What would have been the evolutionary optimal age of female for

>>8030655
Post-pubescent.

>>8030658

12?

>>8030701

21

>>8030701
>>8030712
Meaning the instant they could reproduce. Considering they have already lived about half their lifetime by the time they could have kids, there's not much time to dilly dally.

>>8030655
>she will never suck your dick

>>8030655
-1/12

>>8030731
I dream of being a Medieval warlord with a large harem of 12 year old qts but instead I'm a friendless 27 year old student living in the early 21st century

All life is suffering

>>8030727
>Meaning the instant they could reproduce
Nah, you gotta lock that shit down before somebody else puts their stinky-pinkie in there.
And, don't forget, the sooner they learn their way around a kitchen (or the cave-man equivalent) the better.
I'd say 8 at the latest..

alef nole

>>8030738
Whatever age they could procreate was when they had children. You can't just say "naw earlier for reasons". Nature doesn't work on pedoclocks.

>>8030736
You watch too many anime.

>>8030765
>You watch too many anime

I don't watch any anime

I'm just a big history buff

Probably around 16, just because a woman can reproduce at 12 doesn't mean it's ideal or she's ready. That's not how evolution works. She needs hips and sufficient body fat and breasts.

File: 1459125795489.jpg (238KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1080x1080px

>>8030765
>Whatever age they could procreate was when they had children.
Nobody said anything about procreating.
Opie asked about
>optimal age of female for a man to acquire
Ideally, you'd want to "acquire" a girl BEFORE she's had any reason to have contact with anyone's penis.
"Optimal" certainly wouldn't be *after* she begins menstruating.
Are you suggesting a cave-man should check per-pubescent girls every day for menses?
What kind of sick fuck are you?

20.
Prior to that she can't protect herself or her offspring.
16 was an adult but they needed time to get used to their adult body and feel confident in using it for protection.
Being able to reproduce doesn't mean anything in being an attractive mate; there is no evidence that humankind had deep well thought out or complex thoughts about mate selection other than:
- Alive
- Healthy
- Not frail
- Can cooperate
Try finding a pubescent frail creature that looked attractive at the end of the last age.
Not happening.
It's not a question of ethics; I don't have them and are not biased due to them.
It's a question of survival.
Do post-apocalyptic men [yes, in fiction, but it speaks volumes about our conscious understanding of the subject] seek strong or weak women? Same conditions people.
Same goddamn conditions.

>>8030780
For a caveman that fully implies the age at which they can breed. Otherwise they are just another mouth to feed that isn't carrying his genes.

>Are you suggesting a cave-man should check per-pubescent girls every day for menses?

Of course they did. They had superstitious rituals and everything centered around it. African tribes still do this today.

I take it this is just a pedophile thread and not an anthropology thread No wonder no one here knows anything. God damn it 4chan.

>>8030866
Not anon, but....
- Cavemen didn't even know what genes are
- No evidence Cavemen understood anything about procreation at all
- You're using presuppositions based on anachronistic personal incredulity
- Cavemen did not breed with young mates, we know this via age analysis from graves
- They took older, hardier mates; they were survival buddies they had sex with and "randomly" had children with; they didn't understand the process... not even bronze age people fully understood the process.

>>8030822
>Prior to that she can't protect herself or her offspring.
That's your job, retard.

>>8030923
There's no evidence of the "caveman owns frail woman" stereotype from 50s cartoons.
In fact, all evidence points to men being out most of the day hunting and gathering.
You need to read at least one book on the subject before you're qualified to shoot your mouth off.

>>8030933
There is strong evidence that monogamy was enforced with the rise of agriculture for social stability.

Polygamy causes social instability.

>acting in this thread like most of history females where given away from fathers from the age of 5
No, most of history was not comprised of muslim ideals.
Women were commodities.
Females were typically forced to be chaste until they were ready to give their daughters to men who could afford to keep the father well in old age.

Would be almost none of you insecure faggots. It's the only reason you guys feel safe with a 12 yr old for a gf.

>>8030967
1.) That has nothing to do with my post; that's not a counter-argument.
2.) This
>"Polygamy causes social instability"
Is a known and well-studies fallacious belief.
Humans are not naturally monogamous, and almost no species on this planet are monogamous.
3.) Citation?

>>8031029
>Humans are not naturally monogamous
When has "naturally" ever been an argument in relation to humans? We don't naturally live in houses or develop medicine either.

>>8030822
>acquire 13 year old wife
>have 3 kids right away
>16 year old bitch won't stop self-harming herself and fantasising about having fun with 17 year old Chad
>leaves kids to die while she focuses on hair, clothes, etc to deal with raging hormones
Adult women are headaches, kids are useless aneurysms. Getting kids and teens to do as you want is about as easy as teaching a cat dog tricks.

>>8031035
Actually, yes we do.
That is human nature.
Curiosity.

