Is it because I’m a paedophile that I so feel the intensity of this child’s love and despair? Could only someone like me take her love for Steven seriously and not dismiss the possibility, as does her mother (with a half-suppressed chuckle), that Steven might reciprocate her love? My eyes prick with tears each time I watch this video. But there are also things in it which make me angry…

Uploaded on Apr 26, 2010
“A friend of mine shared this video to me on facebook. I can’t help but smile and laugh as I watch her cry over a man named Steven. This cute baby reminded me of myself. Someday, this li’l girl will see this video and realize that time really mends broken hearts.”

The little girl is sat on the lower bed of a bunk-bed. The mother is probably sat or kneeling on the floor since the camera, which is hand-held, is just below the child’s eye-level. This point of view makes us specially aware of her neck, which at moments of greatest sorrow and despair becomes tense with the emotion and exertion of crying.

The girl is used to being filmed like this – the camera’s presence doesn’t intrude on her interaction with her mother. The camera is steady and maintains its framing. A part of the mother’s mind must be focused on filming. Maybe she’s thinking about the eventual destination of the footage (Facebook, as the Youtube details make clear).

The child is emotionally distressed. She starts by telling us that she if four years old. Her mother then asks her why she is crying. The girl, who is articulate, struggles to reply to this question as she tries to control surges of sorrow which leave her breathless.

It becomes clear that the girl and her family are moving to Japan and the idea of being separated from a ‘teacher’ called Steven is more than she can bear. She says:

“well, I really want to take him with me to Japan”

Her mother replies:

“but then his mom would be sad – she wouldn’t have her baby Steven any more”

This seems to provoke a moment of maximum sorrow. The child is stopped by her thoughts, then she realises how completely hopeless things are, how this is not a situation that can be salvaged. She gives some stuttering, coughing sobs, pulls her blanket over herself for comfort and says through her tears:

“but I love him so much”

the mother replies:

“and I’m sure he loves you too honey (or Hannah?)”

the little girl:

“…and he loves me”

the mother (stifling a laugh):

“I’m sure sweetie.”

then:

“And you’re going to find a lot of other boys to (word unclear) you, ok?”

the little girl:

“I only like Steven”

Whenever I see a child crying like this the intensity of it seems incommensurate to what a human mind could bear.

Of course what I’m doing is imagining the intensity of grief that would be necessary to provoke me, an adult, into crying as she is doing: an intensity of grief such that could overcome my decades of conditioning, of learning what it is to be grown-up, of learning to hide my true feelings, seems beyond anything life could now throw at me. The last time I cried with any abandon was at the death of a much-loved relative, and even then I suppose I was ‘sobbing’ rather than ‘crying’. The callouses on my emotions have grown too thick for me to be able feel heartbreak as does this girl.

Her crying preserves her beauty in a way that a temper tantrum wouldn’t.

Indeed, she is the more beautiful for her tears. They have transformed her from being ‘just’ a little girl into some incarnation of Love. She has the beauty of a Dido lamenting for her lost Aeneas on the shores of Carthage. Maybe the way we cry reflects the reason for our crying, and we distinguish noble and just reasons from petty and selfish ones. Maybe we’re moved because we know her love is truer and more raw than anything we, as adults, could feel in our compromised, compromising world.

The girl speaks of Steven as a ‘teacher’, but I think this is unlikely: other than during a ‘honeymoon period’ at the start of the school year children rarely have crushes on their class teachers: they’ve too often seen them bad-tempered, tired, heard them shouting, and had to learn to share them with all the other children in their class.

I think it more likely that Steven is a classroom helper, or a trainee teacher: she refers to him by his first name rather than ‘Mr So-and-so’, as she would probably know her class-teacher.

Maybe she’s in love with Steven because he was kind to her, gave her thoughtful attention and showed her more respect than she was accustomed to receive from adults. Maybe Steven did, in fact, love her. Maybe he was one of those adults who have the capacity to take a child seriously, to respect them as individuals, to feel a love for them which is not condescending – in short, a Paedophile.

