Evolution of pedophilia

Many are accused of normalizing pedophilia, as it could be normalized. Pedophilia is normal and has been normal through the evolution of mankind. Evolution is not a myth either, and everything that evolution created is normal.

It started around 1.8 million years ago, when the first human brain size increase happened. The forest disappeared and with it the safety of tree branches. Big cats preyed onto the ancestors who had to survive in the resulting savannah. The ancestors had to live in bigger groups or die alone. Major obstacles to living in larger groups are fear and aggression. Hence, our ancestors had to get rid of these two.

The famous russian silver fox experiment did just that. They collected wild foxes from fur farms for the breeding experiment. Only the 10% friendliest foxes were selected for the next generation. Due to this rigorous selection they obtained domesticated foxes after few decades. Something similar happened to our ancestors, and it is called self-domestication. Any preferential treatment of those less aggressive exerts the same selective pressure as the selection by the experimenters, albeit at a much lesser magnitude.

As Belyaev (he started the russian silver fox experiment) noticed, domestication has a destabilizing effect. The timing of developmental processes is disturbed and leads to neoteny. The socialization period gets extended and the fear instinct manifests itself at a much later time or not at all. Evolution up to that point had endowed our ancestors with a range of instincts. They functioned like hard-wired methods for solving the challenges the individual encounters in a typical life. Then, domestication weakened all instincts. That poses both a problem and an opportunity. The hard-wired instincts had to be replaced by learned behavior. Domesticated animals lose the ability to tackle wildlife problems, since food and shelter is provided by humans. On the other side, they learn to interact with humans.

Solitary animals are aggressive to every other animal except to the opposite sex during mating season. The mating instinct kicks in and the love hormone oxytocin prevents aggression. Like a reflex the characteristics of the opposite sex cause a sexual arousal. This instinct too gets weakened during domestication. Attraction to a large degree gets learned during childhood. Some say that men are replacing their mothers with wives. The truth to it is that children have learned to deal with a certain personality and later in life tend to find partners that match this personality. This works by an erotization of clues that indicate a comforting environment.

However, living without instincts is not possible. There has to be a mechanism in place that starts the learning process. Moreover, not everything can be learned or is teached. Belyaev noticed that about 30 to 40% of is female fox population failed to breed or did not show maternal care to the litter. Does this sound familiar? Clearly, domestication process has gone too far in those foxes and they lost a necessary instinct.

Is there a mechanism in place that prevents the loss of necessary instincts? It happens, but no on a personal level. If the mating instinct fails to manifest, then it means the end to the genes of that person. Evolution pushes mankind to have less and less instinct until some have less than necessary. They are not forced towards the opposite sex and the erotization happens to other clues of comforting company. Let's be honest, the company of children is refreshing. Who doesn't like children?

Pedophilia for dummies

First of all: Nobody makes the conscious decision to become a pedophile.

Think of the children!

This slogan is enough to mobilize and justify any action against pedophiles. Public figures demand actions to cope with the assumed pandemic. Some even demand that every pedophile be put to death - more or less merciful. If you still blame pedophiles for their "sick lifestyle", here is a question for you: Why would anyone want to be a pedophile? Trust me, it's not a desirable destiny. Do you really think that someone would choose that life?

Few are bothered to question the nature of pedophilia and what is causing it. When pedophiles are hunted, stigmatized and persecuted in the manner they are, it is obvious that this is not a choice.

Are they born this way?

The argument "we are born that way" has been used by homosexuals to demand acceptance of homosexual love. It is not really an explanation, because it raises the question, why are some born this way? Together with "It's a sexual orientation" it is more of an activist slogan than a scientific explanation. The best current explanation is that something went wrong during the development. There is some evidence that it starts very early - even before birth.

Think of it like a train derailment. There are tracks, which the train is supposed to ride on. And then there are obstacles and defects that can cause the train to leave the tracks. So, what went wrong with pedophiles? If we start asking about something "wrong", we should know what is "right". Hence, what is it that goes right in most people? What happens in people that don't turn out to be pedophiles? It is kind of an obvious mystery, since most people don't spend much time thinking about stuff that comes natural.

Sexual development - what is it exactly?

Imagine that you are a normal boy heading for a straight heterosexual orientation. A "normal" boy plays with certain toys, later he plays football/soccer with other boys. At first, girls are icky and boys are afraid of catching girl cooties, with Valentine's day being an exception. However, something strange happens during puberty - boys are starting to behave irrationally. Parents told us to wait with it, teachers are against it, even pals are complaining that we spend less time with them. Nonetheless, spending time with a girl becomes important on it's own.

