Anti-c MAPs are part of the problem

[G@yWad69]

It's bullshit.

What happened between those years, is medical knowledge about girls bodies was popularized via sex education, and the taboo on disclosing details about girls' bodies was lifted by the Women's Rights movement.

You likely have some reduction of the age of menarche due to better diet spanning from industrialization and intensification of agriculture - but there is no reliable evidence the average age at menarche was 17. Not in any place, or any time, has this been reliably established, and it flies in the face of ethnological accounts.

Another reason we know this myth is BS, is that prior to what we now know as "Victorian" social purity norms, and modern Western Medicine, the self-reported age of menarche was always between roughly 13 and 15. So you are in effect proposing that the age of menarche actually increased by 2 or 3 years during a period with no corresponding reduction in life expectancy or living standards?

Menarche has always been something girls experience before their teens, or in their early/mid teens.

The age of consent was as low as 7, and around 10-12 on average. Even if you are right and the average age of menarche was 13-15 and not 17, the average age of consent was still lower than the age a girl could have even gotten pregnant, and in some cases, below she had even starts puberty at all.

[Jim Burton]

I don't see whose point you are trying to prove. "Ages of consent" were largely in line with, or identical to marriageable ages, in traditional societies before feminism and social reformers. What were ages of marriage, or the age at which a child is deemed responsible, e.g. when a male may enter military training, went on to take shape as the modern ages of license we see today.

Ages of menarche were typically reported around 12-15 in traditional societies with poor nutrition and sanitation. Some outliers exist, usually among small tribal groups, and I have my doubts about the reliability of those outliers.

http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/MIDDLEEAST.HTM

http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/ABORIGINALAUSTRALIA.HTM

http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/BIBLIO2.HTM

This doesn't say anything about the present, nor about the future. It is likely to be used as an argument against lowering ages of consent by progressive and fake-conservative simpletons, who see it as a return to "tradition" and the marrying off of children.

[John_Doe]

I haven't properly kept up with the conversation, I'm just responding for entertainment, but I don't think there has ever been a time when girls anywhere did not typically have their first period between 10 and 14, even if it occurs earlier in the modern era due to better nutrition. Among the Bemba of Zambia, for example, prior to British colonialism a girl was considered a woman at 15 (after going through a certain initiation ceremony). I doubt that would be the case if girls didn't typically have their first period before 15 and I'm sure famine was something they dealt with commonly. If the point is that the age of consent once allowed prepubescent children to have sexual relations with adults then that's irrelevant because, either way, 7-year-olds have generally always been prepubescent.

There are cultures that have allowed for child-adult sex but I think in at least some of these cultures that sometimes involved coercive aspects that modern MAP defenders would not want to associate themselves with so although the mere fact that something has occurred historically suggests that it's not generally hardwired into us from birth to develop societies with that taboo (although I think our rational agency allows us to override a lot of our instincts anyway) it doesn't justify a return to older norms. I once brought this up years ago and I think Savannah Ape from youtube countered that the point is that children in these cultures were not generally scarred or traumatized for life as a result of sexual intimacy with adults. I appreciate that point, but that alone wouldn't justify something (children don't have to be traumatized for life by it in order for me to oppose corporal punishment or infant circumcision, many people recover from some kind of harm that may or may not involve injustice or might possibly not be really harmed by unethical behavior at all despite the unjust party still being morally wrong to disregard the suffering or happiness of others. Also, it's hard to gouge how people have been privately affected by even a common practice. I've heard conservatives say things like, "no one used to talk about anxiety or depression all the time and they weren't as miserable as we are today" or "no one used to get a divorce until this or that," but not talking about one's internal struggles as openly as we might today wouldn't necessarily negate their existence and enduring an undesirable marriage wouldn't mean that one was happy in that arrangement).

When people call people 'monsters' I don't think they're denying that they're biologically homo sapiens sapiens, it's akin to calling someone a 'bully' or a 'sociopath,' I don't think it has anything to do with species.

I think there was something by Porcelain Lark I would have wanted to reply to but I can't find it.

