MAP Forum

This is an interesting topic.
I chose 70%-30%, but I would rather say 90%-10%.
We have to look at nature, to our closest relatives, to see how this would be if one excludes culture. In great apes, sexual acts towards sexually immature individuals are mostly tolerated, and in the cases they are not, the reactions are either due to what seems to be jealousy, or because the adult is acting too vehemently. From this, I see that there is a natural part originating from protection, but most of what we see now in (mostly western) humans is cultural hyper-amplification.

I didn't want to derail the Megyn Kelly thread
https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=3337

but I replied to it here posting more research, that sadly shows homosexuality and even incest also trigger a natural repulsion mechanism.

Regarding Megyn Kelly,
--
Right after Megyn Kelly said that statement she immediately followed up with "its all disgusting and makes her skin crawl." But of course the normie media left that out. More and more evidence is building that the problem isn't only phobia, its mostly disgust, repulsion and moral outrage. This "disgust reflex" tied to evolutionary psychology to prevent animals from mating incorrectly/prevent vaginal damage to prepubescents.

My opinion (which is unpopular here) states evolution programmed humans to be repulsed by the idea having sex with a prepubescent child, a naturalistic reflex that makes normies go "YUCK!" This disgust reflex nature succeeds in preventing non-reproductive mating and vaginal tissue damage to a child. and we already see this with incest and homosexuality.

What I'm arguing is nature set the baseline disgust at pre-puberty vaginal sex, but culture expanded the natural disgust mechanism to anything under 18 by redefining the word child.

Homosexuality tied to a biological disgust response
https://www.psypost.org/straight-mens-p ... g-maggots/

Incest tied to a biological disgust response
https://encyclopedia.arabpsychology.com ... ck-effect/

Vaginal tissue damage causing death due to vaginal sex with prepubescents
https://www.camerooncheck.org/out-of-co ... t-to-iman/

Megyn Kelly's full statement[b/]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUhcYxIrZ0&t=48

I'm reading everyone's comments and I'll get back soon.

None of this demonstrates that the response is "biological".

You are essentially psychoanalyzing society in the same ungainly and essentialist way self-help influencers (modern horoscope readers) psychoanalyze pedophiles.

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Nov 28, 2025 2:13 pm

zarkle wrote: Fri Nov 28, 2025 8:28 am I should point out that before 19th century feminism the concept of a child was prepubescent/early pubescent, they were the ones who expanded the definition of child from like 12 to 18. So this is an example of nature setting the base at pre-puberty

At what point did you determine that pre-19th Century is "nature"?

It would appear that most primitive societies do not have a taboo on pedophilia. This is not evidence that it's absence is "natural", just that some civilizations have deemed it unnecessary.

It would also appear that pedophilia is socially imprinted as a threat to children in western industrial societies. This among other reasons is why you get peculiarities such as Q Anon and Moma Bears, which as you admit yourself, can not be pinned down to any particular timeframe (and thus, I would add, defeats your own argument).

>>It would also appear that pedophilia is socially imprinted as a threat to children in western industrial societies. This among other reasons is why you get peculiarities such as Q Anon

First of all ask yourself rationally, What is western society? Is it really a boogie man of white supremacist adjacent oppressors that want to dominate and colonize all of humanity? Are white christian men really the ultimate source off evil on the planet. Are they ruthless authoritarians that just pillage and exploit, Or is this shitty behavior the result of humans being rotten animals on a survival planet where resources where historically scarce? Just ask AI to describe all the genocides and intentional starvations in human history caused by non-white european cultures. Just ask AI to describe how before peasants were given human rights, land rights and free trade rights how shitty life was. The planet is dripping with blood of all human races and history is litered with war crimes from all continents. I know the Marxist tale of white christian oppressors has been repeated 1000s of times in Academia in leftist circles, It has some historical truth but it alone can't explain everything and I fully reject its epic story narrative.

For example, how do you explain the parts about q-anon invoking cannabalism, blood drinking, and pedos controlling world governments from the shadows? As well as the epic story of good vs evil playing out with God's choosen warriors vs evil satanic pedophiles and "the storm" when the alleged non-existent satanic pedos get all publicly hanged and prisoned by the righteous God fearing christians? How do you explain how the conspiracy is so overwhelmingly powerful? Where even the best trained theapist can't break people free from q-anon. They are ADDICTED to a story about satanic pedophiles.

https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/

Facebook had to block the hashtag #SAVETHECHILDREN because Q-Anon tards kept spamming it everywhere back in 2020-2021
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... g-1041812/

I insist Western Culture's cruelty is is a reflection of nature's cold darwinian rules, and will continue to provide evidence in future post proving my point. Please do your best as a Disgust theory skeptic.