If this were the case the haters and paedophobes would unthinkingly label this love and attention as ‘grooming’. Incapable of imagining how anyone (other than someone with a genetic stake in the child) could love something as ‘insignificant’ as a four year-old the only reward they can imagine an adult hoping for from such a transaction is sex. “Honi soit qui mal y pense“.


Why, at a moment like this, isn’t the mother holding her child? Why is she talking to her daughter in the emotionless monotone of someone conducting an interview?

The video’s youtube page has ‘comments disabled’. I’m not sure why. The only external comment remains the description left by the uploader:

“I can’t help but smile and laugh as I watch her cry over a man named Steven.”

“This cute baby…”

“Someday, this li’l girl will see this video and realize that time really mends broken hearts.”

What kind of person could find this child’s sorrow a source of amusement, laughter even?

Nor is she a ‘baby’. Any child of four would really not appreciate being so described.

Finally who says that ‘time mends broken hearts’? In time we may forget the pain, we may even forget the person we loved; but ‘forgetting’ is not ‘healing’: many of us have physical scars that bear witness to childhood accidents we have long forgotten, some people may have even lost limbs in childhood and, once grown up, no longer remember the accident or illness that caused that loss. Whilst we may forget the damage itself its effects may linger on. Who’s not to say that the same happens with love?

I’ve watched this video many times whilst preparing this post. It still makes me cry. There is a terribly sad beauty to it.

I dream of a world where this little girl and Steven could express and share their love for each other, a world in which a child can say she loves a man and that he loves her back and people won’t laugh derisively at the idea. I ask again – why isn’t this mother comforting her child?

I wish I were Steven and could reach through my screen, take this sweet, hurt little child in my arms and comfort her, tell her, ‘Yes, I love you too. We’re together. Everything will be alright’.

29 thoughts on “Video – “first heartbreak”. Love, Tears and Parenthood.

  1. Some time ago I was researching a little about how children feel romantic love and I came across this video (subtitled in my language) and it also touched me …
    It’s a video of just over 1 minute and you’ve made a great analysis on it!

    I also feel sad and enraged at how most adults treat children and their feelings … Children always seem to be used to make some silly adults laugh … Something like “hahaha, see how this little girl cries , Poor thing, hahaha ”

    Why do not most people understand that children also have feelings? Including romantic? … Adults seem to treat everything as “a big joke” … But look at this girl, see how she feels, is it serious that someone can discredit their feelings? …

    > “Maybe he was one of those adults who have the capacity to take a child seriously, to respect them as individuals, to feel a love for them which is not condescending – in short, a Paedophile.”

    This may seem generalized, but it is far from it …
    Most adults do not “take children seriously” treat them as if they were inferior, something defective, “incomplete” …
    And someone might say, “Oh, do not talk like that, there are parents who really love their children”
    I think the question here is not purely “love”, but also how the person genuinely sees the other human being, the child … An adult can love his dog, but look, it’s still a dog … There’s no egalitarian relationship, of course …
    Do you understand what I say? It is something that goes beyond mere “love”, is almost philosophical, has to do with how one really looks at the other, whether he really sees the other as a complete human being as himself, or if he sees the other as Someone “incomplete”, “defective” …

    Unfortunately I think most adults can not see in children a complete being, a genuine and legitimate being …
    Nowadays, almost in a generalized way, one sees the child in a distorted way, a “scarecrow” has been created on what would be “the child” and “the childhood” and ready, nothing can escape from it …

    But anyway … I will not dwell on my thoughts here … I think your analysis is very good!

    > “I dream of a world where this little girl and Steven could express and share their love for each other, a world in which a child can say she loves a man and that he loves her back and people won’t laugh derisively at the idea.”

