Profiting off infantilizing oneself?

idk

i find it very cringe thats it

everybody should be able to do whatever they want within the limits of the law...

even people who like the idea of "child like behaviour" and whatnot - again as long as whatever they are doing is within the confines of the law it's perfectly acceptable...

a pedophile/child groomer is judged on his or her actions alone and not by the behaviour of the innocent victim...

I don't have a problem if they are being true to who they are. If you have to change who you are or what you normally prefer, then you are making a decision to put money /attention over integrity. It might not be my personal taste but if a woman genuinely likes being infantalized, then that is their business. As long as they are aware of the kind of men that can attract.

I have a problem with it when they pretend to be a younger age because of there "child like" self.

Wait what???? What about Ariana Grande's content is child like???

Oh I also think that a lot of times, the people which I saw complaining about other girls acting cute, seemed only to be jealous. Those girls are usually conventionally pretty and get more attention from men so every pathetic loser is gonna nag about them.

cringe but alright. to each their own. if they want to profit off it, good for them. They'd probably sexualized for the behavior anyway, why not at least make money with it.

Quote from ClementineRuby

It's weird

The people who like it are even more weird.

it might be weird because it's different from the norm but the issue is is it acceptable if it's within the confines of the law?

Quote from ClementineRuby

It's not just weird because it's different from society's norms; it's weird because it's abnormal.

It's not natural for grown women to behave like infants, and it's especially unusual for them to enjoy it.

And I disagree that something is acceptable because it's legal. If anything, the law tends to run opposite morality.

interesting but just because something is not normal doesn't mean it's wrong or incorrect or weird by that matter...since abnormal just means away from the norm...one might argue there are a lot of things which are abnormal in society whether it's the birth of twins, people born with defects, even people that wear glasses that might be considered "not normal"

that is true that it's not natural but does that mean that all peoples should only do things which are only natural?

why should only morality be considered to the be upholding force to decide if something is "good or not" - a lot of things are moral to different people and thus we use laws not morality to decide right and wrong...

Quote from ClementineRuby

I was referring to normal in the sense of natural development. I believe that if something contradicts are natural biological development or instincts, then it's wrong.

Yes. The way in which we behave should be guided by our basic human nature.

Morality refers to what's good or not from a philosophical point of view. Although perception of morality varies between cultures, I don't believe that makes morality; good and evil, right and wrong, relative.

Law is a product of what we (or more specifically, people in positions of power) consider to be right and wrong. Since it's a product, it's secondary.

Display More

interesting...

but lots of things are contrary to natural biological developments - plastic surgery, wrinkles and aging cream, skincare all counter to natural bio development, in your eyes they would be wrong?

but there's no such thing as basic human nature...it's human nature to be greedy and if you go back to cave man times then it's human nature to be effectively " survival of the fittest"

well technically ethics is the study of morality whereas morality is the principles concerning what's right and wrong (but that's neither here nor there). Sorry I'm not understanding the second part of your paragraph, can you explain it again?

interesting...but even if we consider them secondary it is those principles that dictate punishment and wrongdoing within society - you can't be punished for morality...

Quote from ClementineRuby

plastic surgery or aging cream are grey areas in this subject. there is one aspect of human nature, your body just developing according to what your genes 'tell it to do,' and the other aspect of superficiality that causes a person to want to get plastic surgery and get rid of wrinkles. the superficial and physical developmental parts of a person can contradict themselves (and often do), but that doesn't mean both of them aren't natural.

Skincare is not unnatural, or contrary to natural biological development. skin care is just about taking care of part of your body. and striving to be healthy is part of human nature, and one of the reasons why our species has survived.

sure.

morality is objective. people's views on what's good or bad can't change what's good or bad.

it is true that laws extend a lot of control over populations, i don't reject that. it's just that i don't believe law is usually a reflection of how societies should behave.

you shouldn't be punished for morality. but it still happens all the time, and the government (the root of professional law), is usually the party that carries out that punishment against good people.

