Unattracted by minors?

[John_Doe]

What is it about the preference of prepubescent kids is factually abnormal or deviant?

If I'm correct, it's abnormal in that most people do not prefer prepubescent children (if 'normal' would be what's applicable to the majority, if 'normal' is what's relatively common I might be understating how 'normal' a preference for prepubescent children is. Either way, I'm not making a value judgment). Most people would prefer a partner who appears sexually mature.

I'm not really convinced that children prior to andrenarche have sexual desires but I could be wrong (in both men and women both testosterone and estrogen play crucial roles in sexual desire and they obviously increase significantly during puberty. Apparently, from memory, very small amounts of testosterone are produced a year after birth though. Personally, I can remember having crushes and thinking about sex in the second grade, I was attracted to both teens/older women and girls in my own age group. I was told that I used to kiss the ballerinas on my wall goodnight but I don't remember that. I also don't remember apparently kissing some girl in the 1st grade, I don't know if either was sexual). The sexual interest of children themselves is besides my point. A man can't impregnate a prepubescent girl, so I'd assume (maybe this is overly simplistic) that natural selection would probably favor a male preference for girls and women who look as though they could bear healthy children. There might be some evolutionary advantage in having some homosexuals, some pedosexuals and some asexuals in the group (or more to the point, people who prefer their own gender, prepubescent children or lack an attraction to the opposite sex, 'adults' or anyone entirely) but I'd expect the dominant attraction to be toward opposite-sex people who look as though they are sexually mature.

From an evolutionary perspective, the point of sex is reproduction. It is the only reason why there are males and females to begin with. This is somewhat off-topic, and again; I don't want to appeal to nature, but part of the reason why I don't understand the idea of minors as minors categorically not being 'ready' for sex in any scenario is that their bodies are wired to reproduce. I reject philosophical materialism (i.e. the view that phenomenal consciousness is the brain activity that it corresponds with, even though it seems to be caused by brain activity) but if you say that, for biological reasons, they're not emotionally ready for sex (and it's not clear to me what that means although it's kind of besides the point. What specifically will cause someone who's not ready to have sex stress afterward? Will they be 'disgusted' because their partner wasn't their physical ideal or someone they otherwise have positive feelings toward outside of primal attraction? Shame because they think it was inappropriate for whatever reasons? Is it just the 'crash' that can come with orgasm itself? I can't relate to that personally but I think affection for your partner and rejecting a sex-negative worldview would go a long way in helping with that) you're saying that their brains are in some way underdeveloped but these would be the same brains that are responsible for their sexual maturation to begin with. It's clear to me by now that nature does not value our happiness but it's still hard for me to understand why natural selection would create animals who have an instinct to reproduce, who actually feel frustration if their sexual urges are not satisfied, but those same animals are wired for long-term trauma if they act on their instincts (and not because of circumstantial factors like internalizing the idea that sex in whatever context is inappropriate or disgust that their libido suppressed in the heat of the moment, etc.) If, in a manner of speaking, nature wants us to reproduce it would be prudent of her to make it so that we're not dispositioned for long-term trauma if we engage in sex at an age when we are at our healthiest and most fertile (I realize pregnancy itself can be 'traumatic' but that's not age-dependent; with the idea that minors as minors are necessarily not 'ready' for sex, it almost just seems to be a denial that they actually are sexually mature, if that makes sense. Your body is ready to have sex but your mind isn't, but what would be the cause of the delay when it comes to the mind? I don't want to over-logic, let me be clear- if minors actually suffer as a result of having sex with legal 'adults' or other minors then I think it would be bad for that reason).

[Brain O'Conner]

What is it about the preference of prepubescent kids is factually abnormal or deviant?

If I'm correct, it's abnormal in that most people do not prefer prepubescent children (if 'normal' would be what's applicable to the majority, if 'normal' is what's relatively common I might be understating how 'normal' a preference for prepubescent children is. Either way, I'm not making a value judgment). Most people would prefer a partner who appears sexually mature.

I'm not really convinced that children prior to andrenarche have sexual desires but I could be wrong (in both men and women both testosterone and estrogen play crucial roles in sexual desire and they obviously increase significantly during puberty. Apparently, from memory, very small amounts of testosterone are produced a year after birth though. Personally, I can remember having crushes and thinking about sex in the second grade, I was attracted to both teens/older women and girls in my own age group. I was told that I used to kiss the ballerinas on my wall goodnight but I don't remember that. I also don't remember apparently kissing some girl in the 1st grade, I don't know if either was sexual). The sexual interest of children themselves is besides my point. A man can't impregnate a prepubescent girl, so I'd assume (maybe this is overly simplistic) that natural selection would probably favor a male preference for girls and women who look as though they could bear healthy children. There might be some evolutionary advantage in having some homosexuals, some pedosexuals and some asexuals in the group (or more to the point, people who prefer their own gender, prepubescent children or lack an attraction to the opposite sex, 'adults' or anyone entirely) but I'd expect the dominant attraction to be toward opposite-sex people who look as though they are sexually mature.

