Reasons for Men’s Attraction to Teenage Girls

123go (a woman) writes:

Hmmm, no, sorry. This still doesn’t make sense. Growth and pregnancy don’t go together. Pregnancy stunts the growth of any animal. Even animals with indeterminate growth (grow throughout their entire lives, like snakes and crocs) will enter a cycle that stops growth so that they can become pregnant.

In human females, they start to mature faster than boys so that they can reach their max height faster, so that their body can work on widening the hips, and closing the growth plates. Even in modern day society, with girls having their first periods sooner, and growth happening faster, they’re still only seeing full sexual maturity at around or after 19 years of age, when the hips have splayed to open the birth canal.

The pelvis in both males and females doesn’t even start until they’re around 11-15, so that would preclude the ability to effectively carry a pregnancy. This would explain why teen mothers tend to need to have more c-sections in emergency situations, though more older females choose to have them done ahead of time.

Plus, according to the World Health Organization, women 19 and younger are apparently at greater risk of a wide number of adverse outcomes associated with pregnancy and delivery. The offspring they give rise to are also at a much higher risk for a number of adverse outcomes until they reach the age of two as well when compared to women 20+.

Apparently, according to fertility clinics, women 21-31 are in their prime, being the most fertile out of any age demographic, and having the best rates of health for themselves as well as their offspring. If males are looking for the best mates, would it not makes sense to then court young 20 year olds, so that you could be with them for all of their most fertile years?

Going with a younger female would mean standing the risk of stunting her development which would prevent her body from reaching full sexual maturity. It would increase her risk of dying in childbirth, increased risk of miscarriages, and the earlier the pregnancy, the worse the outcome for both the female mate, and the offspring.

Logically, if we’re looking at this scientifically, and based on the statistics, if you chose a younger mate than what was physically optimal in terms of reproduction, you would stand as a male to produce fewer offspring with such a female, and the ones that you had would apparently be weaker, more prone to preterm delivery, and other ailments. Compared to the more robust offspring that young 20 something women would give you. She would be healthy, and capable of providing more offspring soon after as well as their libido is apparently higher as well.

So I don’t think, that based on the evidence, especially with the thousands of articles spewing out of every journal of medicine every year about the dangers of adolescent pregnancy, that natural selection or evolution are the reasons for so many men’s fiction on young girls. If you think about it, it doesn’t explain why so many gay men prefer very young looking boys either. Maybe it’s something psychological. Or, if we’re going the evolutionary route for porn, maybe it’s the fact that most “teen”, “Lolita”, “jailbait” pornstars, aren’t actually teens at all, but actually slim women in their 20’s, which is actually quite common.

If not that, then maybe it has to do with a power fetish being that teens, male or female are often naive. Maybe some guys get off on the idea of being “first”, or more likely, the idea of not being compared to other sexual partners because there is an assumption of “innocence” and “virginity” with teens.

There are a lot of guys out there with chips on their shoulders, so being “the biggest someone has ever seen” in their minds at least, may be a big confidence boost for them. Plus, socially, mentally, physically etc. they would stand to be more powerful than a teen, and maybe that’s a turn on. After all, some people get their kinks from tying people up and hitting them. Feeling in power during sex is a huge turn on for some people.

Maybe on the other side of things, it could be that some dudes like to re-imagine their first sexual encounter, and this is their way of recapturing that. I don’t know, I’m not a psychologist, I’m just a scientist. But I definitely don’t think that attraction to girls that young has something to do with “evolutionary means” if they’re literally less efficient at popping out healthy brats without dying, hahaha.

This makes no sense. Study after study shows that all males are maximally attracted to all females age 16+. Other studies put maximal attraction at all females age 12+.

One study found that men reacted thus:

Age 16+ = maximal attraction
Age 15 = 90% of max
Age 14 = 80% of max
Age 13 = 70% of max
Age 12 = 60% of max
Age 11 = 50% of max
Age 10 = 40% of max
Age 9 = 30% of max
Age 8 = 20% of max
Age 7 = 10% of max
6-below = 0 attraction

As you can see, a 16 or 17 year old girl and a 18 or 19 year old woman are all the same for men. And they also the same as any mature woman of any age. According to men, once a female hits 16, she is simply a woman (if we define “woman” as “mature female”) and all mature females (or women) are equally attractive to men.

