JBeukema
Rookie
- Banned
- #81
The reality is that men are instinctively attracted to peripubescent and immediately post-pubescent females. Everybody knows this, and women try to maintain that 'I just started bleeding' look as long as they can. Think about it: why do women shave their legs? Why do they remove their pubic hair? Why is this considered beautiful? Because a lack of secondary sex traits is a sign of youth- not just youth, but, when combined with developed or developing breasts, a 'cute' face, and other common themes of 'beauty', of a very specific period of time: that period of time when a girl first becomes sexually mature. This is because it offers a sexually mature (or sufficiently developed) female while maximizing the amount of time she will be sexually receptive and fertile.
In Western society especially, the goal is to merge the signs of youth (lack of body hair, 'cuteness', a slender figure, etc) with sign of fertility (developed breasts, widened hips, etc). This creation of the hypersexual child-woman is the ultimate goal of most women in Western society when they make themselves up, and it is designed to offer the 'ideal'. Now, this is also done with young children. Take Jeanbenet Ramsey and others. They took a young girl (with the aforementioned traits) and worked in the opposite direction, attempting to make her hips look more developed by making her waits look smaller and 'womanizing' her. In both cases, the end goal is the same: to create a hypersexual child-woman with signs of sufficient sexual maturity while retaining as much as possible signs of youth and maximum future reproductive potential. In both cases, the result is the same: appeal to as many as possible of the most basic sexual signals designed to attract sexually active and avaliable males.
To then expect males to not be attracted to the very signals and age range that their brains are hardwired to find attractive is unrealistic. The fact is that hebo- and ephebophilia are simple the most natural attraction. The most basic 'age of attraction' is for males to be attracted to females between puberty (oft 10-13, depending largely on enviromental factors) to late adolescence and early twenties. (women are programmed to find males of an older age attractive, generally late teens to mid mid or lat 20s, due to the fact that females generally mature at a younger age than males)
Combine this with the fact that teens and youth always have tended to know much more about sex than our society gives them credit for, and you see that any of our laws are simply foolish (eg: a 16-year old girl being charged with producing child porn for sending her Bf nude images of herself). There have been a number of societies that exposed children to sex at younger age, and not only did no harm come, but they are widely considered healthier by anthropologists.Remember that even religious calls for the 'desexualizing' of late adolescents and tens is a relatively recent phenomenon.
It is not the age of the persons, but rather the nature of any encounters that determines what is harmful and what is not- take for instance youth 'playing doctor'. Sexuially repressive asopcieties can actually lead to widespreasd complexes regarding sex, and much like we see with the 'preacher's daughter', that which is declared taboo gains a new appeal while a lack of education and true familiarity with the subject leads to increased irresponsibility and ignorance.
In Western society especially, the goal is to merge the signs of youth (lack of body hair, 'cuteness', a slender figure, etc) with sign of fertility (developed breasts, widened hips, etc). This creation of the hypersexual child-woman is the ultimate goal of most women in Western society when they make themselves up, and it is designed to offer the 'ideal'. Now, this is also done with young children. Take Jeanbenet Ramsey and others. They took a young girl (with the aforementioned traits) and worked in the opposite direction, attempting to make her hips look more developed by making her waits look smaller and 'womanizing' her. In both cases, the end goal is the same: to create a hypersexual child-woman with signs of sufficient sexual maturity while retaining as much as possible signs of youth and maximum future reproductive potential. In both cases, the result is the same: appeal to as many as possible of the most basic sexual signals designed to attract sexually active and avaliable males.
To then expect males to not be attracted to the very signals and age range that their brains are hardwired to find attractive is unrealistic. The fact is that hebo- and ephebophilia are simple the most natural attraction. The most basic 'age of attraction' is for males to be attracted to females between puberty (oft 10-13, depending largely on enviromental factors) to late adolescence and early twenties. (women are programmed to find males of an older age attractive, generally late teens to mid mid or lat 20s, due to the fact that females generally mature at a younger age than males)
Combine this with the fact that teens and youth always have tended to know much more about sex than our society gives them credit for, and you see that any of our laws are simply foolish (eg: a 16-year old girl being charged with producing child porn for sending her Bf nude images of herself). There have been a number of societies that exposed children to sex at younger age, and not only did no harm come, but they are widely considered healthier by anthropologists.Remember that even religious calls for the 'desexualizing' of late adolescents and tens is a relatively recent phenomenon.
It is not the age of the persons, but rather the nature of any encounters that determines what is harmful and what is not- take for instance youth 'playing doctor'. Sexuially repressive asopcieties can actually lead to widespreasd complexes regarding sex, and much like we see with the 'preacher's daughter', that which is declared taboo gains a new appeal while a lack of education and true familiarity with the subject leads to increased irresponsibility and ignorance.
