Making sense of James Cantor's research

James Cantor's articles are heavily discussed in the pedophile community. He is a researcher at CAMH and carries out research using forensic samples, meaning men who are caught in the legal system. Among his findings are that on average: their IQ is lower, they are missing white matter, they are shorter, have craniofacial anomalies and shorter legs. Of course the tall, smart, beautiful pedos cry out.  His articles are scrutinized and critiques have been written pointing out holes. Ok, i might be too stupid to date women, but how exactly do short legs cause pedophilia? Craniofacial anomalies or simply ugliness might ruin my chances of getting laid, but i would still chase women and not children. What could be behind all those research findings?

Preamble

Many researchers look to chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest cousins in the animal kingdom, for some clues. Other sex researchers like Jim Pfaus use rats to study sexual behavior. However, there is one huge difference between most animals and humans. Humans are neotenous, more than cats and dogs. Neoteny means the retention of juvenile features. It does not mean that adults look childish. It means that without neoteny our heads should look much more like grown up chimpanzees and not like those of chimpanzee babies. We should have larger teeth, a smaller brain, and a bigger fang.

There is little to be found on the internet how neoteny manifests itself. The best explanation is a retarded development, meaning that all developmental processes run with a much reduced speed. Different processes run at different speeds. Some processes never finish, like the skull bone fusion which still goes on in the ninth decade. Compared with the mammal model, human processes take 5 to 15 times more time. According to that model, humans should be born after 21 month of gestation. Since the head would be too big by then, humans are born at the latest possible moment, when the baby's head just passes through the birth canal. After birth the baby continues to grow at the same rate for the next year. One of the processes taking longer time is the brain maturation, 90% completed by age 10, but almost finished first in the mid-twenties, give or take a few years.

Human instincts

Psychologist Abraham Maslow argued that humans no longer have instincts because we have the ability to override them in certain situations. The criteria for instincts cited in this wikipedia article create a false dichotomy. Either it's an instinct or should be considered a drive, but the latter is defined much different by Drive theory. The biggest counter argument against the non-existence of instincts is the fact that psychology works. Psychology works because human behavior follows rules. Patients in psychiatric care have difficulties overriding certain "innate behavior" (aka instincts). Probably the reason for the renaming into "innate behavior" might be related to the illusion of a free will. Free will denotes the idea that humans can do and behave in the way they want, ultimately meaning that all actions are deliberate and thought through.

During the human evolution the increasing intelligence made us to a lesser degree the marionettes of instincts. The notion of free will represents the ultimate end of this development.  This development will affect all instincts, some more other less. Some instincts are necessary for the survival of the species, like the sexual mating instinct. Hence, the human evolution weakened those instincts to the point where they are just strong enough for the genes to survive. Evolution works by variation: some get stronger, while others get weaker instincts. Those men, who have sex with strange women when completely drunk, got a higher amount of sexual mating instincts. Those, who develop a paraphilia instead of a healthy heterosexuality, probably got less than necessary. As a consequence, the appearance of not sufficiently strong enough instincts is part of evolution. Basically, this means that those instincts get overridden before they manifest themselves.

The link between instincts and neoteny lies in the way our brain develops. Most animals are born with most instincts functioning. Their brains are fully myelinated at birth, while humans are born with mostly unmyelinated brains. During the first years the myelination takes place. That means neuroglia cells are formed and their fatty parts show up as white spots on T1-sMRI. Neuroglia cells are shielding the axons of neurons, hence they are part of the white matter or the so called connecting tissue. Neoteny delays the manifestation of instincts. However, it seems that there are critical periods during the development. If a skill or behavior is not learned during such a time window, it is hard if not impossible to catch up.

The research findings

One of the better known results regarding pedophiles is the missing white matter. Sometimes it is also referred to as cross-wiring, since the researchers believe that instead of parental instincts, sexual instincts are activated. This is an overly simplistic view and there is no explanation why the cable instead of going to A goes to B instead. If it were a random cross-wiring, we should see an activation of the whole spectrum of instincts.

The craniofacial findings point to prenatal events, also called prenatal insults. Skin cells and neurons differentiate in the same way during embryogenesis before the blastula folds inwards and the spinal cord and brain are formed. If the development of skin cells gets disturbed during that period, it is likely that it affected neural cells as well. The observed correlation has been interpreted as an indicator for prenatal causes of pedophilia. Another anomaly is the testosterone level during certain critical prenatal periods. Getting the wrong amount of it and something goes wrong. It has been experimentally shown in rats (Jim Pfaus & Co) and there has been a longitudinal study in Denmark confirming it.

I'm wondering, whether the testosterone level in humans is similar to other mammals. The slowed down development in humans is caused by something or something necessary for the development is absent. Gaffney and Berlin reported a dysfunction of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis in pedophiles, which again is important for testosterone levels. Testosterone breaks down into estradiol, which seem to have far reaching influence.