From an evolutionary perspective, the point of sex is reproduction. It is the only reason why there are males and females to begin with. This is somewhat off-topic, and again; I don't want to appeal to nature, but part of the reason why I don't understand the idea of minors as minors categorically not being 'ready' for sex in any scenario is that their bodies are wired to reproduce. I reject philosophical materialism (i.e. the view that phenomenal consciousness is the brain activity that it corresponds with, even though it seems to be caused by brain activity) but if you say that, for biological reasons, they're not emotionally ready for sex (and it's not clear to me what that means although it's kind of besides the point. What specifically will cause someone who's not ready to have sex stress afterward? Will they be 'disgusted' because their partner wasn't their physical ideal or someone they otherwise have positive feelings toward outside of primal attraction? Shame because they think it was inappropriate for whatever reasons? Is it just the 'crash' that can come with orgasm itself? I can't relate to that personally but I think affection for your partner and rejecting a sex-negative worldview would go a long way in helping with that) you're saying that their brains are in some way underdeveloped but these would be the same brains that are responsible for their sexual maturation to begin with. It's clear to me by now that nature does not value our happiness but it's still hard for me to understand why natural selection would create animals who have an instinct to reproduce, who actually feel frustration if their sexual urges are not satisfied, but those same animals are wired for long-term trauma if they act on their instincts (and not because of circumstantial factors like internalizing the idea that sex in whatever context is inappropriate or disgust that their libido suppressed in the heat of the moment, etc.) If, in a manner of speaking, nature wants us to reproduce it would be prudent of her to make it so that we're not dispositioned for long-term trauma if we engage in sex at an age when we are at our healthiest and most fertile (I realize pregnancy itself can be 'traumatic' but that's not age-dependent; with the idea that minors as minors are necessarily not 'ready' for sex, it almost just seems to be a denial that they actually are sexually mature, if that makes sense. Your body is ready to have sex but your mind isn't, but what would be the cause of the delay when it comes to the mind? I don't want to over-logic, let me be clear- if minors actually suffer as a result of having sex with legal 'adults' or other minors then I think it would be bad for that reason).

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But as for kids having sexual feelings and desires prior to adrenarche, there is a lot of research of toddlers and stuff displaying the physiological aspects of sexual activity like rhythmic movements that become faster, faster heartrate, sweating, heavy breathing, and a sense of relaxation and calmness after the activity, which all point to a reward-goal driven drive which is formally known as libido. See, the problem that I have with just saying that kids in early childhood don't have sexually motivated desires where there is no drive for what they're doing and is solely feeling just the physical sensation of it, come with a lot of problems. The main problem is that if you are going to accept the fact that they only feel the physical sensations and nothing more, then you are going to have to explain the physiological responses that I've listed prior. The truth of the matter is that there is a psychological drive that is causing the rapid heart rate and faster movements. Well, why would their heartrate go up and have faster rhythmic movements when masturbating? Well, it's because they are excited. What is this excitement? It's the goal driven reward like feeling, especially to achieve orgasm.

[John_Doe]

What is it about the preference of prepubescent kids is factually abnormal or deviant?

If I'm correct, it's abnormal in that most people do not prefer prepubescent children (if 'normal' would be what's applicable to the majority, if 'normal' is what's relatively common I might be understating how 'normal' a preference for prepubescent children is. Either way, I'm not making a value judgment). Most people would prefer a partner who appears sexually mature.

I'm not really convinced that children prior to andrenarche have sexual desires but I could be wrong (in both men and women both testosterone and estrogen play crucial roles in sexual desire and they obviously increase significantly during puberty. Apparently, from memory, very small amounts of testosterone are produced a year after birth though. Personally, I can remember having crushes and thinking about sex in the second grade, I was attracted to both teens/older women and girls in my own age group. I was told that I used to kiss the ballerinas on my wall goodnight but I don't remember that. I also don't remember apparently kissing some girl in the 1st grade, I don't know if either was sexual). The sexual interest of children themselves is besides my point. A man can't impregnate a prepubescent girl, so I'd assume (maybe this is overly simplistic) that natural selection would probably favor a male preference for girls and women who look as though they could bear healthy children. There might be some evolutionary advantage in having some homosexuals, some pedosexuals and some asexuals in the group (or more to the point, people who prefer their own gender, prepubescent children or lack an attraction to the opposite sex, 'adults' or anyone entirely) but I'd expect the dominant attraction to be toward opposite-sex people who look as though they are sexually mature.

