Breakfast at Tiffany's had Holly married to a man much older than her when she was 13. Then you have Lolita. There have been tons of films with younger women and older men. Oh, and then another one that is younger men and older women - Y tu mama tambien.
Males are our sexual abusers of children as even right wing women's groups agree.
And they are heterosexual males. Homosexuals are 100X LESS likely to sexually abuse a child.
Actually, it was tradition in Hawaii before the coming of the "white man" that homosexuals - both
lesbian and gay - were held in honor and esteem for their care of orphaned children.
Pedophiles are thought to be a case of arrested development and may have no sexual-orientation.
However, heterosexual males who may prefer sexual relations with females will sexually abuse a
child when no female is available.
If anyone wants more information on the studies, please let me know.
It has to do with the retention of child like qualities of women that men are attracted to. It's an anthropological trait based on sexual selection. Men are attracted and want to protect women because they are like children. No body hair, more fat, smaller, softer etc.
In fact, it is males who are the more vulnerable gender as more males are lost in spontaneous abortions which nature brings about when there is something wrong with the pregnancy.
And more males succumb to illness and death up to the age of two.
Males also die earlier than females.
However, you've just given your theory on why males are our sexual abusers of children.
Again, if anyone wants more information on the studies which show that it is heterosexual males who re our sexual abusers of children, please let me know.
Well then I guess anthropologists are all wrong, is saying that the retention of child like qualities as part of sexual selection is totally wrong. Who would you rather fuck, a nubile young thing or Frida Khalo?
I am just saying, part of the human brain is hardwired to want to have sex with young fertile women who are not hairy.
Immature males may seek women with "childlike" qualities and some women may
adopt "childlike" qualities to attract these immature males ....
We see this in "baby talk" and in females standing with their toes pointed in
to imitate very young girls.
A lot of the clothing that we see being made for adult females today is reminiscent
of clothing made for young girls.
We also often see the return of "slave shoes" for females
and "choker" necklaces.
Again, these are things which appeal to immature males and they are "looks"
taught to women to seduce males who are actually attracted to childlike behavior
in females.
Children are NOT "fertile" which is one of the reasons why pedophiles are
attracted to them.
Youthful then. Perhaps "childlike" is not the best term. But women go through puberty around the age of 13-14 making them fertile. So, instead of older women who may have started growing a mustache or having excessive body hair, etc. men are attracted to young nubile women. I mean a horny 15 year old boy is going to want to hump a horny 15 year old girl. Older rich men get the youngest wife that is appropriate.
You think Salma Hayek is married to the crypt keeper because of his shining personality?
True "childlike" isn't the best term, though men are encouraged to think that women can't
think for themselves and are childlike.
Also, this Hollywood Model of coupling which depicts females at 20% smaller than males
is also a lie.
We know that not so long ago men and women stood shoulder to shoulder.
You could as well in recent times see this in the Puerto Rican populations for some reason
where the females were often larger than the males.*
Some of that has to do with the fact that Nature intends that women carry more fat on their
bodies which is required for childbearing.
Not sure, but I think because of our diets -- specifically animal eating -- females are
passing through puberty at earlier ages. And that is being accelerated because of the
hormones and chemicals being used on these animals.
One of the reasons for late terms abortions is cases of incest when even 10 year old
girls have become pregnant, but certainly we are aware of 11 and 12 year olds who
are past puberty.
Puberty alone is not a signal that a female is strong enough to give birth to a child as
what we know of childbearing suggests that it takes an adult female's body seven years
for her body to return to full health and well-being.
Obviously, people can be attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex at very early
ages. If you ask people when they were aware of their sexual orientation many will
state very early ages.
That doesn't mean that they were involved in sexual relationships with the same or
opposite sex at that time, but we are all capable of feelings of affection and even love
for one another at any time and we are aware of those attractions and affection.
True -- young teenagers will be attracted to one another -- whether the same sex or
he opposite. And they do often become sexually involved at those ages.
Many immature older men will seek relationships with younger females, even under 16.
And often pregnancies result and end in abortion.
But what you suggest is "appropriate" in relationships where the older rich men get the
youngest wife is NOT appropriate.
That social engineering may also explain how we come to have "giants" and "dwarfs."
