silmarilen wrote: 3y5n4j
please stop doingthis
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting 2j1py
posted
Total Posts
57,520
D
Yo what the fuck. i read ur shit about wanting to put a baby inside a fucking minor and that shit is just wack.
you should be ashamed, pedo.
that honestly made me sick to my stomach though not gonna lie. being attracted to the looks of someone is one thing, but arguing about the fertility of a 15 year-old is another thing.
you should be ashamed, pedo.
that honestly made me sick to my stomach though not gonna lie. being attracted to the looks of someone is one thing, but arguing about the fertility of a 15 year-old is another thing.
Not sure if you're advocating for extremely young mother's for birthing or not, but if we went purely off of biology and extreme pragmatism, then the world would be a shitty place with no morales.
Again, I wasn't in this conversation, nor did I read it yet, so take this with a grain of salt. I'll read it when I have time.
Again, I wasn't in this conversation, nor did I read it yet, so take this with a grain of salt. I'll read it when I have time.
okay I read it. let's get into this.
While it is true that females can be fertile at a young age, they are not at their peak fertility until their early to mid 20's. Fertility only really starts declining drastically around the age of 35. There are also studies showing that Fetal death rates and Perinatal death rates are higher in teenage pregnancies than they are with women in their 20's. Teenage mothers are also more likely to give birth prematurely and at low birthweights. A younger woman's body just isn't ready for childbirth yet.
There is also the huge socioeconomic problem of a teenager having a child. I know you were only talking strictly biological, but I'm gonna bring this up anyways. In no way shape or form is a teenager prepared to have a child, economically or mentally. They are most likely still going to school while living with their parents. They have not had time in their life to create a career, to build a foundation for themselves so they can themselves and the baby, ultimately leading the child to have a poor quality of life. Teenage mothers create a huge disadvantage for themselves in life when they give birth at such a young age. They struggle to care for a child, while attending school, working a job, or both. Of course, some teenager's parents will be able to help them, but it is still a huge burden on everyone involved, in most cases.
I am very against people having children when they aren't financially or mentally prepared. Everybody has their right to do so though.
Saying that "Reproductive capability is pretty much the main determining factor for attractiveness" is essentially saying that humans have not gone through sociocultural evolution. That we haven't gone through any moral development as a species and still rely on raw human instincts. It is not normal for "men, even older men," to be attracted to children like that. It is a disease and it is disgusting. They need to get professional help.
First of all, that is completely false. If you think that a 15yo girl births healthier children than a woman in her early to mid 20's, then you need to actually do some research. The reason I think that you actually believe that is because you said: "CHILDREN birth the healthiest babies."Vuelo Eluko wrote: 1v5n28
Speaking strictly in of biology here, children birth the healthiest babies. The older the mother, the worse off her spawn are in general. I missed the conversation so I'm not sure what bearing it has but there ya go.
While it is true that females can be fertile at a young age, they are not at their peak fertility until their early to mid 20's. Fertility only really starts declining drastically around the age of 35. There are also studies showing that Fetal death rates and Perinatal death rates are higher in teenage pregnancies than they are with women in their 20's. Teenage mothers are also more likely to give birth prematurely and at low birthweights. A younger woman's body just isn't ready for childbirth yet.
There is also the huge socioeconomic problem of a teenager having a child. I know you were only talking strictly biological, but I'm gonna bring this up anyways. In no way shape or form is a teenager prepared to have a child, economically or mentally. They are most likely still going to school while living with their parents. They have not had time in their life to create a career, to build a foundation for themselves so they can themselves and the baby, ultimately leading the child to have a poor quality of life. Teenage mothers create a huge disadvantage for themselves in life when they give birth at such a young age. They struggle to care for a child, while attending school, working a job, or both. Of course, some teenager's parents will be able to help them, but it is still a huge burden on everyone involved, in most cases.
I am very against people having children when they aren't financially or mentally prepared. Everybody has their right to do so though.
