Debate Guide: Evolutionary logic: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
The Admins (talk | contribs) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__[[Image:Charles_and_William_Darwin.jpg|thumb|left|Chares and William Darwin]]The application of '''Darwin | __NOTOC__[[Image:Charles_and_William_Darwin.jpg|thumb|left|Chares and William Darwin]]The application of '''Darwin/Wallace type theories of evolution''', has become popular in the pursuits of both genuine analysts and politically motivated ideologues. Here we attempt to argue that the theory casts doubt upon many of the child abuse movement's sacred "truths". The first pointer towards the evolutionary strength of attraction to youths is that [[Research: Prevalence|a large proportion]] of the male population are in fact pedophiles, and even more are [[Hebephilia|attracted to pubescents]]. | ||
==Hedonics== | ==Hedonics== | ||
The idea of sexual experience as necessarily injurious to the young (and linked to adult psychopathy) | The popular idea of sexual experience as necessarily injurious to the young (and linked to adult psychopathy) is counter-hedonic. It is observed in humans and other animals, that beneficial activities (such as eating and sex) bring innate pleasure, especially at times of great drought. Harmful behaviours bring about innate pain. These feelings are not coincidental or God-given designs, but rather ''evolved'' in animals because they supported the reproduction of genes - the same genes that carry genetic codes for pleasure and pain structures in the nervous system. | ||
As [[Jack McClellan]] puts it: | As [[Jack McClellan]] puts it: | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:''"I definitely don't accept the view of the dominant culture that loving, noncoercive, consensual sexual touching with potty-trained prepubescent children is abusive and ruins them for life. What ruins them is the subsequent brainwashing by the "sex offender" industry that they've been damaged. '''The key test that this is nonsense folkways is that children have to be indoctrinated that pleasurable genital/anal touching is "bad touch" -- yet they instinctively and experientially know that touching a flame is bad touch, sticking a syringe in their arm is bad touch, being bit by a dog is bad touch, etc'''".'' | :''"I definitely don't accept the view of the dominant culture that loving, noncoercive, consensual sexual touching with potty-trained prepubescent children is abusive and ruins them for life. What ruins them is the subsequent brainwashing by the "sex offender" industry that they've been damaged. '''The key test that this is nonsense folkways is that children have to be indoctrinated that pleasurable genital/anal touching is "bad touch" -- yet they instinctively and experientially know that touching a flame is bad touch, sticking a syringe in their arm is bad touch, being bit by a dog is bad touch, etc'''".'' | ||
Barring infanticide due to overpopulation or disability, no adaptive function has ever existed for parents to harm their own offspring, particularly in a way that preserves their life but leaves them debilitated. Since modern day abuse experts hold that genital touching is significantly and inherently injurious for youngsters, it would carry an innate pain burden for youngsters and be undesirable for closely related adults. Incest could be dismissed as an "aberration", if only it wasn't [[Research: Double-Taboo CSA|so common, innately harmless]] and relatable to normal variations in family environment. | Barring infanticide due to overpopulation or disability, no adaptive function has ever existed for parents to harm their own offspring, particularly in a way that preserves their life but leaves them debilitated. Since modern day abuse experts hold that genital touching is significantly and inherently injurious for youngsters, it would carry an innate pain burden for youngsters and be undesirable for closely related adults. Incest could be dismissed as an "aberration", if only it wasn't [[Research: Double-Taboo CSA|so common, innately harmless]] and relatable to normal variations in family environment (absence of one parent for example). | ||
One may decide to argue against this by bringing up the example of children not having any innate aversion to drugs or eating too much chocolate. The analogy is absurd, however, and fails because it ultimately supports the hedonic argument. This is because unlike sex, we are referring to highly refined or artificial substances that were not available in such great a quantity during most of human evolution. As an example, chocolate is not thought to do severe harm after just one exposure (unlike sexual "abuse"), since sugars would have been a valuable sources of energy in primitive societies where food was sparse. An opponent may argue that as with large doses of opiates, human ancestors were simply not exposed to "under-age" sex. However, this is an absurd argument, as a) We know that hard age restrictions did not exist in pre-industrial societies, and b) It would be counter-hedonic for said "harmful" abuse to suddenly increase in prevalence for no apparent necessitating reason. | One may decide to argue against this by bringing up the example of children not having any innate aversion to drugs or eating too much chocolate. The analogy is absurd, however, and fails because it ultimately supports the hedonic argument. This is because unlike sex, we are referring to highly refined or artificial substances that were not available in such great a quantity during most of human evolution. As an example, chocolate is not thought to do severe harm after just one exposure (unlike sexual "abuse"), since sugars would have been a valuable sources of energy in primitive societies where food was sparse. An opponent may argue that as with large doses of opiates, human ancestors were simply not exposed to "under-age" sex. However, this is an absurd argument, as a) We know that hard age restrictions did not exist in pre-industrial societies, and b) It would be counter-hedonic for said "harmful" abuse to suddenly increase in prevalence for no apparent necessitating reason. | ||