And if indeed there are increasing risks of pregnancy for girls aged 13-15, with the risks increasing as the girl gets younger, then men’s decreasing attraction to them as they get younger makes sense evolutionarily. On the other hand, it is rather difficult to impregnate a girl aged 13-15, although of course it can be done.

I don’t really care if maximal attraction to females aged 16-19 makes little sense evolutionarily. It doesn’t matter. Men are maximally attracted to females in these age ranges, obviously because they are fully developed by age 16.

The commenter suggests that the reasons that a lot men are maximally attracted to teenage females is due psychological reasons or a fetish. But why would these mysterious psychological reasons effect all males equally? Any psychological response experienced by all males would be assumed to be due to biology or an inborn or instinctual reaction.

Similarly, why would 100% of all males be maximally attracted to females aged 16-19 if it were merely due to a fetish? Fetishes are individualistic sexual preferences or attachments that are formed on the basis of experiences in childhood and puberty. Why would 100% of all males go through the exact same experiences in childhood and puberty that would cause them all to develop a fetish for girls age 16-19?

That makes no sense at all.

Evolutionary features in humans need not all make complete sense. As long as the trait is not dramatically maladaptive, it will tend to stick around.

Females are simply incapable of being rational about this teenage girl thing. Al of their arguments are based on emotions, and hence they are all irrational.

10 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Girls, Health, Heterosexuality, Jailbait, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex

10 responses to “Reasons for Men’s Attraction to Teenage Girls

  1. Burgernaut

    Apparently, according to fertility clinics, women 21-31 are in their prime,

    This may be the best age for a woman to have an INDIVIDUAL pregnancy but the best age to START reproducing in order to produce the most offspring over the long term and leave behind the most descendants (which is what really matters, evolution-wise) is the mid to late teens, approx 17.

    The best age then for a man to acquire a girl in order to get as many offspring from her as possible and maximise his own reproductivce success is just before that in the early to mid teens, approx 14.

  2. Can you link me the study?

  3. js

    This person articulated a logical argument based on substantial evidence. You responded by calling her emotional and insisting that it must be natural to be attracted to young teen girls since that is what happens. Your logic is literally backwards.
    And “Why would 100% of all males go through the exact same experiences in childhood and puberty that would cause them all to develop a fetish for girls age 16-19?”
    Does that really seem unrealistic? If all these men grew up in the same or similar society receiving the same or similar information about sex as they were going through puberty, they may develop very similar preferences. It makes perfect sense. We live in a country that equates youth with beauty and makes a habit of sexualizing young girls. It makes perfect sense that such a society would produce men who were attracted to biologically inappropriate young girls.

  4. You linked to an anonymous blog post that chose to disregard a published, peer-reviewed, scientific study and instead took data from wikipedia. You’re also assuming that something being common means it’s normal. People may prefer thinner, younger, women for cultural reasons, not biological reasons.

    • hello

      ?

      Because the issue is a girl’s FUTURE fertility not her CURRENT fertility. It’s true that early pregnancy carries more risks for both mother and child but most girls don’t get pregnant that young exactly for those reasons.

      Finally accepting some science. To have a girl so young and not reproduce is a waste. If you go for 13/14 but do not produce children until 19 that can be 5 years! While 18/19 would be a better choice less time wasted. Men also have a fertile peak and decline.

      In ancestral times girls who got pregnant young would have suffered more pregnancy complications and would have left behind fewer descendants than girls who started reproducing at a later age. Over time girls who start reproducing young would have become a minority in the population.

      Yes, good.

      You’re picking out the RARE cases of early pregnancy and treating them as TYPICAL cases.

      I’ll explain more if you want.

      Okay my point is 13/14 would not be ideal for a male to pick. He would have to wait years and if he was having sex with her head could get her pregnant and possible kill her thus wasting time. Plus why go so young when he can get a more matured girl? Is there evidence that males waited years before reproducing? A male with a 17+ can get started immediately while a male with 13 might not even have had her peroid yet. Girls started peroid later and it can take years after a girl’s peroid  before she was fertile. So future fertility is a time waster. By the time she is ready he could be dead.

