There have been though. It's pretty controversial to say anything positive about conversion/reparative therapy these days but it doesn't have a zero percent success rate either. Especially the ones that are less Jesus-ey and more psychotherapeutic. Listen I'm not saying homosexuality is curable. I'd say that I don't think all homosexuals can be cured, maybe not even the majority, but at the same time neither do I think no homosexual can ever be cured. Even the most liberal studies on this give it at least a 90% failure rate, which entails a 10% success rate, as low as that may be.
I think you'd find that it's not even accurate to call it "conversion therapy." If you're dealing with an unwanted sexual attraction, the only solution that truly works is simply not feeding that neuropathway.
Figure out where you picked it up from, what traumas you have experienced that might have caused you to be that way, take inventory of your life. Don't feed the fetish. Let it die from lack of use.
A lot of propaganda surrounding "conversion therapy" comes from the fact that many therapies back then did actually try to torture the gay out of people. By training the patient to associate homosexual activity with pain or suffering. Aversion therapy, which not only didn't work, but often made the problem even worse.
Now, they've expanded the term "conversion therapy" to mean trying to talk someone out of practicing that lifestyle. Trying to talk someone out of trooning out. Giving someone counseling or otherwise doing anything to help someone abstain from an unwanted fetish.
If you really examine the whole "conversion therapy" propaganda coming from the LGBTQ community, you'd find that they simply consider it a horrible, evil sin, to steer someone away from their slaaneshi cult. They also wish to utilize the power of the state to punish anyone who tries to do so, by making "conversion therapy" illegal.
I can't understand a gay person staying in a cult that preaches acceptance as a sin of pride than a admittance we're human with the free will to be flawed but to also improve.
First off acceptance is a loaded word, what are you accepting? facts? behavior? hurt people? I suspect your go to answer would be "ALL", but thats not the point. Accepting shit behavior is bad, and homosexual relationships spread aids, and have countless other flaws discussed endlessly. I'm all for accepting people being OPEN that they suffer from those temptations, and seeking help, and being accepted into churches IF they moderate that behavior (if you are flirting with and trying to suck off the patrons, get banned and kill yourself) but despite your flowery language, it often DOES mean "yes you should accept them sucking 50 dicks in public in a pride parade", which absolutely not. I will not accept that, and I will not accept them if they do that. As for free will, I think you assume ANY self restraint of free will is oppressive, bad, anti human, ect, but this is marxist, and psychotic framing. We ALL restrain ourselves in many ways, theres some neighbors I have I REALLY have had urges to kill over one reason or another, and I restrain that BECAUSE my free will is less important than community coheasion and adhering to societal rules which assist us ALL
More importantly, if a gay person has the free will to CHOOSE that they will not do something they have the urge to do, thats STILL their free will. I suspect you, and many others CANNOT grasp the idea of "I have urge to do x, but I won't do it because its harmful", outside fearing consequences. Which is fucking horrifying and why pedophiles are a scary "next dam" risking breaking. pedophiles are the same thing of temptations that CAN be resisted, and should be, and if you erode the stigma and taboo, they WILL try just like faggots and dykes and trannies
why are some humans rapists, or cannibals, or animal torturers, or skitzophrenic, or fatally conjoined twins, or crack babies or.....You get the point.
Flaws in humans exists, tragic flaws, flaws that are difficult, minor flaws. Ect. Also all christians say humans "fall short of the grace of god" and thats exactly that.. We all fall short, but strive TO do as best we can. And that means trying to avoid at least the WORST of sins.
And people aren't fucked up because god MAKES them fucked up, they are fucked up because we lived in a fucked up world, with bad parents, poisons, toxins, traumas, ect. For being an "agnostic" you assume god controls a lot
Is he testing me to ignore all my attractions to women in favor of becoming some tradwife baby factory for some shitty moid to walk over? I rather say fuck off to that lifestyle and run off to some queer commune off the grid where people raised kids the good ole fashion way, as a village not as an atomized nuclear family unit.
And thats why its a sin, even outside Christianity, the energy, human capitol, money, ect put into creating you is a complete fucking waste due to a willful choice of you. You are likely a genetic dead end, Or if you have kids they suffer from it. Essentially the GODLY way is to try and have all people grow up well, be raised nice, and become what raised them (read : ideal parents), and you violate that, not because inability to find a partner, not because of mistakes, not because of tragedy put onto you, but the WILLFUL choice to take that path.
Meaning all that money, time, investment, learning, ect, is essentially LOST from society compared to a nuclear family.