I disagree, I think people are much more irrational. People know that smoking increases their risk of cancer, junk food causes obesity, and exercise is healthy, but knowing those things doesn't necessarily result in behavioral changes. I don't think things can be changed by just giving the perfect argument, because I don't think people are perfectly rational.

I'm just not convinced that the opposition to AMSC is due to stereotypes about pedophiles, although I can see how negative stereotypes about a group (that's defined by an interest in something, a personal belief or value system or lifestyle) could influence attitudes about whatever interest, belief, value or lifestyle defined them as members of that group. I don't think people will respond to logical arguments in a vacuum, I think you're most likely to persuade someone if you appeal to something that they already care about and show how it consistently implies what they oppose or are neutral about (if we're talking about a value or ethical stance, it might be something else if we're talking about a value-neutral belief we may or may not hold in part because of emotional biases that may or may not have to do with core values).

[PorcelainLark]

I disagree. I think, in a strange way, by trying to see monstrous people as equal to others, you dehumanize the people who see them as monsters. For example, if you tried to tell a survivor of the Holocaust to see the humanity of a concentration camp guard.

But they ARE human? That is an objective fact. Disliking or hating someone doesnt change biology. I love butterflies and hate mosquitoes, that doesnt mean that mosquitoes arent bugs. I love chocolate cake and hate liver, doesnt mean liver isnt food. You can be evil and violent and still be human, because that is literally a part of humanity. I dont know why we have to pretend that humanity is this pure and nonviolent group who never do anything bad ever and that anyone who does isnt human. The holocaust survivor doesnt have to see the Nazi as human, but that doesnt change that the Nazi is objectively a human. The definition of a human is “ a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo ; a human being.” not “super nice people who do nothing wrong ever and are perfect and amazing”.
....

I don't think that's enough to say we shouldn't think of Ted Bundy or Pol Pot as monsters. In practical terms there are people you'll want to avoid, I don't think that will change, just the overlap of people you should avoid and MAPs is much slimmer than people perceive it to be.”

But they ARE human? Are they a member of the genus homo sapien? Then they are human, and you are just disagreeing with basic biology. Obviously we should avoid humans like that, that doesnt make them non human, it just makes them dangerous humans, which is my entire point. Humans can be dangerous, and pretending otherwise is honestly even more dangerous

Being monstrous isn't mutually exclusive with being human in my view. It's a description of certain actions or characteristics humans do, not a literal claim a person is a part of a different species.

I'd like to know about some examples. I've seen a lot of evidence for hepephilic relationships historically, but sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children is very rare from what I've seen.

There are too many examples to list, but my favorite example is the age of consent being as low as 7 in the United states, with the average age of consent being 10-12.

When the age of consent was that low in the US, can you find examples to show sexual relations were commonly accepted?

And this was during a time period where menarche didnt happen until 17 on average. Puberty starts two years before menarche, which means children would start puberty at 15 on average, which means the average child 14 and under living in the United States during this time was PRE PUBSECENT.

I have my doubts.

But there are honestly so many examples, from mothers masturbating infants and toddlers as a common childrearing hack to a literal prophet of a major religion marrying a 6 year old and having sex with her at 9, which would be impossible if pedophillia was not legal or normalized, or Brooke Shields famous star position in the notorious playboy magazine at the ripe age of 10.

Mothers masturbating infants and toddlers for the sake of making them go to sleep is quite different (I even recall there being a taboo if the mother was suspected to enjoy it in one particular culture). Islam usually segregates men and women, meaning eroticism is usually homosexual from what I've seen; heterosexual sex is more reproductively focused. I mean, Cuties was made within the last decade, it doesn't mean it wasn't controversial.

If pedophillic actions and attractions were so rare then antis wouldnt have to fight so hard, hell, they wouldnt be fighting at all. There wouldnt even need to be sex laws, or at least such strict ones, for prepuberty children if basically no one was intrested in them. Pedophiles are estimated to make up 1-3% of the population. Which may sound very low and very rare. But gays only make up 2% of the population. And pedophillia is only clinically defined for the PREFRENCE for prepuberty kids, if you take in all the “pedocurious” adults with a secondary or tertiary attraction to prepuberty kids, those numbers would rise dramatically.