    Me too…

    (I would like to remind you that I do not speak English, I wrote all this with the help of an online translator so I apologize for any misspelling)

    Like

    1. >”I think the question here is not purely “love”, but also how the person genuinely sees the other human being, the child … An adult can love his dog, but look, it’s still a dog … There’s no egalitarian relationship, of course …”

      I think that this is an excellent point you make, Rique. It explains a lot, how parents love their children yet somehow don’t take them entirely seriously. I think that this qualifies as ‘stigmatisation’, but is invisible, since stigmas which are universally accepted are invisible, often even to those who are being stigmatised.

      But I also think that relationships between adults and children is a complex issue – a baby, for example – one can value it as a human and love one intensely, but on what other measures, other than its simple ‘humanity’, can a baby be said to be equal to a normal adult? Intelligence? Compassion? Strength?

      As you suggest – this is quite a profound philosophical question…

      >”(I would like to remind you that I do not speak English, I wrote all this with the help of an online translator so I apologize for any misspelling)”

      You are doing very impressively indeed!

      Like

      1. > “But I also think that relationships between adults and children is a complex issue – a baby, for example – one can value it as a human and love one intensely, but on what other measures, other than its simple ‘humanity’, can a baby be said to be equal to a normal adult? Intelligence? Compassion? Strength?”

        Yes, it certainly is something complex that deserves a good debate!

        But you see, I’m not denying the differences between a baby and an adult, the question would be about the vision that some adults will have about this baby …
        Let me give you an example, in my country babies are baptized in practically newborn churches …
        And what about babies who have their genitals mutilated?…

        Note that again, I’m not saying that a baby is – literally – equal to an adult, but, there seem to be two types of views about children …
        Or is the child seen as a complete being, and therefore has the right to learn, have opinions, likes, etc., on his own, or sees the child as a “bank” where adults will “deposit” – impose – your likes, wishes, desires, etc …

        For this we should also debate the limits of the parents … Many parents believe that they have the function of “dominating” their children, not helping them, but imposing what they should do, how they should be, what not to do etc, In a generalized and abusive way … Perhaps the first demonstration of this is – here in the West – the baptized at a young age … Would the baptized be the first abuse against a child? Alias, a baby!

        (And please do not misunderstand me, of course parents should help their children, but I believe there is an abyss of difference between an ‘aid’ and an abuse of authority by parents …)

        Like

        1. >”Or is the child seen as a complete being, and therefore has the right to learn, have opinions, likes, etc., on his own, or sees the child as a “bank” where adults will “deposit” – impose – your likes, wishes, desires, etc …”

          I think that there is a real dichotomy here – how much of the child is a social creature, and how much of the child is an individual. For example – a child has no real choice as to what language s/he will speak – and language is a gift that society and parents give the child, inevitably forming them in their own image. The other thing you bring up is religion, and attendant mutilations (of the body and the mind). Here it could be argued that the parents’ and society’s ‘gift’ is an abuse – certainly when it comes to mutilation.

          How does one distinguish between the two – the positive creative forces and the negative ones? I don’t think there’s a simple answer and society is constantly in a struggle between forces pulling one way or another. What we can be certain of is that a child needs to inherit certain things from its parents and society – but not everything that it inherits is unquestionably good for the child.

          I think this brings us to the question of how a child exists in its society – I think that the nuclear family is not the best structure within which to grow up, though many parents do a great job. I think that extended family forms, embedded in a rich and active community are healthier – and allow the child more freedom and independence at a younger age – thus allowing the child to make more choices about their identity and self-hood.

          Ultimately, any critique of contemporary childhood boils down to a critique of the way our societies are structured. I think we get childhood quite wrong in Western societies and the hatred and fear of child sexuality and paedophiles is a by-product of this – there is no room in the nuclear family for the independent, sexual child.