Humans build houses like Beavers build damns and birds build nests.
It's all perfectly natural.

Humans don't "do" monogamy.
Science has always pointed in the exact opposite direction 100% of the time.
Only 30% of humans, in collective studies over the last 10 years, actually know who their real father is according to randomized genetic testing... and only about 10% of people even admit it to their partners.

You're an idiot.
Genetics don't lie and nor do statistics.
Accept reality.

>>8030780
>What kind of sick fuck are you?
The very worst kind.

>>8031054
Fuck no.
I'll get a sexbot equipped with an artificial womb, fuck you nature ur not me mum

probably 18 or 21 depending on which state

>>8030655
300k, but only after a math phd

>>8031029
The counter argument here is naturally observable.

Monogamy is a far more stable structure for a society than polygamy. None, and I mean absolutely none, of the studies conducted on family structures EVER favour polygamy for long term prosperity or survivability.

J. D. Urwin, Sex and Culture (1934) concluded "Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity"

Also, Polygamy and Domestic Violence is well proven. On top of that, Violence between in-group males in a polygamous society is always higher than monogamous cultures.

Kill yourself and pick up a bible you faggot. Virginal marriage and the control over women is vital to the development of a society. Because it still ensure everyone is getting a piece of action, and focuses their energies on other matters beyond sexual competition.

>>8031439
That's actually interesting.

File: no-U-deanheller.jpg (15KB, 250x220px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x220px

>>8031054
>You're an idiot.
no U

>>8031054
>citations needed

>>8031439
>1934
Before science tackled social taboos, including the topic of sexuality.

Alfred Kinsey, considered the father of modern scientific research on human sexuality, stated that previous research was exceptionally biased and was used to support pre-existing religious beliefs.
His research is uncontested even today.
So if you don't know Alfred Kinsey, then you really don't know anything about human sexuality.

>>8031054
>statistics don't lie

>>8031469
I didn't use an ad hominem.
Google "ad hominem fallacy fallacy".

>>8031529
See
>>8031564

Why is every single field I'm well read in always seem like an island on 4chan?
Idiots keep using fallacy fallacies and the arguments from ignorance... at least when they're not using straw man fallacies and false equivocations.

>>8031569
They don't.
The "there can be errors means that statistics are lies" is a false equivocation.

If it bleeds it's ready

>>8030736
Convert to Islam.

>>8031564
>Alfred Kinsey
>not biased as fuck
>Rockefeller foundation crony
K bro. Why not just cite catholic church funded research saying that gay people are evil.

>>8031564
>Alfred Kinsey

>Kinsey's research went beyond theory and interview to include observation of and participation in sexual activity, sometimes involving co-workers. Some of the data published in the two Kinsey Reports books is controversial in the scientific and psychiatric communities, due to the low amount of research that was done and Kinsey's decision to interview and sexually experiment with volunteers who may not have been representative of the general population. Kinsey justified this sexual experimentation as being necessary to gain the confidence of his research subjects. He encouraged his staff to do likewise, and to engage in a wide range of sexual activity, to the extent that they felt comfortable; he argued that this would help his interviewers understand the participants' responses. Kinsey filmed sexual acts which included co-workers in the attic of his home as part of his research; Biographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy explains that this was done to ensure the films' secrecy, which would have caused a scandal had it become public knowledge. James H. Jones, author of Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, and British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, among others, have speculated that Kinsey was driven by his own sexual needs.
>James H. Jones, author of Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, and British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, among others, have speculated that Kinsey was driven by his own sexual needs.
>taking this pervert seriously.

probably around 8.. that's the age when you can go balls deep in that pussy and she could probably help around the cave picking up rocks and stuff. they by 9 when she had her period it's baby time.. then by 20 she is dead because that is the life expectancy.

>>8031652
>by 20 she is dead because that is the life expectancy

wrong
if you reached 20, chances are you died at 40, not 21

the life expectancy was that low because many newborns didn't survive the first days/months, just like today Africa

>>8031588
this is the only valid answer

I can't believe a "scientific" board went on discussing it or proposing alternatives

even gypsies sell their daughters at 13; she get deflowered during the wedding party: if she is not virgin the other family wont get the money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THInODdvvMQ

from 12:25

>>8030770
Join ISIS. Then you can go to the ME and rape however much poon you want. Alternatively, you could just become a serial rapist here. Of course, youll die an early death, but you would have if you were a warlord in the 6th century too.

>>8031564
Before Kinsey completely ruined the field with his literally degeneracy. Almost everything after the second world war consists of anti-family orientated policy proposals. Almost every intellectual work from the social sciences between 1945 and 1975 is absolute cancerous bullshit.

