Analyzing pedophilia in the manner of anal sex can prove almost as, or perhaps more than, enlightening, in the sense of human sexuality being instructive about humans.
Preponderance of Pedophiles
Approaching the issue of pedophilia first through the lens of Terra's currently popular random mutation religion provides a number of potential insights. This is because evolution is, in large part, actually about concepts related to survival--in the sense of most organisms not evolving with a mortal aversion to air--even if the mutations which cause Terran organisms to fit into the Terran system are not randomly generated. We feel an instinctive understanding of the rightness of "survival of the fittest," which is part of how the "random mutation" lie gained such social traction: by being paired with survival of the fittest, the "random mutation" component of the faith made this nasty little random remora subtly popular, whereas evolutionary theories which had components of survival of the fittest, but not random mutations, didn't receive the necessary press or university backing in the 19th & post-19th-century west to survive. (Irony.)
Compare the way the "random" portion of the faith piggybacked on the reasonable, intuitive, obvious "you have to be fit for survival in order to survive" to the way that Christianity piggybacked on all spirituality, creating a false dichotomy between "material only" and "maybe something spiritual" in which almost all social force claimed that any meaning to existence beyond the drudgery of the material belonged solely to Christianity, causing many otherwise good, sensible people to wrongly conclude, "Well, I sort of feel there's more meaning than this, so I guess I should believe in Jesus." Anyone who disagreed outside of the private sphere was murdered, and even now, when after centuries of murder the mortal punishment for that type of heresy is no longer necessary, ordinary people who realize that bouncing molecules isn't the sum of everything conclude that they should find their way to the church of the risen rabbi. The edifices of government and academy worked similarly with Bangism, using something really instinctively obvious, like "you have to be capable of surviving to survive," as a trick to sell their "random mutation" lie, talking so much about the two together that almost everyone just assumed the "random" thing was as obvious and provable as the "fittest" part. It's a common marketing trick, like suggesting that if you don't buy Super Cola you are also a homo, or wear your pants pulled up to your chest, or don't like Local Team, et cetera. You might not enjoy Super Cola but still be heterosexual or wear your pants normally or like the local sporting team, but enough media can convince most people that there is a relationship between things they already like or feel and things that someone is wanting to be sold. Like, buying a Chrysler is like eating Grandma's apple pie on the fourth of July. Home-baked desserts and feeling good about your community are inseparable from this one particular car company. You get it, right?
Pass the collection plate. Similarly, there are lots of ways to find deeper, perhaps indecipherable, meaning in existence, without concluding that some rabbi must be an all powerful god, but enough commercials and murder can create a culture like nineteenth century Europe or America, where any sense of the transcendent got smushed into rabbi-worship. Run a bunch of commercials about the new teen health center, and mothers who wouldn't've otherwise thought of that idea after an argument with their brat kid will go to the teen health center and get really excited about whatever drivel, and/or pharmaceutical, the center is pushing. And, sadly, they're probably not smart enough to realize why they really found their way to that answer. So too with religion, where people often don't understand how they ended up believing something was true, or how the things they really feel inside don't necessarily need to connect with whatever corporate logo they've been taught to associate with those feelings.
The concept of survival of the fittest has, similarly, conflicted with so many religions. Putting aside any pre-Christian moralities, use some version of Christian morality, which more people have an idea of now than any non-Christian moralities whose adherents were murdered when Europe was taken: posit generation after generation of people watching as actual piety, empathy, surrender, et cetera, produced a lack of, rather than a mild or abundant quantity of, success. Someone who smiles tenderly at the mugger loses his stuff and maybe gets his ass whipped, while someone who pulls out his Glock and shoots the mugger keeps his stuff and doesn't get beaten up. Similarly, the dude who backstabs his co-workers and shamelessly sucks up to the boss gets the big promotion and retires to a mansion, whereas the co-worker who got lied about is passed over, fired, and ends up working retail into his seventies. The material world doesn't reward good behavior, and the endless Christian promises of "rewards later!" have been a great part of that belief system's draw, but were consistently unsatisfying, and personally unverifiable, which made it so easy to transition western society from Christianity to Bang, where at least your sense that the world is against your conception of decency can comport with the random version of Nameless God.
