3 ms·

I have struggled to understand how this proclivity can be evolutionarily possible and the only thing I can come up with is this unfortunate combination of eleme

I have struggled to understand how this proclivity can be evolutionarily possible and the only thing I can come up with is this unfortunate combination of elements: 1) the necessary sexual dimorphism that makes sexual reproduction possible, actually took an unfortunate shortcut: childlike features are retained in females (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny), which ostensibly requires "less" DNA encoding, while males actually "develop" into more "adult" forms (body hair, musculature, height, deeper voice, etc.) 2) the reproductive window of women is far smaller than men, causing men of all ages to be drawn mainly to this small subselection of all women 3) consequently, men who were more likely to choose women in this younger reproductive window might have been selected for; 4) some portion of these men (due to natural variation), in being drawn to the paedomorphic features of women, actually are "steered too low" in preferential age genetically and are thus born having to deal with this unfortunate proclivity. Ethical question: If no children were harmed and 100% of the videos and images produced were synthetic, would simply consumption of the media still be a problem?

api 7y ago
I have a different and not mutually exclusive speculation: It's often assumed that only females have a "biological clock." Maybe that's not true. Maybe males start to crave offspring too, and some mistake these feelings for sexual attraction.
matz1 7y ago
>If no children were harmed and 100% of the videos and images produced were synthetic, would simply consumption of the media still be a problem? Then its not a problem.
- pmarreck 7y ago
  So why wouldn't some rational person who isn't afraid of judgy people corner the market on that and just make legal pedo cartoons or CG renderings? Or is Japan already doing that? >..<
outworlder 7y ago
> while males actually "develop" into more "adult" forms No. Neoteny in humans apply to both males and females and apply not only to physical appearance, but also behavior. You can compare with other primates – Chimps can be very friendly until they reach adulthood, when they become less social and more aggressive. The secondary characteristics develop at puberty on both sexes, they are just different. In fact, there is a reason why they develop past a certain age. The individuals we are discussing here are not going to be selected for this trait, as they would not be able to reproduce. > Ethical question: If no children were harmed and 100% of the videos and images produced were synthetic, would simply consumption of the media still be a problem? No. Because the reason people are prosecuted is that, at some point, someone has been harmed. There are some very disturbing (to my senses) cartoons out there. No-one is jailed for drawing or viewing cartoons in any democratic society.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  You might want to take a look at laws concerning those cartoons. They don't seem to have as strict an enforcement, but they aren't nearly as rational as you are claiming.
minton 7y ago
> 4) some portion of these men (due to natural variation), in being drawn to the paedomorphic features of women, actually are "steered too low" in preferential age genetically and are thus born having to deal with this unfortunate proclivity. You’re suggesting someone is born a pedophile?
- Karunamon 7y ago
  In the same way someone is "born" any other orientation in that you can't choose what you're attracted to.
  - COGlory 7y ago
    Yes but no one is attracted to anyone when they're born. That happens later, and how and why exactly some people are attracted to some sexes, or traits, or fetishes is still up in the air. It's likely some combination of genetic and developmental, and what the exact contributions are to pedophilia are unknown.
    - pmarreck 7y ago
      Identical twins raised separately have a >75% concordance in orientation, as opposed to no concordance as would be expected if there was no genetic input. So there is definitely a genetic input, and it is definitely large, although it's not the whole story.
- pmarreck 7y ago
  > You’re suggesting someone is born a pedophile? Partly. Orientation is something like 75% genetic based on identical-twins-raised-separately studies. Why would I assume any particular orientation would be any different, without supporting evidence? Because the prospect of a world where people are born with such a proclivity is emotionally upsetting for you?
COGlory 7y ago
I will preface this with the disclaimer that I am a structural biologist; not an evolutionary one. It seems to me that this hypothesis is unlikely. Is there any evidence that: 1) Sexual preference is genetic? (It seems intuitive that women whose bodies exhibit extremely visual traits of reproduction would be selected for. However, I don't the connection between that and there being equivalent selective pressure on men to be attracted to that). i.e. where is the gene that makes men attracted to young women specifically, and how and why is that under selective pressure? 2) Is there any evidence that pedophilia isn't a mental disorder caused by something else? Hormone imbalance? Developmental deficiency? However, your theory does explain why so many more men than women are pedophiles, although it seems entirely inadequate at explaining the few number of women pedophiles that do exist. Either way, it's a curious and interesting point. Thank you for making it. In my opinion it's far more