===Adaptive oppression/rape ( | ===Adaptive oppression/rape (anti-hedonics)=== | ||
It could even be claimed that Child Sexual Abuse is simply the "overspill" from what is an adaptive genetic trait in men - namely a sexual tendency to pursue ( | It could even be claimed that [[Child Sexual Abuse|CSA]] is simply the "overspill" from what is an adaptive genetic trait in men - namely a sexual tendency to pursue aggressively (or rape) the youngest, most fertile females. This argument still fails to explain why adult-child sex so often takes the form of parental "incest" - contact that in no way mimics an adaptive ''reproductive'' interest in non-familial adolescent girls. The prevalence of man-boy sexual customs (pederasty) may also cause some problems for this theory. We are again left with the familiar conundrum, i.e. why is the supposed "innate" response (even in prepubescent children) not similar to the evolved pain/aversion reaction to a flame, or physical assault? Why are similar trauma reactions never seen when children are physically coerced "for their own good"? We are therefore forced to question the CSA model's supposed symptoms of "confusion", "shame" and "self blame" (mid-term) and "(sexual) dysfunction" (long-term), as they lead to a nonsensical and unexplainable reduction in biological fitness. Again, such a reaction to erotic behavior is wholly dysfunctional, maladaptive and an unprecedented natural anomaly. | ||
==Pedophilia and erotics== | |||
When considered without a strict bias towards immediate reproduction, there are clear evolutionary pressures that favor attractions to '''pre-pubertal''' youngsters. | |||
The human evolution that governs us today, occurred before the present interconnected modern societies. Highly isolated tribal societies were the theater of man's evolution, so out-competed males would have had virtually no alternative options in terms of reproduction. The only way isolated males could promote the spread of their genes would be to enhance the fitness (and future reproductive success) of closely related members of the tribal society who were not in direct competition with them (i.e. anyone but men or women). Children would have been easy to befriend and represented a positive investment of pedagogical energy, with returns achieved by way of enhanced later life fitness in the young. Thus, tribes in which out-competed males could direct their love and attention towards young members survived because of the beneficial mentorship, protective and nourishing properties of these relationships. Youngsters achieved higher status, successfully promoting their genes, including those of their relatives. Vital to the parental nurturing response, the above types of emotional reaction are in fact accompanied by erotic behaviours in [[Research: Intergenerational Sexual Behaviors in Animals|humans' closest relatives]]. We should also pay attention to [[Research: Nonwestern Intergenerational Relationships|our own historical manifestations of pedophilia]] (including, for example the child nude in art). | |||
In modern, highly mobile societies, these interests are often directed towards completely unrelated children, and are accompanied by strict taboos, but these are postindustrial novelties with little external validity. The modern approach of mentally splitting "sexual" from "nonsexual" philia can be seen as a novel coping mechanism for moral norms. | |||
===Prediction as adaptive=== | |||
The above arguments however, do not fully explain why pedophilia so often has an erotic component. We may begin to explain this by casting light upon the importance of ''good erotic taste'' in the tribal pedophile male. By selecting/promoting the fitness and welfare of children who have budding sexually attractive physical characteristics, the tribal pedophile male again increases the chance that his genetic commonality with said youngster will survive through the generations. This may help us explain why pedophiles express interest in the most physically attractive children, and why this interest takes something of an erotic form. | |||
It is also simplistic to state that due to their reproductive inability, prepubes should be no more sexually attractive to "normal" adults than an inanimate object. "Pedophile" relationships may very soon develop into situations where reproduction is a possibility. This early induction may have been vital in early societies where 30, 40 or 50 was considered a death age. | |||
==Sexual contacts with pubertal juveniles== | |||
There are many possible reasons why erotic contacts with pubertal juveniles and adolescents could confer an advantage in the Darwinian model. These are generally accepted within the scientific community, following the controversy surrounding [[hebephilia]].<ref>[https://www.ipce.info/library/journal-article/rind-yuill-hebephilia Rind and Yuill - Hebephilia as Mental Disorder?]</ref> For post-menarchal girls, for example, the superior lifespan of children to young mothers<ref>[http://longevity-science.org/media/Daily-Mail-2006-Nov.pdf Daily Mail - First-born of young mums likely to live longer]</ref> makes them desirable partners. It is worth mentioning at this point, that although small girls (when malnourished) may sometimes be more vulnerable to complications during pregnancy, said complications remain limited and are a [[Research: Teen pregnancy|classic example of confounded outcomes]]. Similarly, negative outcomes for the new child (when observed) were found to be limited/socially confounded and are therefore most likely extrinsic.<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219236/ THE CHILDREN OF TEEN CHILDBEARERS - Hofferth]</ref> The benefits to the female of reproducing earlier and more frequently (or to the male of being the first partner for a reproductively fit female) would likely outweigh even significant downsides. | |||
