Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Listen mate dont give me any of that relativity crap, if you go down that route you can justify anything. Yes anything, you take from that what you will.Its not common sense that African slaves were stupider because there are actually accounts of African slaves being very intelligent ( and some from particular tribes as well) so I think you had better think of another example.
edit: and to further elaborate people WANTED to believe that African slaves were sub-human so they could continue opressing them. Terrible example.
Don't post any details, not interested, got it?
Wait...
You don't want a scientific explanation for why humans are programmed to be sexually attracted to other sexually mature humans?
Don't you think that's a tad close minded on your part?
And throwing out the fallacy you're committing by not understanding moral relativism is also close minded, don't you think?
Now, don't get me wrong, I personally prefer fully grown women with a brain (I like womenly curves, man. CURVES!) I'm not trying to say that that is how I am at all. I'm just presenting an objective perspective other than "OMG! It's soooooo despicable because society raised me that way!" You've got to have a better argument than that.
Originally posted by Ha Son
I think you missed his point. ermm
Phantom Zone, this gent. is correct. You really did miss the point completely. The idea that common sense is your argument runs very parallel to the fallacious idea that it was "common sense" that black Africans were sub-human. That was some of the very same arguments. "It's common sense" should never be a logical justification.
Originally posted by you get thorns
And we all agree this goes beyond physical development, right fellas?
Survey says, for males, it's very much a visual thing. So, no, it doesn't go very far beyond physical development. That 13-year-old R-Kelly peed on...dude...she looked 20-23 to me. She said she was 18 or something.
Though, that is a sweeping generalization of men. Sure, many men require more than the physical, such as myself. I can't stand stupid dtizes (is this a word?)...no matter how gorgeous. That doesn't change how males generally interpret that stimuli. (There was a study done about people who were "in love." I posted a thread on this. Men are very much visually stimulated, compared to women.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Survey says, for males, it's very much a visual thing. So, no, it doesn't go very far beyond physical development. That 13-year-old R-Kelly peed on...dude...she looked 20-23 to me. She said she was 18 or something.Though, that is a sweeping generalization of men. Sure, many men require more than the physical, such as myself. I can't stand stupid dtizes (is this a word?)...no matter how gorgeous. That doesn't change how males generally interpret that stimuli. (There was a study done about people who were "in love." I posted a thread on this. Men are very much visually stimulated, compared to women.)
There are terms to describe men who become sexually stimulated by 13 year olds. Look them up.
Originally posted by you get thornsThey don't apply if it is just a few 13 year old girls and they basically look 25.
There are terms to describe men who become sexually stimulated by 13 year olds. Look them up.
Though, I am not sure what dadudemon means with it being just about physical appearance. Perhaps it is unrelated to laws, but I'd say that the mental maturity is a more important factor in deciding whether sexual relationships are valid. Though just generally, I think that consensual sex with a "minor" (or lets say someone not mature enough to make even a slightly reasonable decision) should be punished far milder than actual rape. And it definitely should not be called rape.
Originally posted by Bardock42
They don't apply if it is just a few 13 year old girls and they basically look 25.
Boom. 👆
Originally posted by Bardock42
Though, I am not sure what dadudemon means with it being just about physical appearance. Perhaps it is unrelated to laws, but I'd say that the mental maturity is a more important factor in deciding whether sexual relationships are valid. Though just generally, I think that consensual sex with a "minor" (or lets say someone not mature enough to make even a slightly reasonable decision) should be punished far milder than actual rape. And it definitely should not be called rape.
Well, it's not just about physical appearance, but for human males, that's a very large portion of sexual attraction.
I posted this already.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Anthropologist Helen Fisher, through her studies, has believes in three separate rules for the mating game.1. Lust-The sex drive-sexual gratification.
2. Romantic Love-Our adoration for the one partner seems to be all that we seek.
3. Attachment-The way we develop a secure union with a long term partner.
She believes all three are evolutionary traits of reproductive success.
Attachment allows for a child to be born and raised at least through infancy.
She is also conducting research from “recruits” from the campus of the StoneyBrook University NY.
They are using fMRIs to scan blood flow to the brain of people who think they are in love. They first show a picture of a neutral image to the person and then scan the blood flow in the brain. They then show the person an image of the person’s lover and scan again.
This is what was discovered in that study:
Men are turned on visually.
Women are turned on by character.
Quote, “Among our male subjects, we found activity in the brain region more associated with the integration of visual stimuli. In our female subjects, we found more activity with the region more associated with memory recall.”
For men, visual stimuli activate the brain more than they do for women, and are important for the sexual pleasure for a man.
