Debate Guide: Nonhuman relatives - Revision history

The Admins at 17:16, 31 March 2024

2024-03-31T17:16:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 31 March 2024
Line 22:		Line 22:
	This would seem to suggest that "primitive" human societies in which [[Research: Nonwestern Intergenerational Relationships\|similar behaviors were observed]] are not an outlier.		This would seem to suggest that "primitive" human societies in which [[Research: Nonwestern Intergenerational Relationships\|similar behaviors were observed]] are not an outlier.

	Of course, one could employ an irrelevant argument by saying that other animals can behave in savage and unethical ways (sometimes involving rape of infants). However, this is not proof of an innate trauma mechanism underlying voluntary interactions. Indeed, as a supposedly "civilised" species, we should have the added benefit of being able to make an ethical distinction on the basis of harm. If our ethics are compatible, the behaviors are potentially compatible.		Of course, one could employ an irrelevant argument by saying that other animals can behave in savage and unethical ways (sometimes involving rape of infants). However, this is not proof of an [[Intrinsic harm\|innate trauma mechanism]] underlying voluntary interactions. Indeed, as a supposedly "civilised" species, we should have the added benefit of being able to make an ethical distinction on the basis of harm. If our ethics are compatible, the behaviors are potentially compatible.

	==Excerpt Graphic Library==		==Excerpt Graphic Library==

The Admins: /* Excerpt Graphic Library */

2022-11-21T22:35:34Z

Excerpt Graphic Library

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 21 November 2022
Line 26:		Line 26:
	==Excerpt Graphic Library==		==Excerpt Graphic Library==

	The EGL on '''Broader Perspectives''' has some relevant information. Just right click/save and reproduce by uploading in short-form media to bypass character limits.		The EGL on '''Broader Perspectives''' has some relevant information. Just open the graphic, right click/save and reproduce by uploading in short-form media to bypass character limits.

	{{Template:EGLBP}}		{{Template:EGLBP}}

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]

JohnHolt: /* Excerpt Graphic Library */

2021-11-09T00:15:35Z

Excerpt Graphic Library

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:15, 9 November 2021
Line 26:		Line 26:
	==Excerpt Graphic Library==		==Excerpt Graphic Library==

	The EGL on '''Broader ~~perspectives~~''' has some relevant information. Just right click/save and reproduce by uploading in short-form media to bypass character limits.		The EGL on '''Broader Perspectives''' has some relevant information. Just right click/save and reproduce by uploading in short-form media to bypass character limits.

	{{Template:EGLBP}}		{{Template:EGLBP}}

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]

JohnHolt at 00:15, 9 November 2021

2021-11-09T00:15:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:15, 9 November 2021
Line 23:		Line 23:

	Of course, one could employ an irrelevant argument by saying that other animals can behave in savage and unethical ways (sometimes involving rape of infants). However, this is not proof of an innate trauma mechanism underlying voluntary interactions. Indeed, as a supposedly "civilised" species, we should have the added benefit of being able to make an ethical distinction on the basis of harm. If our ethics are compatible, the behaviors are potentially compatible.		Of course, one could employ an irrelevant argument by saying that other animals can behave in savage and unethical ways (sometimes involving rape of infants). However, this is not proof of an innate trauma mechanism underlying voluntary interactions. Indeed, as a supposedly "civilised" species, we should have the added benefit of being able to make an ethical distinction on the basis of harm. If our ethics are compatible, the behaviors are potentially compatible.

			==Excerpt Graphic Library==

			The EGL on '''Broader perspectives''' has some relevant information. Just right click/save and reproduce by uploading in short-form media to bypass character limits.

