Saturday, 2 November 2013

There Are, At The Very Least, 372 Million People, Sexually-Attracted To 'Kids', In The World - Are You One Of 'Them'?

 


Wurtele SK, Simons D, & Moreno T (2013). Sexual Interest in Children Among an Online Sample of Men and Women: Prevalence and Correlates. Sexual Abuse PMID: 24215791

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24215791

http://sax.sagepub.com/content/26/6/546.abstract

 Are One In Ten Men Sexually Attracted To Children? 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/11/18/one-ten-men-sexually-attracted-children

*****

Sandy K. Wurtele, Ph.D.

http://www.uccs.edu/psych/people/faculty/sandy-wurtele.html

Dominique Simons (UCCS MA Alumnus)

http://www.uccs.edu/psych/archived-news/april-2012.html

*****

Here we go ...

Population of the Earth = 7,162,119,434

Adult Population of the Earth (child = equal to or less than 14 (26%)) = 74% = 5,299,968,381

Given an approximate ratio ...

Men (50.4%) = 2,671,184,064

Women (49.6%)  = 2,628,784,316

*****

10% of Men =  267,118,406 (>267 million)

4% of Women = 105,151,372 (>105 million)

Estimated Total of Minor (equal to or less than 14) -Attracted Adults (MAAs) on the Earth  = 372,269,778 (>372 million)

*****

.... and that is based on self-reporting ...

We expect, that some children (MAMs) will be sexually-attracted to children too ;)

Then, drop in the 14-17.999999999 years olds.

Makes you think, eh?

(happy to correct any maths errors etc - just let us know :) ).

*****

also ...

Nov 21, 2009
 
Pedophile, Minor-Attracted Adult or Merely Human?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_iEKadpaKQ

(00:47 - ca. 396,000,000), from Brett Kahr, F is for fantasy.

*****

Spring 2011 Survey Results: B4U-ACT conducted an online survey of minor-attracted people over a six-week period in March to April, 2011

http://b4uact.org/science/survey/01.htm

Thank you Andrew Gilligan And The Telegraph - Paedophilia Is Not 'Normal' (As Though That Matters), But, Being A Minor-Attracted Person, Certainly Is

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/thank-you-andrew-gilligan-paedophilia.html

"Well Over 20% Of Normal Men Are Probably Pedophiles; The Majority Of Men Are Probably Pedophiles And Hebophiles"

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/well-over-20-of-normal-men-are-probably.html

September 24 , 2014

Every fifth boy and man is pedophilic or hebephilic

Abstract

"A meta-analysis of all seven relevant phallometric studies reveals that 22% of normal men show greater or equal sexual arousal to child stimuli (individuals up to 13 years old) than to adult stimuli.

Combined results of two of these studies reveal male prevalence rates of about 3% for pedophilia (mostly s exually aroused by prepubescents) and about 16% for hebephilia (mostly sexually aroused by pubescents).

Details of these studies are described, and implications of the results for sexual science and society are discussed."

https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/every_fifth.pdf

*****

30 July 2014 Last updated at 00:34

How many men are paedophiles?

"It's very common for regular men to be attracted to 18-year-olds or 20-year-olds. It's not unusual for a typical 16-year-old to be attractive to many men and the younger we go the fewer and fewer men are attracted to that age group," says Cantor.

He thinks that if we say that a paedophile is someone attracted to children aged 14 or less, then he estimates that you could reach the 2% figure.

"If we use a very strict definition and say paedophilia refers only to the attraction to pre-pubescent children [then it] is probably much lower than 1%," he says.

The term is often applied to a person who sexually abuses someone below the age of 16, but given that in some countries - and even some US states - you can marry below the age of 16 this definition would clearly not be universally accepted.

There is consensus on the clinical definition. Michael Seto and his colleagues agree that a paedophile is someone who has a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children, so typically those under the ages of 11 or 12.

But whether the prevalence using this definition is 0.5%, as James Cantor says or 1%, as Michael Seto says, you can be assured than in any large group of people - whether they be politicians, entertainers, or Catholic clergy - you are likely to find some paedophiles."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28526106

*****

http://web.archive.org/web/20150217085819/http://www.ilovechildren.net

http://www.virped.website

*****


http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2nh1nb/science_ama_series_we_are_alan_sanders_michael/cmds0hy

*****



Adaptive value of (some) paedophilic attraction? 