From an evolutionary perspective, the point of sex is reproduction. It is the only reason why there are males and females to begin with. This is somewhat off-topic, and again; I don't want to appeal to nature, but part of the reason why I don't understand the idea of minors as minors categorically not being 'ready' for sex in any scenario is that their bodies are wired to reproduce. I reject philosophical materialism (i.e. the view that phenomenal consciousness is the brain activity that it corresponds with, even though it seems to be caused by brain activity) but if you say that, for biological reasons, they're not emotionally ready for sex (and it's not clear to me what that means although it's kind of besides the point. What specifically will cause someone who's not ready to have sex stress afterward? Will they be 'disgusted' because their partner wasn't their physical ideal or someone they otherwise have positive feelings toward outside of primal attraction? Shame because they think it was inappropriate for whatever reasons? Is it just the 'crash' that can come with orgasm itself? I can't relate to that personally but I think affection for your partner and rejecting a sex-negative worldview would go a long way in helping with that) you're saying that their brains are in some way underdeveloped but these would be the same brains that are responsible for their sexual maturation to begin with. It's clear to me by now that nature does not value our happiness but it's still hard for me to understand why natural selection would create animals who have an instinct to reproduce, who actually feel frustration if their sexual urges are not satisfied, but those same animals are wired for long-term trauma if they act on their instincts (and not because of circumstantial factors like internalizing the idea that sex in whatever context is inappropriate or disgust that their libido suppressed in the heat of the moment, etc.) If, in a manner of speaking, nature wants us to reproduce it would be prudent of her to make it so that we're not dispositioned for long-term trauma if we engage in sex at an age when we are at our healthiest and most fertile (I realize pregnancy itself can be 'traumatic' but that's not age-dependent; with the idea that minors as minors are necessarily not 'ready' for sex, it almost just seems to be a denial that they actually are sexually mature, if that makes sense. Your body is ready to have sex but your mind isn't, but what would be the cause of the delay when it comes to the mind? I don't want to over-logic, let me be clear- if minors actually suffer as a result of having sex with legal 'adults' or other minors then I think it would be bad for that reason).

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But as for kids having sexual feelings and desires prior to adrenarche, there is a lot of research of toddlers and stuff displaying the physiological aspects of sexual activity like rhythmic movements that become faster, faster heartrate, sweating, heavy breathing, and a sense of relaxation and calmness after the activity, which all point to a reward-goal driven drive which is formally known as libido. See, the problem that I have with just saying that kids in early childhood don't have sexually motivated desires where there is no drive for what they're doing and is solely feeling just the physical sensation of it, come with a lot of problems. The main problem is that if you are going to accept the fact that they only feel the physical sensations and nothing more, then you are going to have to explain the physiological responses that I've listed prior. The truth of the matter is that there is a psychological drive that is causing the rapid heart rate and faster movements. Well, why would their heartrate go up and have faster rhythmic movements when masturbating? Well, it's because they are excited. What is this excitement? It's the goal driven reward like feeling, especially to achieve orgasm.

I've read some articles that have led me to believe that some infants masturbate for the sake of sexual gratification so my mind has shifted a little in regards to pre-adrenarche sexuality. Apparently, this has been observed in the womb with third-trimester fetuses (at that stage, being sentient, I think of them as 'babies').

I've read that low levels of testosterone and estrogen are present from birth.

[Brain O'Conner]

If I'm correct, it's abnormal in that most people do not prefer prepubescent children (if 'normal' would be what's applicable to the majority, if 'normal' is what's relatively common I might be understating how 'normal' a preference for prepubescent children is. Either way, I'm not making a value judgment). Most people would prefer a partner who appears sexually mature.

I'm not really convinced that children prior to andrenarche have sexual desires but I could be wrong (in both men and women both testosterone and estrogen play crucial roles in sexual desire and they obviously increase significantly during puberty. Apparently, from memory, very small amounts of testosterone are produced a year after birth though. Personally, I can remember having crushes and thinking about sex in the second grade, I was attracted to both teens/older women and girls in my own age group. I was told that I used to kiss the ballerinas on my wall goodnight but I don't remember that. I also don't remember apparently kissing some girl in the 1st grade, I don't know if either was sexual). The sexual interest of children themselves is besides my point. A man can't impregnate a prepubescent girl, so I'd assume (maybe this is overly simplistic) that natural selection would probably favor a male preference for girls and women who look as though they could bear healthy children. There might be some evolutionary advantage in having some homosexuals, some pedosexuals and some asexuals in the group (or more to the point, people who prefer their own gender, prepubescent children or lack an attraction to the opposite sex, 'adults' or anyone entirely) but I'd expect the dominant attraction to be toward opposite-sex people who look as though they are sexually mature.

