After the newest iteration of sexual kink story hour I was thinking about the gay rights movement and once again can only come to one conclusion, the gay rights movement was a contrived milestone, not the goal. The harshest reality we, as a society, are not willing to come to terms with is how reproachable humanity can be. We have, from the own writings of the modern social architects (Foucault, Young, Butler, et al) that in their own words believe pedophilia is natural and should be accepted into society. The Overton window was slid to the most agreeable milestone, gays who just want to be like everyone else and keep what happens in the bedroom in the bedroom. This of course was a lie from conception, but it gave room for the fingerholds of these social architects.
This methodology is a common business and government practice of what is called freezing and unfreezing(Kotters 8 step method is a similar methodology). When looking to implement change you need to first make a rationale for you change. “Government shouldn’t dictate what happens in a private bedroom”. Remember that line? So with these rationalizations they unfroze the social structure and inserted their addition. This however brings us to the most crucial step, freezing the new idea into our society. This was done, rather ingeniously on two fronts, first was the humanization approach. They took the “victims” and made them relatable. Media and culture became flooded with “Gayness”. These were your sassy fairies with charming quips and non threatening presence. Meanwhile, the second part, and frankly, the most ingenious part, was to unfreeze the next bastion as the other was freezing and make it present in the public discourse. Remember when the first CSI did an episode entirely on furries? This process made the former leap look American as apple pie. Yes, the gay quippy person with a lisp can stay, just keep the weird animal larpers in their hole. Once the refreezing was completed, the gays (Let’s keep the government out of the bedroom) gained license to expand like Oprah at a buffet. Gay rights became lgbt, then lgbtq, the lgbtqia, and on and on. We still to this day have zero proof that gayness is hereditary, or in fact is even innately biological, but even hardcore conservatives wouldn’t be openly willing to take sexual identity out off protected classes. In fact our “conservative” Supreme Court has ruled gender identity as innate and immutable. These constant changes are not from some imaginary chance of human discovery like we have been sold, the end goal is the same today as it was in conception.
The sad truth is that the modern anti-pedo stance only started in the 1970s. Most of America's founding fathers had child brides and most states did not have an age of consent nor child labor laws til the early 1900s.
We're the unnatrual aberration, not pedos.
Pedophilia requires an attraction to pre-pubescence. If you actually looked back at that history marrying a child that young was incredibly rare, because they couldn't produce young and most people wanted babies asap for said child labor.
Now hebephillia and ephebophillia was common enough because they were pubescent and that meant they had all the necessary physical functions to have babies so society didn't have an aversion to it. It was in fact necessary due to infant mortality rates to start young and have a lot knowing a chunk would die. Double so with death in childbirth.
You didn't need a law for god damned everything until recently because most of the time the community took care of itself and social shaming kept a lot of things under control. If Roger down the lane was fucking a 6 year old, Roger probably wouldn't have a good life so Roger behaved. It wasn't until the onset of greater travel ability and the increasing commonality of non-royal rich men that community shaming stopped being effective enough that actual laws were needed.
Its far more complicated than "historically pedo good!" and almost every part of it was logically founded instead of pure sexual hedonism. But that doesn't stop pedos from trying to use it as a shield from their degeneracy.
On top of this, people like to bring up arranged marriages as if they were consummated the day they were arranged even if they were infants, and use that as proof that historically blah blah blah. "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" and Muhammad's child brides and Romeo&Juliet's Juliet being only 13 and all that stuff. Then you look at things like settlement laws and whatnot that have taxes and fines if women over 15 aren't married, or men over 17, and go "clearly, history was pedo".
But no one ever looks at the art.
People were breeding out of necessity. The world really sucks, and sucked even more if we go back in history. Yes, many women were childbearers from the moment they COULD be. But look at art, throughout the world: Chinese vases, Egyptian hieroglyphs, European paintings, Greek statues, the renderings of goddesses and female saints... Those women aren't 12. Large breasts. Full asses. They're fully sexually mature.
There's a difference between necessity and attraction. In some parts of history, especially rough-on-survival parts, childbirth age was very low by necessity. But even in those eras, the art we have generally shows a trend that such was not the ideal form to them, they still had attraction to women of a more developed and mature age.
It's weird that so many making that "tecknikally historikally" argument seem to have never wandered through a museum in their lives.
Even Muhammad in his own religious text where he is depicted as doing horrible things still waited until his youngest bride was 9 before fucking her, despite marrying her at 6. So clearly there were limits and cultural norms even in the Middle fucking East about such things. They are still pushing the line far down, but there still were lines.
And as you say, the big full figured women aspect has been seen as the ideal for almost all of history. A figure girls only begin to develop in the later stages of puberty and post-child birth. The post-child birth part is important because having children too early in life can seriously damage your bone structure and body in ways that we can barely deal with now let alone back then. They still did out of necessity a lot of the time, but to attain the "most attractive form" it would need to be done much more delicately.
Some of the oldest art we have of attraction shows thicc ass bitches, and most men in their heart of hearts still love them that way (proper thicc, not fat "thicc") regardless of their own personal other preferences. Its instinctual lizard brain shit to be attracted to the signifiers of healthy birthing, which tiny barely old enough girls rarely possess even a fraction of.
Its honestly a really deep and interesting chunk of history and biology, culture and norms, but instead is always boiled down to "history was pedo" simplicity.