An Attraction To Underage Girls/boys

Ethics
21

I don’t know about anyone else but due to the effects of makeup, dress, posture, hormones fed to cattle, and personal genetics, I can’t consistently tell the difference between a girl of 14 and 22. Are men physically to young, yet reproductively mature, healthy females of the same species? I certainly hope so. If a 22 year old guy see’s a 14 year old girl lookin every bit of 22, he ought to be attracted to her(if he’s straight that is). If he decides to pursue a relationship with her after gaining the knowledge of her age, then it is another (context dependent)story.

The arbitrary nature of age discrimination has always bothered me. It seems like there should be a more precise way to determine at what age(s) rights should be granted. I have always thought that a better way to decide when to make people legal for things was whatever age I happened to be at that time. :rolleyes: When I was 10, I thought 10 was a good age of majority, when I was 25, I thought 25 was better. Now that I’m 30 I think 35 would be a good age of legality. Seriously though, in some regards, 18 seems to old, in other cases 35 seems to young.

On the one hand, people tend to behave as they are expected to. If you treat 12 year olds like men(as in older societies), they act like them. If you treat 27 year olds like children they do the same. By making 18 a point in time that determines maturity it seems to decrease the likelihood that people will take responsibility for their own lives prior to that point. Which means they’ll have no practice at it.

On the other, it takes a certain amount of time and experiences to grow to the point that you can have a reasonable expection of making good decisions for yourself whether it is choosing a career or getting married. For most people that point of self knowledge seems to land around 25. Whenever I hear about an 18 year old getting married I shudder a little. It might work out for the best but usually it’s just a crap shoot.

I think that this might be a justification for various levels of maturity markers, but i am not sure. To me, 16 seems to old for driving,18 is to young for marriage and armed service, 21 is to old for alcohol(especial with armed service at 18), 35 is to young to be the president. If I was picking the numbers I think I would favor 14 to drive, 16 for sex and alcohol, 21 for armed service, 25 for marriage, and 45 for presidency.

Anyone else dissatisfied with our current numbers? I’d like to here what you think they should be and why.

22

I agree, especially considering that, increasingly, it seems that children are becoming more physically mature at younger ages (just from personal observation, though I haven’t read any real studies exploring this alleged phenomenon).

I remember reading a news article about this in Time Magazine 3-4 years ago; studies have shown that good nutrition and a high-stress environment correlate to early sexual maturity for females . . . some beginning their menses as early as 7 years old, although that’s extremely rare, even freakish.

I would like to comment, once again, that evolutionary psychology is bogus. In a species where wanting to eat* is not automatic, we’re supposed to accept that something as immensely complicated as our sexuality is programmed by evolution? In the vernacular, are you inhaling a concentrated narcotic? Desire is not a purely physical proposition for ANY human being.

Now, personally I wouldn’t blame you for finding the women your own age undesirable and focussing your attentions elsewhere. A lot of adult women are no prize, myself included. There’s something becoming about innocence when maturity all too often means a woman is steeped in grasping evil.

*One of my cousins had to be fed through a catheter until she was about 18 months due to a digestive problem, and it took some considerable effort to get her used to eating food afterwards; she didn’t associate the food with satisfaction of hunger.

23

Now, personally I wouldn’t blame you for finding the women your own age undesirable and focussing your attentions elsewhere. […] There’s something becoming about innocence when maturity all too often means a woman is steeped in grasping evil.

Ah, you’re suggesting that underaged girls might actually be sometimes more psychologically attractive, because they’re less jaded? That’s an interesting hypothesis that might have some merit.

I wonder how many grown women are jaded in part because they were taken advantage of by lots of licentious adults when they were underaged?

I once got into an argument with a person flatly endorsing sex with children who demanded factual evidence.

Oh, you’re talking about one of those goddamn MANBLA Libertarians? ::YUCK:: Well, my mom’s a psychologist, and she’s got tons of literature on that kind of stuff, psychological damage from sexual abuse etc. I’ll try and put some legitimate stuff together for you.

24

If the guys on the TV “predator” shows are reliable samples, I think there’s often an element of psychological uncertainity that causes some (mostly men, but then there are these women teachers we keep reading about) to shy away from their peer age-group and look for “easier” targets.

