MAP Forum

So @John_Doe to answer you correctly its not just disgust and I never said it was just disgust. I always added the perception of harm. The strawman that "why aren't disgusting things illegal then" doesn't apply. I agree with your part about what motivates people, humans are motivated by their self interest indeed. I as an ex libertarian should know that.

John_Doe wrote:

They both seem to involve the idea that women having sex (or more aptly, men having sex with women since sex is seen as something that men do to women) without justification is degrading or undignified for them even if they arrive at that idea through different roads or it relates to different values

Oh so we agree? Jonathan Haidt exactly describes "purity vs degradation" violations as triggering disgust. When a culturally defined sign of purity is violated it triggers disgust and the need for distancing, just like sex offenders are treated.

source : https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/p ... -us-apart/

“Concerns about purity could have to do with physical purity, like disgust or cleansing, but also a kind of spiritual purity — things like treating the body like a temple instead of a playground, resisting our lower carnal desires in favor of a higher, divine nature,” Graham said. “It has a spiritual-moral dimension to it, but it’s not necessarily explicitly religious.”

Bringing God into it doesn't really explain what makes it immoral, wicked or perverted. It's like saying conservatives see murder as wrong because God has decreed it but why create a religion with a figurehead who views killing; under whatever circumstances, as wrong but not eating bananas, or if you believe that the 'founders' of that religion discovered rather than invented a truth about God's existence; why does God view killing as wrong).

I don't bring in religious lore. I am strictly non religious, I am just saying conservatives bring up their imaginary friend the Abrahamic God.

the idea is supposed to be that they're protecting women from exploitation, not that they're disgusted by them, although conservatives can also take a similar approach) but, as I've said before, actual disgust doesn't necessarily drive opposition to certain behavior or people just because people call them 'disgusting,' metaphorically, after forming negative judgements about them for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual feeling of 'disgust' or at least physical disgust.

I never said it was just disgust alone, sorry if you misinterpreted me. Its also the perception of harm as well in many cases. Why do you think qanon, satanic panic and epstein eating babies saga had extreme harm elements? Why do you think the antis invented harm elements about child abductions on a cruiseship? Their are MANY INGREDIENTS for this as I discussed.

source: https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=4751

I could work an aversion to sex with at least relatively fertile adolescents into that is if we're responding to it in the same way that we would toward sex with prepubescent children, because they are culturally and socially children regardless of biology; I think you said something like this once)

I said that culture redefined sexually mature teenagers as children. So the same disgust response that culture once only applied to adult prepubescent sex, now applies to adult teen sex and you can find more info about it here. Search for "16-19" "17-21"
https://uploadbay.net/uploads/RJdk0S5Q4.pdf

I don't know how much of that might have to do with male bi-sexuality violating normative gender roles or even possibly feigning physical disgust to promote them/their idea of what a man should be).

I clearly cited research here that said all moral violations can trigger disgust
https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?p=22356

This doesn't add anything to your point, especially the last bit, and you haven't provided any evidence that average, normal people feel disgust at the idea of sexual contact with prepubescent children

I will provide direct evidence again

https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/cdf56beabd4a.png


Even LGBT sex triggers disgust
https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/245ba74e2a5c.png

we can hear him saying "disgusting" at the end where it cuts off
https://x.com/beyoncegarden/status/2062629648555512180

and this guy brushing himself off from an lgbt flag, showing evidence of the disgust contagion effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjbRGGjve1M

And unwanted heterosexual advances triggering disgust as well. The disgust firewall going off (rest of video is not relevant beyond the kiss)
https://x.com/DiccionarioVIP/status/2056463583429665201

So I took the time to carefully address your claims and took serious your part about people being motivated by self interest. Any further queries or stuff I left out is welcome. Feel free to keep putting Disgust Theory on defence and keep stress testing it.

But we can't keep circling you know I believe many ingredients trigger anti pedophilia. Harm + Disgust with pressure from social conformity and prehistoric brain networks that once detected predatory animals/danger being repurposed towards MAPs. So the only way to continue this conversation

zarkle,


You're right, we are going back and forth in circles but let me address this much.

So @John_Doe to answer you correctly its not just disgust and I never said it was just disgust. I always added the perception of harm. The strawman that "why aren't disgusting things illegal then" doesn't apply. I agree with your part about what motivates people, humans are motivated by their self interest indeed. I as an ex libertarian should know that.

