Did prehistoric man want to fuck children or is pedophilia an invention of modern man?
>>768132139
>invention
The Ancient Greeks were pioneers in pedophilia
>>768132139
Archeologists haven’t descovered any fossil evidence of pedophilia amongst cavemen, so we can’t say anything about this issue conclusivly.
>>768132139
You've oversimplified the problem severely
First off, PREHISTORIC man (before we had recorded history) we know almost nothing about. That's what prehistoric means.
The first records we have of attraction to children were Greek records which indicated that:
>There was no "legal' age of consent, but a woman could not be given away to a man without her parent's (singular -- just the father) consent
>It was known to be physically harmful to have sexual relations with someone who hadn't undergone puberty yet
>It was recommended that a man wait until 30 before he took a wife, and he should seek a 15 year old wife
>The average age of marriage for women was 16-18 while some marriages were recorded as young as 8 (although it's not known if they were having sex)
Second, you grossly oversimplified the pedophilia argument to "fuck children". Think about how high schoolers "have sex". They don't rip their clothes off and jump to penetration. It's months of teasing, then breast fondling, then dry humping, then fingering,... it's a progression. Many pedophiles expect a similar progression. Penetration can wait - at a young age you may just want to finger her.
Third, you didn't define "children". Are we talking 5 years old, or 15? There's a huge difference between infanto, pedo, hebe, and ephebo. It's widely accepted by psychologists that the first two are disorders and the second two are natural.
Lack of understanding is the leading cause of hate. Misunderstandings lead to racial tensions, wars between kingdoms, and mass genocide in the past. It's the enemies of man who benefit from turning brother against brother with broad and sweeping claims like "black people are subhuman" or "pedophiles want to rape children"
>>768133232
What does a pedo fossil look like?
>>768133721
Even I've oversimplified pedophilia here. For starters, I said "you may just want to finger her", implying a male perpetrator and female victim. I did this because it would be more in line with your mental narrative of pedophilia and allow me to continue my post with fewer interruptions. However documented pedophilia is more common among adult women. There's nothing about pedophilia that says it has to be an older guy attracted to a younger girl. It could be a guy attracted to a guy, a girl attracted to a guy, a girl attracted to a girl, or any multi-gendered liberal-bullshit variation.
Also just like you find some women sexy and others ugly, pedophiles will find some children attractive and others ugly. It's not that they're turned on by the FACT that they're children. It's that being a child is a single component of attraction. Just like you may be attracted to tan skin or large breasts or long legs, a pedophile may be attracted to flat breasts or a lack of muscle mass or a larger head-to-body ratio.
Also, consider how you react when you see an attractive lady. Do you immediately pop a boner and start jacking it right there in the street? Odds are you aren't even aroused immediately. You're probably just admiring her beauty and fascinated by her body - then you slowly start to transition to arousal if you continue to stare and focus on particular body parts. Same thing. Pedophiles may look at a young child and be in awe of their beauty. It's a positive, happy, and peaceful experience - unless they start focusing and MAKE it an arousing one.
Pedophilia is not only a much larger field than people think (encompassing men and women attracted to men or women, including several different age groups of children with various cut-offs for attraction, and different legal standards around the world) -- but it's a much more complex one. It's not just about sex. It's about EVERYTHING that comes with attraction and interest.
>>768134857
Now there is one final point I'd like to make, and that's your use of the word "invention"
Believe it or not, it's accurate to say that pedophilia is an invention of modern man. The concept of pedophilia didn't really exist until the early 1900's.
There were cultures that had sex with children, and other cultures that thought this was disgusting and wrong. There were people who bickered over the proper age for marriage (whether it be 12, 14, or 24) and there were people who tried to study the body to determine when it was capable of having safe and non-harmful sex. But no one ever said the word "pedophilia" until around 1900. That's when a few psychiatrists said "you know, there may be some underlying neurological issue that causes people to be attracted to prepubescent children". Note that they were (and STILL ARE) VERY explicit that it's only POTENTIALLY a disorder if the child is prepubescent. Every psychiatrist worth their salt knows that after puberty sexual attraction is perfectly normal.
There has been a push in recent years to have hebephilia (attraction to children immediately following puberty) added to the DSM-VI as a disorder. This has been shot down OVER and OVER again. The argument says that children are hitting puberty at younger ages, and therefore girls who it used to be illegal to find attractive (10 or 11 years old) now fall within the range of "totally acceptable". This baffles and worries people. But so long as they've hit puberty, there's NOTHING unnatural about the attraction. Every single human being can (and at some point in their life will) be attracted to a small child who has hit puberty. Cultural stigmas may cause you to quickly repress these feelings and hate yourself a bit -- but it's normal. And it won't happen with EVERY child of this age. Only the really attractive ones.
>>768135262
I'm a self-proclaimed hebephile and strong pedophile rights advocate. I believe that a lot of innocent and good people are demonized, dehumanized, and punished for natural behavior - and I don't think that's right.
If you have any further questions, I'll be available. Until then, this is now a loli thread.
>>768135584
>>768135616
>>768135650
>>768135262
Does liking bald innie pussies and flat chests make you a pedo even if the girl is over 18?