25

I would like to comment, once again, that evolutionary psychology is bogus. In a species where wanting to eat* is not automatic, we’re supposed to accept that something as immensely complicated as our sexuality is programmed by evolution? In the vernacular, are you inhaling a concentrated narcotic? Desire is not a purely physical proposition for ANY human being.

Evolutionary psychology is extremely useful for explaining some, but not all, human behaviors using ultimate or distal explanations. Why, for instance, do women prefer more effeminate faces where there is less pathogen stress and more masculine faces where there is greater pathogen stress? Why do the clothes people wear (for instance, a Burger King uniform verses a business-suit) have a greater effect on how women rate a potential mate’s attractivness than men? Is fluctuating asymmetry (FA) an indicator of mate quality? Some studies suggest it is.

I think these are interesting questions and I was rather skeptical at first as well. While evolutionary psychology cannot be applied to individual cases, I do believe it may be helpful in explaining overall trends. Also, some of the founders of the social evolution movement (like Trivers) are well-known Leftist scientists and one has to be aware of this.

The Mukogodo of Kenya tend to treat their daughters with better care and love than their sons. Using evolutionary psychology we provide possible explanations to why this is true. I won’t go through the whole study, but the conclusion was that parents value daughters more so they may have a chance to marry into higher classes between the tribes in Kenya.

There is also the theory of reciprocal altruism which is very interesting, studies on male aggression with genetic and adopted children, sperm competition and Kipsigis’ bride wealths.

26

I think these are interesting questions and I was rather skeptical at first as well. While evolutionary psychology cannot be applied to individual cases, I do believe it may be helpful in explaining overall trends. Also, some of the founders of the social evolution movement (like Trivers) are well-known Leftist scientists and one has to be aware of this.

So the overall mass of humanity operates under different rules from the individuals that make it up? And what is meant by “explain”? God “explains” the existence of the universe, but that doesn’t make it true. It’s quite possibly true that most people absorb their sexuality sponge-like, without thinking about it, so there are identifiable general trends. I do not think that women (or men) are genetically determined by evolutionary necessity to like specific traits, however . . . if we were, there wouldn’t be so much variation in the population.

27

If men and women are not genetically determined to like certain traits, aren’t they at least genetically determined to like members of the opposite sex (in most cases)?

Of course, it seems strange to think that genetics would determine an individual man to like tall women, with a large bust, blonde hair and blue eyes and tanned skin, for example, doesn’t it seem reasonable to think that basic attributes of attractiveness are partially caused by genetics?

For instance, people generally find people’s faces most attractive when they are closest to “normal” in terms of symmetry, proportion, etc. Assymetry is less attractive, for instance.

When you look at cases on the individual level, the effect of such genetic programming might be overpowered by individual variations and preferences in sexual partners. But on the macro level the aggregate effect of these preferences can be better seen.

28

So the overall mass of humanity operates under different rules from the individuals that make it up? And what is meant by “explain”? God “explains” the existence of the universe, but that doesn’t make it true. It’s quite possibly true that most people absorb their sexuality sponge-like, without thinking about it, so there are identifiable general trends.

I never claimed that we are determined by our genes to a particular fate as some radical evolutionary psychologists would claim.

But it’s clear that natural selection and evolutionary factors lead to what man and other animals are today. It has been evolutionary scientists that have Marxist inclinations (like Robert Trivers, a former Black Panther) that have pionnered discoveries in parental investment and reciprocal altruism that have been found in humans and lower/higher animals. Do we dismiss these findings out of hand because they come into conflict with our philosophical beliefs? No. We challenge them and be critical because the more critical we are the more truth we will find.

Why would questioning fluxuating asymmetry’s effect on mating violate the sanctity of the individual? Racehorses that are more symmetrical tend to run faster (it’s been empircally proven), but the most symmetrical horse may be the slowest of them all. How is this study an offense to those that pride individualism? It merely provides a possible explanation that more symmetrical horses have had more offspring and throughout hundreds and thousands of generations we have the horse we have today. Yes, that one horse that runs slow has the potential to stud hundreds of horses and that would be something that is interesting to study.