I know that your theory doesn't revolve around disgust alone (i.e. the parental instincts angle) but I'm not convinced that it's even a significant factor, or a factor at all, for most people. Even the parental instincts angle doesn't add anything without explaining why AMSC is viewed as inherently harmful because, although it's an 'oversimplification,' it's pretty uncontroversial to assume that we're hardwired with protective instincts toward juveniles (not even just humans but possibly the juveniles of other species as well; especially other mammals, I could argue, or individuals from species who retain certain juvenile characteristics throughout adulthood like domestic cats and dogs).

Oh so we agree? Jonathan Haidt exactly describes "purity vs degradation" violations as triggering disgust. When a culturally defined sign of purity is violated it triggers disgust and the need for distancing, just like sex offenders are treated.

I'm familiar with the 'purity vs degradation' concept, which seems to be Haidt's/the psychologist's interpretation of self-reported morality patterns, but the connection between that and the feeling of disgust seems flimsy and 'abstract.' Strict Muslims aren't grossed out by the idea of drinking alcohol in the way that they generally would be by random feces or the thick boils associated with the black plague or things that might signal disease threat so I think a big part of the problem is defining 'disgust' in this overly broad way that includes different 'emotions' (by the way, I avoided this in an earlier post because I was rushing, but I think the category of objects that define them is what differentiates different emotional states, e.g. the object of grief is the loss of something valuable, the object of boredom is the absence of pleasurable stimulation, the object of shame is a degraded social image, etc. They all feel bad, they are identical in that respect, but they are negative feelings about different kinds of things).

I said that culture redefined sexually mature teenagers as children. So the same disgust response that culture once only applied to adult prepubescent sex, now applies to adult teen sex and you can find more info about it here. Search for "16-19" "17-21"

That might explain the anger or aversion to older adult attraction to or intimacy with sexually maturing/mature minors it but I'm not convinced that a disgust people supposedly feel toward the idea of their personally having sex with prepubescents has translated to the same in regards to sex with people who are "supposed" to be reproducing from a medical/evolutionary standpoint. I don't see culture beating people's natural attraction out of them even if they lie about it or suppress their instincts and wallow in shame for experiencing it.

I will provide direct evidence again

As I've said before, calling something 'disgusting' metaphorically does not mean that the feeling of disgust that would be triggered by coming across an unflushed toilet or the idea of sex with someone you're strongly repelled by is necessarily even a factor in why sex between adults and children is viewed as deeply immoral and unjust (again, I won't even assume that the mere inconsistency; that not everything people find disgusting is viewed as unjust, shows that disgust isn't a factor).

Harm + Disgust with pressure from social conformity and prehistoric brain networks that once detected predatory animals/danger being repurposed towards MAPs. So the only way to continue this conversation

I am not convinced that disgust is even a factor, generally. People will say that someone or their behavior is 'disgusting' to insult them or express strong condemnation, it's not necessarily the same thing as genuinely finding something gross. I think the prehistoric brain networks argument would add something if it showed why people think that AMSC is harmful, not just that people are wired to want to protect juveniles from abstract 'harm'(or if those networks are being repurposed because of culture pointing out the biology that ultimately contributes to that is irrelevant to culture/society being the direct cause). A working theory of what typically drives the anti-MAP prejudice would be fine in itself and I can see how it could help enable effective strategies in combating anti-MAP prejudice but ultimately you have to base an argument on an actual moral stance or value judgment (sometimes our intuitions are right, even if they're right for the wrong reasons), but that's mostly besides the problems that I have with your theories.

Here's a pointless anecdote that you might not take very seriously (because I could be exceptional or because I'm unaware of my true sub-conscious motivation, the whole concept of psychology as a science implies that introspection can't necessarily justify a belief about one's own conscious state; although it's worth noting that not all of our beliefs about our conscious experience are rooted in introspection). I was really angered by the depiction of child-adult sex in Octavia Butler's Fledgling (this is of topic but the funny thing is that some people seem to cope with this part of the book by insisting that Shori, the child vampire character who has sex with a 23-year-old man, was actually a 50-something-year old woman but because her species ages more slowly she had the body and cognitive maturity of a 10-year-old girl, so she was for all intents and purposes a child. She also began her relationship with Wright before either of them realized what she was and when meeting her people, I remember some elder from her group telling him that while his relationship with Shori is forbidden in his culture it would be accepted among the Ina; Shori's species), I threw it in the trash before caving and picking it up again because the story is interesting (O. Butler is my favorite author). I don't remember being into 10-year-old girls sexually or thinking about them in that way at all (this was in my early 20s, in the late '00s, maybe '07 or '08?) but I wasn't physically disgusted by their relationship, that's not what made me angry. In retrospect, I wonder if what bothered me was that O.Butler was breaking the rules and being provocative. I am almost certain that she was sympathetic to the idea that child-adult sex need not necessarily be harmful or unethical.