The latest papers propose a disturbance in the development to be the cause for some paraphilias. If we add the reasonable assumption that exclusive pedophiles are not interested in women, then we can conclude that the heterosexual instinct did not manifest itself. The development of the human sexual mating instinct, aka heterosexual orientation, got derailed. As with train derailments there might be multiple ways of that happening. This is the reason why some meta-studies report many different and sometimes conflicting results. Trains can go with a high velocity into a tight turn, rails can be deformed, the rail bed can have broken away, the wheels might lose contact, the bogie can oscillate - all of them possible causes for a train derailment.

Non-exclusive pedophile men are attracted to women, hence there is a working instinct, but the erotic attraction includes more than women. Normally, only the sight or scent of women should cause arousal. This arousal seems to be learned - clues of the preferred partner get erotized. John Money calls this disturbance a vandalization of the lovemap, which are supposedly formed around the age of 6. This would implicate events in early childhood as possible causes. Again weak instincts might have enable those developments, since they didn't offer much resistance to aberration.

Weak human instincts are not mainstream psychology. Common for paraphilia is the absence of a healthy heterosexual orientation. Hence, it seems kinda obvious to assume that something went wrong with the heterosexual mating instinct. This assumption is simple, it is supported by human evolution, the existence of human neoteny and the limited degree of free will among humans. So instincts failed to work as they should. I call it the faulty neoteny hypothesis.

Disclaimer

This is amateur research, making sense of research papers. As such it is not backed by a financed scientific study, but based on logic and scientific literature. As an amateur i'm free to pursue ideas that are not mainstream.

About the theory that pedophiles have cognitive distortions

I have been reading again, this time about cognitive distortions in sexual offenders - following the trail of articles by Tony Ward.

The cognitive distortions in those papers are more a "belief systems" than an actual impairment of the cognitive function, like the definition in psychology says. The questionnaire method by Ward & Co gave positive results, meaning that sexual offenders have a deviant belief system, among others the usual "children as sexual beings" theory. A german follow up study used vignettes and came to negative results. Vignettes denote a method, where one with a temporal delay has to retell the story back. The underlying assumption is that memory is reconstructive, not reproductive. Hence, the retold story is affected by the associations one creates when listening to the story in the first place.

Now, this was not the thing that got me thinking. Ward also describes the theory of mind, which is interesting. Basically, as a small child we have to develop a mirror image of how much other people know. The famous experiment is a puppet theater, where one figure places a chocolate under a red cup, and goes off-stage. Then, another puppet moves the chocolate from under the red cup to under a green cup. The first puppet returns and is surprised that it cannot find the chocolate under the red cup. 3 years olds don't get why the puppet does not find the chocolate, but 4 years old are mature enough and find it funny. Now, this was simple but not my point.

It gets interesting when one starts participating in the game of dating during puberty. Then, one has not only to guess knowledge and emotions, but also expectations and intentions. Sometimes a no means a "yes, maybe later". And it gets more and more intricate. Maybe some become pedophiles, because they just gave up in that game. After all, pedophiles have been kids themselves and know exactly how a child thinks. Moreover, if one grew up in a dysfunctional family and did not experience warmth and intimacy, then a whole dimension is unknown to those unfortunates. Ward sounds like he talks about belief systems that are voluntarily chosen by his subjects. But if one grows up, not knowing the difference between intimacy and sexuality, then any advances for intimacy of a child would be interpreted as a wish for a sexual relationship.

Arriving at this point, i got goosebumps. I know for my part that i always had trouble deciphering the mood of my age peers. And i also got to know that i probably had a fearful avoidant attachment to my mother (being a single parent child), who also was narcissistic. I already know that i have at least 3 different types of pedophilia, and this "children are simpler to relate to" is one of them. James Cantor's finding of less white matter might be related to that. If one has less cabling in the brain parts involved in interpersonal communication, then finding children as easier partners makes sense.

And it gets worse. If one starts the game of dating in a bad position due to a childhood head injury or dysfunctional family, then it escalates. Everybody else advances and improves their "theory of mind" abilities, while those affected are basically losers and left behind. Preferring the company of smaller children during that time even reduces the amount of training one gets. Mobbing by age peers, being a coward, having little social support and one is doomed to the destiny of pedophilia. Also i got the impression that many pedophiles score high on the autistic scale, which also affects social relationships.

Pedophilia affects mostly men. The asymmetry of that dating game could be an explanation for that. Don't boys have a more difficult part in guessing the intention and expectations of girls, while girls essentially say yes and no randomly. The boys part is much more strategically, while girls only apply tactics.