There's another factor, children are physically weaker and smaller than most adults, which means situational offenders are more likely to offend against children.

I'd love it if there were more examples, but even Lolita is 12 at the start of the novel. It feels very rare to find actual examples of pedophilia (real or fictional) in history as opposed to hebephilia. I only know one unambiguous example of an erotic novel prior to the 1950s involving a prepubescent girl, that's it, most other stuff feels historically questionable (like Strabo's account of Egyptian aristocratic girls being allowed to have sex until they reach puberty).

[John_Doe]

I disagree. I think, in a strange way, by trying to see monstrous people as equal to others, you dehumanize the people who see them as monsters. For example, if you tried to tell a survivor of the Holocaust to see the humanity of a concentration camp guard.

But they ARE human? That is an objective fact. Disliking or hating someone doesnt change biology. I love butterflies and hate mosquitoes, that doesnt mean that mosquitoes arent bugs. I love chocolate cake and hate liver, doesnt mean liver isnt food. You can be evil and violent and still be human, because that is literally a part of humanity. I dont know why we have to pretend that humanity is this pure and nonviolent group who never do anything bad ever and that anyone who does isnt human. The holocaust survivor doesnt have to see the Nazi as human, but that doesnt change that the Nazi is objectively a human. The definition of a human is “ a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo ; a human being.” not “super nice people who do nothing wrong ever and are perfect and amazing”.
....

I don't think that's enough to say we shouldn't think of Ted Bundy or Pol Pot as monsters. In practical terms there are people you'll want to avoid, I don't think that will change, just the overlap of people you should avoid and MAPs is much slimmer than people perceive it to be.”

But they ARE human? Are they a member of the genus homo sapien? Then they are human, and you are just disagreeing with basic biology. Obviously we should avoid humans like that, that doesnt make them non human, it just makes them dangerous humans, which is my entire point. Humans can be dangerous, and pretending otherwise is honestly even more dangerous

Being monstrous isn't mutually exclusive with being human in my view. It's a description of certain actions or characteristics humans do, not a literal claim a person is a part of a different species.

I'd like to know about some examples. I've seen a lot of evidence for hepephilic relationships historically, but sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children is very rare from what I've seen.

There are too many examples to list, but my favorite example is the age of consent being as low as 7 in the United states, with the average age of consent being 10-12.

When the age of consent was that low in the US, can you find examples to show sexual relations were commonly accepted?

And this was during a time period where menarche didnt happen until 17 on average. Puberty starts two years before menarche, which means children would start puberty at 15 on average, which means the average child 14 and under living in the United States during this time was PRE PUBSECENT.

I have my doubts.

But there are honestly so many examples, from mothers masturbating infants and toddlers as a common childrearing hack to a literal prophet of a major religion marrying a 6 year old and having sex with her at 9, which would be impossible if pedophillia was not legal or normalized, or Brooke Shields famous star position in the notorious playboy magazine at the ripe age of 10.

Mothers masturbating infants and toddlers for the sake of making them go to sleep is quite different (I even recall there being a taboo if the mother was suspected to enjoy it in one particular culture). Islam usually segregates men and women, meaning eroticism is usually homosexual from what I've seen; heterosexual sex is more reproductively focused. I mean, Cuties was made within the last decade, it doesn't mean it wasn't controversial.

If pedophillic actions and attractions were so rare then antis wouldnt have to fight so hard, hell, they wouldnt be fighting at all. There wouldnt even need to be sex laws, or at least such strict ones, for prepuberty children if basically no one was intrested in them. Pedophiles are estimated to make up 1-3% of the population. Which may sound very low and very rare. But gays only make up 2% of the population. And pedophillia is only clinically defined for the PREFRENCE for prepuberty kids, if you take in all the “pedocurious” adults with a secondary or tertiary attraction to prepuberty kids, those numbers would rise dramatically.

There's another factor, children are physically weaker and smaller than most adults, which means situational offenders are more likely to offend against children.

