“Pedophillia isnt about sexual attraction, it is about power and control”

[KnightofHope]

I do miss G@yWad69, he had such unique turns of phrase.

[Scorchingwilde]

I also miss G@yWad69, though I joined after he left. Many of what he wrote about rings true for myself

[nicholas_weeks]

If I would try to contest such claim I would probably describe the desires felt by MAPs as mirror of the desires repressed by society. The simple conclusion is that it can be indeed about power and control, but it's for sure always about sexual attraction.

[DANAT4T]

Forced rape is about power. I hate it when low IQ individuals blame the clothes of rape victims. I literally don't see any sense in the argument but I have unfortunately heard 'normies' say this all the time but unfortunately people like me who support relationships regardless of age are evil.

[Creature Bipedal]

Incest is not love, not because of having no sex with the wife:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 7261428419

[MapGuy45657]

It's an incoherent statement, because arousal is a very particular sexual mechanism. The way it works is basically sex and arousal are gene replication strategies of DNA. Humans are physical machines, kinds of computational systems. If you believe in 'There's only matter and physics acting on this matter', you have to agree. Therefore if we are machines, computers, and we observe that human arousal works via the sensory interface (sense data in - arousal out), we have to conclude using the logic of natural selection that arousal must work by a comparator. So again sense data in, *comparison to parameter*, arousal out. The question becomes what defines the parameter? The answer is selective pressure on reproductive success. Because you have to mate with human to copy genes, the only information that gets encoded to the parameters of positive arousal are human phenotypes, features. So the only way for a human to be turned on by Juveniles, or juvenile phenotypes (such as retained into adult hood) would be *if* they had juvenile phenotypes encoded to sexual preference DNA --> Neurological architecture.

Now people will claim that there exists those who sexually engage with juveniles with *no* sexual interest in them, but consider has this been demonstrated theoretically (Can we make sense of it under Evolution?) or empirically (Is there any observation supporting this model?) No. I have no idea where it came from, but something tells me it stems from confusion as to what Humans Biologically are. Note that power and control itself evolves to aid sex, everything is actually subservient to sex and is an organ of it. All traits evolve to make you better at sex and reproducing, even the ones that let you control others.