          Like

          1. It was not my intention to make a dichotomy.
            I understand about when you speak of the heritage of society, there are certainly things that are inevitable, like the language! However, it seems to me that it is not difficult to perceive the “inheritances” that affect children, such as mutilation …

            It seems to me that the starting point for this analysis should be the child’s well-being and ethics, for example, is there a problem with teaching a language to a child? We know that this is certainly not harmful, is something essential and positive, but for example, baptism during childhood? Does not seem to me to be ethical, it seems to me much more of an imposition of the parents, since, in practice, it does not add anything to the child, it is an act that starts from the principles of the parents, what would be the necessity of a baptism if we ignore the principles of parents?

            Could anyone present a concrete argument as to why we should baptize a child? Unlike learning the language and other things, there are no concrete arguments for baptism, mutilation, etc. They are abuses …
            (But I certainly understand that the boundary between one thing and another is something that generates long debates, is complex … There is no dichotomy here!)

            > “Ultimately, any critique of contemporary childhood boils down to a critique of the way our societies are structured.”

            Yes, this is certainly true … Parents and other agents are only reproducers of something bigger, structural …

            Like

      1. Faulty keyboard. Freud was a fraud.

        [sexhysteria – you’ve already posted the link to this video four times in this comment secton. I think anyone wishing to watch it will have no trouble finding the link without you posting it a fifth time]

        Like

  2. I never said attraction to children is normal. You’re imagining support when what I’m really doing is questioning your sincerity. Despite my 60+ years and extensive travels, I’ve never met any pedophiles. The only candidates I’ve come across are anonymous individuals who claim that pedophiles are all over the place, but you likely work for Big Pharma or other special interests trying to create or expand the market for prevention or treatment products and services. Here’s the link again, in case anybody missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSA_itmEr5s

    Like

    1. >”I never said attraction to children is normal. You’re imagining support when what I’m really doing is questioning your sincerity.”

      This is getting weird. You’re questioning my credentials as a paedophile!? You want to define my desires out of existence?

      I tell you what: next time a frisky 6 year old sits on my laps and tries pushing her chewing gum into my mouth with her tongue, I’ll sneak off, take photo of my erection and send it to you…

      >”Despite my 60+ years and extensive travels, I’ve never met any pedophiles.”

      “Nice to meet you sir/madam. Oh, and by the way, just thought I’d let you know: I’m a paedophile”

      That’s not a conversation you’ll hear very often.

      How on earth do you go about trying to meet paedophiles? Do you understand just how secret we’ve got to keep our love and desires?

      If I’ve met one or two it’s only because I’m hyper-sensitive to certain signs and ‘give-aways’. Signs that a straight has absolutely no chance of picking up on.

      >”but you likely work for Big Pharma or other special interests trying to create or expand the market for prevention or treatment products and services.”

      Well done, you’ve blown my cover – this free wordpress blog is in fact sponsored by Big Pharma, which is in the process of producing an expensive but wholly ineffective drug to cure ‘paedophilia’, which me and my team have been working hard these past 40 years persuading the gullible public that it exists. All the men languishing in jail for looking at child porn are, in fact, our stooges – and when they come out they will each receive huge payments for their troubles.

      Actually – joking apart – your blog (and your earlier comments) give the impression of being written by someone thoughtful and well-informed and with interesting ideas. However you last comment has undermined this good impression – it seems petty and personal and paranoid and lacking in any substance. I hope that it turns out to be a one-off lapse.

      Like

  3. Hmmm… so really you’re attacking conceptions of Romantic Love, whether they are applied to children or to fellow adults.

    I see where you’re coming from – and what you say throws up so many questions and issues…

    But I also think that you’re maybe erecting a bit of a Straw Man when you substitute Romantic Love for notions of devotion, commitment and loyalty. I’d say that both parenting and non-familial child love benefit from these qualities, the latter whether it’s the community that give it or a friendly next door neighbour….

    In fact I think paedophilia may have served a social function in allowing strong bonds to be formed between children and non-familial adulst in the community creating vertical in cohesion in small communities.