I'd love it if there were more examples, but even Lolita is 12 at the start of the novel. It feels very rare to find actual examples of pedophilia (real or fictional) in history as opposed to hebephilia. I only know one unambiguous example of an erotic novel prior to the 1950s involving a prepubescent girl, that's it, most other stuff feels historically questionable (like Strabo's account of Egyptian aristocratic girls being allowed to have sex until they reach puberty).

I don't know if you'll take this seriously but in the original Grimm's fairy tale Snow White was 7 and the prince who came across her assumed to be dead body in a glass coffin in the woods was, presumably, an adult. There are other stories where a little girl marries a king.

There are different cultures where child brides are common (e.g. the prophet Muhammed married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9, according to classical Islamic sources).

[PorcelainLark]

I think there was something by Porcelain Lark I would have wanted to reply to but I can't find it.

I disagree, I think people are much more irrational. People know that smoking increases their risk of cancer, junk food causes obesity, and exercise is healthy, but knowing those things doesn't necessarily result in behavioral changes. I don't think things can be changed by just giving the perfect argument, because I don't think people are perfectly rational.

I'm just not convinced that the opposition to AMSC is due to stereotypes about pedophiles, although I can see how negative stereotypes about a group (that's defined by an interest in something, a personal belief or value system or lifestyle) could influence attitudes about whatever interest, belief, value or lifestyle defined them as members of that group. I don't think people will respond to logical arguments in a vacuum, I think you're most likely to persuade someone if you appeal to something that they already care about and show how it consistently implies what they oppose or are neutral about (if we're talking about a value or ethical stance, it might be something else if we're talking about a value-neutral belief we may or may not hold in part because of emotional biases that may or may not have to do with core values).

What do you think causes it? Some people are opposed to AMSC, some indifferent, some think it's acceptable. What conditions make a person become opposed to AMSC in your view?

I'd love it if there were more examples, but even Lolita is 12 at the start of the novel. It feels very rare to find actual examples of pedophilia (real or fictional) in history as opposed to hebephilia. I only know one unambiguous example of an erotic novel prior to the 1950s involving a prepubescent girl, that's it, most other stuff feels historically questionable (like Strabo's account of Egyptian aristocratic girls being allowed to have sex until they reach puberty).

I don't know if you'll take this seriously but in the original Grimm's fairy tale Snow White was 7 and the prince who came across her assumed to be dead body in a glass coffin in the woods was, presumably, an adult. There are other stories where a little girl marries a king.

Interesting.

[Not Forever]

There are different cultures where child brides are common (e.g. the prophet Muhammed married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9, according to classical Islamic sources).

If I’m not mistaken, in the Islamic religious context the minimum age isn’t determined by a specific number, but rather by whether the person can physically endure sexual intercourse. Basically: as long as the girl (since it’s implied that the younger one is the girl) doesn’t suffer physical harm from the act, then it’s considered permissible.

I read this a long time ago on some website aimed at helping Muslims in the United States with translating texts and spreading their meaning.

[John_Doe]

What do you think causes it? Some people are opposed to AMSC, some indifferent, some think it's acceptable. What conditions make a person become opposed to AMSC in your view?

I think that generally it ultimately comes down to the attitude that sex is inappropriate by default unless it can be justified (typically by 'romantic love' or a committed 'relationship' but even people who are ok with casual sex, in my view, reveal underlying sex-negative intuitions they hold despite claiming to be sex-positive; when they condemn minor-attraction or AMSC on principle, for example, or practice sex exceptionalism in various ways). I say ultimately in part because I think most people are more or less 'brainwashed' by their culture/society in at least some ways (I don't think free will explains the differences in beliefs about morality or different philosophical issues between average members of different societies) so many people might understand AMSC to be deeply inappropriate without serious scrutiny because they were raised to take that for granted and in retrospect they might think it's common sense and not learned (in the same way that we might take for granted that if we lived around 200 hundred + years ago in a society that practiced it, we would oppose slavery when, statistically, it might be that we would have probably supported it). I do think many people arrive at their ideas through basic reasoning (that's ultimately guided by certain values that that they don't necessarily even adopt because of societal conditioning) but some of their taboos might be rooted in an aversion to breaking social rules or maybe even not wanting to challenge what the group has already established and they might invent a rational argument for their position only after the fact (which we might do even in regards to values that aren't rooted in the 'social brainwashing' I mentioned). I'm not sure where this sex-negativity itself I have in mind might come from exactly. I've sometimes thought that it was about preventing women from degradation and women who are promiscuous, or in some way sexualized, are seen as degraded ultimately because men wanted to ensure that their partner's offspring was their biological offspring and the concern for the sexual exploitation of boys or even men is something people adopted later on in realizing that it's what is logically implied by opposing the sexual degradation of women (both conservatives and feminists, if it makes sense to contrast those positions, seem to view sexualized women as degraded but the feminists fault the men for that degradation and the conservatives seem more likely to condemn the women for allowing themselves to be degraded in such a way, for their lack of self-respect). It could stem from religious attitudes or just the impulse people might have to distance themselves from the 'lower' animals, there is something primal and unsophisticated about the instinct to mate, some people might feel.

