4 ms·

I’m no expert here but I’m going to guess that equivocating gay people and pedophiles is not the best starting point to understanding pedophiles.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Eisenstein 3y ago
[flagged]
- jrflowers 3y ago
  I like this question because you explicitly ask me to agree with your premise that pedophiles and gay people are equivalent within your framing of this discussion and then follow it up with “my contention is something other than what I’ve clearly explained” Edit: For clarity, the post this is responding to originally started with “Do you agree that 'adult-adult-hetersexual' is the only orientation that has obvious evolutionary benefit?” It has since been edited to a generic copy-pasted response.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    [dupe]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- ang_cire 3y ago
  > Do you agree that 'adult-adult-hetersexual' is the only orientation that has obvious evolutionary benefit? This shows a profound misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection on your part. "Evolutionary benefit" is impossible to divorce from circumstances. It doesn't exist as some right/wrong answer, or something you can divine through logic. For instance, same-sex attraction could absolutely be advantageous to a species that is nearing the peak of sustainable population numbers. All species (who can fuck) wanna fuck, and will do so no matter their surrounding circumstances. The difference between one species keeping sustainable numbers, versus another species seeing runaway population numbers causing food source exhaustion and population collapse, could come down to lower procreation rates, in which circumstance strict heterosexuality may not be advantageous. Point being, stop trying to use bad, dime-store "science" to justify your bad opinions about homosexuality.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    [dupe]
School-Cotton 3y ago
A huge chunk of the GP’s post was disclaimers (“I think child molesters are despicable”, etc.) precisely to avoid their point being misunderstood in this way, which apparently didn’t work.
pdntspa 3y ago
It's not equivocation, it's a categorization of heteronormative and not-heteronormative. Personally I suspect the issue here is that incest is the only form of sexual activity that we have a natural proclivity against, probably because of evolutionary pressure (as in, hard-wired into our DNA) against fucking blood relatives. Because a consistently-inbred population will breed itself into oblivion. People who fuck kids can still successfully reproduce and society trundles on.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  I think your starting point is still kinda skewed, because "heteronormative" is a made-up thing by society rather than an actual thing someone can be. There's a traditional view of sexuality that men are only sexually attracted to women, and vice versa, and that's normal and everything else is not normal (kinky). The more we learn about sex (and gender) the more we learn that there are very few completely "normal" people out there, and a lot of people who are a bit kinky in one respect or another. I think it's now accepted that the hetero-homo thing is a spectrum rather than a binary state, and the primary reason people of the same sex don't have sex with each other is societal pressure rather than biological attraction. e.g. women tend to experiment more with this because society has a more lenient view of "girl-on-girl" than male homosexual sex. My personal opinion is that evolution "wants" everything to fuck everything as much as possible, just to see what happens. The best reproducers are the ones who did the most fucking, after all. But we're getting into Oglaf territory here.
  - pdntspa 3y ago
    > I think your starting point is still kinda skewed, because "heteronormative" is a made-up thing by society rather than an actual thing someone can be. It's a term rooted in the conditions that make sex a reproductive act and not just something that feels good
    - marcus_holmes 3y ago
      Which is getting back to the religious crap of "sex is only for reproduction, between a married couple". Yes sex can result in reproduction, but I think making that its primary purpose misses the point. We experience a desire to fuck, separate from our desire to reproduce. They're two different things that are only related in a tiny minority of circumstances. Classifying someone's sexuality by its possible reproductive outcome is like classifying their tongues by the ability to curl into a tube: kinda valid, but not that useful.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Eisenstein 3y ago

[flagged]

jrflowers 3y ago
I like this question because you explicitly ask me to agree with your premise that pedophiles and gay people are equivalent within your framing of this discussion and then follow it up with “my contention is something other than what I’ve clearly explained” Edit: For clarity, the post this is responding to originally started with “Do you agree that 'adult-adult-hetersexual' is the only orientation that has obvious evolutionary benefit?” It has since been edited to a generic copy-pasted response.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  [dupe]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ang_cire 3y ago
> Do you agree that 'adult-adult-hetersexual' is the only orientation that has obvious evolutionary benefit? This shows a profound misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection on your part. "Evolutionary benefit" is impossible to divorce from circumstances. It doesn't exist as some right/wrong answer, or something you can divine through logic. For instance, same-sex attraction could absolutely be advantageous to a species that is nearing the peak of sustainable population numbers. All species (who can fuck) wanna fuck, and will do so no matter their surrounding circumstances. The difference between one species keeping sustainable numbers, versus another species seeing runaway population numbers causing food source exhaustion and population collapse, could come down to lower procreation rates, in which circumstance strict heterosexuality may not be advantageous. Point being, stop trying to use bad, dime-store "science" to justify your bad opinions about homosexuality.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  [dupe]

School-Cotton 3y ago

A huge chunk of the GP’s post was disclaimers (“I think child molesters are despicable”, etc.) precisely to avoid their point being misunderstood in this way, which apparently didn’t work.

pdntspa 3y ago

It's not equivocation, it's a categorization of heteronormative and not-heteronormative. Personally I suspect the issue here is that incest is the only form of sexual activity that we have a natural proclivity against, probably because of evolutionary pressure (as in, hard-wired into our DNA) against fucking blood relatives. Because a consistently-inbred population will breed itself into oblivion. People who fuck kids can still successfully reproduce and society trundles on.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
I think your starting point is still kinda skewed, because "heteronormative" is a made-up thing by society rather than an actual thing someone can be. There's a traditional view of sexuality that men are only sexually attracted to women, and vice versa, and that's normal and everything else is not normal (kinky). The more we learn about sex (and gender) the more we learn that there are very few completely "normal" people out there, and a lot of people who are a bit kinky in one respect or another. I think it's now accepted that the hetero-homo thing is a spectrum rather than a binary state, and the primary reason people of the same sex don't have sex with each other is societal pressure rather than biological attraction. e.g. women tend to experiment more with this because society has a more lenient view of "girl-on-girl" than male homosexual sex. My personal opinion is that evolution "wants" everything to fuck everything as much as possible, just to see what happens. The best reproducers are the ones who did the most fucking, after all. But we're getting into Oglaf territory here.
- pdntspa 3y ago
  > I think your starting point is still kinda skewed, because "heteronormative" is a made-up thing by society rather than an actual thing someone can be. It's a term rooted in the conditions that make sex a reproductive act and not just something that feels good
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    Which is getting back to the religious crap of "sex is only for reproduction, between a married couple". Yes sex can result in reproduction, but I think making that its primary purpose misses the point. We experience a desire to fuck, separate from our desire to reproduce. They're two different things that are only related in a tiny minority of circumstances. Classifying someone's sexuality by its possible reproductive outcome is like classifying their tongues by the ability to curl into a tube: kinda valid, but not that useful.