Reply to dickemann

Human Nature 3 (3):279-297 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper is a response to Dickemann’s review ofPedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions. Her main criticism of the book is its inappropriate application of ethology to human sexology and its natural variations. She proposes instead the superiority of the “social constructionist” perspective. The “Phylogenetic Fallacy” of which her review speaks results from her erroneously having attributed ethological arguments about the phylogeny of coordinated motor patterns and sensory releasing stimuli to higher levels of behavioral-ecological strategies to which such arguments were never applied. Because no convincingly adaptive function of human pedophilia could be found at this higher level, as a working hypothesis, variant erotic age and gender orientations were both tentatively conceptualized as by-products of Darwinian natural selection for heterosexual “adultophilia.” The social and political implications of this perspective, when compared to social constructionism, are discussed

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-01

Downloads
83 (#676,483)

6 months
9 (#1,208,822)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

On Human Nature.Edward O. Wilson - 1978 - Harvard University Press.
The Structure of Biological Science.Alexander Rosenberg - 1985 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
The Structure of Biological Science.Alexander Rosenberg - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1):119-121.
Popper selections.Karl Raimund Popper - 1983 - Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Edited by David W. Miller.

View all 9 references / Add more references