broken bones and pedophilia

I'm on a quest to understand pedophilia. I got aware of attempts of evolutionary explanations and in the following i came across the term neoteny, which among others describes the human as a juvenile ape. Moreover it means that our brains mature at a very slow speed and we are born with immature brains.

Recently, i broke a bone and wondered why i don't have bones twice the size. First of all, i would need more muscles and therefore more nutrition. This means that everybody with thinner bones has an advantage. And they have an advantage until the bones break infrequently. Then this advantage gets neutralized by the disadvantage of breaking bones. This is how evolution works. Some get thicker bones, others get thinner ones.

Some animals are born with a mature brain, that means a fully myelinated brain. They have well developed instincts right from birth. Humans have the advantage of flexibility and free decision making. Hence less influence from instincts is an advantage. This works until a disadvantage ruins this advantage. I think that losing the heterosexual mating instinct is such a disadvantage.

So, evolution gives some human stronger instincts and others weaker instincts. And the unlucky one, who do not experience the heterosexual mating instincts, will develop a paraphilia and most likely stay childless. This is under the assumption that normal heterosexual people experience such an instinct.

Is this too crazy?

No, I think this is a very original and interesting point.

Though it does beg the question of, if a human doesn't have the instinct of heterosexual teleiophilia then what make them specifically pedophiles?

And even if they lose the sexual urge for adults, why have they continued to be attracted to the opposite sex or at least have a sexuality defined by biological sex? And how does this theory explain Inclusive pedophiles?

But this was a post that was nice to see. It's unusual we get a post on pedophilia that truly raises new questions. Thanks.

Maligan12 wrote:Though it does beg the question of, if a human doesn't have the instinct of heterosexual teleiophilia then what make them specifically pedophiles?

This is my point. There is a biological reason for not being a heterosexual (missing instinct), but what paraphilia one gets, depends on circumstances.

Hazan and Shaver in 1987 showed that the adult attachment to the spouse is similar one had to its caregiver (mother), hence they belief that the romantic attraction is based on attachment and therefore a phylogenetic modern thing. So the term sexual orientation is a somewhat intricate construction.

Seeking an attachment to kids is common for those who find adult company not satisfying. Moreover so, if the emotional development is delayed or halted. Google has a lot of hits on "arrested psychological development".

I'm more curious about how non-exclusive pedophiles like myself would fit into this idea. I can enjoy both an attraction to children AND adults alike. Primarily, I prefer children, but I have had long-term relationships with women while enjoying a healthy sex life (maybe too healthy...)

How would I be defined in such a theory?

Yes, the broken-bone analogy or "faulty neoteny" hypothesis as i want to call it, only explains why some develop a paraphilia instead of a "healthy" heterosexual orientation. Hence, all inclusive-XX are not covered.

However, i came to understand that sexual orientation is based on attraction, and arousal happens on clues of those we have an attraction too. Hence, i see arousal more as an effect. Moreover, the one-dimensional (hetero-bi-homo) or 2-dimensional (hetero-bi-homo x intensity) picture of sexual orientation seems to be too simple. I believe it's more like a profile, one is attracted more or less to each of the gender/age/nationality/trait groups.

Different kids can attract me in different ways. I like cute blond/blue-eyed boys, but i also like intelligent creative ones. Jay R. Feierman (ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, gave some explanations, why we could be attracted to children. I guess there is a variety of different reasons, each leading to a group of attractive children.

From some evidence it seems that one is more likely to be a homosexual (as a male) if one has one or more older siblings. I believe this has been related to biological affects, whether by previous siblings or another mechanism, but that might be seen as having a competitive advantage over one's siblings. We know how competitive it can be - young birds who evict other siblings from the nest, for example.

I have a rather tenuous theory that homosexual acts towards others - who are not obviously homosexuals - might fall into the same category, that is, that they are 'hobbling' their future reproductive success, but I suspect that this might not be correct, since pure lust might explain such actions, regardless of the sexuality of others.

Of course I missed a bit. Being the youngest of siblings has also been linked to having paedophilia - or at least to those in the sex-offender population. But this might have something to do with less opportunities for any nurturing of younger siblings.

If a sexual relationship is usually an attempt to recreate a parental relationship, maybe pedophilia is caused when people don't have the orthodox parental relationship so they, instead, use sexual relationships to recreate the hypothetical relationship they could have with a child.

Yes and no. It is baffling. But i have an idea of a hypothesis.

Newer research points to some innate reasons. The researchers assume it is at least prenatal, like an exposure to wrong levels of testosterone. If that were the only side to it, then the childhood experiences, like which attachment one had, shouldn't play a role. Unless...

I've read that most homosexuals had more older brothers, pedophiles are often reported as being very kind and easy to deal with. This points in the direction of nurture as a cause.

What if those prenatal events made pedophiles nice person, more childish and agreeable than most others? Others who have a non-orthodox childhood rebel, run away or fight. My guess is that those turn out to be heterosexual. But those that submit and try to deal with the family situation in a non-aggressive way might turn pedophile. Being attracted to other children instead of women is a way to avoid a conflict with the mother who can't let go.

F. Gieles wrote in a critique to a JC paper that there must be a temporal link between the prenatal events and the manifestation of pedophilia during childhood. A change in personality could be such a link.

The analogy to broken bones is wrong. If bones experience too much pressure, they grow thicker. There is no evolution thing with some get thicker and other get thinner bones. I just learned that yesterday.

But still, evolution has lead humans to have a lesser than usual (in the animal kingdom) amount of instincts - which we might call gut feelings. And those might be just a bit too weak for us to pursue the opposite sex.