Because "everyone" has this attraction, this is kind of normal and nobody is questioning it. Is it culture, or is it the expectation of others that drives "normal" boys to try to get the attention of girls again and again? If it were just a search for friendship, then we would see a 50/50 distribution of boy/girl and boy/boy couples. There are even fewer obstacles for a boy to befriend another boy than to befriend a girl.

Actually, several things are already known. Gay men tend to have more older brothers. There are hypotheses that explain how the influence happens, developed antibodies in the mother being the current favorite explanation. Gender atypical behavior during childhood is considered to be an indicator for later homosexuality. The latter statement is remarkable. Not only does it state a deviation from "the norm", it also states that certain behavior is "the norm" for a boy. Already as little boys, their behavior is supposed to follow some invisible tracks.

Gender typical behavior - but why?

Stripping "gender" from the question, we could ask: What causes a typical behavior? Some behavior is so common typical that we have named them. Fear of flying is an example. As soon as the airplane starts moving, those affected freak out. In a rational discussion outside the plane, they will agree that the fear is irrational and somewhat silly. But that does not matter once the airplane starts moving. It is a consistent innate behavior very difficult to override. This is not an exception.

Human behavior follows certain patterns, this is the very base of psychology. If we were able to just snap out of a depression, we wouldn't need psychiatric institutions. Often, we need to become aware, how much trouble a certain behavior will cause and we need help to avoid or handle those situations.

If we were animals, we would simply call it instincts. Many animals are born with a fully developed set of instincts. This is not the case with a human baby. Unlike a baby deer, it does not get up within a few hours after birth and follows the mother around. A human baby resembles more a fetus than a preteen child during the first year. Some animals can walk a few hours after birth and instinctively follow the flock. For most animals, instincts are like solid railway tracks guiding their behavior. They are so controlled by their instincts, that a lion jumping through a burning hoop is a circus sensation.

Instincts are considered to be non-existing in humans, since we are in general able to override them. This is taken to the extreme by the assumption that humans have a free will. The example of the fear of flying shows that this obviously is not the case. Few million years ago, our ancestors certainly had instincts and those instincts didn't disappear suddenly. And they haven't completely vanished. 

How little instincts do we need?

Humans are superior to animals, because we can think and decide on a rational base what actions to take. That is the theory, in praxis we quite often behave in a certain manner that we are not aware of. Sometimes it is good for us, otherwise it can present an obstacle like the fear of flying. The fewer irrational behavior we are forced to act out, the better it is for us.

Instincts are in a way hard-wired knowledge how to behave in certain situations. Without hard-wired instincts, the appropriate behavior has to be learned. The freedom from instincts not only requires us to make rational decisions, but also allows us to adjust them in order to get anticipated outcomes. Without guiding instincts and learned knowledge, we are doomed to make stupid decisions. Hence, loosing instincts is not only an advantage, but it is a liability too. Using trial and error, we learned what was best for our survival. Hence, those with a lesser amount of instincts had a greater learning potential. This presents an evolutionary advantage leading to a higher survival rate for human genes.

Animals have instincts to a varying degree. Reptiles have a primitive brain and are completely instinct controlled. The higher up on the evolutionary stage the animals are, the less they are controlled by instincts and more able to learn things. It is no surprise that most trained animals are mammals.

Animals living in a stable environment tends to show very little variations. It is almost impossible to tell two penguins apart. Animals living in a changing environment show a greater variation. Individuals that are better adapted to a change will ensure the survival of the species, while the unfortunate die. Over time this will lead to a higher variation of individual characteristics in those species, which represents a higher flexibility. This is the reason for the noticeable individual characteristics among humans. Some of us are born with stronger instincts and have to suffer from fear of flying or similar compulsive behavior, while others enjoy a higher degree of free will.

How does evolution know where to stop?

It doesn't. Well, evolution does not stop before it is too late. Evolution is not about the survival of species or to make individuals comfortable in their environment, but about the survival of DNA. Humans are pushed by evolution towards the edge of losing all instincts, and due to the variation some are pushed over the edge. Those, who were too far on the other side, would not pass down their DNA. Evolution comes with a price tag attached, the dead end of an DNA-line. It is like a tree, where only few branches are allowed to continue to grow, while others are cut back.