(The much healthier pre-Christian paganisms of Europe had notions that you should try your hardest and follow the examples of fictional god-characters to do and be your best, but often, perhaps always [we don't know thanks to the swords and fires of the heresy-hunters], included a female representation of material reality similar to the Greek "Fate," where the tendency of the world to screw you over due to its own plans unfathomable to you was acknowledged, and considering humans and the way they select and desire mating, it's really appropriate to personify that role as female, but that's a separate subject.)
Survival of the fittest, then. Like anal sex, the desire to screw--or touch or diddle or play with or whatever--infertile young, whether of one's own species or of colts, is an evolutionary loss, though even moreso considering that anal sex might lead to accidental vaginal penetration, whereas the immature womb simply cannot be part of the conception of offspring. Yet despite this, a lot of people throughout recorded history have apparently suffered this anti-evolutionary affliction of wanting to in some way behave sexually with the sexually immature. It is, like anal sex, an evolutionary mystery, where a trait that should've been utterly rejected, disqualifying one for a designation even remotely like "fittest," yet endures. Not only Christian authority figures with immature males, but many other adult humanoids who were apparently members of the "fittest" after x hundred thousand years of supposedly brutally competitive evolution, exhibit this trait.
How many, and to what extent, is impossible to tell. Western countries are often arresting some lone weirdo for child porn, though we don't have statistics--even dishonest ones--on how many people the police forces of the world's various countries suspect, or investigate, or actually catch, having looked at, owned, or transmitted child porn annually in the world. Nonetheless, we can extrapolate that the numbers are quite a bit higher than we tend to assume.
Firstly, sex tourism: lots of dinky little Asian countries have acknowledged sex tourism industries for child prostitutes, and if we extrapolate from the percentage of people in the U.S. who can afford to drop five grand on international travel to the exclusion of something otherwise popular to their demographic, and who are willing and able to take the moral and legal risks, against the total population, that suggests a very high number of people who would screw the eight-year-old slave if all other factors were removed. For example, if you're part of the small class of people who can afford to spend five grand on a yearly trip, you form a population that is a distinct minority, and if XX% of that population spends the money going to Thailand to bang eight-year-olds, as opposed to staying nervously at home or just going to Cambodia and fantasizing about it but never actually visiting the broker recommended by that pamphlet from the dude outside the sex shop, or visiting the Grand Canyon instead, you represent a portion of the full population of western Europe and the U.S. which never appears nor can appear in any kiddie-sex-related figures. The people who go, being a tiny percentage of that percentage, can help us speculate about what percentage of people not only would go if it were socially acceptable, but what percentage of the total population would be, privately, interested in just the sex aspect--even if they would never go, nor admit to wanting to go, and would die rather than say, or didn't even know it about themselves. And that's dicey territory, because people don't want to admit they've seriously thought about the issue, or tried to titillate themselves even if they failed, so it's difficult to tell. Nonetheless, extrapolating from that tiny percentage of people with the social and financial freedom in life to take that trip to Laos for an eight-year-old or three, the number of those who do suggests quite a high proportion of those who would had they the cash and the time and the freedom and the self awareness. That is perhaps scary and unpleasant to think about, and the willingness of some governments to ignore the trend and not prosecute, so they don't lose all those hotel and restaurant dollars, even though people know full well there are dirty bastards selling kiddies to 50-year-old perverts who fly there every year as their lagging libido can find no other prop than the presumed ultimate, speaks volumes about their understanding of what an important industry it is for places people would otherwise not visit nearly as much.
Celebrity reference here is Rush Limbaugh. Remember when he was always doing the southeast Asia coast thing, and finally got arrested a little closer to home for traveling with too much Viagra? Consider, this is a man with many, many millions of dollars, who often hangs out in Manhattan, where some really high class hookers operate free of police oversight, and he could afford anything he would've wanted. Non-disfiguring sadism, anal where they do a pro clean with enemas beforehand, ten really beautiful chicks at once, sharing up with friends, watching four chicks go crazy with one another and then slaver really believably over him...but no, he keeps having to travel the world with his Viagra, for the obvious reason that there is one service you can't reliably buy safely yet in the U.S., namely kids. There are nominally straight Hollywood actors who buy legions of same sex potentials just to visually interview without fear, but the U.S. is not a safe child-sex trade place, and single wealthy older businessmen who globetrot in southeast Asia are not there because they really want to see this tiny Buddhist temple for the sixth time. Sometimes it's ladyboys, sometimes it's watching the K9 crew, and oftentimes, it's the things you can't get on Craigslist.