I'm just saying, who doesn't want a young hot wife? No one goes out there and is like "Hey I am looking for a 38 year old fatty with small tits". By and large men are attracted to young women. Neotony exists. Sparse body hair, softer features, women don't have beards, sexual selection and what not.
Why do humans go gaga over things with big eyes and soft faces? Baby seals, baby penguins. Models with big eyes. Why do asians try to make their eyes look bigger to be more kawaii?
Because what we think of as cute, or desirable, is pretty much a woman looking young.
Does that mean I support pedos? Hell no. But you have to be kidding me if you can't at least agree that men are attracted to young women over older women. And that women have more childlike qualities than men.
And what woman doesn't want an attractive male companion?
Take a good look at males today -- many of them need bras.
How about the beer bellies?
What you are describing are "baby faces" on children which are intended
to make us fall in love with them -- and protect them -- not sexually abuse them.
Asians -- who are the majority on the planet -- seemingly came under culture shock after
WWII and the invasion of the US army in Japan.
Not so different from women here being encouraged to have plastic surgery --
and breast augmentation.
Males in the US are obsessed with women's breasts and many think it is because
of the lack of breast feeding since the late 1930's or so.
I'm sure many women are interested in younger males -- we are seeing those kinds
of marriages more often now as women have more earning power.
it goes both ways.
Women have been trained to be desired --- not to concentrate on what THEY desire.
Times are changing, however.
If women want younger more "childlike" males, will the males oblige and develop
more "childlike" qualities?
Biologically women want the opposite of child like in their partners. Which is why you see them more attracted to chiseled jaws (no one wants a Hapsburg), deep voices, taller than them, etc. Basically manly protector. No one wants a short fat neck beard and they never will because biologically they are seen as lesser.
Again, the "Hollywood" coupling is suggestive of what everyone should want and it's long been
propagandized as ... the right thing to want and do.
Women fall in love with men with "baby faces" just as often as men fall in love with women who
are "baby faced." There's even a song about it.
While beards on men are being pushed now for decades, from what I see women and girls want
guys without beards, with clean faces -- and nothing to hide behind.
And a shave that produces soft skin -- no razor stubble.
The idea of a male "protector" exists because females have been so under threat by male
aggression.
I'm sure it would be a relief for males if they didn't think they might have to fight off some male
thugs to protect their girl friend or wife.
I'm talking about the men in our societies which other men fear.
From what I've seen and read, women are interested in men who support women and who
are compassionate and humane.
I am not going to go into all the research on human biology, nurture nature, facial hair trends (which does not connote baby facial structure), or the desire to retain a mate who is biologically fit and manly to protect not only women but their offspring. But it's a thing. But don't ask me, ask the American Anthropological Association.
You're ignoring what I've pointed out to you as to the artificiality of ... and propaganda surrounding
romance and attractions. Much of it is created.
Like the role of organized patriarchal religion in mandating a sexual norm of heterosexuality...
because that benefits the church's membership ... whereas homosexuals do not as often procreate.
I've also offered "baby face" to challenge the concept of "childlike" ... they're two different things.
One is about softness which women also appreciate in males -- the other is an insulting portrayal of adult males and females as mentally and spiritually immature.
You've also ignored the REASON behind the idea of a male as "female protector" ... which is that females
have been oppressed by violent males and often subjected to harassment and rape by them.
It is common even today to see gangs of males sexually assaulting women.
This certainly isn't about "sex" as we know it ... it's about domination and control over another human being.
This is also true of male on male rape.
This isn't about "research" ... this is about how these political oppressions are carried out in our societies and how they effect us all.
Another, "for instance" ....
In order to send men to war the bond with females and children has to be broken.
But, then again, hyper ... I wonder if you have ignored those realities or whether you can't see them?
I think you are relying on analogies and specific examples, vs. biological evidence over thousands of years. We can always observe a cultural thing, or a trend in a short period of time and chalk that up to biology, or we can observe over a longer period of time, like 50 thousand years, and the actions of evolution, and see a common and traceable trait, regarded as better by sexual selection.
You calling me by not my nick, but by a short version, is also pretty condescending showing that you think you are far superior and that I am uneducated.
hypercat --
If you want to talk about history over 50 thousand years ago, you are talking about the violent overthrow of
females and matriarchal-centered societies ...