As it seems, a certain minimal amount of instincts is necessary for procreation. Boys need to find girls. That is why boys start to behave irrationally during puberty, even when they were angel-like to their parents during previous years. The current society makes it  hard for them: child sexuality is not encouraged and abstinence-only sex education is on the program in some countries. Hence, the instinct of chasing girls meets a lot of obstacles, experiences headwind. 

Should we expect everyone to develop a "normal" heterosexual orientation? Some think that gender is a social construct and feminists claim men and women to be equal. Moreover, many romantics claim that it was the personality that attracted them to their spouse. If the existence of a vagina or penis is that insignificant, shouldn't we be equally attracted to men and women? I mean, if we downplay the importance of the gender/sex, shouldn't we see like a 50% prevalence of homosexuality?

Evolution does not like 50% homosexuality, it is simply not sustainable. It would mean that 50% of the genes are pushed over the edge and are not passed down. During the evolution humans lost much of the intensity of instincts. The behavior became more and more rational and that was an advantage. This also meant that the gender of the significant other half became less important. We are more attracted to the personality than to the outlook of intercourse. At the same time, sex became more versatile than just as a means to procreation. Intimacy creates strong social bonds. Hence, evolution drove humans away from the 100% heterosexuality towards a point where the advantage of free will is balanced by procreation failure.

So what went wrong in pedophiles?

Nothing! Everything went according to the plan. That means the plan of evolution. Evolution does not care about individuals, only about the survival of genes. Individuals are just a means for procreation. Fish have many thousand offsprings, most end up being prey for others. For evolution it is ok that just enough individuals make it into adulthood. 

Flexibility was and is a necessity for humans. In order to adapt to the changing environment, we show rather big differences between individuals, we are taller or shorter, we have different skin colour, and we lost much of the control instincts had over our behavior. Variance is part of the evolutionary game. This means also variance in the strength of certain instincts, among them the instinct that drives boys towards girls during puberty.

To be honest, this post is actually "paraphilia for dummies" - i never talked why pedophiles prefer the company of children. Most think it is for sexual gratification only, but this is wrong. The company of children averts aggression of bullies, children are very emotional and might satisfy the demands of someone with a more intense emotional life. There are in fact many reasons why adults turn towards children and turn the back to adults. The current stigmatization is one of them. Children don't judge someone based on media incited hysteria, they judge people according to their actions.

The first pedophile

Is this a fantasy of a pedophile or does it make sense?

The idea in this post came like a stroke last christmas. Pedophilia is a destiny which is a heavy burden to carry. It does not make sense to be attracted to children nowadays. It does not make sense according to contemporary standards, but did it make sense 5000 years ago? Delving into internet i discovered the following.

Pedophilia is not a recent phenomenon, Michael Jackson was not the first one to have eyes for boys in the magic years between being a little boy and becoming a man. Leonardo da Vinci had eyes for his Salai, and he too was not the first. The greeks didn't invent pederasty, it had already conquered the world. The Japanese had the love for boys, apparently for over thousand years. This love for boys can be found in cultures all over the world. If a behavioral trait has spread throughout the world, it is believed to be more than 50.000 years old. Ergo: let's go back in time, much back in fact.

The Descent of Chester

The story of the descent of Chester is a humorous explanation why evolution allowed the existence of pedophiles and how pedophiles survived natural selection. Even though written as an satirical essay it contains several ideas on the survival of genes. Sometimes laymen interpret evolution quite narrow, when giving birth to children is already counted as success. Chester in this story makes sure that related children survive. This worker bee hypothesis has also been used to explain the acceptance of Fa'afafine. Another support for this hypothesis is the fact that mothers of homosexual children tend to give birth to more children. These explanations center around the value of nutrition for survival.

However, the same can be applied to all animals, hence we should find homosexuality and pedophilia to the same extend in the animal kingdom. Homosexual behavior can be observed, even sexual interaction with immature youth is common, but not in the same manner as in humans. Homosexual behavior is observed in the absence of females or in captivity. Researchers have tried to instill homosexuality as a preference for males in rats and have failed. Sexual behavior with immature youth is found in species that are not at all discriminatory in sexual partner selection, but a preference for immature partners is not evident.

What happened to homo habilis & Co?