==Polymorphous perversity== | |||
Considering the possible benefits to a primitive community of maybe 30 human ancestors, it makes sense that a small number of adults should have an interest in the emotional development and sexual education of the group's young. "Hands on" sexual education (note the lack of innate damage eluded to earlier) and intergenerational communication are likely to have been important parts of tribal life and survival (see [[Research: Nonwestern Intergenerational Relationships|our research list]] for some examples). If these attractions towards a range of physical types (aka '''polymorphous perversity''') are shared by most of the community, this may enhance the possibility of successful reproduction in communities where a wide spread of physical types may not be available. A diverse set of sexual attractions, not only in relation to age, is therefore favourable in the Darwinian model. | |||
==Developmental consideration== | |||
Throughout our childhood and adolescence, it is known that various opportunities for development present themselves, and are accompanied by urges for exploration (so called "sensation-seeking"), relevant to learning. It is natural to explore these urges, as they are biological traits geared towards the purpose of personal growth and experience. Since we know that even prepubertal youth show sexual initiative in both [[Testimony: CSA (Children's Sexual Advances)|anecdotal]] and [[Research: Youth sexuality|scientific]] literature, maybe we should reject the constant questioning of "the effects of sex on youth", and instead investigate [[Research: Sexual repression|"the effects of suppressing sex on youth"]]. This revised focus would bring with it a questioning of the harmful sex taboos underpinning said "healthy" impulse suppression. | |||
==See also== | |||
*[[Research:_Evolutionary_Perspectives_on_Intergenerational_Sexuality|Research: Evolutionary Perspectives on Intergenerational Sexuality]] | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Latest revision as of 11:13, 22 August 2023
The application of Darwin/Wallace type theories of evolution, has become popular in the pursuits of both genuine analysts and politically motivated ideologues. Here we attempt to argue that the theory casts doubt upon many of the child abuse movement's sacred "truths". The first pointer towards the evolutionary strength of attraction to youths is that a large proportion of the male population are in fact pedophiles, and even more are attracted to pubescents.
Hedonics
The popular idea of sexual experience as necessarily injurious to the young (and linked to adult psychopathy) is counter-hedonic. It is observed in humans and other animals, that beneficial activities (such as eating and sex) bring innate pleasure, especially at times of great drought. Harmful behaviours bring about innate pain. These feelings are not coincidental or God-given designs, but rather evolved in animals because they supported the reproduction of genes - the same genes that carry genetic codes for pleasure and pain structures in the nervous system.
As Jack McClellan puts it:
- "I definitely don't accept the view of the dominant culture that loving, noncoercive, consensual sexual touching with potty-trained prepubescent children is abusive and ruins them for life. What ruins them is the subsequent brainwashing by the "sex offender" industry that they've been damaged. The key test that this is nonsense folkways is that children have to be indoctrinated that pleasurable genital/anal touching is "bad touch" -- yet they instinctively and experientially know that touching a flame is bad touch, sticking a syringe in their arm is bad touch, being bit by a dog is bad touch, etc".
Barring infanticide due to overpopulation or disability, no adaptive function has ever existed for parents to harm their own offspring, particularly in a way that preserves their life but leaves them debilitated. Since modern day abuse experts hold that genital touching is significantly and inherently injurious for youngsters, it would carry an innate pain burden for youngsters and be undesirable for closely related adults. Incest could be dismissed as an "aberration", if only it wasn't so common, innately harmless and relatable to normal variations in family environment (absence of one parent for example).
One may decide to argue against this by bringing up the example of children not having any innate aversion to drugs or eating too much chocolate. The analogy is absurd, however, and fails because it ultimately supports the hedonic argument. This is because unlike sex, we are referring to highly refined or artificial substances that were not available in such great a quantity during most of human evolution. As an example, chocolate is not thought to do severe harm after just one exposure (unlike sexual "abuse"), since sugars would have been a valuable sources of energy in primitive societies where food was sparse. An opponent may argue that as with large doses of opiates, human ancestors were simply not exposed to "under-age" sex. However, this is an absurd argument, as a) We know that hard age restrictions did not exist in pre-industrial societies, and b) It would be counter-hedonic for said "harmful" abuse to suddenly increase in prevalence for no apparent necessitating reason.
