Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Adult attractions and Childhood attractions

  1. #1 Adult attractions and Childhood attractions 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    As an adult I am attracted to women (obviously) but this is different to when I was a child and was attracted to other girls. What is this phenomena? I can be attracted to someone my age now, but there are some young girls about 10 I know and I am attracted to them but not like I'm attracted to those my age, I'm attracted to them in the same way I would be when I was 10. I don't think this has anything to do with -you know-I'm not one of those. I have no sexual attractions to anyone that age or anywhere near it. I was just wondering why I still am attracted to some young girls the same way I was when I was a child compared to the attraction I have to adult girls. Please don't think I'm one of those-I'm not. As I keep saying I'm not one of those horrible sick people. Is it an evolutionary effect as a male to protect females? And that attraction is to ensure I care about those I need to protect?

    I can't say enough that I'm not that way (I'm not going to say the word because it makes me sick just thinking about it). Thanks for being understanding.

    One final note, this effect I have seems to stop at 9, any girl younger just halts, they do not have this effect-I have a strong desire to protect them from harm. Its wierd.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Males are in general attracted to young females, because they are healthier, stronger, and have a long reproductive lifetime ahead of them. 10 year olds are not sexually mature but you can probably appreciate them for what is likely to be their future reproductive value.


    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Males are in general attracted to young females, because they are healthier, stronger, and have a long reproductive lifetime ahead of them. 10 year olds are not sexually mature but you can probably appreciate them for what is likely to be their future reproductive value.
    Oh thank goodness for that. Thanks paralith! :-D
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    In what way do you mean you're attracted to these ten year olds?

    To be sure, I understand that you're saying the attraction is not sexual. Do you mean you're simply aware of whether a kid is good looking or not?

    You said that you're attracted in the same way you were attracted when you were 10: which was before you were sexually mature. As far as I remember of being that age, there was only an awareness that one girl was better looking than another, with no sexual connotations to it.

    If that's the case, I don't think there's anything weird about that. I can tell a pretty cat from a mangy looking cat. Doesn't mean I want to diddle cats.

    Maybe some protective instinct would kick in, since, as paralith said... she has future reproductive value. It would be to your benefit to protect her, since she has good genetics.

    If you were living like our lovely caveman ancestors, a lot of children wouldn't survive: so you'd naturally give more care to the children likely to make it (good looking child = healthy child = more likely to survive). Ensures the continuation of the tribe.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    In what way do you mean you're attracted to these ten year olds?

    To be sure, I understand that you're saying the attraction is not sexual. Do you mean you're simply aware of whether a kid is good looking or not?

    You said that you're attracted in the same way you were attracted when you were 10: which was before you were sexually mature. As far as I remember of being that age, there was only an awareness that one girl was better looking than another, with no sexual connotations to it.

    If that's the case, I don't think there's anything weird about that. I can tell a pretty cat from a mangy looking cat. Doesn't mean I want to diddle cats.

    Maybe some protective instinct would kick in, since, as paralith said... she has future reproductive value. It would be to your benefit to protect her, since she has good genetics.

    If you were living like our lovely cavemen ancestors, a lot of children wouldn't survive: so you'd naturally give more care to the children likely to make it (good looking child = healthy child = more likely to survive). Ensures the continuation of the tribe.
    Your right. I am wondering though. If this effect is common in natural people, is it that the people who are, you know opposite to what they naturally should feel? Could it be a pysiological disorder in that these scenarios are reversed? And they as a result become the scum of the Earth?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Your right. I am wondering though. If this effect is common in natural people, is it that the people who are, you know opposite to what they naturally should feel? Could it be a pysiological disorder in that these scenarios are reversed? And they as a result become the scum of the Earth?
    Well, this is interesting. Being a Christian, you've obviously read your bible and you're aware that in biblical times, girls were married off at around 12 years old.

    Mohammed is alleged to have married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage at 9. (I'd be interested to know whether females became sexually mature earlier then)

    I don't know about prior to that. But if that was normal for early human societies, then it could be natural to be sexually attracted to children?

    I'd like to think, though, that man has evolved and society has evolved (at least, in some aspects) with it.