There are some peculiarities in the human evolution. Humans share a last common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos. From comparison with them, we can infer that certain events happened during the human evolution. Artifacts like skeletons provide hints where to place them on the timeline. From those artifacts we know that the human brain increased in size twice during the evolution.

The first increase happened with homo erectus 1.8 million years ago , who had to counter environmental changes. In mobbing is human heritage i tried to explain what happened to them. Homo ergaster most likely self-domesticated himself, leading to groups that were more successful at fighting off predatory animals. Analysis of his skull shows more neotenous features than the chimpanzee skull. The famous russian silver fox experiment also lead to neotenous features as a result of a selection based on behavior. If homo ergaster became neotenous, then the reason could have been a self-domestication process, which we know has happened in the human past.

Hypothesis about human evolution

It is impossible to prove anything about the behavior of human ancestors, since no documentation ever existed or survived the tooth of time. Artifacts can only be found where the conditions were right for conservation. Human tissue or tools made out of wood and similar did not survive. Due to that most commonly acknowledged theories are based on simple assumptions and correlations with other events. The principle of Occam's razor is used to select some hypothesis as more likely.

Fortunately, there are some facts, which we know to be true. First of all, humans became intelligent and are able to use complicated tools. Second, we master a huge volume of knowledge. Finally, homo sapiens evolved into the shape of modern humans. The latter implies the neotenous character.

Neoteny - the retention of juvenile features

The picture to left shows a young immature chimpanzee. The contrast to adult chimpanzees is quite markant. Actually adult humans resemble chimpanzee babies much more than mature chimpanzees, which is denoted as physical neoteny. Neoteny itselfs denotes the retention of juvenile characteristics. 

How does neoteny appear? There is little to be found about it, but it seems to be related to a slower maturation speed. There exists a mammal model that predicts when certain developmental events are supposed to happen. Compared to that model, humans are maturing at a slower speed, between 5 and 15 times slower. According to that humans never done with growing up. Even in the ninth decade, some skull bone fusion processes are still at work.

Not only does a human mature at a slower speed than the mammal model predicts, but different parts mature at different speeds. The brain maturation is one of the slower processes. Several human peculiarities are due to that. Human instincts are dwindling and weak, interfering less with a rational behavior than in animals. However, some instincts are necessary and an insufficient instinct has undesirable outcomes. And again, the russian silver fox experiment did some interesting observations. Some neotenous foxes neglected their offspring.

The second brain size increase

The second brain size increase happened presumably during the Lower Palaeolithic era (800 000 years ago) leading to homo heidelbergensis. The placement of either on the timeline is somewhat uncertain, but the correlation makes sense. Homo habilis already had the ability to carry tools around unlike tool using animals. The usual sequence in animals is that they are first confronted with a problem and then start using tools. Not only are they using available items, but it has been observed that they modify items to fit for the purpose. Sticks are selected and sometimes modified for retrieval or for foraging. After the animals got what they wanted they usually discard the used tool. Since stone tools have been found together with skeletons, we know that they have been carried around even when there was no usage during the transport.

If there had been a "wood age" before the stone age, then we wouldn't know about it. It is possible that our ancestors had been using wooden tools before stone tools. In this case, the second brain increase could have happened earlier.

Tool making requires understanding and the ability to learn. I have seen a BBC documentary where a professor specialized in anthropology showed the presenter how to cut a stone for making a stone axe. The presenter surely had attended school and knew a lot about physics. The professor also told the presenter how to do certain steps, both spoke english and were quite intelligent. Even with those favorable abilities it took about half an hour to get the lesson across. Prof. Brian Cox tried it once to cut a stone without any instructions and gave up. He needed advice from some expert. Knifes and longer cutting tools require careful craftsmanship, where several flakes have to be cut off. This requires remarkable skills, not easy to teach even today.

In order to simulate ancient conditions we need to modify the situation drastically. First of all, no physics knowledge is allowed. Language was not yet invented. There were no books and no schools. And we have to reduce the intelligence level in both participants. Instead of a professor teaching an intelligent presenter we should consider a 5 year old teaching a 2 year old how to do that. The time needed to get the lesson across would be much larger and requiring the student to spent considerable amount of time with the teacher.

In the animal kingdom the youths learn from their parents. The sex of the offspring does not matter since all animals have to hunt, assuming no division of labour. If there is a sexual division of labour, then it is mostly instinctive behavior not requiring much learning. The situation is different with humans. First of all do humans give birth to fewer offspring. Moreover, some have only daughters while others only have sons. So, what is the best strategy to transfer knowledge to the next generation?

