It's still adults getting off to something a child wears and it's beyond squicky.

It might just be some sort of... natural male thing, interesting conversation on AFA. A guy on there used some scientific study to prove males naturally went after younger looking females and they were only screwed up if it was pre-teen/pre-pubescent girls.

It's strange how liberal our uniform is in regards to showing skin. Our shirt buttons generally have 2 left unbuttoned, some girls have had 3 in the past (so as it ends JUST under their boobs). Our skirts are quite short in comparison to the regular woll knee lengths I see at other schools, and they are also light cottony see through things. As well as the button up dress shirts are kinda see through. I swear our uniform was designed by a man [1], skirts that blowup in the slightest breeze, see through shirts, as well as all being very impractical, you sweat to death in winter whilst at the same time freezing. OH and the pants from the official suppliers are REALLY long, the size 8 was at least 5" too long from memory. Definitely designed by a man


[1]Sexist thing my mother always says, yeah, I know

Yes, some creepy guys will try to use the tired argument about it being 'perfectly natural' to want young girls. But once you reach a certain age you have to grow up and realize that we are not animals subject to our most base instincts. As I said earlier, a guy in his early 20s isn't creepy for wanting to date 18 year old girls(personally I don't think they have any business dating anyone younger than that, teens should stick with teens). If it's a male in his 30s or 40s, yep that's definitely majorly creepy and has more to do with them mentally wanting to recapture their youth than anything biological. Trust me, not ALL or even most, men want young girls instead of women.

Terscha, unfortunately most of the 'lolitas' that people see and are familiar with are the more sexualized, immodest ones that have been fetishized by the adult industry. It grosses me the hell out. I don't see anything explicitly sexual about wearing fishnet on one's arms(or anywhere, actually. I don't have weird hang ups about hosiery.). Fishnet was seen as more the attire of a prostitute even as recently as the '80s so people probably still feel odd about it for that reason. To me, it's how and when you're wearing it. If you're just wearing it out with a skirt and a nice outfit, nothing sexual. If you're wearing it with a corset, a nice thong and some beautiful heels, totally sexual.

@WAS. If find them disturbing also.
There is nothing sick about male attraction to neotenic females, in fact males selected women to look that way! Evolution!

It only becomes warped when pre-teen females become the objects of attraction. It is a mis-firing [or by-product] in much the same way as a host bird will preferentially feed the larger Cuckoo chick to it's own.

Many males naturally prefer younger [or younger-looking] females. This is not a perfect evolutionary strategy, because the younger female, although they tend to have children with less birth defects and tend to die less in childbirth, they can also be less competent mothers. Swings and roundabouts.

In some pre-indutrial African cultures, it was considered an honour for a younger female to have her first child by the chief before being married. If we set aside the obvious self-serving nature of this custom for the chief and males in general, it makes some sort of sense. Marrying a female of proven fertility and motherhood skills is a good choice from the male point of view.

As both these "strategies" work, there is no fixation in the population of any one strategy. from the male perspective, boffing a teen, or boffing an experienced milf are both good ways of getting your genes passed on.

Rape, although more common than we would like, is not a good strategy, partly because of cryptic female ovulation. It usually pays more to hang around, and boff the same lady often and guard her. While you are doing that, it also makes sense to contribute to your children's care, because human kids are so damn helpless for so long, and parental investment has to be very high and sustained so parents that stick together [cheat little] and cooperate are more likely to have their offspring survive to adulthood.
Sowing a few wild oats, for both males and females does produce offspring, but not as many as in "marriages".

Nevertheless, for female, some polyandry can work, especially in an unstable environment or under high parasite loads. [The advantage of variety and "bet-hedging"]. So a good strategy is to get a good father, and cuckold him a little. [In other words, reward him by having some of his kids, but protect your own genes by also mating with an alpha, or at least, a variety of males]. This can be overdone, because male paranoia about female "cheating" is not totally without basis in fact, because some females use the strategy I have outlined above].

Errmm... The quote smacks of Evo Psych.

I wouldn't listen to guys like this. There's not a lot of concrete evidence involved - it's a pseudoscience and can twisted about to support almost any personal view of any nature. Anyone can claim something as fact without proof.

(This statement isn't hitting at you, Ailahh, but the men who use it to excuse chauvinism and bad behaviour. I've simply heard this sort or 'reasoning' used to rationalize a lot of sexist norms, views and behaviour.Infidelity, gender roles, double standards, aggression, harassment, rape, pedophilia/ephebophilia.. all 'natural', because of the way men and women 'evolved'. )

It's just a pack of generalisations and excuses - but it can also be used deliberately as a way of trolling.

Wolfie, any such assertions backed up by this kind of 'evidence' is best taken with a large grain of salt.