When has that ever been acknowledged by our male controlled history or male biologists?
Historically, our professions of influence have been owned and controlled by White Male Patriarchy:
Advertising, Hollywood, Corporations, Organized Patriarchal religions ...
By those males in political control of our nation and its lawmaking over issues such as
birth control and abortion.
We've also seen medicine moved into the hands of males ...
even to the removal of women who studied our plants which are our natural drugs/medicines -
and women who served as midwives where childbirth actually became the business of males/OBGYN's.....!!
Who researched, wrote and controlled the "biological evidence over thousands of years" which you refer to
except males?
Neither should we ignore the "propaganda of white male history" taught in our schools, universities, colleges...
and echoed by media.
Nor has "sexual selection" been the privilege of females --
It has been males who have done the selecting which is why US society is so obsessed with female breasts.
Further, males patriarchy oppressed females into subservient positions, including into poverty which denied them even inheritance rights from their own families -- and rights to their own children . They were denied educations and access to professions ... all of which forced them into marriages in order to have shelter, food, clothing.
Btw, we are dealing here with the subject of sexual abuse of children which was covered up by Sigmund Freud in his Oedipus Complex which outrageously suggested that it was infants, toddlers and very young children who were the sexual aggressors against adult males in their families:-- fathers, grandfathers, uncles, male cousins -- and male friends of the family.
Freud betrayed his young male and female clients who had confided in him their sexual abuse by males in their families and male friends of the family. The Oedipus Complex was written to HIDE the truth of sexual abuse of children being carried out by males in our societies.
PS: If you notice, I shorten everyone's username and use it just so they know the message is for them...
I rarely note the user or their personality.
If you think I am superior and you are un-educated, it is all in YOUR mind.
I am not even going to respond to these points because it sounds exactly like the conspiracy theory sub. Bouncing around with random facts to the point of incoherence.
view the rest of the comments →
hypercat ago
Breakfast at Tiffany's had Holly married to a man much older than her when she was 13. Then you have Lolita. There have been tons of films with younger women and older men. Oh, and then another one that is younger men and older women - Y tu mama tambien.
Votescam ago
Males are our sexual abusers of children as even right wing women's groups agree.
And they are heterosexual males. Homosexuals are 100X LESS likely to sexually abuse a child. Actually, it was tradition in Hawaii before the coming of the "white man" that homosexuals - both lesbian and gay - were held in honor and esteem for their care of orphaned children.
Pedophiles are thought to be a case of arrested development and may have no sexual-orientation. However, heterosexual males who may prefer sexual relations with females will sexually abuse a child when no female is available. If anyone wants more information on the studies, please let me know.
hypercat ago
It has to do with the retention of child like qualities of women that men are attracted to. It's an anthropological trait based on sexual selection. Men are attracted and want to protect women because they are like children. No body hair, more fat, smaller, softer etc.
Votescam ago
Women are not "childlike" ...
In fact, it is males who are the more vulnerable gender as more males are lost in spontaneous abortions which nature brings about when there is something wrong with the pregnancy.
And more males succumb to illness and death up to the age of two. Males also die earlier than females.
However, you've just given your theory on why males are our sexual abusers of children.
Again, if anyone wants more information on the studies which show that it is heterosexual males who re our sexual abusers of children, please let me know.
hypercat ago
Well then I guess anthropologists are all wrong, is saying that the retention of child like qualities as part of sexual selection is totally wrong. Who would you rather fuck, a nubile young thing or Frida Khalo?
I am just saying, part of the human brain is hardwired to want to have sex with young fertile women who are not hairy.
Votescam ago
Don't judge others by your own hardwiring.
Immature males may seek women with "childlike" qualities and some women may adopt "childlike" qualities to attract these immature males ....
We see this in "baby talk" and in females standing with their toes pointed in to imitate very young girls.
A lot of the clothing that we see being made for adult females today is reminiscent of clothing made for young girls.
We also often see the return of "slave shoes" for females and "choker" necklaces.
Again, these are things which appeal to immature males and they are "looks" taught to women to seduce males who are actually attracted to childlike behavior in females.