The other thing is this missing knowledge and training. If one grows up with very little warmth and intimacy, then one could confuse a sexual advance with a demand for intimacy. If one does not know the difference and claims that some children want sex, then those claims look somewhat questionable. I have been to summer camps and had supervised groups of boys. Some boys came and wanted to be cuddled or some physical contact, but i don't remember anything remotely sexual. And we have been naked too, but not even then. Ward claims that sexual offenders have a different mind set, but in my humbled opinion, it could be simply an underdeveloped understanding of how adults interact. And this conclusion makes me feeling like i'm faulty.

Kids don't want sex from adults

If this statement comes from a heterosexual, it possibly is true. One has to taken into account the limited understanding a heterosexual man has about sex. Just to remind you, having sex means a lot of preparation. First, one has to find out if PMS is far away. Second, women like to have it romantic, just a movie is not longer enough. Probably a nice dinner at a fancy place. And no, McDonalds does not count. Finally home, after endless forced smalltalk, one should not forget foreplay. Being direct equals being a jerk. After getting the final go signal from the lady, there may be a minute or two of the fun. Hopefully, there is no talk afterwards and one gets the well deserved sleep.

Do you know any kid, who wants that? Of course not. Hence, the heterosexual is right in his statement, and does not know how wrong he is. Kids are born with zero knowledge about intimacy and sexuality. But they are born with a soft skin, which is one continuous erogenous zone. Even tickling the nose produces that funny feeling in the stomach. They like that one, and want it as often as possible. Getting physical affection creates the feeling of belonging together, being cared for. In addition they couldn't care less about that artificial demarcation line, which for adults divides intimacy from sexuality. Kids know what they want. And if they want something, they want it now, this very instant. If you don't believe me, just take one kid to the candy shelf. Moreover, they let you know quite clearly when they no longer want something. One can simply not miss it. Try feeding brokoli. How an adult came up with the idea that kids don't know what they want, is simply incomprehensible to me.

The problem of communicating ideas with words is that they mean different things to different people. When the concept of sexuality got reduced to procreation, much of it's richness got lost - at least for heterosexuals.

So please, next time, when you talk to heterosexuals about the needs kids have, remember this! Use simple words and avoid the one term, for which they have a totally screwed understanding!

Paedophilia understood as temporary phase in ancient times

Disclaimer: Pedophiles are often divided into several groups. Pedophilia is thought to be caused by several factors, and each group might have it's own explanation. It could be that what we call pedophilia actually are several distinct phenomena. The following text is an attempt to explain fixated, friendly and social pedophiles.

Assumption 1: Human sexuality is the base mechanism for establishing relationship.

Assumption 2: There exists a human nesting instinct aimed at a social setting.

Assumption 3: Boys in puberty are forced to establish a social framework for their offspring.

Assumption 4: Cognitive distortions can block psycho-sexual development.

Assumption 5: Current laws interfere with genetic coded behavior.

Hypothesis: Paedophilia is triggered by social factors during childhood which the boy unconsciously perceives as a danger to the future of his offspring. Having a paedophile phase had an evolutionary advantage.

Corollary 1: Prepubescent boys are the best option.

Corollary 2: The attraction to boys is primarily not sexual.

Corollary 3: Ancient Greeks modified behavior into ritualized pederasty.

Corollary 4: Boy-wives of Africa, Japanese wakashūdo, master and apprentice, etc are remnants of it.

Corollary 5: Being surrounded by boys is a sign of status.

Reasoning to assumption 1: Men do not have penis bones while women have concealed ovulation. Both are a major disadvantage with respect to simple procreation. The concealed ovulation allowed multi-male communities and is a requirement to get the father involved in child rearing. The role of oxytocin as a contact barrier lowering hormone and its release during sexual arousal indicate this. We know from our youth that unreplied love made us hornier and hornier. Sexual arousal can be interpreted as an enforcement to seek intimate contact.

Reasoning to assumption 2: The human brain consumes 20% of all energy, when we are resting. Much of our skill is learned over a long period. Successful child rearing is only possible in a bigger community. If so, we must seek favorable conditions before we start procreation. This behavior must have a genetic base, since it was necessary with the evolution of homo sapiens.

Reasoning to assumption 3: Similar to other species, the male attracts the female and invites her into a proper home. For homo sapiens this means that boys have to form a social group for girls/women to enter. Gender roles became specialized, requiring men to be more social with each other than women. During the hunt of larger animals, communication between men is required, while women might learn from each other by imitation. For spreading over larger territories, new groups must be formed. The logical consequence is for boys to form a new group and wander off. The related social mechanism must have been genetically coded. There must be a trigger for that behavior, a threshold of some form. Then an urge of independence from the family is developed.

Reasoning to assumption 4: Malignant mothers can severely disrupt the sexual development of sons. According to G. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, sexual behavior is learned. This learning process depends on the conditions. Intimacy requires the exchange of emotions. Emotional blindness and fear of reprisal will stun any approach toward the opposite sex. This learning process is related to the development of the frontal cortex with the optimal period during and shortly after puberty, see Michael Griesemer's Integrative theory.