File: bait_natalynlind.png (1MB, 974x691px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 974x691px

well, Julia is 13 in Shakespeare play and Maria wasn't 15 either, when god fucked her

I'm having a bit of a problem with
>evolutionary optimal age (of female) for a man
because the advantage is not for the man.
"To spread my genes" is not a goal of an individual of the species, and he's certainly not well off with 20 babies. If he want's kids to support him when older, then getting a woman at 17 to pop out a few at a healthy age would be best, I think, as much younger and lower puts the womans life at risk.

Related, this list is interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

File: WhyDoesGod.jpg (107KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 450x338px

>>8030780
> you'd want to "acquire" a girl BEFORE she's had any reason to have contact with anyone's penis.
What you wanted is immaterial.

According to Huxley's Brave New World Revisited, prehistoric societies lived by the wolf pack model. There were the beginnings of specialization (hunter vs. gatherer).

Unless you were the alpha male, you didn't fuck. At all. The alpha male made sure of that. It's where government came from.

Also, because your tribe basically followed the migration of the nearest prey species, you didn't have intertribe breeding. Your tribe was mainly related - due to having only one source of male genes. The alpha male fucked his daughters.

And if you lived past 30, you were old.

>>8031588
>>8031744


from a purely biological standpoint, this is 100% correct.

File: 482816459_AE_1548_859526F5F0CA0A573B1A5DDBD65B712C.jpg (548KB, 1024x725px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1024x725px

>>8032025

>>8032025
/sci/ is pedo-central

>>8032025
>getting a woman at 17 to pop out a few at a healthy age would be best, I think, as much younger and lower puts the womans life at risk.

Wait to much and the men will get older too, which was always risky: since you can die any moment, you better set up your children as soon as possible, so they can be of some help later on.

Evolution doesn't operate for no reason: if a girl is bleeding, she is ready. If it's "too early" as you think, then nature would have opted for "bleeding at 17".

>>8032064
Or: it would be the natural thing for men of any age to fuck 13 year olds, however a concious beings and within a society we recognize it would be irresponsible to expose people at the level of a teenage minds (namely young teens) to this kind or relationship and its consequences

File: younger.jpg (159KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1024x1024px

>>8032109
given the question asks for the best age of the female for the male (a male of unspecified age), his age isn't a variable to optimize.

Regarding the bleeding thingy, I would actually think that the time it starts is stronger influenced by food and out circumstances than the relation to the girls health are. In other words, if you take a caveman times female and "shock" her with healthy food, the system wouldn't adjust perfectly for this level of improvement and the hormones might trigger the first bleeding early (with 10-12, say), while the body isn't actually perfectly suited for giving birth.

>>8032110
> Or: it would be the natural thing for men of any age to fuck 13 year olds
No it wouldn't be...

File: 7ba.png (126KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 500x320px

>>8032110
> it would be the natural thing
Drive a car recently?

You tell me how surrounding yourself with steel and moving forwards at great speed due to controlled explosions of dead dinosaur byproducts is natural.

No 13 year old, male or female, can hope to raise a child by themselves in the post industrial world. To expose them to that process is therefore cruel and should be illegal.

Sorry pedos. You lose.

>>8032125
>take a caveman times female and "shock" her with healthy food

What the hell are you talking about?
The diet of hunters was similar to that of a wolf, so she's already used at ups and downs in availability of food; if you happen to have too much you'll try to preserve it or to exchange it with some tools or a good dog or some other food that can be preserved better than yours. The whole point was "let's survive longer", not "let's have a banquet on Sunday". Stop watching movies.

File: emot_13yo.png (591KB, 614x609px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 614x609px

>>8032130
>No 13 year old, male or female, can hope to raise a child by themselves in the post industrial world. To expose them to that process is therefore cruel and should be illegal.

Literally what I said. It would be odd to have those kids make their own decissions or get old guys get away with it. But some argue that there is no biological reason for a man not to desire mate with a female once she hit the menstrual circle, which is a bunch of years below current consent laws. It wasn't in Shakespeare old English times (only a few hundred years ago), where you could marry a girl aged 12-14.

>>8032127
Because? They could get offspring out of it. You think nature has a trigger warning
"Caution, pic related has great milk bags, but she only witnessed the earth turn around the sun 13 times, don't bang!"?

>>8030727
>half their lives

You don't understand life expectancy. People didn't just drop over dead at 30. If you made it to 15, you were more likely to make it to 60-70 than die at 30.

bible said not to kill slaves under the age of 4, because they would probably still be virgins.

This implies 5 is the age to start sexing? (historically, not today)

>>8032144
Because of the age of consent you pedophile freakshow.
fuck off back to /r/eddit or wherever anus you crawled out of

>>8032125
>"shock" her with healthy food
>>8032142

oh wait, I got it: you mean to bring her here and feed her our processed foods? ah ah, oh lord, you must be one of those Americans that eat pills their whole life; ah ah, no Jimmy, that roasted rabbit they were having it's already the healthier food possible.