Children are NOT "fertile" which is one of the reasons why pedophiles are attracted to them.
hypercat ago
Youthful then. Perhaps "childlike" is not the best term. But women go through puberty around the age of 13-14 making them fertile. So, instead of older women who may have started growing a mustache or having excessive body hair, etc. men are attracted to young nubile women. I mean a horny 15 year old boy is going to want to hump a horny 15 year old girl. Older rich men get the youngest wife that is appropriate.
You think Salma Hayek is married to the crypt keeper because of his shining personality?
Votescam ago
hyper --
True "childlike" isn't the best term, though men are encouraged to think that women can't think for themselves and are childlike.
Also, this Hollywood Model of coupling which depicts females at 20% smaller than males is also a lie.
We know that not so long ago men and women stood shoulder to shoulder.
You could as well in recent times see this in the Puerto Rican populations for some reason where the females were often larger than the males.*
Some of that has to do with the fact that Nature intends that women carry more fat on their bodies which is required for childbearing.
Not sure, but I think because of our diets -- specifically animal eating -- females are passing through puberty at earlier ages. And that is being accelerated because of the hormones and chemicals being used on these animals.
One of the reasons for late terms abortions is cases of incest when even 10 year old girls have become pregnant, but certainly we are aware of 11 and 12 year olds who are past puberty. Puberty alone is not a signal that a female is strong enough to give birth to a child as what we know of childbearing suggests that it takes an adult female's body seven years for her body to return to full health and well-being.
Obviously, people can be attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex at very early ages. If you ask people when they were aware of their sexual orientation many will state very early ages. That doesn't mean that they were involved in sexual relationships with the same or opposite sex at that time, but we are all capable of feelings of affection and even love for one another at any time and we are aware of those attractions and affection.
True -- young teenagers will be attracted to one another -- whether the same sex or he opposite. And they do often become sexually involved at those ages.
Many immature older men will seek relationships with younger females, even under 16. And often pregnancies result and end in abortion.
But what you suggest is "appropriate" in relationships where the older rich men get the youngest wife is NOT appropriate.
hypercat ago
I'm just saying, who doesn't want a young hot wife? No one goes out there and is like "Hey I am looking for a 38 year old fatty with small tits". By and large men are attracted to young women. Neotony exists. Sparse body hair, softer features, women don't have beards, sexual selection and what not.
Why do humans go gaga over things with big eyes and soft faces? Baby seals, baby penguins. Models with big eyes. Why do asians try to make their eyes look bigger to be more kawaii?
Because what we think of as cute, or desirable, is pretty much a woman looking young.
Does that mean I support pedos? Hell no. But you have to be kidding me if you can't at least agree that men are attracted to young women over older women. And that women have more childlike qualities than men.
Votescam ago
And what woman doesn't want an attractive male companion?
Take a good look at males today -- many of them need bras.
How about the beer bellies?
What you are describing are "baby faces" on children which are intended to make us fall in love with them -- and protect them -- not sexually abuse them.
Asians -- who are the majority on the planet -- seemingly came under culture shock after WWII and the invasion of the US army in Japan.
Not so different from women here being encouraged to have plastic surgery -- and breast augmentation.
Males in the US are obsessed with women's breasts and many think it is because of the lack of breast feeding since the late 1930's or so.
I'm sure many women are interested in younger males -- we are seeing those kinds of marriages more often now as women have more earning power.
it goes both ways.
Women have been trained to be desired --- not to concentrate on what THEY desire. Times are changing, however.
If women want younger more "childlike" males, will the males oblige and develop more "childlike" qualities?
hypercat ago
Biologically women want the opposite of child like in their partners. Which is why you see them more attracted to chiseled jaws (no one wants a Hapsburg), deep voices, taller than them, etc. Basically manly protector. No one wants a short fat neck beard and they never will because biologically they are seen as lesser.
Votescam ago
Again, the "Hollywood" coupling is suggestive of what everyone should want and it's long been propagandized as ... the right thing to want and do.
Women fall in love with men with "baby faces" just as often as men fall in love with women who are "baby faced." There's even a song about it.
While beards on men are being pushed now for decades, from what I see women and girls want guys without beards, with clean faces -- and nothing to hide behind. And a shave that produces soft skin -- no razor stubble.
