Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Pedophilia: nature or nurture?

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-14 21:33

Have you ever known an ex-pedophile?

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 0:52 (sage)

Not that I disagree with the assertion of >>39 though. That was just a poor example.

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 11:45

>>40 That would be assuming that breasts size was designed to indicate health and fertility, and assuming that people are instinctively attracted to large breasts. That is not always the case.

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 11:54

ืNo more boobs talk plzkthx

boobs are disgusting

Name: BQB 2005-01-20 12:47 (sage)

Hooray for BQQBIES!

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 12:51

me and 43 are making this the official pedo hangout thread

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 14:21 (sage)

sage

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 15:30

flat chest = bad at making/storing milk
larger chest = more milk storage capablities, etc
So, yes, larger breasts do generally indicate better abilities to rear young.  It would be evolutionarily beneficial to prefer bigger boobs over smaller boobs.  Instincts are usually pretty simple like this.

However, the extent that people in western society obsess over naked breasts might be enhanced over that of some tribe where they are constantly exposed to them.  I imagine they would still find them arousing and prefer bigger ones, however... much in the same way that western males still think good legs are hot, even though it's common to see naked ones.

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 16:08 (sage)

btw, no party supports pedos (nambla political wing maybe?), I don't think this is politics.

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 17:53 (sage)

This stupidity belongs in another forum.

Name: 2005-01-20 17:56 (capped)

sorry there is no Philosophy forum right now, you can talk philosophy in here all you want

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 18:51

>>47 hmm maybe this is why asian people are short and look underdeveloped. their mommies didn't give them enough tit ;)

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-20 23:32 (sage)

>>50
Must be one nasty caricature of a Philosophy forum you have planned there...

This shit belongs in VIP.

Name: 2005-01-21 0:38 (capped)

ok any discussion mr. anonymous finds revolting belongs in the vip forum

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-21 9:17

It's not revolting. It's just plain asinine. Read the comments man.

WTF does pedophilia have to do with politics anyway? It's generally some older guy getting a hardon over some titless brats.

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-21 14:20

vote 1 and leave

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-21 15:01 (sage)

>>50

i don't think pedo is a philosophy either (catholicism?) . Maybe psychology board would be appropriate. This board should be renamed to "PHILOSOPHY+THEOLOGY+PSYCHOLOGY+SOCIOLOGY+POLITICS" then.

Name: Anonymous 2005-01-25 8:17

There needs to be a simple "society" board.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-05 19:09

I was watching something about the Pornography industry on HBO the other day. The Europeans think that the American male's fetish of liking large breasts is a side effect of our infantilization.

One porn actress said, and I paraphrase: "It's a very good thing that we have pornography, otherwise we would be a bunch of "mother fuckers".

I guess this post could also belong to a thread dealing with Freudianism.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-05 22:43 (sage)

>>58

actually the same psychological mechanism is at work with "lolicon"

as per freud, people who want to ignore/repress the unconscious human impetus towards infantilized sexual idealization will gravitate toward the extreme opposite of the spectrum... and hence "lolicon" was born, it's about as old as time itself.

as your porn actress says... "mother fuckers". go directly and fuck your mother, or try to fuck the furthest thing from your mother to avoid thinking about fucking your mother

lol freud

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-06 3:34

>>59

I have to disagree, sort of. With everyone, including the Europeans. I'm going to try to figure this convoluted subject out, I could be wrong about all of this, but here it is:

I think we are hard-wired with a natural aversion to our mothers and immediate family members. We don't have an idealization of them, we have an "aversion" to them. Would you want to have sex with someone that even looked like your mother?

Freud also said that when males prefer females who are physically larger than they are that these males must have more than natural feelings for their mother. If the guy was not outright making things up, I don't think he had a good understanding of this issue.. I think it's possible that he or a subject of his had an aversion to his mother that disturbed him in some sense that carried over to his ideation of sex with women and Freud found all of this to be a very common psychological phenomenon, and he took that knowledge and coupled it with child psychology and tried to apply it to adults by exploiting all of that knowledge into pseudo-scientifical sophistry (that is, if he indeed does apply it to adults, I don't have a good understanding of his work. Maybe it's other people exploiting Freuds ideas?)..

It probably wouldn't be too hard to exploit, for control, the naivety of some fellow who lacked understanding of himself and who also happened to have strong sexual aversions to his mother, maybe feeling the idea of the mother invading some private space of his sexual being in some instances. Someone sophisticated enough could cause such a person to think that, in reality, they wanted to have sex with their mother.