This is also why TBH, I'm less charitable towards the HOPELESSLY lgbt (read, not ones who can be rehabilitated) because theres basically 0 chance my efforts will carry generational effect...where as if I help a straight guy get a job, then maybe he gets a wife, then kids, then kid grows up, and I in a very small way, assisted that kid in the far future.
People who caused me to hyperfixate on SSA since I was a child lmao
I'm not going to PL here way too much, but like I said, it's a very inconvenient truth that happens, that everyone refuses to listen to, but it needs to be heard. I stopped being attracted to women once I got over complex and very fucked up trauma caused by my parents and bullying/ostracism for being a retard throughout my school years.
Once I actually started to befriend women, which also happened as I was unraveling and coping with massive bag of garbage that came with first two decades of my life, my attraction to women just completely got snapped out of me. Boys and men were my only friends who I had a hard time seeing as anything sexual, with women all being seen as potential girlfriends, almost like the way horny incels see women.
And no, nothing about my therapy included anything related to getting rid of SSA, if that's what you're thinking. Literally everyone in my life was affirming and even my early Christian walk constituted of affirming/not caring believers and communities, until I realized that something is deeply off about it.
Double post, I'm unable to edit the one above for some reason, sorry. We do have reidentification threads where kiwis talk about leaving transgenderism, but since we don't have general "ex-LGBT" threads, I'm going to leave this wall of text here, with as less PL as possible without losing context and scale of my experience.
I have partially answered it by describing what sin is. God doesn't create sin, sin is result of a fallen, decaying, dying world which does include nature as well.
Being a "tradwife baby factory" is not what being a Christian is. At all. There's a reason why I said that what you have said is a major Christian point because what you said is literally what apostle Paul recommends people coming from his personal preference: to be celibate and serve God (which is based on serving community and people around you, since loving others is one of two commandments of Christ) and not distract oneself with a family. This doesn't mean a family can't serve God, anything can, but that's beyond the point at the moment.
I didn't become a "tradwife baby factory", I'm the same boyish nerdy retard like I always were. Except I'm not going insane anymore with severe mentos deez odors on a psychotic sprectrum that I was diagnosed with and told I have to take drugs for the rest of my life. By the way, here's yet another correlation that nobody wants to talk about. People are very open to the idea that being mentally ill causes transgenderism, however, everyone is scared of the idea that it may also warp your sexuality beyond fetishes. People somewhat agree that kink is caused by being mentally messed up, even kinksters themselves indirectly admit that. But everyone's terrified of the idea that maybe the narrative of inborn sexualities is false and sexual orientation may be a symptom of a mental disorder.
It was not just SSA, said mental disorders I was diagnosed with also went away without a trace simultaneously as I started approaching my issues from the point of "ok no, I might just be some flavor of a retard with severe CPTSD, not all this assorted garbage that shrinks and my leftist friends think I have."
If anything, I had a brief phase when I became more performatively and stereotypically feminine and "wifey" for like, a year tops, as an attempt to attract women, not men. It was also during my lowest of lows mentally. I don't remember talking much about it regarding my reidentification when I first came here as a depooner, but often times when I read threads in the Stinkditch forum I see kiwis wondering what the fuck is going on in inside brains of some individuals they post, primarily hyperfeminine poons. Well, as others rightfully point out, mental illness goes on. But that's from the outsider's perspective; meanwhile I have first hand experience of said mental illness. And it was intertwined with my attraction to women.
If sexuality is such a neutral trait, then there shouldn't have been extreme aversion towards me when I suddenly developed a crush on a man to my own surprise. But it were LGBT circles that often treated my experiences as moral failures, not the normie hettie world. I had some homophobic remarks thrown at me on rare occasions, but I never really thought much about them since it was coming from literal nobodies. For the most part, despite me talking about how homophobic our world is, my actual experience in life was affirming and even those who didn't like that, never really brought it up and whoever I found hot was irrelevant to hanging out with me. LGBT crowd in general, not just trannies, was quick to turn their backs on me. Suddenly I'm a traitor, I'm not a friend, I have failed some unspoken moral code, I'm not trustworthy, as if being horny for a dick is an ideology and not a neutral biological condition.
