>>11378044>You’re assuming that pedophiles have a lower probability of survival than other individualsThe gene of pedophilia has lower probability of survival, because girls having less than 12 years old are less fertile, if at all, are more likely to die during giving a birth, are not yet ready to care for their children, have no breasts/small, which means children are less likely to survive = copies of a pedophilia gene are going to die out.
The gene could survive if the pedophilia gene didn't prevent from having sex with grown up women.
> with even greater mutational load who do persist and do pollute the gene poolDidn't say that. It's only about the pedophilia gene, nothing more.
>Pedophilia taken to its extreme is low fitness, but marrying and fucking pubescent girls is the norm in many cultures and seems to be fairly advantageous for the men who facilitate those social arrangements, most of west asia and africa this has always been the norm.Are they below or over 12? That's important. If over 12, then nothing really stops the gene from spreading.
>The advantage to a lower fitness male to engage in risky mating opportunities with unguarded vulnerable girls is probably not totally implausibleYou're right here. The selfish gene strikes again.
>reasonable that these genes are latent in those populations and possible the broad array of behavioral phenotypes associated with pedophilia are continuously produced by feedback between these genes and the environments they’re commonly located withinYes, this may be a case too.
So depending on environment, the hypothetical gene can have increased fitness, only if victims are not too young to born healthy children.
