GirlChat #733741

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Please translate your acronyms!

Posted by girlzRprettiest on Friday, March 20 2020 at 07:09:38AM
In reply to Cultural conjecture posted by manbot on Thursday, March 19 2020 at 01:46:27AM

even very mild attempts to change PVFs (by their own choice) - ex-gay theraphy - is frowned upon today.


What does "PVF" stand for? You are needlessly confusing me and stalling the discussion with all these untranslated acronyms.




As should be obvious, from the context, N refers to an arbitrarily large integer, while "exclusive" refers to exclusive pedophiles.

I know what "exclusive" means. I still don't understand what you mean by "N PC" or "N exclusive." What does "PC" refer to here? By "N exclusive," do you mean "some arbitrarily large amount of exclusive pedophiles?"




For those believing the conjecture regarding "culture", a naturalistic laboratory setting would be ideal, as "culture" could then be varied to produce the desired affects.

Culture, which consists of macro factors including institutions, concepts, and artifacts that bind people together in a given society, most certainly cannot be varied in a laboratory setting. Experimenters simply do not have the sociopolitical clout to, say, transform economic systems, change a culture's dominant beliefs, or impose new architectural standards. Human psychology is rooted in such broad, macro factors that cannot be controlled in a lab. However, even if experimenters did have substantial clout, since whole human societies cannot fit in a lab, there is no possible way to experiment on them within the confines of such a facility in the manner that you suggest.




Failure to demostrate such an experiment is evidence against the claim of changes in sexuality (as is, of course, the continued existence of pedophiles in deeply hostile cultures).

I already addressed the issue in bold. If you still disagree, then please respond to specific points I raised. Also, it would be nice if you addressed my other arguments.




Of course, looking to biology, we see that pedophilia and minor attraction in general need not be limited to humans.

We cannot make any reasonable conclusions about human behavior based on animal studies. This is precisely what stimulated the humanistic movement within the field, which took issue with behaviorists' reliance on animal studies. As humanistic psychologists note, behaviorists downplayed, ignored, or even outright denied unique aspects of human behavior, such as our free will and desire/capacity for personal growth. Humans are the only species capable of abstract and symbolic cognition, as well as the only one able to organize complex societies. Unlike in other animals, specific human behaviors generally have sociocultural rather than biological origins. Aside from things like the diving and suckling reflexes, humans do not have "instincts," so to draw conclusions about human behavior based on studies of species that are largely instinctual would be what's called overextrapolation.

Another issue with cross-specific behavioral comparisons like these is that they rely on abstractions, which misleadingly gives the impression of some kind of identity between species' behaviors. For instance, here the abstraction of "pedophilia" is used to compare sexual behavior in humans and animals involving adults and young. While in animals, pedophilic behavior is biologically determined, in humans it is generated by particular cognitive (perceptual, emotional, moral) mediations that derive their specific features from sociocultural factors. In short, not all pedophilia in humans is the same. Indeed, human sexuality (like psychology in general) is highly culturally variable. Ancient Greek pederasty, for example, was generated by particular cultural concepts that eventually fell out of fashion and which are absent in the psyches of contemporary pedophiles. Given that genes encode specific behavioral responses to specific stimuli and lack the capacity to encode general abstractions including "pedophilia," as well as the fact that the distinctive cognitive mediations that underlie ancient Greek and those that generate contemporary pedophilia lack some particular genetic basis, the idea that human pedophilic behavior is biologically determined is untenable.




Counter-examples are easy, from Josephine Butler (liberal), to the progressives supporting anti-pedophilia in the 19th and 20th century, and the sex-positive feminists promoting anti-pedophilia now.

Just because these individuals and groups self-identify as "progressive" does not mean their actions actually fulfill a progressive function. Indeed, the stigma against pedophilia is thoroughly conservative, a point I elaborate on in this essay.




The existence of a low US AoC (average 10 to 12, lowest 7) is also strong evidence against your claim of "oppressive, traditionalist, sex-negative norms"

How do you figure?




Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?