So what's exactly offensive here? That I ruin the narrative? That I'm suddenly an exception, which points at the idea that there may be more people like me? It's very telling. I was relatively young when that happened, so of course I was somewhat "forgiven", maybe I was a "late bloomer". Then what about some people who hit "second puberty", either menopause/andropause or going on HRT and developing SSA? So what, you won't be able to find out "who you truly are" until... what? When exactly do you "find out"? Is it puberty? Is it menopause/andropause? Should people experiment with hormones to "explore" themselves, like trannies say? Should I develop a tumor or infect myself with various parasites and see what they will "uncover"? Is it even really "uncovering"? I left a link to the guy who suddenly became a pedo thanks to a tumor. So what, the tumor was unleashing his true pedo self? Or what about the guy who became straight after having a stroke?
It's impossible to ignore that.
Or this, I'm pretty sure I found the link to the page in this very thread, but I can't seem to find it at the moment:
Or the fact that literally everyone I know who is SSA had a fucked up childhood in general, with a broken family which is known to affect psychosexual development, be it developing strange fetishes and mommy/daddy issues, or in many cases opening up for SSA. I'm tired of pretending that all this exists in a vacuum.
I can go on and on, there's so much more that has proven to me that my attraction to women has been an expression of trauma. All I will say right now is that I'd rather be a stable, sane, and functional hettie tomboy than cling onto homosexuality for the sake of being "politically correct", even if it meant keeping severe mental distress that fueled it, distress that made my life absolute nightmare and could have led me to killing myself long ago. Thinking this is offensive because healing "costed" me homosexual attraction would be pure evil at this point.
Last but not least, I don't really like the lingering implication that you seem to hold about Christianity being this psychological warfare that breaks dykes into mindless breeding stock for inceloids or whatever despite being the only religion that fully affirms your dignity as a God's image bearing human being regardless of who you are or what you do: Christianity on my timeline is a very, very late stage conclusion from overall multiple decades long secular experience. I started becoming a "homophobe" long ago during my long anti-theist era, when I started to become self-aware regarding things I was saying in support of LGB rights and how much they clash with everything I see presented in the world, including LGB people themselves and data that I refused to acknowledge.
One of my initial starting points was realizing that yes, despite everything I have believed about sexuality, I have observed things that I constantly denied up until I couldn't deny them anymore. Same happened to my anti-abortion stance, I never considered I will ever be a believer in God or following any religion in particular when I started to see that something is really inconsistent and strange about pro-choice circles and narrative I was a part of. That's a whole other story irrelevant to this thread though.
its ok, thats one of the best double posts I've seen in a while. Edit period I think changes depending on how much someone has posted, I get maybe a full day to edit some posts, where as newbies might only get minutes.
gaining a sexuality is like having a bomb strapped to your chest since birth. You start life very asexual but during puberty, that's when boys and girls start seeming cute. Does that mean the teen choose to be bi? No, the bisexuality was innate this whole time and only came out as their sexual interest started to burgeon. The reason the born this way movement gained so much traction is because it's true. We are born this way regardless of our orientation but since babies aren't sucking dick or eating pussy, we aren't for sure who they're gonna like when they're older. There is however scientific evidence that cross gender behavior is a early indication of queerness. Not always ofc, but some gays I know had very GNC vibes.
Which then leads to me asking again, if the issue is being gay, then why hasn't their been clinical trials curing gayness? We do have meds that let people with ADHD live normal lives and there's even plans to introduce one for ASD people. So if it's possible then why has no one tried yet? I may agree with the idea but surely some homophobes on here could chime in?
But your argument really doesn't make much sense. Cuz if we were to follow your logic, pedophilia isn't unnatural either. You do realize no cure for pedophilia exists either, right? Most non-offending pedophiles willingly castrate themselves and go about their lives quietly.
Have we even established pedophilia as a true neurological condition or something and not just someone being a weirdo looking for easy prey? I'm very hesitant to lend any cover for these sickos, tbh.
This is also the only explanation that makes sense to me along with the fact that the more sons a women has the more likely the younger ones are to be gay.
I was going to find that, actually. IIRC, he got it operated on and it went away. Sometime later he began checking CSAM again and a doctor visit showed the tumor was back. Charles Whitman had a tumor in his head, too.
Agreed. I'm seeing more and more comments on related videos (like Soft White Underbelly shit where they talk to chomos, ffs) that try and paint these pedos as deserving of empathy and compassion. Something I am adamantly against because without shame of their perversion being so stigmatized, why would they ever seek "help?" (which doesn't seem to exist).
Something disturbing I realized recently is that in order for pedophilia to even be diagnosed, the DSM-5 requires the person to experience significant stress from the attraction (or has molested a child). So even if someone is fully attracted to prepubescent children, he won't be diagnosed as a pedo if he's not really bothered by it.
