The Descent of Chester:
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Unspeakable Evil
In the darkest, filthiest corners of Cyberspace lurks Uncle Chester, the Ultimate Predator and perpetrator of the Unspeakable Evil. He spends all of his waking hours preying on the defenseless, corrupted j-pegs and small, fuzzy vid caps. He robs the fiberoptic networks of their Federally-funded innocence. He noisily masturbates, forever scarring, shattering, and devastating the lives of countless imaginary children to fulfill his insatiable lusts. Everyone knows that no monster is more vile and no murderer is more despicable than this degenerate parasite.
But what freak accident of evolution has brought this horrid creature into existence? Few of Uncle Chester's disgusting ilk mate with women, and yet these vermin have consistently infested every culture of every age. Their numbers have persisted in spite of several millennia of castrations, burnings, impalings, and other, more creative means of manifesting God's kindness in this sinful world. The historic inability to eradicate the Ultimate Evil suggests that it is firmly ground in human genetic code. And not only human. Chimpanzees - our closest relatives in the animal kingdom - have also been known to diddle their young. Indeed, if this Grotesque Aberration goes back to the common ancestor of humans and apes, then it must be millions of years old! But how could a trait which destroys children for no reason other than misdirected lust survive the utterly efficient and unforgiving axe of Natural Selection for so long?
Apparently, the reason why this Despicable Vice didn't get thrown out onto the rubbish heap of evolution alongside with our tails, fur, and claws, is that it proved useful at the time it appeared and remained useful for quite some time thereafter. In this case "useful" has one definition and one definition only: anything that improves the chances of a gene to preserve itself (or, more accurately, its copies) in the next generation. The big question, however, is how could a gene which focuses a man's lust on little boys at the expense of fertile females, improve its chances of duplicating itself in the next generation? Well, in our modern Western society, where "starving" means skipping a lunch, where next-door neighbors don't know each other's names, where thousands of pornographic images are instantly available online, where Third World brothels are only a plane ticket away, and where pedophilia is defined as the "Unspeakable Evil", it probably doesn't improve its gene's chances of survival and procreation all that much. But in the tiny hunter-gatherer village 50,000 years ago, where everyone knew everyone else and was related to everyone else, where scarcity was a fact of life and starvation always a looming threat, where disease was rampant and hygiene nonexistent, where few children survived to adolescence and forty was considered "old age" - in the harsh, intimate environment of our distant ancestors, pedophilia did turn out to be a useful adaptation. Evolution is a slow process. As a species, we haven't changed much since the Neolithic Age. Our physical features and our mental tools have remained pretty much the same. But a tool useful to a Stone Age savage is unlikely to help a network administrator do his job (unless the damn server won't reboot without a good pounding). Pedophilia is just one of countless examples of human emotional baggage which made sense tens of thousands of years ago, but only complicates our lives today. It is a lot like a woman's attraction to a brutal jock. In the back of her mind, she probably knows that he will beat and otherwise abuse her and her children. But in the harsh environment of our wild ancestors, a wife-beater was also likely to be effective in protecting her and her children - his "property" - from attacks by even more lethal predators. Such reasoning makes little sense today, but swooning over strong, violent men is firmly wired into the female genes.
So what made Chestering so useful to our savage ancestors that Natural Selection preserved it for millions of years? One aspect has to do with dramatically improving survival odds of the Vice's little victims. Hunter-gatherer societies rarely rise above the subsistence level. Scarcity is a fact of life, starvation - always a looming threat, disease is rampant, few children survive to their fifth birthday, and many lose their parents to illness and war before they are old enough to support themselves. Who can these orphaned children turn to when daddy has been eaten by a wild boar and mommy died giving birth to her tenth brat? Other adults in the village? Charity is nice when there is plenty for everyone, but when people have to fight with hyenas over a rotting antelope carcass, what parent would take away from his own child to save another one? It just wouldn't make evolutionary sense, even if the orphaned child is a close relative. Look at it this way: your own child carries half of your genes; your orphaned nephew only a quarter. Would the genes that make you choose saving a nephew's life over that of a son or daughter be favored by natural selection? Hardly.