File: young_ass.jpg (567KB, 1280x1761px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1280x1761px

>>8032161
You might be misunderstanding me on purpose, but my post was (literally!)
>Or: it would be the natural thing for men of any age to fuck 13 year olds, however [argument for not doing it a human society]
So the "natural" here was referring to: A 40 year old caveman would naturally find himself getting a hard-on from pic related and make a baby

I understand that you have problems with this event (it's the conscious argument I agree with), but OP is explicitly asking when to start from the evolutionary perspective and that's the answer, as far as I can tell

>>8032174
MOAR

>>8032174
Why is what a caveman even remotely relevant to anything ? They might have thought it might be a good idea to rape, eat shit, cannibalize and put their dicks in a hornets nest as well.

Why are you under the delusion that it's somehow a justification for your pedophilia and your endless pedophiac image spam ?

>>8032161

we're not arguing that we condone pedos, at least I'm not. OP is talking about caveman times, a more primal, evolutionary driven time.

menstruation = maturity

HOWEVER, I think we can all be in agreement that post-industrialized society this is clearly wrong, and should not be condoned or practiced. To say that, purely biologically, a female is not ready to procreate at menstruation is scientifically inaccurate.

File: classIO.jpg (197KB, 1296x968px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1296x968px

>>8032184
OPs question reads
>What would have been the evolutionary optimal age of female for a man to acquire back in CAVEMAN times?
Did you read it?

>>8032182
I have to google young looking girls myself,
but if you just want women to follow their cerebral programming, in 2010++ supported by Turing complete machines in their pocket,
consider

http://imgur.com/r/ChangingRooms

>>8032184

the caveman is relevant because that's that the fucking OP is about. See: >>8032191.

>>8032184

learn a new word:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

>>8032193
>>8032196
and I said why is it a justification for your pedophile image spam ? Fuck off already wierdos

>>8032205
Re-branding pedohilia or dividing it up to terms don't magically make you not a pedophile nor get you off the hook. You still belong to the prison getting raped by 20 inmates everyday.

>>8032208
>3 pictures
>endless spam

buttmadhurtlord

>>8032208
Why do pictures of sexually attractive young women rustle your jimmies so much? Even if you consider such people preferences degenerate, this is 4chan - make a scientific counter-argument or ignore the thread.

>>8032217
> justifying pedoposting
kek

File: 50 shades of grey.jpg (31KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1024x576px

>>8032174
> A 40 year old caveman would naturally
A 40 year old caveman would most likely be long dead of dysentery

After the 21 year of age the bones are fully-grown so the pelvic are less flexible thatswhy the risk of problem while birth is increased.also the chance for unhealthy mutations like downsyndrom are after the 36 year of age much higher.so the perfekt period for a woman to give birth is 16-21 but the years till the 36 birthday are also good

>>8032208

what part of I don't condone pedophilia, or ephebophilia do you not understand? I'm just making the completely factual point, AS IT RELATES TO THE FUCKING OP. That's how it was, deal with it.

Also, I didn't post anything.

ITT we all pretend there is some biological or evolutionary reason to wait an objectively random period of time after maturity

>>8030655

Consider the factors back then

>Lower mortality rate for you and her
>competition with other cave gangs
>her first menstrul cycle

Literally would say 10-11 years mate.

>>8032249
I agree completely. Lets fuck 3 year olds because I deny age of consent and rather insert my own subjective and vaguely defined age of "maturity" which gives me an excuse to be a pedophile xD

>>8032220
aww look how angry he is that everyone doesnt automatically agree with him

>its "evil" therefore i must be right
moralistic fallacies are rough my friend

i'm not arguing that it is obviously undesirable, but bad logic or reasoning on your part doesn't help the case you are trying to make

>>8032249
But there is anon.

Have you ever seen the damage child birth has on a female under the age of 15...chances are you won't be getting a healthy petite wife for the future but rather redundant cum bucket that can't look after the the kids cause muh pelvic, muh complications.

Nature does not want you to fuck anyone under 15 in average, nature want you to wait and let her pussy mature then your peado dick can be inserted into usb 3 for optimal data transfer.

>>8032258
>maturity
>3 years old

can a 3 year old bear a child s-senpai?

File: prc.gif (554KB, 369x207px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 369x207px

>>8031564

"As a young man, Kinsey began inserting objects into his urethra initially drinking straws before moving on to pipe cleaners, pencils and finally a toothbrush to punish himself for having homoerotic feelings, and inserting toothbrushes continued throughout his adult life."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey#Personal_habits

>>8032265
Everyone actually agrees with me. It's you pedophile rapists that desperately try to justify your despicable pedophilia.