Helen said, “Women do like to look but men, like to look more and I feel that this is due to a profoundly powerful Darwinian reason.”
What are men looking for?
Researchers were sent out to the streets of London to demonstrate a classic psychology experiment.
The researchers mission was to ask men which of 4 drawings were most attractive.
The female figures were virtually identical. The female figures had very small differences; the hip size was the difference. They liked the women that had a waste to hip ratio of 7/10; a woman’s waist who has a size ration of 7/10 precisely. A woman with a 26 inch waist would have 37 inch hips:they are thought more likely to be able to bare babies, more likely to get pregnant, live longer, and have fewer miss carriages.Well formed lips, sizeable cheeks, and sizeable breasts are also markers of sexual attractiveness: all of those traits are controlled by the sex hormones: they are called hormonal markers.
Professor Randy Thornill of the University of New Mexico studies biology, specifically how our bodies display sexual attractiveness.
He said that our bodies are basically signals of symmetry and signals of hormones. He said, “…attractiveness is a collection of signals of both symmetry and hormone signals.”
Size of the breasts and fat deposits in the upper cheeks and lips are substantially shaped by bodily levels of the hormone estrogen.
Estrogen also affects the secondary characteristics of sexuality at puberty. Professor Thornhill said, “Estrogen is a marker of the quality of the female and that includes her reductive capacity; that includes her ability to bare children and is all highly estrogen related in women.”
Testosterone causes several visual features at the onset of puberty such as cheek bones that are prominent, strong jaw, a muscular physique, and broad shoulders. These masculine features are markers for virility and health in a human male.
Also, another sexually attractive trait in males is the dominant markers.
Dominance in males is associated with male reproductive success.
In 2004, $13 billion was spent on cosmetic procedures; 90% carried out on women.
A younger female fertile and fully developed female is considered more attractive, the vast majority of the time, to any male. Variances to the above marker are almost always attributed to psychological disorders such as pedophilia. (Unnatural lust.)Men get cosmetic things done as well but because women, more than men, seek out other attributes for sexual reproduction other than the appearance they are given by natures default.
For women, the ideal male mate is more than just a source of fertile sperm. They are more attracted to intangible characteristics such as loyalty, kindness, which suggest a good husband and good father for her children.Women have more blood flowing to the part of the brain called the hippocampus, the part of the brain associated with memory. What does memory have to do with sexual attraction and a woman’s love life? Helen Fisher suggests that women are particularly interested in the men’s’ character and that they build up a memory map of their behavior in order to determine if they will be a suitable mate and a good father for their children.
Memory is vitally important. Women are more likely to contact others about their interactions with the opposite sex. Women also look for status in men so that they and their children can be provided for. Men advertise this status to attract mates. (Think Peacock type males.)
Healthy offspring are the key to a status of attraction which leads to stranger findings.
Professor Randy Thornhill believes that we interpret sexual signals in milliseconds; without even knowing.
The human nose is part of the sexual attraction of the opposite sex. This is how Thornhill found this out:
He gets a group of men together for a game of basketball wearing white shirts. The shirts are freshly laundered. As the players play basketball, the shirts absorb sweat and sweat contains pheromones.Thornhill has discovered that pheromones convey far more complex information than previously believed when it comes to sexual attractiveness. In his biology lab, Thornhill asks a group of students to test the pheromone idea out. The women will smell each shirt and rate them for sexiness, pleasantness, and intensity. The women do not know who the shirt is from. They write down their judgments, based on nothing more than smell. Thornhill has analyzed the immunes systems of the both male and female volunteers, by studying the major histo-compatibility complex..(Called MHC.)
A group of genes play an important role in the human body immune response system. He discovered that women prefer the smell of scent of a male with a most different MHC. This makes good evolutionary sense. A better range of genes in reproduction contributes to a species success. The babies get the best of the “mix”.
Human beings are able to pick a suitable genetic mate with just their noses!
Our noses can also detect symmetry..It may seem bizarre but women can smell who are symmetrical. More symmetric men smell better to women. Even more than that, they prefer symmetrical manly looking men even more when they are at the peak of their menstrual cycle.
Researchers in the 90s did several studies on symmetry. They collected many photos and analyzed how symmetrical the faces were in the photos and then presented those photos to people to rate on a scale of 1-10. The faces most attractive were those that were most symmetrical. What’s strange is that a face that is completely symmetrical (Basically, a computer is used to “mirror” one side of the face so that both sides are a perfect mirror reflection of each other.)is unattractive.
