Debate Guide: Evolutionary logic

The application of Darwin's Theory of Evolution has become popular in both the pursuits of genuine analysts and politically motivated ideologues. Here we attempt a genuine argument that its logic casts doubt upon many of the sacred "truths" of the child abuse movement.

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".

Hedonics

The idea that sexual experiences (or the adults who participate in them) should hurt the young can be neatly contested with the concept of hedonics. As makes evolutionary sense, it is often observed in humans and other animals, that activities which bring benefits (such as eating and sex), bring pleasure - especially at times of great need. The same principle works for pains that follow harmful behaviors. Assuming this, why would parents sexually enjoy harming their own offspring, in whom they have a genetic investment? Shouldn't such behavior be not only undesirable, but painful to the adult, as well as the child? It could be said that this incest is an "aberration", but then why is it so often brought on by "normal" variations in family environment, such as the absence of a parent when before there had been no sexual intimacy?

In addition, why should children go on feel psychological pain as a result of something that was carried out in an initially painless, voluntary fashion (it is often suggested that a child only recognizes the magnitude of the event/s years afterwards)? Why would this fear of sex be kicking in just as the young person is acquiring the ability to reproduce, thus greatly harming their "biological fitness"? Is there anything in the long story of man's arrival that would suggest such a maladaptive mechanism? As far as Darwin's theory goes, this is extremely bad logic.

To turn the argument around, there are evolutionary reasons for intergenerational intimacy, e.g. the lifespan of children to young mothers[1][2], sexual induction and bonding before the age of fertility (which considering the shorter lifespan of our ancestors, may also have had to be the age of reproduction or at least advanced courtship). That possibly 15% of the male population are pedophiles, is a good indication of the trait's strengths in the evolutionary history of man (note that 'pedophile' does not equate to 'non reproductive', as with homosexuality). If one thinks of the benefits to a primitive community of maybe 30 human ancestors, it makes sense that around three or four of the adults should have an interest in the emotional development and sexual education of the group's young. It also makes sense that these interests are shared, albeit less preferentially, by most of the community, and that for the individual, a lust for a range of ages, genders, looks, etc (polymorphous perversity) is beneficial for their reproductive and social interests. Sexual education, intergenerational love and communication are just some tribal functions that need to be fulfilled, and thus, a sexually diverse population of pansexuals is favorable.

Developmental consideration

Throughout our childhood and adolescence, various windows for development open and are accompanied by urges and explorations that are relevant to learning in the areas concerned. It is natural to explore these urges, as they are biological traits geared towards the purpose of personal growth and experience. Maybe in light of this and children's untamed sexual curiosity, we should reject today's prevalent questioning of 'the effects of sex on youth', instead choosing to investigate 'the effects of no sex on youth'. This revised focus has far more relevance to the physical and mental health of human beings before social conditioning and in pre-western cultures. "Thinking outside of the box" applies.