If you deny nature, you're left with explaining the existence of pedophiles in nations extremely hostile towards them. Despite the fact even heterosexual men are hardly accepted any more, male GLs continue to exist.

I am not "denying nature" as a whole. Rather, I am simply stating that naturalistic explanations of pedophilia are indefensible, as these are not only scientifically baseless, but also fly in the face of the available evidence.

Moreover, it's not necessary to conduct a detailed investigation on some specific psychosexual trait in order to rule out genetic causes. The fact that human perception is mediated by culturally-derived cognitive mediations is sufficient to rule out such causes. Moreover, the other lines of evidence I discussed above, including that sexuality is liable to change throughout the lifespan sans corresponding biological changes and that homosexuality's shifting prevalence over time cannot be due to biological evolution, further weakens the hereditarian position. Indeed, the available evidence strongly favors the alternative, sociocultural position.

At any rate, you seem to be switching the burden of proof onto me here. If you believe that pedophilia has some particular, consistent genetic basis, then the burden is on you to produce evidence demonstrating this. It is not your opponent's burden to disprove your null hypothesis, which is the claim that genes do not cause or influence the development of pedophilia. Doing so is not even possible in principle.


However, without conducting the detailed, empirical research necessary to definitively answer the question of why pedophilia is both highly prevalent and stigmatized, it's not hard to speculate about plausible reasons. First thing to consider is that social deviance is universally observed across all societies. All human groups contain some degree of deviance. Given that deviance is culturally relative and that deviant behaviors are specific to a particular place and time, the idea that they are somehow coded for by genes is untenable. Sociohistorical variability is mutually exclusive with biological determinism. It can't be the case that some trait is particular to a certain culture and time period, yet also genetically determined. There is simply no grounds for suspecting that certain behaviors are genetically caused just because they are deviant.

Second, as for pedophilia's high prevalence, this is undeniably rooted in Western culture's admiration of youth, a value that has deep historical origins and which is firmly entrenched in the Western psyche. The fact that virtually everyone experienced sexual attraction for their peers during childhood also largely explains its prevalence. Adult pedophilia has as its precursor childhood social experience, which impugns against a genetic explanation. In a similar vein, pedophilia possibly has to do with the sexual repression we all face during childhood. Perhaps pedophilia is a way to gain back or compensate for what was robbed from us when we were kids.

Finally, when it comes to the stigma against pedophilia, this can be traced to concrete historico-political factors. Keep in mind that modern statutory rape laws are rooted in a 13th century decree by the King of England made at the behest of some bishop. During that time, the law only prohibited men from having premarital sex with white girls under 10. The familiar, contemporary rage levied against all people who engage sexually with individuals under age 18, regardless of sex or race, did not exist back then. Over the centuries, this law has undergone a variety of iterations, with the age of consent being gradually increased, until arriving at what we have today. Each of these iterations had its own, unique rationalizations and underlying political interests. (For a more detailed treatment of the historical genesis of statutory rape laws, look into SUNY politics, economics, and law professor Carolyn Cocca's Jailbait: The Politics of Statutory Rape Laws in the United States.)

As you can see, both pedophilia per se and popular attitudes regarding it can be entirely explained by sociocultural and political-economic factors. It is not necessary to resort to dubious naturalistic explanations in order to make sense of these issues.

If sexual orientation changes, could you demonstrate how to change N PC homosexual men into N exclusive GL men in a reasonable time in the lab?

I'm not sure what you mean by "N PC" or "N exclusive," but consider that laboratory psychological experiments suffer from certain limitations, namely that of dubious ecological validity, defined by Moravian College psychology professor Dana S. Dunn in The Practical Researcher: A Student Guide to Conducting Psychological Research (3rd Edition) as "the quality whereby an experiment persuasively recreates a real world setting so that obtained results can be generalized from the lab to everyday settings" (p. 390). Basically, since lab settings do not reasonably resemble real-world situations, such experiments may tell us little about ordinary, organic human behavior. Conversely, one cannot expect to reliably effect genuine, significant, enduring psychological changes in lab participants. Indeed, profound psychological transformation requires corresponding sociocultural change, which simply cannot be controlled or contained within the lab.

The existence of lower AoCs and more tolerance for man/girl relationships in the past shows otherwise. (Also note the feminist or "progressive" opposition to such a state)

I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying that, since man/girl relationships were tolerated more in the past, this means that the "denial of nature," as opposed to proscriptions against these relationships, has primacy with regard to popular attitudes against pedophiles? If so, you would need to elaborate here, as I fail to see how this follows.

Regarding feminism, it has always been sex-negative (i.e., conservative) feminists who promoted statutory rape laws. Unfortunately, the general public is ignorant about the fact that feminism, as a political philosophy, exists on a spectrum spanning across the progressive-conservative axis. When people hear "feminism," they automatically associate it with its progressive variants. Hence, contemporary feminist culture's status as a largely fauxgressive entity; people misguidedly lend their support to it thinking they are supporting a progressive cause, when instead it fulfills a conservative function. It's too bad that fauxgressive feminism exerts enormous political influence today. As pedos, it's one of the biggest obstacles to our emancipation.