The kid could learn from the same sex parent. Any imbalance of the sex will lead to a loss of knowledge in that case. If kids leave the parental care and look for a same-sex teacher in the tribe, then the sex balance is almost equal. Moreover, if kids learn from several teachers, knowledge gets distributed. From a game theoretical point of view, kids learning from unrelated same-sex members of the band have an advantage. Since knowledge means a higher survival rate, a band where knowledge is transferred to unrelated children gives a higher chance to their genes.

The first pedophile

There are DSM/ICD definitions of pedophilia and hebephilia. The border between those two lies at puberty, which ignores the basic fact that most boylovers are attracted to boys at that border. Boylovers often ask themselves, whether they are pedophiles or not. Compared with ancient times puberty nowadays has an earlier onset. I sometimes wonder when ancient greek boys went through puberty. It seems like they were much older than contemporary boys in puberty. This would change the definition of ancient pederasty. In the following i do not differentiate due to that reason. Moreover, i don't assume a sexual preference for children in the following.

The transfer of knowledge like the making of stone tools requires a teacher - someone who spends a considerable amount of time with the student. Nowadays teachers are paid and teaching became a profession. This was not the case in the lower palaeolithic era. Everybody had to teach the craftsmanship one possessed unlike today, where some specialized teachers teach the profession of others.

Rind&Yuill in 2012 showed that hebephilic interest is an evolved capacity, and pointed out some commonalities in cross cultural studies. T. Vanggaard wrote in Phallós about semen culture and masculinity. The mature-immature homosexual relationships were an institution to transfer manhood from adults to boys.  Only in such relationship a boy would become a man and in ancient time it was seen as a stigma not to become an erômenos. This has changed with Plato. Before Plato, the institution of pederasty was ritualized and served a well known purpose. After Plato, the sexual gratification got condemned and the former purpose lost. Moreover, the condemnation requires that the manhood building aspect has to be ignored.

How did the teacher-student or master-apprentice relationship came together in lower palaeolithic times? It seems likely that those relationships were formed spontaneously. They were just spending more and more time together without realizing the nature of their relationship. Boylovers jokingly claim that sexy boys are the cause of pedophilia. This is not far from the truth. A dedicated teacher is more efficient than an indifferent one. Hence, students that catch the interest of the teacher got a more enthusiastic education. If a red nose were enough to cause such an interest, we all would be running around with red noses. What characteristics could probably have been preferred?

If we compare chimpanzees with humans, there is a long list of differences. Humans have eyes that are white around the iris. That makes it easy to guess what the other is looking at. Is the student banging 2 stones together to imitate the noise or actually aiming at a fault line? It is certainly easier to teach someone whose mind is easier to read. This too is supported by a hairless face. Humans faces are able to express emotions due to the amount of facial muscle, by the way the only muscles in the human body attached to skin.

Lautmann in "Lust am Kinde" notes that boylovers admire the boy's personality while girllovers admire beauty. Of course, personality is not everything, the boys body is admired too. The statues of the ancient greeks idolized the young man's body. It is likely that a combination of physical and behavioral attributes attracted the teacher. And as always, there will be a competition for attention. This can be seen in any group of children. Boys will compete with each other for the sole attention of a popular group leader, while group leaders will compete in attracting the most desired child.

A child attracting a teacher has to show its abilities. It might be a bit far fetched, but entertaining adults is a perfect opportunity to show intelligence, the ability to learn and present oneself. This is quite similar to courtship behavior between mates.

Natural selection in humans

Evolution works in many ways. Sexual selection is a narrow interpretation, where the choice of a mate decides over the survival of genes. The only thing that counts is the survival of genes. In the simplest case, the survival of the individual until reproduction is sufficient (see fishes). Care of genetically related family members is related to kin selection. However, if one supports distant or not-related family members based on the existence of certain pleasant traits, then those traits will be selected for.

It has been argued that the human brain is a result of sexual selection, where women and men have used their display of intelligence in courtship. So where are the nerds with models as girl friends? It is kind of obvious that this explanation is flawed. Hence, the question is who has selected somebody else for his/her brains? Moreover, it is not necessary for the selecting individual to pass his genes on - that is only required for the one with the brain.