Maybe the gravitation to the opposite(if "opposite" is not arbitrary), to pedophilia, is a natural gravitation away from the aversion and to physiological purity, only there is one problem with that: it's clearly antisocial to act on your pedophilic lust.

Antisocial personality disorder is having a lack of compassion for others. Seeing a weakness in others and wanting to exploit it for your own gain shows a lack of conscience--this is the gist of antisocial behavior.

The idea that most pedophiles resist following through with their instinctive lust and decide not to act on it due to the harm it would cause the object of their affection is also very popular and makes much sense to me.

Basically, what I would like to say is that when pedophiles are not antisocial they will not violate children, and if they do violate children, possibly while rationalizing that the child isn't being harmed, they are violating the child, and themselves as well. If it were carried out within a culture such as ours it could also harm other pedophiles, and society itself.

As for the issue of incest, it's easier for a me to look at bisexually (here, this word is not meant in a sexual orientation/preference sense but as incest applies to both sexes, whereas the whole pedophile thing is easier for me to understand from the male POV). Whether it be a son and his mother or a daughter and her father, for it to occur and not cause a major psychological disturbance in the son or daughter, that individual would have to completely lack the aversion, and probably have to be psychologically disordered in a way that makes them view their mother/father as something other than a mother/father, if that is possible, and/or in an extreme and odd case of antisocial personality, simply as an "object".

Even for someone to be erotically stimulated by the thought of having sex with their mother, father, etc. would be a sign of psychological disorder unless it's not recurrent and happens while they are in a dream-state or something of that nature. If one is not antisocial, can think efficiently (i.e they are not retarted), the odds of them having Oedipal Syndrome (if that means someone who wants to bang his mother) or "oedipette syndrome", for that matter, would have to be nearly impossible. How this applies to Freudianism, I don't know. I would have to research it.

Sorry if some of that has poor grammar. I'm not an expert at it and I didn't want to set here for a long period of time trying to correct and simplify it.

Oh, and if it matters for the reader, I do have some pedophile tendencies. However, my strong attraction to females is not limited or primarily focused at young females. In fact, many people, of any age level and especially under 14, succeed at being "not my type". I cannot be attracted to a girl just because she's young and innocent so I'll have to disagree with whoever posted something about how pedophiles only want to infect innocence. or whatever it was. 

I do agree that this doesn't really fit into a politics category. Maybe Science would have been more appropriate.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-06 3:39

sit*

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-06 7:20

>>60
commenting on freud

if you subscribe to freud, seeking out your anti-mother in a sexual partner is the repressive manifestation of the infantilized id

meaning it actually wants something visually akin to your mother subconsciously, in the part of mind that cannot be rationalized

race is another spectrum on which to slide
besides the age spectrum....

many asian fetishes from anglo race perspectives are created out of perceptions of submissiveness and far-removed cultural exoticness, in that many of these individuals have issues dealing with women of their own race as equals for whatever reason

other races are an easy way to achieve the conscious "aversion" you are referring to, what goes on in the id is separate from conscious action

as far as the age spectrum goes... generally it is kept within reason, the 25year old wife of the 80year old oil tycoon et al

though youth has always been lusted after, there has always been reasonable moral restraint based on maturity considerations

harming a child is abjectly wrong as is all actual pedophelia, socially or anti-socially

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-06 18:43

>>58

i watched that too, i think the bitch who said that wasn't a pornstar but was some BS psychologist or random panalist. Not everyone who commented on that show was in the porno industry. BTW, the dicks they showed weren't that impresive, perhaps they last a long time and can come on command.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-06 20:06

<<62

"actual pedophilia" is not child abuse. It's just an attraction to young girls. Pedophilia and Child Abuse are two different things. "Anti-social" does not mean what it looks like it does; anti-social behavior has nothing to do with being unsocial towards people, it means to use people, exploiting their weakness for your gain, with no empathy for them and thinking that they deserve it because they are weaker.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-06 20:44

What is the proper term, then, for a man who feels sexual desire for prepubescent girls, but understands that this is wrong, and lives his entire life never acting on these urges?  Is he still a "pedophile" if he never buys kiddy pr0n or does anything to a child?