This quote is where most of the original debate stemmed from. I can't even begin to address how ignorant B1rd's statement was. While it is true that being attracted to post-pubescent children over the age of 12-13 isn't Pedophilia, it is still Hebephilia and Ephebophilia, which is still extremely disgusting and illegal for the most part in the US. The only reason I say "for the most part" is because 18 and 19-year-olds are also included in the Ephebophilia category.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
I'm not trying to justify anything, and being attracted to 15 year olds isn't paedophilia. Pedophilia is concerned with pre-pubescent children, and generally 15 and 16 years olds have their reproductive faculties in order. Reproductive capability is pretty much the main determining factor for attractiveness, because obviously reproduction is the main purpose of human sexuality. So yes it is normal for men, even older men, to be attracted to 15 or 16 year old girls who've gone through puberty.
Saying that "Reproductive capability is pretty much the main determining factor for attractiveness" is essentially saying that humans have not gone through sociocultural evolution. That we haven't gone through any moral development as a species and still rely on raw human instincts. It is not normal for "men, even older men," to be attracted to children like that. It is a disease and it is disgusting. They need to get professional help.
sources
https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?CliniKID=0
https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/learning--resources/patient-resources/protect-your-fertility3/age_femaleinfertility.pdf
http://www.scaany.org/documents/teen_pregnancy_dec08.pdf
https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/learning--resources/patient-resources/protect-your-fertility3/age_femaleinfertility.pdf
http://www.scaany.org/documents/teen_pregnancy_dec08.pdf
It's quite easy to see why, and it's not biology. I just mean under ideal conditions, all else being equal including the level of autonomy/responsibility of the mothers and all environmental factors like a stupid, probably abusive father who really doesn't want to have a kid with a 15yo removed.Penguin wrote: 2n5p3w
There are also studies showing that Fetal death rates and Perinatal death rates are higher in teenage pregnancies than they are with women in their 20's.
it is interesting that you still go on to condemn ephebophilia as 'disgusting' when it's just human nature nothing more. Simple attraction of any kind shouldn't illicit such a response, and then when you watch a few documentaries realize most actual offenders aren't explicitly attracted to minors but are in it for the power play/to do something taboo you might start to have a more open mind about, well, the human psyche.
but I agree, when the attraction goes far enough that it is a hindrance to ones ability to live a normal life and/or is acted upon, not simply when the natural attraction exists in the first place, it is a good idea to seek help or just turn yourself in, because this is the actual medical definition of a pedophile not the buzzword version where you might get a stiffy from a pic of a 15-17 yr old who looks like a young woman by all counts and be outcasted for nothing.
Similarly, I also don't think people that occasionally fantasize about hurting or killing people they dislike or that anger them are a menace to society, because this is something pretty much everyone does. Doesn't make them even likely to be a violent criminal in my eyes
It's not a disease. Men are attracted to women based upon their reproductive capacity and other factors.Penguin wrote: 2n5p3w
This quote is where most of the original debate stemmed from. I can't even begin to address how ignorant B1rd's statement was. While it is true that being attracted to post-pubescent children over the age of 12-13 isn't Pedophilia, it is still Hebephilia and Ephebophilia, which is still extremely disgusting and illegal for the most part in the US. The only reason I say "for the most part" is because 18 and 19-year-olds are also included in the Ephebophilia category.
Saying that "Reproductive capability is pretty much the main determining factor for attractiveness" is essentially saying that humans have not gone through sociocultural evolution. That we haven't gone through any moral development as a species and still rely on raw human instincts. It is not normal for "men, even older men," to be attracted to children like that. It is a disease and it is disgusting. They need to get professional help.
sourceshttps://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?CliniKID=0
https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/learning--resources/patient-resources/protect-your-fertility3/age_femaleinfertility.pdf
http://www.scaany.org/documents/teen_pregnancy_dec08.pdf
"Mid-to-late adolescents usually have physical characteristics near (or, in some cases, identical) to that of fully-grown adults; psychiatrist and sexologist Fred Berlin states that most men can find persons in this age group sexually attractive, but that "of course, that doesn't mean they're going to act on it. Some men who become involved with teenagers may not have a particular disorder. Opportunity and other factors may have contributed to their behaving in the way they do".[3] According to psychologist and sexologist James Cantor, it is "very common for regular men to be attracted to 18-year-olds or 20-year-olds. It's not unusual for a typical 16-year-old to be attractive to many men and the younger we go the fewer and fewer men are attracted to that age group."[11]"
Just because men moderate themselves because of social pressure, doesn't mean that the fundamental attraction doesn't remain. I'm sure of the social pressure were to differ, many men would takes wives from 15 years old.