The idea of a male "protector" exists because females have been so under threat by male aggression. I'm sure it would be a relief for males if they didn't think they might have to fight off some male thugs to protect their girl friend or wife. I'm talking about the men in our societies which other men fear.
From what I've seen and read, women are interested in men who support women and who are compassionate and humane.
hypercat ago
I am not going to go into all the research on human biology, nurture nature, facial hair trends (which does not connote baby facial structure), or the desire to retain a mate who is biologically fit and manly to protect not only women but their offspring. But it's a thing. But don't ask me, ask the American Anthropological Association.
Votescam ago
hyper --
You're ignoring what I've pointed out to you as to the artificiality of ... and propaganda surrounding romance and attractions. Much of it is created.
Like the role of organized patriarchal religion in mandating a sexual norm of heterosexuality... because that benefits the church's membership ... whereas homosexuals do not as often procreate.
I've also offered "baby face" to challenge the concept of "childlike" ... they're two different things. One is about softness which women also appreciate in males -- the other is an insulting portrayal of adult males and females as mentally and spiritually immature.
You've also ignored the REASON behind the idea of a male as "female protector" ... which is that females have been oppressed by violent males and often subjected to harassment and rape by them. It is common even today to see gangs of males sexually assaulting women. This certainly isn't about "sex" as we know it ... it's about domination and control over another human being. This is also true of male on male rape.
This isn't about "research" ... this is about how these political oppressions are carried out in our societies and how they effect us all.
Another, "for instance" .... In order to send men to war the bond with females and children has to be broken.
But, then again, hyper ... I wonder if you have ignored those realities or whether you can't see them?
hypercat ago
I think you are relying on analogies and specific examples, vs. biological evidence over thousands of years. We can always observe a cultural thing, or a trend in a short period of time and chalk that up to biology, or we can observe over a longer period of time, like 50 thousand years, and the actions of evolution, and see a common and traceable trait, regarded as better by sexual selection.
You calling me by not my nick, but by a short version, is also pretty condescending showing that you think you are far superior and that I am uneducated.
Votescam ago
hypercat -- If you want to talk about history over 50 thousand years ago, you are talking about the violent overthrow of females and matriarchal-centered societies ...
When has that ever been acknowledged by our male controlled history or male biologists?
Historically, our professions of influence have been owned and controlled by White Male Patriarchy: Advertising, Hollywood, Corporations, Organized Patriarchal religions ... By those males in political control of our nation and its lawmaking over issues such as birth control and abortion. We've also seen medicine moved into the hands of males ... even to the removal of women who studied our plants which are our natural drugs/medicines - and women who served as midwives where childbirth actually became the business of males/OBGYN's.....!!
Who researched, wrote and controlled the "biological evidence over thousands of years" which you refer to except males?
Neither should we ignore the "propaganda of white male history" taught in our schools, universities, colleges... and echoed by media.
Nor has "sexual selection" been the privilege of females -- It has been males who have done the selecting which is why US society is so obsessed with female breasts.
Further, males patriarchy oppressed females into subservient positions, including into poverty which denied them even inheritance rights from their own families -- and rights to their own children . They were denied educations and access to professions ... all of which forced them into marriages in order to have shelter, food, clothing.
Btw, we are dealing here with the subject of sexual abuse of children which was covered up by Sigmund Freud in his Oedipus Complex which outrageously suggested that it was infants, toddlers and very young children who were the sexual aggressors against adult males in their families:-- fathers, grandfathers, uncles, male cousins -- and male friends of the family.
Freud betrayed his young male and female clients who had confided in him their sexual abuse by males in their families and male friends of the family. The Oedipus Complex was written to HIDE the truth of sexual abuse of children being carried out by males in our societies.
PS: If you notice, I shorten everyone's username and use it just so they know the message is for them... I rarely note the user or their personality.
If you think I am superior and you are un-educated, it is all in YOUR mind.
hypercat ago
I am not even going to respond to these points because it sounds exactly like the conspiracy theory sub. Bouncing around with random facts to the point of incoherence.
Votescam ago
hyper --
Good for you ... cause this is certainly "Conspiracy-free America" ....