      If the male wanted to pass on his genes waiting is not wise. To many risks as a hunter.

      I don’t get why a male would want to wait. This is why men are attracted to curves and breasts not slim pre-puberty bodies. Plenty of studies show men reacting to curves (fat in breast, hips, butt. Look up child bearing hips ) because that was a sign of fertility. Being thin for women would be seen as infertility. In fact fat is associated with high estrogen levels in women(when the fat is in breasts,hips,butt,) What evidence for males waiting and how would that been adaptive? It is maladaptive for males to wait for a girl to become fertile if their are fertile girls. Males who did use this method would probably produce less children, if any.
      A typical 17/18 would have more of these feminine fertile, traits compared to 13/14.

      Science does not support your exclusive desire for 13 year old girls is what all men feel, that they are desired over 17/18/19+ and older men sperm (40+) are the same quality as (17-30ish) younger men.

      If you are not one of the idiot writers on egomoral, then avoid that site it is just the opinons of bitter, delusional pedos that make up facts and never use science.

  5. Jason

    Angelo Bonavera please stop. You are embarrassing yourself and posting nonsense on other people’s sites. Just stick to egomoral.com.

    • This is too easy

      I’m not Angelo and I’m not embarrassing myself.

      Sorry Jason C. Webwub. You are embarrassment. You are a fool, make up science and are far removed from reality that even other pedophiles disagree with you. They even delete your crap.

      “In the study the women rated the most attractive were those that most closely resemble average 13yr olds. If the study had used real 13yr olds no doubt they would have been rated the most attractive.”

      No you had other people refute this on other sites. You can’t just make up implications to fit your dumb agenda. Men are not hebephiles like yourself.

      Here is research about hebephilia:

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-9982-y

      However, Ray Blanchard, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, says this is not the case and that there is no evidence to support these ideas: “Saying all men are hebephiles or all men are paedophiles is a profoundly misleading and untrue statement,” he told IBTimes UK

      One of his biggest critics, Karen Franklin, claimed hebephilia is normal for men because in terms of evolution and reproduction, it is beneficial to be attracted to a girl when she becomes fertile: “She claims hebephilia is adaptive,” Blanchard said.

      “There are two responses to that. One is that from what empirical evidence there is suggests that if anything hebephilia is not adaptive (part of evolution). I did a direct study comparing paedophiles, hebephiles and teleiophiles and found hebephiles had fewer biological offspring than teleiophiles who are attracted to physically mature partners.

      “There is no objective evidence that hebephilia is adaptive, which is to say it resulted in more offspring being left behind by the hebephilic individual compared with the teleiophilic individual.”

      “But saying that normal men respond at some microscopic level to physically immature physique, is not the same thing as saying normal men prefer the immature physique.”

      “Evolutionary psychology suggests that a woman’s sexual attractiveness might be based on cues of reproductive potential. It has been proposed that a major determinant of physical attractiveness is the ratio between her waist and hip measurements (the waist-to-hip ratio, or WHR): for example, a woman with a curvaceous body and a WHR of 0.7 is considered to be optimally attractive, presumably because this WHR is the result of a fat distribution that maximizes reproductive potential. It follows that the preference for a curvaceous body shape in women should be universal among men and not be culturally based, because natural selection presumably favours cues indicative of the most fertile body shape. ”

      13 year olds can be curvy like adult like a woman can look prepubescent. However typically adults are more curvy than a teen.

      The scientists made up some bullshit explanation that skinny 18-20yr olds with a BMI of 17-20 have “maximal fertility and minimal risk of future disease” and that’s why they were rated the most attractive. This is complete crap as their own mathematical model predicts that “maximal fertility and minimal risk of future disease” would occur at BMI about 24.

      You are literally claiming to know more than scientists? That is pathetic and so in your nature. Please post your peer reviewed research that rivals other scientists. Or better yet get a brain and use it instead of making up your own shit.