First of all, you're incorrect in saying it's not biology. Yes, It also has to do with the fact that teenagers are less likely to get the correct prenatal care when they are pregnant, along with other hardships, but there is also a biological aspect to it. Under equal and ideal situations, teenage pregnancies are still more at risk than ones in their 20's.Vuelo Eluko wrote: 1v5n28
It's quite easy to see why, and it's not biology. I just mean under ideal conditions, all else being equal including the level of autonomy/responsibility of the mothers and all environmental factors like a stupid, probably abusive father who really doesn't want to have a kid with a 15yo removed.
Sorry, I should've clarified that it's the "acting out" portion that is disgusting and illegal. I understand that some people can't control their thoughts and attractions to certain things, but if they cannot control their actions and don't realize that what they are doing is immoral, then it is a serious issue. Also, sexual offenders who are "in it for the power play" are just as disgusting, if not more disgusting. Men who have that interest are doing it because younger females are "naive" and easier to take advantage of.Vuelo Eluko wrote: 1v5n28
it is interesting that you still go on to condemn ephebophilia as 'disgusting' when it's just human nature nothing more. Simple attraction of any kind shouldn't illicit such a response, and then when you watch a few documentaries realize most actual offenders aren't explicitly attracted to minors but are in it for the power play/to do something taboo you might start to have a more open mind about, well, the human psyche.
"pedophilia nounVuelo Eluko wrote: 1v5n28
but I agree, when the attraction goes far enough that it is a hindrance to ones ability to live a normal life and/or is acted upon, not simply when the natural attraction exists in the first place, it is a good idea to seek help or just turn yourself in, because this is the actual medical definition of a pedophile not the buzzword version where you might get a stiffy from a pic of a 15-17 yr old who looks like a young woman by all counts and be outcasted for nothing.
pe·do·phil·ia | \ ˌpe-də-ˈfi-lē-ə, ˌpē- \
Definition of pedophilia
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object"
I might have misread the way you structured your sentence, but it's not only when the perversions are acted upon. I do agree though that pedophilia is thought of and used inappropriately a lot of the times, which creates a skewed perception for people that are uneducated in such facets.
I was mistaken with the "disease" aspect of it, and that is a pretty harsh word I used. Ephebophilia and even Hebephilia are not classified as psychiatric disorders. I should've been clearer that I was mostly addressing the fact that pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
"Mid-to-late adolescents usually have physical characteristics near (or, in some cases, identical) to that of fully-grown adults; psychiatrist and sexologist Fred Berlin states that most men can find persons in this age group sexually attractive, but that "of course, that doesn't mean they're going to act on it. Some men who become involved with teenagers may not have a particular disorder. Opportunity and other factors may have contributed to their behaving in the way they do".[3] According to psychologist and sexologist James Cantor, it is "very common for regular men to be attracted to 18-year-olds or 20-year-olds. It's not unusual for a typical 16-year-old to be attractive to many men and the younger we go the fewer and fewer men are attracted to that age group."[11]"
My point still remains with the sociocultural and moral development. I should specify some more. Sure, it's not abnormal for an initial brief attraction to an adolescent who is close to full maturity around the age of 15 or so. But if you are attracted to a minor, realizing that it is a minor, and you don't see how it is wrong to CONTINUE to be attracted to said minor after the initial "attraction" phase when you first see them, then it's an issue. Being completely fine with being attracted to minors and not suppressing the feeling is disgusting.
Sociocultural evolutions exist for a reason.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
Just because men moderate themselves because of social pressure, doesn't mean that the fundamental attraction doesn't remain. I'm sure of the social pressure were to differ, many men would takes wives from 15 years old.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/pedophilia
"sexual perversion" does not just refer simply to attraction, even the google definition which isn't very useful nor is it the medical definition doesn't make that claim. It's a pretty common thing but no one talks about it, and did you know a lot of women experience sexual pleasure when breastfeeding? The body is just like that. There should be no shame in it.