I definitely think it has something to do with the idea that sex is by default dirty and connecting innocence to asexuality (maybe you had a point when you mentioned disgust, even though I'm not personally convinced that explains anger toward pedophiles exactly, in terms of why sex is seen as dirty. One could argue that, in the absence of desire, most adults would view sex as disgusting. I could even add that there's a certain 'lewdness,' when it comes to pornography or erotic expression, that you're less likely to 'get away with' if you're not as physically attractive).

If I’m not mistaken, in the Islamic religious context the minimum age isn’t determined by a specific number, but rather by whether the person can physically endure sexual intercourse. Basically: as long as the girl (since it’s implied that the younger one is the girl) doesn’t suffer physical harm from the act, then it’s considered permissible.

I read this a long time ago on some website aimed at helping Muslims in the United States with translating texts and spreading their meaning.

I won't pretend to be well-read on Islam but from what I quickly googled yesterday, 'classical Islamic sources' state that Muhammed and Aisha had sex when she was 9, although some historians think she might have been a little older. I thought this was important because if Islamic text itself claims that Aisha was 9, her actual age is irrelevant in terms of whether or not the culture that produced Islam frowned upon sex with 9-year-old children. Even if she was older, even if neither of them ever existed, I don't think the authors of that text would want to present Muhammed in a bad light so I take their claiming that he had sex with a 9-year-old as evidence that his culture did not frown on grown men sleeping with little girls.

I would imagine that not suffering 'physical harm' from the act allows for a pretty young age, by Western standards. I also have to wonder if those Muslims you mentioned might have been interested in 'softening' aspects of their religion for a Western audience, in the same way that the more liberal Christians might interpret aspects of the Bible in the way that best accommodates our modern sensibilities, but again; I'm not an expert on Islam.

[Supermario]

I think this is like a steeping rock where you learn that anti-c maps are more unwilling to break the law and be "aggressors" or in better words initiators with children. People who are anti-pedophillia are more likely to learn that first stage to see you as human if they're aware you were reticent to have sexual contact with children.

It showed complete awareness of all the reasons often touted for why sexual contact with children could be inappropriate. (and other contact).

In truth, people should all feel free to imagine the possibility of an adult map having a healthy relationship with a child that includes sex. Because if you put restrictions on yourself when you imagine that, you won't get to see what it could actually be like. You could imagine the relationship going terribly, or you could imagine the relationship going really well. You could imagine the sexual impact on the child as positive and a life affirming hobby one undertakes in private, or you could imagine the sexual impact on the child extremely dramatically and say it will ruin their entire lives and make them unable to enjoy anything else/emotionally regulate and they feel pressure to stay quiet.

Truth is, perspectives we choose matter and we may accidentally contribute negatively to the childs experience if we are unaccepting. Throughout history we have shouted at our kids, bullied our kids, punished/disciplined them to the point of crying, neglecting them to the point of poor attainment and behaviour at school, underfinanced their hobbies and desires, lied to them a lot, disrespected them and not listened to them, and had sexual contact with them. Truth is, they can can all be done abusively, or they can all be done in ways that improve a child's life. The adult is better at all these things than peers.