It reminds me too much of the gay playbook, tbh. It'll be, "we were born this way and this is a sexual orientation" soon.
Homosexuality was only removed from the DSM-5 due to politics and lobbying, I reckon. The stress of being SSA used to be enough, but it was removed and gayness was normalized:
They briefly did—in DSM-III (1980), "ego-dystonic homosexuality" was added as a compromise for those distressed by their orientation—but it was removed in DSM-III-R (1987) because it arbitrarily pathologized external stigma as an intrinsic disorder, lacked empirical evidence of inherent dysfunction (unlike paraphilias), and reinforced discrimination without therapeutic value.
I was asking Grok about SSA and pedophilia's similarities in DSM-5 listing. It's predictably fucking annoying to deal with:
Pathologizing stigma as a disorder was arbitrary because it conflated external societal prejudice with intrinsic psychopathology, without empirical evidence that the orientation itself caused dysfunction—DSM criteria emphasize inherent impairment, not cultural disapproval (e.g., why not "ego-dystonic heterosexuality" in repressive societies?). Psychiatry shifted from moralistic views to science-based ones, recognizing societal "wrongness" as unreliable for abnormality (e.g., historical pathologization of left-handedness or women's voting desires).
For pedophilia, destigmatizing non-offending individuals could reduce extrinsic stress and aid therapy, but wouldn't eliminate the diagnosis if urges lead to acting on them (harming children, per overwhelming evidence of trauma) or intrinsic distress (common ego-dystonia from ethical conflict). Society's role is ethical protection of minors, not enabling normalization of exploitative attractions.
One of my initial starting points was realizing that yes, despite everything I have believed about sexuality, I have observed things that I constantly denied up until I couldn't deny them anymore. Same happened to my anti-abortion stance, I never considered I will ever be a believer in God or following any religion in particular when I started to see that something is really inconsistent and strange about pro-choice circles and narrative I was a part of. That's a whole other story irrelevant to this thread though.
I've also recently become more open to Christianity after having always been secular. Realizing how turned around everybody in our society is on abortion was a huge turning point for me, too. I can't believe I ever ignored it prior, tbh.
Agreed. I'm seeing more and more comments on related videos (like Soft White Underbelly shit where they talk to chomos, ffs) that try and paint these pedos as deserving of empathy and compassion. Something I am adamantly against because without shame of their perversion being so stigmatized, why would they ever seek "help?" (which doesn't seem to exist).
I think a huge, and perverse problem is that frankly, the side wanting any "dialog" with the pedos ALSO want to normalize them largely, while the side against them want to eradicate them as soon as they hear of its existence like an Islamic caliphate. I Wish there was something in place to offer therapy for this, I WISH they could get help, either through electric aversion therapy, medication, traditional therapy, ect, to remove it
Something disturbing I realized recently is that in order for pedophilia to even be diagnosed, the DSM-5 requires the person to experience significant stress from the attraction. So even if someone is fully attracted to prepubescent children, he won't be diagnosed as a pedo if he's not really bothered by it.
Beyond that I wonder if these people will even "risk" it. Like lets be honest its probably a bit hard to go to a therapist and say "I have an urge to fuck small children" so I think even beyond THAT detail its not diagnosed anywhere near enough. Because even if you say that, 1 its on your medical record, and 2 you aren't even guaranteed actual help....Or ffs, therapists might even preach "self acceptance". I imagine people with that, even if they want help, feel theres none to be found
Yep. After having thought about it lots, it's simply too dangerous to ever normalize or let our foot off their necks. It's like the fucking drag queen weirdos and trannies around the kids. In no decent, normal society would we ever risk these freaks anywhere near children. The risk:reward is just so insanely out of wack that it's deeply irresponsible to ever risk it. All drag queens should be told to get the fuck away from the children immediately.
Similarly, all pedophiles need to seriously do the following:
Unless you know you're going to offend (or already have), just keep your perversion to yourself. Never tell anybody. Never offend. Never download CSAM. Never put yourself in situations around children. If you can't avoid it, chemically castrate yourself or put a bullet in your head. Sorry, pal.
Do not indulge in these fucking "virtuous" or "non-offending" pedo groups. It normalizes the shit you need to be murdered over. I'm pretty sure all of these groups just discussed offending and shared CSAM and shit, too. They cannot be allowed to organize or collaborate with one another. NAMBLA still exists and these people should be hanged, too.
