that I've seen you to say several times in the past.
Care to provide a source? For "there's a biological incentive to have sexual relations with younger people", not for pair bonding. Or is it only your wishful thinking? And since I know your posts, we're talking about ~12 year olds.

My source is logic, and observation. I can provide you with basic materials but we're going to have to do most of the dot-connecting for ourselves. The reason for this is that there is an incredible social pressure, even on scientists, to condemn pedophilia, and any source that says otherwise is relegated to the insane.

For example; numerous sources state that 'the only sexual relationships bonobos don't have is that between a mother and her son'. This source does not provide explicit evidence for the occurrence of pedophilia in bonobos due to its careful wording, but if we use our brains we can see that it implies it, thus communicating information while leaving the authors free of criticism.

The only wishes in my thinking is that people free themselves from their own irrationality, and that goes for any topic that I defend, be it incest, pedophilia, homosexuality, drugs, polygamy, or religion.

[Deleted]

Awwwwwwwwww man. Someone has set off Quetzl

[Deleted]

My source is logic, and observation. I can provide you with basic materials but we're going to have to do most of the dot-connecting for ourselves. The reason for this is that there is an incredible social pressure, even on scientists, to condemn pedophilia, and any source that says otherwise is relegated to the insane.

For example; numerous sources state that 'the only sexual relationships bonobos don't have is that between a mother and her son'. This source does not provide explicit evidence for the occurrence of pedophilia in bonobos due to its careful wording, but if we use our brains we can see that it implies it, thus communicating information while leaving the authors free of criticism.

The only wishes in my thinking is that people free themselves from their own irrationality, and that goes for any topic that I defend, be it incest, pedophilia, homosexuality, drugs, polygamy, or religion.

Let's ignore social norms, eh?
The only kind of attraction men tend to possess is ephebophilia, not outright pedophilia. There isn't any research showing that for a good reason, if we ignore some "boy loving" organizations. They can't prove it. That's the answer.
I would expect of you better than say that there isn't any research that says that just because of political/social pressure.

[JohnBrown1917]

My source is logic, and observation. I can provide you with basic materials but we're going to have to do most of the dot-connecting for ourselves. The reason for this is that there is an incredible social pressure, even on scientists, to condemn pedophilia, and any source that says otherwise is relegated to the insane.

For example; numerous sources state that 'the only sexual relationships bonobos don't have is that between a mother and her son'. This source does not provide explicit evidence for the occurrence of pedophilia in bonobos due to its careful wording, but if we use our brains we can see that it implies it, thus communicating information while leaving the authors free of criticism.

The only wishes in my thinking is that people free themselves from their own irrationality, and that goes for any topic that I defend, be it incest, pedophilia, homosexuality, drugs, polygamy, or religion.

I'm with that guy, I really want to see source that claims that its harmless for a pre-pubscent child to have sex. Which is what paedophilia refers to. because I have never in my life seen a valid source for this.


That aside. ephebophilia/hebephilia is 'normal', paedophilia is not. I mean, we are talking about kids who can't even reproduce and haven't even hit puberty. I doubt it will ever been seen as anything but a mental illness. As it should be.

[THE Bigzoman]

I thought children can't legally consent to sex?

They can't. And my contribution was never meant to suggest that it was.

I thought he was referring to legal consensual sex and not sexual deviance that harm children.

[Underverse]

Let's ignore social norms, eh?
The only kind of attraction men tend to possess is ephebophilia, not outright pedophilia. There isn't any research showing that for a good reason, if we ignore some "boy loving" organizations and for a good reason. They can't prove it.
I would expect of you better than say that there isn't any research that says that just because of political/social pressure.

Social norms are distractions. They can't really inform us about nature.

I agree with your first statement. And when most people talk about pedophilia, they're really talking about ephebophilia. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with the rest of your sentences. But since you expect better of me, I'll try to do better

First, I want to say that you underestimate the social pressure against pedophilia and the damage any accusations of support for the act can do to a career. It is an inherently risky field of study that most scientists, being generally intelligent people, are apt to avoid.

That aside, there is some research on ephebophilia, which is not surprising as ephebophilia is not considered to be entirely aberrant by psychologists. The alliance formation theory of homosexuality falls into this realm, among others. There are papers that investigate the incidence of this type of ephebophilia in different cultures, and provide arguments for its evolutionary relevance.