api 7y ago

I have a different and not mutually exclusive speculation: It's often assumed that only females have a "biological clock." Maybe that's not true. Maybe males start to crave offspring too, and some mistake these feelings for sexual attraction.

matz1 7y ago

>If no children were harmed and 100% of the videos and images produced were synthetic, would simply consumption of the media still be a problem? Then its not a problem.

pmarreck 7y ago
So why wouldn't some rational person who isn't afraid of judgy people corner the market on that and just make legal pedo cartoons or CG renderings? Or is Japan already doing that? >..<

outworlder 7y ago

> while males actually "develop" into more "adult" forms No. Neoteny in humans apply to both males and females and apply not only to physical appearance, but also behavior. You can compare with other primates – Chimps can be very friendly until they reach adulthood, when they become less social and more aggressive. The secondary characteristics develop at puberty on both sexes, they are just different. In fact, there is a reason why they develop past a certain age. The individuals we are discussing here are not going to be selected for this trait, as they would not be able to reproduce. > Ethical question: If no children were harmed and 100% of the videos and images produced were synthetic, would simply consumption of the media still be a problem? No. Because the reason people are prosecuted is that, at some point, someone has been harmed. There are some very disturbing (to my senses) cartoons out there. No-one is jailed for drawing or viewing cartoons in any democratic society.

SkyBelow 7y ago
You might want to take a look at laws concerning those cartoons. They don't seem to have as strict an enforcement, but they aren't nearly as rational as you are claiming.

minton 7y ago

> 4) some portion of these men (due to natural variation), in being drawn to the paedomorphic features of women, actually are "steered too low" in preferential age genetically and are thus born having to deal with this unfortunate proclivity. You’re suggesting someone is born a pedophile?

Karunamon 7y ago
In the same way someone is "born" any other orientation in that you can't choose what you're attracted to.
- COGlory 7y ago
  Yes but no one is attracted to anyone when they're born. That happens later, and how and why exactly some people are attracted to some sexes, or traits, or fetishes is still up in the air. It's likely some combination of genetic and developmental, and what the exact contributions are to pedophilia are unknown.
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    Identical twins raised separately have a >75% concordance in orientation, as opposed to no concordance as would be expected if there was no genetic input. So there is definitely a genetic input, and it is definitely large, although it's not the whole story.
pmarreck 7y ago
> You’re suggesting someone is born a pedophile? Partly. Orientation is something like 75% genetic based on identical-twins-raised-separately studies. Why would I assume any particular orientation would be any different, without supporting evidence? Because the prospect of a world where people are born with such a proclivity is emotionally upsetting for you?

COGlory 7y ago

I will preface this with the disclaimer that I am a structural biologist; not an evolutionary one. It seems to me that this hypothesis is unlikely. Is there any evidence that: 1) Sexual preference is genetic? (It seems intuitive that women whose bodies exhibit extremely visual traits of reproduction would be selected for. However, I don't the connection between that and there being equivalent selective pressure on men to be attracted to that). i.e. where is the gene that makes men attracted to young women specifically, and how and why is that under selective pressure? 2) Is there any evidence that pedophilia isn't a mental disorder caused by something else? Hormone imbalance? Developmental deficiency? However, your theory does explain why so many more men than women are pedophiles, although it seems entirely inadequate at explaining the few number of women pedophiles that do exist. Either way, it's a curious and interesting point. Thank you for making it. In my opinion it's far more