We need a 24/7 pedo jail like there used to be in McNeil Island in WA state. Seeing them trying to normalize MAP shit is sickening, too. Our society has already laid the groundwork for accepting pedophilia, too. "When a child tells you who they are, fucking believe them!" Ok, so when "gender identity" turns into a different unfalsifiable mind state, but for age, what do we do? Ugh.
Something disturbing I realized recently is that in order for pedophilia to even be diagnosed, the DSM-5 requires the person to experience significant stress from the attraction (or has molested a child). So even if someone is fully attracted to prepubescent children, he won't be diagnosed as a pedo if he's not really bothered by it.
An ex-friend of mine used to bring up this "distress" argument to justify why being a "MAP" is all fine and dandy. Went as far as to say that akchshully it's good for a pedophile to work with children, because they truly love them, as if pedophilic urges are this nebulous energy of sorts that glorifies the subject of the fetish.
When I snapped and, to no surprise for any sane individual, told her to eat some fucking glass, pretty much everyone in my circle at the moment (read, the alphabet soup or their supporters) considered her a victim and me this fucked up unhinged psycho that started alogging out of nowhere and needs to be locked in a mental ward. She also conveniently lied. After I alogged and left, some people asked what's up with that and she told them she used to have attraction to younger kids but it stopped when she was in high school. Making me seem like this grudge holding retard who recalled something irrelevant from decades ago out of nowhere to slander her. When in reality she was a fully grown woman pushing to 30s when she was literally messaging me "I'm a pedophile tee hee" and all the other shit
For all of the "no-no-no, pedophilia is bad" which is commonly raised in these circles, it was the alphabet soup people who either thought I'm insane or didn't really get why I got mad. Mind you, I didn't initially snapped, I had dozens of attempts at throwing in the idea that maybe she's traumatized and that's why she's drawn to lolishota. She was offended and annoyed at my attempt at "pull psychotherapy on her". It all just kept escalating into more horrid things, seeping into reality, and one of the last straws was her talking about real life children she was in the same room with, "admiring" their looks.
Nothing ever came out of it, I was seen as an unhinged aggressive weirdo and that's that. From what I know she left the country and currently hangs out with drag queens, puppy players, and other degenerates. Hopefully no minors are involved.
Yet another experience for me to be convinced that Satan is truly roaming around in this world.
gaining a sexuality is like having a bomb strapped to your chest since birth. You start life very asexual but during puberty, that's when boys and girls start seeming cute. Does that mean the teen choose to be bi? No, the bisexuality was innate this whole time and only came out as their sexual interest started to burgeon. The reason the born this way movement gained so much traction is because it's true. We are born this way regardless of our orientation but since babies aren't sucking dick or eating pussy, we aren't for sure who they're gonna like when they're older. There is however scientific evidence that cross gender behavior is a early indication of queerness. Not always ofc, but some gays I know had very GNC vibes.
Which then leads to me asking again, if the issue is being gay, then why hasn't their been clinical trials curing gayness? We do have meds that let people with ADHD live normal lives and there's even plans to introduce one for ASD people. So if it's possible then why has no one tried yet? I may agree with the idea but surely some homophobes on here could chime in?
An ex-friend of mine used to bring up this "distress" argument to justify why being a "MAP" is all fine and dandy. Went as far as to say that akchshully it's good for a pedophile to work with children, because they truly love them, as if pedophilic urges are this nebulous energy of sorts that glorifies the subject of the fetish.
When I snapped and, to no surprise for any sane individual, told her to eat some fucking glass, pretty much everyone in my circle at the moment (read, the alphabet soup or their supporters) considered her a victim and me this fucked up unhinged psycho that started alogging out of nowhere and needs to be locked in a mental ward. She also conveniently lied. After I alogged and left, some people asked what's up with that and she told them she used to have attraction to younger kids but it stopped when she was in high school. Making me seem like this grudge holding retard who recalled something irrelevant from decades ago out of nowhere to slander her. When in reality she was a fully grown woman pushing to 30s when she was literally messaging me "I'm a pedophile tee hee" and all the other shit
I think a huge, and perverse problem is that frankly, the side wanting any "dialog" with the pedos ALSO want to normalize them largely, while the side against them want to eradicate them as soon as they hear of its existence like an Islamic caliphate. I Wish there was something in place to offer therapy for this, I WISH they could get help, either through electric aversion therapy, medication, traditional therapy, ect, to remove it
I remember reading an ama by a therapist who treated people like that. From what I remember, apparently it's a special kind of "attraction" where the guy who has is experiences an intense form of lust that's different from healthy heterosexual attraction. Yeah, like you and the other guy said, it's hard to have a conversation about this because the risk of normalizing this kind of behavior is too high. I wouldn't be opposed to therapy and stuff, but yeah none of that MAP shit. If you happen to be like that, then do NOT tell anybody about it, keep it to yourself. Maybe talk to a therapist or something and probably chemically castrate yourself (not even using it as an insult. Sorry, but that's the only way this can even work out.)