Adaptive oppression/rape (anti-hedonics)
It could even be claimed that CSA is simply the "overspill" from what is an adaptive genetic trait in men - namely a sexual tendency to pursue aggressively (or rape) the youngest, most fertile females. This argument still fails to explain why adult-child sex so often takes the form of parental "incest" - contact that in no way mimics an adaptive reproductive interest in non-familial adolescent girls. The prevalence of man-boy sexual customs (pederasty) may also cause some problems for this theory. We are again left with the familiar conundrum, i.e. why is the supposed "innate" response (even in prepubescent children) not similar to the evolved pain/aversion reaction to a flame, or physical assault? Why are similar trauma reactions never seen when children are physically coerced "for their own good"? We are therefore forced to question the CSA model's supposed symptoms of "confusion", "shame" and "self blame" (mid-term) and "(sexual) dysfunction" (long-term), as they lead to a nonsensical and unexplainable reduction in biological fitness. Again, such a reaction to erotic behavior is wholly dysfunctional, maladaptive and an unprecedented natural anomaly.
Pedophilia and erotics
When considered without a strict bias towards immediate reproduction, there are clear evolutionary pressures that favor attractions to pre-pubertal youngsters.
The human evolution that governs us today, occurred before the present interconnected modern societies. Highly isolated tribal societies were the theater of man's evolution, so out-competed males would have had virtually no alternative options in terms of reproduction. The only way isolated males could promote the spread of their genes would be to enhance the fitness (and future reproductive success) of closely related members of the tribal society who were not in direct competition with them (i.e. anyone but men or women). Children would have been easy to befriend and represented a positive investment of pedagogical energy, with returns achieved by way of enhanced later life fitness in the young. Thus, tribes in which out-competed males could direct their love and attention towards young members survived because of the beneficial mentorship, protective and nourishing properties of these relationships. Youngsters achieved higher status, successfully promoting their genes, including those of their relatives. Vital to the parental nurturing response, the above types of emotional reaction are in fact accompanied by erotic behaviours in humans' closest relatives. We should also pay attention to our own historical manifestations of pedophilia (including, for example the child nude in art).
In modern, highly mobile societies, these interests are often directed towards completely unrelated children, and are accompanied by strict taboos, but these are postindustrial novelties with little external validity. The modern approach of mentally splitting "sexual" from "nonsexual" philia can be seen as a novel coping mechanism for moral norms.
Prediction as adaptive
The above arguments however, do not fully explain why pedophilia so often has an erotic component. We may begin to explain this by casting light upon the importance of good erotic taste in the tribal pedophile male. By selecting/promoting the fitness and welfare of children who have budding sexually attractive physical characteristics, the tribal pedophile male again increases the chance that his genetic commonality with said youngster will survive through the generations. This may help us explain why pedophiles express interest in the most physically attractive children, and why this interest takes something of an erotic form.
It is also simplistic to state that due to their reproductive inability, prepubes should be no more sexually attractive to "normal" adults than an inanimate object. "Pedophile" relationships may very soon develop into situations where reproduction is a possibility. This early induction may have been vital in early societies where 30, 40 or 50 was considered a death age.
Sexual contacts with pubertal juveniles
There are many possible reasons why erotic contacts with pubertal juveniles and adolescents could confer an advantage in the Darwinian model. These are generally accepted within the scientific community, following the controversy surrounding hebephilia.[1] For post-menarchal girls, for example, the superior lifespan of children to young mothers[2] makes them desirable partners. It is worth mentioning at this point, that although small girls (when malnourished) may sometimes be more vulnerable to complications during pregnancy, said complications remain limited and are a classic example of confounded outcomes. Similarly, negative outcomes for the new child (when observed) were found to be limited/socially confounded and are therefore most likely extrinsic.[3] The benefits to the female of reproducing earlier and more frequently (or to the male of being the first partner for a reproductively fit female) would likely outweigh even significant downsides.
Polymorphous perversity
Considering the possible benefits to a primitive community of maybe 30 human ancestors, it makes sense that a small number of adults should have an interest in the emotional development and sexual education of the group's young. "Hands on" sexual education (note the lack of innate damage eluded to earlier) and intergenerational communication are likely to have been important parts of tribal life and survival (see our research list for some examples). If these attractions towards a range of physical types (aka polymorphous perversity) are shared by most of the community, this may enhance the possibility of successful reproduction in communities where a wide spread of physical types may not be available. A diverse set of sexual attractions, not only in relation to age, is therefore favourable in the Darwinian model.
Developmental consideration
Throughout our childhood and adolescence, it is known that various opportunities for development present themselves, and are accompanied by urges for exploration (so called "sensation-seeking"), relevant to learning. It is natural to explore these urges, as they are biological traits geared towards the purpose of personal growth and experience. Since we know that even prepubertal youth show sexual initiative in both anecdotal and scientific literature, maybe we should reject the constant questioning of "the effects of sex on youth", and instead investigate "the effects of suppressing sex on youth". This revised focus would bring with it a questioning of the harmful sex taboos underpinning said "healthy" impulse suppression.