Display More

well you mentioned natural biological developments - aging is a natural biological development thus even skincare used to counter such would be against natural biological developments no? or even sunscreen? sun cane cause cancer and once we learned that humans used various things to cover up the skin or sunscreen to prevent it which counters the natural biological developments...but again i don't see where this is going lol so I'm going to leave this line of reasoning...

but morality is not objective...every person's morals changes...every person has different interpretations of what's moral and not hence we have ethics the field of study for it...for example...abortion is a moral issue...one person might think it's "bad" to abort in all circumstances, one person might consider it bad with a few exemptions (rape, incest, life of mother), another person might consider abortion good in every circumstance...

morality cannot exist with human consciousness to perceive and interpret it

Then the issue is how should a society behave? I would argue that it's combination of morals, laws, society norms etc

right so if one should't be punished for morality then we go back to the original issue lol which is then one should also not be punished or specifically JUDGED for doing something abnormal...no?

it's none of my business, most idols; female and male do it, and it's no big deal. as long as what they're doing isn't illegal, let people live their life.

Quote from ClementineRuby

a natural biological development is also concern for the way that we look. that aspect of development often contradicts the physical side. but they're both still natural.

well, the process of developing skin cancer itself isn't natural

1. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

prolonged and/or intense exposure to the sun isn't natural. so by using sunscreen we are preventing an unnatural occurrence.

whether morality is objective or subjective is a tough and centuries old debate. i personally believe that morality is objective, because it can only be discovered through objective truths; through scientific investigation.

i feel like we're going a bit in a circle with this. u implied that morality is subject to different perspectives, and i said that it's objective because it's rooted in physical properties. now i feel like we've started it off again. lol

i think society should behave only on the foundation of morality, which should be derived from scientific investigation into our natural biology.

yes, the issue is that women who act like children help perpetrate sexist perspectives and set a bad precedent for younger women to follow.

it depends on how you define punishment and judgement. i don't believe in social ridicule, but providing platforms to the kind of people that we're discussing is wrong, because such platforms would perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

Display More

well getting to the skin cancer issue - but the mere fact that any exposure of the sun could result in skin cancer makes it natural no? i would agree if you said it ins't normal because cancer is not normal but it's still a natural process which could develop based on certain factors and other cases completely random

yeah so I'll leave it at that lol...but I don't think it can be done through scientific study since it's not a branch of science but ethics is a branch of philosophy not science...

interesting...(the bold part) again i don't think you can look at it through science instead of theory since it cannot be tested...one cannot compare societies based on different morals throughout history because there's no control group and how would one even begin to test morality on a scientific approach?

how do they perpetuate it when isn't it up to the individual to decide certain actions right? like shouldn't individual responsibility be taken into account?

in regards to the bad precedent...are you implying that the way women behave should be limited because it also perpetuates certain actions or decisions? because is it acceptable for people making a judgment based on how someone else behaves when it differs from our morals? for example some people abhor homosexuality based on their morals which in certain societies is the norm...and thus should they be able to judge someone based on their morals...

(final paragraph) but again that is based on your morals correct? I think the ultimate question I'm asking is what i posed in my above paragraph:

is it acceptable for people to make a judgment based on how someone else behaves/dresses/acts when it differs from our morals?

Quote from ClementineRuby

i don't know much about skin cancer, but i don't think that any amount of exposure to the sun can result in cancer. perhaps if the person who is exposed has an unusual melanin deficiency. i think we have different definitions of what natural means.

the one that i provided before (of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something) is one of the many provided by official sources.

the humanities and sciences are undeniably interlinked and overlap one another.

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

it's not necessarily that philosophical inquiries can be advanced through creating experiments to test them, but that they can be informed by science, and philosophers can channel other critical thinking skills approaches (such as contrasting), to advance discussions regarding morality.

i believe that we should discourage certain actions because they result in negative consequences for other people.

A: i don't agree with the idea that if a person holds an immoral ideology it is entirely their fault or burden. in the case of homophobia, they were falsely informed by their culture, the authoritative people in their lives, their close relations, etc., that homosexuality is immoral. but when they develop the individual capacity to expand their intellectual scope by learning about scientific information regarding homosexuality (that proves it's perfectly descent), then they have the moral responsibility to accept that their preconceived belief was wrong. if they don't set aside their bigotry in light of those intellectual developments, then they are bad people.

