Itās not ānormalā to be attracted to 14 year olds. Itās not ānormalā to be specifically attracted to any age group. Itās honestly all a kink. Are you attracted to elderly people? No? Thatās because you have a different kink. And donāt get into stupid biological bullshit of reproductive success etc, a woman in her 40s whoās given birth before is in some cases much less likely to die in childbirth than a 14 year old who hasnāt done it before, arguably. That some people have breeding kinks with their pedo kinks is on them. Like seriously stop being so sexually narcissistic, there are thousands of kinks that combines in thousands of ways. Why do you think your kink is the ānormalā one? Like get over yourself.
Whether kinks are disorders or not is a separate topic. Where kinks come from - we donāt know 100%. Thereās some evidence certain brain conditions can cause disorders and sexual dysfunction, so itās possible pedophilia could be induced. Personally I am curious if oxytocin plays a role in pedophilia. You can get oxytocin (note: this is not OXYCONTIN) compounded in a nasal spray from compounding pharmacies. Just need a doctorās prescription for it, it has been used experimentally for social anxiety. I think some pedophiles likely get extra oxytocin from children (and other groups get it from animals in some cases) which is part of what triggers their attraction even if they donāt want to harm children.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesnāt entitle you to fucking them. Even if you can convince them to say yes somehow.
Consent cannot be given if itās not safe to give dissent. Meaning a āyesā doesnāt count if a ānoā wouldnāt count either. Most kids cannot readily say āno.ā They cannot consent.
Itās not ānormalā to be specifically attracted to any age group.
I said nothing about age, but about development.
Why do you think your kink is the ānormalā one?
I said nothing about my own personal attractions. If youāre asking, Iām not a hebephile. I would be lying if I were to claim Iāve never found one physically attractive, but my general physical sexual attraction is probably about as vanilla as it gets. My actual kinks, not so much. But thatās a completely different topic.
Just like I defend homosexuality as a normal, healthy attraction, I defend this. That doesnāt make me gay, or a hebephile.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesnāt entitle you to fucking them.
And I pretty clearly said explicitly otherwise. Literally this whole thing about consent is just completely pulled out of your ass as it has nothing to do with anything Iāve said. Hell, youāre whole rant is completely detached from the reality of anything Iāve said.
Yeah ādevelopmentā what a creepy word and again, ādevelopmentā has nothing to do with it. Thatās why I brought up the breeding kink part - the classic argument every libertarian creep who does the āItās hebephile not pedophileā dog whistle says this EXACT thing. Like you all are clearly watching the same porn. Itās so weird of you. Idk how I have had this exact conversation with so many of my male peers. The other points I made are entirely relevant when it comes to fucking children. Many people think rape is a turn off, ya know?
āDevelopmentā is meaningless. It doesnāt make it okay because the person looks a certain way. A ādevelopedā body is not an āadultā body; many adult women have no breasts and no curves, and many young girls, some as young as 9!! get breasts. Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not ādevelopedā?
That you associate ādevelopmentā with sexual attraction is a YOU kink. Itās not an EVERYONE kink. Itās not the ānaturalā state for people. Itās a kink. That youāre justifying it with āwell she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to meā with no self awareness isā¦ yikes.
Yeah ādevelopmentā what a creepy word and again, ādevelopmentā has nothing to do with it.
lol. It literally has everything to do with it. Thatās 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 ācreepyā is an attempt to undermine the point because itās hard to actually address it.
Like you all are clearly watching the same porn.
I tell you Iām not into it, and what do you do? Lie, and claim Iām into it. Iāll 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 Iāve already stated, itās 100% wrong to have sex with them.
Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not ādevelopedā?
The fact that you need to ask this question just goes to show how absolutely ignorant you are of the topic, and probably shouldnāt even be discussing it at all.
That you associate ādevelopmentā with sexual attraction is a YOU kink.