But let's say that Johnny the Orphan knows that his Uncle Chester has no family and tends to get boners around cute little boys (filthy pervert!). The knowledge doesn't need to be conscious. As with most useful adaptations, Natural Selection has done the thinking for us. Useful genes govern our behaviors through feelings. It wouldn't be far-fetched to suggest that human children possess an inborn ability to recognize potential "Uncle Chesters". When their parents die or abandon them, the tykes instinctively begin to seek out Ultimate Predators who will provide them with food, home, love, protection, and clothes (well, maybe not clothes...) in exchange for a couple of orgasms a day. These feelings of affection, of precocious sexual attraction to Uncle Chester, lie dormant in most children, but they flare up should circumstances demand it. And these feelings are likely to disappear as little Johnny grows older and becomes self-sufficient.
So, millions of years ago, society's most vulnerable members discovered that they could exploit the Unspeakable Evil to improve their chances of survival. Good for them. But that still doesn't explain how the Unspeakable Evil evolved in the first place and why it persisted for so long. What did the Unspeakable Evil do for the Predator, other than steering him toward fruitless lust? What advantages would an adult male derive from spending his reproductive years romancing young boys rather than trying to inject his genes into a fertile mate of the opposite sex? It just doesn't make evolutionary sense.
Or does it? Although impregnating a woman is the most direct way of passing your genes to the next generation, it isn't the only one. It is by far the most popular one, of course. In our ancestral environment, competition for females was fierce and the losers often paid with their lives. Chiefs and other high-status males often monopolized dozens of women, leaving many low-ranking men perpetually horny. Among the chimps, only the Alpha Male - "the chief" - is allowed to have sex with females in his pack. Any other male who gets caught having sex with a female, gets severely punished (sometimes killed) by the Alpha Male, who is usually the strongest. Basically, the only way for a male chimp to "legitimately" screw females is to kill or otherwise "dethrone" the Alpha Male - and to seize his position. Of course, he then has to spend the rest of his life defending it. In short, being a male chimp is a bitch. It was never quite as bad in most human societies, but it wasn't all that much better. Competition for females has always been fierce, with chiefs, kings, and emperors surrounding themselves with enormous harems, while the Joes Schmoes had to content themselves with jacking off.
Faced with such a fierce and potentially deadly competition, wouldn't it make sense for some males - especially the geeks and the losers - to evolve the means of spreading their genes without women? Of course, cloning wasn't a viable option in our prehistoric past. But incestuous chestering was. Here is how the ingenious mechanism worked: Uncle Chester has hots for little boys. When an opportunity arises to "adopt" his nephew, Johnny the Orphan, the horny old goat gleefully agrees to share his meager food, ramshackle hut, and lice-infested bed with the little Adonis. In return the Predator gets a little love, a little sex, and a fairly decent chance of preserving a quarter of his genes for posterity. Yes, nephews, nieces, half-brothers, and half-sisters carry about a quarter of your genes. From the standpoint of natural selection, helping them survive is in your genes' best interest - especially if you don't have children of your own (who carry 1/2 of your genes). Yes, yes, Uncle Chester could always try out for conventional fatherhood. It is just that, considering his overall geekiness and unattractiveness, his chances of success aren't all that good. So, rather than joining fifty other male Neanderthals in chasing after Momma Yolanda's big udders and vaginal yeast infection, the sneaky Uncle Chester serves his procreational duty by licking the smegma off his prepubescent nephew's hairless stiffy.
Whoa, wait a minute! Where is the guarantee that the next cutiepie orphan who comes knocking on Uncle Chester's door is his nephew? What if the eager victim is totally unrelated? We know that Uncle Chester is a horny beast who will gladly sink his quivering tongue into the rectum of anything human under four feet tall. And if the rectum in question belongs to a absolute stranger - then where is the evolutionary logic in that?! Actually, it's a moot point. Back when pedophilia evolved, most (pre)humans lived in small, tightly-knit communities, where everyone knew everyone else and was related to everyone else. So the chances of a Homo Erectus Uncle Chester having his homo erectus sucked by a totally unrelated monkey-boy were pretty slim. Even today, most pedophilic romps happen within families. Now you know why.