      Your response “herp derp derp I am RIGHT and you are wrong. Me smarter than scientists. ”

      The real reason men find the BMI 17-20 highly attractive is that (on average) it’s a sign of youth and that a girl is in her adolescent years and still has all her fertile years remaining. Such a girl would be capable of giving a man more offspring than a 20 something who has already used up some of her fertility.

      Yeah no post evidence. Are you not a pedophile of science?

      http://www.m.webmd.com/baby/features/fertility-101&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwihk6vCtrTKAhVHLhoKHV_bCloQFgggMAI&usg=AFQjCNG5Nud4YquQcH01YNYbAmpS6jjJhA

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915554/

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871519215000797

      http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v22/n4/full/7210694a.html

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1083318811001069

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020729212005681

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937815003889. (This is interesting because although adults are more likely to have c section that is not as bad as the issues younger girls face).

      Having a girl get pregnant young could actually hurt a man’s chance or reproductive success. Girls are more
      likely to have health issues and premature babies. Back then premature babies had less chance of survival and higher rates of death. A man would want a female that was curvy and prepared. That would be more 19-27. A man would waste his time getting a 13 year old pregnant because merache timeline also is a factor in the girl’s pregnancy and the health of the baby. He could have the girl die oe the baby die while a man who was with a woman could have a healthy baby. Additionally a man waste his reproductive prime with trying to impregnate girls. Men and their fertility decline I can post research on this too just ask make stupid claims. Lol.

      What you have to realize is that to a decent human being this information is met to help adolescents and adults are healthy as well as the babies. If those who actually work on the field are providing research showing that it is safer for adults women to have children then we should follow this. If adolescents are more likely to give birth early, that is not beneficial to have children so young. Especially because their is evidence shows it has to do within their bodies despite diet, class and other external factors.  You should care about the life babies, adolescents and women. You just want to stick your dick in little girls and not be called all sorts of evil. Not happening.

    • laughing at you.

      “That’s not how the biology works. And Blanchard’s a moron.”

      First avoid dishonest debate tatics.

      – Ad hominem.
      Please post evidence of Blanchard is wrong. Attacking the person does not make you right and them wrong.

      Observational selection.
      I posted evidence to contradiction your delusions. You need to recognize these studies and the evidence it provides.

      Non sequitur
      The article from egomoral.com you keep posting you your conclusion is incorrect. People keep telling you that but you are ignoring it.

      Luckily you aren’t a scientist, gynecologist or a doctor in general. They actually are bound to science, empirical data, etc. You are bound by your sexual disorder, trying to make up facts and pass it as science.

      Example in this quote by you webwub

      “Men are only attracted to girls, attraction to adult women is a fetish and forced upon men”

      Get help.

    • Pedos be tripping

      “I’m not Angleo or Webwub. ”

      Look Jason nobody comments on ego moral nor take it seriously. Only the writers of ego moral post their pathetic and false information on other websites. If you weren’t a writer from ego moral then why not comment on their articles ?Your posts/threads get deleted on chan websites. That is quite teliing.

      And Blanchard definitely is a moron. His evolutionary arguments as to why hebephilic preferences would have been maladaptive are laughable and show he doesn’t understand how evolution or the human mating system work.

      Oh I think it is you who don’t understand. I posted articles of evidence outside of nutrition that show young girls having babies is detrimental to her and the baby. Why would 13 be the prime when they are more likely to have complications and early delivery compared to women? Do you understand that modern medcine is the only reasons premature babies survive now? No you don’t instead you pretend that you know more than established medical fields.

      If you want I could explain how he’s wrong and I’m right.

      Oh really. Post peer reviewed articles and viable research. A single link from ego moral.com will just prove you to be the moron. Post recent studies. Post about evidence being presented you post articles with no understanding of it and make up your own conclusions.

      BMI isn’t related to age but weight and height. A person of any age can have and number because age is not an important variable. So you using it as proof of age of attraction is moronic. A 13 can be obese and a 38 year old be overweight and 27 be healthy. However bmi doesnt really account for the body shape. The 38 year old can have higher muscle mass while the 27 year old have a weird body shape.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s