>>At what point did you determine that pre-19th Century is "nature"?

as stated in before, pre 19th century and today's world is a complex mix of nature and cultures interactings, I just learn in the direction it is more to do with nature. As in example back in those days in western society all sex out of wedlock and marriage was seen as unholy, disgraceful and leading to the path sodomy. That is an example of nature's disgust mechaism fluctuating. The Purity/Dedegradtion instinct, its possible that polygamy lead to poorer parenting, raising offspring of a different man and jealously in the tribe so natural selection favored against it by making polygamy disgusting. Stating again the obvious that because prepubescents can suffer vaginal bleeding and death from full penetrative sex nature may have set a disgust mechanism that culture modified. Nature set a disgust mechanism so aninals mate correctly and culture causes it to fluctuate. Back in the 17th century all sex outside of marriage triggered disgust, but a 13 year old in marriage having sex did not, and today in the 21st century all sex below 18 triggers immediate disgust. CULTURE MODIFIED NATURE'S RESULT, its interactionism not 100% nature or culture, a mix of both.

I have more evidence to show like how ancient Buddhism has a hell realm for men who have relationships with prepubescent boys and girls, and how ancient china had the death penalty for sex with girls under 12. The best thing we can do is fully flesh out this debate, and spread disgust theory as a real possibility. I have so much evidence saved to my computer, but I can't find the shit about Ancient China, but I'll get back when I do.

I don't want to sound like a wishy washy non-concrete thinker, (I'll try by best not to do that) and be as concrete as possible. Currently, I am failing to do that instead I am throwing good arguments around but I'm not explaining how I got there or the context. So let me be more cautious and define my positions and how I think.

To begin, its not just three models, but for simplicity of argument I believe 1. conservatism, 2. liberalism and 3. communalism are different survival strategies nature's pressures selected for humans.

1. Conservatism is how nature responds in resource scarce enviorments when animals fend for themselves or have small tribes that stick together. The goal is to keep the tribe from fighting and conflict, especially about mates.

2. Liberalism evolved in rich hunter gatherer societies where resources were abundant and food was in no shortage.

3. Communalism evolved in enviorments where resources may have been hard and scarce but humans worked as a collective sharing heavily sacrificing individual freedom for the sake of the tribe's well being.

These are 3 different survival mechanisms that can use Haidt's Moral Foundations. There are more/hybrids but we don't need to make things more complex.

Nature likely had first evolved a disgust and repulsion mechanism 100s of million years ago to prevent animals or perhaps even microbes from eating noxious dangerous things. You can watch a video of a see turtle spitting out disgusting food that doesn't benefit its survival
https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comme ... something/

Nature appeared to evolve a parental instinct 540 million years ago where worm-like animals hide their eggs and eat and brush off other microbes on their eggs. We also see the first evidence of parenting 305 million years ago with early mammal like reptiles (synapisids) and even "parental food curation" in insects that last shared a common ancestor with mammals 500mya

-- Evidence of proto-parenting - -
305 million years ago reptiles defending their young
https://www.sci.news/paleontology/dendr ... 07946.html

Beetles curate food for their young
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14669012
--

Nature can repurpose the disgust mechanism millions of years later in (more complex animals) to go from just rotten food to expand in to apply to incest like the westermarck effect predicts. I posted that study here and will repost it again. Ask Grok or DeepSeek or Gemini AIs about it!
https://encyclopedia.arabpsychology.com ... ck-effect/

Incest repulsion seems to be in pretty much all mammals. Animals that grew up around each other all their lives will usually be repulsed in mating with one another. I argue this can get expanded further in humans to homosexuality, pedophilia and transgenderism in human societies.

The risk do exist! Incest can mean severe inbreeding defects, necrophilia = disease from a corpse, and pedophilia can mean vaginal tissue damage for a little girl. A wild animals only way of knowing not to fully insert its adult penis into a prepubescent animals vaginal cavity may be visceral disgust, Animals are too stupid to understand their adult penis can tear and ravage a vagina of a small animal, so nature selected disgust to prevent them from doing that.

From there as I repeated myself many times CULTURE MODIFIED NATURE'S CORE INSTINCT. Nature only intended it to prevent vaginal tissue damage on prepubescents, but culture both western and feminist expanded it to also apply to non-penetrative pedos, and teenagers lovers (ebohebephilia).

