When it comes to sexuality, preferences and fetishes, is it nature or is it nurture?

I went from straight to asexual to 2dsexual (anime only girls, don't hit on me)

What a fantastically well thought out and insightful post. Filled with citations and trustable evidence and generally well backed up claims.
Really made me think.

In blind scientific studies measuring penile tension, girls of age 14 were the most desired age.

Care to source these? You can't just go "Studies say this" and not provide the studies, especially with a claim like that.

Thats the white lie. Just like "there are no races" or "i'm race blind" statements.

We have specific laws to prevent such things from happening, however these are not natural.

>Thats the white lie. Just like "there are no races" or "i'm race blind" statements.

It's nothing like that. Though the second one could be true, some people just couldn't care less about race.

Men aren't attracted to pubescent children generally speaking, and attraction to them is seen as abnormal. It wouldn't be if it was a normal thing, there'd be no way for it to end up there if everyone experienced it.

>Though the second one could be true, some people just couldn't care less about race.
We all make distinction unconsciously.

Majority of the countries allowed marriage to pubescent roughly 100 years ago before the Child Labor and Women's Right acts were pushed.

So it was the norm before that. Our cultural standards changed. However doesn't mean everyone in the world adopted our view of things. Most of the world are still catching up or in some cases, have stagnated.

Cultural re-enforcement via law could be seen as natural or not, thats bit debatable.

>We all make distinction unconsciously.

Not necessarily.

>Majority of the countries allowed marriage to pubescent roughly 100 years ago before the Child Labor and Women's Right acts were pushed.

[citation needed]

>Not necessarily.
Unconscious thoughts are, well unconscious. You can't not make those distinguishes.

>[citation]
>chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230
Of the known countries(french/british), the marriage age was raised to 12-13 at the end of 19th century. In the US, it was around 10-12.

At the end of 18th century, the French age of marriage was 11.

It was around 1920s when the moral campaign came to fruitation and the legal age was raised to 16 in the US.

>Unconscious thoughts are, well unconscious. You can't not make those distinguishes.

Are you saying we all have the same unconscious thoughts? Unconscious doesn't mean it's inherently shared across the human experience.

>It was around 1920s when the moral campaign came to fruitation and the legal age was raised to 16 in the US.

Age of marriage isn't the same as the age at which it's considered okay to have sex with them.

By legal law, thats what "considered okay" means.

If you want to claim moral grounds, then thats just that. A moral ground, with no legal framework. Someone will always be agaisnt something at any age.

>We all make distinction unconsciously.

And implicit racial bias isn't anyone's business, because controlling thoughts is totalitarian.

>By legal law, thats what "considered okay" means.

As opposed to illegal law. But seriously, no, they're not the same. In Australia, you can have sex at 16, but short of really extreme circumstances, can only marry once you're 18. I have no idea what the circumstances are either, probably like if you're dying or something like that.

>If you want to claim moral grounds, then thats just that. A moral ground, with no legal framework. Someone will always be agaisnt something at any age.

Your original point was a sexual one, not a legal one. It makes no sense why men would legislate against something they apparently all love.

But why do I find cartoon animals sexy?

most men crave jailbait "unconsciously" like most men crave food. there's a reason usenet is full of stories about grown ass men fucking fucking underage teenage girls.

>most men crave jailbait "unconsciously" like most men crave food

[citation needed]

did they do race test? i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say blue eyed blonde white women got the most "oomphf" from ALL races.

>Your original point was a sexual one, not a legal one. It makes no sense why men would legislate against something they apparently all love.

Not the user you're replying to, but there a stark divide between what lawmakers and government officials think and say, because they legislate on so many other issues and need to be reelected (and women are part of that electorate) and what the majority of people feel.

>Not the user you're replying to, but there a stark divide between what lawmakers and government officials think and say, because they legislate on so many other issues and need to be reelected

Women weren't when it started changing, but why would all the men of a country vote for someone promising to take away something they want?

>why men would legislate against something they apparently all love

men would love to blow their wads on other people's teenage daughters but they don't want other men to do it on their own teenage daughters. so that's why laws against jailbait fucking exists. plus there's that whole christian sex repression thing.

i personally think it's a fine compromise. look but don't touch.

>men would love to blow their wads on other people's teenage daughters but they don't want other men to do it on their own teenage daughters. so that's why laws against jailbait fucking exists

So then why wouldn't the laws be that it's fine if the parents say it is?

>plus there's that whole christian sex repression thing.

Church and state have been separated for ages. It's not fair to go "People only held these fake opinions because of X factor".

>i personally think it's a fine compromise. look but don't touch.