    Knowing several women who were molested, I wouldn't put up an argument for the poor guy, slave to his primal mind, or genetics, whatever. They know exactly what they're doing and they get a sadistic kick out of scarring kids for life.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Your right. I am wondering though. If this effect is common in natural people, is it that the people who are, you know opposite to what they naturally should feel? Could it be a pysiological disorder in that these scenarios are reversed? And they as a result become the scum of the Earth?
    Well, this is interesting. Being a Christian, you've obviously read your bible and you're aware that in biblical times, girls were married off at around 12 years old.

    Mohammed is alleged to have married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage at 9. (I'd be interested to know whether females became sexually mature earlier then)

    I don't know about prior to that. But if that was normal for early human societies, then it could be natural to be sexually attracted to children?

    I'd like to think, though, that man has evolved and society has evolved (at least, in some aspects) with it.

    Knowing several women who were molested, I wouldn't put up an argument for the poor guy, slave to his primal mind, or genetics, whatever. They know exactly what they're doing and they get a sadistic kick out of scarring kids for life.
    They are evil bastards no doubt.

    As I keep saying I am not sexually attracted to any girl below 18. Even then if I get older and older I think sexual attraction will decrease for even young legal women. Its just the way I am. I am Christian but when I say this I mean it, unless all the evil people who do those evil things you know what I'm talking about, change their ways, then I wish they would be wiped off the face of the Earth-evil scum.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Yes, no-one's calling you a dirty old (young?) bastard.

    We've established that you're not sexually attracted to children. I'm talking about man, as a species. If we took into account the sexual proclivities of our ancestors, we could probably make a case that having sex with 12 year olds is normal.

    But A) Would we want to? and B) Because it was OK then, does that necessarily mean that it's ok now? Why not? Is it something to do with increased intelligence? Is it morality? Is it conditioning by society?

    If so, why are we not sexually attracted to twelve year olds now? Is morality and societal conditioning so powerful that it can override sexual desire on a reproductive animal? Simply: Why do men no longer feel sexually attracted to twelve year olds, when previously it was all the rage?
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Adult attractions and Childhood attractions 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    As an adult I am attracted to women (obviously) but this is different to when I was a child and was attracted to other girls. What is this phenomena? I can be attracted to someone my age now, but there are some young girls about 10 I know and I am attracted to them but not like I'm attracted to those my age, I'm attracted to them in the same way I would be when I was 10.
    This problem is perfectly explainable. It's normally due to long term memory. If your memory is accurate and vivid of those years while you were experiencing attraction, these feelings don't die until the memory does. For this same reason I retain emotional feelings for, unfortunately, every relationship I've been in (very annoying).

    Similarly, I believe I can explain some "pedophiles". If they've had sex at a young age, they're normally going to remain sexually attracted to that age throughout life. If the experience was good. These types are usually like normal people, and simply don't act on their urges but accept (or deny) they exist.

    The SAME explanation can also apply to "Ephebophilia". Attraction to adolescents. Most of us lose our virginity in our teen years. Simply seeing a person that age can revive similar memories.

    Finally, I think I should burst a common bubble, not all pedophiles are the evil rapists you see on the news. I believe a good majority of them are actually quite benign with their attraction, and never act upon it. Similar to murder impulses or violence ones. There's no evidence that suggests everyone that has that attraction are rapists/murderers/etc.

    Because the label "pedophile" has been bastardized to extremes, many people don't go to therapy to discuss their feelings for fear of being wrongly judged. This is a fact I do not like, and not only applies to pedophiles but a variety of other illegal kinks and illegal-oriented thoughts/feelings.