A Canadian study found that step-fathers are 40x more likely to murder a cohabitant newborn (less than one year old living in the same house) than a biological father would. Does this mean that all individual step-fathers are murderers and should be treated as such? No. Does this mean that we may find and develop a theory to why this occurs? Sure. We can and evolutionary psychologists use their theory of parental investment to give their explanation of what is going on in these households.

I do not think that women (or men) are genetically determined by evolutionary necessity to like specific traits, however . . . if we were, there wouldn’t be so much variation in the population.

There has been volumes of data and studies dedicated to this topic. Sure there are differences between men and women and anyone who says no has not been observant of human nature.

29

[Edit- I got so sidetracked on this topic of genetics that I forgot all about the context of the thread. This might actually belong in a different thread.]

I do not think that women (or men) are genetically determined by evolutionary necessity to like specific traits, however . . . if we were, there wouldn’t be so much variation in the population.

You might check your premises, here. There is much variation in the population. But there is also much variation in the genetic makeup of the individuals that make up the population.

Of course, we have to be careful in naming what kind of “traits” might be effected by genetics. But one might point to studies of identical twins, separated at birth, and note the drastic similarities in the mates they choose. I’ve heard of studies that suggest that even the names of spouses in these twins has a high correlation.

I don’t see that as a threat to volition though-- there’s no reason why a person couldn’t choose otherwise. Especially an informed person (hence, identical twins who were not separated at birth don’t usually choose mates of the same name, etc). But genes studies in humans, I think, can legitimately explain certain tendencies, or potentialities that are latent in a person; even if only subconsciously. I reject out of hand any suggestions that there are ideological genes, such as an “altruist gene” or an “Objectivist gene.” But I’d say the evidence is pretty much conclusive that biology plays a role in sexual orientation, at least, if not more detailed “traits” (physical traits) that a person will come to find attractive.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that a person’s environment plays a role in this, too. People can be, to an extent, impressionable.

But I’d say, still, volition plays a central role. Volition can override other factors, social or biological. I’d say these “trends” are something a person will “fall back on,” if they haven’t “focused” or reasoned out their decision, volitionally. But volition has its limits, too. The best evidence seems to suggest that people cannot change their sexual orientation at will, for example. I would say there is enough positive evidence to say that it is at least possible that the power of genetics to influence what a person finds sexually attractive extends beyond gender alone. Again, not, perhaps, to the point of overriding a person’s values. But maybe at a certain point it becomes analogous to, for example-- those who naturally like the taste of an alcoholic beverage the first time they drink it, and those for whom it is an acquired taste. They have to motivate themselves to “give it a chance” until their body “learns” to like it. Is it possible that the traits a person finds physically attractive are similar? Might a person have a genetic makeup so that he tends to be attracted to tall, brunette women, lets say, but meet a petite blond that so matches his values that he is able to fall in love (“acquire a taste”) and be totally satisfied with her?

This isn’t something I’ve studied in depth. I’m just kind of floating these hypothises out there. Would this type of idea conflict with volition in any way? (And if so, how?)

30

A Canadian study found that step-fathers are 40x more likely to murder a cohabitant newborn (less than one year old living in the same house) than a biological father would. Does this mean that all individual step-fathers are murderers and should be treated as such? No. Does this mean that we may find and develop a theory to why this occurs? Sure. We can and evolutionary psychologists use their theory of parental investment to give their explanation of what is going on in these households.

It seems rather obvious to me why this would be so, apart from any genetic influence. Isn’t it likely that there is also a high coorelation in mothers who are impregnated, break with the father, get involved in a new relationship, and marry the new guy less than a year after the baby is born-- and in women who rush into lousy relationships with the wrong kinda guy (ie, the type that might murder their newborn)?

If genetics play into this at all, I would say it’s more likely that there is a possible biologically derived impulse for pregnant women to find a new guy as quickly as possible, regardless of his qualifications for the job; than that guys have a gene compelling them to murder their stepchildren. I know that it’s the woman’s seed that’s getting killed off and not the man’s. But over the course of centuries, it seems that such an impulse in women would be more beneficial than the hypothesized impulse in men. Besides which-- how many women will go on to have more kids with a guy who’s murdered her child? Reason’s got to take back over at some point, in the equation!

31

and in women who rush into lousy relationships with the wrong kinda guy (ie, the type that might murder their newborn)?

