[deleted]
[deleted]
In nature, an attempt to impregnate a teenage girl is an effective way of killing her. Children aren’t fertile. In early 20th century, girls got their period at 16-19 years old. A young girl with a period but underdeveloped body would not survive pregnancy and labor in nature without medical assistance. That is why tall women with wide pelvic bones are attractive and more evolved than short women. A girl without a period is not fertile. No one is automatically fertile at age 14 or 15. Some girls get their wombs destroyed by statutory rapists because their bodies are so underdeveloped. No womb or cervix, no pregnancy. Sex is only meant for reproduction. You can’t reproduce better with young adolescents than with adult women. Even short adult women struggle with pregnancy because they are short and their pelvises are smaller. By this egg cell, period = fertility logic, you could say baby boys are fertile because they are always producing sperm. Women are most fertile in the late 20s and 30s.
shareHumans star to develop in tere teens years (this is biology, is a fact, non an opinion) so, is ok see a 15's girl and be aware she is atractive that doesn't meant you are a monster just meant you are not dead and have functional eyes
Now my point is this dude is being accused only of grabbing asses (so far i know, maybe are other more serious acusations i dont know) is grab some ass twenty years ago in a party while you were drunk so terrible this person shouldn't work again in his life? he din't rape him, grab is not rape, if he was accused of rape i understand, but for grabbing is ridiculous
"Teen" is the most popular heterosexual porn category among adult males. To say you don't like teens is to deny biology. Humans have a natural lifespan of only 38 years ( https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/12/14/dna-based_method_suggests_humans_have_a_natural_lifespan_of_38_years_111221.html ) Our biology means the mating years are 14 to 24.
shareA good pedo admits he’s a pedo.
sharePedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children. 14 isn't prepubescent.
share14 isn’t automatically fertile so there is no difference. A ten year old can be as underdeveloped as a fourteen year old. You attempt to impregnate an underdeveloped body, period or not, you can destroy their ability to reproduce by crushing the cervix. And if they do have a period and get pregnant, their underdeveloped body can’t support the pregnancy and have labor naturally without medical assistance. Many women can give birth naturally without surgery. Most children can’t.
shareChildren as young as 8 years old are fertile ( https://www.deseret.com/1993/1/15/19026876/8-year-old-gives-birth-in-mexico ) you're making up nonsense and claiming it to be true. Fact is, teenagers aren't children and pedophiles only have sex with children. Lying doesn't change facts.
shareok coomer
8 is not a teenager. That child would die during pregnancy or labor without medical surgical assistance. A normal woman could give birth safely with only midwife assistance.
Pedophilia is frowned upon for a reason. Because the men who raped and impregnated children in nature were responsible for the child’s demise. Pregnancy is risky for normal women. It’s even more risky for short women. It’s always risky for children.
truth hurts. your pedo dreams are off base and not based.
You claimed a 14 year old couldn't give birth, but an 8 year old could with no complications? You're delusional. Facts defeat your lies.
A 20 year old is less fertile than a 16 year old... you're just opposed to consensual sex. By 35 a woman's uterus is mostly for decoration.
80 percent of women who try pregnancy at 35 get pregnant.
Facts don’t care about pedo feelings.
That's a bold face lie and you know it. After all, most men start impregnating women at 13 and the other 13 year olds don't have a problem with it, they enjoy it actually. Why are you against sex, you clearly hate people having sex and want to interfere with what happens between two consensual people.
shareChapter 15: https://tv.nrk.no/serie/innafor/2019/MDDP12100419/avspiller
Most men don’t want to be fathers in adulthood so why would a 13 yo want to?
You're denying that teenage boys want to impregnate other teenage girls? Seriously? I mean you have no problems with that right? Because after all it happens in nature all the time and is completely natural... you're just against an adult woman having sex with a teenage boy.
share"Pedophilia is frowned upon for a reason. Because the men who raped and impregnated children in nature were responsible for the child’s demise."
You do not even know what pedophilia is and are in no position to "educate" others about it, let alone flat out accuse others of being pedophiles for no reason at all when you do not even understand what it is.
What is your weird focus on pedophilia and why do you think accusing random strangers online of it, without any base of evidence, is in any way reasonable, constructive?