Also reading that convinced me that lolicon stuff should be ILLEGAL. Apparently acting on urges like that can make you want to seek out the real thing. Yeah it's a drawing but the potential consequnces seemt too risky
It's normal if a 30-year-old is attracted to a fully-developed body on a 15-year-old girl. Obviously trying to holler at teens is not normal or okay, but teen girls at the beach or something can look indistinguishable to 20-somethings. Your brain seeing and liking a body that can produce offspring isn't inherently wrong.
There is no reason one should evolve to develop a sexual attraction toward a prepubescent child. It's a very serious misfiring somewhere (if that's what it is) as prepubescents aren't yet fertile. A child who hasn't gone through puberty is as clear a vulnerable child as one can be; we protect children, not fuck them.
I find it problematic that society conflates dude's who check out jailbait or something with pedophilia. They're both wrong, obviously, but we really need to keep this one "attraction" clearly defined because it's totally indefensible. Like Epstein actually wasn't a pedo as he liked teenagers, I think. That "MAP" shit cannot catch on, for the same reasons. A 17-year-old is a minor, but not prepubescent.
"Oh, he's just a minor-attracted person?" "Yeah, he's 19 and his GF is 17. I can't believe people thought they were so dangerous." And then lefties will be like, "I have 37 MAP's baby sitting my sons at LGB camp!" It's a purposeful conflation, I think.
I don't really like the lingering implication that you seem to hold about Christianity being this psychological warfare that breaks dykes into mindless breeding stock for inceloids
Yep. After having thought about it lots, it's simply too dangerous to ever normalize or let our foot off their necks. It's like the fucking drag queen weirdos and trannies around the kids. In no decent, normal society would we ever risk these freaks anywhere near children. The risk:reward is just so insanely out of wack that it's deeply irresponsible to ever risk it. All drag queens should be told to get the fuck away from the children immediately.
Similarly, all pedophiles need to seriously do the following:
Unless you know you're going to offend (or already have), just keep your perversion to yourself. Never tell anybody. Never offend. Never download CSAM. Never put yourself in situations around children. If you can't avoid it, chemically castrate yourself or put a bullet in your head. Sorry, pal.
Do not indulge in these fucking "virtuous" or "non-offending" pedo groups. It normalizes the shit you need to be murdered over. I'm pretty sure all of these groups just discussed offending and shared CSAM and shit, too. They cannot be allowed to organize or collaborate with one another. NAMBLA still exists and these people should be hanged, too.
We need a 24/7 pedo jail like there used to be in McNeil Island in WA state. Seeing them trying to normalize MAP shit is sickening, too. Our society has already laid the groundwork for accepting pedophilia, too. "When a child tells you who they are, fucking believe them!" Ok, so when "gender identity" turns into a different unfalsifiable mind state, but for age, what do we do? Ugh.
It's normal if a 30-year-old is attracted to a fully-developed body on a 15-year-old girl. Obviously trying to holler at teens is not normal or okay, but teen girls at the beach or something can look indistinguishable to 20-somethings. Your brain seeing and liking a body that can produce offspring isn't inherently wrong.
There is no reason one should evolve to develop a sexual attraction toward a prepubescent child. It's a very serious misfiring somewhere (if that's what it is) as prepubescents aren't yet fertile. A child who hasn't gone through puberty is as clear a vulnerable child as one can be; we protect children, not fuck them.
I find it problematic that society conflates dude's who check out jailbait or something with pedophilia. They're both wrong, obviously, but we really need to keep this one "attraction" clearly defined because it's totally indefensible. Like Epstein actually wasn't a pedo as he liked teenagers, I think. That "MAP" shit cannot catch on, for the same reasons. A 17-year-old is a minor, but not prepubescent.
"Oh, he's just a minor-attracted person?" "Yeah, he's 19 and his GF is 17. I can't believe people thought they were so dangerous." And then lefties will be like, "I have 37 MAP's baby sitting my sons at LGB camp!" It's a purposeful conflation, I think.