"sexual perversion" does not just refer simply to attraction, even the google definition which isn't very useful nor is it the medical definition doesn't make that claim. It's a pretty common thing but no one talks about it, and did you know a lot of women experience sexual pleasure when breastfeeding? The body is just like that. There should be no shame in it.
This is what is said about DIAGNOSING pedophilia.Vuelo Eluko wrote: 1v5n28
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/pedophilia
"sexual perversion" does not just refer simply to attraction, even the google definition which isn't very useful nor is it the medical definition doesn't make that claim.
"According to the DSM-5, in order for pedophilia to be diagnosed clinically, such thoughts and behaviours must cause distress or interpersonal hardship to the affected individual or cause distress, injury, or death to persons who are unwilling or unable to consent to sexual behaviors."
Meanwhile, pedophilia is defined as "a sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object"
There's a difference between definitions and diagnoses. I don't really understand your statement though, so let me respond to the other way that I interpreted it; I never said that perversions only refers to the attraction.
"perversion noun
per·ver·sion | \ pər-ˈvər-zhən, -shən\
Definition of perversion
1 : the action of perverting : the condition of being perverted
2 : a perverted form
especially : an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual"
There should be no shame in being sexually attracted to prepubescent children??? Are you serious?? I am so confused as to what point you're trying to get across. Just so you know, we are talking about "pedophilia." The attraction to PREPUBESCENT children. B1rd and I were mostly talking about people's attraction towards postpubescent teens, and how it is sometimes unavoidable. As long as you realize that it's not okay and try and suppress those feelings, you'll be fine. There is nothing natural about being attracted to prepubescent children. That's why it's classified as a Psychiatric disorder.Vuelo Eluko wrote: 1v5n28
It's a pretty common thing but no one talks about it, and did you know a lot of women experience sexual pleasure when breastfeeding? The body is just like that. There should be no shame in it.
Also, did you really just compare breastfeeding to pedophilia? When women get stimulation from breastfeeding, it's because women's breasts/nipples are an erogenous zone. Not because they are sexually attracted to the baby. Don't compare the two.
source
https://www.britannica.com/topic/pedophilia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16913283
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16913283
even from the get go i said medical definition, i don't care what the dictionary thinks because that definition doesn't govern how the world works.
The point of the comparison was that there are things no one talks about because they think it's wrong or bad but it actually isn't, and that's what I'm getting at. If you have an attraction to kids that you don't act upon that is fine, if you get a little wet from breastfeeding again that is fine. I am not saying they are comparable in what they are just in stigma.
i deal in absolute morality, something may be immoral only if it results in the harm of another person. That means drawings, feelings, and thoughts can never be immoral. One may also never commit a crime in a vacuum, meaning stuff like suicide and drugs should not be illegal either as far as I see it.
The point of the comparison was that there are things no one talks about because they think it's wrong or bad but it actually isn't, and that's what I'm getting at. If you have an attraction to kids that you don't act upon that is fine, if you get a little wet from breastfeeding again that is fine. I am not saying they are comparable in what they are just in stigma.
i deal in absolute morality, something may be immoral only if it results in the harm of another person. That means drawings, feelings, and thoughts can never be immoral. One may also never commit a crime in a vacuum, meaning stuff like suicide and drugs should not be illegal either as far as I see it.
abraker wrote: 6cx2d
If you complain about clarity, b1rd is going to give you a very rough time lol.Penguin wrote: 2n5p3w
All I have to say is try to write more clearly when responding. I have no clue what you're trying to say half the time.
You mean I'll give you a hard time if you fail to be clear.
It's kinda hard to map Jazz in osu tho. There's a 7K map with Bossa Nova which isn't jazz but it's still nice.
https://old.ppy.sh/b/1205546
https://old.ppy.sh/b/1205546
Deleted_6709840
I agree with Penguin, we should be allowed to discuss food and how we consume it.
With that said, I really enjoy a dish of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. It is truly a marvellous food and its taste is difficult to forget.
With that said, I really enjoy a dish of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. It is truly a marvellous food and its taste is difficult to forget.
pineapple?Serraionga wrote: 2r3s1z
I agree with Penguin, we should be allowed to discuss food and how we consume it.
With that said, I really enjoy a dish of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. It is truly a marvellous food and its taste is difficult to forget.