Yes, thank you. Correlation does not equal causation and there really hasn’t been a strong argument as to why evolutionary psych isn’t total horse hockey.

32

Being a fifteen year old myself, I think I may have an interesting contribution to this thread. I have experienced both attraction to women that are far younger and far older than I. In fact recently I have been either dating down or up. The reason I see that I have been attracted to these groups are completely opposite. I vastly enjoy the company of a younger women for the reason that they are innocent, and the older ones because they are jaded.

I generally advise my friends that are girls and my age to stay away from significantly older men for the reason that a girl is usually more willing to do what an older man wants regardless of their pre-disposition.

For instance, people generally find people’s faces most attractive when they are closest to “normal” in terms of symmetry, proportion, etc. Assymetry is less attractive, for instance.

My theory would be that this is a pred v. prey instinct. When attacking a group (the female gender as a whole) a predator would be most likely to attack the prey that is different and noticeably deformed/inferior. That is, of course, to attack. As for attraction one would be repelled by this.

Of course, it seems strange to think that genetics would determine an individual man to like tall women, with a large bust, blonde hair and blue eyes and tanned skin, for example, doesn’t it seem reasonable to think that basic attributes of attractiveness are partially caused by genetics?

As for this it would be the inverse of the previous scenario. A predator would be more inclined to stay away from the prey that seems more physically able to defend him/herself. Height and a large bust would contribute to the instinctive perception of genetic superiority. Tanned skin may imply that they are more adapted to the environment (sun) and would be more fit. So being the inverse of a predator (not in their means but in their ends) a human would be more attracted to this type of person as a mate.

33

Yes, thank you. Correlation does not equal causation and there really hasn’t been a strong argument as to why evolutionary psych isn’t total horse hockey.

We’ve gotten totally off the subject, but I guess natural selection has no effect on the people we are today according to some on this forum. While evolutionary psychology may not provide all the correct answers (and also comes into conflict with the philosophic underpinnings of this forum and Objectivism), to simply address the science out of hand is not scholarly nor prudent.

I had the same suspicions myself when studying the subject and yes, there are many deficiencies in the study because E.P. scholars try to create correlations where no correlation exists simply for their agenda. Some seemed very silly, like a study where mate quality was linked to dancing ability. However, to claim that any and all research in the area is tripe is not advisable either.

34

I think the current statutory rape laws are absurd. I agree with whoever said “Consent is consent is consent.” You have to take biology into some account. Obviously, when a person reaches puberty they are physically capable of conceiving children, so it is natural to be attracted to adolescents. If some are not “mature” enough for sex, I think that is largely a societal issue, not really a moral or ethical one. I know if an attractive teacher had pursued me when I was 14 or 15, hell, even when I was 12, I would have been ecstatic.

I have a slightly different question. Do you think pre-pubescent children should be allowed to sexually explore each other? On a personal level, I remember becoming interested in my own body and the bodies of girls my age from as early as 5, 6, or 7 years old. On more than one occasion a female friend and I would take each other’s clothes off and explore each other. We were both raised Christian, and she became convinced at some point that what we were doing was the work of the devil, told our parents, and our parents scolded us and told us what we were doing was wrong. So that rather enjoyable activity was henceforth denied me until a much later age. I think if there was any psychological trauma to be had, it was from the absurd Christian upbringing and the subsequent scolding. The play itself was pleasurable, and I didn’t think it seemed wrong in any way. I guess I was not so easily indoctrinated as my playmate, even at that young age :smiley:

35

Which begs the question, is sexual activity at a young age scarring to that person merely because they have been indoctrinated into the belief that it is supposed to be/is wrong?

36

However, to claim that any and all research in the area is tripe is not advisable either.

I’m calling it tripe because that’s all I’ve seen out of that field. If you have any non-tripe to share, then by all means proceed. I’m not dismissing it out of hand; I’m dismissing it because I’ve yet to see anything of quality.

37

Oh, you’re talking about one of those goddamn MANBLA Libertarians? ::YUCK:: Well, my mom’s a psychologist, and she’s got tons of literature on that kind of stuff, psychological damage from sexual abuse etc. I’ll try and put some legitimate stuff together for you.

Okay, well, Mom’s promised me to give me some links to good articles and studies showing proof of the psychological damage done to children who are victims of sexual abuse from adults.