>>8032266
ITT we all forget that 200 years ago it was completely normal for girls to bear children right upon reaching maturity and the human race survived "muh complications"

objectively there is no reason

subjectively, ie ethically, there is a reason

btw i pick ethics :)

>>8032269
> age of consent is when they can physically do X
LMAO lets give 6 year olds driving license since they can physically drive cars.
Oh and lets allow 3 year olds to buy alcohol because they can drink easily.

You pedophile freaks are grasping at straws lol

>>8032275
i dont rape pedophiles, lets get that clear right now

>if you arent with me, you're against me
>if you don't support the nazis you're a jew
don't you have a rally to attend?

>>8032282
who is talking about age of consent? that would fall under subjectivity, ie ethics.

it is clear to me now that you're just a mad brainlet who picked what he thought was an easy side to boost his ego, and now you're just waist deep in your book of tryhard fallacies

oh well, i thought it could be an interesting discussion but its just more of the same

>im arguing on the side of "good" so therefore i have already won
makes for some very stupid arguments

File: chloe.jpg (347KB, 1067x1600px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1067x1600px

>>8032275
>Everyone actually agrees with me

nope
Why don't you understand that there is a HUGE difference between a 10 years old girl and a 14 years old girl biologically ready for pregnancy? Go get some old photos of Chloe Moretz year by year, hopefully you'll figure it out by yourself.

>>8032294
> this wall of text will justify my pedophilia
kek
>>8032322
you didn't even refute what I said. You the age where they can breed have to be the age where I can fuck them, then I gave you some examples where the age where you are capable of doing something will lead to some disastrous outcomes if you actually did. You're just spitballing trying to get around the fact that you're trying to deny age of consent and just keep wanna be a pedo

>>8032410
>wall of text
silly nigger, you can't read

>>8030655
pubescent
But we are civilized now
>inb4 pedos try to justify fucking kiddies

>>8032273
fug

Cavemen lived in tribes and had a leader. Nobody really lived long enough to become an old pedo back then. People probably just "married" their same-age cousins from inside the tribe, with the man usually a few years older

>>8032063
kill, fuck, marry

>>8030701
>12
But in the middle ages puberty mostly happened around 15 for girls.

>>8030736
"some" of life is suffering.

>>8032248
>what part of I don't condone pedophilia, or ephebophilia do you not understand?
Pedophilia serves no obvious biological/evolutionary function, by definition.
Ephebophilia is defined as:
the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.
That's breeding age, and is/was a viable evolutionary strategy.
Besides, most girls that age are considered consenting adults everywhere except some US states.

what a little turd of a thread u shat out op

File: 1457949240211.jpg (37KB, 285x256px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 285x256px

È lui o non è lui?

>>8033235
I read one phycological paper that claimed the reason men like younger women, and women like older men was developed to biologically reduce sibling incest.

Less sibling incest=less inbreeding=more viable offspring

>>8034215
Certo che è lui!

Also this belongs on
>>>/int/

about 12-15

>>8031054
innovation is not natural, no animal aside from humans seeks to build a house in any other way than its instinctual impulse

>>8032045
>Huxley
oooooooooooooooooooorly

How come extant primitive tribes don't operate like this? They fuck around then marry, and try to widen the gene pool.

>>8032273
i mean im cool with being gay but a pencil into ur urethra wtffffffffffffffffffffffff

>>8035056
I'd speculate that they're not a viable model for the societies that predate them.

>>8035043
>Exeption cant be natural

Sure stinks of moralfag in here. Go whiteknight on reddit

>>8035257
Second

File: image.jpg (93KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 960x640px

Based on objective studies, rather than anecdotal evidence and adamant denial rants (which mean nothing), about 90% of men are attracted to preteen girls.

A peer-reviewed scientific journal study (Behavior Therapy 26, 681-694, 1995), conducted by Kent State University, 1995 (Lori L. Oliver, Gordon C. Nagayama, Richard Hirschman) was conducted on a sample of normal (adult attracted) male volunteers using the "penile plethysmograph".

The team carried out hundreds of tests exposing men to female adult and child images. 95% exhibited arousal to the female adult images.

A staggering 88.7% exhibited arousal to the female child (less than 12 years old) images.

Prior to the study, 80% of the participants claimed to have no attraction to children and all of them had no history of illegal or legal youth attracted behavior.

For credibility information about this study, simply type in the citation info from the beginning of this post. The full report is quite detailed and it explains the many controls that were in place to ensure the result were accurate.

No similar studies have been conducted since this one because people know the results will be the same and they don't want further proof about how common attraction to preteens is.

>>8035955
By claiming a massively generalizing statement such as "%90 of men are X", I expect the sample size to be around atleast a few million and from people all over the world. How exactly was this experiment conducted relating to the test group ?

>>8035963
It says hundreds.

It isn't perfect but there aren't many, if any, other studies like this.

Even still hundreds of randomly selected people is pretty good sample.