YEah, I think that it's a just law too, I don't get why we're arguing the legal side of stuff.

I just want to see a source that supports the whole "all guys find pubescent kids most attractive" thing.

But legislators vote on this stuff, and the vast, vast majority of men, even if they may think the marriage age should be lower, aren't going to make that their primary decision in voting for a candidate; it's just not that important.

And as for things changing prior to women voting, we also had the idea of childhood, where you have no cares and don't have to work, and adolescence develop among the upper class, and the upper class back then, even moreso than now, really set the tone for social mores and laws.

>*"back then" meaning the 19th century

But what reason would a politician or legislator (not sure who writes those sorts of laws in your country) do something that would piss off the electorate?

Because they vote on hundreds, even thousands, of other things that the vast majority of men (and women) consider significantly more important than the age of marriage. Have you heard of the war on drugs? How do you think taxes get raised? Most people don't want higher taxes, but they vote on other stuff. People will only care a lot more when the change is drastic.

It seems like restricting the sexuality of half your voters is a pretty big deal though, as we've seen recently with the whole LGBT rights stuff.

It comes down to both, but people forget that humans evolved to be born with basically nothing. A lot of sexuality, sex drive, what kind of people you're attracted to is shaped more by society than your own nature. To clarify, body types are primarily based on what is considered 'rare': meaning if you lived your whole life surrounded by f-cups you'll probably be attracted to smaller boobs. Back when we were tribal this encouraged genetic diversity, and explains why and how beauty standards change over time. What kind of personality attracts you, however, is pretty much entirely nurture. Most women aren't attracted to men with 'strong, dominating' personalities due to some sort of internal "alpha radar", but because that's what society thinks of as the best kind of man. Again, this can be observed over time. In the 1950's, a "dumb doll" was considered more attractive than a smart girl. Nowadays, however, most of you probably wouldn't date a girl that wasn't very bright.
Philias/fetishes are weird, because we don't exactly understand why they happen. Studies show that most are genetic, and infact can show up long before puberty happens. Nobody knows how or why such a thing would have evolved, especially with unsanitary/unhealthy ones such as scat/watersports, or ones that don't help pass genes such as feet. Theories point to the fact that we've been having sex for pleasure for thousands of years, and may have come into being like anal/oral did, but nothing conclusive.
Tl;Dr: it's more nurture than nature

You're not restrictinh the sexuality of half of your population, you're restrictions it for everyone. It's just that most people don't consider the right to marry a 14-year old to be that important compared to the thousands of other concerns. You can say it should be important, but people really don't vote based on potentially getting to marry 14 year olds.

And the LGBT comparison is weak, not just gay marriage but homosexuality used to be completely illegal, so they couldn't have sex at all or get married, which are very important to not just gay people, but most people. Liberal democracies try to protect the basic rights of everyone, including minority peoples, and marriage and the ability to have sex at all are pretty basic rights.

Your argument, that only a small subset of people are attracted to early teenagers, would actually call for lower marriage/consent ages as a matter of anti-discrimination, as a minority group of people are having their core sexual preferences restricted by law.

I said half the population because we were talking about men, no-one brought up women's tastes here.

But now we're talking about marriage, so couldn't you argue that the issue with gay people being able to marry those they're attracted to shouldn't also be just as important if someone was only attracted to 14 year olds? If every male felt that way, why would they not have any issue with it?

And no, you don't just legislate things because minorities want them. That's retarded. A serial killer gets off on torture too, and is a minority, we shouldn't legalise torture for them.

And sexual activities with young people have been consistently shown to be damaging to them, both mentally and physically, especially if they become pregnant. Though I'm not going to source hunt this, you're welcome to Google it if you want, it's easy info to find.

>To clarify, body types are primarily based on what is considered 'rare'
Literally the opposite is true

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinophilia

>and sexual activities with young people have been consistently shown to be damaging to them, both mentally and physically, especially if they become pregnant. Though I'm not going to source hunt this, you're welcome to Google it if you want, it's easy info to find.

But that's a different argument entirely than "are men attracted to pubescent girls". And teenagers (and I want to be clear, this is not pre-teens) have sex with each other all the time and turn out fine, and they used to have sex with older men and women and turn out fine as well. I could very easily argue that the reason it is so damaging now (and it is) is because those sexual relationships must be kept hidden, and if you read the literature on the topic, that is a big source of the psychological damage. There's also the coercion factor, since many early teen-older adult relationships occur with adult authority figures like teachers, coaches, etc., and this type of relationship is the source of many abuse cases. This doesn't apply if a 14 year old thinks her 22 year old coworker is cute, flirts with him, and asks him to come to her house to have sex with her.