Holy shit, this insane. lol This debate never ceases to crack me up. Youāre literally arguing that being attracted to people who have gone through puberty is a ākink.ā Even if you think that the stage of development that itās āappropriateā 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 youāre justifying it with āwell she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to meā with no self awareness isā¦ yikes.
I have full self awareness of what Iām saying. Itās the people who claim that development stages has nothing to do with it and is a ākinkā are the ones who lack the self-awareness to understand how little they know of what they talk aboutā¦ yikes.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not ānormalā 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 itās 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 āIām vanilla and normal,ā and project their kinks onto reality as if thatās objective. Itās not. Youāre wrong.
Itās creepy because of what it implies about your general philosophy to kids.
You are into it. You are saying itās ānormalā as long as they are developed. Youāve 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 ādevelopedā?
who have gone through puberty is a ākink.ā
Youāre moving goalposts. First, you say itās because they are developed- which describes a body type. Then you say itās because they can reproduce - which describes their eggs/womb and ability to carry a baby - which a ādevelopedā 12 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy. And āabove pubertyā includes people who cannot reproduce and are sometimes not ādeveloped,ā 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 ānormalā and youāve never analyzed or critically thought about them?
All sexual attractions are kinks. Thatās my point - there is no ānormalā sexual arousal state. Calling it ānormalā justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking. Itās the same reason rapists rape and donāt realize it - they think their rape kink is ānormal.ā Look at Andrew Tate and his fans.
Being attracted to minors is not ānormalā as an adult. Itās just ānormalā for you.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not ānormalā 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 didnāt say they were sexual attracted to them because they want to reproduce with them. Iām saying that the ability to reproduce is what makes it natural to be attracted to someone, because thatās 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 Iāve 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 Iāve said instead of desperately trying to make it about me.
Youāre moving goalposts.
Literally the first thing I said was pubescent.
which a ādevelopedā 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 youāve gotten the definition completely wrong. Maybe hebephilia is a kink, I havenāt given that much thought or research.
Calling it ānormalā justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking.
Youāre 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, youāve certainly had thoughts that, if you had acted on them, it would have been woefully inappropriate, at best. This doesnāt make you a bad person or not-normal. Everyone has thoughts that acting on them would be inappropriate or wrong.
And, yes, Iām absolutely trying to justify the thoughts. Thatās 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 Iāve 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 canāt know by looking. If reproduction really mattered, gay people wouldnāt exist. There would be no infertility. People would automatically have sex according to reproduction. They donāt. Thereās your evidence. That weāve evolved to reproduce is different than what actually compels sexual arousal.
You have a breeding kink which is why youāre conflating these. Idk what else to say. Agree to disagree. You canāt see your own narcissism. Itās kinda embarrassing tbh.
Iām not lying. You yourself said you found teens attractive and that itās 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. Youāre projecting your experience onto ānormal.ā Thatās why itās relevant.
Define what you mean by ādeveloped.ā
There is dissent on sexual health in psychology and terms. I am going with Susan Kaplanās 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 youāre 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 ānormalā state of sexual arousal. To assume so without evidence and controls would be unscientific. And per sociological studies, the classic version of ānormalā sex here in the US has changed over time, isnāt normal for most people in the US, and isnāt 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, itās 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 isnāt ethical if itās not informed, if everyone didnāt 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 wouldnāt exist.
And there we have it folks, weāre 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) - doesnāt really matter. lol
You have a breeding kink which is why youāre conflating these. Idk what else to say. Agree to disagree. You canāt see your own narcissism. Itās kinda embarrassing tbh.
This is not something we can āagree to disagreeā on. I donāt have a breeding kink. But Iām 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 ākinksā 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 ānormalā 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 doesnāt matter, than being attracted to pre-pubescent children makes perfect sense and you canāt condemn it. You canāt have your cake and eat it too, although Iām sure youāll 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.
Iāve quoted you and pointed out your errors. Iāve referenced academic literature. Idk what else to tell ya. I donāt think I āknow moreā 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. Thatās what a discussion is.