    As to the exclusive nature of Romantic Love – could the flip side of this be ‘Jealousy’? Not a good emotion, granted – but one that is very visible in small children and which is maybe not a social construct, but something innate. If the love a paedophile has for a child is exclusive could it be that it is the child who demands it rather than the paedophile? Granted I myself am prone to jealousy, and that jealousy is maybe linked to Romantic conceptions of ‘Love’. But can the same be said of a child of 3 or 4?

    Moreover a lot of children who don’t receive enough attention or love from their families might need the re-assurance of knowing that their ‘friend’ or ‘lover’ is faithful and loyal in their love.

    Like

    1. There’s a great image that went viral recently of a mother breastfeeding her son AND the son of another, unrelated woman. There is no jealousy in childhood until they learn it from older models. See my post on Polyamory: Origins of jealousy.

      My point is that focusing on pedophilia is asking the wrong question. Who cares why a few rare individuals are fixated on children? We should be investigating why most people don’t love children and cause the deaths of over 10,000 children every year through physical abuse and neglect. Pedophobia is widespread and pervasive in the West today. Pedophobes are the most dangerous people as well as being far more numerous.

      Perhaps most people don’t want to investigate pedophobia because most people are pedophobes, so naturally they prefer to point a finger at individuals (“pedophiles”) who are vulnerable precisely because they are so rare. Healthy children are easily delighted, willing to share, and have the capacity to express their delight exuberantly. But many adults deem it necessary to “inhibit” young future citizens and break their spirit. That’s the widespread social problem we should be investigating – not the peculiarities of rare individuals who reject adults and are fixated on children.

      Like

      1. What if she had three sons? Or only one tit? 😉

        >“Who cares why a few rare individuals are fixated on children?”

        In an ideal world ‘no one’.

        In a world where this love is intensely stigmatised, in a world where paedophiles, even non offending ones, are driven to suicide, or attacked and even killed and the perpetrators are let-off because the judges think ‘they deserved it’, in a world where this stigma also infects children’s lives… well, anyone who cares about children and justice should care.

        >“We should be investigating why most people don’t love children and cause the deaths of over 10,000 children every year through physical abuse and neglect. Pedophobia is widespread and pervasive in the West today. Pedophobes are the most dangerous people as well as being far more numerous.”

        100% agree

        >“…because they are so rare. “

        I really think that we are not as rare as you seem to think. Considering the stigma freighted onto paedophilia, the under-reporting of these desires (whether exclusive or not) must be enormous.

        I think I feel a blog post coming on… ‘how many of us are there really’…

        >“But many adults deem it necessary to “inhibit” young future citizens and break their spirit. That’s the widespread social problem we should be investigating”

        Agree

        >” That’s the widespread social problem we should be investigating – not the peculiarities of rare individuals who reject adults and are fixated on children.”

        Disagree.

        I think that they are all part of the same phenomenon. Start pulling at the thread of paedophilia and it’s not long before you find yourself thinking about children’s rights. Start pulling at the thread of ‘children’s rights’ and you’ll at some point end up on paedophilia. After all, paedophilia is really a large footnote to children’s sexual rights – their right to choose who they wish as partners, and the question of adults recognisinig and respecting children as full beings, including sexual.

        Like

        1. Good luck trying to estimate how many “pedophiles” there are, but not because the stigma leads to under-reporting. If we define pedophilia specifically as an exclusive preference for pre-puberty partners, you would need to separate those individuals who really do have such an exclusive preference from the frauds who pose as pedophiles for peronal profit (political opportunists and profiteers in the sex abuse rescue business).

          As I said, millions of people claim they are “Christians” and may even think they are, but how many of them really are followers of Jesus of Nazareth? I suspect that the number of true “pedophiles” is between 1 per million of the general population and 0 per million. Of course, if someone is selling protection or treatment services, his estimate will be much higher.

          Like

          1. I'm not interested in estimating how many we are - my philosophical and ethical stance is not dependent on the frequency of paedophiles, or, for that matter, any other group of people. As to whether someone can only be called a 'paedophile' if they are 100% exclusive - isn't that like saying someone can't be called a 'heterosexual' if they have ever felt some homosexual desires or interest?