B: my opinion on women who set bad precedents for younger women and perpetuate negative images about their demographic is based on my morals, which are informed by my understanding of biology. i have a concrete foundation for my perspective, which means that it's validated.

C: i've never understood why people frame judgement in a negative light. judgement is a through process; to reject judgement would be to refuse yourself your instinctive drive to try to understand your surroundings. judgement isn't wrong. taking your judgement to ridicule someone out of personal frustration is definitely wrong, but that's called shaming, not judging.

Display More

firstly i don't disagree that science can influence and impact humanities but I merely said that one couldn't test different approaches...

it regards to the sun It can trust me I'm from Australia and the sun's terrible here since we lost our ozone layer here lol

i believe that we should discourage certain actions because they result in negative consequences for other people. True for some actions but not all...since not all actions result in negative consequences and just because it results in some negative consequences doesn't mean it will result in negative consequences for all...

A: I added the A to better comment on your comments lol

that might be true but it's not always certain what forms such behaviour whether it is inherent or societal features...

but again you are using science whereas others are using religion (or otherwise) the question asked isn't science v religion but more so that based on religious morals homophobia is fine in certain societies...

I guess from here the issue is where does one obtain such morals - is it science, religion, laws, norms, beliefs, philosophy etc etc and if one forms those morals within those things how can it be bad instead of just being different. When you speak of moral responsibility then from certain (not all) religious perspectives homosexuality is a sin and bad and to them people who support that are also bad...

B: true and it's certainly a valid one and if i were to hold an opposing view based on my morals would you also say that my morals are valid as well?

C: hmmm but the definition of judging is to form an opinion or conclusion about something no? so if i were to judge another person based on their looks like I don't like the way you look or dress...that's judgment no? but from that other person's perspective it could be seen as ridicule...

BTW: I'm enjoying our discussion my friend

Quote from ClementineRuby

A: I know. I just meant to say that you don't necessarily have to use experimentation to view something from a scientific lens.

B: So long as the action in question results in the suffering of innocent people (particularly if said innocents are part of the younger generation), then it should be considered evil to some degree. I also disagree that something has to affect (effect?) a broad group of people to be wrong.

C: True. I did ask myself whether sexual desire to behave in a childlike manner while the individual who displays this kind of behavior is a grown adult is driven by some kind of biological instinct to appear more attractive. I guess that you could make an argument based off of that, and I would have to accept it to some degree. However, contrasting that possibly innate desire to fulfill that kind of sexual need with the responsibility to instill in the younger generation an idea of "grown-up" behavior, I believe that the latter is clearly more important.

D: Well, just because a person grows older, that doesn't necessarily mean that he or she develops the required intellectual facilities to be self aware of cultural bias or the academic ability to understand and accept scientific information. So if you consider the number of people who don't possess these abilities, then the number of people who can be considered truly homophobic also decreases. I'm also aware that no one can be all bad or all good. If a person is homophobic, he or she can still possess other positive, moral qualities.

It depends on what you derive your morals from.

E: I don't know the precise dictionary definition, but that's how I would define it. Forming a perspective on someone from the simple knowledge of the way they appear is a form of harsh judgement. I think you can consider that wrong, but ridicule is the expression of that harsh judgement. To be honest, I believe that one of the reasons why people can't accept that not all judgement is ridicule is because people today are too sensitive.

I'm enjoying it too. :)

Display More

A: true...

B: interesting so here we get into the consequentialist theory of philosophy and ethics then? lol

thus you would argue regardless of the intent it is the consequences of one's actions that determine good or bad and would you further argue that as long as the actions harm even one innocent person that the action is considered wrong?

C: but why is it the responsibility of a person to instill such behaviours to the younger generation...one might argue that the only person that matters in the world is the self (and maybe family and with extension friends) why is that responsibility be up to the individual who performs such actions and not on the person who watches/views such actions or their parents if they are underage?