With children, who don't even know what sex or sexuality is, then it's even more damaging because they don't know what they are doing. Teenagers know and understand sex, so that type of damage isn't really one they sustain.

Pregnancy is a legitimate concern and is a good reason to prevent pubescents from having sex, since they tend to be careless, but this is still a different question than "are men generally attracted to teenage girls".

lol

Well you're right honestly, but the law isn't a good indication of whether people like it either. Laws allowed all sorts of terrible shit to happen for ages to benefit nobles and other rich people instead of anyone else.

You'd need to provide a source that demonstrates that it's society that makes adult/minor sexual relationships damaging as opposed to the relationships themselves though. I can see you could have a point there (though obviously the major health concerns kind of over-ride it either way), but I'm not sure on it. Can you at least point me towards where I'd look, if not provide it yourself? Because I didn't provide any for my last post either.

Though most teenagers have a very poor view of sex up until around 17 or so, the younger ones tend to have these weird ass views of how it works, or not think about it seriously that much at all, and the introduction of the act into a still developing sexuality by a more experienced figure could be damaging to them.

>find 4chams
>Ewww dicks are gross
>Years later
>Gimme dat feminine penis

Hmmm

>You can condition yourself
This is true. I have some fucked up fetishes that i can't share with anyone but i think that i could go back to ''normal'' whenever i want if i condition myself to it.

There are a lot of full retards in this thread, user. You shouldn't even consider most of this trash. Some of the most intense fetishes are nature. Sitting in a basement all day doesn't make someone attracted to abnormal things. Some people are just wired differently. Saying that the way you're brought up or how you spend you time as an adult gives you a full-on fetish, not a kink you enjoy - but a full god damn fetish, is straight-up retarded. It's like saying spending too much time with Mommy or Daddy can make a kid gay. Gay kids are gay from the get-go, people with true blue fetishes have them from the get-go too. Some people have evolving sexual tastes in their lives, but that has little (if not absolutely nothing) to do with fetishes. People over-use the word fetish, and it's gotten to the point where most of this thread is full retards.

The reason a lot of people believe they got a fetish from a specific event is because they are accounting their first memory of noticing their response to the fetish materials as how they got the fetish. That's fucking retarded. Straight people don't become straight by looking at tits. Gay people don't become gay by touching biceps. Talking to fetishists gives you two responses. 1 - retards who believe their first encounter with what turns them on made them a fetishist. 2 - people who recognize that they were turned on during even their early childhood imaginings and exposures to their fetishes.

By the way, this shit has nothing to do with history.

Same exact thing

Cartoon animals aren't very far away from cartoon people. Why do you find it surprising that you're attracted to animals when you yourself are one? Why does it stike you as weird that you would find them sexually attractive, but not that you find them cute, or funny, or relatabale? Nature isn't a science y'know, it gives leeway for a lot of things and isn't that picky. Much like you would ignore a girl's stupidity if she were hot enough, your brain is going to ignore species if a cat has the right curvature or color.

Americans fucking outlawed alchol like hundred years ago. Human and childrend rights, christian moral than sex is bad etc make the rest. In Africa they even rape babies to cure aids because they culture thinks it will help.

being an hebe and ephebo was more acceptable back then (don't get much of the stigma against it when people claim they don't want to judged for other sexual related things)

My sexuality was inborn, my parents noted me talking about husbands/princes/kings and drawing my self with boys extremely early. They never thought I'd be with a woman.

My preferences were culturally and socially imbued based on social ideas around particular things like skin color and such, I've changed over the years because I've actively sought to distance myself from said socially formed preferences that put a value system of race and such.

Fetishes. Well I get rock hard for like 40+ really fat white men who aren't ugly in the face. That is based off partially because my desire to be basically a housewife/homemaker my whole childhood. I looked to my friends fathers on what to look for they were all fat and white.

I might be different though, my doc did hormone level checks when I was a teen and got weirded out. I developed small breasts before scant facial hair but I am really big down there so like its not intersex I think.

I feel like gender and sexuality play more of a role than people want to think now and days.

Nurture for the most part, this is what enrages me with faggots who say that they're born with it.

You're not born with a sexual preference, if anything you are born to be straight but even that is debatable

>Leftists stealing /pol/ memes
It's time to go back newfriend

I agree, probably like an acquired taste.

I'd say it's mostly nurture. Impressionable kids have experiences which make them lean a certain way. Like how anime nerds always end up chasing Asian women.