The common explanation how women select brainier men is based on the men's results during hunts. A common mistake is to ascribe a certain development to one and only one cause. That women preferred men who contributed more to society does not preclude other causes. It is not like women evaluated men, but men evaluated each other and build their mutual social status based on that assessment. It is common knowledge that women tend to prefer men of higher social standing. Hence, if men elevated certain boys into the ranks of manhood, then women would prefer those. The rituals of manhood in native cultures marked youths as to be eligible. Women were taught that only men with the right markings are suitable as mates. This is a case where the selection process is carried out within one sex, but has an effect on the passing of genes.

In my humble opinion the mature-immature relationships had a beneficial effect. Not only did the existence count for the transfer of knowledge, but also the length of the apprenticeship had an effect. Child mortality had been high and survival depended on the income of the father. A longer apprenticeship meant higher education and probably a higher social status and with it a higher survival rate of children. This type of relationship usually ended when the younger part became too old and was supposed to move on. When did the younger partner became too old? Presumably when the secondary sexual characteristics became visible. Another reason for this close relationship to end is the fact that a mature same sex partner represents sexual competition. Exclusive pedophilia seemed to have been quite rare. Often the men in those relationships were married or moved on to marry a woman after breakup.

One evidence pointing in that direction is the fact that onset of puberty in boys is later than in girls. Moreover, the onset of puberty is earlier today than some hundred years ago. The decline started about the same time when public schools were introduced and the apprenticeship system was replaced by more institutionalized education systems like university or unskilled labour in factories. Following that explanation, the current decline is not caused by some environmental conditions, but is the normal return to the state without an evolutionary pressure. The survival rate of offspring no longer depends on the length of the apprenticeship with a mentor. The evolutionary pressure also disappeared due to the reduced child mortality.

In this post i focus on the man-boy relationship, but one might argue that the same must be valid for woman-girl relationships in the past. But there are some major differences. It's not without reason that men are from mars while women descent from venus. First, women are child bearing and therefore considered to be too precious to be subjected to danger. The sexual division of labour might have placed a heavy burden on women, but quick decisions were only required from men. Usually women and children are protected by men who have to defend the village. This can also be noticed today. Women are comfortable in positions where few final decisions are made. Typical women areas are places where decision can be overthrown or remade, or when it is possible to base decision on a time consuming consent building process. Boys have to be teached to make the right decision the first time, while girls are imitating women and have the opportunity to adjust their decisions. Hence, the evolutionary pressure was heavier on boys than on girls. That girls mature later than the mammal model predicts can be due to the little pressure put on them and/or due to the genetical linkage between females and males.

Natural selection works in many ways. In ancient Greece stigma was attached to those who didn't got an erômenos. Hence, it was not only men selecting boys and therefore deciding which boy genes moved on, but also boys deciding over the social standing of young men. Every master of a craftsmanship was required to have apprentices.  The failure to attract candidates was a professional failure and lead to exclusion from the profession and loss of income. Therefore one can assume a co-evolution: boys getting attractive to men, and men becoming accommodating to the needs of boys. The former denotes the eagerness and willingness to learn while the latter means caretaking, teaching and mentoring in all aspects of life.

Q: Why don't humans have a baculum?
A: Because pedophiles are a pain in the ass.  

Modern reminiscents

Even today, children are fanatic about superheros and heros. The majority of boys idolizes football players. Variants of football can be found in native cultures, where an object is kicked around, intercepted and driven towards a goal. Sometimes the ball is decorated with feathers or skin. Young boys are eager to participate in games with older boys. Not only that, but emotions are set into high gear. Imagine now that boys were free to roam society without being bound to their families.

Men shave their beards, while women apply makeup. The result in both cases is that the person looks younger. Why is that? It is an unconscious signal to others that we are willing to accommodate them. We signal that we are agreeable and desire an honest conversation. The opposite in men are those with long beards. In many cultures long beards are reserved for scholarly persons, who can dispense knowledge. The opposite appearance signals an openness to acquire knowledge or listening skills necessary for agreements. Salesmen tend to be shaved for that reason.

Sometimes, one can read that this behavior is paedomorphic and has something to do with the Kindchenschema - the one which is supposed to elicit help. Some even reason that this kind of behavior might have turned some into pedophiles - which is utterly nonsense. The kindchenschema does not elicit help, but lowers aggression thresholds. The absence of a beard makes also hiding of emotions more difficult. Hence, a shaved man appears to be more honest and more trustworthy if the social standing is unknown.