Or are you simply a troll?
"In nature, an attempt to impregnate a teenage girl is an effective way of killing her. Children aren’t fertile. In early 20th century, girls got their period at 16-19 years old. A young girl with a period but underdeveloped body would not survive pregnancy and labor in nature without medical assistance."
Everything you just said is wrong.
"Children in medieval England entered puberty between ten and 12 years of age – the same as today."
https://theconversation.com/children-arent-starting-puberty-younger-medieval-skeletons-reveal-91095
There is also no evidence to suggest early teen pregnancies are significantly more dangerous or as you put it so hyperbolically: "An effective way of killing her".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4818837/
As for "medical assistance". Nature knows what it is doing. Giving birth is no illness, it is a natural process. There are always risks, but your claim that a young teenage girl giving birth "without assistance" is basically dead meat is ludicrous.
"Some girls get their wombs destroyed by statutory rapists because their bodies are so underdeveloped."
Strawman. You can destroy a 2m tall woman's womb if you're violent enough.
Sex is not meant to be a brutal slaughterfest and just because we speak "the olden times" doesn't change that.
"You can’t reproduce better with young adolescents than with adult women."
Depends.
If by adolescent we speak a 16yo healthy teen vs. a 29yo healthy woman, then the chances of a successful pregnancy are significantly higher with the teenager. That is also the reason why almost all hetereosexual men are attracted to young women and not 50 year olds because they instinctively know the chance for healthy offspring is higher with a young woman. Same goes for the reason men prefer women with healthy curves compared to walking skeletons.
Or why women prefer tall strong men with alpha characteristics.
It's evolutionary biology, 100% science.
Puberty does not equal menstruation.
Successful and safe pregnancy is dependent on pelvic size. That is why tall people are more desirable and have been throughout history.
Teen pregnancy is more risky than adult pregnancy. That is why it is frowned upon.
Taller, done with puberty = bigger pelvis. Bigger pelvis = better pregnancy and better offspring.
By your logic, women should be raping their baby boys and male toddlers because they produce sperm and they will eventually ejaculate if you just force it enough.
It’s easy to destroy a young girls reproductive system. If she is short and he is an adult, no force is needed. Many of these girls will struggle with fertility later when they would be at their most fertile and reproductively useful.
A 29 year old woman is more attractive than any aged teenager. It’s a safer bet because most are not fully developed at 15 or 16, even physically.
Fertility in women: https://tv.nrk.no/serie/innafor/2019/MDDP12100419/avspiller
"Puberty does not equal menstruation."
No one said it does.
Menstruation usually sets in during the third of five puberty phases among girls (usually).
"Successful and safe pregnancy is dependent on pelvic size. That is why tall people are more desirable and have been throughout history."
Again: No one said otherwise.
What I said is that your claim that young teens giving birth is basically a death sentence, is nonsense, and that's a historical and biological fact.
"Bigger pelvis = better pregnancy and better offspring."
No. It will be better for the event of birth, but it has nothing to do with the actual off-spring.
"By your logic"
Try that again once you actually understood "my logic" instead of going completely insane with that absurd, and wrong, scenario about toddlers producing sperm... WTF?
Humans also instinctively know that incest is wrong and counter-productive (literally), which makes your silly example even more absurd... but at least it shows how little you understand of evolutionary biology.
Boys do not produce sperm before puberty, and you're talking about toddler sperm... WTF is wrong with you!?
"It’s easy to destroy a young girls reproductive system."
Again, no one said otherwise. It won't change your attempt at a petty strawman though.
"If she is short and he is an adult, no force is needed."
*sigh*
Wrong again... as long as we're talking about sexually mature and normally build girls.
So it is not only evolutionary biology you don't understand, your anatomical and sexual education is also insufficient.
Okay, got it.
"A 29 year old woman is more attractive than any aged teenager. It’s a safer bet because most are not fully developed at 15 or 16, even physically."
And wrong/misleading again.
I posted scientific facts backed with scientific articles, go take it up to them, I can already tell this is utterly pointless.
I feel like I have to explain how a clock works to someone who doesn't even know how to read the time...