Fully accurately, preponderance-wise, there's no way to tell what percentage of humans would be attracted by underage sexual things. Part of this is some version of morality, where judging by the world, 90-some percent of people just never would, because they don't, but like homosexuality through the ages, some noticeable percent will despite the most punishing social aversion possible. Not just not being able to live near a park in America, but multiple homicide, multiple rape criminals forming gangs to shiv your anus in prison for moral reasons everyone else respects, provides a strong extra motivation to not do so, if you even needed one. Evolutionarily, though, we're concerned not just with who would despite potential social pushback, but just who has in them this extremely evolution-adverse trait. That anyone does is yet another proof that our evolution religion is wrong; every child abuse case since western legal records existed shows that this is not an organism that evolved randomly on this planet to out-compete other organisms via successful mutation of pro-reproduction traits. As with anal sex, we must remember that any form of sexual activity with kids is a complete evolutionary failure, a waste of time and resources, and while you're diddling some kid your evolutionary competitors are storing supplies or producing offspring and so forth. The idea that someone could compete, let alone survive, carrying that trait, particularly when human society has since written inception exhibited a violent mortal response to such behavior (yes, with a few exceptions, but primarily with a violent response approved), is absurd: one such pervert in the world per year, okay, maybe it's random, but a lot of them per year across many different societies is a proof that our random mutation struggle for survival is a poor choice in religions.
What if every male in the world were hooked up to bloodflow and brain monitors and shown a video of a fourteen-year-old hottie waving her naked butt and cooch at the camera while saying naughty things? Easy: nearly a 100% arousal rate, since she's probably gone through puberty already and age of consent laws are weird and unnatural. Drop the age of the actress to eight, though, and to four, and our percentages of arousal drop rapidly. But how rapidly? What percentage of single heterosexual 50-year-olds with lots of disposable income and free time and inclination have visited Thailand, and if every male in the western world were granted that income and free time, what percentage would take the trip? What if you could order it up to your hotel room with a 100% guarantee from God Himself that no one would ever find out? What if God's guarantee also included that it wasn't a real kid and would just pleasure you but not then exist forevermore?
The internet, as always, proves instructive here. Not only does "acting young" play in porno, or wearing pigtails and holding dollies while Tyrone bursts in, suggest widespread hebephilia (made-up name for "normal" given puberty), but digital alterations, illustration, erotic literature, and the like suggest a massive interest in the field. Sorry, topic. Topic. The thousands upon thousands of people facelessly trading actual kiddy pictures online, from "my kids at the public pool in their bathing suits," to the actual stuff, even in the presence of a massive monitoring system by exorbitantly perverted cop-like cowards who never have to actually go break up fights at the convenience store, suggests the number is really high, even though our governments aren't, and possibly can't actually be, honest with mere citizens about the subject. Indeed, the U.S. government's massive child porn stash, which they acknowledged only after so many years of catfishing so many people that it became impossible to hide anymore, suggests there are a lot of gullible fools who are still willing to offer some undercover web-pervert $50 to get the other ten pictures of Veronica and nameless dude.
The likelihood of people willing to be interested in mere child porn, and interested in it at huge personal risk, suggests that the number of people just interested in the topic--the number of actual pedophiles, including those who just never let themselves think it due to societal norms--is massive. Like, if driving dirt bikes or trading dirt-bike pictures carried with it a stiff jail sentence, but there were still thousands and thousands of people in just a few countries willing to keep risking their lives to trade pictures of dirt bikes or even ride dirt bikes themselves while trusting that the new guy wasn't a cop, obviously they're drawing from a population of people more risk-averse: a much, much larger population, which would never fill out a survey indicating that they liked dirt bikes. You can put a Target store in a certain area, and from the number of transactions per day, get a pretty accurate picture of who the nearby inhabitants are and what they number; so too with the shadow populations of private kid-fantasizers that the arrested ones show us. Much of the social passion against child porn or child abuse certainly draws from honest origins, but a large component, perhaps a silent majority component, draws from a sort of projective punishment and doth protesting too much. And if we developed mind-reading machines, we wouldn't want to know the answer.
