Thread 17952597

Whenever we read about the ancient past, the brutality of life is pretty much a given and never factors into criticism of historical figures. People were regularly genocided or sold into slavery like it was nothing. However, there's a huge elephant in the room when all of this is brushed off with "it was a different time". Many historical figures had concubines or were married to what would be classified today as children. Women were married off to older men or wealthy nobles as soon as they began menstruating, which could be as young as 8-10 in some cases.

Today pedophilia is classified as a mental disorder. By definition, it cannot be reasonably applied to the majority of men that lived and died throughout history. The implication that men only overcame some form of mass psychosis less than a few centuries ago is absurd.

So are academics just lying about it? Or is it just just silently agreed upon that this form of deviancy is simply excused if it happened XXXX years ago?

>>17952597 (OP)
When you were a tutor to a young greek boy it was sorta okay if you got to fondle his junk or dry hump him a bit. They weren't raw dogging their students 24/7.

Also it was considered innapropriate for the behavior to continue "once hair has come to his chin"

>>17952597 (OP)
People were ignorant and naive back then and lived in these awful hierarchical societies which allowed sick, twisted men and women to live out their depravity unimpeded.
It wasnt more common back then, probably less so because people had to actually live in the real world without porn perverting them, but those who were just depraved had more opportunities to live out their perversions.
Assume that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.

>>17952597 (OP)
>So are academics just lying about it?
99% of what hackadsmics say is a lie yes.
>>17952654
>People were ignorant and naive back then
Go back to .reddit

>>17952664
nigger the Romans and Reeks thought that slaughtering a goat in a particular manner in a particular place on a particular day would make the Gods "favor" them, complete idiocy.

>>17952597 (OP)
>Was ancient man really a pedophile?
Yes, modern man is as well. Plethysmographic studies show that roughly one in four men are pedophiles by definition (being more or equally sexually aroused by pre-pubescent or early pubescent children as by adults). Child marriage has been tolerated in a significant number of cultures historically (including in Europe), and teenage marriage was universal before modernity. Traditionally, age of consent laws in Europe and the United States have been set between 10 and 12. Pederasty was commonplace in Europe before the arrival of Christianity. There is sufficient reason to believe that sexual attraction to children is normative on the basis of scientific and historical evidence.

>So are academics just lying about it?
Almost everything relating to pedophilia is lied about by academia (and by people in general due to extreme cultural biases), including the prevalence of pedophilia, the nature of pedosexual relationships, the effects of both consenting and non-consenting adult-child sexual activities, the sexuality of children, historical and cross-cultural instances of sex between adults and children, the efficaciousness and necessity of sex offender registries, teenage motherhood, etc. Moral entrepreneurs are given free reign to lie about everything relating to these topics, without any pushback, because anyone who challenges them is accused of being a pedophile/a "pedophile apologist", and as a consequence, we have a massive cultural blind spot in regards to anything relating to pedophilia and child sexuality.

A great book which details the development of modern anti-pedophile hysteria is Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America by Philip Jenkins.

>>17952696
chudGPT pedospammer is back it seems, the board was so much nicer when you weren't here, could you please go back to whatever shit hole your crawled out of?

>>17952964
>nooo stop posting anti-feminist hate facts you're ruining my safe space

>>17952597 (OP)
All forms of pedophilia, especially homosexual pedophilia, have been looked down upon by pretty much everyone who came into contact with them to varying degrees. Romans called them luckless catamites, Greeks did it to their slaves. When might makes right and we do not have the ability or prerogative to enforce our will, some people of poor moral fiber will take advantage. Is this psychosis? No it's just a beastlike quality of people who are less developed than you and I. Why did we see it more in the past? Because those societies were not able to prevent it from happening to any meaningful extent.

>>17952970
I really think you should go back.

pedophilia, or "attraction" to people before puberty was fairly common prior to the 20th century mainly because people didn't have the luxury of being able to wait for years for a person to grow up into an adult; life expectancy being far lower than today combined with the prevalence of agricultural lifestyles meant that marrying very young was a benefit, unlike today where marrying young is a hindrance, if anything
if you look at the increase of life expectancy and decline of the agricultural lifestyle as urban living became more common and overlay that chart with one about the decline of pedophilia and you'll see an almost 1:1 overlap

>>17952986
The average life expectancy was dragged down by the high infant/child mortality rate. Those who survived childhood could survive well into old age.

>>17953002
No to the extent you think, life expectancy likely hovered around 30 because of infant mortality but 50 was still considered advanced age. Malaria, Cholera, Dysentery, and just plain infection were all killers no matter the age too, it was not until well into the modern period that we were able to actually combat these maladies.

What would Socrates have thought about pedophilia?

>>17953032
holy shit can you shut the fuck up?

>>17953034
Huh?