Just to note, I used to support the claim that ephebophilia is okay but pedophilia is absolutely not, because it provides no benefit. I somewhat recently came to the understanding that I was wrong; I fell into the trap of assuming that our cultural observations are innate truth.

[Deleted]

They can't. And my contribution was never meant to suggest that it was.

I thought he was referring to legal consensual sex and not sexual deviance that harm children.

Well, he was refering to children, so legal consensual sex is not possible to begin with (and you would have known if you had actually read his posts)

[Underverse]

I'm with that guy, I really want to see source that claims that its harmless for a pre-pubscent child to have sex. Which is what paedophilia refers to. because I have never in my life seen a valid source for this.


That aside. ephebophilia/hebephilia is 'normal', paedophilia is not. I mean, we are talking about kids who can't even reproduce and haven't even hit puberty. I doubt it will ever been seen as anything but a mental illness. As it should be.

Yes, I used to think this way too. But then I realized that it makes no sense for us to assume that sexual interactions are innately harmful. The argument for harm must be built, and right now all we have is a few cultural observations that show us that when an act is demonized, psychological harm is caused to those who engaged in the act. Nothing surprising here; but we like to fit observations to our own context.

That being said, you will not find a double-blind randomized control study showing that pedophilia is harmless. It does not exist. Even if a group of scientists were willing to do it, it would be considered blatantly unethical. It would also be incredibly difficult to find a culturally unbiased population. Right now, the best we can do is look at close evolutionary relatives, undeveloped cultures, and evolved traits.

But back to the main point. Just as there is a benefit for non-reproductive sex via homosexual interactions, it is very easy to envision a benefit for non-reproductive sex in other circumstances, likely by the same mechanism.

[mvaliz]

Sort of. Because of pair bonding, there's a biological incentive to have sexual relations with younger people - you're basically ensuring your own reproduction. And you can see that evolution has responded by allowing women to keep their neotenous traits (youthful features) for a longer period of time than men do.

Women are indeed attracted to security, which correlates with several traits, including dominance, size, grotesque/sharp features, etc.

Security is found in older men, not younger. Which is why most younger women date older guys

[Deleted]

Social norms are distractions. They can't really inform us about nature.

I agree with your first statement. And when most people talk about pedophilia, they're really talking about ephebophilia. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with the rest of your sentences. But since you expect better of me, I'll try to do better

First, I want to say that you underestimate the social pressure against pedophilia and the damage any accusations of support for the act can do to a career. It is an inherently risky field of study that most scientists, being generally intelligent people, are apt to avoid.

That aside, there is some research on ephebophilia, which is not surprising as ephebophilia is not considered to be entirely aberrant by psychologists. The alliance formation theory of homosexuality falls into this realm, among others. There are papers that investigate the incidence of this type of ephebophilia in different cultures, and provide arguments for its evolutionary relevance.

Just to note, I used to support the claim that ephebophilia is okay but pedophilia is absolutely not, because it provides no benefit. I somewhat recently came to the understanding that I was wrong; I fell into the trap of assuming that our cultural observations are innate truth.

I was talking about pure pedophilia, just to be sure, not about ephebophilia.
I still remember your posts. You said that the main reason that hebephilia, more leaning to pedophilia should be accepted as natural is pair bonding. You don't agree with that anymore?

So again, you're saying that there isn't one single research, because they're all scared of accusations? Are you only assuming, or are you sure it's because of it?

Cultural observation? What do you mean by that? If a society doesn't know what's a rape, practicing rape is fine?

Security is found in older men, not younger. Which is why most younger women date older guys

It proves that. But not the other way.

[Underverse]

Security is found in older men, not younger. Which is why most younger women date older guys

Exactly yeah

And then that begs certain questions; in a sexual free market, what do the younglings do?

- - - Updated - - -

I was talking about pure pedophilia, just to be sure, not about ephebophilia.
I still remember your posts. You said that the main reason that hebephilia, more leaning to pedophilia should be accepted as natural is pair bonding. You don't agree with that anymore?

I do agree with that.

So again, you're saying that there isn't one single research, because they're all scared of accusations? Are you only assuming, or are you sure it's because of it?

I'm saying there's no research for a lot of reasons. One of the more prominent reasons is that scientists not only usually have the same biases as their culture, but even those who don't have those biases would be under immense pressure not to research it. But probably more importantly, it would be near impossible to find a sample for the research that is not culturally biased, and it would be considered unethical to use control and experimental groups. That's four very good reasons.