Elimination of Competitors
Per Terra's current evolutionary faithfad, how could this be? An easy answer for how pedophilia could be evolutionarily successful is found in groups, not individuals: elimination of competitors. If you molest or rape or sexually spoil a girl from another tribe, perhaps you help your own girls indirectly. Say, e.g., there are 1,000 girls in your tribe, and you move among the other tribe, molesting three girls before they catch you and kill you. Their numbers of fertile reproducing females drop to 997, your tribe's remain at 1,000, and even though one male reproducer has been lost to your tribe, your tribe has a net gain. Therefore, evolution could have provided for some small percentage of child-abusers for each population, to increase the numerical dominance of that tribe's next generation.
This explanation fails, though, because molested girls tend to be more sexual, more sexual early, and have more children than average.. For every broken soul, there are four or five "sluts" who go on to have 0.3 more children than average (or much, much more than that before the availability of elective birth control drugs), or whatever, and then it seems like child-diddlers are helping their own tribe's evolution directly, by advancing the sexuality of their girls. Why, though, the recurrent human desire to execute child-diddlers? Evolution runs up against itself, there. Is it good, is it bad, or what? The modern clerisy will say always bad, but the "reproduce" branch of the church, if they still have any social power--very little, because of the "race" thing--would be forced to conclude that child-diddling was actually an evolutionary good. That's obviously a very unpleasant conclusion to reach, and viewing it that way can help you form a new perspective on Terra's popular evolution religion, if you're still a believer: if a pervert, some pedophile, molests eleven girls before he's finally jailed and killed by some random dudes in prison, but each of those girls then has 0.3 kids more than average, that pedophile was good for the species. So you have to go with that, or you have to conclude that the "evolution by the natural selection of random mutations" faith is, if not just a lie, a terrible thing.
Another problem this theory runs into is the rabbinical one, e.g., the molestation of males. Whereas the molestation of female children tends to accelerate their physical maturity, causing pubic hair and breasts to grow faster, hips to widen in readiness for reproduction, earlier periods, et cetera, molestation of the male human causes his puberty to be stalled. Boys who are molested--as was common in ancient Greece, demonstrating that it isn't wholly a Christian trend--have their voices stay in higher registers for longer, and puberty sometimes forestalled until they're 19 or 20, rather than in ages more thought of in modern times. Molested boys grow facial hair later, have genital changes later, grow more bodily hair later, and other things, almost as though heavy molestation feminizes them, encouraging their bodies to keep higher voices and smoother skin for longer. Ergo it is a brutal evolutionary stroke.
Again, it is perhaps conceivable only as an offensive weapon: if your tribe of 1,000 creates one pervert, and he molests 10 boys in the enemy tribe, they lose six or seven years per kid of viable, reproducing adult males. So your pervert helps your tribe out-compete them over those years, getting more offspring into the field while they can't.
All these "group benefit" theories, though, run afoul of individualized, American-capitalism-fantasy evolution faith, though, because the molester is then executed or just childless or child-reduced, having spent his life diddling kids instead of making them, therefore his germ line is really disfavored and how has he still survived until today? The currently popular "Bang" religion on Terra draws heavily from Judaism and the Book of Genesis, of course, but also from the early industrial fantasies of "struggle for survival" seen in the late 1800s, and the desire of the rich men of the day to imagine themselves some kind of evolutionary pinnacle for their imaginarily solo route to what they felt was success. This religion needs to change as time goes on, not only because of the growing faith in human differentiation ("races") not existing, but because of the necessary corollary to that belief, "group work," where people will have to stop believing in a religion based around the individual. Ergo we'll have to see a reformation of the faith in which some form of "group achievement" becomes more prominent. Current dogma holds that individual creatures mutate successfully, then produce favored lines which come to predominate, and that does not comport with a "helps the group" theory of the benefits of having some perve molest the enemy's children.
Another theory for why pedophilia could have evolved is the "early access" theory. Like the theory that anal sex now increases the likelihood of vaginal sex later, it is plausible at first blush but stupid in the medium to long run. The idea is, if some dude screws some chick when she's eleven, he's first in line when she hits puberty, therefore first offspring is his. Under this rubric, pedophilia provides an evolutionary advantage because it preferences access to the fertile by establishing it ahead of time, all but guaranteeing that the dude who starts them off young keeps them until they're viable.