Faces also display information about our immune system. Symmetry is marker of how healthy and individual is because it is very hard in nature to “get it right”. Apparently, parasites and disease contribute to an asymmetrical face. They also found that men that were rated higher by the women had a greater variety of genes and also had a stronger immune system. (Bi-racial men and women are found, often, to be attractive for a reason; it is not specific preference.)
It is and should be NORMAL to be attracted t oa 13 year old female human that has the appearance of sexual maturity, especially one exhibiting these high quality estrogen traits, discussed above. If the female has the proper fat deposits (on the face, big breasts, 7/10 waist to hip ratio, etc.), then an sexually mature male SHOULD find that female attractive. That.is.normal. Perfectly normal, in fact.
On another note: The average early man lived to was around 18 years old. The idea that we shouldn't find many 13-14 year old females should fly right in the face of our genes and actually be counter intuitive. If most of our ancestors died at 18.....we had to have reproduced at some point, or else our species would have died out. Dee dee deeeeeee. (Carlos Mencia), that means human females right out of puberty were having babies. dur.
Originally posted by dadudemonPhantom Zone, this gent. is correct. You really did miss the point completely. The idea that common sense is your argument runs very parallel to the fallacious idea that it was "common sense" that black Africans were sub-human. That was some of the very same arguments. "It's common sense" should never be a logical justification.
I think my point still stands the basis for that argument was because they were looking for an excuse to enslave people. Thats not whats happening here.
Yes you can use the argument is common sense. Like I said earlier you use moral relativity to justify anything you obvoulsy missed that point.
Originally posted by Phantom ZoneThe fact is though that, from our point of view, your argument is not based in logic, as you have refused to give a sound reasoning, but is at best based on a cultural preset notion of children and younger teenagers as pure and innocent.
Again read what I said, especially the edit. Its not about common sense its about expolitation. Please comprehend what im saying before telling me its an logical fallacy.Its not common sense that women have less rights than men in the past. People did it because they could get away with it...get it?
On top of this, we should be able to account for some sort of developmental markers that trace back to our ancestors sexual function. Meaning, we should have some sort of "queues" that are visual that indicate when a male and/or female are ready to breed.
It just so happens that we do!
Body Odor. Signals puberty for the nose.
Facial hair. Signals male maturity to females.
Pubic hair. Signals maturity to both sexes of the other's sexual maturity.
Stature. The physical size of the human also indicates maturity. Most women mature sooner than men, and for good reasons. It would seem mother nature built humans like this: older male pairing off with a younger female. Females mature, physically, faster than males.
The face. As I indicated in my post from 2007, the face has several visual queues of sexual virility. A "good" male to breed with will have a mostly symmetric face, show signs of high testosterone levels (such as prominent eyebrow ridges, strong jaw, etc.), and be lean. A female face will be full, lips will be large, etc.
So, if a female walks in the place with a big round thing in your face, you really should get sprung and you shouldn't be ashamed of it. You wouldn't be here if it weren't for your ancestors getting sprung over some big boobs and bootie.
So, when someone accuses another of being a pedophile(male or female) because he finds a 13 year old female/male attractive, take a look at the "child" first and determine if they really look 13. If it's a female and she has big boobs, nice ass, thin waist, full lips, nice skin, it's not pedophilia at all. It's NORMAL. If it's a lad, and the female says that, check for a lean muscular build, prominent eyebrow ridges, strong jaw, and a 5 O'Clock shadow. If he has those, the female is far from a pedophile, she's NORMAL.
It is societal norms that have caused a shift in what is acceptable. It has nothing to do with what mother nature programmed us to find sexually acceptable.
Now, having said all of that, I find women attractive when they have curves, and have a brain. Just like I said earlier. I'm normal. I've probably looked at a hot 13-14 year old that looked like she was 25 and said to myself, "she's hot." That means I'm normal, though.
Now that we've cleared up the lines, or blurred it up even more, continue to debate his perversion.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The fact is though that, from our point of view, your argument is not based in logic, as you have refused to give a sound reasoning, but is at best based on a cultural preset notion of children and younger teenagers as pure and innocent.
Im not going to get into it. I actually gave reasons as to why I think its wrong. Eventhough my first post had swearing there were some valid points made in there.
Your side hasn't given sound reasoning either. Oh I edited my post not sure if that changes anything.
Originally posted by dadudemon
On top of this, we should be able to account for some sort of developmental markers that trace back to our ancestors sexual function. Meaning, we should have some sort of "queues" that are visual that indicate when a male and/or female are ready to breed.It just so happens that we do!