    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Males are in general attracted to young females, because they are healthier, stronger, and have a long reproductive lifetime ahead of them. 10 year olds are not sexually mature but you can probably appreciate them for what is likely to be their future reproductive value.
    Also this. I must applaud paralith on an acute observation. I thought I'd provide a lesser-probable answer to supplement it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Adult attractions and Childhood attractions 
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    If they've had sex at a young age, they're normally going to remain sexually attracted to that age throughout life. If the experience was good...
    I lost my virginity to a rather older woman (I was a teen, she was early 20s). Aaah yes. There but for the grace of god went I. That would explain why I've always had a great passion for blondes in their early 20s. Huh. Thanks, you're my hero for the day.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Your point is very interesting, Jeremy, and not one I would have thought of. Definitely a good addition to the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    If we took into account the sexual proclivities of our ancestors, we could probably make a case that having sex with 12 year olds is normal.
    It's also important to remember that early humans didn't live for nearly as long as we do. Hitting 40 was a ripe old age and you were lucky to get there. You're going to want to maximize your reproductive output as well as you can, and it those days it meant starting as soon as a female was physically able to bear offspring. In natural fertility populations, women start bearing children as soon as they are able, and continue to do so for the rest of their lives until they can't anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    But A) Would we want to? and B) Because it was OK then, does that necessarily mean that it's ok now? Why not? Is it something to do with increased intelligence? Is it morality? Is it conditioning by society?

    If so, why are we not sexually attracted to twelve year olds now? Is morality and societal conditioning so powerful that it can override sexual desire on a reproductive animal? Simply: Why do men no longer feel sexually attracted to twelve year olds, when previously it was all the rage?
    There is some evidence to suggest that women today reach sexual puberty earlier than would have been typical for early humans. Bearing offspring is a resource expensive process, and women in industrial countries get far more calories and nutrients than a hunter gatherer girl would. Modern women, then, have achieved optimum growth during childhood, and are well equipped to begin reproduction at a relatively early age. I'm not 100% sure about the support for this theory, but I think it's a valid hypothesis at least. Additionally, if you live longer and can afford to wait, it might be beneficial to let a young girl grow and gain more strength before giving birth to her first child, reducing the risk that she may die in her first childbirth.

    As to whether or not it is "ok" to have sex with 12 year olds in this day and age, whether or not we did it in the past should not have an effect on that judgment. There's a saying that human behavioral ecologists often need to emphasize at one point or another during their career: Is does not equal ought. Just because a certain behavior is or was done in nature doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done according to human moral standards. Nature shouldn't be a guiding rule for morality, because many of the things done commonly in nature are most certainly not acceptable in modern society - such as infanticide, which is even carried out by our closest extant relatives, the chimpanzees.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    There is some evidence to suggest that women today reach sexual puberty earlier than would have been typical for early humans. Bearing offspring is a resource expensive process, and women in industrial countries get far more calories and nutrients than a hunter gatherer girl would. Modern women, then, have achieved optimum growth during childhood, and are well equipped to begin reproduction at a relatively early age.
    I disagree here. If you care to look up the "paleolithic diet", you'll find a list of foods we ate back then. And compare them to what we eat today. Most of us eat foods that are harmful to our bodies, and in a heavy amount. This is paralleled on our children. Another problem is that our children DO NOT get enough exercise, while children in prehistoric times most definitely did.

    All in all, I'm of the opinion that not only are our socially-engineered parenting methods inferior, but our growth is also inferior. Earlier puberty has other speculated reasons, ranging from the introduction of hormones from processed foods to genetics. Others believe we've always hit puberty around present age. I don't know about the latter.

    Another thing to mention, is that I also doubt prehistoric peoples had sex with many children. Average breeding age should have been at LEAST 14. And if younger, probably with similar younger males. Reproductive organs of young girls are quite small, after all.

    As to whether or not it is "ok" to have sex with 12 year olds in this day and age, whether or not we did it in the past should not have an effect on that judgment.
    More psychology here. When properly raised, people have a very well functioning decision making capability by age 13 or 14. It's mostly developed by age 16, and goes into further refinement through 17-20. Scientifically, the age of majority should be at least 13.

    What's even more interesting is the fact some children develop a good decision making ability early. Around age 10-12. Should they be denied the choice of sex or not based upon some generalized law? Morally, obviously not.

    Our laws are very..."clear cut" on these matters. To the point of pure fallacy. Reducing age limits not only reveals PARENTING FLAWS, but also allows those properly raised to exist with full freedoms. Much like denying anyone under the age of 18 the right to play "M" rated games (Hint: I have. A lot.).