Conclusion

Same-sex pedophilic behavior has been with us for 800,000 years, the time when the last brain size increase happened. It is probably related to the transfer of knowledge and masculinity to the next generation, which is the main theme of the ancient greek pederasty and semen-culture reported in cross-cultural studies.

If this were true, all men should feel some erotic attraction towards boys, since it has been a necessity for the transfer of knowledge in the past. Current behavior like men shaving beards, and the particularities with the onset of puberty in girls and boys nowadays and in the past, indicates this to be true. 

Moreover, boylovers should not be ashamed of their attraction towards boys. It it nothing abnormal, but part of the essence of humanity. The idolization of youth was common in ancient Greece and there is a heavy weighting reason for that.

Disclaimer

This is amateur peodphilia research, which means there is no study to back up the claims. This post presents a hypothesis with the attempt to explain pedophilia related phenomena.

Mobbing is a human heritage

First of all, i do not condone any mobbing. 

Actually i despise it, i can not stand the thought that somebody is mobbed. I know that 9 out of 10 people find nothing wrong with mobbing, but i still find it wrong. I am not alone in this, many politicians and celebrities are against it, among them prime ministers, presidents, first ladies, kings and queens. Mobbing is something no civilized human should do.

Mobbing is a barbarian act. It sends out subtle signals that the target is not worth friendly thoughts. It is meant to undermine self-esteem and to cause significant psychological harm. Mobbed people start questioning their self-worth. It is so damaging that some youths take their own life due to mobbing. Hence, mobbing is something no civilized human should do.

We are civilized and not barbarians. We consider barbarians to closely resemble apes or our ape-like ancestors. We have evolved from that and we are certainly proud of that. We are civilized thanks to the evolution of mankind. Some million years ago, our ancestors were much like our closest cousins in the animal kingdom, the chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have anger issues and plays frequently turn into aggressive fights which causes damages to those involved. Our other cousins, the bonobos, turn to love in order to resolve social problems. We are too civilized to resort to sex in order to solve every problem.

So, how did we get civilized?

Again, i'm turning to the russian silver fox experiment. The aim was to find out how dogs got domesticated. Rather brutally, the experimenters divided their foxes according to their aggressiveness. Ten generations later, and cute friendly domesticated foxes where the result. The researchers in this experiment played God, knowing what they were looking for and providing ultimate selective pressure. Humans were not so lucky, we were left to do that on our own. So how did we do that?

I mean i'm talking about the self-domestication of humans.

First of all, nobody planned any domestication few million years ago - at least a document with that evil plan hasn't been found yet. Hence, it happened by accident. The Zaire river divided the ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos. One environmental condition created our aggressive cousin, the other one must have been the paradise still harbouring the bonobos.

We assume that savannah took over the forest space forcing the ancestor of homo ergaster from the safe trees down to earth. And by chance, the big cat dinofelis developed an appetite for those apes. Bigger groups had better chances in fighting off dinofelis. Living in bigger group requires social intelligence and less aggressivity towards the other members. This is exactly the same criterion those silver fox researchers used for their selection. But who throw out those who failed the criterion? Who made the decision, which member is to be thrown under the wheels or in front of the next big cat? Nobody! At that time, homo ergaster didn't hold elections, courts or even elected a chief. 

It must have been peer pressure. Those who didn't fit in due to their aggressiveness, were driven off. It seems unlikely that our ancestors kept an account and after a certain number of strikes punishment was due. It is more probable that not fitting in was answered with constant signals to get lost. 

How do you subtle convince someone to leave?

Actually, that was not necessary. Evolutionary pressure utilizes tiny advantages. So tiny that the differences are almost unrecognizable. It is enough that friends stayed together during an attack by dinofelis. All what is needed is to make sure that unpopular members of the group get more exposed positions. Hence, everything that communicates the message of lower worth will do. If one does not feel entitled to love, one does not seek the safe center. This is exactly what shame is producing in modern humans. It ultimately destroys self-esteem. Hence our ancestors were driving those less popular individuals towards more exposed positions. Fortunately for mankind, they were rather successful. In some sense, we can be grateful that our ancestors were so proficient at mobbing. Without them, we would not have become civilized. Mobbing is partly responsible for human evolution. I guess 9 out of 10 people know that.

Disclaimer

Not everything in this post is meant to be taken dead serious.

Sexual orientation or what is wrong with dogs?