From an evolutionary perspective, the point of sex is reproduction. It is the only reason why there are males and females to begin with. This is somewhat off-topic, and again; I don't want to appeal to nature, but part of the reason why I don't understand the idea of minors as minors categorically not being 'ready' for sex in any scenario is that their bodies are wired to reproduce. I reject philosophical materialism (i.e. the view that phenomenal consciousness is the brain activity that it corresponds with, even though it seems to be caused by brain activity) but if you say that, for biological reasons, they're not emotionally ready for sex (and it's not clear to me what that means although it's kind of besides the point. What specifically will cause someone who's not ready to have sex stress afterward? Will they be 'disgusted' because their partner wasn't their physical ideal or someone they otherwise have positive feelings toward outside of primal attraction? Shame because they think it was inappropriate for whatever reasons? Is it just the 'crash' that can come with orgasm itself? I can't relate to that personally but I think affection for your partner and rejecting a sex-negative worldview would go a long way in helping with that) you're saying that their brains are in some way underdeveloped but these would be the same brains that are responsible for their sexual maturation to begin with. It's clear to me by now that nature does not value our happiness but it's still hard for me to understand why natural selection would create animals who have an instinct to reproduce, who actually feel frustration if their sexual urges are not satisfied, but those same animals are wired for long-term trauma if they act on their instincts (and not because of circumstantial factors like internalizing the idea that sex in whatever context is inappropriate or disgust that their libido suppressed in the heat of the moment, etc.) If, in a manner of speaking, nature wants us to reproduce it would be prudent of her to make it so that we're not dispositioned for long-term trauma if we engage in sex at an age when we are at our healthiest and most fertile (I realize pregnancy itself can be 'traumatic' but that's not age-dependent; with the idea that minors as minors are necessarily not 'ready' for sex, it almost just seems to be a denial that they actually are sexually mature, if that makes sense. Your body is ready to have sex but your mind isn't, but what would be the cause of the delay when it comes to the mind? I don't want to over-logic, let me be clear- if minors actually suffer as a result of having sex with legal 'adults' or other minors then I think it would be bad for that reason).

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But as for kids having sexual feelings and desires prior to adrenarche, there is a lot of research of toddlers and stuff displaying the physiological aspects of sexual activity like rhythmic movements that become faster, faster heartrate, sweating, heavy breathing, and a sense of relaxation and calmness after the activity, which all point to a reward-goal driven drive which is formally known as libido. See, the problem that I have with just saying that kids in early childhood don't have sexually motivated desires where there is no drive for what they're doing and is solely feeling just the physical sensation of it, come with a lot of problems. The main problem is that if you are going to accept the fact that they only feel the physical sensations and nothing more, then you are going to have to explain the physiological responses that I've listed prior. The truth of the matter is that there is a psychological drive that is causing the rapid heart rate and faster movements. Well, why would their heartrate go up and have faster rhythmic movements when masturbating? Well, it's because they are excited. What is this excitement? It's the goal driven reward like feeling, especially to achieve orgasm.

I've read some articles that have led me to believe that some infants masturbate for the sake of sexual gratification so my mind has shifted a little in regards to pre-adrenarche sexuality. Apparently, this has been observed in the womb with third-trimester fetuses (at that stage, being sentient, I think of them as 'babies').

I've read that low levels of testosterone and estrogen are present from birth.

Could you link me the source of infants masturbating for the sake of gratification? (It's not that I don't believe you, it would just better serve my case in my paper with a direct statement like that. Even if that wasn't the case, the physiological responses are the smoking gun for sexual motivated desires driven by sex drive) Also, here's some sources I found in the Newgon site: https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Youth_sexuality. They have a lot on fetal and infant sexual capacity. As for the fetal side of things, they pretty much tell us that sexual behavior is something that is primed into us genetically before birth.

[Batmanthecute]

Yo, I responded to you months ago on your new email, freedom months ago and your old email address is not letting messages go through. It says that it's an invalid account. It's not working.

