@anonymous – you seem to miss the point of the article. If finding teenage girls was immoral, then it would not be my business to promote immorality here. However, given your lack of arguments as to why it should be wrong, then a clearer reason is presented as to why society (through feminism) holds it to be wrong – female sexual jealousy.
Secondly, if we are hardwired to find young females to be attractive, it is because the genes of those who found young nubile girls attractive (and indeed acted upon that attraction) predominate in the population. In other words, you are here today to write such crap because your ancestors fucked young girls, throughout our evolutionary history. If there was something about such sexual relationships that left teenage girls psychologically harmed and compromised in their ability to function as mothers (and bear more children) their genes would not have survived. The idea that there is something inherent in a sexual act between young girl and older man that would leave her damaged is a feminist fiction that has no basis in science or empirical study.
And don’t give this shaming canard of ‘we are not monkeys’. It is you and your feminist scum sisters who are the monkeys – unable to divorce sex and your own broodmare needs from morality and in fact reifying your most basic and primitive physical needs and desires.
17 comments
Our ancestors had sex with young girls because the life expectancy was freaking THIRTY back then, and that's ONLY if she didn't give birth! To live past that was a wonder in the olden days, so you married young, and had kids young. Now that we have better science, and we live longer, sleeping with under developed girls is no longer necessary. That's all science and history. No 'feminist emotions', just facts.
@RiJayden
"... the life expectancy was freaking THIRTY back then, and that's ONLY if she didn't give birth! To live past that was a wonder in the olden days, ..."
While it is true that the life expectancy was very low, it is a misconception to think this implies that people were typically dying around age thirty. One reason the life expectancy was so low was that the high infant mortality drastically brought the average down. If someone had already survived to adulthood it would certainly not be "a wonder" for them to live far past thirty.
You do realize the leading cause of death for women back when impregnating preteens was socially acceptable happened to be childbirth, right shithead? And that fatal complications, birth defects, and poor overall health of potential offspring should they survive delivery all increase astronomically at the ages you want to bed girls. Hell, just the physical act of sex could very well pulverise their organs. And even if young mothers and their baby both beat the odds and actually survive? How competent do you think a child would be to care for an even younger child? Why do you think parents get babysitters and nannies for their children rather than leave them to their own devices if they're perfectly capable of raising themselves?
Knowing you hiring a babysitter was probably only ever a pretext at your house to get a girl alone in the car after the night was done and daddy offered to give her a ride home.
You're reaching - and reaching far - into unsupportable rhetoric you hope sounds scientific enough to bluff an explanation for your obsession. That crap about evolution means nothing to you. You want gratification and whatever consequences befall the target of your single-minded lust are of no importance as long as you have your fun.
@RiJayden: Really, the only people who were getting married at that age were the aristocracy, and that's because their marriages were political alliances first and foremost. Even they weren't foolish enough to expect the young couple to produce heirs at that age. Commoners married later (not late by our standards, of course, but later), often because while they were themselves children, their parents needed them to work so the family would stay afloat.
Of course, none of that has to do with this twit and whatever he's ranting about, except insofar as he's willing to completely ignore context to focus on the one "fact"/urban legend that supports his screed.
We set "ages of consent" for a reason. You can certainly find youthful women under the age of consent attractive, but we expect you to recognize if/when she is too young to consent to such relations according to local law. Further, there are concerns that a young person might be compelled by an older man due to his authority rather than real affection. If you are in any way in authority over young people, those young women are automatically off limits ETHICALLY.
Question: why haven't you found a young woman that meets both your expectations and the law and made her your wife already? Probably because any of them would see you as a sickening old man. Most people expect to find their partner fairly close to their own age.
Finally: our society has indeed changed in its views on proper ages for marriage and childbirth. Our society has become far more complex, and marriage is no longer feasible in the mid to late teens. We have medical information about childbearing that bears that out as well.
"Secondly, if we are hardwired to find young females to be attractive, it is because the genes of those who found young nubile girls attractive (and indeed acted upon that attraction) predominate in the population. In other words, you are here today to write such crap because your ancestors fucked young girls, throughout our evolutionary history"
image
No, the one and only reason as to why it's seen as bad to have sex with children, is to protect children from sexual predators.
Some are hardwired to find corpses to be attractive. We frown on that too.
Girls get their first menstruation EARLIER now than they did in history, due to better nutrition. Young girls who become pregnant have a higher rate of deaths during childbirth than women whose bodies are actually mature enough to cope with a pregnancy.
" In other words, you are here today to write such crap because your ancestors fucked young girls, throughout our evolutionary history."
The idea that there isn't any harm in molestations by older men on young girls is a MRA fiction and has no basis in science or empirical studies.
What broodmare needs? I'm infertile. You're the one who can't divorce sex and your hebephile needs from morality.
Genealogy did show that my ancestors here in France did all marry around 28/30. For centuries. Up to the 20th century. They had to build themselves a situation before thinking about getting married. Man and woman. The only one to marry very early? A noble.....(the only one we could find, and that was the year 1400).
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