Brain teaser

Dogs greet their owners by wagging their tails, whimpering to attract attention, sniffing and licking. What do dogs do when they encounter a bitch in heat? Do they wag tails, sniff behinds, lick? Yes they do. That begs the question, are dogs sexually attracted to their owners?

What have dogs to do with the sexual orientation of humans?

In some sense dogs are domesticated wolves. Humans have gone through a process called self-domestication; probably during the time as homo habilis. The result in both cases is neoteny, the retainment of juvenile features. Neoteny seems to have a bigger impact on human behavior than acknowledged so far.

Neoteny

The famous russian silver fox experiment was aimed at finding out how domestication turned wolves into dogs. The selection in this silver fox experiment was based on the behavior as the sole criterium. However, the changes in behavior were accompanied by physiological changes, which show signs of neoteny. Neoteny denotes the retainment of both physiological and behavioral traits. The physiological traits can be characterized as Kindchenschema. Those silver foxes started to look cute. Is this a coincidence?

Not only did the foxes became more tame, but also showed smarter behavior. Smart in this case means social intelligence. The foxes attracted attention and wanted to play, something that reminds us of dogs. Playing in the animal kingdom is an act mostly juveniles do. Cubs and pups play with each other and test their strength. Playing as a pup meant learning how to subdue prey. Sometimes the parents get involved and "teach" them a lesson or two. This playing with each other can be considered the earliest of teaching.

The selection of juvenile playful non-aggressive behavior in those silver foxes is a possible explanation for the emerging neoteny. That pups in general are not aggressive towards siblings is another result of evolution.

Pups do not have a dominance hierarchy, which is retained in dogs, see Alexandra Semyonova. Pups and dogs live in groups that are defined by one-to-one relationships. It is often said that dogs consider their owners as a parent, much like the imprinting of wild gooses, which are raised by humans. But this would render any sale of older dogs to a different owner as problematic. Hence, it is not imprinting that bonds dogs to their owners. Cattle, which is another domesticated animal, also reacts on human presence. This however, seems to be more like a Pavlov's dog reflex. Any human is regarded as a signal for feeding time or milking.

Dogs must consider humans as another element of their social group. The learn the verbal and nonverbal communication anew like they did with their siblings. In order to function in a domestic setting, they had to develop social intelligence, pretty much like homo habilis did in the human evolution.

Attachments

The first pair-bonding of pups is to its parent. This mother-young bonding ensures nurture and a successful reproduction. This and the non-aggressive rivalry with siblings gets transformed into one-to-one relationships, which are attachments. This is the reason, why dogs greet their owners in the same way they are courting a bitch. The mating aspect gets overshadowed by the neotenous attachment, at least there is an overlap of juvenile attachment and sexual behavior. 

Hence: No, the dogs are not sexually attracted to their human owners. They don't seek a mate in humans, but a play partner.

Sexual orientation

The wikipedia entry on sexual orientation focuses a lot on the sexual aspect, while I in my previous post started to question the sexual nature of the desire part. The arousal is without any doubt of a sexual nature, the body responds to clues in a sexual way. The arousal part could be some kind of learned response to clues. John Money considers lovemaps and phylisms in his theory of paraphilias. Somehow one learns what the desired partner looks like and starts responding to clues in a more reflex like manner. Bem's disputed theory  "exotic becomes erotic" could be reformulated as "attracted becomes erotic". During a certain stage in childhood humans acquire a lovemap, which  might be nothing else than a preference for certain types of attachments. 

Since humans live in social groups, the sought after attachment has to fit in. As such it is not really a one-to-one relationship, but a complex system. As it seems to me, the development of a lovemap is a fragile process, which can be easily distorted. The attachment, one has a toddler, has to change. It seems that lovemaps or attachment search develops along certain paths, not all paths leading to a heterosexual orientation. 

One explanation for homosexuality is the fraternal birth order effect, which also has been observed in pedophiles and male-to-female transsexuals. However, having many older brothers changes the family climate and might lead to a different attachment to the primary caregiver for the youngest than the older brothers had. 

If sexual orientation are basically lovemaps based on attachment patterns, then childhood attachment(s) are relevant for their development. Moreover, the glorified target is influenced by culture, like romantic and love.

Conclusion

The discussion of sexual orientation must include neoteny. Humans do not simply look for a mating partner, but for one to establish a relationship to. This relationship includes many other aspects besides a sexual component. Why do we still call it "sexual orientation" if only the arousal is sexual?