			{{Template:EGLBP}}

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]

JohnHolt at 18:15, 22 October 2021

2021-10-22T18:15:30Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Our animal relatives do not only engage in masturbation and casual homosexual behaviours, but sexually induct their young in ways that would often be described as incestuous by human standards. Yet, no harm is done. Indeed, such complex behaviours appear to be evolutionarily adaptive in these species. So why should the innate 'pedophile impulse' be any different for us? Animals, it seems, have no reason to limit child sex play to the nursery, i.e. they lack a restrictive moral structure. To them, it feels good and helps you get on.
+[[Research: Intergenerational Sexual Behaviors in Animals|Our research page]] explains this potential analogy and points to sources. This article addresses how to use the analogy carefully.
-So, using our own terms, who in the animal kingdom does what? Various primates engage in behaviours including incestuous matings with juveniles (both sexes, sometimes for reproductive purposes), intense relationships involving pederastic fondling, oral sex between younger and older males, fellatio, motherly sex play, masturbation and mounting with infants, child - child and child - parent faux - mountings, adult - pubescent lesbian relationships, adult male - infant female babysitting that involves masturbation and thrusting, adolescent anal sex (to ejaculation), sexualised greetings as normal interactions, studly, penetrative behaviour in very young infant males, multipositional homosexual mounting and masturbation during juvenile / adolescent wrestling games, infant initiation of intercourse and fatherly acceptance of mother - son cunnilinguis. [[Research: Intergenerational Sexual Behaviors in Animals|Our research page]] explains the issue in more detail.
+Our animal relatives, particularly primates engage in masturbation and casual homosexual behaviors. This much is pretty well-known, although somewhat hidden from nature documentaries and popular literature as it is considered "awkward". However, animals, particularly primates, also sexually induct their young in ways that would often be described as incestuous by human standards. Yet, no harm is done, since there is no moral shame or iatrogenesis.
-Of course, one could employ a fallacious argument by saying that other animals can behave in savage and unethical ways (sometimes in combination with the rape of infants). But that's beside the point; animals do not see or suffer these child love experiences as 'sex abuse', which is an entirely human construct, not far from a negative equivalent to the way that humans justify their own behaviour as being more civil and ethical than other animals; civility and ethics being ''human'' standards, anyway!
+Indeed, such complex but common behaviors would appear to serve an adaptive evolutionary function in these species. So, in human terms, what has been observed? Various primates engage in behaviors including:
 [[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]

Jillium at 03:23, 15 February 2009

2009-02-15T03:23:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:23, 15 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Our animal relatives do not only engage in masturbation and casual homosexual behaviours, but sexually induct their young in ways that would often be described as incestuous by human standards. Yet, no harm is done. Indeed, such complex behaviours appear to be evolutionarily adaptive in these species. So why should the innate 'pedophile impulse' be any different for us? Animals, it seems, have no reason to limit child sex play to the nursery, i.e. they lack a restrictive moral structure. To them, it feels good and helps you get on.		Our animal relatives do not only engage in masturbation and casual homosexual behaviours, but sexually induct their young in ways that would often be described as incestuous by human standards. Yet, no harm is done. Indeed, such complex behaviours appear to be evolutionarily adaptive in these species. So why should the innate 'pedophile impulse' be any different for us? Animals, it seems, have no reason to limit child sex play to the nursery, i.e. they lack a restrictive moral structure. To them, it feels good and helps you get on.