There are also other disgust responses to ensure tribal cohesion that unforunately selected against polygamy, homosexuality and transgenderism.

To back up when I am saying, conservatives (right wingers) have a higher disgust response towards sexual impulses that leads to homophobia and transphobia that are better called (anti trans/anti gay) attitudes then a phobia.

https://minddevlab.yale.edu/sites/defau ... vatism.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... or/580465/

Even studies that disagree conservatives have higher disgust sentivities, admit conservatives are more disgusted by sexuality where as leftist (communalist and liberals) are more disgusted by enviormental pollution and wealth hoarding.
https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/ ... e-liberals

Citing the study
"However, liberals were more affected by the liberal-disgust scenarios, while conservatives were more disgusted by the conservative-disgust selection (especially those relating to homosexuality). "Taken together, these results challenge the notion that conservatives are generally more disgust-sensitive than liberals," the researchers note.

I keep insisting nature "intended "the disgust response to only apply to prepubescents and penetration, not teens 13+ but culture via feminist modified the definiton of child from 12 to 18 resulting in nature's innate response expanding. Also offtopic, regarding my personal stance, I think its perfectly ok to have sex with teenagers (13-14 UP) regardless of age gap, but not prepubescents. Just cuddle tickle and kiss little girls, and have a society where little girls can legally do bikini and underwear photoshoots that shouldn't trigger nature's repulsion response [Mod note - here it is presumed that the poster is speaking philosophically, not inciting criminalized behavior]

So put clearly as possible, a step by step of what happened

1. Humans are all a mix between conservative, liberal and communalist + more, not just one or the other.
2. conservatives human tribes in prehistoric times were the ones with ancestral backgrounds that favored stronger disgust mechanisms towards queer sexuality
3. liberals and communalist leaning humans have weaker disgust towards sexuality
4. conservative nature shaped human societies with social norms on sexuality and these norms won
5. conservative societies are ultra puritan in 16-19th century and all sex outside of marriage and wed lock viewed as disgusting and morally outrageous, but its ok for girls young as 13 to get marriaged and have sex in wedlock (even though rare)
6. humans move into large cities due to mercentalist and industrialist capitalist government's stealing their land
7. large cities in 19th century have mass prostitution problems that violate conservative norms on sex and marriage
8. conservatives side with new feminist opinions on raising the age of consent from 12 to 16-18
9. slowly the conservative disgust mechanism gets modified into the new feminist disgust mechanism (culture twist nature's core)
10. Modern society in the 21st century has the ruleset "any sex under 18 is viscerally disgusting and evil" where as in the 17th century it was "any sex outside of marriage is viscerally disgusting and evil" nature provides the disgust and outrage but culture shifts it around.

bonus unsupported claim, I hypothesis back in 11,000 BC in a tribe well off with resources and food, the disgust mechanism may have only been triggered by vaginal penetration, but the world isn't rainbows in some dark tribes it may have been triggered by refusing to obey an alpha male and let him rape the females of the tribe. There is no way of knowing, the bonus part is all speculation.

Thus when combined with evidence like q-anon, homosexuality being compared to maggots in a study, and extreme repulsion towards males sleeping with trans women without knowing, we can conclude that it is 70% evolutionary and 30% cultural. Nature clearly favored conservatism to some degree, and that is why culture boots up cruel towards us. If you want to take this logic further like I do you can also argue that systematic racism, bigotry and other forms of intolerance are due to ingroup vs outgroup thining and homophily , the tendency for humans to associate with others similar to them
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homophily

that could imply racism itself is a product of bad biology. You can learn more about these conclusions here.
https://substack.com/@jamesmeacham90600 ... -178220226

But as Stephen Pinker stead science and reason can overcome these brutish instincts and streer culture in a better direction (keep in mind he wasn't addressing pedos) but it should apply to us also.

zarkle wrote: Sat Nov 29, 2025 12:31 am
Homosexuality tied to a biological disgust response
https://www.psypost.org/straight-mens-p ... g-maggots/

This link doesn't support the point you're making at all. All the study being referenced shows is that heterosexual men tend to react with disgust to seeing gay men kissing(including hetero men who aren't explicitly prejudiced in their conscious attitudes), and the stress induced by this disgust can be measured through saliva samples. The disgust response is "biological" in the same sense that all stressful emotional reactions are "biological", ie tied to physiological responses.