    Problems arising from loosening these ridiculous age limits are the result of how we're raising our children. Nothing more. Our laws are literally covering up the blatant flaws in the majority. Morality has nothing to do with it. If it's consensual, I'm not opposed.

    There's a saying that human behavioral ecologists often need to emphasize at one point or another during their career: Is does not equal ought. Just because a certain behavior is or was done in nature doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done according to human moral standards.
    Moral standards. Moral standards are kind of a funny thing. As I said above, if it's consensual I'm not opposed. How can morals be opposed if a 12 year old rationally consents to sex with an older male?

    Nature shouldn't be a guiding rule for morality, because many of the things done commonly in nature are most certainly not acceptable in modern society - such as infanticide, which is even carried out by our closest extant relatives, the chimpanzees.
    Different moral issue altogether. We have abortion. I'm pro-choice due to overpopulation. If populations were, say, around the millions then it would be ethically wrong to abort a child. But bringing a screaming brat into an already fucked up world is not something ethical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    ...into an already fucked up world is not something ethical.
    Quite. Jesus even said that reference the end times.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I disagree here. If you care to look up the "paleolithic diet", you'll find a list of foods we ate back then. And compare them to what we eat today. Most of us eat foods that are harmful to our bodies, and in a heavy amount. This is paralleled on our children. Another problem is that our children DO NOT get enough exercise, while children in prehistoric times most definitely did.
    But when it comes to pure calories, a modern diet most certainly trumps a paleolithic one. And a large limiting factor of pregnancy and lactation is simply having enough calories to do feed that growing child. It makes a big difference in growth, too; this is largely why upper class people in Victorian Britain tended to be taller than lower class people, and why a lot of stereotypically short Asians can grow much taller on an American diet of meat and potatoes than they normally do on a diet that mostly consists of rice. You can of course argue about nutrients and possible detrimental effects, but pure calorie input makes a big difference to growth in general.

    More psychology here. When properly raised, people have a very well functioning decision making capability by age 13 or 14. It's mostly developed by age 16, and goes into further refinement through 17-20. Scientifically, the age of majority should be at least 13.

    What's even more interesting is the fact some children develop a good decision making ability early. Around age 10-12. Should they be denied the choice of sex or not based upon some generalized law? Morally, obviously not.

    Our laws are very..."clear cut" on these matters. To the point of pure fallacy. Reducing age limits not only reveals PARENTING FLAWS, but also allows those properly raised to exist with full freedoms. Much like denying anyone under the age of 18 the right to play "M" rated games (Hint: I have. A lot.).

    Problems arising from loosening these ridiculous age limits are the result of how we're raising our children. Nothing more. Our laws are literally covering up the blatant flaws in the majority. Morality has nothing to do with it. If it's consensual, I'm not opposed.

    ...

    Moral standards. Moral standards are kind of a funny thing. As I said above, if it's consensual I'm not opposed. How can morals be opposed if a 12 year old rationally consents to sex with an older male?

    ...

    Different moral issue altogether. We have abortion. I'm pro-choice due to overpopulation. If populations were, say, around the millions then it would be ethically wrong to abort a child. But bringing a screaming brat into an already fucked up world is not something ethical.
    I never said what I think the moral stance on any of these matters should be (except for infanticide, which in animals occurs after the healthy birth of the infant, and usually in a very violent manner), only that natural patterns shouldn't necessarily be emulated when it comes to deciding moral rules.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I never said what I think the moral stance on any of these matters should be (except for infanticide, which in animals occurs after the healthy birth of the infant, and usually in a very violent manner), only that natural patterns shouldn't necessarily be emulated when it comes to deciding moral rules.
    I know, but I thought I'd provide a critique on the issue. You don't mind, do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I never said what I think the moral stance on any of these matters should be (except for infanticide, which in animals occurs after the healthy birth of the infant, and usually in a very violent manner), only that natural patterns shouldn't necessarily be emulated when it comes to deciding moral rules.
    I know, but I thought I'd provide a critique on the issue. You don't mind, do you?
    No. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I said something that I didn't. That's all.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •