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.

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.

Could it be that simple?

Abstract

This post presents the faulty neoteny hypothesis as an attempt to explain findings in studies about pedophiles and homosexuals. Humans in comparison with chimpanzees mature at a much lower speed, with brain maturation at an even lower speed. The faulty neoteny hypothesis assumes that this maturation process is even further deminished in persons who developed a paraphilia. 

Introduction

Pedophilia has been the origin for this type of amateur armchair research. Pedophilia does not make much sense seen from an evolutionary point of view - this is the common understanding. More scientific oriented authors call it maladapted and have difficulties explaining its current existence from an evolutionary point of view. However, they tried to make it fit into current social settings - and that might be the reason for the failure. Starting with the question "Could pedophilia have made sense some thousand years ago?" this investigation turned to human evolution.

Short summary of human evolution

The modern human evolved from hominids, with the chimpanzee and the bonobos as our closest cousins in the animal kingdom. At least twice during the human evolution the brain increased drastically in size. The first increase might be related to the self-domestication of humans, which changed the group dynamic of human bands. The social intelligence hypothesis claims that this domestication was the cause for the brain size increase. This view is supported by the russian silver fox experiment and by comparisons of dogs with wolves. The second increase happened during the stone age and might be related to the mastering of crafts. 

This caused the neoteny in humans, a prerequisite for human society. In short, neoteny describes the retention of juvenile traits in otherwise mature adults. The famous russian silver fox experiment tried to breed foxes that are tame as a breed, not as a result of individual training. The duration in which the young animals showed the friendly behavior towards siblings and caregivers was extended. Similar, dogs retain the one-to-one relationship with group members, while wolves resort to a pecking order. Dogs need to establish a relationship with every new member of the group from scratch, pretty much like humans do. This requires social intelligence and that requires learning capabilities.

Hypothesis

The faulty neoteny hypothesis assumes that the maturation process, which in its weakened form causes neoteny, is further diminished. This leads to unfinished developments in humans. Several researchers and practitioners have postulated the arrested development hypothesis. M. Griesemer compares pedophilia with dyslexia, assuming that a major brain development process during puberty fails. "Arrested" might be a misnomer, since it implies that there are causes that prevent development. Rather than understanding the development as actively prevented, the faulty neoteny hypothesis considers a breakdown of the development. If neoteny already bent development, it gets broken in some individuals.

Sexual orientation

Hazan and Shaver in 1987 assumed that human sexual orientation consists of a sexual arousal and a romantic attraction. According to them this attraction is based on the parent-child-attachment and a rather modern phylogenetic development. They did not discuss the influence of neoteny. Neoteny makes the heritage of romantic attraction even more plausible. However, this attraction is not purely neotenous. Monogame animals with parental care for the young often show an elaborate courting  behavior as seen in birds. It is reasonable to assume that the "spouse" replaces the parent as a provider. Hence, the romantic attraction is less based on sexual reproduction and more on an attachment that fulfills some demand. 

At some point during childhood or adolescence a lovemap gets formed. There are several theories, how a desire get erotizised. How this exactly happens is beyond this post. The sexual arousal can be understood as a reflex like reaction onto clues of the desired company. The desire need not to be of sexual nature.

Research has shown that sexuality in humans is a learned behavior - it is no longer a pure instinct. It could be that comforting experience gets reinforced. The company of children provides a less aggressive environment than that of age peers. Hence some prefer the company of children to age peers. When a lovemap gets formed, the presence of clues of the desired partner causes arousal. This establishment might be under the control of a different process than the one responsible for the personality development. If the sexual arousal gets fixated in form of a lovemap before the person experiences heterosexual attraction, then arousal gets caused by the "wrong" clues. This asynchronicity could cause a failure of establishment of the correct heterosexual orientation. 

Mechanism

When humans domesticated themselves, somehow juvenile traits were preferred. That basically means that maturity is delayed. This delay might be due to an inhibitory process or due to the maturity process not working at full strength. The first assumes the existence of an additional process while the latter is a more simplistic explanation. Hence, the delayed maturation in humans might be better explained by a weakened maturation process that means a process that is not up to the speed as in our cousins in the animal kingdom.

For a reason, boys and girls do not mature at the same speed, the onset of puberty in boys is at a later age than in girls. Hence, we can assume that the process is weaker in boys. Moreover, everybody knows some children who either look much younger or much older than their age. Hence, we can assume that the maturation process does not work like a clock in humans. Some children mature earlier if the process is stronger; others mature later, if the process is weaker. In the extreme case, the process stops - which seems to be the case in the adults affected by the Highlander syndrome.

The human body does not grow uniformly during childhood, there are several developmental stages. Moreover, the brain usually does not fully mature until the age of 25 years. While bodily changes are visible, the mental development can only be guessed. The myelination of the brain is a process that goes on for several years. Young and old people have less myelinated white matter. Simple put, myelination creates a fatty insulation around the axons, something that should be visible on structural MRI. James Cantor has reported a missing white matter in pedophiles in comparison to his control group. According to the faulty neoteny hypothesis, he could have looked at brains in the juvenile stage. 

Gaffney and Berlin in 1984 assumed a hypothalamic - pituitary - gonadal dysfunction in pedophiles, with elevated levels of LH as a response to a GRH infusion. This might be relevant since the HPG axis is responsible for the sexual development. Moreover, the HPG-axis shares parts with the HPA axis that manages stress. The letters H, P, G, and A denote certain endocrine glands. The endocrine system controls the growth of the human body and must have been affected by the human evolution. To a layman's eyes, it looks like the neotenous feature of better stress handling has negatively impacted the development.

Why it could be true

Studies show that pedophiles have had on average more head injuries during childhood than the controls. This could be due to a clumsy behavior, where motor control is still insufficient. Delayed speech acquisition might be another indication of coordination problems. Fine motor skills are much about the correct timing of muscle actions. Myelination does change the speed at which the signals are traveling along the nerves. A disturbed myelination could be responsible for that. 

The missing white matter study by James Cantor & Co specifies a lower density of white matter. This lower density could be due to fewer connections or due to thinner connections. The latter would be without myelination. The interesting fact about myelination is that both young and old people have less white matter than humans in their prime. The question to ask would be: How much do pedophile brains differ in their biological age from their chronological age?" The faulty neoteny hypothesis would assume that pedophiles retain their juvenile brain characteristics. 

Pedophiles are reported to have emotional congruence with children. Some therapists denote this as an arrested emotional development. Again, using the simplicity approach, I assume that the emotional development simple came to a stand still. Hence, those pedophiles are eternal "Peter Pans". 

Since the onset of puberty in boys is delayed in comparison to girls, boys are more affected by neoteny. This would also make them more exposed to a faulty neoteny. Hence, the presented hypothesis supports the finding that most pedophiles seem to be male.

Studies also reported that pedophiles on average are 2.3 cm smaller than the controls. This would indicate that the growth process ended to early. Growth is influenced by testosterone, for which the mentioned HPG axis is responsible.

Handiness is higher in pedophiles than in controls and seem to indicate brain organization. The assumption is that a lesser organized brain would lead to a handiness by chance, that means 50% for each. A fully organized brain in the animal kingdom is one where all instincts are present at birth. Those newborns get up right after birth and move along their parents. This usually means that newborns have a fully myelinated brain. Humans however, are the other extreme. Hence, one could conclude: the more neotenous the individual is, the lesser organized is the brain, which would mean fewer or weaker instincts.

Child advocates claim that children on the day they turn into legal adults somehow obtain sexual knowledge, no teaching required. This no-sex-education attitude implies a belief that sexuality is instinctive. This belief is ridiculed on child love chat boards. Assuming that there is some truth to it, the conclusion is that heterosexual persons experience it as an instinct, while pedophiles do not. This is consistent with the assumption of a lesser organized brain at birth in pedophiles. The heterosexual instinct was not present when the lovemaps were formed. This correlates with the observation that homosexuals often do not behave gender conform during childhood. The observation implies the assumption that gender conformity is innate, hence an instinct.

Common cause and pedophilia

So far, nothing special for pedophiles has been considered. Nothing indicates, why the affected persons should be romantically attracted to children. The reasons for not being attracted to the opposite gender could be biological, but the replacement could be due to circumstances. Hence a future homosexual will miss the innate attraction to the opposite sex, but it is the comforting experience with same-sex age peers that renders him/her homosexual. 

The company of children might be preferred for several reasons. The presence of children lowers the aggressivity in adults and adolescents. Moreover, children are more emotional than adults. For youths, who are overly emotional, they satisfy a demand for emotional contact. Moreover, faulty neoteny might be responsible for a developmental delay. Then, contact with age peers might get challenging and children are again the easier company. The term "age peers" denote peers of similar chronological age, not of the equivalent biological age, which might be lower in those affected.

How and when a sexual orientation gets established is beyond this post. It seems that the sexual orientation gets fixated at a certain time. How solid this fixation is, is still unclear. Women seem to have a higher fluidity, while forced sexual orientation changes in men have failed.

However, faulty neoteny assumes that development is not finished. This would imply that the sexual orientation could be changed by some measures. Aversion therapy did not work, and the reason for that might be that aversion therapy attacks the wrong end - it tried to change the arousal instead of the romantic attraction. MC Seto comments on a study showing a lessened pedophilic attraction, that the effect was there
"even though treatment focused on intimacy,relationship skills and self-esteem, rather than modification of sexual arousal patterns." (bold by me). This astonishing result supports the view in this post that the attraction part of sexual orientation is based on attachment rather than a sexual reproduction instinct.

Conclusion

The faulty neoteny hypothesis assumes that the maturation process in some individuals is slowed down to a standstill and therefore some developmental processes never finish. This assumption is so far consistent with the findings and explains, why a normal heterosexual orientation is not acquired. 

Different degrees of neoteny in humans will lead to different outcomes. While a lesser amount of neoteny leads to premature adolescence and adulthood, the question of "too much neoteny" has not yet been answered.

Disclaimer

This poster knows nothing about psychology or neurobiology and does not even have a PhD. The explanation in this post is based on common sense and some thinking. Hence, all the stated things are not automatically assumed to be true for everybody with a paraphilia.

Sexuality is like the tip of an iceberg

This is a picture of mine that emerged some time ago. Sexuality does not exist on its own, but it heavily connected the innermost emotions and needs a person has. It is like the tip of an iceberg. There is so much hidden underneath and it determines what shows up.

Those guys, who tried to convert homosexuals, tried to destroy the tip. And like in case of an iceberg, another part shows up. In reality, removing the tip of an iceberg only makes it's orientation more stable. Conversion therapy attacked the part that is only a consequence. In many senses the iceberg behaves like the heads of Hydra.

The current picture of sexuality as a fixed point along the axis from pure-homosexual to pure-heterosexual is simply wrong. I see sexuality like a multi-directional thing. Humans love every possible group of people more or less. Loving one group does not automatically mean no love for other groups. Its like beams of different length fastened to the center of an iceberg, which determines the shape of it.

Quite often, when i read biographies of person with non-heterosexual orientation, i find many things wrong in their family lives. Even Stephen Fry commented in his "out there" series that he did not come from a "normal" family. Boylovers also report about the lack of some emotional attachment in their childhood.

Sexuality was and is so imperatively important for the survival of mankind that the mechanisms of sexuality must have been hard wired at the lowest level, hence much below the consciousness. The nature of ones sexuality is not a choice. But i don't think that it is random or without any purpose, it does not happen by accident. There is this picture of homosexuals that the other part makes them a whole; they complete each other. Hence one could think of homosexuality as the search of a companion that reduces ones own perceived deficits. I said perceived, because those might not be real ones, but something indoctrinated in childhood.

The case with childlovers of all kind might be similar. We love girls and boys, whether small, peripubertal, or teenagers, only from the same race with traits similar to our own or exotic, all this to a more or less degree. Hence, we are dealing with an universe of childlovers. Also here sexuality towards children is only the tip of the iceberg. For some reason those adults are drawn to children, the main reason is hidden underneath the surface - since procreation is ruled out, it's basically not about having sex.

Some find children attractive, because adults are so mean, especially women. The current stigmatization works like a charm - similar to removing the tip of an iceberg, making it just much more stable.

I find the name sexology as a term for a science hilarious, since it is not a separate field if one follows my picture. How they can just deal with sexuality and ignore everything else, is completely incomprehensible to me. James, the guru, is looking at brain structure and erections, while others look at brain activity when it is exposed to nice pictures. This seems a dead end, at least to me. In order to understand sexuality, one has to discover the motives, what gives satisfaction besides orgasm.

My conclusion: if one wants to cure the sexuality of people, one has to dive and work on the parts underneath. Sexology researchers entertain the idea that sexuality is fluid, but so far have failed at making it work. From what i understand, it will be a lot of work, if not futile.

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.