Reasoning to assumption 5: Sexual repression was established with the ancient Rome. Christianity imposed drastic restrictions on sexual behavior.

Explanation to hypothesis: A boy grows up in his tribe. As a human his maturation is delayed as a consequence of cooperative breeding, obligate monogamy and concealed ovulation. As he grows up he is assigned a role in his community. Unconsciously he evaluates the situation with respect to the situation of his future offspring. This is as simple as answering questions like: Do I have self-esteem? Am I important? Do they invest in me? If it seems unreasonable to continue in the tribe and to raise offspring in the tribe, then the boy has to act when sexual urges get strong. 

This means during or shortly after puberty the youth has to leave the tribe. However, he has to assemble a group of like-minded fellows. This means establishing strong bonds and then setting off and leading them into wilderness. Selecting the right fellowship advances his personal status so much that he perceives himself as unthreatened. The trigger finished firing and his development continues. This allows him to proceed with procreation.

Reasoning to corollary 1: The right selection of the fellowship must somehow be genetic coded. The fellows should be of support, but not interfere with own procreation at least in the beginning. The first son will inherit the tribe. This means to select the oldest boys that are not yet sexually mature, ergo prepubescent. Moreover, they should be intelligent, healthy, robust, similar to oneself. Some kind of kin-selection could take place. Moreover, since the ovulation is concealed, selecting the right bunch of boys reduces the consequences of infidelity. Loyalty of the selected fellows to the future son is advantageous.

Reasoning to corollary 2: The attraction to boys by paedophiles is aimed at establishing a relationship. There is an genetically dictated urge to surround oneself with prepubescent boys. Not being allowed to do so increases the force of underlying relationship building mechanism - sexual arousal. Since sexuality is poorly understood, the only obvious next step is sexual behavior. However, in reality boy lovers are confused, when they get into contact with boys. The sexual arousal that existed before the meeting disappears and some kind of responsibility and care takes over. Moreover, boy lover and the boy see each other as equivalent. Judith V. Becker reports that paedophiles are juveniles in their fantasies.

Reasoning to corollary 3: Ancient Greeks lived in small villages on small islands and were divided into many small tribes. Fights between tribes were frequently. Hence new tribes had to be established. The introduction of laws ritualized the courtship between erastes and pais. The established strong bonds were beneficial for the son of the erastes, since he got older semi-relatives to rely on. This must have been an advantage when fighting neighbors.

Reasoning to corollary 4: The acquirement of a younger one increased ones status. Instead of forming a new tribe and setting of, a new institution was build, which had to be beneficial in order to survive. Teaching the younger one takes over some of the burden of child rearing. This can be seen similar to a symbiosis.

Reasoning to corollary 5: Bacha bazi, the eunuchs of ancient Asia can be seen as such. Moreover, even in current culture the theme of surrounding boys is recurrent. Even the alien in "Star Gate" was surrounded with boys.

Conclusion and possible explanation of today's paedophilia: A boy grows up in his family. He might have several older siblings, or his family is very small. Probably he does not have a father figure that supports him. He might be trying to break out of his family, rendering him a run-away or child criminal. Or he submits himself to the current rules of society, which demands him to stay in his family. Staying in his family creates a cognitive dissonance with his genetically programmed urge to escape his family. The urge requires him to establish relationship with boys, hence he start chasing them. He develops cognitive distortions that blind him for the effects his family has on him. A google search for malignant narcissistic mother gives plenty of results showing the effect of these distortions. The boy can not admit to himself that he would prefer to build an own family with the admired boys, since he has to show the right emotions to his family in order to survive. Blinded for the real aim of his chasing efforts, he assumes that he has a sexual interest in them. During puberty and young adulthood, the stigmatization of paedophilia, uncertainty about oneself, and the constant reminder burns the perceived sexual orientation as a convincing pattern into his brain.

Discussion of the evolutionary advantage of having a paedophile phase: This is based on the uncle-chester-theory in "The descent of chester" by ironclad. This theory however does not assume that uncle chester has offspring and applies to chimps and other primates as well, since no special human qualities are used during the explanation.

Being a paedophile when assembling the fellowship has benefits. Uncle Chester selects the most able, but not yet mature boys. He performs some kind of kin-selection by selecting only certain boys. He is also able to establish strong emotional and social bonds with them, enabling them to withstand attacks more easily. Outsmarting the enemy is also a very strong selector. Acquiring a group of loyal friends is beneficial to the own offspring, which will carry either the own genes, or in case of an unfaithful wive, the genes of one of the selected friends. Since most skills are learned, the intelligence of a potential fellow must be tested before admitting him into the fellowship. Hence grooming and close interaction is required. Being a temporary paedophile before creating own offspring is beneficial for the latter.