Like the "anal sex leads to vaginal sex" theory, though, this is idiotic. Having sex with the age-barren female, even if it leads to sex with her later when she's fertile, is a loss 100% of the time. Who is more successful: the dude who spends two years copulating with the immature, then has an offspring with her when she's fertile, or the dude who spends two years screwing various fertile chicks, then also copulates with the newly fertile partner? Obviously the latter. There is no justification for screwing, or for light's sake wanting to touch, the infertile, younger partner.
A compelling theory for pedophilia is that of confused desire. Specifically, the notion goes that seeing reproductive organs, or reproductive organs paired with limbs, or limbs and torso, et cetera, confuses the human into desire. We can certainly see this with pornographic art, or indeed, erotica of any kind, where you can draw a really hot naked chick in a sketchbook, then hand someone the sketchbook and have them turn it over and wave it in the air and look behind all the pages, then look at the drawing of the hot naked chick, and become aroused according to bloodflow sensors or brain monitors or just their own admission, ergo people have this massive problem of getting aroused by things that are not actually viable sexual partners. Indeed, if you have the choice of banging some fat chick or looking through photos of some hot celebrity in the nude, a lot of people might choose the latter: a seeming evolutionary impossibility.
And yet, it exists. Taking really great photos, or creating the illusion of depth or texture through masterful illustration, are all well and good, yet if the person knows they're looking at a piece of paper, or a .jpg, yet prefers the hotter image to the more realistic mating one, there's this supposed evolutionary full stop, where it not only shouldn't be possible, it shouldn't have created an art industry that out-earns the "first date" one now. Even when people know it's fake--for people risking ten to fifteen trading pictures of kids at the beach as much as for people just trying to add to their hentai collection legally--they have this inexplicable draw toward elements of (sexual?) fantasy utterly divorced from sex. If someone doesn't ask a girl out because he's planning to use that brazzers special offer tonight and jack off to the movie about two chicks double-teaming that one lucky dude, that's at least explicable, but not so much if it's him not asking out that skinny girl with the funny elbows from the science library because Vixine updates tonight.
The idea of "confused desires" leading to passion for children is similar in type: perps are often drawn to their victims because they're children, known as illegal or just socially disapproved, with zero interest in reproduction, and perhaps some of the sickening spice being related to the immature impossibility of it. If it were confused jungle-people who didn't realize that banging kids didn't produce offspring, okay maybe that's just an evolution of idiots, but humans can pretty well tell the signs of puberty, and are naturally drawn to them, and repulsed by their absence...yet, pedos keep getting arrested, and they're not all drop-guns. So how can this be possible that they still exist?
In discussing the prevalence of pedophilia in the 21st century, one has to take official, protected pedophiles into account. Not religious organizations, this time, but governmental ones, where the British and the U.S. and other governments spend dozens of millions of dollars amassing loathsome collections of actual child porn, which they store in perpetuity for the loathsome use of loathsome agents who pretend they're enforcing the law by spending long hours alone with their child porn, hiring young girls to catfish people online, and arresting people for showing up at airports to pick up some 14 year old who claims she was abused and needs someone's help because there's no one she can trust and her parents are corrupt and the local cops are corrupt and please help me mister. I.e., they create narratives where a completely moral person could plausibly believe there isn't even a governmental route to freedom in that kid's locality, and gets arrested for theoretically going to meet a minor, and we can only trust their perverted "jacks off to kiddie pics all day" experts to tell us that the dude arrested at an airport for a hypothetical crime really was intending to screw the under-18 person who never existed. There's one of those "trust in government" fantasy lands out there, where all western wars are just and the agents aren't jacking off to the porn on the public dime while occasionally tricking some dude into accepting an e-mail so they can prosecute him and justify their salaries, but more realistically, western governments have invested massively in pleasuring their captive perverts, abusing children more than any other force on the planet except the Roman church, and all that--like, seriously, monitoring "suspected" cases of kidnapped foreign kids and then not moving in until the 16 perverts they were watching have all consummated the rape giving plausibility to some super prosecution where they look like heroes to the kinds of people inclined to trust them after how disgusting they've been.
