Re: Does Evolution give a fuck?

There's no good reason to believe that evolution gives a fuck (no pun intended) about reproductive viability, or well, anything.

Well, evolution doesn't care about anything because it is not living, breathing thing. So, yeah, it doesn't 'care' about reproductive viability. But ultimately species adapt for their own survival, and part of that is reproductive viability. It has to be, otherwise everything would wind up extinct in no time, wouldn't it?

While Creation stories are just as credible as the legend of Santa Claus, evo psych theories are often conflicting just-so stories that smell of bullshit rationalization ex post facto. I've seen evo psych used to show that hebephilia is normal and adaptive, and I've seen it used to show that hebephilia is abnormal and maladaptive.

One could easily do the same with pedophilia. I'll do it now: although a prepubescent girl is unable to conceive, she will normally develop that ability - even before she looks very phenotypically "adult." A man who goes out of his way to fuck her will likely be the first to impregnate her - which means he can be far more sure that it is his genes that are being reproduced. Pedophilia is evolutionarily adaptive - very much so. See how easy that is? It might be "made up," but no more than myriad other evo psych guesses out there.

Yeah, isn't that the argument Hen-Wen just made? Hebephilia is normative--almost all teleiophilic adults are at least somewhat attracted to teens, I
guarantee it. It's logical: nature does not much distinguish between just ripening adults and fully ripe adults, and on the whole we are genetically programmed to respond to a sexually viable person of the opposite sex. Of course, with some of us that programming is obviously overridden by a sexual interest in those of the same sex, or in partners too young to get pregnant, or perhaps even in other species.

At any rate, a man doesn't need to be sexually attracted to a reproductive mate in order to reproduce with her. There are legions of homosexually inclined men who stay in the closet, marry, and have kids. Why would exclusive pedophiles be any different? As with other ostensibly non-reproductive inclinations, there's also no reason to believe that most people with pedophilic (which, from the evidence, may be most people) are exclusives.

Of course. I have repeatedly stated that I believe exclusives are quite rare. I'm an exclusive. My attempts at sexual copulation with adults have been failures. I can get an erection, which is a rather automatic response when my genitalia is manipulated, but unless there is real sexual excitement, I am not going to get off. My masturbatory fantasies therefore always revolve around children because that is where the excitement is for me. But 'blendeds,' as Lanning calls them, I'm sure constitute the majority of of people with pedophilic attractions, and I think their minor attraction usually winds up taking a back seat to their adult attractions, since they can fulfill those legally. Probably they will all but disappear in the long run for most of these guys if they do not dwell on them, sublimated by their adult desires, need to raise a family, etc. Any pedophilic feelings in most men, especially those who are fathers, will be seen as anathema to their status as parents and will therefore be repressed. Of course, we know how well that usually turns out: those of us who confess and accept our attractions for what they are get punished for society's own sexual repression.

Sexual desires clearly exist and perpetuate themselves without need for either God's or evolutionary psychologists' approval. There's no clear evolutionary "reason" for women to have orgasms - but they do. There's no evident evolutionary "necessity" for women to have any strong sexual desires at all (male-on-female rape can be just as reproductive as consensual intercourse), but they do.

There is an evolutionary reason females have orgasms: when fetuses are in the womb and haven't yet gotten the programming yet on which gender cues to switch on, there is a sort of ungendered default (though it looks closer to being female than male.) When the gender is turned on, if it is male, the little external sex organ becomes a penis; when it is female, it turns into a clitoris. It is obviously more economic for females to have the same sexual pleasure as males than it would've been for them not to. Quite simple.

It's also worth noting that the notion of human sexuality breaking down into a neat list of mutually exclusive, discrete 'sexual orientations' is quite modern and based more on political intrigue than inquiry. I would take it with a grain of salt, or better yet a whole pillar on par with the one Lot's wife was supposedly turned into. I'm strongly sexually attracted to both women and girls, and all gradations in between. I'd not be satisfied with ONLY 'fully developed' women but I can find them very sexy - so what orientation is that? According to some versions of pedo-PC I'm not supposed to exist, yet I suspect people like me far outnumber exclusives!

I've never claimed sexual orientations were always compartmentalized. I do not believe, as a rule, that they are. I do believe there are exclusives of any sexual orientation, and in all cases save hetero-teleio they constitute less than 3% of the population, probably closer to 1%. I think there are a variety of reasons people develop alternate sexualities, and clearly not all of them are genetic. In my case I think my orientation was influenced by genes but was primarily environmental. I was fondled at age 8, but I was never traumatized by this.