	So, using our own terms, who in the animal kingdom does what? Various primates engage in behaviours including incestuous matings with juveniles (both sexes, sometimes for reproductive purposes), intense relationships involving pederastic fondling, oral sex between younger and older males, fellatio, motherly sex play, masturbation and mounting with infants, child - child and child - parent faux - mountings, adult - pubescent lesbian relationships, adult male - infant female babysitting that involves masturbation and thrusting, adolescent anal sex (to ejaculation), sexualised greetings as normal interactions, studly, penetrative behaviour in very young infant males, multipositional homosexual mounting and masturbation during juvenile / adolescent wrestling games, infant initiation of intercourse and fatherly acceptance of mother - son cunnilinguis. ~~This~~ [~~http~~:~~//archive.amaros-amarso-amarsi.org/almapintada/Non-Western/index.html article~~] ~~and this [http://kalapa.nfshost.com/viewtopic.php?id=24 thread~~] ~~explain~~ the issue in more detail.		So, using our own terms, who in the animal kingdom does what? Various primates engage in behaviours including incestuous matings with juveniles (both sexes, sometimes for reproductive purposes), intense relationships involving pederastic fondling, oral sex between younger and older males, fellatio, motherly sex play, masturbation and mounting with infants, child - child and child - parent faux - mountings, adult - pubescent lesbian relationships, adult male - infant female babysitting that involves masturbation and thrusting, adolescent anal sex (to ejaculation), sexualised greetings as normal interactions, studly, penetrative behaviour in very young infant males, multipositional homosexual mounting and masturbation during juvenile / adolescent wrestling games, infant initiation of intercourse and fatherly acceptance of mother - son cunnilinguis. [[Research: Intergenerational Sexual Behaviors in Animals\|Our research page]] explains the issue in more detail.

	Of course, one could employ a fallacious argument by saying that other animals can behave in savage and unethical ways (sometimes in combination with the rape of infants). But that's beside the point; animals do not see or suffer these child love experiences as 'sex abuse', which is an entirely human construct, not far from a negative equivalent to the way that humans justify their own behaviour as being more civil and ethical than other animals; civility and ethics being ''human'' standards, anyway!		Of course, one could employ a fallacious argument by saying that other animals can behave in savage and unethical ways (sometimes in combination with the rape of infants). But that's beside the point; animals do not see or suffer these child love experiences as 'sex abuse', which is an entirely human construct, not far from a negative equivalent to the way that humans justify their own behaviour as being more civil and ethical than other animals; civility and ethics being ''human'' standards, anyway!

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]

Rez: New page: Our animal relatives do not only engage in masturbation and casual homosexual behaviours, but sexually induct their young in ways that would often be described as incestuous by human stand...

2008-12-14T19:40:11Z

New page: Our animal relatives do not only engage in masturbation and casual homosexual behaviours, but sexually induct their young in ways that would often be described as incestuous by human stand...

New page

Our animal relatives do not only engage in masturbation and casual homosexual behaviours, but sexually induct their young in ways that would often be described as incestuous by human standards. Yet, no harm is done. Indeed, such complex behaviours appear to be evolutionarily adaptive in these species. So why should the innate 'pedophile impulse' be any different for us? Animals, it seems, have no reason to limit child sex play to the nursery, i.e. they lack a restrictive moral structure. To them, it feels good and helps you get on.

So, using our own terms, who in the animal kingdom does what? Various primates engage in behaviours including incestuous matings with juveniles (both sexes, sometimes for reproductive purposes), intense relationships involving pederastic fondling, oral sex between younger and older males, fellatio, motherly sex play, masturbation and mounting with infants, child - child and child - parent faux - mountings, adult - pubescent lesbian relationships, adult male - infant female babysitting that involves masturbation and thrusting, adolescent anal sex (to ejaculation), sexualised greetings as normal interactions, studly, penetrative behaviour in very young infant males, multipositional homosexual mounting and masturbation during juvenile / adolescent wrestling games, infant initiation of intercourse and fatherly acceptance of mother - son cunnilinguis. This [http://archive.amaros-amarso-amarsi.org/almapintada/Non-Western/index.html article] and this [http://kalapa.nfshost.com/viewtopic.php?id=24 thread] explain the issue in more detail.

Of course, one could employ a fallacious argument by saying that other animals can behave in savage and unethical ways (sometimes in combination with the rape of infants). But that's beside the point; animals do not see or suffer these child love experiences as 'sex abuse', which is an entirely human construct, not far from a negative equivalent to the way that humans justify their own behaviour as being more civil and ethical than other animals; civility and ethics being ''human'' standards, anyway!

[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]