            Whose sexuality is 100% anything?

            If we can only apply a label or definition to someone's sexuality if they are exclusively something then how many heterosexuals or homosexuals or zoophiles (or whatever?) would there be in the world? Vanishingly few of course. Everybody's sexuality consists of a mixture of interests, which may change or come in and out of focus at various times and in various circumstances.

            A more workable way of thinking about sexuality is to think of 'components' - I have both paedophilic and teleiophilic and homosexual components to my sexuality. And I'm definitely a heterosexual paedophile when a charming little girl is asking me to tickle her, I'm definitely a heterosexual teleiophile when a woman with a nice pair of breasts is flirting with me, I'm definitely a homosexual paedophile when in the company of a handsome little boy. I mean - I've even caught myself thinking what a beautiful thing a recently born filly is!

            Your quest for simplicity and absolutism is making you overlook the lived reality of what it is to be a sexual mammal.

            Like

            1. Who benefits from the creation of broad as opposed to narrow categories? Big Pharma wants to sell drugs to as many people as possible. They like broad categories. The more the merrier. By supporting the claim that pedophiles are not very rare, you are supporting the mass hysteria over children’s sexuality.

              Like

              1. This is taking our discussion onto a completely different tack. The only issue I wish to address here is whether the language we use to describe sexuality (including paedophilia) fits the observed phenomena as closely as possible. If we are to think clearly on this issue (and, by god, with all this hysteria we need this desperately) we need to make the language we think with as accurate and honest as possible.

                Like

          2. Exclusive paedophilia is rare, but mixed paedophilia is frequent: about 18% of heterosexual males are aroused equally by women, young girls and little girls, several studies of “normal” men gave similar percentages. On the other hand, the proportion of gay men has been evaluated at 2 and a half or 3%, and I do not know statistics about prevalence of bisexuality.
            For homosexuality, Kinsey gave a 0 to 4 scale: 0 = exclusive hetero, 1 = preferential hetero, 2 = bi, 3 = preferential homo, 4 = exclusive homo. You could apply such a scale for paedo- vs. teleiophilia. Or have a more complex diagram for paedo-, hebe-, ephebo- and teleiophilia proportions.

            Like

              1. Correction: Someone… There’s a good video on YouTube about the increasing sales of psychotropic drugs to “treat” as many mental problems as possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSA_itmEr5s

                We’re dealing with a multi-billion-dollar business. If a child sits on the lap of a sexually functional adult, he gets an erection. That’s not pedophilia or pedosexuality or mixed anything. It’s healthy human physiology.

                Like

                1. I don’t doubt you’re right about Big Pharma – capitalism has a long and shabby history of dishonestly and brutally expanding its markets – capitalism has to grow in order to survive – that’s why politically I’m an advocate of steady-state economies and what the French call ‘la décroissance’.

                  I also agree also that it’s normal and healthy for an adult to get some kind of kick from a child sitting on his/her lap. But that doesn’t make them a paedophile. However I know that paedophiles exist because I am one – I prefer a little girl in my lap to a woman.

                  The idea that human sexuality could be one polymorphic all-inclusive continuum is beautiful one, and in some profound philosophical sense it may be true. But ultimately it’s Society and culture which define us and our desires and creates the categories, through language, through which we think and feel.

                  We can’t define away heterosexuality, homosexuality, paedophilia etc – or rather we can but there seems little point in doing so unless the world (or rather society, culture and the concepts by which we understand our place in those) does the same too. I doesn’t look like it’s going to.

                  Like

                  1. Historically, the categories of heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality didn’t exist. They are a recent invention, with a purpose that is not for the benefit of individuals or society but for the sake of certain opportunists and profiteers. In my opinion, pedophilia is no different. My question remains: Why would anyone identify themselves as a member of the most hated group in society?