"Sorry in advance if this post offends anyone but I just want to look at the issue objectively. Paedophilic attraction is seen in all societies and its existence requires an explanation.

Paedophilic attraction is normally considered abnormal and maladaptive. The conventional argument runs something like "Girls under age X are infertile and incapable of reproducing. Therefore, any sexual attraction to girls under age X has no biological function and must be the result of brain abnormality, etc". The big problem with this argument is that it only considers a girl's CURRENT fertility but what would have mattered most to a man in ancestral times was a girl's FUTURE fertility.

In all societies most reproduction happens within marriages and long term relationships and we can presume it was the same for ancestral humans. Men must therefore have evolved to choose females on the basis of their ability to give them a supply of offspring over the long term. The females capable of giving men the most offspring would have been those who are at or just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan i.e. teenage girls. The overwhelming popularity of teenage girls in the sex industries confirms this prediction.

Girls before puberty wouldn't have been the best wife material since a man would have to wait some years before they could start providing him offspring, during which either partner may die. Reproduction at a later age (for the man) also contributes less to the future population.

Although girls who haven't reached puberty wouldn't have been ideal wives they would still have been better than older females who have already used up some of their fertile years. A 30 year old woman, for example, would have been half way through her reproductive lifespan, whereas an 8 year old would still have had all of her fertile years ahead of her. Even if the "reproductive penalty" of waiting for the 8 year old to reach reproductive age reduced her expected reproductive contribution by 50% (which is a big over-estimate) she would still have given a man just as many offspring as a 30 year old wife. It would have made more biological sense for prehistoric men to chase after 8 year olds than 30 year olds.

Having some sexual attraction to girls before puberty would have been adaptive because it would have motivated men to acquire them as wives. It doesn't matter that having sex with them wouldn't have got them pregnant. As long as any sexual activity they did together didn't reduce a man's reproductive success there would have been no need for evolution to select these behaviours out. Forcible intercourse that injured a girl and compromised her ability to bear offspring would have clearly reduced a man's reproductive success and would have been strongly selected against. Minor sexual acts like kissing and touching wouldn't done any damage to a girl's reproductive ability and so there would have been no reason for evolution to select them out.

It's likely that all men have some paedophilic interest as it would have been adaptive in prehistoric societies. The men that identify as paedophiles probably just have more interest than normal, maybe due to random variations in brain wiring in the population.

Edit:

Instead of asking:

“What would have been the adaptive value in men mating with females before puberty?”

What should be asked is:

“What would have been the adaptive value in men being attracted to females before puberty?”

Then the answer’s simple. Girls before puberty have a high future fertility and being attracted to them would have motivated men to acquire them as wives."

http://www.reddit.com/r/evopsych/comments/33co5z/adaptive_value_of_some_paedophilic_attraction/

6 comments:

  1. Only 2% of men are attracted to 14yr olds? James Cantor is a fucking dumbass. Maybe only 2% of men AREN'T attracted to 14yr olds.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2nh1nb/science_ama_series_we_are_alan_sanders_michael/cmds0hy

    ReplyDelete
  2. One other thing, the phallometry tests that many sexologists are fond of using probably aren't very reliable. I mean, it's basically just putting an elastic band on a man's knob and measuring how much it stretches when he's shown some dirty pictures. There's many things that can affect the results such as the fact the subject is being observed, that the tests take place under artificial laboratory conditions and the skewing caused by social norms and taboos. Hardly precise science.

    Here's a graph of four different phallometry studies from 1970 to the present.

    http://a.pomf.se/aauxlz.jpg

    Translation of the graphic:
    Title: Sexual Arousal of men by nude-images of different kinds of people (values from 4 studies in percent)
    x-Axis: Neutral image of a landscape | prepubescent boys | pubescent boys | men | prepubescent girls | pubescent girls | women

    In the study done in 1970 (when sexual attitudes were more liberal) men showed basically the some level of arousal to pictures of naked pubescent girls about 12 as they did to adult women. In the studies done later as attraction to minors become more and more taboo men showed less response to minors. This is exactly what we'd expect to see if the results are being skewed by social norms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Many thanks for your comment and information.

    The OSC

    ReplyDelete
  4. Was some paedophilic attraction adaptive in prehistoric times?

    http://www.reddit.com/r/evopsych/comments/33co5z/adaptive_value_of_some_paedophilic_attraction/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TY - yes, we are argue this, on occasion - very useful :)

      The OSC

      Delete