Cultural observation? What do you mean by that? If a society doesn't know what's a rape, practicing rape is fine?

By that I mean that we look at what our culture does and assume that it's normal. This is not an assumption we should ever be making. But this is the assumption that we make when we say "in the context of our pedophilia-condemning culture, pedophilia leads to harm; therefore pedophilia is always egregiously morally wrong".

[Yvaelle]

Exactly yeah

And then that begs certain questions; in a sexual free market, what do the younglings do?

Well, with many such animals - young males lurk outside the collective until they are strong enough to kill the old males and take their place. But, comparing human sexual behaviour to primates is mostly a false equivalence - we are distantly related to them - but ALOT has changed about our reproductive methodology since then.

[Underverse]

Well, with many such animals - young males lurk outside the collective until they are strong enough to kill the old males and take their place. But, comparing human sexual behaviour to primates is mostly a false equivalence - we are distantly related to them - but ALOT has changed about our reproductive methodology since then.

I find it kind of scary that your/our first conclusion is that the mechanism must be one of bloody succession. But see, this doesn't happen in bonobos. And really I don't think it would happen in humans either; we don't just kill/have an urge to kill our fathers and other related elder males. There's simply no evidence for it, while there's an abundance of evidence for a much more peaceful mechanism - that being sex - that I think most humans would find to be more agreeable.

I agree that we can't really compare ourselves to bonobos, but I do think we can learn what is possible given our history. We can look at how we evolved and the structures of our bodies and see if we can draw correlations to behaviors. Of course the main line of evidence needs to come from humans, otherwise it isn't very relevant; but we can use observations of other nonhuman primates as a tool for understanding the existence of certain behaviors.

[May90]

Well, with many such animals - young males lurk outside the collective until they are strong enough to kill the old males and take their place.

This is not entirely accurate. Mostly, like in most ancient tribes, attempt to kill a respectable leader is a crime beyond comprehension. If 50k years ago you killed the leader of your tribe who had support of the most members (and he had to, otherwise he would be quickly displaced), you would most likely get killed right away, or, even worse, cast away and die in the wild. Just as much, say, in a wolf pack young wolfs can sometimes fight for prestige, but a young wolf cannot attack the alpha male, it will be just a "crime" against the pack and other wolves will stand up to their leader and tear the youngling apart.

In wild "societies" mostly leaders become the leaders for their actions. A member of a tribe who has been especially successful in hunting, a wolf that has scouted surrounding the best and saved the tribe many times... Humans are quite unique in that successors often take their place by killing the old leader and taking his place or by tricking other people into worshipping them. Such a system cannot exist in the wildlife since animals don't have such insane technology humans have, and bad leader who tricked the pack into following him usually leads its pack to swift death, so such 'leaders" usually are torn apart right away and changed into a member of the pack that really can lead it into prosperity.

Animals are much simpler and, simultaneously, much more wise in this regard than humans, with all those Hitlers and Kim Jung Ils, thousands of those bastards in human history that screwed their nations and yet were getting prayed upon. Should Hitler be a wolf and try to lead his pack to world dominance by attacking other packs - I don't think he would manage to finish his "election speech" before his head gets separated from the body.

[Yvaelle]

This is not entirely accurate.

Ok so, for starters - you are talking about pre-history human tribes, where I was specifically talking about animals. Secondly though, your claim about tribal succession in animals not permitting the killing of leaders... I'd like to see you provide some evidence to support that.

Gorillas infanticide male offspring to prevent dominance struggles, or young males will emigrate from their groups to bachelors groups until they come of age - at which point younger males will attract females from other harems, and kill older males if necessary to create their own. As do chimps, our closest relatives.

Male lions very much do fight and kill one another to take control of a pride of females.

Some pretty strong evidence suggests the 'alpha' in wolf packs is actually not a thing - or at least is something that occurs in captivity (but not the wild). Recent studies of wolf social dynamics in the wild has suggested that wolves have no alphas at all, but do have roles based upon their sex. In captivity, wolves very much do kill one another for hierarchy - and women are particularly bloodthirsty about it (more so than men).

So it definitely happens with other primates, which is what the discussion was about - it also happens with lions - and wolves don't have hierarchies in the wild.