                    If I were an opportunist or profiteer preparing for the eventual sale of a “paraphilia pill” in order to make more billions of dollars for my company, I’d want to (anonymously) claim I’m a “pedophile” and there are many others people out there like me. I’d also want to bury the following link in more verbiage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSA_itmEr5s

                    Like

                    1. >“Historically, the categories of heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality didn’t exist.”

                      I like to think you’re right. There certainly seems to have been less distinct demarcations. And, as you say, attraction towards children (and child sexuality) was accepted as part of the mass of sexual behaviour, before the industrial revolution anyway. However I think that Big Pharma is a ‘jumper on the bandwagon’ rather than a ‘driver of the bandwagon’. They’re exploiting an existing phenomenon rather than creating it.

                      >“Why would anyone identify themselves as a member of the most hated group in society?”

                      Because, despite the hate and stigma, I’m proud to be a paedophile.

                      I think being a paedophile is a ‘gift’: it’s a beautiful, delicate, gentle and generous love; and so many of the other paedophiles whom I know either in person, or through the internet, are people who are admirable, likable and interesting: people who’ve had to dig deep and who’ve suffered and come out more human and more interesting for it.

                      As to what ‘Society’ thinks, well, as Rhett Butler put it “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”.

                      Like

  4. Thanks for your comment.

    Yes, I guess the way I phrased that statement is a little, well, ‘absolute’.

    Most parents’ ‘love for children’ is really ‘love for THEIR children’ – nothing wrong with that – but my statement is about an adult’s capacity to love a child who is a non-relative.

    I don’t doubt that non-paedophiles can find themselves loving a non-related child, though they could never be ‘in love’ with him/her since (I think) to be ‘In love’ implies a conscious and exclusive devotion to that person. A ‘non’ who DID find themselves experiencing such emotions would probably be quite troubled by them and fight against them.

    However the flip side is that pretty much every ethical paedophile will have experienced feelings of this kind of devotion and respect towards a child – and felt more alive for having them. So whilst my statement is, I agree, too absolute I’d say that only a minority of non-paedophiles have experienced this type of love for a child, whilst almost all paedophiles have.

    I think a lot depends on the ‘non condescending’ quality as well. It takes a certain awareness and view of children to be able to respect them as equals, despite their small size, their immaturity, their inexperience – I’d suggest that paedophiles are better predisposed than ‘nons’ to seeing these as positive qualities rather than inadequacies.

    >“there are some human beings who do love biologically unrelated children without suicidally labeling themselves as pedophiles”

    It’s sad to think that identifying oneself as a paedophile may be a suicidal act. I suspect that paedophilia is an intrinsically melancholy love (I’m preparing a post on this subject), but, of course, if some paedophiles feel suicidal it’ll be mainly because of the hate, stigma and low self-esteem that society tries its best to saddle this love with.

    However it’s perfectly possible to live a good, happy and productive life as a paedophile – I’ve not done too badly myself, I suppose. And I think the more we point this out and furnish examples (mainly from History, of course) the better.

    > “Why accuse those precious people of being members of the world’s most hated group?”

    As far as I’m concerned saying someone is a paedophile is not an ‘accusation’ – any paedophile who respects children and tries to live ethically is someone for whom I feel a special respect and fellowship – such people are my brothers and sisters and are indeed ‘precious’. I wish them strength and I wish them happiness.

    By pointing out that a good and loving person can be a paedophile I hope that eventually we can stop this act of ‘pointing out’ being interpreted as an ‘accusation’.

    Though it is expedient for paedophiles to keep their love hidden, ethical paedophiles should, in their hearts, be proud of their love rather than ashamed of it.

    The ‘hate’ is ultimately the affair of the ‘haters’ – they may be able to restrict my freedom of speech through their threats of violence and ostracism – but they won’t restrict my freedom of thought.

    Like

    1. You say “…my statement is about an adult’s capacity to love a child who is a non-relative.” But then you talk about being “in love” with an unrelated child as if that is a special capacity certain individuals have: “a conscious and exclusive devotion to that person.”

