forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,186
thx
no
adrian1309 wrote:
owo
happy new year idiots
new yeeee
Fug 
D
DDoom
miss
Sucks this!Serraionga wrote:
Pokémon Trainer Fox Pikachu
HYDRO
STORM
STORM
Happy new year
Yo what the fuck. i read ur shit about wanting to put a baby inside a fucking minor and that shit is just wack.
you should be ashamed, pedo.
that honestly made me sick to my stomach though not gonna lie. being attracted to the looks of someone is one thing, but arguing about the fertility of a 15 year-old is another thing.
you should be ashamed, pedo.
that honestly made me sick to my stomach though not gonna lie. being attracted to the looks of someone is one thing, but arguing about the fertility of a 15 year-old is another thing.
What the fuck, that was like 20 pages ago. Get with the times, old man.
That sounds like a conversation that I'd like to not take part of
i do
Well, to be fair, it would be a very interesting conversation/debate if people were to remain mature. So I guess I wouldn't mind.
There's many topics I'd choose over that one though.
There's many topics I'd choose over that one though.
hi slimfast
still slim and fast?
still slim and fast?
still slim, not very fast
how about you, still bird?
how about you, still bird?
Meah wrote:
am I old fag now?
Westonini wrote:
Nope, you're still Meah.
✓
Speaking strictly in terms of biology here, children birth the healthiest babies. The older the mother, the worse off her spawn are in general. I missed the conversation so I'm not sure what bearing it has but there ya go.
BASEDsilmarilen wrote:
i do
Not sure if you're advocating for extremely young mother's for birthing or not, but if we went purely off of biology and extreme pragmatism, then the world would be a shitty place with no morales.
Again, I wasn't in this conversation, nor did I read it yet, so take this with a grain of salt. I'll read it when I have time.
Again, I wasn't in this conversation, nor did I read it yet, so take this with a grain of salt. I'll read it when I have time.
okay I read it. let's get into this.
While it is true that females can be fertile at a young age, they are not at their peak fertility until their early to mid 20's. Fertility only really starts declining drastically around the age of 35. There are also studies showing that Fetal death rates and Perinatal death rates are higher in teenage pregnancies than they are with women in their 20's. Teenage mothers are also more likely to give birth prematurely and at low birthweights. A younger woman's body just isn't ready for childbirth yet.
There is also the huge socioeconomic problem of a teenager having a child. I know you were only talking strictly biological, but I'm gonna bring this up anyways. In no way shape or form is a teenager prepared to have a child, economically or mentally. They are most likely still going to school while living with their parents. They have not had time in their life to create a career, to build a foundation for themselves so they can support themselves and the baby, ultimately leading the child to have a poor quality of life. Teenage mothers create a huge disadvantage for themselves in life when they give birth at such a young age. They struggle to care for a child, while attending school, working a job, or both. Of course, some teenager's parents will be able to help them, but it is still a huge burden on everyone involved, in most cases.
I am very against people having children when they aren't financially or mentally prepared. Everybody has their right to do so though.
Saying that "Reproductive capability is pretty much the main determining factor for attractiveness" is essentially saying that humans have not gone through sociocultural evolution. That we haven't gone through any moral development as a species and still rely on raw human instincts. It is not normal for "men, even older men," to be attracted to children like that. It is a disease and it is disgusting. They need to get professional help.
First of all, that is completely false. If you think that a 15yo girl births healthier children than a woman in her early to mid 20's, then you need to actually do some research. The reason I think that you actually believe that is because you said: "CHILDREN birth the healthiest babies."Vuelo Eluko wrote:
Speaking strictly in terms of biology here, children birth the healthiest babies. The older the mother, the worse off her spawn are in general. I missed the conversation so I'm not sure what bearing it has but there ya go.
While it is true that females can be fertile at a young age, they are not at their peak fertility until their early to mid 20's. Fertility only really starts declining drastically around the age of 35. There are also studies showing that Fetal death rates and Perinatal death rates are higher in teenage pregnancies than they are with women in their 20's. Teenage mothers are also more likely to give birth prematurely and at low birthweights. A younger woman's body just isn't ready for childbirth yet.
There is also the huge socioeconomic problem of a teenager having a child. I know you were only talking strictly biological, but I'm gonna bring this up anyways. In no way shape or form is a teenager prepared to have a child, economically or mentally. They are most likely still going to school while living with their parents. They have not had time in their life to create a career, to build a foundation for themselves so they can support themselves and the baby, ultimately leading the child to have a poor quality of life. Teenage mothers create a huge disadvantage for themselves in life when they give birth at such a young age. They struggle to care for a child, while attending school, working a job, or both. Of course, some teenager's parents will be able to help them, but it is still a huge burden on everyone involved, in most cases.
I am very against people having children when they aren't financially or mentally prepared. Everybody has their right to do so though.
