Wow Bluelight. So even insinuating and providing evidence that 1/3 of all the males you know -- your fathers, your brothers, your best friends -- or even you yourself, get turned on by nudie pics of little girls isn't enough to provoke a reaction? Sadly, I think the biggest real reason there's been no response is that people are intimidated by the amount of reading they'd have to do in this thread to address the arguments. Oh well ... bitches.
Well, the title of the thread might be repelling discussion.
For strictly discussing pedophilia, this thread would probably receive a better response if the topic title was "Implications of pedophilia in human sexuality" instead of "implications of sexual cannibalism"..
Also, your idea of a "reaction" seems to require having someone give a negative response (more specifically, an arrogant response seems to be what most of you are anticipating). You should consider the possibility that:
1) Everyone agrees, and a negative response would only be given due to a social stigma -- however, the nature of intelligent discussions is such that social stigmas are with-held by participants for the purpose of advancement in common knowledge (given that this discussion has so-far been of an intelligent nature).
2) A thread entitled "implications of sexual cannibalism *NSFW*" is going to deter any negative feedback, since in their minds they have inferred that negative feedback is going to be inherent in such a topic, and their involvement would be unnecessary. It could also be that the thread title is only going to draw in two/three crowds of people:
A - Those who are -by a sexual nature- curious/interested in the topic being discussed.
B - Those who are interested in the legitimate psychological analysis of the topic being discussed -- who could possibly fit into the first category as well, OR they still fail to produce negative feedback given that they are providing an opinion through a scientific lens.
This illustrates one of the largest paradoxes impeding psychological research. I believe someone in an earlier post had accurately mentioned that this topic is demonstrating a "spiral of silence".
This is also why modern psychological problems & phenomenon are difficult for people to just "sit down and discuss with one another in order to reach a conclusion" -- because the setting of the debate is innately prone to predetermine the outcome of the debate.
Furthermore, when one tries to go solo to find a solution (presumably by making deductions to find a logical conclusion while maintaining an unbiased scope of the issue), they stumble across the existence of "cognitive parallels" in their mind. These 'parallels' are barriers which are inadvertently formed as a result of "archetypes" within the collective unconscious. These "archetypes" (which are the cognitive tools used for calculating dilemmas in any social conflict) are found the same in every person, and their existence is stored genetically.
Why do the archetypes form barriers? First and foremost, because all social systemization is
subjective (in that it varies depending on the environment) - causing moral codes to contradict each other when viewed at from a larger scale (or what could be considered a metaphorical "bird's eye view"). Second of all, evolution could not grant us a complete set of genetic moral guidelines because
we are still in the process of forming it.
We are still evolving as living creatures, and we are still exploring the boundaries of our chaotic and constantly-fluctuating environment.
Jung described his frustration with the existence of 'cognitive parallels' as being "suspended within the waters of the collective unconscious; with no sense of direction or gravity".
A great amount of modern artwork (particularily in film and music) is Jungian influenced, and references to the "waters of the collective unconscious" are numerous.
Here are some of my more favorite examples:
- Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", in which the protagonist Alex mentions that his obsession with sex & violence is like
"silvery wine flowing in a space ship - gravity all non-sense now"
- The song "Otherside" by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, which illustates (in the video especially) the downward spiral of cognitive dissonance resulting from trying to find the solution to a broken heart.
- The song "The Grudge" by Tool, which describes cognitive dissonance (the cyclical reverberation between cognitive parallels) as either "Lifting you up like a child" or "Dragging you down like a stone [in the waters of the collective unconscious]"
- Any references to "overcoming gravity" or "supermen" are almost always alluding to the same phenomenon.
Most importantly, the existence of archetypes within the collective unconscious implies that human society is within (or near) an equilibrium - in which every type of person plays a vital role in the maintenance of all, and one type of individual can not be specifically discriminated against with 100% confidence.
So what does all of this imply? Moral clarity has to be gained through experience - and a person is never 100% at fault for what they do, they are just more/less experienced.
Some examples of cognitive parallels are as follows:
The outcome of moral calculations will ultimately boil down to unrelated & temporary factors such as:
- A person's current mood while making the calculation
- The setting in which the calculation is being made
The perceived "long-term psychological damage" resulting from prepubescent sexual activity ONLY exists because it is perpetuated by those who expect its existence. When incidences of prebuscent sexual activity occur, the psychological damage upon the child is inflicted not by the sexual perpetrator, but by the shock they experience when they find out that such activities are considered "taboo" by society. I.e., the very act of making a big deal out of pedophilia is what's making a big deal out of it. Similar to a "self-fulfilling prophecy". In some pacific tribes, pedophilia is not only accepted but ritually practiced between prepubescents and tribal elders - with seemingly no negative adverse reactions whatsoever.
It is immoral to "lie, cheat, kill, and steal", even though all life is seemingly a matter of lying, cheating, and stealing. Doesn't the venus fly trap lie to insects in order to trick them into entering its digestive system? Doesn't a hunter lie and cheat while wearing camoflauge and using animal calls to hunt more efficiently?
Don't corporations lie, cheat, and steal when using advertisement tactics to manipulate people into buying their products?
Contradictingly so - this grand universal exchange of "lying, cheating, killing, and stealing" is what is keeping the world go around as smoothly as it is. It has not so far been possible in human history for "interpersonal exchange" to exist solely for mutual benefit, because people end up banding together and viewing other bands of people as enemies in order to keep people motivated.
PS, it is perhaps the
Most Important to recognize at all times that, when presuming the persona of anonymity (i.e., on an internet forum), your own hostility will be your greatest enemy. If you sincerely want to change traditional moral standards, then formulating your "plans" out of mutual compassion is the only way to successfully go about doing it. Forming them out of aggression or hostility is going to paradoxically push society backwards in progress - as interpretters will begin associating your beliefs with your hostile attitude.
Also, note that "not being hostile" doesn't mean you shouldn't be assertive. You still have to keep motivational reserves for the purpose of self-defense. If accusations are rooted in fallacies, then they can be undone and exposed through communicating your intellectual observations. But don't exploit that ability either.
) and eventually there will be legal, consensual, happy couples with age differences a primitive 2010 man would find atrosive and have to be dragged to a rehabilitation facility after beating the older of the two. after rehabilitation, he will be self actualized as well, though 