>>17953034
Am i ruining your pro pedophilia thread or something?

>>17952978
>Greeks did it to their slaves
They also had sexual relations with freeborn boys.

>Because those societies were not able to prevent it from happening to any meaningful extent
But there have been plenty of sexually restrictive primitive societies which prevent both adults and children from engaging in sexual activities which they view as undesirable, including adult-child sexual activities. Arguably, tight-knit communities which were more common in the past were better able to police sexuality. A lot of people argue that we in the modern West are less capable of enforcing sexual morality.

>>17952986
Teenage women aren't less capable of giving birth and being mothers than older women are. Not historically, and not in the modern day. There has never been any proof that delaying marriage provides any sort of benefit to fertility. Women who have children at a younger age have more surviving descendants than women who delay child-rearing. Gregory Clark published a paper last year where he shows that the Western European marriage pattern identified by Hajnal was inversely correlated with fertility (and survived despite this due to some other factor):

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/123433/3/Cummins_how-did-european-marriage--published.pdf

Early marriage is only a hindrance if you consider women being whores throughout their 20s, marrying in their 30s, and having one child to be a good outcome (which feminists and Jews do). Fertility data shows that the decrease in birth rates in Western countries is only among the lower age cohorts, and has actually increased among 30+ hags. The delay of marriage is one of the main reasons why we observe a catastrophic decline in birthrates among White populations.

>>17953032
Read the Phaedrus. He believed that the ideal pederastic relationship was chaste.

>>17953066
>Read the Phaedrus. He believed that the ideal pederastic relationship was chaste.
Yes, and after the trial of Socrates an unruly young man went about breaking the phallus' off of statues. Why would he do that?

>>17953066
Women generally were not capable of reproduction until their first period, which prior to literally 50 years ago was somewhere between 15 and 17.

>>17953066
>They also had sexual relations with freeborn boys.

This was generally the minority of cases

>Arguably, tight-knit communities

Which both the highly metropolitan Greeks and Romans were not, mr. GPT.

>>17953080
>This was generally the minority of cases
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

>Which both the highly metropolitan Greeks and Romans were not
They were less metropolitan than people are today, and they are not the only societies in existence which have permitted some form of sexual activity between adults and children/adolescents.

>>17953077
17 year old women aren't really any more mature or capable of giving birth and raising children than 12 year old women are. The fact that women are permanent children is actually why they are suited to raising children.

>>17953088
>Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

The prominence of slave trades in Greece and Rome and pretty much every piece of writing on the depravities.

>They were less metropolitan than people are today

Not less so relative to literally any other period in history, which is what we are comparing them too

>they are not the only societies in existence which have permitted some form of sexual activity between adults and children/adolescents.

Gonna point to a bunch of island niggers again for your so called Aryan tradition?

>>17953094

I think a 17 year old would make a better mother than 12 year old, like wise I think a 22 year old would make a better mother than a 17 year old. I think this is fairly obvious to anyone not arguing from a bad faith perspective.

>Epstein: Who are you?
>Tiberius: I am you, but stronger.

>>17953109
>pretty much every piece of writing on the depravities
Such as?

>>17953109
>I think a 17 year old would make a better mother than 12 year old, like wise I think a 22 year old would make a better mother than a 17 year old.
This position is not supported by data on fertility and age at first marriage >>17953066, a woman who marries at 22 years of age should be expected to have significantly less descendants than a woman who first married at an earlier age (the relation between marriage and childbirth is obvious).

The intelligence of females plateaus around 14 (compared to 16 or 17 for males), and raising infant children does not require a high degree of intelligence in the first place. Anyone who is interested in reading about the development of teenage brains and its implications for policy should read An Empirical Introduction to Youth by Joseph Bronski.

It has been common for teenage women to care for infant children historically and cross-culturally, and teenage motherhood is not causally associated with negative outcomes for either the mother or the child. Teenage motherhood almost exclusively occurs among the lower classes in modern society, which is the reason why it is associated with negative outcomes in the modern day. In the past, where early marriage was associated with nobility, you would expect the opposite.

There is no empirical support for your position. A 12 year old woman is just as capable of raising a child as a 22 year old woman is. You believe it is "obvious" because you have been encultured in a feministic death-cult society. A good overview of literature relating to teenage pregnancy can be found here:
https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Teen_pregnancy

>a woman who marries at 22 years of age should be expected to have significantly less descendants than a woman who first married at an earlier age
Holy shit retard do you think women back then were breeding cows who were pregnant 24/7 and every family had a dozen children each or something?

>>17952597 (OP)
Pedophilia is a modern social construct.

>>17953146
Better mother as in more capable of being a mother, while still retaining fertility well above replacement rates. Would she maybe have less descendants than a someone who started at 17? Maybe, but I think she would be more emotionally ready for the role of mother at 22 than she would at 17, and certainly more than she would be at 12.

