C
Celene
Guest
I got in a little debate with someone here. And it went a little something like this.
Essentially, I put forward the positive claim that Hebephilia is not directly comparable with pedophilia, simply because Hebaphiliacs are likely going to at least somewhat be attracted to features on children the ages of 11-14 that humans are mostly coded to and societally find attractive.
In other words it is totally possible for children of this age to develop breasts, muscles, shoulders and hips. While I don't necesarilly condone any behaviours towards people this age, I find the attraction much much more understandable then pedophillia, on a biological and societal level.
it's certainly possible at younger ages, but again it's fairly obvious that these features would occur more numerously during puberty rather then before it.
Now I was asked to provide citations for my claims. My claims being "Hebephelia is not directly comparable to pedophilia" And things like "Breasts are something that humans find attractive" as well as "Sexual features will be more common with people going through puberty"
I believe while nuanced these claims are essentially based on easily observable and readily proven common sense facts. And that a call for citation specifically for a longform study concerning these as proof is an appeal to authority fallacy that only really muddles the water and delay a concession.
Of course I could find studies. I don't believe it is necessary for such basic stuff.
Essentially, I put forward the positive claim that Hebephilia is not directly comparable with pedophilia, simply because Hebaphiliacs are likely going to at least somewhat be attracted to features on children the ages of 11-14 that humans are mostly coded to and societally find attractive.
In other words it is totally possible for children of this age to develop breasts, muscles, shoulders and hips. While I don't necesarilly condone any behaviours towards people this age, I find the attraction much much more understandable then pedophillia, on a biological and societal level.
it's certainly possible at younger ages, but again it's fairly obvious that these features would occur more numerously during puberty rather then before it.
Now I was asked to provide citations for my claims. My claims being "Hebephelia is not directly comparable to pedophilia" And things like "Breasts are something that humans find attractive" as well as "Sexual features will be more common with people going through puberty"
I believe while nuanced these claims are essentially based on easily observable and readily proven common sense facts. And that a call for citation specifically for a longform study concerning these as proof is an appeal to authority fallacy that only really muddles the water and delay a concession.
Of course I could find studies. I don't believe it is necessary for such basic stuff.