Body Odor. Signals puberty for the nose.
Facial hair. Signals male maturity to females.
Pubic hair. Signals maturity to both sexes of the other's sexual maturity.
Stature. The physical size of the human also indicates maturity. Most women mature sooner than men, and for good reasons. It would seem mother nature built humans like this: older male pairing off with a younger female. Females mature, physically, faster than males.
The face. As I indicated in my post from 2007, the face has several visual queues of sexual virility. A "good" male to breed with will have a mostly symmetric face, show signs of high testosterone levels (such as prominent eyebrow ridges, strong jaw, etc.), and be lean. A female face will be full, lips will be large, etc.
So, if a female walks in the place with a big round thing in your face, you really should get sprung and you shouldn't be ashamed of it. You wouldn't be here if it weren't for your ancestors getting sprung over some big boobs and bootie.
So, when someone accuses another of being a pedophile(male or female) because he finds a 13 year old female/male attractive, take a look at the "child" first and determine if they really look 13. If it's a female and she has big boobs, nice ass, thin waist, full lips, nice skin, it's not pedophilia at all. It's NORMAL. If it's a lad, and the female says that, check for a lean muscular build, prominent eyebrow ridges, strong jaw, and a 5 O'Clock shadow. If he has those, the female is far from a pedophile, she's NORMAL.
It is societal norms that have caused a shift in what is acceptable. It has nothing to do with what mother nature programmed us to find sexually acceptable.
Now, having said all of that, I find women attractive when they have curves, and have a brain. Just like I said earlier. I'm normal. I've probably looked at a hot 13-14 year old that looked like she was 25 and said to myself, "she's hot." That means I'm normal, though.
Now that we've cleared up the lines, or blurred it up even more, continue to debate his perversion.
Brilliant now you wanna think about how that proves nothing. Now you wanna start thinking why we have laws against adults sleeping with 13yrs old. facepalm
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Im not going to get it. I actually gave reasons as to why I think its wrong.
no you didnt. you said over and over that its common sense and that that its bullshit to argue otherwise... you never actually explained that reasoning though and when people try to get you to do you say it just is...
you cant say "We all ****ing know why its wrong for an adult to have sex with a 13yr old its a no-brainer and its not up for debate. " in three different formats then say "Your side hasn't given sound reasoning either." imo youre being very close minded no offense.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
no you didnt. you said over and over that its common sense and that that its bullshit to argue otherwise... you never actually explained that reasoning though and when people try to get you to do you say it just is...you cant say "We all ****ing know why its wrong for an adult to have sex with a 13yr old its a no-brainer and its not up for debate. " in three different formats then say "Your side hasn't given sound reasoning either."
Yes actually I did. Scroll back to my swearing post. Yes and your side actually hasn't given sound reasoning.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I think my point still stands the basis for that argument was because they were looking for an excuse to enslave people. Thats not whats happening here.
That doesn't work either. Here's why, "people are just looking for an excuse to enforce their idea of sexuality on others by using the common sense argument...which also applies to 14 year old girls and boys."
See how that works? It actually hurts your perspective to use that as a counter.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yes you can use the argument is common sense. Like I said earlier you use moral relativity to justify anything you obvoulsy missed that point.
It's called a strawman. I don't care to debate in circles. You haven't actually addressed how you're making a moral relativistic fallacy. Since I've upped the anty with current research into human sexuality, your failure to provide a sound response to my accusation of a morally relativistic fallacy on your part only compounds my point. (Which, by the way, is a nice response to your strawman argument of "you can use it to justify anything" point. Edit - Let me make more clear what that last point meant: If you find a human that is sexual imature, attractive, then that isn't normal. That is a nice response to your "justify anything" argument. I can still say you comitted a moral relativistic fallacy.)
Originally posted by Phantom ZoneI'd disagree, as far as I recall your first post on that matter had mostly "I won't discuss this", "This is not debatable" in it. No solid reason, why it is inherently wrong to have sex with a 13 year old girl.
Im not going to get into it. I actually gave reasons as to why I think its wrong. Eventhough my first post had swearing there were some valid points made in there.Your side hasn't given sound reasoning either. Oh I edited my post not sure if that changes anything.
My point really boils down to, and I have debated this multilple times before here, that a random line that is picked is inherently unfair. This is of course partly shown by the lines being entirely different in different western countries, without any huge consequences.
Again, mental maturity may be the factor that has to be discussed, and just as there are 18 year olds too dumb and immature to consider the consequences of their actions, so are there 13 year olds mentally and physically able to make a sound decision.