Scientists have finally gotten around to studying paedocrisy, one of the most interesting sociological/psychological phenomenons of the 21st century. And what did they find? That men downplay their attraction to adolescent girls, rating the same girls hotter when told they were older. Whoever would have predicted that?
[T]he consistent finding that the same photographs of younger females, but with different age labels, were assigned significantly different levels of attractiveness suggests that cognitive factors beyond biologically driven sexual attraction were involved in making these ratings. In all the three samples, apparently younger girls were rated as less attractive than older girls despite being the same photographs. We hypothesize that this difference reflects some self-censoring mechanism involved in making such judgments. This may involve a form of comparison between participants’ own sexual attraction to the individual girl and the likely social norms surrounding this judgment.
Thus paedohysteria and the coming sexual holocaust is built on a lie.
Men find adolescents sexy, but deny it for fear of being labelled paedos. As I said, no surprises there, you only have to read the comments section even here to see that sexual hypocrisy is part of what it means to be a man, as much as having a dick.
It would be interesting if a further study is made to investigate equally obvious links between the men who displayed the biggest discrepency in ratings (i.e. rating the girls lower if thought to be younger) and the most strongly held views on ‘paedos’.
This study was brilliant. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I too would love to see your follow up idea. We could actually graph the hypocrisy.
Really interesting comment below the article.
I don’t want to make AF’s life harder than it already is, so I won’t quote it directly.
I also don’t pretend to speak for anyone but myself, but frankly, I can see where they’re coming from. That’s not saying anything about how such an observation might inform one’s actions, just making a note of it.
Those guys have come from one of the most paedocritical societies on earth and there they are, watching that movie and making that comment.
Stateside, anyone making that comment would probably be reported.
I’ve seen enough American TV to know how much they focus on sexiness in pubescent and equally, pre-pubescent girls-often barely out of nappies.
It’s things like camera angles, any excuse to film a scene in a bedroom, showing just enough skin to keep within socially-accepted ideas (admittedly that’s not a great deal), and just generally being suggestive.
I don’t look for such viewing so I don’t care if anyone says I’m finding what I’m looking for. The very fact that I don’t look for it yet still find it speaks for itself IMHO.
The TV networks work both sides of the street and of course fulminate at the mere suggestion of finding a 17-year-old attractive.
The one seems to go with the other.
@Asshley – A few weeks ago I was waiting at a bus stop and two young girls joined the queue, apparently they had come straight from gym class as one of them was wearing a very short plaid gym skirt with blue knee socks. She looked a mix of Phillipina and European, and was, admittedly, rather adorable, to use Jon and thedude’s expression. However, she must have been about 11 at most.
Every fucking man who walked past the queue had a good gawp. Some, more furtively than others, but I saw at least half-a-dozen men walk past and each one looked down at her legs.
Another example is the recent Siri video that features that 12 year old dancer wearing a skin suit that makes it almost appear as though she is naked. She also appears barely (if at all) to have entered puberty. I’ve seen stills from the video used as advertising click bait on a variety of media such as LiveLeak.com aimed at men. The official YouTube video has over half a billion views.
Other examples would be Olympic female gymnasts, who (at least until recently) were nearly universally early pubescent (if at all). Back in the 70’s and 80’s, millions of men were falling in love through their tv screens at girls such as Olga Corbet and Nadia Komenechi (excuse the spellings), who both looked around 11 by today’s standards.
I’m not saying such girls represent ‘peak attractiveness’ or whatever, but I do think if it weren’t for social and legal norms, then few men would think ‘yuk’ at the thought of cuddling up to such beauties.
Of course it’s important here to distinguish between real paedophilia and normal male sexuality, and the onset of puberty is probably the only valid biological marker available that isn’t arbitary, but I don’t think we need to go to the lengths of pretending that early pubescent girls, and even girls very close to puberty, can’t be ‘attractive’ and to do so is getting very close to paedocrisy, especially in the case of Jon who calls for the the age of consent to be abolished alltogether and posts links to photos of young looking 13 and 14 year old celebrities.
(BTW,I’m not saying that the age of consent should necessarily be the age at which a girl becomes ‘attractive’, although it should be taken into account, epecially in that feminists claim that girls below the age of consent are ‘non-sexual’ and that it is ‘perverted’ to find them attractive).
LOL—who would have believed it?
Yes, men in the Anglosphere are EXPECTED to be paedocrites. I remember saying that I thought Selena Gomez and Araiana Grande were hotter than most cougarish femihag actresses and some commenter snorted: “Most men would never admit to being attracted to such young-looking girls.”
“‘Would never admit’ is the operative phrase” I replied—which of course went down under a flurry of downvotes.
@AF
Yup to all of the above.
This site is only marginally concerned with issues relating to paedophilia (pre-pubescent children).
You have, though, occasionally said something I agree with about legal penalties for peadophile activity.
If I’m not misreading you, you’ve stated that currently, the law deals with this activity in a very ham-fisted, often disproportionate way that’s completely unnecessary.
Everything is treated as if it were the worst possible thing that could have been done sexually to or with the child-or not quite, but close.
I remember Oprah on her show saying once that there’s no real gradation in seriousness in sexual activity with minors. She of course got away with that dangerous drivel.
Have a nice day.
Yes of course they are, and obviously questioning the basis of feminist sex laws – that sex is inherently dangerous and requires a PHD in ‘informed consent’ – will clearly lead any rational person to conclude that the punishments and hysteria for just about all feminist laws on non-coercive sex are becoming ever more out of proportion.
“…the onset of puberty is probably the only valid biological marker available that isn’t arbitary.”
Well said. I intend to use this.
Albert:
I agree totally about puberty as a biological marker, but I’d include a psychological marker as well. Previous generations of educational psychologists (who weren’t Cultural Marxists or Radical Femihags) all agreed that puberty also marked the onset of abstract reasoning capabilities distinct from those of children.
Lol!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021726/Fury-historic-steam-train-popular-children-used-film-hardcore-schoolgirl-porn-movie.html
I got in to a debate with my friends girlfriend the other week. It was about laws and the truth about right and wrong. I told her laws are a social constuction (which they 100% are, of course) and that our feelings towards right and wrong are actually just the likes and dislikes of the current rulers of our particular soceiety, which is then indoctrinated into the masses. I was foolish enough to think she was logical enough to understand. She wasnt. I used this example to try to bring her to reason: “The legal age for sex in America is 18, in England its 16 and in Holland I beleive its 14 (might be wrong, havent checked its just what ive heard). If laws are arent socially constructed, and right and wrong are absolute, then which of these countries is right?” She admitted she didnt know and couldnt answer but still wouldnt agree with me. I told her that the true right and wrongs dont need to be constructed because they are already in nature, and no human should be so arrogant as to argue with the system that is reponsible for everything in the universe ever. So when does nature think females are ready for sex? Whenever they start their period. That is natures way of saying “this body is ready to start reproducing”. Fact. This study shows that male biological impulses and urges correlate with the onset of a females period and puberty. Its nice to see my logic proven right when so many people shout at me for having the correct opinion ;). I would like to see the follow up study you suggested and i have another idea for study. One to test wether or not men subconsiously know when a girl has started her period. Bring him, say, a 13 year old who has started her period, tell him shes 18 to work around his programming, and ask him to rate her. Then bring him another who hasnt started hers, again tell him shes 18, and ask him to rate her. It would be interesting if many men consistently rated young girls who have started their period higher, especially if the age difference between the girls was only a few months.
100%. If x aged pubescent girls weren’t ready for sex, or men weren’t supposed to find them sexually attractive, nature wouldn’t have enabled them to be capable of pregnancy. It’s as simple as that.
And that’s the danger of claiming that, well, girls might start puberty at 12, but it isn’t until 14 that they start to become sexy. Because feminists can then say, well actually, you’re a sick paeodphile pervert, because girls, or rather ‘women’, don’t become sexy until 16 or 18…or 21. It all becomes a matter of arbitary opinion.
As far as whether the age of consent should be at the age of puberty, the main feminist arguments, or rather assumptions, as feminists rarely actually defend their positions (outside of incomprehensible femispeak), is that ‘girls are not ready for sex at that age, whatever their bodies say’. Well, as you point out, if girls weren’t ready for sex at that age, nature wouldn’t have equipped them with the ability to get pregnant, and the means to attract men through secondary sexual characteristics. Of course, femihags might argue that modern society means sex is more ‘dangerous’ for girls than in our ancestral environment, but that’s clearly a 100% inversion of the truth. Sex is far less dangerous due to both male and female contraception, safe and easy access to abortion, better health care, a welfare state, no slut shaming, acceptance of pre-marital sex etc.
If post-pubescent girls are ‘traumatized’ by willing sex, then it can only be because of the social norms and victim labelling. In other words, completely circular logic, and the feminists who force the victim labels on young girls are the real abusers.
BTW, the age of consent in the Netherlands is 16. It was reduced to 12 for a short time in the 1990’s, but femihag pressure quickly put a stop to that and now their society is one of the most paedohysteric on Earth. However, there are plenty of other examples. For example, France is 15, Germany and Italy are 14. In most of Eastern Europe it is 14 or 15. Most of South America is 13 or 14. China is 14. Japan is 13 (although each district can set their own ages, and many are setting higher ones due to international Sexual Trade Union pressure).
As I’ve written here many times, the age of consent laws are pretty much as arbitary as you can get. For example, the age of consent is 16 in the UK and many US states because of Suffragette campaigning in the Victorian era, when pre-marital sex was still frowned upon and girls didn’t begin puberty until their late teens.
This study is important for several reasons, but especially in the case of male mental health. The arbitrariness of age of consent versus biological readiness can be psychologically traumatic. Many men develop a neurosis due to the internal conflict over whom they’re attracted to versus whom they’re -not- supposed to be attracted to. They may have feelings of guilt, thinking themselves possible pedophiles, or sexual deviants. These struggles can cause depression, and many other mental/emotional issues.
Also, what’s often overlooked is this topic is rife with sexism. Women are blatant about their attraction to underage male actors/models, and attractive young men/boys in general, and are never shamed or ostracized for it.
As an American, when watching world tennis, it’s interesting how they casually mention the 16yo tennis players 30ish partner cheering in the stands, without any cries of disgust or inappropriateness.
And, as I’ve argued here many times, turn them into real paedophiles. Also, as far as the mental/emotional issues is concerned, I would blame the rise in the male suicide rate over the last 10/15 years almost exclusively on paedohysteria. It’s hard to prove this, of course, as most men wont go to their doctors and tell them ‘I find myself getting turned on when I see a 15 year old girl in see-through spandex and g-strings bending over. Am I sick paedo and should I kill myself?’ They just kill themselves. What we do know is that the number of reported suicides after child porn investigations alone represents a significant contribution to the rise in the male suicide rate, which makes the MHRAs refusal to discuss feminist child porn definitions and draconian punishments, whilst claiming that ‘society doesn’t care about male suicide’ to be the hypocritical treachery that it is.
Very true, but we have a saying here (and we find ourselves having to say it a lot) – ‘equality of injustice is no justice for men’.
Modern society is just utterly lunatic these days. Small wonder I’ve given up on it.
Interesting thread on reddit recently asking women what age they were when they noticed that men started viewing them sexually.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3249ff/women_of_reddit_when_did_you_first_notice_that/
Someone made a graph of the reported ages:
http://a.pomf.se/emnmya.png
LOL someone ran a contest to find the best looking minge and the ones that got the highest ratings look about 12.
http://www.vaginacontest.com/leaderboard
Here’s another interesting study:
http://egomoral.com/thinner-females-are-more-attractive/
Fat Feminist: Ewww. You like young teenage girls?
Rational Man: Yep, they’re the best.
Fat Feminist: You’re abnormal! Most men don’t like teenage girls, they prefer fully developed women like me.
Rational Man: Really? You think you’re more attractive than these 12-16 year old girls?
http://i.imgur.com/xiAH6WL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/GM3JTZ6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kXvaCwV.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/C8ScoYb.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rsjprKA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7UJVY0r.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/tS0j30y.jpg
Fat Feminist: …
Rational Man: Checkmate.
Does she look better now or then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_enm5TBKSA
@BUMFACE – wow, didn’t realize what a natural beauty she WAS, hehe. I think any normal guy would say she was better then if they were honest. In fact she looks pretty damn near perfect. Can’t imagine what an annoying airhead she would be at that age though…
Well, she now is an airhead upset, but literally, his greatest contribution to mankind is to fill the TV of prolefeed. I do not know if most at 13 are so like that, but certainly better than a bitter and degenerated adult (normally they come in only these two flavors), I’ve been thinking about in this issue about attraction of addolescents and so… perhaps the difference between plain vanilla hetero[homo]sexual, and teenlovers, the first are only interested limitedly in teenagers because teens have an young adult body, but mentally and spiritually are not interested in them, they prefer wasting life with banal and low-intellect adults like them and then the real teenlovers who are people who know how wonderful they are teenagers-pubescents, not only physically but mentally, because teens fill the life of the lucky person who can share moments in their life.
Therefore if a teenager/pubescent is [socially] shunned no matter who young adult they are in really, also not a plain vanilla hetero[homo]sexual can never see in a sensual / sexual way a prepubescent child, because their atracction only seeks the primitive sexual arousal no matter that children are people with their own beauty, many in their ignorance they call ‘real sick’ because is “abnormal” to like prepubescents ¿really? I’m not an childlover i’m teenlover but though certainly attracted to older prepubescent because are beautiful in their own way.. And I wonder what’s is inside and outside an adult to people never shuns them? I shun adults anytime, frankly I’m consciously and joyfully downplay my attraction to adults, like an atheist of adulthood.
Another restored post. Back when the comments section here was absolutely rocking!
Another “pig” biting the dust?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/13/rj-may-south-carolina-child-sexual-abuse
Thanks Jack, that’s a big one! There seems to be even more paedocrites getting busted these days than before.
“The three-term Republican is accused of using “joebidennnn69” to exchange 220 files of toddlers and young children involved in sex acts on the Kik social media network for about five days in spring 2024, according to court documents that graphically detailed the videos.”
What a fu****g paedocrite!!
I bet if you searched his Twitter account, you’d find him accusing Dems of being on the Epstein list and such.
The conservative Republican pedocrite problem has reached astronomical levels, as evidenced by their continuously more insane pedohysterical, feminist laws. Florida just passed a bunch of new laws last week making talking to 14 year olds a felony with zero tolerance (raising the age from 12 which was already a misdemeanor, and removing safeguards against false accusations), and increasing the felony penalties for owning a place being used for prostitution (which the cucks misleadingly call “human trafficking”).
All you can do is get as far away from them as possible and contain them in their little sex prison bubble. But it’s not easy with Elon Musk amplifying their pedohysteria in order to profit off it politically.
Something happened to me some 15 years ago in Orlando which could have landed me in jail. I was on holiday at Disney World with my French-African girlfrient and her daughter. What happened had nothing to do with the daughter : all that happend was I strayed into the women’s toilet instead of the men’s toilet. I immediately noticed something was wrong when I sniffed the clean air in the toilet (the men’s toilets got cleaned more rarely and smelled of shit). I stopped short and got put right by 2 women who were cleaning their hands. They were Brazilians women. Had they been American women I might have spent the rest of my life in jail, just for mistaking a toilet entrance.
A couple of years ago I was eating at a McDonalds in a dingy English town that I was forced to spend a night in after my flight was cancelled. After finishing my meal, I got up to climb the stairs to the toilets, and a teenage ‘boy’ got to the stairs first and went up ahead of me. I wasn’t really thinking and just followed ‘him’ when he went into the toilet, assuming it was the men’s. I was surprised when I didn’t see any urinals, but at the time, there were plenty of McDonalds branches in the UK introducing unisex toilets, so thought it must be that. I had my pee in a cubicle, and as I exited the toilet, the ‘boy’ was with his older sister waiting for me. The sister started screaming at me that I was a pervert who’d gone into the women’s toilets. I calmly said it was a mistake, and walked through the restaurant, and they both followed me shouting that I was a pervert. The restaurant was busy, and everybody was taking their side, including a member of staff. A group of huge black guys were sitting at one table, and I heard one of them say – “will we do him?”. I honestly thought I was going to get lynched. All because I mistakenly went into the women’s toilets after assuming the person in front of me was a boy!
I think it’s long been illegal in the UK to text a girl under 16 that you don’t ‘know’.
An idea we should promote is that of the “generational apartheid” that these kind of laws, and paedohysteria in general, cause and the damage it does to society.
Conservatives should realize this, but unfortunately they are mostly paedocrite bitches under the thumb of their femiservative wives, as you say.
I’ve had similar experiences in red states to which I will never return. The red states all recently passed laws that create mandatory feminist brainwash classes that require students to hallucinate about “human trafficking” every year, creating paranoia that there is a big bad rapist man around every corner waiting to sell you into sex slavery. Ironically, it’s also a fantasy of women, so it’s really popular right now. It’s exactly the same as the cuck conservative fetish about “grooming gangs” in the UK. This mentality resulted in me being shamed by womanly males for approaching women, and women slandering me as a predator to their cuck boyfriends, though luckily the police were not completely irrational like in the UK waiter case.
One thing I have to say, it looks like the MAPS are really “disturbing” virgins, cucks, and feminists, as this disgusting fat woman admits. Perhaps MAP efforts are good for something after all, even though we know attraction to post-pubescent girls is entirely normal. Kind of like how we know tr*nnies can’t change their gender, yet we support them for destroying feminism so efficiently.
https://youtu.be/jaODH7bk0_U
Looking at some of the comments doesn’t give me much hope.
Example: “Saying “minor attracted people” instead of “p3doph!l3” is the same as saying “non-consensual s3x” instead of “r4p3″.”
All they are doing in my eyes is confirming the great slanderous feminist lie that men finding 17 year olds who started puberty at 9 or 10 are ‘paedophiles’.
Trannies did the exact opposite to what MAPs are doing. Trannies challenged the very definition of womanhood. They challenged the very idea that a man can’t be a woman.
If you think about it, the trannies did the exact opposite of Eivind and the MAPs (I also notice that Eivind isn’t mentioned in the video).
The tranny equivalent of the MAPs would be to accept that EVERY ‘trans woman’ is in fact a tranny, a transvestite, a pervert who gets off on dressing up as a woman. They would accept that they are different to women, a sexual pathology, but ‘just want to be accepted’.
I don’t see any parallels with the trannies TBH, except the obvious one (and quite laughable) that MAPs are hoping to be admitted to the LBGTQ club, just like the trannies were.
One video by women saying how disturbing they are and calling for them to be banned doesn’t do it for me. The ‘best’ I can see Eivind and the MAPs doing is to ‘succeed’ in making even any discussion of attraction to 17 year olds or the age of consent illegal or at least banned online. The social media rules against ‘sexualizing minors’ (which include simply talking about the age of consent) were probably partly the result of MAPs.
Yea, that is true. The trans equivalent to MAPS is agreeing with people who don’t accept trannies and then pleading for acceptance. Fucking weak.
I guess I just liked how the idiots in the video got upset.
In also interesting news, I noticed the liberals in new york specifically voted against making AI look-alike porn a crime, rejecting the conservative cucks who were making a big stink about making it a crime. The conservative cucks already succeeded on the federal level, but that came after this liberal state vote. The masculine left needs to make a come back, because the right is totally feminized in the usa.