>>8035965
> Even still hundreds of randomly selected people is pretty good sample.
> To make a claim on the entire male population in the world
LMAO. Also where does it say random people ? Are there indians, jews, arabs, europeans, greeks, mexicans ? Or did they just pick up local males and conducted on these "random" people ?

>>8035969
That added claim was stuff I meant to remove from the copy actually. The "90 percent" line.

>>8035973
You said "Based on objective studies, about 90% of men are attracted to preteen girls" didn't you ?
In any case a study with this low sample size is ridiculous to begin with.

>>8035979
You want to conduct a bigger and better one? Good fucking luck getting any funding or support, you'd have better luck trying to conduct a study to figure out if blacks are genetically predisposed to being violent criminals.

Like I said the top part was added shit I meant to remove from the copy, some of the paste is taken from elsewhere.

I also don't see how hundreds of randomly selected men isn't enough for a study. Granted it isn't enough to make the opening statement that exists in my posts but it's not like the amount is so paltry that it invalidates the findings.

>>8035982
> I also don't see how hundreds of randomly selected men isn't enough for a study.
It's like conducting a study in America about water, coming up with a result like %97 people can buy clean water and claiming that "%97 of people have access to clean water" while huge populations in india and some other poor countries haven't even seen clean water yet.

I'm also wondering how the teen images were presented. It's a whole other matter if they were presenting these images with provocative clothing and poses and said look they are attracted lol

>>8035988
The two aren't even remotely comparable. I seriously suggest you to take a step back and think about the comparison you've just made, it's completely nonsensical.

Why would it make a difference how they were presented? That doesn't invalidate the study even if they were as the original point still stands.

>oh yeah I really want to fuck that 9 year old but only because she's in panties I'm not a pedo

>>8035992
> take hundred something sample
> make a claim about entire population
> take hundred something sample
> make a claim about entire population
Yeah they lack the exact accuracy and credibility to be even taken seriously.

> Why would it make a difference how they were presented?
Did you just say that a women in a mundayne photo wearing generic dress have the same effect on men as that women wearing an exposing half-naked dress posed like a pornstar ? Are you fucking retarded ?

>>8035999
No you retard availability to water and biological attraction are not even remotely similar.

I already told you to ignore the top part as I meant to cut it out, at any time feel free to stop constantly bashing that one point that was incorrectly made.

You are so fucking defensive over this it's unbelievable, I guess you refuse to accept the study because if I had to guess it likely shatters a very biased narrow viewpoint you have.

And yes more scantily clad women tend to evoke a more erotic response but what you fail to understand is that pedophilia is just the attraction to prepubescents, if any prepubescent evokes attraction then you are by definition a pedophile.

You fundamentally misunderstand the point of the study, you constantly misrepresent the arguments and hand and constantly reiterate the same fucking point that I already told you was incorrectly pasted, and have come up with nothing as far as an actual retort is concerned save your horrible false comparison.

>>8036003
I compared the way you took samples and made a deduction you retarded abomination pedophile. You can't come up with anything with such tiny sample size.

> if any prepubescent evokes attraction then you are by definition a pedophile.
Again, no you fucking retard. This is the distinction between seeing a female clothed and nude, or seeing them normal or provocative. It adds to the attraction factor for males if you haven't noticed yet. And it doesn't mention how they did the tests since they might have posed them or gave them semi-naked dresses the boost the attraction rate so they can increase the percentage of their pedo-meter. This "experiment" is full of holes and its stupid at best. I don't know why you still cling on to it as if its supposed to be something worth mentioning.

>>8036020

Hundreds of randomly tested people is not nearly as small as you're making it sound, you are deliberately lying to try and act like this is meaningless because you're biased.


Again you're literally saying "well they may have made the kids sexy to make them attracted to them". BY DEFINITION if they are attracted to them they are pedophiles.

I would love if they could conduct more but like I said, you will NEVER have support to fund or conduct similar studies because the issue is too hyped. Same as I mentioned earlier.

File: 1307950247048.jpg (54KB, 461x518px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 461x518px

>you will never marry a virgin
I just want a woman who isn't a disgusting slut who has smoked and ridden more cock than she's had birthdays.

>>8036024
> hundreds of local citizens is supposed to mean something
why do you keep repeating this ?
> BY DEFINITION if they are attracted to them they are pedophiles.
Are you not understanding what I said on purpose you retarded pedophile ? The way measured attraction was "penile plethysmograph" as you said. Which can change greatly depending on if you're viewing someone naked or clothed, which effects results. In any way it doesn't matter your opinion on the subject since they didn't explain the way testing is done which makes it void and unreliable. Now stop trying to justify your pedophilia with this garbage of an experiment.

>>8036032
For any other study on something similar hundreds of random examples would be more than enough, even if only for a proof of concept if you will. You're deluded as fuck if you think it's reasonable to expect a study like that to somehow monitor a million people with things while they show them pictures. That's absolutely fucking insane.