>Implying in nature everything gets to breed and those that don't don't end up fucking each others ass and sucking each others dicks on occasion.

Don't you think the kinds of people who end up being anime nerds are so because of their minds and hormonal patterns and the seek out women who they believe are submissive, cute and child like who won't treat them like the people around them?

Most Asian anime nerds I know prefer underage looking white girls with circle lenses.

Could it be hormones? I'm sure anyme nerds have lousy test levels, like nearly everyone in the west in the last years.

I'd say that principles with humans and animals are still somehow similar, though it manifests in a different way.

When peacock sees a potential mate then the more eyes it has on its tails the more valueable it is as it shows it can afford to lose more resources to maintain these, meaning their offspring will more likely be one that will be able to get more resources, be better off.

Similar in humans, people will lighter skin were considered more attractive as it was a sign of nobility, of person who doesn't need to work on the field as much, making it sign as wealth. Nowadays the shift is more towards tanned people, where they can afford to spend time getting the tan over people who need to work constantly and do some chores.

Similar theories are also about fat/slim, where fat used to mean wealthy, but nowadays slim is wealthy, because it means the person can use resources to keep their physique (though it's mysteriously only applied to women).

I'm not sure to which degree are these hypothesies accurate, but they seem to be compelling to at least certain degree.

Studies suggest he doesn't need a source to validate his claims.l

if you ever wondered why greek gods were always represented with small dicks and no body hair, it's because greek perfect body was literally the body of an eleven year old athlete boy (homosexuality was widespread because women were considered shit and only worth fucking to get sons. if pleasure is what you looked for, young boys were the top tier)

...

oh no my insecurity

I guess I'll start an argument on Veeky Forums

who's to say you were going to be attracted to dicks before your upbringing covered over it with alleged straightness that Veeky Forums merely pulled back?

i don't think it's unreasonable a very significant sexual event in someones youth could develop in them a fetish in the legitimate sense of the word.

>this shit has nothing to do with history.
but it does have to do with humanities

Sexuality is nature, being gay, or even bi is a mental illness.
Though fetishes and preferences are mainly nurture, they also have a background in genetics.

>most of you probably wouldn't date a girl that wasn't very bright.

Are you fucking stupid? Are you literally fucking ignorant and blind at the rest of humanity?

Men don't have the same standards of women that women have of men. She does not need to be a provider. She does not need to know how to do the man's job. She needs to look nice and be submissive enough to be pleasant around.

A smart woman usually aims for "smartness", not refinement of behavioral nor cognitive processes. There are exceptions of course. But I think every smart man knows the dread of being around a "smart woman" who can throw the jargon but be dumb as shit in understanding the actual mechanics of the subject.

i think you can understand how it would be difficult to come up with enough data for something that can get you kicked out of polite society for admitting to.

>So then why wouldn't the laws be that it's fine if the parents say it is?
that IS how the laws were until feminists bumped the age up to the point where the individuals in question were adults and thus did not need parental approval. even in Delaware at a time where you could legally have sex with a 7 year old, you werent going to be doing it without a parents permission.

>Church and state have been separated for ages.
are you seriously trying to say the moment church and state were separated that the church suddenly had zero influence on cultural values? holy shit dude. also its completely fair to say that people may hold fake opinions because to not hold them would make you a total pariah.

the most commonly searched porn term is 18 or just "teen", as in the lowest legal age for porn. you can google the source yourself easily enough for that. and i bet you good money the instant you set the legal age for porn to 17 then the new most searched term would be 17, and likewise for 16.

Mixture of both

Not sure why there is always a dichotomy to these things.

>is it nature or is it nurture
the answer to 99% of these questions is both

>i think you can understand how it would be difficult to come up with enough data for something that can get you kicked out of polite society for admitting to.

This sort of data is what we have anonymous surveys for.

>that IS how the laws were

Source.

And blaming feminism makes no sense, the laws were apparently changed before feminism had any sort of power.

>are you seriously trying to say the moment church and state were separated that the church suddenly had zero influence on cultural values?

You said yourself user. Laws aren't the same thing as cultural values.

Going "Everyone's just lying" isn't actually convincing in the slightest. If people claim to have a particular value, you have to operate under the assumption they hold that value, otherwise you can claim people hold literally any value. I could say everyone actually wants to be serial killers and rapists and worship satan, yet without any proof, it would be pointless.

>the most commonly searched porn term is 18 or just "teen", as in the lowest legal age for porn

First off, most "Teen" porn actors are in their 20's. And secondly, youth is attractive to a point. It doesn't just keep getting more attractive the younger you get, hence why most people don't want to fuck newborns.

OP provide sauce

...