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-06 21:21

Correct.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-06 21:24 (sage)

>>65 the proper term is:
"a man who feels sexual desire for prepubescent girls, but understands that this is wrong"

the term pedophilia is defined to indicate action or eventual action - as well as fantasy, it is a blanket term..
you must include the caveat "...but understands that this is wrong AND WILL NEVER ACT UPON IT" if you want to use the term pedophilia to indicate fantasy-only

then there is always the "slippery slope" argument(fantasy degenerating to action)... but we are only talking about a definition of terms here

the operative words in such a caveat are "wrong" and "never act upon it" suggesting you have a clear sense of morality and a full control of will

though it is quite rare to find a socially adjusted person calling themselves a pedophile, with caveats or without

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-07 4:02

Post 67 is misleading.

The term "pedophile" could be used erroneously to indicate many things, but it is DEFINED indicating something wholly independent of the idea of sexual encounters or lack therof.

pedophile:

Noun
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

child:

Noun
Inflected forms: pl.chil·dren 1. A person between birth and puberty.

In other words, if you ever feel a sexual attraction to a child, you are a pedophile. Even (and I'm sure it's very common among socially adjusted people, contrary to post 67) if you don't prefer them over older people and are very glad not to act on your attraction to a child, you are still a pedophile, poster 65.

Of course if you want to look at the whole language thing as not dependent on definitions and look at it in a constructivist (is that the right term?) point of view, you could say that the term "pedophile" means only what most people in a given environment thinks it does. If that's the case, than it's probably at an in-between kind of existence, and you might want to use the advice of the 67th poster. Regardless, though, you're a pedophile unless it goes completely off course completely, in whichever environment you are in, from its originally intended meaning.

Well, I hope someone learned something by reading my post (as I have learned things from others here), and even though the layout was loading weird tonight and I had to scroll way over to the right to get the thread list, I am starting to like this place. Keep it up.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-07 4:37

whats wrong with fucking a loli if she agrees?

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-07 6:04 (sage)

>>69
Well... how much did you know about sex when you were 11?  Of course, any more than almost nothing makes you a bad example, but we'll still love you.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-07 19:01

Well, yas.  The typical eight-year-old does not have enough knowledge or life experience to give informed consent.  Typically, a child would not have any idea that she might be risking syphilis or something worse.  An eight-year-old wouldn't even know what syphilis is.  And a hypothetical extremely precocious eight-year-old who had all the medical knowledge about such matters in all likelihood *still* wouldn't have the judgment to decide wisely, nor the life experience to judge whether or not her sweaty bald fat fifty-year-old would-be partner is likely to dismember her afterwards and stuff her tiny corpse into the crawl space of his house--a non-trivial risk, when you consider just how fucked up a man would have to be to want to fuck an eight-year-old girl.

Sex is an adult matter, for adults.  This isn't just a tautology.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-07 22:32

Even if an 18 year old has sex, or an abortion or uses drugs, much later they may regret it. It seems to me, true adulthood is delayed more and more, especially in the western countries. Nowadays, only 60+ year olds can fully appreciate the choices they make. It takes alot longer than it used to to accumulate the proper amount of wisdom. Maybe when life expectancy was shorter it was more important to learn from your mistakes the first time. The hedonsitic lifestyle does not bring longterm satisfaction, but thanks to viagra it is continuing far too long.

If you are attracted to kids before they have reached sexual maturation, it is a serious problem. When it is a 12 year old with tits it becomes more clouded, yet your brain should know better even if your balls don't.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-08 1:19

so you're saying we all should hav secks only if we past our 60's already?

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-08 1:20

so you're saying we all should hav secks only if we past our 60's already?

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-08 6:09 (sage)

>>72
I just attribute that to either bullshit or the exponetial growth rate of human stupidity.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-08 23:33

Lolitas are just as likely to have already been through puberty.


"lolita"
Means sexually precocious young girl. In the novel by Nabokov, The main character says that Lolita is a nymphet, and he prefers nymphets to women. He said that nymphets usually lose their "nymphethood" around the age of 14 or shortly later and can be younger than 10, but are usually older.

"Lolicon" doesn't have to be prepubescent. The people on the /l/ board have no idea what they're talking about. You could have "lolita complex" without being a pedophile.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-15 3:38

>>70
>>71

I already knew about STIs when I was 5-year-olds.  They started teaching this by Grade 1.  Sex education is also taken by the age of 10.

Although a person of that age may not be able to give consent in the same way an older person would -- neither do many people of legal age.  All one has to do is watch daytime talk shows where women act beserk over who they believe their baby's father is.

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-20 6:27

why is it ok for 13 year olds to fuck each other but not ok for an 18 year old to fuck a 13 year old?

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-20 6:32 (sage)

>>78
ur just jealous

Name: Anonymous 2005-02-20 8:14 (sage)

i want to be

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List