The size, and power, of these government networks of pedophiles should not be overlooked. They're often involved in some major "operation" (google operation "Avalanche" or "Flicker" or "Broken Heart," but there are so many, and it's uncannily weird how the British police seem to try to match the American in this realm). And at your own peril trust what they officially tell the media about their why or their how. Funny, when the American drug controllers "seize" some disfavored faction's drugs, you can weigh the total to verify how good they've supposedly been, but when it's kiddie victims they can do that "To protect everyone you can only trust me about what happened because privacy" thing; pedophiles are good liars because it actually works, like no one knows how this works. And largely, no one does since it's too scary to contemplate that they're in charge. It's shameful to be involved in these things even were they not run by pedophiles, since actual cops have to hurry into a dark house where there might be an armed burglar, and indeed, the stockpile of child porn, which includes pictures of actual victims who are still out there living and didn't give consent for the government to keep naked pictures of them to show to people to maybe make an arrest, is disgusting and disgustingly indicative of the twisted characters and perverted priorities of those governments. People acted shocked when they found out western coalition troops were having sex-play with grown Arab men in their Iraqi torture-dungeons, but the things western police agencies are doing with children and child porn pictures are far worse. Funny also that people had a minor stir about that sicko pizza place in the District of Columbia, but as yet, the federal agencies of child porn in America have received so little pushback. Yes, the pizza place denied it, but sheesh, it's not even about clues and denial in the case of other government arms; they proudly tell the newspapers what they're doing, and yet no one gives a crap. The pizza place should've just admitted it was trading kids, but claimed it was doing it to catch perverts for arrest and trial. Simply saying there was no CP connection was, amazingly, the wrong route to choose.
Confused desires, because of porn, is certainly something, and the human ability to titillate itself with "sex in opposition to social standards," which makes evolutionary sense, certainly holds enduring power, but the attraction to children that a pedophile holds is of a different character than that someone wants to watch otherwise-arousing things happen on what they know damn well is just an LCD monitor. Like fantasy in the head, the LCD can at least titillate with reproductive-possible imagery, whereas the pedo is so off course that even the fantasy isn't a fantasy that can be related to reproduction. It disproves the modern evolution faith by its sole existence, in addition to its massive and enduring appearance in humans, and the knowing embrace of its futility--which itself forms its primary, knowing lure, in defiance of the species as well as reproduction itself--shows that it is not possibly a simple issue of confusion.
There're all sorts off reasons why someone might be sick enough to develop the perversion of kid-wanting. We're not concerned with armchair psychology in that realm, though, but with the nexus of the desire, e.g., the ability to actually want that, as distinct from the willingness to carry it out. Like, I like cash, but when the dude turned his back at the gas station, I didn't just help myself to the contents of the register, even though there was a dude there fixing the obviously disassembled camera system. My desire for cash was not enough to make me help myself. Similarly, the vast network of child-sex tourism (where someone else, or some other government, has taken great cares to create a veneer of consent), or online sim-porn, has indicated that pedophilia is a vast human interest, probably at least approaching double digits in percentage occurrence, while willingness to act on that desire occurs in a much lower percentage of Terra's, let's say, six billion units.
Random psychological speculation could, as mentioned, lead to lots of suppositions about pedophilia, like, people want a partner that they're unquestionably the master of, or that's reliant on them for resources because it can't acquire any of its own, or that it affirms the pedo's self-image because the kid represents an earlier stage of life and makes the pedo feel really advanced, et cetera. All of these things are true, but all of these things would be the same for someone who chose a potted cactus as a partner, too (withholding water when it's disobedient--and undoubtedly, many pedo affirmations have gotten these benefits, just as have many "pet owners" having surgically mutilated animals roaming around their houses making them feel superior and benevolent. Nonetheless, the desire to touch or screw the kid is an evolutionary quirk; the willingness, the ability, to actually want that, is a different creature entirely from any weird, sicko-related mental benefits one might gain from being so much more of a dominant partner. There are comparable equivalent predilections for, say, quadriplegics, but not nearly of the scope and intensity of people willing to risk ten years inside to watch some dirty movie.
We see in pedophilia, like MSF anal sex or homosexuality, this glaring contradiction to our faith in random mutations producing a situation where we can settle into the cold, dirty morass of the faith of the Big Bang and random mutation. Like some gay dude, or a thousand or a million of them, it is inconceivable that randomly produced traits with the brutal removal of all which don't support reproduction would ever include any of the anti-breeding traits that we have seen in human history and the human now.
