pedophilic behavior is "normal"

Ray Blanchard wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Archives of sexual behavior explaining why hebephilia is not an evolved behavior. I disagree with most of his statements and started pondering under which circumstances pedophilic behavior could have been beneficial. It is in this sense, i consider this behavior to be "normal". With pedophilic behavior i mean any long term relationship with someone younger than secondary sexual characteristics.

My guess is that the second brain size increase 800.000 years ago is related to an advance of tool making . It is not the toolmaking itself, but the transfer of that knowledge to the next generation that is interesting.

Rind&Yuill 2012 had the notion of mature-immature homosexual relationships, which combine apprenticeship and a temporary partnership. Vanggard in Phallos wrote about semen culture, where masculinity is transferred from the older to the younger partner. Since the evidence of such partnerships are spread over the world, it is a behavior which presumably is more than 50.000 years old.

Hence, if the tool makers in the early stone age did take an interest in eager, willing to learn boys, then it would have been an evolutionary advantage. I also reasoned that a longer apprenticeship would give the apprentice a higher standing and therefore a higher survival rate to his offspring. That means that this evolutionary pressure could have been at work until the introduction of public schools in recent history. The decline of the onset of puberty would support this hypothesis. Moreover, placing the pressure onto boys would also explain why boys mature later than girls.

I wrote a longer blog essay about that train of thoughts.

That sounds reasonable, but be sure to not confuse hebephilia and pedophilia.

Also, is it weird that I got a boner reading this?

Blurry_Sierra_Hotel wrote:... but be sure to not confuse hebephilia and pedophilia.

The boundary between hebephilia and pedophilia is arbitrarily placed at puberty. But boys at puberty are the ones who show the greatest willingness to learn. And we get attracted to them. No wonder many boylovers don't know whether they are pedo- or hebephiles.

Also, is it weird that I got a boner reading this?

Please report immediately to the next mental institution, some yet unknown paraphilia is to be discovered.

But it pleases me that you enjoyed reading my essay.

If you are going to go up against the idiot Blanchard, you will need an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence. This is a guy who never needs to wipe his ass - he only has to turn up in the sexology bit of any university in the world and they will lick it clean for him.

cumulusjames wrote:This is a guy who never needs to wipe his ass - he only has to turn up in the sexology bit of any university in the world and they will lick it clean for him.

Still, toilet paper would be less hassle when at home or out and about.

Blanchard has retired and there are some scientist out there who are critical on his moves to include hebephilia into DSM.

samuel77 wrote:Blanchard has retired and there are some scientist out there who are critical on his moves to include hebephilia into DSM.

This book might interest you - F***ology: Critical Essays On John Money's Diagnostic Concepts by Lisa Downing

Thanks, CJ, but it would end up at the end of a growing list. I read a book review and i'm not convinced it is worth reading. However, he wrote a chapter in Feierman 1990: Pedophilia, a biosocial dimension.
Money's concept of lovemaps are quite interesting. According to him, they should manifest themselves at the age of around 6. The current research (JM Cantor&Co) indicates a biological cause for paraphilias, which could mean a damage lovemap. This is an explanation which i believe to be true.

samuel77 wrote: he wrote a chapter in Feierman 1990: Pedophilia, a biosocial dimension.
Money's concept of lovemaps are quite interesting...The current research (JM Cantor&Co) indicates a biological cause for paraphilias, which could mean a damage lovemap.

From that chapter, I more enjoyed his coining of the term "pedophilic genius." By this he is not referring to some pedophile who happens to be a genius, but rather that his greatest accomplishments were inspired by his love of children. He gives the examples of Lewis Carroll and J.M. Barrie.

So maybe it's supernormal.

Apparently Ray Blanchard did a study comparing how many children hebephiles have compared with teleiophiles. He used his findings that hebephiles bore less biological offspring than teleiophiles to deduce that hebephilia wasn't biologically adaptive. I'm being serious. It must have totally slipped this man's mind that there might be (modern) legal and social issues with hebephiles courting and producing offspring with their prefered age group.

If you don't believe me, his statement can be found here: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hebephilia-no- ... ls-1457092