I'm not so sure about that. Do we even have a similar test to phallometry (penile plethysmography) for women to measure their arousal levels when showing prepubescent pics to them? That's how scientists collected evidence on men...
Apparently there is vaginal photoplethysmography but I'm not sure how reliable that is or what studies they've done with it.
Correct. Even if 99% of the time the women you're fapping to aren't prepubescent, if you so much as glance a millisecond too long at a prepubescent body you're a DEMON.
I suggest you switch to "Hebephile" to describe gynephilic attraction (preference?) for mid-pubescent females (Hebe/Juventas was Herakles/Hercules' wife)
"Ephebe" was the Greek term for adolescent MALES so the term really only fits when describing androphilic attraction to mid-pubescent males. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebos
I agree with what you say about a comprehensible mating strategy, and very early sexual encounters can be unnecessary and damaging, but I guess my view is not as absolute as yours.
The question here is, since pregnancy can occur upon the very first instance of mid-pubescent sex: is how much sex is required to help adapt the vaginal canal for childbirth.
I guess in theory if you're having sex with your pregnant wife the full 9 months leading up to childbirth that should be adequate.
But during that time, ideally you are having very thorough and athletic sex (well, more gentle in the final months) to make sure there is fitness and pliability for a smooth delivery. So it's not the ideal time for the careful and gradual process of 1 key issue...
The issue is the hymen dilemma. Our common culture seems to think that a hymen should be punctured at top speed like one would rip off a bandaid, that bleeding and pain are inevitable. That it's better to have a sharp moment of discomfort rather than a drawn-out process of smaller discomfort.
I don't really agree with that... I think that the process of "working in" a hymen could in theory be done so gradually and gently that no tearing/bleeding would ever need occur. It's like the difference between tearing off an earlobe vs gradually stretching an earlobe to be crazy big, with just enough traction to cause permanent lengthening of tissue resulting in an adequately widening hole in the middle.
The hole in the middle is present in normal/annular hymens and this is mainly what I'm talking about here.
Tearing is probably harder to avoid in odd cases like cribiform hymens or sepate hymens, as they have multiple holes so there isn't really an obvious place to focus on stretching and the tissue connecting the two holes would probably tear making a larger hole, even if you could avoid tearing the rest of it and just stretch it.
At least a small tear/puncture is essential (and probably already done by a doctor) in the case of imperforate hymens since that interferes with urination or menstruation.
That sort of process could take an undetermined amount of time, and ideally should be accomplished (allowing full penile penetration) before pregnancy.
You could wait until puberty to do it because we have condoms (so you can assure pregnancy won't happen before the hymen is comfortably stretched) but I understand why they would begin prior to puberty in the pre-condom age, since you couldn't reliably prevent pregnancy when having sex with fertile women back then.
One thing about condoms though is you're missing out on the ability to pair-bond with your wife:
It's all about the seminal proteins.
www.discovermagazine.com
In this paper I hypothesize that a woman through her vagina absorbs sufficient quantities of the prostaglandins from her partner's semen, to affect her mood. The vagina appears to have an active transport mechanism which readily absorbs the hormones found in seminal plasma. The seminal...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Foids are being deprived of these chemical benefits by the neglecting of nutting inside her. It's basically neglecting her emotional and physical health.
But even absent those benefits, there are non-penetrative forms of physical validation which can also help a wife's wellbeing.
When I think of how the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would do thighing (Mufaakhathah) with his prepubescent bride Aisha for example, I don't think that was purely for his own benefit (he already had other wives he could nut inside). I think it was also because it helped her feel emotionally fulfilled, like she was a desired wife, and that she could bring happiness to her husband.
Personally I think guys like Khomeini are too extreme though, looking at the tail end of that. Thighing a suckling infant is just fucking degenerate. They wouldn't be able to comprehend human behavior enough to gain any benefit from that, that's just pure nepiophilic pandering and a disgrace to Islam.
Muhammad never set any precedent of marrying babies (or even toddlers) as he didn't marry Aisha until she was school-aged. Even then, this was at the suggestion of Khawlah bint Hakim, and Muhammad resisted it until Allah began harassing him with recurring dreams telling him to marry Aisha so he probably ended up doing it so Allah would leave him the fuck alone and let him sleep.
This ended up saving Aisha from an impending marriage with the violent Jubayr ibn Mut'im who probably would've raped the shit out of her immediately.
Even then he waited 3-4 years to consummate, and only relented because his Abu Bakr was probably going to start a rebellion if Muhammad didn't fulfill his spousal duties to his daughter. Given that reluctance, he was probably super-gentle about it. Plus he probably had a smaller dick than Jubayr so it probably didn't hurt at all. I expect he didn't even puncture her hymen, so even if he came inside her, the cum probably never made it to her womb, which probably explains why she never had any children.
I think his other wives got pregnant by him because guys with big dicks had already broken their hymens since they were all used-up foids who had been married before and he was betabuxxing with them.
It might help if we are more specific than a vague "the studies". To be more specific than pointing to Rage's 2018 post or boojies' December 2019 post.
For example if we tell HML that one example of reference is Freund's 1970 study at
https://eurekamag.com/research/006/773/006773600.php called "The structure of erotic preference in the nondeviant male"
One problem I have with citing that is that there is a paywall around reading that study, and the abstract doesn't list the conclusions, so we can't actually independently verify others' interpretations of it.
The ideal way to present an argument would be to present studies where people can have free access to evaluate them in entirety, or where there is at least an abtract which presents whatever conclusions are being drawn from it.
While the LINK isn't useful, Rage did helpfully present a graph snagged from that study to make the point:
This study is limited however in that it simplifies penile response to yes/no ("positive reaction"). So there's no measure of intermediate degree (ie partial chubby v hardest boner) or clarification of where line is drawn.
48 males (I will list 2 stats, the 1st is solid-line "1st member", the 2nd is dotted line "2nd member", though I'm not sure I understand what this distinction is referring to)
41/47 had boners to post-adolescent foids
40/46 had boners to mid-adolescent foids
25/29 had boners to preadolescent foids
2/9 had boners to post-adolescent moids (hi femcels!)
7/16 had boners to mid-adolescent moids
5/11had boners to pre-adolescent moids
Can someone explain the "member of the pair" meaning regarding the 2 lines? I don't know if this context was explained in a writeup accompanying the chart. I don't see Rage's post explaining this.