Lots of other weird quirks in human behavior have plausible explanations. White people like kayaks, and the desire to explore new areas and try new things correlates to finding food or shelter, so the net loss of kayak-playing now doesn't change that it could've originated in a survival/reproduction-favored trait earlier, or that engaging in it now increases the possibility of meeting or socializing with other people carrying such traits, ergo more survival/reproduction-focused offspring. The actual survival/reproduction loss caused by an overblown interest in kayaking now could genetically linger in spite of the fact that recent changes in society have caused, say, women to seek to demonstrate strength or independence by rejecting until after menopause men who otherwise demonstrate these traits, such that the dude at REI ain't gettin' any despite his thorough demonstration of pro-survival traits, because an unfortunate blend of evolutionary motivations has caused women to look for a different kind of trait than that his genes tell him has worked.
Similarly, the desire or tendency to do stupid dances could be an evolutionary demonstration of fitness or coordination, and someone could still maintain that in their genes, and feel it's a good idea, even if society has changed to make that no longer an effective mating strategy. A lot of traits have plausible evolutionary sources, even if shifting society disfavors them, and it's plausible that something currently disfavored was once favored in a more visceral time. If pedophilia or homosexuality had suddenly developed, we could argue that it was due to random mutation, but if men in ancient Greece were Socratizing each other and they're doing it at the gay bar in 2018, sickos in new literate times were fooling with kept boys and they're doing it in Thailand now, it's a recurrent trait, and its aversion to the struggle for survival raises troubling, fatal questions for the faith of random mutation.
We closed our discussion on buttsecks by drawing the necessary conclusions from the evidence, namely that the human desire to explore other humans' bodies was not wholly related to some hypothetical struggle for survival, but to some design for living organisms to want to explore other bodies contra reproduction. That explanation would prove unsatisfying for lots of things, though, including murder and torture and pedophilia, and as with murder and torture, pedophilia is a use of the system to damage another's development at the expense of your own sub-standard growth. Caring for kids provides perhaps excessive opportunity to learn about immature human bodies, as when they spray feces over the living room and themselves and need to be attended to for the tenth time, and there is, often but not always, a correlation between imparenting lives and pedophile lives, where the stupid route of broken selfishness increases its own inefficiency. As to evolution specifically, pedophilia represents the influence of choice, which should have no role, on the evolutionary process, where modern Terran faith makes choice solely a subsidiary of the randomized evolutionary mandate.
Like the development of inexplicable character inside the new people supposedly produced by random-faith, characters and choices good and bad that lie outside the possible rubric of the Terran religion demonstrate that religion's failure at anything approaching an explanation. Like, I knew this (childless) dude once whose goal was to become a billiards champion in a male-only environment, uncelebrated and unannounced and in no way conceived of or even wanted to be a crappy local event that included even post-menopausal females as potential admirers, and you can make a stretch claiming that the desire to be a victor in unimportant, un-witnesses male-exclusive competition stemmed from some drive to dominate other men at physical feats because it might lead to future mating, but you have to do so much to attempt to rationalize human behavior under the faith of random production of traits that, aside from the many ones where you just can't draw any lines, the many more others where you have to hypothesize brokenly are almost a worse condemnation by faint praise.
The ability of people to duplicate a wrong done to them, or express a numerically massive sickness via kid-touching, or demonstrate any of the other hundreds of potential mental ills that could conceivably result in pedophilia, in contravention of the purported mandates of the random-evolution faith dominating their culture, proves that faith cheap and stupid, like many things, and as one of those seeming inexplicable contradictions that dominate our faith, is so well-known, so understood, that it offers easy, free passage away from that faith. Even Christianity's acknowledgement of a unique soul that makes choices which can be good or ill regardless of survival is so far ahead of the next (Bang) lie's description of people as workers in the existential factory, existing only to exist.
If you still feel those calls of the faith, do some thinking about all of that stuff that you know exists out there somewhere, in the tangible, material, personally objectively verifiable world, like bees that live only on flowers and flowers that only live on bees, or some kind of non-rare interest in buttsecks, or pedophiles, and even if you don't want to conclude or believe anything else, perceive the impossibility of the current religion, and at least don't believe in it. In the same way that Jesus shouldn't get to gather in all the believers who've realized that material-only makes for an incomplete worldview, the false juxtaposition of Jesus v. Bang should not permit the many lies and stupidities of the Christ to sweep everyone into a residual belief that random mutation created all these traits we can see around us.