Another question: How could the genes driving pedophilia even begin to spread within a population if the Predators don't have sex with women? First of all, most of the Chesters, in addition to lusting after hairless boys, are also attracted - at least to some degree - to women. But even if that wasn't the case, it still doesn't prevent "pedo gene" from spreading in a population - assuming that it is recessive. All human genes are paired up in so-called "alleles". One half of each pair or allele comes from the mother, another - from the father. Some genes are dominant, others are recessive. Let's say that a pedophilia gene evolves through a random mutation in one of the parents, but the gene is recessive. A corresponding "heterosexuality gene" remains dominant. This means that the pedophilia gene is not manifested in the parent and is passed on to the children without ever manifesting in any of them. And it would continue to be passed on from generation to generation while remaining "invisible", until two descendants of the original "father of pedophilia" (who was NOT a pedophile himself) meet and mate. Of course, one has to be male and another one - female. Both have to be carriers of one heterosexual gene and one pedophilia gene, which are paired up in an allele that governs sexual orientation. However, neither parent is a pedophile. In fact, pedophilia has not yet manifested in the population at all. Let's say the two carriers have four children. Statistically, one of the children would carry a pair of two heterosexual genes, and turn out heterosexual. Two other children would carry one heterosexual gene (which is the dominant one) and one pedophilia gene (which is recessive). These two children will also turn out heterosexual (because heterosexual gene, being dominant, completely cancels out the effect of the pedophilia gene with which it is paired). However these two children will also be carriers of the pedophilia gene. Finally, the fourth child will have a pair of two recessive pedophilia genes, which, in the absence of the dominant heterosexual gene, finally manifest themselves. The fourth child is Uncle Chester. Of course, in the real world, something as complex as sexual orientation is governed my a multitude of genes, resulting in a tremendous variation of sexual preferences we see around us. But it doesn't change the argument. Some of the genes governing sexuality have probably evolved to be activated by certain environmental triggers, and will remain dormant in the absence of those triggers. If there indeed is a gene (or a combination of genes) responsible for precocious childhood affection and sexual attraction toward Uncle Chester, then it is likely to be triggered by such events as loss of a parent, hunger, and/or neglect. Or maybe all of this is bullshit, and pedophilia has been created by Satan to tempt Catholic priests. Who knows?
But, assuming that Satan's real name is Natural Selection, why are the perpetrators of the Unspeakable Evil so obsessed with cuteness? Just because a boy is cute, doesn't mean that he is a close relative. No it doesn't, but guess what? We already know that in the stinking ancestral hunter-gatherer village, all boys are at least somewhat related to Uncle Chester. So consider this scenario: Uncle Chester, being a geek and a loser, can't support more than a single boy at a time. However, there are two orphaned brats competing for his hairy cock: his grotesquely ugly nephew (1/4 of his genes) and his drop dead gorgeous first cousin (1/8 of his genes). Whom would our aesthetically-discriminating Predator choose as his little catamite? Right! So where is the evolutionary logic in that? Well, consider this: when the boys grow up, which of the two will end up depositing his genes into every lousy pussy in the village, and which - into his right hand? Uh-hum! Case closed.
Is there a profound moral lesson in all of this? I hope not. Yes, pedophilia evolved as an indirect way for losers to save their genes from complete extinction. So what? In this age of sex hysteria, contraception, Asian brothels, AIDS, and pornography, the mechanism has probably outlived its usefulness. Besides, why would anyone look to Natural Selection for moral guidance? The brutal process works largely through violence, pain, suffering, deceit, and death. It doesn't care about your happiness. It's goal is to inject your genes into the next generation, and if suffering will accomplish the task most effectively - then suffer you shall! If you want happiness, you have to discover it yourself. Good luck.