I never said there was āno such thing as kink.ā I said itās all a kink.
I never said that a personās 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 menās entitlement to womenās 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. Itās labeled predatory behavior because it is. It harms the kids affected. The harm is what is immoral. This is only confusing to a predator.
Itās not ānormalā to be attracted to 14 year olds. Itās not ānormalā to be specifically attracted to any age group. Itās honestly all a kink. Are you attracted to elderly people? No? Thatās because you have a different kink. And donāt get into stupid biological bullshit of reproductive success etc, a woman in her 40s whoās given birth before is in some cases much less likely to die in childbirth than a 14 year old who hasnāt done it before, arguably. That some people have breeding kinks with their pedo kinks is on them. Like seriously stop being so sexually narcissistic, there are thousands of kinks that combines in thousands of ways. Why do you think your kink is the ānormalā one? Like get over yourself.
Whether kinks are disorders or not is a separate topic. Where kinks come from - we donāt know 100%. Thereās some evidence certain brain conditions can cause disorders and sexual dysfunction, so itās possible pedophilia could be induced. Personally I am curious if oxytocin plays a role in pedophilia. You can get oxytocin (note: this is not OXYCONTIN) compounded in a nasal spray from compounding pharmacies. Just need a doctorās prescription for it, it has been used experimentally for social anxiety. I think some pedophiles likely get extra oxytocin from children (and other groups get it from animals in some cases) which is part of what triggers their attraction even if they donāt want to harm children.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesnāt entitle you to fucking them. Even if you can convince them to say yes somehow.
Consent cannot be given if itās not safe to give dissent. Meaning a āyesā doesnāt count if a ānoā wouldnāt count either. Most kids cannot readily say āno.ā They cannot consent.
I said nothing about age, but about development.
I said nothing about my own personal attractions. If youāre asking, Iām not a hebephile. I would be lying if I were to claim Iāve never found one physically attractive, but my general physical sexual attraction is probably about as vanilla as it gets. My actual kinks, not so much. But thatās a completely different topic.
Just like I defend homosexuality as a normal, healthy attraction, I defend this. That doesnāt make me gay, or a hebephile.
And I pretty clearly said explicitly otherwise. Literally this whole thing about consent is just completely pulled out of your ass as it has nothing to do with anything Iāve said. Hell, youāre whole rant is completely detached from the reality of anything Iāve said.
Yeah ādevelopmentā what a creepy word and again, ādevelopmentā has nothing to do with it. Thatās why I brought up the breeding kink part - the classic argument every libertarian creep who does the āItās hebephile not pedophileā dog whistle says this EXACT thing. Like you all are clearly watching the same porn. Itās so weird of you. Idk how I have had this exact conversation with so many of my male peers. The other points I made are entirely relevant when it comes to fucking children. Many people think rape is a turn off, ya know?
āDevelopmentā is meaningless. It doesnāt make it okay because the person looks a certain way. A ādevelopedā body is not an āadultā body; many adult women have no breasts and no curves, and many young girls, some as young as 9!! get breasts. Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not ādevelopedā?
That you associate ādevelopmentā with sexual attraction is a YOU kink. Itās not an EVERYONE kink. Itās not the ānaturalā state for people. Itās a kink. That youāre justifying it with āwell she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to meā with no self awareness isā¦ yikes.
lol. It literally has everything to do with it. Thatās 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 ācreepyā is an attempt to undermine the point because itās hard to actually address it.
I tell you Iām not into it, and what do you do? Lie, and claim Iām into it. Iāll state it again, it never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to deny reality to hold onto their irrational beliefs.
Agreed. Which is why, as Iāve already stated, itās 100% wrong to have sex with them.
The fact that you need to ask this question just goes to show how absolutely ignorant you are of the topic, and probably shouldnāt even be discussing it at all.