[John_Doe]

Brain O'Conner,

I don't think I can find/would recognize the links (I was on Tor so I can't search my history) but here is one (I'm not going to bother with one link that concedes infants/prepubescent children masturbating for pleasure but claims that it doesn't become sexual until puberty because of the hormonal changes that occur, and I would look for more but my Tor is slow)-

But the Italian doctors Giorgio Giorgi and Marco Siccardi observed a female fetus, “touching the vulva with the fingers of the right hand. The caressing movements were centered primarily on the region of the clitoris. Movements stopped after 30 to 40 seconds and started again after a few minutes. Furthermore, these slight touches were repeated and were associated with short, rapid movements of pelvis and legs. After another break, in addition to this behavior, the fetus contracted the muscles of the trunk and limbs, and then clonicotonic movements of the whole body followed. Finally, she relaxed and rested. We observed this behavior for about 20 minutes.

https://www.salon.com/2013/06/20/the_sc ... g_fetuses/

It is hard to refute that this is goal oriented (sexual), even though there seems to be some cautiousness earlier in the article in interpreting behavior 'resembling masturbation movements' as sexual (e.g. scare quotes around 'masturbation,' and I can appreciate not wanting to jump to conclusions but it doesn't seem 50/50 to me).

This doesn't really support the pro-infant sexuality position but:

https://www.romper.com/life/does-your-f ... ests-73831

it's extremely difficult to make conclusions about fetal masturbation given the data and research available.

It doesn't seem 'extremely difficult' to me. I don't think there's any evidence for fetal sentience at 15 weeks ('for all intents and purposes' evidence, obviously it can't be confirmed or refuted), but the behavior of the 32-week old baby girl by the Italian researchers seems very compelling to me. If I'm wrong, I do want to hear the counter arguments (I also want to know if I'm wrong about 15-week old fetuses not being capable of pain, that would significantly affect my stance on second trimester abortions) but it's not clear to me why the infant would feel a need to focus on her clitoris rather than her finger or her nose if it wasn't sexually gratifying.

[Brain O'Conner]

Brain O'Conner,

I don't think I can find/would recognize the links (I was on Tor so I can't search my history) but here is one (I'm not going to bother with one link that concedes infants/prepubescent children masturbating for pleasure but claims that it doesn't become sexual until puberty because of the hormonal changes that occur, and I would look for more but my Tor is slow)-

But the Italian doctors Giorgio Giorgi and Marco Siccardi observed a female fetus, “touching the vulva with the fingers of the right hand. The caressing movements were centered primarily on the region of the clitoris. Movements stopped after 30 to 40 seconds and started again after a few minutes. Furthermore, these slight touches were repeated and were associated with short, rapid movements of pelvis and legs. After another break, in addition to this behavior, the fetus contracted the muscles of the trunk and limbs, and then clonicotonic movements of the whole body followed. Finally, she relaxed and rested. We observed this behavior for about 20 minutes.

https://www.salon.com/2013/06/20/the_sc ... g_fetuses/

It is hard to refute that this is goal oriented (sexual), even though there seems to be some cautiousness earlier in the article in interpreting behavior 'resembling masturbation movements' as sexual (e.g. scare quotes around 'masturbation,' and I can appreciate not wanting to jump to conclusions but it doesn't seem 50/50 to me).

This doesn't really support the pro-infant sexuality position but:

https://www.romper.com/life/does-your-f ... ests-73831

it's extremely difficult to make conclusions about fetal masturbation given the data and research available.

It doesn't seem 'extremely difficult' to me. I don't think there's any evidence for fetal sentience at 15 weeks ('for all intents and purposes' evidence, obviously it can't be confirmed or refuted), but the behavior of the 32-week old baby girl by the Italian researchers seems very compelling to me. If I'm wrong, I do want to hear the counter arguments (I also want to know if I'm wrong about 15-week old fetuses not being capable of pain, that would significantly affect my stance on second trimester abortions) but it's not clear to me why the infant would feel a need to focus on her clitoris rather than her finger or her nose if it wasn't sexually gratifying.

Yeah, they have some of this information on the Newgon site. Just go to research, click youth sexuality, and there are categories of which age groups you can study. They have links and all. As I said for the fetus, it explains how we are genetically primed for sexual acts/behavior before birth. But as I was saying, infants and toddlers are definitely capable of sexual feelings and desires (not talking about the stimuli) due to the physiological responses I listed previously, as well as achieving orgasm. All of those thing's light of the reward circuits in the brain, the same circuits and chemical releases during sex. So there really is no doubt in my mind they have sexual motivated desires. I don't know if you acknowledge it or not, but the physiological responses I listed earlier in our conversation is a smoking gun of sexual motivated desires in of themselves.