>>17953166
The person who has more descendants was more emotionally ready to be a mother than the person with less descendants.

>>17953146
Pretty much every description that isn't myth has the raped child being someone with lower or non-existent social standing, as was the case with every homosexual relationship in the Greco-Roman world. Hadrian and Antinous? Greek slave boy. Nero and Sporus? Greek slave boy. I could go on for a while, but really what would be easier to do as a wealthy degen? Find a slave for cheap at the market or worm your way in to unfettered access to the children of your social peers? The answer is obvious if you think about it for even a moment.

>>17953150
yes (because only a third of them grew up)
maybe not 24-7 but high infant mortality meant women had to be pregnant or nursing a *lot* relative to moderns

>>17953171
Most teen mothers I know stopped after 1, whereas women who married in their twenties had 3 or 4, maybe more if they were good Catholics. Truthfully though your statement reflects the fundamental lack of empathy your pre-disposition towards children gives you.

>>17953172
>has the raped child being someone with lower or non-existent social standing
You aren't providing any evidence.

>Hadrian and Antinous? Greek slave boy
We're talking about Greece specifically. Hadrian was Roman and Antinous was Persian (and wasn't a slave).

>>17953178
This is anecdotal. There is a strong relationship between age at first birth and number of children. Women who first give birth as teenagers have significantly more children than women who start at a later age. This is not only true of individual fertility, but surviving descendants >>17953066. Furthermore, more than half the decline in US fertility rates is explained by women <19 having virtually no children. The decline in teenage motherhood has been catastrophic.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26727016

>fundamental lack of empathy
Okay, roastie.

>>17953203
>Furthermore, more than half the decline in US fertility rates is explained by women <19 having virtually no children

Women at age 22 can have, assuming a minimum of two and maximum of three years between children, roughly 4-5 children before they start reaching advanced ages for pregnancy. I wonder why, in spite of this, fertility is still below replacement rates? Is it solely because of you can't creampie an 12 year old? Is that even really an informing factor given the conditions? It's an appealing rhetorical point for pedophiles to argue this especially on a place like 4chan, but it lacks merit because fertility is declining literally every where, I wonder what other factors might be at play?

>Okay, roastie.

If you cannot understand why a 12 year old should not be pregnant then you have some very serious ethical blindspots, but you are an LLM being used by a pedofag with an inferiority complex, so I'm not sure you really had much of an ethical blue print to begin with.

>>17953203
>We're talking about Greece specifically.

Ok, most depictions of gay sex in Greece involved a pathic partner. Given what we understand about how Greeks viewed the pathic partner, of what social standing do you think that partner was?

>>17953213
>Women at age 22 can have
But they don't. And the observed statistical reality is the decline in birth rates has been caused by a decline in birth rates only among the younger birthing cohorts. The age between pregnancies is roughly the same regardless of age at first birth, and the age at which women cease giving birth is roughly the same regardless of when they first started having children.

Delaying the age that it's legal (or socially acceptable) for women to marry (from 12 to 18) might not seem important, but it has dramatic consequences for marriage and fertility rates for all age cohorts. It shifts the mean of marriage and birth upwards significantly. It's possible that women start giving birth as 25 year old hags, and still have an average of 3 children, but that's unlikely to actualize due to a number of complex factors (which is why replacement level fertility rates are not observed in societies devoid of teenage marriage).

>it lacks merit because fertility is declining literally every where
Age at first childbirth have been raising everywhere, in large part due to feminist propaganda campaigns against teenage marriage.

>If you cannot understand why a 12 year old should not be pregnant
Because it makes Uncle ZOG upset? Because 40 year old cat ladies might get jealous? Too many White people is bad for the environment?

>>17953214
Very few depictions of homosexual activity from Greece depict pedication. They didn't think it brought shame upon the boy if he wasn't being penetrated (not that it didn't happen).

>>17953260
>but that's unlikely to actualize due to a number of complex factors

Yes, that is the underlying factor here, not the AoC being set at 16. And prior to ZOG women generally had their first period, let alone pregnancy, between ages 15-17.

>Very few depictions of homosexual activity from Greece depict

They always portray a pathic partner

>>17952597 (OP)
It's not pedophilia, it's ephebophilia

>>17953277
This anon has been very particular multiple times that he likes boys, especially boys who have not yet begun puberty because they do not "smell". Any discussion you see about pederasty on this board comes directly from him and he is most definitely a pedophile.

>>17953284
90% of this board is retarded browns that only think pedophilia is bad when the wh*toids do it so I'm not sure what your problem is

>>17953302
I find this board is almost always entirely empty of discussions about pedophilia, there is literally one guy and the rest of the time people have slap fights about Hitler or Churchill.

the modern day western world is run by a much higher quantity of pedophiles than ancient cities ever were