Holy shit, this insane. lol This debate never ceases to crack me up. Youāre literally arguing that being attracted to people who have gone through puberty is a ākink.ā Even if you think that the stage of development that itās āappropriateā 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.
I have full self awareness of what Iām saying. Itās the people who claim that development stages has nothing to do with it and is a ākinkā are the ones who lack the self-awareness to understand how little they know of what they talk aboutā¦ yikes.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not ānormalā 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 itās 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 āIām vanilla and normal,ā and project their kinks onto reality as if thatās objective. Itās not. Youāre wrong.
Itās creepy because of what it implies about your general philosophy to kids.
You are into it. You are saying itās ānormalā as long as they are developed. Youāve 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 ādevelopedā?
Youāre moving goalposts. First, you say itās because they are developed- which describes a body type. Then you say itās because they can reproduce - which describes their eggs/womb and ability to carry a baby - which a ādevelopedā 12 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy. And āabove pubertyā includes people who cannot reproduce and are sometimes not ādeveloped,ā 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 ānormalā and youāve never analyzed or critically thought about them?
All sexual attractions are kinks. Thatās my point - there is no ānormalā sexual arousal state. Calling it ānormalā justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking. Itās the same reason rapists rape and donāt realize it - they think their rape kink is ānormal.ā Look at Andrew Tate and his fans.
Being attracted to minors is not ānormalā as an adult. Itās just ānormalā for you.
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 didnāt say they were sexual attracted to them because they want to reproduce with them. Iām saying that the ability to reproduce is what makes it natural to be attracted to someone, because thatās 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.
Whether it is about me makes no difference; the logic of my position holds either way as Iāve 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 Iāve said instead of desperately trying to make it about me.
Literally the first thing I said was pubescent.
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?
By definition this is incorrect, as kink, by definition, means non-conventional sexual acts. This is the second word in this post for which youāve gotten the definition completely wrong. Maybe hebephilia is a kink, I havenāt given that much thought or research.
Youāre 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, youāve certainly had thoughts that, if you had acted on them, it would have been woefully inappropriate, at best. This doesnāt make you a bad person or not-normal. Everyone has thoughts that acting on them would be inappropriate or wrong.
And, yes, Iām absolutely trying to justify the thoughts. Thatās 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 Iāve 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 canāt know by looking. If reproduction really mattered, gay people wouldnāt exist. There would be no infertility. People would automatically have sex according to reproduction. They donāt. Thereās your evidence. That weāve evolved to reproduce is different than what actually compels sexual arousal.
You have a breeding kink which is why youāre conflating these. Idk what else to say. Agree to disagree. You canāt see your own narcissism. Itās kinda embarrassing tbh.
Iām not lying. You yourself said you found teens attractive and that itās 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. Youāre projecting your experience onto ānormal.ā Thatās why itās relevant.
Define what you mean by ādeveloped.ā
There is dissent on sexual health in psychology and terms. I am going with Susan Kaplanās 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 youāre 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 ānormalā state of sexual arousal. To assume so without evidence and controls would be unscientific. And per sociological studies, the classic version of ānormalā sex here in the US has changed over time, isnāt normal for most people in the US, and isnāt 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.
Right, itās 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 isnāt ethical if itās not informed, if everyone didnāt 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.
And there we have it folks, weāre 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) - doesnāt really matter. lol
This is not something we can āagree to disagreeā on. I donāt have a breeding kink. But Iām 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 ākinksā 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.
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 doesnāt matter, than being attracted to pre-pubescent children makes perfect sense and you canāt condemn it. You canāt have your cake and eat it too, although Iām sure youāll 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.
Iāve quoted you and pointed out your errors. Iāve referenced academic literature. Idk what else to tell ya. I donāt think I āknow moreā 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. Thatās what a discussion is.
I never said there was āno such thing as kink.ā I said itās all a kink.
I never said that a personās 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 menās entitlement to womenās 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. Itās labeled predatory behavior because it is. It harms the kids affected. The harm is what is immoral. This is only confusing to a predator.