Maybe you could interpret the finding that the disgust response exists even in low-prejudice individuals to mean that it's genetically ingrained, but that's not what the authors of the study lean towards as an explanation, and there's no reason to think that straight men who are low in conscious prejudice would be free from any and all heteronormative conditioning.

“Why do people low in prejudice still show an increased physiological response? We can’t say definitively, however, it could be that society has socialized the notion of same-sex sexuality and affection as being ‘disgusting’ or immoral so strongly, for so long, that merely witnessing it causes a slight physiological stress response. It would be interesting for future research to examine whether this physiological effect is more likely to be found in cultures that still evidence high levels of prejudice compared to those who have made more progress towards normalizing same-sex affection and sexuality.”

The study is the first of its kind, and the researchers hope that future research will strengthen their findings. There are also some questions that additional research could help answer.

“This is a very preliminary investigation of the physiology of sexual prejudice,” Blair said. “The work needs to be replicated with a larger sample and with more indicators of physiological reactivity as well as additional indicators to help decipher what the physiological responses mean. For example, it is difficult to determine whether an elevated salivary alpha-amylase level indicates stress, fear, or anger.”

It's entirely conceivable that if you did a similar study in the US in the 1950's but showed mix-race couples kissing, you'd get similar results, even among people who claim to be anti-racist. Conjecture aside, this study does absolutely nothing to support your argument.

Also, I'd like to add that the whole "nature vs nurture, genetics vs culture" way of looking at human social norms is incredibly flawed and just not a useful framework for understanding the complexity of human behavior and culture. It's nonsensical to talk about what percent of a norm is from biology vs culture. It's much more complex than that. Things like sexual arousal, hunger, and disgust/stress/fear responses obviously have biological roots in our evolution and genetic code, but how they are developed and expressed culturally is the result of a very complicated interaction of countless different factors which cannot be simply boiled down to nature vs nurture.

There have been many studies showing that the fear response to snakes/spiders in infants, for example, is learned from parental reactions, not "genetic memory" or whatever which is commonly believed. So while the capacity for fear itself is obviously a biological fundamental in developmentally normal infants, what external things trigger this fear, what it is directed towards, and how it is expressed all seem to be heavily influenced by conditioning. I suspect the same is true for sexual arousal and for disgust responses to deviant sexual behaviors.

zarkle wrote: Sat Nov 29, 2025 12:31 ambut I replied to it here posting more research, that sadly shows homosexuality and even incest also trigger a natural repulsion mechanism.

Probably even a heterosexual person, when seeing a couple that doesn’t look like they just stepped out of a porn video, would feel at least a slight sense of disgust. Maybe it has to do with the exchange of bodily fluids or… well, I’ll leave you to imagine a long list of reasons that can vary from one individual to another.

I would also always be careful about how stress is interpreted. Didn’t we go through a period when people were talking about how getting responses on Facebook triggered the same physiological reactions as sex or drugs? (I imagine to a much smaller degree, ignoring active agents.)

A funny thing about incest is that it's a very common fetish. There's tons of pornography that deals with incest per se (We don't have the ability to read minds or do DNA tests remotely, so we rely on the narrative that's presented about a sexual act we see on screen, or we rely on the description of a drawing, elements of a story, etc...) even though most of these people who have this fetish don't feel anything toward their closest relatives. There are even memes about fucking one's own cousin. This is overlooking the historical function of incest.

So... what are we talking about here?

Not to mention that the situation itself… maybe not for everyone, but I could expect some people to feel anxious. A person recognizes boring images from sexual ones and assigns them a social weight, and that is a social situation.

zarkle wrote: Sat Nov 29, 2025 12:31 am I didn't want to derail the Megyn Kelly thread
https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=3337

but I replied to it here posting more research, that sadly shows homosexuality and even incest also trigger a natural repulsion mechanism.
I'm reading everyone's comments and I'll get back soon.

Regarding your theory about homosexuality and disgust, those researchers in your link theorized:

Why do people low in prejudice still show an increased physiological response? We can’t say definitively, however, it could be that society has socialized the notion of same-sex sexuality and affection as being ‘disgusting’ or immoral so strongly, for so long, that merely witnessing it causes a slight physiological stress response. It would be interesting for future research to examine whether this physiological effect is more likely to be found in cultures that still evidence high levels of prejudice compared to those who have made more progress towards normalizing same-sex affection and sexuality.”

This could still just be a cultural response, just like anti-pedophilia.