>>768135699
>>768135584
God bless you
>>768135718
It depends on who you ask. Unfortunately the word "pedo" has become conflated and distorted over the years and is now used just like people use the words "nazi", "communist", or "nigger". You mentally separate them as "not like us" so that you can mentally justify horrific acts. Murder, torture, and genocide is okay so long as you're not hurting other humans. And so the word "pedo" has been twisted and distorted to try and rationalize our hate and justify calls for unconstitutional punishment towards individuals.
Some people say a "pedo" is anyone attracted to a child under 18 years of age (regardless of looks, maturity, personality, or how dressed they are)
Some people say a "pedo" is anyone attracted to someone who LOOKS like a child, regardless of actual age and any of the aforementioned
Some people say a "pedo" is any guy who is attracted to a girl younger than him, even if both individuals are over 18, look over 18, and consent to the relationship
So the only way to answer you accurately would be to say the following:
>According to the law, you're not a pedo (they're over 18)
>According to Freud or half-wit psychologists (psyCHOLOGists, not psyCHIATRists) you're a closet pedo and looking for a safe outlet for your feelings
>According to psychiatrists you're not a pedo, because they've hit puberty so regardless of the shape of their body they're capable of getting wet, experiencing sexual arousal, and engaging in intercourse
>According to feminists man-haters, you're an inhuman bastard who should die in a fire
>According to me, you're likely an ephebophile or hebephile who's afraid of social backlash and the law
>>768136173
I'm pretty sure God hates pedos. Fucking children has got to be a sin
>>768136173
Glad I could make your day a bit brighter
>>768136322
God doesn't exist and therefore has no opinion
If God did have an opinion, being omnipotent, he'd differentiate between non-consensual rape of undeveloped individuals and an un-involved attraction to sexually developing individuals.
>>768136311
Is sex with kids OK if the child consents?
>>768133746
small dick bone
>>768136519
It depends on your relation to the child and how developed they are (both mentally and physically). The reason for those two separate criteria (relation and development) is different:
>Relation
It's never right to abuse a position of power or take advantage of someone's trust. Just as a secretary may THINK she wants to have sex with her boss (everything from domination fantasies to being legitimately attracted to his wealth and success may play in here) anyone would say it's not right and he'd be taking advantage of his position if he did anything. So too a child may THINK she wants to have sex with her uncle (he's always around, he's strong and dependable, etc) - but he has an established bond of trust that he'd be violating.
>Development
As an adult, it's your duty to guide, lead, and teach children. A child may think they want to put their hands in the oven or they may think they want to eat a poisonous mushroom. An adult tells a child when their actions have harmful consequences and steers them in the right direction.
If a young girl's body isn't sufficiently developed for sex (mostly if they haven't hit puberty) then penetrating them could cause permanent damage to their sexual organs. Similarly if a young boy's body isn't sufficiently developed for sex (if they haven't hit puberty) then attempting to massage or work their dick could damage skin or muscle.
A child also doesn't have as much experience with the outside world and doesn't understand the far-reaching consequences of some actions. Just as a 20 year old girl may do a porno shoot and think she's loving it and totally in control at the time only to realize it's hurting her career and making it hard to employ her -- a child may not understand that taking their pants off in class and telling the teacher to touch them will give them a reputation that carries forward in their life and affects all future interactions with their peers.
>>768137004
So long as:
>The child is not in a position of submission or servitude to the adult
>The child is physically mature enough that sex would not cause harm to them
>The child is mentally mature enough to understand what they are doing and enjoy the experience
>The adult takes precautions and educates the child in how to have a personal experience without it affecting their life
Then sex with a child who consents is alright.
Regarding the last one, I'm not talking about engaging in sex in any way that's SPECIFIC to a pedophilic relationship. I'm not saying "because it's an adult and a child, you need to keep it a secret". I'm saying that even among adults people don't go around blabbing about their sex life to strangers. At a job interview you don't randomly bring up how many chicks you banged in college, and in class you don't write an essay about your ex-girlfriend's pussy lips. These are standard and normal social practices that we, as adults, innately understand and follow. But a child may not realize this yet. They may think there's nothing wrong with writing a memoir for English class about the first time they had sex with the neighbor, or they may think there's nothing wrong with asking their partner out loud in public if he'll buy a particular brand of condoms or lube. This isn't about keeping secrets or not letting it out that you're having sex -- it's about normal human decency and the social standard to not talk about sex in public.
>>768137004
So would you have sex with a little girl or not?
>>768132139
Your asking if a haphazardly evolved species of sentient primates did thing before inventing society and social standards. The answer is yes if it is remotely anatomically possible.
>>768137394
First, you'd need to define "little". Like all pedophile-haters, you're being extremely vague - which means I may be imagining a hot 14 year old and when I say "yes" you imagine an uggo 3 year old. I don't ask you if it's okay to "go into a house and break stuff" vaguely without mentioning who owns the house or what the stuff is. If you're going into a condemned house that you bought and you're tearing up the old walls and flooring in order to rebuild, this is totally acceptable.
So to give you a specific answer:
>If the girl were at least 11-13
>If she were attractive
>If she had already gone through puberty
>If she were attracted to me
>etc.
then yes, I would have sex with her. Although our first several times would likely just be fooling around (kissing her neck, rubbing her through her pants, kissing her breasts, having her give me a hand job, etc). Jumping to penetration you skip most of the fun.
>>768137959
>>768137992
>>768137959
You are a dangerous sick man and I hope they catch you before you hurt someone