24 year old dating 12 year old

[Bloodfire]

Not ok.
1,601 74.09%

Oh come on.
At least half of moralists after seeing a jailbait will forget about age.
Imo.

[Razorice]

Well this made me "WTF". I don't understand how one can be in a relationship with a child when they aren't even mentally/physically developed yet.

[Sorrior]

Listen soratrox. Let's be clear on something.
You don't get to use sarcasm when you're defending pedophilia. Got that?
There are families that have been ruined by pedophiles, lives have been ruined. So you don't get to joke on that when you make a disgusting claim such as "it's ok for an adult to have sex with a 11-12-13 years old".
Got that cleared?
Don't think, for a second, since there is two of you up here defending pedophilia, that you can adapt a "groupthink" mentality. Go on and try and say what you said in front of normal people, check their reaction.
Now.

Back to the point. You are extremely confused when it comes down to sexual orientations.

And there are those who have had their lives ruined by society, by faulty laws, by other people in general, by MANY things in fact..I myself had a pretty messed up childhood. But mine was due to all kinds of widely accepted/hidden things...Among them a faulty social structure and inadequate supports...

We merely posit other things then the relationship itself for the source of trauma.

[noralya]

"tight ass USA" Indeed.

Yeah, sorry, couldn't help meself

[Underverse]

Then shouldn't 9-12 years old be able to have perfectly smooth and troubleless pregnancies and deliveries? After all, sex is for procreation genetically speaking. Why is there such a prevalence of complications and mortality in child pregnancies if the child should have sex as soon as she bleeds?

Not really, considering adults don't either. If adults did, you would have a valid point.

(on a somewhat side note, pregnancies increase protection against neurodegenerative and atherosclerotic diseases. Thus a pregnancy without a live birth is still beneficial)

[Sorrior]

Considering that pedophilia is about sexual attraction to children who have not entered puberty, yeah, you got a point. But after puberty, things aren't so cut and dry. Humans were meant to have sex in their teens and later, it's why we develop during those years. It's not uncommon to find that adults are sexually attracted to teens, especially past 15 were many have near or identical appearances to adult sexual characteristics. A consensual relationship with a teenager is more unusual when referring to differences of age than the notion that a teenager isn't sexually active, even as young as 13.

Heck there was a girl in my seventh grade class with breasts that would make some adult women jealous, and a girl in my senior class who looked like she belonged in elementary school. Genetics are really odd.

This as well LOL....Some people don;t get that we're proposing this in regards to those who HAVE ENTERED PUBERTY!!!!

[Speaknoevil]

haha ok fair enough

I might argue though that power discrepancies is one of the strengths of any human system. Without it, learning cannot happen, because as soon as one person has more knowledge, they have more power. I'm simply applying widely accepted properties to sexual relationships. I fear that our reservation for sex, which has been driven largely by religious and power-grabbing values, gives us an invalid divergence of opinion. We judge one situation as fine, and another as not fine, simply because of our cultural fear of sex, and desire for monogamy.

Sex causes powerful emotional states in humans, think: envy. As for power discrepancies and learning, there are many places for that, one where ulterior motives abound is not one of those places.

Monogamy is a bummer for bisexuals(typical male behavior makes it worlds easier to not be bothered though), so that last bit it inaccurate regarding the formation of my opinion. My understanding of science makes it impossible for me to be influenced in that way by religious belief, aside from complying to societal pressures for the happiness of someone else; which I suppose is what you meant by that part.

[Sorrior]

Because it's been fucking proven that people's brains aren't fully developed until they reach 19-20, and especially not fucking 12! That's why they are fucking kids and not full members of society, BECAUSE THEIR BLOODY BRAINS AREN'T FULLY FUNCTIONAL! Jesus christ, how fucking alien is that concept to you guys?

---------- Post added 2013-06-01 at 11:42 PM ----------



He meant the reasons to criminalize homosexuality were purely cultural you fuckwit

WRONG our brains NEVER finish developing....

[Deleted]

Family nucleus? The nuclear family is a well known social construct...

But let's assume you're right. Neotonic traits are there to make sure the family nucleus is protected. What would we observe?

- Adhesion to family correlated with neoteny

Oh I guess we're done, because that correlation doesn't exist.

Males who are sexually attracted to vulnerable individuals end up protecting them (in a non-cultured system). Attraction is biology's way of saying, "do this because it's helpful".

Anyways, I'm going to use this quote again:

"In a cross-cultural study, more neotenized female faces were the most attractive to men while less neotenized female faces were the least attractive to men, regardless of the females' actual age"

To prove that neoteny is sexually attractive for men. (This should be obvious).

Aaaand that quote is still dodgy as it was earlier on.
To which I answer:

"The advantage in evolutionary terms is obvious. People whose very appearance stimulates in others a need to protect and provide for them. These lucky few have a better chance of survival and the potential to reproduce those with the same looks that perpetuate the genetic legacy of youthful-looking adults"

And also:

"There seems to be two separate reasons that attempt to address the question. The first is that larger eyes (along with fuller lips, bigger breasts and smaller chins) is a sign of higher levels of estrogen. Women that have higher levels of estrogen will be more successful and have an easier time conceiving than women with lower levels. This means that women with larger eyes will be seen as a better ‘mate’.

The second reason is that large eyes are a neotenous feature.

Neotenous Protection

A neotenous feature is a characteristic of youth shared by babies and children that humans evolved to retain so they could attract quality mates with “protective and nurturing impulses” which would be more likely to help raise their offspring and raise reproductive success."

That treats the large eyes issue too.
And also:

"Many men and women are capable of forming tight, long-lasting and devoted associations. Moreover, our offspring are altricial, helpless, nearly impossible for a mother to rear successfully in the wild without at least some outside aid. For a very long time any woman who chose a loyal, dependable mate almost certainly had advantages over one who failed to do so."

I have a long list of sources. Want me to provide them?

[Underverse]

Because most social interactions are learnt by interacting with peers, not by a passing down of knowledge by an authority, which is completely fine for academic subject and and factual teaching. There's a reason why homeschooled people tend to have social problems, they only had authority figures and limited peer contact to develop socially with.

Most social interactions are learned by interactions with authority until puberty. As in, parents. And then, in our society most social interactions are learnt by interacting with peers, because we put them around their peers.

Secondly, sexual interactions, what's ok and what's not, are still learned through authority. It's called sex ed.

Thirdly, I was surprised to learn in the homeschooling thread that homeschooled kids don't actually have social problems any more than do public school kids.

Lastly, sexual interactions with an authority figure would be more equivalent to peer-based learning because of its interactive nature, whereas schooling is as you say, more 'here's some knowledge, now eat it'

[Sorrior]

Confidence does have an influence on sexual maturity. But not a negative influence, or a potentially life-threatening influence (well, not innately).

We all know that the brain doesn't stop developing until 25.

An 11 year old can learn to drive, and in some places they do. But not on roads (usually tractors and the like). Restrictions are placed on age of driving because again, prior knowledge is required. I couldn't care less about 11 year olds voting, but again, restrictions are placed on it because prior knowledge is *hoped* for. Democracy is a flawed system, but that's another thread.

Actuallly from what i read it NEVER stops developing....

---------- Post added 2013-06-02 at 07:29 AM ----------

He might be making the assumption, but I hold to the same notion(based on higher learning) about control(of any means) and relative psychological development.

As you said, the older individual is inherently dominant. I contend that while consensual domination play is fine in the bedroom, those actual discrepancies in the power of individuals involved in any kind of sexual relationship is unhealthy, especially for someone who is also the sexual object of a caregiver.

I will re-evaluate my stance on this after you have successfully reconstructed society(edit: all of it.)

Alot of us just wish our question could truly be answered and i'd bet if wrong each and eevry single one of us would apologize and say so..But the research DOESN'T exist...

[noralya]

"tight ass USA" Indeed.

It might be safer, but I'll argue another point here. Molestation/rape (which is really what people are speaking about when reviling pedophile-like activity) is a product of culture and psychology. When media sexualizes young girls, for example, it sends the social message that they are sex objects. It doesn't mean every adult suddenly wants to fuck children, but it does dehumanize them a bit, makes them objects. That we do the same for adult women (and men!), doesn't make it any better. "Sex sells" is a horrible marketing philosophy, and scantily clad women draped over objects for sale sends the wrong message, in my opinion.

There are other, many other, factors. Human trafficking dooms many children to lives of slavery, usually through prostitution. Broken homes can disturb minds already in unstable situations to act on impulses they wouldn't normally act on. Poverty can force children to "grow up" faster than they normally would. So does war and other acts of violence, although personally, I believe Poverty is the worst kind of violence.

The actual number of people who truly do desire unhealthy relationships with children because of a mental defect are likely very small, I'd wager. Rather, it's the ills of society which create pressures on psychology which in turn generate undesired actions.

But people rarely think of their culture/society in this kind of way, and so it's hard to effect meaningful change for the better, and as a result a lot of policy/legislation tends to be of the scorched earth variety. Very little nuance, and plenty of packed jails. Out of sight, out of mind, as it were.

To be honest, when you decry the scorched earth kind of legislature, I'm not going to be the one disagreeing, after all, like I said, I come from a country where I don't have to be afraid that I'll be sent to prison for an immense amount of time for some bull reason so that I can feed the prison industry (the mere fact that it actually is an industry is mind blowing - in the wrong way). That kind of rationalization applies mainly to Third world, emergent countries and the bloody USA, other civilized countries tend to not have that much problems or at least on a much smaller scale.