This quote is where most of the original debate stemmed from. I can't even begin to address how ignorant B1rd's statement was. While it is true that being attracted to post-pubescent children over the age of 12-13 isn't Pedophilia, it is still Hebephilia and Ephebophilia, which is still extremely disgusting and illegal for the most part in the US. The only reason I say "for the most part" is because 18 and 19-year-olds are also included in the Ephebophilia category.B1rd wrote:
I'm not trying to justify anything, and being attracted to 15 year olds isn't paedophilia. Pedophilia is concerned with pre-pubescent children, and generally 15 and 16 years olds have their reproductive faculties in order. Reproductive capability is pretty much the main determining factor for attractiveness, because obviously reproduction is the main purpose of human sexuality. So yes it is normal for men, even older men, to be attracted to 15 or 16 year old girls who've gone through puberty.
Saying that "Reproductive capability is pretty much the main determining factor for attractiveness" is essentially saying that humans have not gone through sociocultural evolution. That we haven't gone through any moral development as a species and still rely on raw human instincts. It is not normal for "men, even older men," to be attracted to children like that. It is a disease and it is disgusting. They need to get professional help.
sources
https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0
https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/learning--resources/patient-resources/protect-your-fertility3/age_femaleinfertility.pdf
http://www.scaany.org/documents/teen_pregnancy_dec08.pdf
https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/learning--resources/patient-resources/protect-your-fertility3/age_femaleinfertility.pdf
http://www.scaany.org/documents/teen_pregnancy_dec08.pdf
It's quite easy to see why, and it's not biology. I just mean under ideal conditions, all else being equal including the level of autonomy/responsibility of the mothers and all environmental factors like a stupid, probably abusive father who really doesn't want to have a kid with a 15yo removed.Penguin wrote:
There are also studies showing that Fetal death rates and Perinatal death rates are higher in teenage pregnancies than they are with women in their 20's.
it is interesting that you still go on to condemn ephebophilia as 'disgusting' when it's just human nature nothing more. Simple attraction of any kind shouldn't illicit such a response, and then when you watch a few documentaries realize most actual offenders aren't explicitly attracted to minors but are in it for the power play/to do something taboo you might start to have a more open mind about, well, the human psyche.
but I agree, when the attraction goes far enough that it is a hindrance to ones ability to live a normal life and/or is acted upon, not simply when the natural attraction exists in the first place, it is a good idea to seek help or just turn yourself in, because this is the actual medical definition of a pedophile not the buzzword version where you might get a stiffy from a pic of a 15-17 yr old who looks like a young woman by all counts and be outcasted for nothing.
Similarly, I also don't think people that occasionally fantasize about hurting or killing people they dislike or that anger them are a menace to society, because this is something pretty much everyone does. Doesn't make them even likely to be a violent criminal in my eyes
It's not a disease. Men are attracted to women based upon their reproductive capacity and other factors.Penguin wrote:
This quote is where most of the original debate stemmed from. I can't even begin to address how ignorant B1rd's statement was. While it is true that being attracted to post-pubescent children over the age of 12-13 isn't Pedophilia, it is still Hebephilia and Ephebophilia, which is still extremely disgusting and illegal for the most part in the US. The only reason I say "for the most part" is because 18 and 19-year-olds are also included in the Ephebophilia category.
Saying that "Reproductive capability is pretty much the main determining factor for attractiveness" is essentially saying that humans have not gone through sociocultural evolution. That we haven't gone through any moral development as a species and still rely on raw human instincts. It is not normal for "men, even older men," to be attracted to children like that. It is a disease and it is disgusting. They need to get professional help.sourceshttps://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0
https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/learning--resources/patient-resources/protect-your-fertility3/age_femaleinfertility.pdf
http://www.scaany.org/documents/teen_pregnancy_dec08.pdf
"Mid-to-late adolescents usually have physical characteristics near (or, in some cases, identical) to that of fully-grown adults; psychiatrist and sexologist Fred Berlin states that most men can find persons in this age group sexually attractive, but that "of course, that doesn't mean they're going to act on it. Some men who become involved with teenagers may not have a particular disorder. Opportunity and other factors may have contributed to their behaving in the way they do".[3] According to psychologist and sexologist James Cantor, it is "very common for regular men to be attracted to 18-year-olds or 20-year-olds. It's not unusual for a typical 16-year-old to be attractive to many men and the younger we go the fewer and fewer men are attracted to that age group."[11]"
Just because men moderate themselves because of social pressure, doesn't mean that the fundamental attraction doesn't remain. I'm sure of the social pressure were to differ, many men would takes wives from 15 years old.
page 3429 12 months ago was the last time this thread got stretched horizontally like this
interestng
posting on an epic page
interestng
posting on an epic page
Just doing my duty.