      I’m certainly not talking about the silly, traditional belief in true romance. That capacity is one that is imposed on some people (especially those more vulnerable to fantasy) by popular culture. A person who is mentally balanced and sexually functional may have preferences for certain individuals and may even love one particular individual a whole lot, but true romantic love is the stuff of fiction and self-deception. I’ll never forget my one true love – until someone more interesting comes along!

      Loving everybody is beneficial to individuals as well as the group as a whole. If children have models of generous, non-exclusive love, their capacity for generous, non-exclusive love will be cultivated. As I’ve written in my blog, I don’t believe that true “pedophiles” exist, or if they do exist they are so rare they are virtually non-existent. A lot of people think they are “Christians” too.

      Like

    2. Oh, that video. It makes my eyes strangely moist. If I recall correctly, other sources gave Steven’s age as 15. As a model for the pain of love, as it relates to pedophiles and children, you could have done a lot worse.

      Regarding the good, happy and productive life, how probable is it for a Western pedophile? More probable than for the Western homosexual, able to legally have sex or marry?

      Like

      1. >”If I recall correctly, other sources gave Steven’s age as 15.”

        Oh, there is more info about this video out there? That Steven’s 15 doesn’t surprise me – though I think that that’s a bit young even for a student teacher. Maybe he was a pupil at a local secondary school doing work-experience.

        >”Regarding the good, happy and productive life, how probable is it for a Western pedophile? More probable than for the Western homosexual, able to legally have sex or marry?”

        Almost certainly not as easy as for a western homosexual or heterosexual, but not impossible.

        But to break it down into the three adjectives: Good:

        You only stop being ‘good’ if you do something that harms a child. A lot of paedos work as teachers, social workers, community volunteers etc and channel their love into improving children’s lives in various ways. Just being a close and loyal friend to a child – an adult that they can trust and relate to, an adult who respects the child, takes them seriously and makes them feel more human can make a great difference to a child, build their self-belief and confidence.

        Happy: this one I think is down to education (as well as not screwing up with the law etc): paedophilia is a huge issue that brings in sociology, philosophy, history, anthropology, psychology, politics, economics, ecology, media-studies, the arts etc etc I’ve found the more I learn about it and the more I understand the politics and sociology of it, the less the hatred and the hysteria affect me – I can place the insanity that society is going through in a context that makes it what it is – a historically specific phenomenon. Knowledge is power – and even if you’re powerless knowing how stupid and deluded the haters and the hysterics are makes them and their hate small in your mind.

        Productive: well, I think that ties in with ‘good’ above. Being a paedophile doesn’t stop you doing any job. Or taking up just about any role. I suppose the hard part can be for those to whom fatherhood or motherhood has been denied, because they are not sufficiently attracted to adults of the other sex. I can understand that many paedophiles must crave parenthood – not for the shabby reasons that antis would imagine reading this – but just that when you’ve got so much love and tenderness to give parenthood is a good way to give it.

        Generally I guess a lot depends on whether you can manage to keep the safe side of the law or not. If you do then you just have got to be in love, give and receive love without having any element to it that could get you into trouble – doesn’t stop you hugging, kissing, being sensual with a child, provided, of course, she or he welcomes those interactions. But you’ve just got to know where to draw the line and not cross it, even if the child you’re close to wants you to.

        So, yes, you can live a good, happy and productive life – but you may have to work harder than a teleio to get there.

        Like

  5. Interesting video. You say that ” the capacity to take a child seriously, to respect them as individuals, to feel a love for them which is not condescending” makes one a pedophile. I have to disagree. Although love for children is usually selfish rather than noble, there are some human beings who do love biologically unrelated children without suicidally labeling themselves as pedophiles. Why accuse those precious people of being members of the world’s most hated group?

    Like

........................... PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT........................... comments from the outraged will be approved only if they are polite and address issues raised in the accompanying article or discussion. The 'email' field can be left blank.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s