Also generally speaking, naked children would be illegal so you can safely assume they didn't show that.

Love it when you hateful stupid fucks get enraged like this. Means no matter how little at a time it's getting somewhere.

>>8036039
> For any other study on something similar hundreds of random examples would be more than enough
Enough for what ? You even retracted your retarded claim that it was enough to say 90% of people are pedos like you until you got BTFO.

> Also generally speaking, naked children would be illegal so you can safely assume they didn't show that.
I said provocative and semi-nude clothed as well like showing kids in swimsuits. Nice try just ignoring everything that you don't wanna address.

> Love it when you hateful stupid fucks get enraged like this.
I hate pedophile kid rapists like you and my hate is justified. Any reasonable, responsible person and parent will agree with me.
> Means no matter how little at a time it's getting somewhere.
Keep dreaming pedophile.

>>8030655
Better question is: When we get sexbots, what modeled age will be the most sold?

Will the vexatious mature 24 year old body outsell the buxomy 16 year old, or both be outsold by the inquisitive 12 year old, or will the feminist of the world freakout if the 8 year old modeled body sells best.

>>8036046
Again. Like I said multiple times, the 90 percent part at the top was incorrectly pasted you absolute troglodyte.

>provocative clothed children

>I am attracted to kids but only because of what they are wearing

That means you're a pedophile genius.

>>8036046
kek trying so hard

clearly been diddled

13.
The boy would also be better served by taking a wife as soon as possible, so he'd be 13 as well.
Chances are, you'd either be dead or have a family by the time you're old enough for dicking a 13 year-old to really be morally reprehensible.

>>8036704
>>8036742
>>8036032
>>8036024
>>8036020

You guys do realize that pedophilia is about the preference for prepubescent children, right? It shouldn't be surprised that adults exhibit a little bit of arousal when shown provocative images of children, since little girls do in fact resemble women. Does that make them pedophiles? Not necessarily. It would depend on the relative arousal between that and being shown provocative images of adult women. I mean look at all the people that get aroused by drawings, which can resemble women less than some little girls do.

File: image.jpg (86KB, 2208x676px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 2208x676px

>>8036817
>>8036817
Don't know how accurate it is but there is some info that shows male pedos are as attracted to adult women as Hetero non pedos.

Not sure how this was conducted though haven't read it yet.

http://www.nemup.de/PaperNemup/Ponseti2012.pdf

>>8036931

Then by definition they are not pedophiles.

>>8036942
Yes they are. Pedophilia does not require exclusivity, just an attraction to prepubescents.

>>8036943

A preferential attraction or one that causes significant interpersonal issues.

>>8036948
Except you're just making shit up. All being a pedophile means is having an attraction towards prepubescents. Please stop tacking on all of this stuff incorrectly it isn't true.

Although to be fair that study does show that they have more attraction towards prepubescent girls than women. Just that their attraction towards women is the same as that of a non pedo Hetero.

>>8036948
>or one that causes significant interpersonal issues
It's only pedophilia if you can't hide it! Excellent logic, pedophile.

>>8036986
Christ this thread is filled with newfaggot muh chilluns posters from leddit and tumblr


Can you normies just fuck off?

>>8030655
>>8030731
>>8030701
SAUCE FOUND

https://twitter.com/mallorymerk/status/481521654191763456

>>8030655
any girl after having her first period, up to the age of 20 say.

but

a getting a girl before around 10 permits you to train her and mold her into what you want. they become docile before they reach puberty.

at puberty, they will be devoted into your sexuality and will allow you to fuck them all day.
Since you are a beta, this is what you want: be dedicated to your woman, to get, form her, as much validation of your existence.

As an alpha, you do not give a shit about being validated, even less by girls. So you do not care about supporting a family and pleasing girls, not even in bed.

>>8030727
What this guy said:
>>8032147

Average life expectancy is very skewed when there is high infant mortality.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (40KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1280x720px

Reminds me that there is the documntation I never watched

>Are All Men Pedophiles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_All_Men_Pedophiles%3F

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2072045/

>>8038229
> lets call all men pedophile so the real pedos can get away with it
LMAO

>>8037197
I know you might be stuck in some pedophilic fantasy, but you do realize most 10 year olds aren't little angels like in your anime. In real life, they are bad, destructive, oblivious, and mean as fuck for the sake of it.

But we'll pretend preteens don't have any angst or try to rebel

>>8035955
A staggering 88.7% exhibited arousal to the female child (less than 12 years old) images.

The arousal was to a substantially lesser degree for all but 25% of the sample, please don't exaggerate.

If anything, the conclusion this most supports is that arousal to paedophilic stimuli is not at all implicit of an inclination to child abuse. And would hence suggest alterations to legislation regarding child pornography and simulated child pornography (i.e. erotic audio, literature, comics). Though this would obviously require further reproduction and testing, perhaps without the sample being aware of the nature of the study to such a degree.