But in the mean time, I’ll relay the brief synopsis of why, she claims, it is damaging. At least, to the best of my understanding, being as I’m not a psychologist.

She said it is believed to be connected to the child’s developing notion of “self.” Cognitively, children under a certain age have not learned to fully differentiate between themselves and the outside world, or other people. An infant is astonished when he realizes that he can control his own fingers and toes, but he can not control his crib, his pillow, a wall, or other objects in the same way-- he can hit them and move them, maybe if they’re small enough, but he can’t make them move with his mind. The subsequent development of ego, and of personal boundaries, can be seen as a sort of continuation of this process.

When an adult attempts to initiate sexual acts with a child, he is essentially intruding the child’s personal space, and therefore the child’s fragile, immerging sense of self. What the research demonstrates is that these kids-- whether they are actually raped, or experience much milder forms of molestation-- tend to express in various ways that they have experienced a sense of being violated. Throughout their lives, these kids tend to have problems with identity and personal boundary issues.

On top of that, since sexual acts with children are illegal, and most pedophiles don’t want to be caught, and for various other reasons including a lust for control, or outright sadism, etc, in most cases of molestation, the pedophile will add to the sexual abuse other forms of psychological abuse. The adult might tell the child that if anyone finds out, he will kill the child’s parents. Or he might encourage the child to lie using other incentives. Threatening the child’s security, encouraging the child to adopt a policy of secrecy and dishonesty, sheltering him from other adults who might have the child’s interests in mind, isolates the child and breeds all kinds of psychological problems.

It’s often noted that at a certain point the child will express to the adult that he feels something is wrong-- that the child is not comfortable with the molestation, for various reasons. At this point it is common for the molester to blame the child. To say that it’s the child’s fault, and make him feel that he “deserves” it. Of course this causes all kinds of problems.

And finally-- there is the horrible, ugly, physical side of sexual abuse. If we’re talking about pre-pubescent children, here.. Their bodies are not large enough to sustain sexual intercourse with an adult. If this is attempted, it can cause permanent physical damage, that will scar the child for the rest of his life. [Edit: In fact, it can kill the child.]

Um, but my mom says she can supply me with factual data supporting all this in just a few “clicks.” So when she does that, I’ll post some links here. I just have to convince her to get online and actually do it. : )

38

At the end of the debate, I still suspect that it’s horribly damaging for children to have sex, but I didn’t find my own arguments so thoroughly convincing. Especially in light of the ancient Greek custom of young boys (I don’t know how young–16?) having sex with older men so that the older men would educate and develop the boys while the men would simply enjoy the young boys’ youth. Were all the men of ancient Greece psychologically scared? It doesn’t seem that way, though maybe they all just sublimated their pain. But that “out” seems impossible to prove or disprove. If anybody has any information, I’d appreciate it.

Oh, yeah. I mentioned this to my mom, too, because I’d never heard of this “custom.” She said that, based on the evidence she’s seen, this is a myth. She said Plato has a dialogue or something where he mentions older men educating and developing younger boys while enjoying their youth. But he never says anything to suggest having sex with the boys. She says she thinks modern pedophiles are distorting what was in fact an innocent custom of the Greeks, stretching it to imply a sexual relationship, when in fact the relationship described was entirely “Platonic.”

But I haven’t read this, in Plato’s works, or in any other description of Greek culture. Does anyone know where it can be found?

[edit-- Also, I might add, my mom’s not a scholar of Ancient Greece, and I know about as much about the period as she does. Except that she’s heard of this claim from pedophiles, whereas for me it’s completely new.]

39

I’m calling it tripe because that’s all I’ve seen out of that field. If you have any non-tripe to share, then by all means proceed. I’m not dismissing it out of hand; I’m dismissing it because I’ve yet to see anything of quality.

The best I can do is direct you to David Buss’ website. I’ve read his book Evolutionary Psychology. He’s a leading figure in the E.P. area.

40

The best I can do is direct you to David Buss’ website. I’ve read his book Evolutionary Psychology. He’s a leading figure in the E.P. area.

He speaks the language of one who studies the brain without acknowledging the mind: of consciousness and volition. I smell a mystic of muscle…

Perhaps someone who cares to look in more detail will see otherwise. I doubt it is worth my time, however.