Neither will I be to praise the sexualisation of children in the media, I find it repugnant, exactly in the same way that I find pedophilia repugnant, and I think it's a moral paradox that pedophilia isn't accepted (thankfully), yet such things as child beauty pageants aren't found to be immensely creepy. I don't have too many problems with the sexualisation of adult men and women, mainly because I believe that I'm sufficiently aware of it to see it for what it is but who knows.

On the other hand, I wouldn't agree with your saying that bad societies create people that deviate like that, but mainly because I wouldn't know how that would happen, what kind of pressure can result in a response which is a sexual attraction to kids.

[Deleted]

EXACTLY...But we're not even ALLOWED to test the hypothesis....

Why? Cui prodest? So that finally those 60 years old can deceive and fuck 12 years old as they want?
If you say that's ok I'm going to call the police.

[Sorrior]

Puberty starts at 10 for girls and 11 for boys, general definitions. This doesn mean at 10 a girl is ready to be pregnant, this is litterally a sick twist of facts. She can't feed her child, she lacks a whole sorts of cognitive stuff that makes her unable to be a successful mother.

Actually the ages are always changing..And getting lower was 12 for girls and 13-14 for boys when i was young...

[noralya]

Not really, considering adults don't either. If adults did, you would have a valid point.

(on a somewhat side note, pregnancies increase protection against neurodegenerative and atherosclerotic diseases. Thus a pregnancy without a live birth is still beneficial)

Ok, maybe 'perfectly smooth' etc was a bad way of putting it. What I meant was that child pregnancies are much more likely to result in complications and death than adult ones. Or are you going to refute that as well? (If you do I don't know what to say).

[Sorrior]

Again, same as above.

Again you keep quoting the same sources and ones that quite honestly are highly biased by nature...

[Underverse]

Sex causes powerful emotional states in humans, think: envy. As for power discrepancies and learning, there are many places for that, one where ulterior motives abound is not one of those places.

Monogamy is a bummer for bisexuals(typical male behavior makes it worlds easier to not be bothered though), so that last bit it inaccurate regarding the formation of my opinion. My understanding of science makes it impossible for me to be influenced in that way by religious belief, aside from complying to societal pressures for the happiness of someone else; which I suppose is what you meant by that part.

Jealousy and envy are states of not having something you observe. If anything, these emotions would exist more if sexual interactions are withheld.

Just to clarify further, jealousy (and thus envy, as envy seems to be a special case of jealousy - correct me if I'm wrong) is not restricted to sexual interactions. It has many triggers. And thus it is not caused only by sex.

The emotions triggered by sex, though, I think are beneficial. You get serious pair bonding. Pair bonds look out for each other, care for each other (we have special cases driven by monogamy or stigma - namely, one night stands, whores, and pedophilia), teach each other, and learn from each other.

Since humans are innately bisexual (certainly for males; location of the prostate and its function is easy to cite; but also, girl schools, lol, the % homosexual relationships skyrockets after 1 year) monogamy is a bummer for everyone - although most won't ever realize or understand it. It's important to realize that our cultural values are often influenced by religious beliefs, whether directly or indirectly. Homosexuality is a big one that fits this category. I don't find myself influenced by religious beliefs at all, but I still desire monogamy, because it's become a cultural value.

[Sorrior]

But people rarely think of their culture/society in this kind of way, and so it's hard to effect meaningful change for the better, and as a result a lot of policy/legislation tends to be of the scorched earth variety. Very little nuance, and plenty of packed jails. Out of sight, out of mind, as it were.

Great we're the Protoss fighting Zerg....

[noralya]

WRONG our brains NEVER finish developing....

Uhm... Yeah... They do... Like, mid-20s? Your brain's done.

[Sorrior]

Evolution says it does. Incontrovertible.

If the age at which puberty begins is shifted earlier, by definition there is a selective force pushing puberty to begin earlier. The only reason for puberty to be pushed earlier in relation to boys is so that survival will increase when impregnated. Thus, girls at the edge of puberty were being impregnated.

I would posit earlier and earlier childbirth in the past is just now taking effect...

If a woman could safely give birth at a young age then that gene would likely be passed on and eventually become quite dominant seeing as they could have more children safely..While those who began later could say have a higher risk of death due to not being ready and thus fewer children and as such the gene for early puberty could start to become dominant.

---------- Post added 2013-06-02 at 07:38 AM ----------

Oh come on.
At least half of moralists after seeing a jailbait will forget about age.
Imo.

Looks wise i bet they wouldn't even know and might have even slept with an underage girl without ever even knowing it...