Dangerous knowledge is still knowledge and therefore useful. It usually turns out to be the most useful, in my experience. Again, I love seeing the fireworks when “noble” lies are overturned.
So you find non-invasive sociological & neuroscientific research that aggregates data points criminal? Damn, that’s quite spurious. I am against vivisection because it causes actual harm, but the research you cited is — again — a non-invasive, anonymized, aggregation of sexual desires amongst X, Y and Z population groups. It harms no one—except your fragile, odd sense of moral superiority.
What on Earth are “caveman times”? You realize that the Neolithic period didn’t include everyone living in caves right? That stereotypes about Paleolithic and Neolithic peoples are being debunked everyday in various fields of research?
You are really beyond reasonable discourse.
Is this ever a tempest in a teapot! It merely shows that many people have sexual attraction to people they have the common sense or good judgement not to pursue. Instead of panicking that they have the attraction, wise people take satisfaction that they have the good judgement to leave it alone. That, of course, is especially easy if they have a wide range of attractions. A doctor who’s a friend of mine, and who’s been in a steady couple as long as I have (40 years +) commented once on the attractiveness of people 18-21 to me – he said “Especially when you’ve raised some, you realize they’re just kids. You can’t seriously find them attractive.” Sure he shares the universality of that graph, but the rest of his mind is also engaged.
The item I’ve seen recently that sheds most light on this discussion, though, may seem off-topic. It’s this article: Dangers Behind Anti-maskers and Anti-vaxxers: How to Combat Both about people who invent and spread anti-mask and anti-vaccination myths. There is a war against science and in favour of a return to medieval processing methods going on, partly coming from the desire of certain politicians to advance themselves through falsehood. As the article says, these medieval views make people feel that they’re more in control than they would be if they were forced to lie back and be subject to objective realities found by reproducible means. The original poster here is a completely typical medievalist in saying, very frankly, “make reality go away, I don’t care, I can’t stand it, I need to get back in control.”
We could actually go through another dark age on this planet just like in a dystopian science-fiction book, though there’s a great risk that the superstitious would destroy us by ignorantly playing with the remaining atomic weapons on the way down. Don’t be afraid to frankly give credit to science when successes come out of it, like (I hope) vaccinations that bring us into post-Covid times without having to sacrifice the maximal number of people.
Yes, the anti-rational movements are quite strong — from QAnon to the Flat Earthers (the fact that there are people who belong to a “flat movement” in 2020 is )
I imagine that is why there are almost no research on topics related to pedophilia, because if the results don’t create a negative image of pedophilia, the researchers’ careers will be at risk. You just prove that.
If the research is so bad, why do you even fucking care? Does anyone else care or use this data? Where did you even get it from?
It looks like the study was conducted thirty years ago? Why are you even digging around that deep for the sole purpose of getting offended?
I would swap the labels of pedophillic disorder and pedophilia. And delete the largest category. It’s just a mutation of normal. It’s pointless pathology, for both groups, as both are applying stigmatized labels where they could not rest. Researchers sometimes refer to it as non-exclusive teleiophilia, if it really needs a label. Or perhaps, non-preferential pedophilia, although chronophillic labels usually represents the primary preference.
Teleiophilia is preferential attraction to adults.
Hebephilia is preferential attraction to early teenagers, although the term is sometimes used synonymously to represent attraction to early teenagers, in general.
Pedophilia is preferential attraction to prepubescent children.
Nepiophilia is preferential attraction to toddlers.
Easy. You don’t. You accept it completely.
Is this a troll? The paper shown on the graph as the source doesn’t contain the graph, nor provides data related to the graph. Could you please provide a link to the graph you post?
Are you talking about the one shown in the OP?
Yeah. It was very likely a troll post, but I’m sure it had to have come from somewhere, if not being wholly fabricated.
I’ve only ever seen that graph posted on imageboards as a means to troll people, rather than have a serious discussion over.
I don’t feel like putting in effort right now to locate its source paper (if such a thing exists).
Overall, these data suggest that men find pubescent girls identified as being under the age of consent sexually attractive, but inhibit their willingness to report this; the greater the attraction, the greater the inhibition.
This highlights how our social norms help us not engage with minors. Studies that show this are not going to make people feel validated to now go and abuse, but rather help them understand that they are not alone which in turn makes them feel less like monsters. Demonizing people is not going to stop abuse, but rather cause more of it. Humans are social creatures and being told horrible things day in day out is definetly more likely to cause someone to give up on society and the established norms.
I don’t think it’s social norms that do that.
People should just be upfront about their interests and what they like while understanding that acts of sexual contact with these groups below the age of consent is not okay due to the harm that such conduct has on said groups.
Sexual repression is linked to stress and other risk factors which are more closely related to sexual violence than pornography consumption and sexual preoccupation ever could be.
Sound like a pedo to me. Typically studies like these are conducted with fewer than 1000 people. Much like “reaseachers suggest drinking 3 glasses of wine drastically improve a pregnancy” conducted on 20 women. But as with any subjective bias the pedos are out in full force defending this as law. “Lets carve it in stone!!” I mean id have to look at statistics but i bet if you run a survey of how many men are attracted to their sisters in certain counties in alabama or west virginia, would it then be safe to pass a statement like “Men are 70% more likely to be attracted sexually to their sisters than random women”?? The study is skewed in one way or another to achieve the desired outcome. Ask ppl in Texas and NY if Trump was the best president in history, my guess is youd have 2 wildly different statistics. Id also be keen on seeing out of all pedos convicted, how many victims were >10yo. Anyhow, people defending the study want it to be true. Those who are disgusted entirely with not only the research, but the method in which it was collected (present company included) Arent “data deniers” but merely realists who understand this behavior to be predominantly abusive, predatory, and downright disgusting. If you believe this study to be completely accurate then your thought process is as fucked as pedopheliac sexual preferences. Like incest porn. Incest porn is huge, but when a man watches that video, its not REALLY his sister in the video. So using this logic we can say “most men are incestual” is wildly inaccurate. “But…but…but the data…” NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH TO BACK SUCH A STATEMENT
Sound like a pedo to me. Typically studies like these are conducted with fewer than 1000 people. Much like “reaseachers suggest drinking 3 glasses of wine drastically improve a pregnancy” conducted on 20 women. But as with any subjective bias the pedos are out in full force defending this as law. “Lets carve it in stone!!”
Maybe go and fund research to prove that the data is accurate instead of trying to shoot it down?
Oh wait no, because the topic is so heavily stigmatized there can’t be any proper research without risk of the researcher being harassed and receiving death threats.
Research exists for a reason. Research brought us medicine. Research led us to the stars. Research told us that homosexuals shouldn’t be coerced into conditioning just cause “we didn’t like the idea of gays existing”, because it’s highly oppressive and traumatic on the individual in question. If research shows that pedophiles are normal people with rather disturbing thoughts but are able to be controlled by the individual at hand with no harm to anyone else, why stop it? Cause you don’t like the idea that pedo thoughts exist? Did research also tell you that most cases of CSA is more likely to be perpetrated by typical rapists and abusers who look for opportunity rather than being exclusively attracted to children?