D: well I have never seen the words truly homophobic written before lol and wouldn't even begin to start considering whether a person is such or not...but then is why does people have to "accept cultural bias or the academic ability to understand and accept scientific information" - there is no requirement for a person to be knowledgable and no requirement that it has to be scientific correct? a person might derive their information from multiple sources whether scientific or otherwise and use that information to shape their morals...

In a democracy the majority rules and we use democracy in most 1st world countries...even the dumb and ignorant are afforded a vote...

E: I just googled it...lol interesting...I think I finally found something that i agree with you on 100%

Quote from ClementineRuby

i had an entire philosophical debate with selfmate that involved discussion of scientific principles. but i could have jsut destroyed him with this statement just speak for me from now on, smarti

Quote from dummi

damn... I don't think catering to pedophiles is the way to go, but at the end of the day pedophilia is the root issue and we can't tell people how to act.

now even if a person does like children sexually it could be classed as a mental disorder thus treated as another mental issue...

Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty

so one way for treatment or containing such urges may be for adults to be infantilised ????

Quote from ClementineRuby

A: No, I believe that intent behind an action is, in a sense, more important than the consequences of said action. However, the most important factor in judging an action to be moral or immoral is by considering how far the person with the intent to commit the action has questioned their thoughts and feelings. If they intended to harm a person, or if they didn't question whether their actions would harm someone in the first place, then yes it is wrong. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that, but it's nearly entirely adjacent to my real feelings.

For the future survival of our species, of course. If our ancestors (and everyone today) only cared for themselves, then our society would fall apart.

B: I also take issue with the idea that a person (especially in the modern day) has control over the content they consume. I don't care to go in depth, but when I was younger I saw a lot of inappropriate content. I wasn't voluntarily seeking it. Whether it happened to be a tattoo that an adult at the grocery store had or hearing older kids talking about skipping out on school to have sex while I was at the library. I also disagree with the sentiment that parents should take complete responsibility for a child's life. I believe that it's the responsibility of the greater community/culture that the child's family is part of to assist in their development.

C: They also have to be presented with scientific knowledge of homosexuality. I don't think it's just about raw ability to understand the information, but also the acquisition of it.

Democracy is a lie. Your votes are counted. :P

Display More

A: lol so what are your real feelings again? do the ends justify the means?

B: well the primary responsibility for a child's upbringing is their parents (it's not complete responsibility but almost there lol) followed by other siblings maybe if any and teachers etc etc ie those persons with a duty of care towards such children...a random individual infantising themselves bears no such duty of care no? like a pornstar bears no responsibility towards the children who are not their target audience and certainly not a customer of their content...

and if we talk about society then why should society dictate how a person develops or not.. that would be the state deciding what one should do or watch right? i mean certain US schools do not teach sex education or rather only teach a part of it...in that city or school or society then does that assist the child in their development...

C: well maybe they don't want to or care to...again why does one need to acquire such information if they are set in their ways... there's no morality (since we're talking about morals) to acquiring or not acquiring such knowledge...I mean one obviously SHOULD learn more and acquire more knowledge but certainly it's not immoral to not have such knoweldge...

D: well what would be a better form of government?

Quote from dummi

there is no cure, its either absolute protection of children, trusting a pedo not to do anything or mass incarceration of known pedos.

https://www.health.harvard.edu…o%20effective%20treatment.

that i know but one is merely treating the symptoms of such an issue no? and of course we should be protecting the children

Quote from dummi

Also selfmate, don't you think these things don't help? There have been countless pedos who simply started wanting more than just a fantasy, than just an infantilized adult. When people have these kinds of sexual disorders they spiral downwards, especially if there is no medication, no cure. Pedophilia played a huge part in my life and affected me deeply psychologically speaking. I don't appreciate the idea that pedophiles can be "held back" by these degenerate activities. Active pedophiles deserve the death penalty, not sympathy.

I'm not sure since I'm not actively part of the community studying such things...

The second bold part is where i stop and end the conversation...all my comments so far are completely theoretical and for discussion purpose only so if it affects you personally then I'm going to stop (unless you wish to discuss those issues with me in private) otherwise it might cause you distress and i certainly don't want that my friend