It's not wise to hyperfocus on the ins-and-outs of that kind of thing: that's how you plant a seed in your head.
They're into it because it's evil, which is a power thing: "No-one can stop me; I'm so great." That's just kinda where sex-for-its-own-sake goes if you let it. It's the same thing with bestiality and all that. Any rationalization is a smokescreen.
Sensitization (not desensitization, which is over-emphasized in these discussions) overcomes the conscience. The more a guy indulges himself, the riskier it is when some intrusive thought—or, as happens, direct recruitment attempt—comes along.
Even without the cycle of abuse, the gay world is famously self-indulgent. 1+1=2, really.
yes and no. I think if you are mature enough its ok and won't change you. It reminds me of alan watts / jordan peterson speaking of the underside of the fabric of society, and looking past the abyss respectively. Both analogies for looking at uncomfortable truths built in reality which CAN corrupt you, but if you are truly mature, you can accept them as part of being.
I do think being aware of this is necessary for true maturity, and also functions as a barometer for the immature.
Specifically, people who sense even a discussion (like this) even REMOTELY gets that direction and freak tf out like autistic spazes, which ive seen on kf as few times. That doesn't help, and that helps the establishment of underground "map" groups frankly, because it gives the monopoly of dialog to them.
Since I'm bringing up alan watts, please don't mind me posting a tune as well, inspired by alan watts.
"Well, no actual crime has occurred yet, hasn't it?" Nobody cared for abuse I went through as a child either. Part of me wonders if pedophilia is this odd everlasting hidden constant of the world. It's presented as a rare outlandish crime, but in reality, it's so widely accepted or at the very least tolerated in many forms. The world isn't safe for children.
"Well, no actual crime has occurred yet, hasn't it?" Nobody cared for abuse I went through as a child either. Part of me wonders if pedophilia is this odd everlasting hidden constant of the world. It's presented as a rare outlandish crime, but in reality, it's so widely accepted or at the very least tolerated in many forms. The world isn't safe for children.
Well, that would be a deeper physiological explanation, but it would still beg the same question: why would a woman produce less testosterone in later pregnancies if that decreases the fitness of her offspring? The fundamental question about selection pressures allowing this trait to proliferate still remains. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that producing too many heterosexual males caused issues at some point. It reminds me in a sense of big game hunting - the people who manage, for example, a rhino population will often tag an old male at the top of the hierarchy to be hunted, because otherwise he will fight and kill the younger males who challenge his position, which reduces an already fragile population.
In early hominids, who were developing larger brains and some sort of cerebral leadership abilities, the opposite problem could apply. Maintaining an older, experienced male leader might have survival benefits, and so pumping out men who wouldn't challenge him after a certain point would be adaptive, and constantly losing your leader and not having an experienced one could be maladaptive as brains became more important than brawn. Considering other ways that homosexual behavior develops this could have even darker, brutal implications that are best left in the shadows of our semi-animal history. Like, for example, a competent male leader frustrating the best challengers among his population and them then turning to sexually predate one another, creating a sort of prison gay effect and a subordinated sexual dominance hierarchy (you see this in orangutans as well).
A lot of people think that these tendencies would be shaped by things that happened relatively recently, but a few thousand years of human history are a drop in the bucket, and not long enough to ingrain these sorts of behavior. Many human instincts have deeper, older roots, and part of successful society is suppressing or otherwise managing them. I always saw old tales like Sodom & Gomorrah as cautionary references to how quickly a society can disintegrate if we decide to stop enforcing decent behavioral standards on a population, something that you also see in modern American prisons.
I don't think this accurately summarizes the quoted posts. I actually think it's hugely important to be able to clearly demarcate certain kinds of evils. Without a doubt, the pedos will be trying hard to convince the public that sexual attraction to kids is just an orientation like SSA. Being able to articulate why it isn't and can't ever be normalized is worthwhile, IMO.
Why does any perform worse in the future? It's not a coordinated, intelligent game plan with optimal strategy or single-minded goals. We don't always wind up with advantageous traits. Why do cicadas have a brood of 67764568947894748785 instead of just a few chads? Maybe the gay kids keep predatory men happy who would otherwise kill the chad son? Who knows.
It's actually not less testosterone. I misremembered:
The Leading Theory: The Maternal Immune Hypothesis. The predominant scientific explanation for the FBOE is not about testosterone production but about a maternal immune response. The theory, proposed by Dr. Ray Blanchard, posits the following:
A male fetus produces proteins specific to the Y-chromosome that a female’s body does not.
