MAP Forum

BLueRibbon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 2:46 pm I moved this topic to General MAP Discussion.

The 'Take Action!' forums are for theorizing and organizing political activities.

It's an interesting topic. Let's keep it going here.

Talix wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 1:52 am Of course, all of this is a bit academic. Evolution is a bitch. It wants you to have sex with as many fertile woman as possible, by force if necessary. And if somebody is in your way, evolution is happy to kill them. It's not a great place to look for your ethics.

Fragment wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 7:01 am

Talix wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 1:52 am Of course, all of this is a bit academic. Evolution is a bitch. It wants you to have sex with as many fertile woman as possible, by force if necessary. And if somebody is in your way, evolution is happy to kill them. It's not a great place to look for your ethics.

The other question is how does this even apply to BL, do BL and GL even have similar psychological/ evolutionary mechanisms?

Re: ethics though, I'd say we shouldn't set up too much of a binary opposition between evolution and ethics. What you say is true in a vacuum- rape and murder work on an individual level. Yet ethics themselves are an evolved thing, evolved because of the social nature of humans as a species. Rape and murder are only successful strategies on the individual level, on the societal level prohibitions on them are are actually better strategies. Being murdered arbitrarily is clearly not a good thing for the gene pool.

Talix wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 1:52 am The evidence for this is that a lot of pedophiles tell me that they stay attracted to a child until a much older age then if they met the kid at that older age. So if they meet a kid at 7, they might stay attracted to the kid till they are 13. But if they just met the kid at 11 the kid would be too old.

Joel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:48 pm Perhaps pedophiles are evolutionarily useful in caring for abandoned children or for their interest in helping with care for the children of their siblings or in the wider community? Publicly run social services are a very recent invention.

Evidence suggests that attraction to minors is not uncommon. Indications vary, with phallometric reports showing higher rates than self-reporting, but an analysis of the data would suggest that at least 15-20% of the adult male population are aroused by prepubescent children. Adult male attraction to teenage girls barely falls short of attraction to adult women in heterosexual men (with significant denial proven by studies that ask men to rate photos based on sexual attractiveness, in which labeling of photographic subjects as underage/overage is deliberately incorrect). For homosexual men, attraction to adolescents is the most common, followed by attraction to prepubescent boys and then attraction to adult men being the least common. A BL sexual orientation is more common than a gay orientation.

If attraction to minors (with some 'risk' of acting on it) was so damaging to the human race, and especially pronounced in the homosexual population where sex with more fertile teens conveys zero evolutionary benefit on the individual level, it would not have endured. There has to be some benefit, from a group selection perspective, to attraction to minors and possible AMSC; otherwise, widespread minor-attraction would not have survived the long period of human history prior to postpubescent AoC laws. It could be posited that paternalistic instincts, for which BLs and GLs display an extremely positive affinity, make minor-attraction such a net positive for the group that it persists despite not being ideal on an individual 'reproductive potential' level.

Perhaps another reason that minor-attraction persisted for so long is that, for such a long time, those with a pedohebephilic orientation were at least able to engage in sex with adolescents, even if not with prepubescent children. For heterosexuals, this would convey an individual evolutionary benefit. Additionally, people attracted to children and teens, in a world with an AoC of 10-12 (much of the past thousand years), would be encouraged to engage in sex with adolescents instead of children, thus offering a protective benefit to younger children.

Attraction to teenagers is extremely common, and prior to the commercial exploitation of teenage girls in disease-ridden Victorian London, it was never considered to be a big deal. Unfortunately, the simple fact that most men are attracted to teenagers cannot, in itself, be considered a just reason for lowering the Age of Consent if all of the claims made by the public are somehow held to be true. We will need to explain why it is beneficial for adult-teen sexual contact to be decriminalized if we are to appeal to a public that believes strongly in denying and repressing their sexual interest in teens, especially given that most heterosexual males are equally or more interested in young adults. The argument that legal adult-teen sex would decrease the risk allegedly posed by pedophebephilic men to young children is logically sound, but it is perhaps too radical and confusing to be accepted by the public.

Minor-attraction having no proven genetic component would be an argument against these points, and the fact that homosexual pedohebephilia is so common, yet does not directly result in offspring, could be used against us. However, the evolutionary concept of group selection works in our favor here, justifying the argument that widespread MAPness, when not exclusive, was so beneficial to society that it persisted despite presenting a distraction to procreation. Perhaps the benefit of having a BL in the community also explains why homosexual minor-attraction is more common than homosexual adult-attraction, the latter being less inherently suited to a child mentoring role.