3 ms·
This article is offensive. Pedophile is such a loaded term that to use it in this fashion is rather outrageous: "Farmers look more to a female’s future fertili
by teilo 16y ago
This article is offensive.
Pedophile is such a loaded term that to use it in this fashion is rather outrageous: "Farmers look more to a female’s future fertility potential, while foragers and other primates with shorter-term relationships focus more on her current fertility. This turns farmer males into pedophiles, i.e., more interested in younger females."
The trem "pedophile" has absolutely nothing to do with the desire to "mate", that is, to have children. Further, pedophiles usually have multiple victims, and if given the opportunity, leave a trail of victims in their wake. "Mate for life" indeed!
- die_sekte 16y agoI would be very surprised if the average pedophile even had one victim. I think you do not know or do not want to know the meaning of the term pedophile. A pedophile is simply someone who is attracted to prepubescent people—nothing more. Most of them are probably not acting on it. The article seems to me to be relatively good and—to me—contains no obvious fallacies. (What the author means is actually ephebophilia, but that's probably not that important.)
- potatolicious 16y agoIt's a specious argument, sure, but offensive? It's a potential (IMHO: deeply flawed) alternate take on explaining the prevalence of a sociological phenomenon. Since when did we become anti-intellectual to the point where we will get our panties in a bunch over the idle thoughts of a blog? It may be a dumb post, full of errors and bad assumptions, etc etc, but offensive?