>>8040790
(first line should have been quoted)

>>8040793
"A staggering 88.7% exhibited arousal to the female child (less than 12 years old) images."
- anon, 04/30/16

There you go ;)

>>8040799
I won't deny that I laughed.

>>8030655
>evolutionary optimal
wtf does that even mean? strongest kids? smartest? having the most mutations? Evolution works on the whole gene pool over millenia - going for jailbait isnt going to get us super powers any sooner.
>acquire
evolution of a particular species works best when there is a large amount of genetic diversity - so changes in the environment dont wipe out the entire pool
so multiple parental partners - no acquisition

>>8042160
you're smarter than probably anyone you know. Have fun being intellectually alone

>>8030822
>Being able to reproduce doesn't mean anything in being an attractive mate

you're very wrong. you even go on to list things mean are attracted to, which correlate with being able to reproduce

>>8042160
>over millennia

not always
sometimes a random mutation gives a sudden advantage to an individual and if he manage to procreate it'll stay

just imagine a fish passing by a submarine volcano that erupted some radioactive rocks, and his weird looking offspring with... legs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_%28biology%29

on the other hand, crocodiles are the proof that mutations don't happen often and that evolution can be so slow that species end up extinct before the mutation needed appears

>>8030655
Comparing the modern human to caveman is fucking dumb. I know you're a retarded pedo that's trying to make a point, but you morons forget that cavemen died in their 30s and ate their own shit.

>>8042709
yeah and we die in our 80s and fill the void of life through leisure

>>8030967
>agriculture for social stability.
>agriculture
THAT'S NOT CAVEMEN YOU IDIOT

>>8032174
thats disgusting
no wonder there exist so many pedos

File: 1461531261685.jpg (73KB, 640x570px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x570px

>everyone in this thread who doesn't know how average life expectancy works

>>8032193
>http://imgur.com/r/ChangingRooms

Holy shit I found an ex-girlfriend of mine on there. Same tat (she didn't have any when we were dating).

She's in neon yellow bottoms nearly flashing her vag past her bikini bridge, and with an iPhone.

She was a really cool girl though. I should have made babies with her and stayed with her forever, but I'm retarded.

So pedophilia discussions are a subject of science&math now ? Is it now okay to fill this board with pictures of underage girls ?

>>8030655
Grass on the field.

I've been thinking about this for a couple days:

Basically what you'd want is the phenotypical traits of a mate to be fully developed prior to pursuit. Today in the here and now it's something like 18-23 for females and 18-25 for males. Dietary modality plays a role though so it's variable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776771/

Hypothetically if the brain expresses different genotypes and therefore phenotypes, the body would experience the same trends, this is supported at least anecdotally by the physical stature of ancient peoples. At some point it converges with the average lifespan, birth rate, pregnancy rate, and labor complications/labor fatality. Wherever the law of averages places optimal survival rates for all parties involved is where you find your ideal candidates.

>>8044666
Then shouldn't we outlaw pregnancies outside these ranges?

>>8030773
This

>>8044710
I'm not big on litigious interference. There's a lot of sides this argument can take so objectively we as a society would have to assess as a society the obligations we can maintain in certain circumstances. Say most pregnancies prior to this age occurred at 16, and most familial sponsorship was lost at 17, we'd have to calculate cost per year per child and divvy it up among the unsupported unmarried 17 year olds until they became self-sustained. If we don't apply social context to it it's largely irrelevant and only a concern to those whom it immediately effects.

>>8032255
Consider the following
>Can actually nurse
>Has bodyfat
>Has breasts
gtfo ahmed

>>8038229
>do you find me attractive?
no
guess I'm not a pedophile then

File: tumblr_vlcsnap.anime girl 46.jpg (81KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x720px

>>8030655
598

>>8036029
Not gonna happen senpai.

File: 1457696833153.jpg (40KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x400px

>>8036029
>I just want a woman who isn't a disgusting slut who has smoked and ridden more cock than she's had birthdays.
And how many hair pies have you eaten, Anon?

>>8030738
shit man

>>8030655
> What would have been the evolutionary optimal age of female for a man to acquire back in caveman times?

Same as the answer to this one:

What would have been the evolutionary optimal age of male for a woman to acquire back in caveman times?

File: Stacy1.jpg (322KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1600x1200px

>>8045254
You should get yourself checked, in any case.

A woman can make 10++ babies in her life, a man can make 10 in a day. It's natural that if there were no consequences, a man would almost always go for the fun special five minute act if he can.

>>8032182
Her name is danni meow on Tumblr and she posted nudes

>>8032147
>>8037217

I heard different - people in prehistoric times DID often die around the age of 30-40. It was mostly due to their teeth rotting out/becoming infected/causing sepsis etc.