Nazis were surprisingly open when it came to sex, they broke with the uptight burgeois views on it and wanted to create an arian sexual culture. Also, the large youth group (HJ, BDM) gatherings were basically huge fuckenings.

Stop posting this everywhere you autistic faggot, no-one's going to read your /r9k/ rant.

OP sauce please

It is an interesting read even if the use of beta and alpha is a modern invention.

So degenerate orgies.

I'm glad they lost.

Pedophiles are more common than you might think. It's just that they obviously try everything they can to contain their urges, since revealing them means instant social suicide.

What if I find submissive women fucking insufferable? If wanted to fuck an echo in a dress I'd just put one on and have a wank

I read the first paragraph, realised it was just a more pretentious version of the shit you can see by checking the catalog over there and stopped. There's no evidence or any proof backing up what it says, it's just an emotional rant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought of pedophilia, like other certain paraphilias, as not just attraction to but a strong preference or even an exclusive attraction to pre-pubescents?

I'm going to go ahead and say it's largely nurture. Alot of the stuff I unfortunately like is because of events in my youth.

From 14-18 I always had older women/girls prey on me and so now I like older dominant women. Not 'beat me up' dominant but strong independent ones. Dominant girls always seem to be fucking crazy though. Punk and scene girls are dominant but it's only a ruse as they're really insecure and histrionic. Also have a milf/mommy fetish. And a handjob fetish. And an anal fetish. And tittyfuck fetish.

Outside of sex I think my father being absent often and a poor role model in general led to this and my struggle to find my masculinity.

On top of that I think it contributed to my love of strong willed, intelligent and independent women. I even make some characters in video games women because I yearn for women who would actually do all those brave and fantastic things but am continually let down. Feminism doesn't help with its eternal victim complex.

It makes me very sad. I just wish girls would be better people overall. I want them to be doing cool shit and adventurous things and not doing it for attention. But they are far and few between. I try not to be resentful. My current gf appeared strong and independent at first but it turns out it was just her mania. Now she's like a helpless child as all my other gfs have turned out. Unable to drive themselves, afraid of the world and others and of course end up supporting things that validate their low self esteem.

Anyway. Yeah being sexuality taken advantage of by older women, and my early crazy gfs fetishes, and the porn I watched in my youth crafted my current sexuality.

Like subscribe follow

>My current gf appeared strong and independent at first but it turns out it was just her mania.

The same could be said for men as well

I would argue it's to a much lesser extent. I'd also like to point out, at least for the most part at least crazy men with bravado genuinely accomplish alot, even if they're demented psychopaths. Maybe you're right.. There is Hillary Clinton after all..

Some of our culture still thinks that women should be submissive, demure etc so I'd argue that it might have something to do with it.

Oh shit I just described the patriarchy

*Commits sudoku*

Which part really has that much influence? Almost all major leaders go on about how women need to be soldiers and CEOs and so on and none are willing to step up to the plate. I mean why would anybody when you don't have to? Why sacrifice a comfortable life when society as a whole wants to take care of you?

I'd love to have women soldiers, they even are allowed in SOF and US Rangers. They had all sorts of special advantages in their tryouts and still none of them finished.

I'd like to point out that the idea of patriarchy that's been spoonfed to women is toxic. It's perhaps the reason they're not doing these things, but maybe not for the same reason you think.

The whole idea teaches women that the whole world is against them, that they are victims of oppression and deserve reparations for the long history of evil and subjugation. The effect I'd imagine this has on their attitude is terrible.

Women have opportunities to be these great things and perpetuating victimhood status only holds them back. Or they're just uninterested in doing those great things. Which would be really disappointing

name?

Who is that bodacious bodybuilder?

>Which would be really disappointing

Why? Their great mission is to literally bear children.

I think the Apollo Project integration of women was a gold standard. You bring in people with actual skills, truly exceptional women.

>blah blah the sovreignty of women

Most women enjoy being servile under competent rule. Emphasis on "most".

You feed into their solipsism (that they think and act like men. Therefore be special because men who are special get attention...) and dissatisfaction with life. And you rob them of prime child rearing years.

What a fucking mess I'm still wondering how it got to be so fucking stupid.

>Why? Their great mission is to literally bear children.

That's a meaningless reductionism

I'm not saying I agree that they're the exact same as men and thus should be acting like them. I'm saying I kinda wish they did and attempts at forcing them have been largely unsuccessful.

I have no doubt there are exceptional women. My current CEO being one. But they are the exception. I just wish more were like that I guess. I earlier suggested it's probably because the odd sexual history involving these kinds of women