When people say "pedophilia", they often don't understand what they're saying. I've seen people refer to sex with 16 year olds as
pedophilia.
Pedophilia is defined as sex with children (from neonate to
pre-pubescence). Pedophilia doesn't make a great deal of sense from a
biological perspective, because pre-pubescent humans are incapable of
causing pregnancy or becoming pregnant, so adult humans exclusively
seeking sexual relations with pre-pubescent humans are probably doing
something wrong. "Evolution gone wrong" you could say, although it's not
as simple as that.
In fact, it's just another example of "Fisherian Runaway" sexual selection. Where youth in women was found to be an indicator of fertility, youth soon came to be attractive for its own sake. Just like the peacock's tail became attractive for its own sake. Adult women well understand this subconsciously, and they play along when they shave their body hair. In fact there is a name for it: neoteny.
Ephebophilia is defined as sex with adolescents (stage between
puberty and adulthood). From a biological perspective, there is nothing
wrong with ephebophilia, because adolescents are able to cause pregnancy
or become pregnant. In fact the difference between adolescence and
adulthood is pretty much arbitrary and meaningless and academic from a
biological perspective.
Biologically we have not changed a great deal from those who
lived even 1000 years ago, so to say that people are abnormal for reproducing when young when in the past it was pretty much the standard thing to do shows a distinct lack of awareness of history. In ages past, life expectancy at birth was probably no higher than 30
years, and life-expectancy at adolescence was probably around 40 or so
(most women would have had a very large number of children). It is then
straightforward that if our ancestors weren't ephebophiles and instead waited until their 30s to have children as they do today, homo sapiens
would have had the same fate as the mammoths.
Another thing to keep in mind is that even the use of the word "ephebophilia" is a Fisherian Runaway in the making. Suppose there are a large number of people being struck by thrown apples. Even then, it makes no sense to outlaw the simple act of having apples. Similarly, it is only relevant to criminalize ephebophilia in the case of those people who seek only sexual
relations with adolescents with the exclusion of attendant normal reproductive behaviour. It is meaningless to
criminalize a person for marrying an adolescent, having several children, and living happily married until death. Otherwise every man throughout history who ever lived is technically a "criminal".
On the other hand, if the person wants
nothing more than to have sex with one 15-year old after another with no
intention of having any meaningful relationship with any of them, then
it makes more sense to criminalize that behaviour because it is dysfunctional and any society allowing such a thing will soon be overwhelmed by other more functional societies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
ReplyDeleteI hope someone cuts off your cock and balls and shoves them into your mouth. That's the PROPER punishment for sick fucks like you.
ReplyDelete"people often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have."
Deletehttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn
Just sayin
They will cure you of that in prison.
DeleteThey just love people like you there.
Since you claim to be into science, I hope someone decides to do an experiment on you. Vivisection just to see how long you would live with everything laying out.
DeleteI may not find you, but someone will.
Well then you obviously weren't doing your job as a brother. If I had sisters I wouldn't let her get molested in the first place. Obviously the guy who did it is bigger and stronger than you, so you try and find some random guy who's easier to bully.
DeleteDon't try to pin your own inadequacies on other people.
To be fair Nesa comes from a part of the world that adores child marriage, so this really isn't all that shocking coming from him
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I don't do emotion. If you've got something rational/scientific to say, then say it, otherwise move on
DeleteRight, that Asperger's again. You do realize that normal people do emotion and that there is something wrong with the way you think, probably from Asperger's and lack of therapy, and I'm just here to make sure you know :)<--That's a happy face
DeleteYeah, he's really protective of her while she showers too, I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteis that where she got molested?
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, i was wondering, did you figure in the amount of mother/child mortality? Younger females, in the age range you mentioned, have a higher death rate than mature, child bearing aged females.And i would say mature being the ages of 20-25, before age begins to play a factor in fertility, etc
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou're probably right..According to advocatesforyouth.org
Delete"Adolescents age 15 through 19 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy or child birth as those over age 20; girls under age 15 are five times more likely to die.[2,6,7]"
But generally I would say that older women 40+ probably have an even higher maternal mortality rate than teenagers. This following study, while informative doesn't have information about teenage mothers.
cmqcc.org
There is also this which has better information: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (see pages 195, 196)
Still, I don't see how outlawing teenage motherhood would work. What would be the risk cutoff point? If teenagers shouldn't have babies because it's too risky, should older women also be prevented from having babies?
It should also be noted that in the vast majority of cases, the teenagers want to have babies ( amazon.com ; There is an earlier edition which I think has more reviews.)
also, since there seems to be a significant difference in the mortality rates of born to young whites vs blacks, it could be that there are some environmental and cultural factors at work as well which increase the baby's mortality.
Deletein the ncbi.nlm.nih.gov link, it says "Teenagers enrolled in good prenatal care programs can have babies with birth weights that are comparable to birth weights of babies born to mothers in their twenties. Unfortunately, in 1980, 20.1 percent of mothers 10-14 years of age and 10.3 percent of mothers 15-19 years of age received no prenatal care before the third trimester."
When women have babies when they're young, they are able to call on help from their parents (who may be in their 40s). Then when their children are grown and becoming more independent, they can start to look after their parents.
DeleteWhen women have babies when they're old, they cannot get any help from their parents (who will usually be in their 70s). They also cannot look after their parents because they will be busy looking after their own children.
Why a woman’s age at time of marriage matters
DeleteDid you include the science of what we know about the development of the frontal lobe in young adults and how it affects their decision making, judgement and critical thinking? Not that they aren't able to reproduce already, but I think high divorce rates among those who marry young can be summed up to maturation a lot of times, so since the brain is still immature and not completely formed as an adolescent it would explain why people think it's a good idea to set an age of consent.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, if you would like to fuck children Nesa, go to Thailand where the sex trade is ripe with children of all ages for you sick pleasure.