During pregnancy or childbirth, some of these male-specific proteins can enter the mother's bloodstream. Her immune system may recognize them as foreign and create antibodies against them.
With each successive male pregnancy, this immune response can become stronger.
In subsequent pregnancies, these maternal antibodies may cross the placental barrier and influence the brain development of the male fetus, specifically in regions related to sexual orientation.
Evidence: This isn't just a theory; there is concrete biological evidence. A 2017 study in PNAS found that mothers of gay sons, particularly those with older brothers, had significantly higher levels of antibodies to a Y-linked protein called NLGN4Y than mothers of heterosexual sons.
Conclusion: The original commenter who suggested a physiological cause ("less testosterone") was closer to the scientific consensus than the author of the response. The mechanism is understood to be biological and developmental, not a calculated evolutionary strategy. While the ultimate evolutionary reason is still debated, any credible theory must align with this immunological evidence, which the author's hypothesis does not.
Look how they turned out. I get what you're saying about confronting uncomfortable realities, but I don't think that means we should follow the Boomer King and GigaGoy Prime and "integrate our shadows" or whatever (not that that's your point).
My point is that "confronting uncomfortable realities" means knowing enough to recognize the spirit of it rather than developing an encyclopedic knowledge of every e621 tag (again, not that that's necessarily what you're saying). The one thing I agree with Foucault on is that a lot of conversations about deviant sexuality—whether for or against—are de-facto mechanisms to multiply discourses on sexuality. He thought that this came from an emptiness in the Western spirit that was trying to fill itself with a "Scientia Sexualis": essentially a sort of complete sexual-religious paradigm of the kind he saw in some Eastern traditions.
Personally I'm not interested in helping Foucault posthumously complete his project of incarnating his paedo-sadistic antichrist porno-theology, but maybe that's just me.
I actually think it's hugely important to be able to clearly demarcate certain kinds of evils. Without a doubt, the pedos will be trying hard to convince the public that sexual attraction to kids is just an orientation like SSA. Being able to articulate why it isn't and can't ever be normalized is worthwhile, IMO.
Yeah, but do you think people support child transitions because they can't intuit the arguments against it? They're just not capable of that—all of those literate, educated people? They don't want to understand. Nobody needs a scientific explanation for why they shouldn't rape toddlers.
The purpose of trumped-up caveman stories is to give bystanders an excuse to turn a blind eye; you can't use caveman stories of your own to convince those same people not to turn a blind eye. It doesn't work both ways: you're trying to use a defensive rhetorical tool offensively. It's a cloak, not a dagger—you can't stab with it.
What gay guy ever heard an anti-gay evolutionary argument and went, "Oh man, I forgot... evolution... oh man I feel so stupid—f-forgive me, Darwin-sensei! No more gay sex—it's not what the big bang and the primordial ooze would've wanted! I'm your strongest soldier, Charles Darwin! You can count on me, Chuck!"
Like, what are we talking about here?
If people are dumb or willfully blind enough to think that whether or not child rape is ok comes down to some NGO or institution publishing a paper on what the council of bigfoots decided a bajillion years ago, then it's already over. That means they're totally relativized, with no immutable internal understanding of the human being—only whatever "new revelation" they're fed externally by technocrat "experts" scrying the bones of animals and savages.
You don't fight a shark in it's own tank; you climb out and break the glass.
Edit: I'm not sure why this whole post came out angry-sounding. Sorry 'bout that.
I always found it a bit baffling why atheists/materialists, particularly those who talk nonstop about evolution and Charles Darwin in order to own the fundies, try to defend homosexuality or transgenderism or even worse things even though there's not a single instance where it could possibly be advantageous to any individual, or the species as a whole, they actually twist themselves into knots in order to argue to the contrary.
Your post explained the reasons why so perfectly. They don't want a scientific or materialistic explanation for why they're wrong, because many of them (the best example being Alfred Kinsey, or anyone we talk about in the Tranny Biology or the Scientific Studies threads) are already perfectly willing to make an utter mockery of the scientific method in order to justify depravity.
That a lot of them were perfectly willing to swallow superstitious beliefs like transgenderism should have tipped anyone off to that.
Nobody cared for abuse I went through as a child either. Part of me wonders if pedophilia is this odd everlasting hidden constant of the world. It's presented as a rare outlandish crime, but in reality, it's so widely accepted or at the very least tolerated in many forms. The world isn't safe for children.
